[Scape]

[Scape]

Related?

[Bruce_E_T]

Could be. The equipment in the OP has to be going somewhere and there do seem to warships on the move. Going to hurt parts of Europe though no matter what happens. Hopefully we get the whole 6 month window on this.

My trivial brain wonders how many engines it took to move that stuff.

[sandorski]

Were those even completely constructed? Not familiar with that particular vehicle, but it looks like they might not have certain systems installed(thinking Main gun). I suspect they are being moved to another Production facility for completion. Probably wrong though, but I doubt the 2 Vids are related.

[Bruce_E_T]

I think you are right about the main gun. I am not sure if moving equipment at that volume is normal or not. Something about the sheer number of units involved says to me "rush job".

[Scape]

Those are IFV's.

http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/co ... rticle/106

[Public_Domain]

Mmmmm, the war economy is hungry

[Canadian_Mind]

Look like Bradley's. If that is the case, the barrel of the vehicle (25mm) is always removed for transport.

Also, there is a very large training facility in California, Ft. Irwin. While it is generally used to prepare troops for overseas deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is also used for domestic training. The American's like to use the same colour of vehicles in Ft. Irwin as they use wherever they are going, so I doubt those are going overseas. Wrong colour scheme.

We had the same size of train when we went to/from Wainwright this past fall. It's actually quite common to have trains like that up here, nevermind in the US.

[BartSimpson]

If these vehicles were filmed in Watsonville then they were enroute to Fort Hunter-Liggett for training. Nothing to be alarmed about in the least here.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Most Americans must really have no idea to the actual power of their military.

[martin14]

Guy_Fawkes wrote:

Most Americans must really have no idea to the actual power of their military.

That one train will hold more armour than some countries.

[Bruce_E_T]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Look like Bradley's. If that is the case, the barrel of the vehicle (25mm) is always removed for transport.

No sense giving birds a chance to nest in them I suppose.

It may be an innocent exercise but the fire power is quite impressive. Thinking as well that is has a global presence.

[Canadian_Mind]

Bruce_E_T wrote:

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Look like Bradley's. If that is the case, the barrel of the vehicle (25mm) is always removed for transport.

No sense giving birds a chance to nest in them I suppose.

It may be an innocent exercise but the fire power is quite impressive. Thinking as well that is has a global presence.

There are other reasons as well. But what it boils down to is that the gun system is simply to valuable to expose to the elements unnecessarily.

martin14 wrote:

Guy_Fawkes wrote:

Most Americans must really have no idea to the actual power of their military.

That one train will hold more armour than some countries.

That's about a brigade's worth of IFVs right there. Not really a whole lot, considering there are probably other vehicles like tanks, recce vehicles, Humvees, and various support vehicles all coming in on other trains. It might seem like a lot, but really, it isn't.

[BartSimpson]

Guy_Fawkes wrote:

Most Americans must really have no idea to the actual power of their military.

I agree. And most Americans take it for granted, too.

[Bruce_E_T]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

There are other reasons as well. But what it boils down to is that the gun system is simply to valuable to expose to the elements unnecessarily.

That makes sense. I just noticed on the clip that I was seeing what appeared to be new tanks without guns and didn't make a connection to a reason. I suppose if you have a critical part, esp, if it is high tech, protection is a priority.