Tank Country

[Glock21]

I'm remembering reading some cases of 113's, and the like being flipped over by charges placed in the road in Vietnam. The armor plating didn't matter as the thing was over on its side. Of course, an M1 weighs a lot more!!!

 

[indyninja]

if tanks come and you feel like fighting. prepare to get yourself killed real fast.

 

[Yamaha]

if tanks come and you feel like fighting. prepare to get yourself killed real fast.

yea, where I'm from, we'd need the A-team, but we could arm and armour every single tractor on the farm.....improvised tanks sound fun.


theres also an older pershing tank sitting not to far from here that might prove to be useful, I myself will be taking the ghillie suit route as well with a good number of other people, we're used to stalking coyotes, so considering towns are 5-10miles apart, and woods 1-3miles apart, I think we'd be fine if SRHTF in that regard.....oooohhh, theres also a huey and F4 at the foreign legion the tank is at.....

 

[Disposable Heart]

Unfortunately, the older tanks at the VFW halls are no match for the powerful vehicles today. There is only one way to stop the modern day armies of the throne: Hit them where it hurts, either in image or in physical concept:

They disarm a citizen, we blow a armory.
They impose fuel cards/stickers, we blow a tank farm.
They run over one person, we molotov a tank while they are fueling.
They issue body armor, we load on Tokarevs.
They employ riot implements, we learn semi-automatic rifle enfilade fire.

Make combat something they would not want to stomach. Make an attack on even ONE citizen, while a moral victory, such a horrendous loss of man and resources that the idea doesnt even come to mind. After much thought, a tank is a symbol of the opressive government (if used as such), however a symbol that requires people to drive and gun it, fuel to move it and evil to use it.

Disclaimer: I do not advocate the overthrow or agression towards the United States Goverment. However, the people driving said tank against anyone of the US citizenry would most certainly think their brother citizen as of ilk and therefore, I do not commit myself to any comraderie or morality to them as a service member or "protector" of the consitution. I am not a fan of "yay america" or "semper fi" feelings when they would trample the rights of the citizens they swore to protect.

 

[jeremy]

Actually I think there would be a lot of unrest in our .Mil units at such an order. Most units see them selves as the dogs guarding the sheep.

And the Oath of Enlistment is.
I,______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, Foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of thePresident of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

[flagtag]

Actually I think there would be a lot of unrest in our .Mil units at such an order. Most units see them selves as the dogs guarding the sheep.

And the Oath of Enlistment is.
I,______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, Foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of thePresident of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I believe there would be a lot of resignations/disertions if our government turned traitor!

 

[Yamaha]

They issue body armor, we load on Tokarevs.

a FN five seven would be much better suited....

 

[indyjoe]

I believe there would be a lot of resignations/disertions if our government turned traitor!

I don't worry as much about US troops being used. I worry about UN troops being used. For them, we are foreigners and more easily labeled terrorists.

 

[flagtag]

I don't worry as much about US troops being used. I worry about UN troops being used. For them, we are foreigners and more easily labeled terrorists.

In my case, there would be no "guilt" or hesitation if I had to go up against UN troops. As far as I would be concerned, they would be an "invading force"! Not Americans violating our Constitution. Not traitors. Although traitors don't deserve special consideration.

 

[indyjoe]

In my case, there would be no "guilt" or hesitation if I had to go up against UN troops. As far as I would be concerned, they would be an "invading force"! Not Americans violating our Constitution. Not traitors. Although traitors don't deserve special consideration.

I agree. I think that would remove quite a bit of moral ambiguity as far as those defending our country.

 

[flagtag]

I still believe we need to get out of the UN (now) anyway. We're wasting all that money for nothing. They're useless!!! And we could use that money here - like for the flood/tornado victims.

 

[rhino]

a FN five seven would be much better suited....

The terminal ballistics of the FN 5.7mm round are puny to be generous. It's equivalent to a .22WMR.

 

[Disposable Heart]

I still believe we need to get out of the UN (now) anyway. We're wasting all that money for nothing. They're useless!!! And we could use that money here - like for the flood/tornado victims.

Where did people get that info?! We havent paid any of our UN dues essentially since it was created! The UN will not become an overseeing power:
1. It does not have taxing power. The meny they recieve is from private donations or willing nation state donations. We offer a place for them and occasionally money but mostly troop support in fights we see as beneficial.
2. The UN does not have power to control governments as they are not a Nation state themselves. They cannot hold land (only be granted land by a nation state) they cannot have a standing army (only troops given to them , and even then, still controlled by the nation states themselves) and can only have volunteered support from nation states in the sense of treaties (UN cannot dissolve a nation state's sovereignty). The only times the UN has involved themselves was when the existing controlling nation state has dissolved and have civil war insues.

The idea of UN helicopters landing in one's back yard is meerly a fantasy created by people who are frightful of anything that even challenges their notion of sovereignty or what they think of is even a challenge. You should be worried about US helicopters or acts of terrorism, not a 'mystery organization'. Many people just listen to political shock jocks and dont actually do their own research.

On the 5.7 notion: Barnes makes a 50gr. Banded solid that, while maybe not the best for supersonic flight, is made of homogenous metal. Scary thought . Would make a pretty (legally) interesting handload!

 

[jeremy]

DH Good post.
The "evil" UN will certainly not be involved. I don't think our .mil will be involved completely either. I think most of the action will be undertaken by contractors. There are several companies out there who are quite questionable. Most of them work for our .gov in one capacity or another.

 

[SilentWarrior1]

As a Veteran, I would have to believe that the majority of our servicemen/women would defect back to their own families at the sign of civil unrest. If for some reason, the military was ordered in on the country, I don't think I'd hold reservation to doing what I had to do to survive.

Any/All Contractors used would become fair game. They will be dispatched and looted. Period.

 

[flagtag]

As a Veteran, I would have to believe that the majority of our servicemen/women would defect back to their own families at the sign of civil unrest. If for some reason, the military was ordered in on the country, I don't think I'd hold reservation to doing what I had to do to survive.

Any/All Contractors used would become fair game. They will be dispatched and looted. Period.

 

[cce1302]

Tanks???
Geez, guys.

Okay, here goes:
Lots of digging. Deep ditches. High berms.
Those things you were talking about? EFPs or explosively formed penetrators. copper plate backed by a bit of plastic explosive. fairly simple to make; extremely effective against armor.
Also an expedient shape charge will work against armor. the right size and shape will drill a very nice hole in a tank hull.
Trees. Big trees. Log post obstacles 12-15" diameter logs, 9' underground, 3-5' above ground.
Abatis.
Log cribs filled with dirt.
Wire, lots of wire. barbed wire is ok if you can't get concertina. tank bubbas go nuts when wire gets in their tracks.
Tetrahedrons and hedgehogs made out of heavy I-beams. each piece 4-6 ft long.
Concrete blocks, 4ft cube.
You could take out bridges as well, but very few of the rivers would be much of an obstacle for tanks anyway.
As many AT and AP mines as you can get. (good luck on that.) set up a standard row pattern minefield.

Now take everything and build a nice complex obstacle belt like they have south of the DMZ in Korea. They've had a few years to construct though...

 

[Disposable Heart]

Forgot the Ewoks!

+1 Silent. That frightens me more than any bloodthirsty person on the planet: Someone willing to kill for money. I would certainly hope that our government never gets to that point: Desperation. It would have to be a first action if mobilization of (essentially) mercenaries is used.

I would certainly hope that much if not all of the military would be on our side, unfortunately, I am always afraid of the power of media/image that is used all over, especially in how we describe our enemies overseas. The word terrorist can make someone angry and if that label is to be applied to us, there would certainly be an issue regarding those who are "defending the constitution" however under the belief that the people they crush are terrorists/insurgents/rebels, etc...

CCE1302: Cmon, we're just having fun. Join in!

 

[flagtag]

Forgot the Ewoks!

+1 Silent. That frightens me more than any bloodthirsty person on the planet: Someone willing to kill for money. I would certainly hope that our government never gets to that point: Desperation. It would have to be a first action if mobilization of (essentially) mercenaries is used.

I would certainly hope that much if not all of the military would be on our side, unfortunately, I am always afraid of the power of media/image that is used all over, especially in how we describe our enemies overseas. The word terrorist can make someone angry and if that label is to be applied to us, there would certainly be an issue regarding those who are "defending the constitution" however under the belief that the people they crush are terrorists/insurgents/rebels, etc...

CCE1302: Cmon, we're just having fun. Join in!

Don't forget, Nancy Pelosi (sp) - Speaker of the House, wants to have control of radio/tv media to limit what can be broadcast. (in the news this last week) You can bet that her "people" will decide what is broadcast if she has her way.

 

[jeremy]

Silent
As a serving member that would be my hope as well. But, it depends on how the powers that be worded the orders. The US Army was involved with the Waco Fiasco, and don't forget the deployments into New Orleans.

DH we already use merc's and have for decades.

And I think our biggest enemy will be the people on the "hill". The do control the purse strings.