Ever wanted to own a tank?

[CaptainRamius]

Have any of you ever wanted to own a tank?
Or maybe an armored troop transport?
Or even just a humble missile-launching truck?
Check this out:
http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/
And, surprisingly, they are at incredibly low prices

[Cybermat47]

Yeah, it all sounds good, but they don't tell you about any malfunctions...

http://i.imgur.com/KABsSMd.gif

[CaptainRamius]

Yeah, it all sounds good, but they don't tell you about any malfunctions...

True, but you can still have it sit in your backyard and look awesome :D

[Cybermat47]

True, but you can still have it sit in your backyard and look awesome :D

Backyard? If I had a tank, I'd live in it :D

[CaptainRamius]

Backyard? If I had a tank, I'd live in it :D

Like a camper. Just replace the seats and machinery with beds and a tv, maybe a hot tub in the back too.

[Eichhörnchen]

A friend used to own an Austin Champ, like this one:

http://i.imgur.com/gRxzCbv.jpg

He wasn't a military buff, however, just a hippy.

[CaptainRamius]

He wasn't a military buff, however, just a hippy.

Well, the ending ruined the image. Thanks :O:

[Commander Wallace]

I seem to recall there was a post here in the forum where a German citizen had a tank and some other equipment from WW2 stored in his basement or barn. It was hauled away . I thought that if it had been demilitarized, it should not have been taken provided he was the rightful owner.

[Rockstar]

My neighbor owned a '68 Cadillac Eldorado. Does that count?

[Commander Wallace]

My neighbor owned a '68 Cadillac Eldorado. Does that count?


That's not a tank, that's a boat . :smug:

[CaptainRamius]

I seem to recall there was a post here in the forum where a German citizen had a tank and some other equipment from WW2 stored in his basement or barn. It was hauled away . I thought that if it had been demilitarized, it should not have been taken provided he was the rightful owner.

Yeah, it was on the news here in Germany...2-3 months ago, I believe.

[August]

Yeah, it was on the news here in Germany...2-3 months ago, I believe.

What ever happened? We just got the initial reports then nothing. Did he get his property back?

[Oberon]

It's probably still going through the courts, I doubt he'll get it back though, I think it's going to go to a museum though rather than be scrapped. The Bundeswehr are de-weaponising it first though, probably replacing the machine guns with broom-handles as seems the rage in the German army at the moment. :03:

[CaptainRamius]

What ever happened? We just got the initial reports then nothing. Did he get his property back?

I'm pretty sure that he won't get it back.
I think he got arrested (No suprise) and the Bundeswehr had to come and confiscate all the weapons, or anything capable of loading/firing a round.

[Oberon]

I think the most he can hope for is compensation for the seized items.
Bloody shame really because he kept the stuff in fantastic condition and the Panther was damaged during removal :nope:
Would have been far better to have conducted an on site investigation and concluded if the stuff was de-armed rather than pull it all out.

[August]

Deactivating the guns is understandable (assuming that they actually needed to be deactivated which nobody seems to know) but confiscation is quite another thing entirely.

[mako88sb]

Deactivating the guns is understandable (assuming that they actually needed to be deactivated which nobody seems to know) but confiscation is quite another thing entirely.

Since that nutcase in California went on the rampage with a M-60 back in 1995, I think all countries are leery of the damage a tank can do even without any kind of armament or ammunition for it. The tank in that situation did a lot of damage and it's amazing nobody was killed aside from the nutcase. Things could of got a lot worse if he hadn't got hung up on the high concrete meridian.

[MaDef]

Since that nutcase in California went on the rampage with a M-60 back in 1995, I think all countries are leery of the damage a tank can do even without any kind of armament or ammunition for it. The tank in that situation did a lot of damage and it's amazing nobody was killed aside from the nutcase. Things could of got a lot worse if he hadn't got hung up on the high concrete meridian.To be honest though, he stole that tank from an armory. And if they're that worried they better keep an eye on Allan Cors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396934/See-astonishing-private-collection-100-military-TANKS-breathtaking-9-11-artifacts--including-burned-truck-firemen-perished--Americans-visit-year-museum-built.html) ;)

[August]

Since that nutcase in California went on the rampage with a M-60 back in 1995, I think all countries are leery of the damage a tank can do even without any kind of armament or ammunition for it. The tank in that situation did a lot of damage and it's amazing nobody was killed aside from the nutcase. Things could of got a lot worse if he hadn't got hung up on the high concrete meridian.

Maybe but people have gone on rampages with bulldozers and all sorts of other heavy vehicles in the past and a tank is no more dangerous than those have been.

Remember this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Killdozer.jpg

[mako88sb]

Maybe but people have gone on rampages with bulldozers and all sorts of other heavy vehicles in the past and a tank is no more dangerous than those have been.

Remember this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Killdozer.jpg

Yes, I was actually looking at that before I posted. I guess the difference is there's no realistic way to control that type of possible hazard. There was a disturbed youth not far from where I live who got access to a front end loader but was quickly shot dead by the RCMP before he could do much damage. At least with privately owned tanks, they can manage the potential hazard better simply because it's not so prevalent.

[mako88sb]

To be honest though, he stole that tank from an armory. And if they're that worried they better keep an eye on Allan Cors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396934/See-astonishing-private-collection-100-military-TANKS-breathtaking-9-11-artifacts--including-burned-truck-firemen-perished--Americans-visit-year-museum-built.html) ;)

Yes, valid point. I'm not sure what kind of safeguards officially recognized tank collectors have to take. I imagine it would be a fair bit more involved and expensive.

[Jimbuna]

It's probably still going through the courts, I doubt he'll get it back though, I think it's going to go to a museum though rather than be scrapped. The Bundeswehr are de-weaponising it first though, probably replacing the machine guns with broom-handles as seems the rage in the German army at the moment. :03:

Sadly....LOL :)

[August]

Nothing illegal about owning a working tank cannon here in the good old USofA. :up:

[mako88sb]

Nothing illegal about owning a working tank cannon here in the good old USofA. :up:

This thread reminded me of James Garner's movie Tank! Haven't seen it since it came out in theaters back in 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fekoumxXeBs

[Rockin Robbins]

Wonder what kind of mileage I could get in one of those babies? Might be the answer.:rotfl2:

[mako88sb]

Wonder what kind of mileage I could get in one of those babies? Might be the answer.:rotfl2:

Something like .7 mile per US gallon combined road/off-road.

[Oberon]

2 iraqs per mile I think. :hmmm:

[Schroeder]

Wonder what kind of mileage I could get in one of those babies? Might be the answer.:rotfl2:
The T 72 is listed with a consumption of 450l / 100km which means 0.52mpg (that's awful, the Leopard 2 only needs 320l which is 0.74mpg and is 20t heavier:doh:) in winter it's 600l which is 0.39mpg.

The OT 810 is listed with 40.5 l/100km which is 5,8mpg.

I hope that answers your question.:88)

[Raptor1]

The T 72 is listed with a consumption of 450l / 100km which means 0.52mpg (that's awful, the Leopard 2 only needs 320l which is 0.74mpg and is 20t heavier:doh:) in winter it's 600l which is 0.39mpg.

The OT 810 is listed with 40.5 l/100km which is 5,8mpg.

I hope that answers your question.:88)

According to my sources most Soviet T-72 variants have a range of around 500 kilometers with about 1,000-1,200 litres of internal fuel. That should come up to 0.98-1.18 mpg if my calculations aren't completely mistaken. Of course, that's probably under optimal conditions.

[Schroeder]

According to my sources most Soviet T-72 variants have a range of around 500 kilometers with about 1,000-1,200 litres of internal fuel. That should come up to 0.98-1.18 mpg if my calculations aren't completely mistaken. Of course, that's probably under optimal conditions.
I used the info of that website that sells them. Maybe they are wrong.

[Rilder]

Yeah, it all sounds good, but they don't tell you about any malfunctions...

http://i.imgur.com/KABsSMd.gif

This is what happens when you forget your log.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEoaU6aQxMI

[em2nought]

The one guy in the whole country prepared for the alien "immigration", and they shut him down. :nope:

[August]

http://www.motivateusnot.com/resize.php?name=LzM3OC9Ecml2ZS1tZS1jbG9zZXItSS13YW 50LXRvLWhpdC10aGVtLXdpdGgtbXktc3dvcmQtNGIyNTRiYzY0 ZmM3ZS5qcGc=&w=550&h=9999&extension=.jpg