On 01-Feb-12 20:03, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 01-Feb-12 14:33, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
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.

*sigh* I never said that. You really need to learn to read what I
write rather than making up stuff just so you have something to argue with.

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.

So you think it's just a coincidence that the Interstate construction
standards happened to be exactly what the Army needed for their existing
equipment, as Gen. Eisenhower had experienced with the Autobahns in Germany?

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking