Rome legion's M3 Stuart Tank
Gen Ridgeway

Watertown, NY

#45 Feb 1, 2014
Shane O Mac wrote:
<quoted text>well old man...it hasn't moved in 40 years!stay sober for a day will ya!!!!
I love the way people talk about things for which they have no clue. The United States Army would not allow the legion to keep the tank if it were not fully operational. That means the gun, motor, transmission,.... are all fully operational. The Army requires this because as long as the tank has not been melted down it counts against our number of tanks allowed by the treaty between the US and Russia - therefore the Army requires full operational capability in the event they require it to support a national emergency.
Private

Watertown, NY

#46 Feb 15, 2014
Gen Ridgeway wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the way people talk about things for which they have no clue. The United States Army would not allow the legion to keep the tank if it were not fully operational. That means the gun, motor, transmission,.... are all fully operational. The Army requires this because as long as the tank has not been melted down it counts against our number of tanks allowed by the treaty between the US and Russia - therefore the Army requires full operational capability in the event they require it to support a national emergency.
For once somebody on topix makes sense!!
Trac

Rome, NY

#47 Feb 18, 2014
Little
Gen Ridgeway

Syracuse, NY

#48 Feb 18, 2014
Gen Ridgeway wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the way people talk about things for which they have no clue. The United States Army would not allow the legion to keep the tank if it were not fully operational. That means the gun, motor, transmission,.... are all fully operational. The Army requires this because as long as the tank has not been melted down it counts against our number of tanks allowed by the treaty between the US and Russia - therefore the Army requires full operational capability in the event they require it to support a national emergency.
well general, you really need to stop smoking the crack cocaine! that tank has NOT moved in 40 years! I really dought it runs!why would a 70 year old tank be counted agianst 2014 inventory......
THE MECHANIC

Watertown, NY

#49 Feb 21, 2014
LoL wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have your tanks confused. That tank has not and I repeat has not run in over 50 years. Kinda hard considering it has no working engine or transmission in it. The way people here take care of these things is a shame. Rumor has it unless the group starts to do a better job on the BUFF its going to be taken back also. Don't think they won't either. That's what they said about the Memphis Belle, and the Air Force took it back because they were letting it rot. Even after the city built its own island and covered building for it was not good enough. So they keeping screwing around and there won't be a tank to worry about. Just ask the guys in Verona about the crap they go through with theirs, or the AL in New Hartford. Now those guys show some pride in their charges they take care of them.
I can make it fully operational minus the ammo for the main gun for less than $850! After that it'll pay for itself by giving the public rides.
Hire a Vet

Watertown, NY

#50 Mar 19, 2014
The engine is a gas turbine. Very expensive to operate because of the jet fuel and maintenance costs. Tank is fully operational but no money.
Hire a Vet

Syracuse, NY

#51 Mar 20, 2014
hey idiot! Tank has NOT moved in 40 years!
American

Watertown, NY

#52 Mar 22, 2014
THE MECHANIC wrote:
<quoted text>
I can make it fully operational minus the ammo for the main gun for less than $850! After that it'll pay for itself by giving the public rides.
I'd be willing to pay for exclusive rights to charge the public rides. When will it be fully operational?
American

Tully, NY

#53 Mar 22, 2014
the answer is NEVER!
Samurai Sausage

Utica, NY

#54 Mar 25, 2014
who cares?
Guessing

Syracuse, NY

#55 Mar 28, 2014
Gen Ridgeway wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the way people talk about things for which they have no clue. The United States Army would not allow the legion to keep the tank if it were not fully operational. That means the gun, motor, transmission,.... are all fully operational. The Army requires this because as long as the tank has not been melted down it counts against our number of tanks allowed by the treaty between the US and Russia - therefore the Army requires full operational capability in the event they require it to support a national emergency.
To set the record straight on the tank. As a condition of the Legion getting the tank to start with, there were conditions placed on them getting it. It was with the full the understanding that there would be no attempt to make it operational. IT WOULD NOT be made operational for any reason. There was to be no work on the gun, transmission or the engine. Cosmetic appearance and routine maintenance was allowed, but other than that nothing else was to be done. This was made quite clear to the Legion. If anyone attempted to make it operational the Army would remove the tank immediately. Look it up its in the records at the post. As for this post of yours General Ridgeway you need to really stop the drinking because you don't have a freaking clue as to what you are talking about. The SALT treaties have nothing to do with a 70 year old tank either here, Verona, New Hartford or anywhere else.
Samurai Sausage

Rome, NY

#56 Mar 28, 2014
did i tell everyone i am a lesbo......
Mike

Syracuse, NY

#57 Mar 28, 2014
Samurai Sausage wrote:
did i tell everyone i am a lesbo......
We could care less what your religion is.
Tank man

Watertown, NY

#58 Mar 28, 2014
Guessing wrote:
<quoted text>
To set the record straight on the tank. As a condition of the Legion getting the tank to start with, there were conditions placed on them getting it. It was with the full the understanding that there would be no attempt to make it operational. IT WOULD NOT be made operational for any reason. There was to be no work on the gun, transmission or the engine. Cosmetic appearance and routine maintenance was allowed, but other than that nothing else was to be done. This was made quite clear to the Legion. If anyone attempted to make it operational the Army would remove the tank immediately. Look it up its in the records at the post. As for this post of yours General Ridgeway you need to really stop the drinking because you don't have a freaking clue as to what you are talking about. The SALT treaties have nothing to do with a 70 year old tank either here, Verona, New Hartford or anywhere else.
I'm inclined to agree with Gen Ridgeway. Why would the Army build a tank and then demand it not be operational. I don't know anything about salt treaties but for my whole life it seems like the US signs treaties that limit the number of weapons.
Vet

Syracuse, NY

#59 Mar 29, 2014
Tank man wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm inclined to agree with Gen Ridgeway. Why would the Army build a tank and then demand it not be operational. I don't know anything about salt treaties but for my whole life it seems like the US signs treaties that limit the number of weapons.
welll you idiot! the same reason the army builds helicopters and lets a VFW put it on display WITHOUT engines and all internal systems.Go look at the B52 on base...that is NOT going to fly very far without 8 engines...thats why it is on "DISPLAY" lDon't give up your day job at Burger King!
Tank man

Watertown, NY

#60 Mar 29, 2014
Vet wrote:
<quoted text>welll you idiot! the same reason the army builds helicopters and lets a VFW put it on display WITHOUT engines and all internal systems.Go look at the B52 on base...that is NOT going to fly very far without 8 engines...thats why it is on "DISPLAY" lDon't give up your day job at Burger King!
If this is true it's no wonder why the government is broke. Would you buy a car and demand that it not work? I think the next time I buy a car I'll demand that it come without an engine.
Vet

Syracuse, NY

#61 Mar 29, 2014
Tank man wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is true it's no wonder why the government is broke. Would you buy a car and demand that it not work? I think the next time I buy a car I'll demand that it come without an engine.
well it IS true you idiot! The B52 hoas NO engines or internal parts. kinda like the space shuttles on DISPLAY with NO engines!i think BK is calling you to come tp wprk!
Tank man

Watertown, NY

#62 Mar 29, 2014
Vet wrote:
<quoted text>well it IS true you idiot! The B52 hoas NO engines or internal parts. kinda like the space shuttles on DISPLAY with NO engines!i think BK is calling you to come tp wprk!
What a waste of $$$$!! No wonder the country is broke.
Samurai Sausage

Utica, NY

#63 Mar 29, 2014
tanks man
Mike

Syracuse, NY

#64 Mar 29, 2014
Tank man wrote:
<quoted text>
What a waste of $$$$!! No wonder the country is broke.
You and Ridgeway need to have try taking your heads out of your asses because neither one of you have a clue about how this process works. Bottom line the tank is nothing more than a shell of what it was. IT is not going to run again, and it does not come under the SALT II treaties agreement. The B-52 at Griff does however. Every so often the Russian Satellites take pictures of former air bases to verify we are abiding by the agreement. They look to see if it has been moved or if it is being made operational per SALT II. You want to see waste, then go to Google and look up the Bone Yard in AZ. You will see the B-52's that once flew out of Griff all cut up into little pieces, and the can not be moved until they verify that they have been dismantled by Satellites. There is about 2,000 planes there and everyone were flown in there. There is also planes that came right off the assembly line and were sent right there. Now thats a waste.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rome Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rome & Utica Topix 28 min POINT IS 19
William and Todd Lashen (Dec '10) 2 hr Fact 43
William M. Lashen can no longer scam anyone 2 hr Fact 5
RPD Harassing Muslims In Rome 4 hr International Man... 25
who would have sex for a 100 dollars ? (Dec '10) 6 hr Truth 26
amgie hilderbrant 6 hr Truth 38
Chas P. Crippen, 25 7 hr Booer 2

Rome Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rome Mortgages