weight of bridges...OT..greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
...interesting. armor military folks on some threads below just informed us of the weight of latest tanks, 72 tons, and the various weaponry involved with same. just so happens co-inky-dinkely was just listening to a radio show about how a lot of bridges in the US have been upgraded over the past few years to be able to support 70+tons.....most interesting... little pieces, chip away...... "it could never happen here" zog
-- zog (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 18, 1999
I just finished work on a project building a new bridge and dam in my home town. The new bridge will take more weight than the last one.
70+ tons? I don't know - I'm just a grunt. Tanks? Haha. Wait, I guess the proper term while on this forum is: ROTFLMAO
The interstates were built for the military. The heights of over- passes determined with military use in mind. If bridges are made stronger partly or even wholely to accomodate bigger tanks, (and I have no idea if they are) so what? Government wants to be able to transport tanks easier = martial law plans?
Why am I so sure I'm right about Y2K when it seems to me that many of the people with similar concerns are paranoid?
Sorry for the offense zog, but I'm sure you realized you'd be laughed at. Best of luck whatever happens.
-- Gus (email@example.com), November 18, 1999.
The Interstate system was designed after WW2 ended. At the time military planning had to consider that a land war might have to be fought on our turf. That doesn't seem very likely now, of course. But at the time, building all these new bridges without taking that into account would have been really stupid.
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 19, 1999.
Also, when not rail-loaded across the country, heavy armor is routinely transported by 18 wheelers by our nations truckers. Height and weight factors have already been factored in in most places. This is nothing new or sinister. Civilian transport is often cheaper and more reliable than military transport when any real distances are involved.
-- (email@example.com), November 19, 1999.
---just reporting two different pieces of info I got today. One from the board, one off the radio. And of course I knew about the interstate system being built for dispersal and rapid movement of the military, think I've known that since 6th grade maybe, long time, anyway. And I don't care if I get laughed at. Last I looked, this is just pulsating electrons on a small cathode ray screen, or whatever it is technically speaking. I just thought it was an interesting coincidence, seeing as how I read the thread about the tanks, and within a few minutes I was listening to the same data about weight and bridges on a radio show. 72 tons-70+ tons. A coincidence, get it? Comprehendez-vous anglais? El readum words? It was just interesting. AND labeled off topic. I like more stuff than just y2k. Some don't. To each their own. From what I understand, OT on this board means not exactly related to y2k/OFF TOPIC, so I guess that also means don't read it if all you want to read here is y2k stuff, plenty of y2k only threads going on. I like the threads and topics where y2k is discussed as a PART of what's going on, not the end-all and be-all of reality. The "great debate" betwwen y2k doomers and pollys is NOT that interesting, now how the debate RELATES to everything else is what's interesting to me. I "got it" on y2k several years ago, but I "got it" on "Survival" several DECADES ago. I like the big picture, and the big picture is made up of many, many smaller pictures. Y2k is sort of a medium picture to me. It's important, but not at the top. The risk of a total infrastructure collapse will effect me much less than most folks, because it won't be strange, have lived it for years and years. About the only thing that I would find(probably) that I might miss the most would be the net, because I'm an info junkie, a data addict, I love puzzles and secrets, and there isn't anything wrong with that. Some here are like that, too, I can see. Others are thinking. And some couldn't care less. That's why the blinking posts have SUBJECT HEADERS. NO WONDER y2k is potentially so severe. The population is losing the ability to READ it seems. It's like channels and the on off switch on the tv, change the channel, or look elsewhere, or do something else. READ the subject headers. ----post to the point zog
-- zog (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 19, 1999.
Yeah, go Zog.
-- Gregg (email@example.com), November 19, 1999.
M-1 main battle tank; 8 gallons to the mile, replace engine every 200 to 300 miles. I doubt M-1 tanks will remain functional for long after TEOWAWKI.
-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), November 19, 1999.
I read your post about bridges and tank weights, then a few of the replys then tried to get some sleep, but something kept eating at me. Then I realized that in central PA (The state of the unfinished highway) alot of road work as been completed in the last two years. I'm not talking interstates either. Rt 322 between Harrisburg and the Rt 220 junction does not have one bridge that is outside the specs. you mentioned. And if you ever traveled this highway in the last two years, 1st you would notice signs claim it's a Amry Division Route, and 2nd coming out of Harrisburg toward the northeast, not one bridge has gone without repairs in those two years. Only reason that could be important is because there are no interstates with fifty miles north or south, just a whole bunch of towns that were unreachable before. Another important fact is that Rt 322 will finally reach I-80 because after more than 25 years of being on the maps, but not there, I-99 is being finished. And man, it's like someone lit a fire under their ass to complete it before the first snow falls. As for Rt 220 from I-70 north to I-80, the same applies. No one would think this would mean a thing, unless you lived in the this freakin do nothing state. And I agree with your last statement "Not Here" not yet anyhow.
-- Patiently Waiting And (ExiledAt@aol.com), November 19, 1999.
M1A2 Abrams: Dry weight, combat loaded, approx. 74-76 Tons.
M2/M3 Bradley AFV: approx. 32-35 tons uploaded.
Octillo, close on the specs, realistically, 4-5 gallons per mile in prime operating condition. The faster you run the Behemoth, the better the fuel/gas mileage. As far as 'pulling pack' on the engine, it's usually done every 3 months regardless of run-time. Actually, the Abrams is considered to be a easy maintainence vehicle. The only reason it has a bad maint. rap is that the damn tank is built like a Ferrari. For the most part, the tanks only get 'played with' 3-4 times a year, and when we did run them, we ran them HARD !! It's actually just like a Ferrari in that if you had say, a brand new 1966 Daytona that sat in the garage for 11 months out of the year, and for that one remaining month, you took the car and and drove it balls-to- the-wall for the entire month, there would be significant damage, nes pas?
As far as the highway/transportation issue, there is not a civilian 18-wheeler or flatbed truck that can pull (safely) an Abrams. We had specialized trucks built by AM General called HETTs (Heavy Engined Tank Transport) to specifically pull one tank per flatbed. For the most part, the .mil uses the countries rail system to transport the heavy armor around...which creates all SORT of fun new questions regarding the rail systems compliance...
-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasan@yahoo.com), November 19, 1999.