Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 01-Feb-12 14:33, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 30-Jan-12 21:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane
width and bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the
height, width and weight of new US tanks.
I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.
The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.
Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.
Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.
The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.
Here in Chicago, which may have more elevated railroads than anywhere
else, the required elevation standard was based on trucks of that era.
It sounds like you're asking about civilian trucks, which are completely
irrelevant to the discussion; we're discussing highway standards to meet
_military_ needs.
God you are unbelievably thick. Army trucks that use civilian roads are
designed to travel on civilian roads. There is no other standard.
There _were_ no civilian highway standards at the time, Adam.
The "standard" was bridges and clearances that existed on public
highways. For the 27th time, these bridges and clearances were
designed to trucks and traffic of the era they were built in for
local traffic needs, not anticipating trucks of the future, not
antipating Army convoys.
The Army wisely designed their combat equipment for the combat
environment, not for easy transportation on civilian roads of unspecified
standards.
Good thing combat environments have higher standard truck weight and
width tolerances.
The solution chosen was to improve highways to meet the Army's needs,
not to downgrade the Army's military capabilities.
Bull****. If it were not anticipated that a large number of trucks FOR
CIVILIAN PURPOSES would ply the nation's highways, they wouldn't have
written standards to accomodate them. Interstates weren't built
for the United States Army.
Do get started on that book you are writing.
Looks like John Levine continues to pester me with replies in email.
His latest reply was utterly incoherent, so it's no wonder he refused
to post an article to Usenet.
I suppose his immaturity has reached the level at which I'll have to
write a procmail recipie. I really don't like doing that as normally
I don't mind if people contact me. I feel sorry for him.