German Police Confiscate APC

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-12 07:01pm

Sea invasion? China?

He's execting... what now? A junk armada? Hell, that classic dinghy pic with a guy and his Browning M2 would be enough to quell such a force.

Mad as a hatter.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-12 07:23pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:Oh, ok..well the point of owning such things is to preserve them..genrally.
Trouble is that if you run them you stuff them eventually.

Bah, what's the fun of having toys if you can't play with them?

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-12 07:36pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Sea invasion? China?

He's execting... what now? A junk armada? Hell, that classic dinghy pic with a guy and his Browning M2 would be enough to quell such a force.

Mad as a hatter.

Never underestimate the Chinese, for they are small and numerous.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-12 07:38pm

Waiddaminute. Tehy are small, numerous and they are wearing red hats? IT'S THE GNOMES!!! RUN FOR YOU LIVES!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-12 07:57pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Sea invasion? China?

He's execting... what now? A junk armada? Hell, that classic dinghy pic with a guy and his Browning M2 would be enough to quell such a force.

Mad as a hatter.

Personally I have an amusing image of PLA infantry shoving aside illegal immigrants as they swarm out of a container ship tied up to a pier in California

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-13 12:34am

Dahak wrote:German laws are pretty strict when it comes down to what is allowed on German roads, and what not.

I guess it is because an armoured vehicle can be pretty dangerous on a road with normal cars around, and can cause damage.

So can trucks, which is why you have a properly enforced licence system to make sure people know how to properly handle there vehicle around others.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-13 12:40am

phongn wrote:
Antares wrote:This would lead to a situation like in the USA. If buying military stuff is allowed then what about bying conventional long range missiles with mentioning your higher requrements for self-defense.
This is what they call a "slippery slope" argument, Antares. As for this specific example, a long-range cruise missile could not possibly be used for defense; it is only an offensive weapon.

A guy in NZ built one in his garage

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-13 12:54am

Uraniun235 wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Oh, ok..well the point of owning such things is to preserve them..genrally.
Trouble is that if you run them you stuff them eventually.
Bah, what's the fun of having toys if you can't play with them?

Pride in preserving some rare history?.
Given the vintage of some of that stuff..I would expect that he would at least try to preserve it..one its gone its gone.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-13 12:59am

Stuart Mackey wrote: Pride in preserving some rare history?.
Given the vintage of some of that stuff..I would expect that he would at least try to preserve it..one its gone its gone.

He really doesn't have to worry about that. He has something like eight full-time employees working for him that restore new additions to his collection and I'm sure the do the required maintainence on the rest of his collection as well.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-13 01:09am

The Kernel wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Pride in preserving some rare history?.
Given the vintage of some of that stuff..I would expect that he would at least try to preserve it..one its gone its gone.
He really doesn't have to worry about that. He has something like eight full-time employees working for him that restore new additions to his collection and I'm sure the do the required maintainence on the rest of his collection as well.

Gad..I just hope he is doing the restoration properly..if you take out 20% of a object its no longer considred an original.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-13 01:11am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Pride in preserving some rare history?.
Given the vintage of some of that stuff..I would expect that he would at least try to preserve it..one its gone its gone.
He really doesn't have to worry about that. He has something like eight full-time employees working for him that restore new additions to his collection and I'm sure the do the required maintainence on the rest of his collection as well.
Gad..I just hope he is doing the restoration properly..if you take out 20% of a object its no longer considred an original.

Thing is there are heaps of private collectors around who dont do things properly and its left to proper museums to fix their screwups.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-02-13 02:40am

Nathan F wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Somewhere in the back of my hazy mind, I remember reading an article about the sale of surplus M-113's. They had the same condition. The armor had to be "punctured" or "disabled".
That's most likely just in the PRC. I know people that have Sherman tanks that are quite operational. And I'd say that a Sherman is a bit more deadly and survivable than a M113.

No, the article was about someplace out in the mid-west. A Sherman is pretty damn old, I think the M113 had to be disabled because it came from a federal agency.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-13 10:32am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
phongn wrote:This is what they call a "slippery slope" argument, Antares. As for this specific example, a long-range cruise missile could not possibly be used for defense; it is only an offensive weapon.
A guy in NZ built one in his garage

Yes, but not for defensive uses

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-13 11:44pm

phongn wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
phongn wrote:This is what they call a "slippery slope" argument, Antares. As for this specific example, a long-range cruise missile could not possibly be used for defense; it is only an offensive weapon.
A guy in NZ built one in his garage
Yes, but not for defensive uses

Well sometimes neighbours can be awfully loud...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-14 12:16am

phongn wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
phongn wrote:This is what they call a "slippery slope" argument, Antares. As for this specific example, a long-range cruise missile could not possibly be used for defense; it is only an offensive weapon.
A guy in NZ built one in his garage
Yes, but not for defensive uses

I know, it was part of the build up for the invasion of Australi...err..whoops.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-14 12:19am

Gandalf wrote:
phongn wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: A guy in NZ built one in his garage
Yes, but not for defensive uses
Well sometimes neighbours can be awfully loud...

Tell me about it..our neighbours are these beer swilling idiots decended from criminals..any way, we figured we could make some cruise missiles on the cheap to deal with these buggers....hey where did you say you were from ?