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.

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 ;)

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/wikiped.../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.

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.

Sadly....LOL :)

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

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.

2 iraqs per mile I think. :hmmm:

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.

I used the info of that website that sells them. Maybe they are wrong.