Critique: What It’s Like to Own a Tank or Other Former Military Vehicles - The …

Source: nytimes
Authors: (none listed)
URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/14/us/retired-military-vehicles-civilian-use-tanks-trucks.html

What the article reports

The piece profiles five civilian owners of decommissioned military vehicles — a YouTube personality with a 1962 Centurion tank, a search-and-rescue volunteer in Washington State, a marketing entrepreneur in Georgia, a former Navy technician in Oregon, and a European-truck enthusiast also in the Pacific Northwest. It describes how they acquired their vehicles (mostly via online surplus auctions), what they paid, and how they use them. The article is presented as a lifestyle/consumer feature in the "Wheels" section.

Factual accuracy — Solid

The article is specific where it matters: purchase prices ($130,000 for the Centurion; $24,000 for the Pinzgauer; ~$23,000 and ~$33,000 for the Carlson vehicles; $1,800 for the Deuce and a Half), vehicle model years and designations (1962 Centurion, 1972 Pinzgauer 710M, 1971 M35A2), the Rolls-Royce Meteor V12 displacement ("27-liter"), and Bring a Trailer's founding timeline ("got its start in 2007 as a blog" with an auctions section "created in 2014"). These are checkable claims and none appear obviously wrong. The description of the Centurion as having a "power-operated turret, periscopes and a beefy Rolls-Royce Meteor V12 engine" is consistent with known specifications for that tank. One minor imprecision: the article says the tank "can't fire anymore" without explaining whether the weapon was demilitarized by law or simply decommissioned — a distinction that matters to accuracy but is a gap rather than an error. Subject ages and business names are given, which aids verification. No outright factual errors detected.

Framing — Favorable

1. "backwoods 'MythBusters'" — the article adopts Champlin's own self-branding without attribution or distancing quotation marks around the framing itself, lending the characterization the authority of editorial description rather than personal promotion.
2. "connecting a real piece of history with a collector who is going to research it, preserve it and share it" — this quote from dealer Robert Dietz is presented as the closing thought on the commercial side of the market, a notably idealistic framing for a for-profit resale business; no skeptical counterpoint follows.
3. The anecdote about Carlson volunteering at "underprivileged inner-city schools" and letting students "sit in the driver's seat, climb around on it" is placed immediately after discussion of his commercial marketing business — the sequencing shifts the reader's impression of him from entrepreneur to community figure without editorial commentary.
4. DeLong's quip about fire trucks being "exempt" from high taxes closes the piece with a light, conspiratorial wink — the article adopts the joke's frame (taxes as an obstacle to a wholesome hobby) without noting whether the claim is accurate or what vehicle taxes actually apply.

These are soft nudges toward warmth, not distortion — consistent with a lifestyle feature — but a reader should know the piece's genre is celebratory.

Source balance

Ratio: All eight named sources are owners, sellers, or platform providers who view civilian military-vehicle ownership positively. There are no voices from safety advocates, regulatory bodies, military historians skeptical of privatization, or local communities that host these vehicles. For a lifestyle feature this tilt is genre-appropriate, but it means the piece functions more as a guided tour than a balanced examination.

Omissions

1. Demilitarization and legal requirements. The article notes the Centurion "can't fire anymore" but never explains the legal framework governing how military weapons must be demilitarized before civilian sale, or what buyers are and aren't permitted to own. This is material information for readers who might be inspired to purchase.
2. Import rules and customs process. DeLong mentions the U.S. military "put it on hold" during his Danish MAN truck import, treating it as a funny anecdote. The actual ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and customs process for importing former military equipment is a substantive topic readers would need to navigate — wholly absent.
3. Scale of the market. Bring a Trailer's figures (under 1,000 auctions per week, 1.7 million registered users) are offered but no context is given for how many of those are military vehicles, what the total market looks like, or whether demand has grown or shrunk.
4. Running and insurance costs. The piece gives purchase prices but only one owner (Carlson) mentions ongoing costs ($25,000 in repairs). Fuel consumption for a 27-liter V12 tank, insurance availability, and registration complications in various states would substantially affect a reader's assessment of the hobby.
5. Community or neighbor concerns. No mention of whether operating tanks or military trucks on public roads raises liability or noise issues — a gap a reader contemplating purchase would notice.

What it does well

• Specific, verifiable numbers throughout: purchase prices, model years, subscriber counts, and founding dates give the piece a factual backbone uncommon in lifestyle features — e.g., "paid $130,000 for it, winning it in an online auction."
• Genuine variety of use cases: the piece covers collecting, search-and-rescue, commercial marketing, daily driving, and European-truck enthusiasm — "Some of these owners are collectors. Others put their equipment to work" — giving a wider panorama than a single-subject profile would.
• Practical cautions included: both Carlson ("You don't know what you're going to get") and Powell ("It's really difficult to know what you can expect from any old military vehicle") offer candid warnings, lending the piece credibility beyond pure enthusiasm.
• Clean, readable sequencing: each owner's section transitions naturally, and the prose avoids jargon without talking down to enthusiasts.

Rating

Overall: 7/10 — A well-reported, readable lifestyle feature whose main weaknesses are structural omissions (legal/regulatory context) and a transparency gap in byline metadata rather than any distortion of the facts it does report.