NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, I am Wundertat, a new nation, but a smart one.

I have been thinking since I joined this game, and as I have been watching the war that is now. I realized that, who really runs the goverment, the Military. If we did not have the military who would keep our nation safe. If you look back in your textbooks for History. At the end of the revolution we almost lost America to OUR own army. As you see we did not pay them, and they did NOT almost disband. If they had NOT disbanded then our country would be different. But, if you think that leaders and presidents rule a nation, you are wrong. Without a military many places would have fallen, and if an army wanted to, they could quickly take over our country, or nations, or towns, or cities easily. We need militaries, do not get me wrong. But, I feel a nations should be ruled by, a military, and a high ranking officer.

The American military would never take over the government in my opinion. For one half of the small arms are in the hands of the American public. Second is that our own men and women in the armed forces would not follow those orders. I just don't see any realistic way the military would take over the nation.

I'd like to see a civilian take down an Abrams Tank. The civilian can have all the small arms in the world and not make a dent.

Now just imagine thousands of these. Any rebels are doomed to failure.

Plus, soldiers are actually trained to fight, unlike civilians, who have basic combat training if that.

I'd like to see a civilian take down an Abrams Tank. The civilian can have all the small arms in the world and not make a dent.

Now just imagine thousands of these. Any rebels are doomed to failure.

Plus, soldiers are actually trained to fight, unlike civilians, who have basic combat training if that.

Like I said the American military would not turn on the American public in mass. As for civilians knowing how to fight I would add there are plenty of us veterans out in the civilian world.

The US military is too small to stop a general uprising. It just wouldn't have the manpower. Sure, it could absolutely crush small pockets with airstrikes and such, but a general uprising, no.

And as for the tanks argument, I'm pretty sure the partisans would be smart enough not to go head to head with armor. Guerrilla warfare would be more likely.

If tanks were a problem, fighting would take place where tanks couldn't be effective. In ancient times, if an army was fighting chariots, they would not fight on open fields and plains. same concept.

Thermite pwns tanks, if you can get it and if you can get close while they're parked. Molotov cocktails aren't lethal, but they can be rather distracting. I'm sure there are veterans who could be far more imaginative than that, and since the national guard would likely side with the rebellion for the most part, the rebellion would have access to some artillery and maybe anti-armor.

I just watched Iron Man. I'll get started on that suit right away. That'll solve some issues right there.

The American military would never take over the government in my opinion. For one half of the small arms are in the hands of the American public. Second is that our own men and women in the armed forces would not follow those orders. I just don't see any realistic way the military would take over the nation.

Yes but, it could, the men might be serving the US, but they are fighting for THEIR freedom, not what the US wants. If something was asked of them, and they did not want it, an uprising would begin.

I'd like to see a civilian take down an Abrams Tank. The civilian can have all the small arms in the world and not make a dent.

Now just imagine thousands of these. Any rebels are doomed to failure.

Plus, soldiers are actually trained to fight, unlike civilians, who have basic combat training if that.

You can't live in a tank.

You can't live in a tank.

True, you have to sleep outside of them if you want any real relaxation.

I'd like to see a civilian take down an Abrams Tank. The civilian can have all the small arms in the world and not make a dent.

Now just imagine thousands of these. Any rebels are doomed to failure.

Plus, soldiers are actually trained to fight, unlike civilians, who have basic combat training if that.


There are many ways to disable a tank. You may have to get creative however it is not impossible.

There are many ways to disable a tank. You may have to get creative however it is not impossible.
And after you do that, tell me how you plan to stop an air strike and stop a dictatorship from using nukes to make a point and keep the rest of the nation hostage.

The American military would never take over the government in my opinion. For one half of the small arms are in the hands of the American public.

That is just the cutest thing.

Hello, I am Wundertat, a new nation, but a smart one.

I have been thinking since I joined this game, and as I have been watching the war that is now. I realized that, who really runs the goverment, the Military. If we did not have the military who would keep our nation safe. If you look back in your textbooks for History. At the end of the revolution we almost lost America to OUR own army. As you see we did not pay them, and they did NOT almost disband. If they had NOT disbanded then our country would be different. But, if you think that leaders and presidents rule a nation, you are wrong. Without a military many places would have fallen, and if an army wanted to, they could quickly take over our country, or nations, or towns, or cities easily. We need militaries, do not get me wrong. But, I feel a nations should be ruled by, a military, and a high ranking officer.
Thank you, but no. Military dictatorships have a very poor looking track record. They either tend to have to keep marching to SOME new place to go fight a war, or they start the war at home.

I would agree that the military could run the government. I would also agree that, with the proper dictator, a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. However, these forms of government will only be viable for as long as they have good leaders. The reason that a Republic or Democracy is a better form of government is peaceful transfer of power and stability of said power over many leaders, be they good or poor.

As for the military organizing a coup in America, I seriously doubt this would happen and, if it did, it would fail miserably. As said before, the people own many, many weapons. Beyond this, a properly educated American would have very little in the way of actual barriers to producing such lethal, and supposedly military grade, weapons as nerve gas, napalm, thermite, and many types of explosives. When you add in the enormous, enormous difference in numbers between the military and the general populace, it becomes impossible for a military dictatorship to hold onto its rule.

As for the military organizing a coup in America, I seriously doubt this would happen and, if it did, it would fail miserably. As said before, the people own many, many weapons. Beyond this, a properly educated American would have very little in the way of actual barriers to producing such lethal, and supposedly military grade, weapons as nerve gas, napalm, thermite, and many types of explosives. When you add in the enormous, enormous difference in numbers between the military and the general populace, it becomes impossible for a military dictatorship to hold onto its rule.
I am a military dictator. I know where you're working from, even if I don't know who you are. I have an atomic bomb, I'm pointing it at where you live. If I don't have your head on my desk in a day, I drop it.

Still plan to keep on trucking?

Read about Pakistan. Read about Burma. Then come back a tell me a military dictatorship is a good thing.

In fact, one of the suggested reasons why the West is so superior in terms of warfare is because of civilian audit of the military. I didn't suggest it. An American chap called Victor Hanson did, in his book Why the West has won.

I am a military dictator. I know where you're working from, even if I don't know who you are. I have an atomic bomb, I'm pointing it at where you live. If I don't have your head on my desk in a day, I drop it.

Still plan to keep on trucking?

And then a trusted general puts a bullet in your head because his cousin lives in the area you're pointing the bomb.

The problem is that the military are not robots and come from all over the country, have families, loved ones and minds of their own. Even assuming such a military coup were possible, half the military would probably desert and take weapons of war with them. As for the half that remained, well it isn't easy fighing your own people and sooner or later, a general is going to pop a cap in a dictator's cranium because his cousin is at ground zero. *nod*

Hello, I am Wundertat, a new nation, but a smart one.
Aye, hullo, and don't call yourself 'smart' if your OP completely flies in the face of this.
I have been thinking since I joined this game, and as I have been watching the war that is now. I realized that, who really runs the goverment, the Military. If we did not have the military who would keep our nation safe. If you look back in your textbooks for History. At the end of the revolution we almost lost America to OUR own army. As you see we did not pay them, and they did NOT almost disband. If they had NOT disbanded then our country would be different. But, if you think that leaders and presidents rule a nation, you are wrong. Without a military many places would have fallen, and if an army wanted to, they could quickly take over our country, or nations, or towns, or cities easily. We need militaries, do not get me wrong.
You seem a bit confused on this one. Are you saying that the military should be in charge because they can completely hold any government to ransom whenever they don't like what's going on?
But, I feel a nations should be ruled by, a military, and a high ranking officer.
Aye, your idea has a great many supporters :

Idi Amin
General Zia-ul-Haq
Every leader of Eritrea, ever
Mao (if you defend him, you're stupid)
Nguyen Van Thieu
Burma in general
And so many more!

And then a trusted general puts a bullet in your head because his cousin lives in the area you're pointing the bomb.

The problem is that the military are not robots and come from all over the country, have families, loved ones and minds of their own. Even assuming such a military coup were possible, half the military would probably desert and take weapons of war with them. As for the half that remained, well it isn't easy fighing your own people and sooner or later, a general is going to pop a cap in a dictator's cranium because his cousin is at ground zero. *nod*
LG, if the above were true, how come there are still military dictatorships?

Granted, a military coup of the US is not likely to happen, we'd have civil war between sections of the military if that happened. But, let's play along and say that, for whatever reason, the whole of the military DOES go along with it. What makes you think that I can't just move the good family out to compounds ahead of time? I probably would, keep the military families seperated (standard OP for most military dictatorships after all). That's where I have my support and I want to treat them good.

Everyone else though... And honestly, all I have to do is take out one city, just to show I would. I'd be willing to bet that the rest would quickly fall in.

I'm the mad man with my finger on the button after all.

Aye, your idea has a great many supporters :

Idi Amin
General Zia-ul-Haq
Every leader of Eritrea, ever
Mao (if you defend him, you're stupid)
Nguyen Van Thieu
Burma in general
And so many more!

I object. Mao was not a military dictator.

I object. Mao was not a military dictator.
How the fuck would you describe him, then? Forced communism onto the Chinese by using the military on dissenters. Pretty much a military dictator to my mind.

LG, if the above were true, how come there are still military dictatorships?
Because typically, the military is a tool used by one group to maintain power over another group within the country even in the best of times.

That isn't true in the US. The military is as diverse as the country. In fact, more so. The proportion of minorities in the military is actually higher than in the country at large.

How the fuck would you describe him, then? Forced communism onto the Chinese by using the military on dissenters. Pretty much a military dictator to my mind.

If you compare Mao's China and say...the Burmese military junta there is a very large difference which is enough to distinguish Mao's China away from being a military dictatorship.

People have strong opinions about dictatorships, yes, but lumping all of them under one term neglects the subtlety of dictatorships and risks misunderstanding.

If you want to fight dictatorship at least you have to understand it properly.

I am a military dictator. I know where you're working from, even if I don't know who you are. I have an atomic bomb, I'm pointing it at where you live. If I don't have your head on my desk in a day, I drop it.

Still plan to keep on trucking?

I'm sure any partisans would look upon you resorting to nuclear weapons on your own country as a huge victory for them. You'd end up having to nuke everywhere.

I'd like to see a civilian take down an Abrams Tank. The civilian can have all the small arms in the world and not make a dent.

Now just imagine thousands of these. Any rebels are doomed to failure.

Plus, soldiers are actually trained to fight, unlike civilians, who have basic combat training if that.

Iraq?

I'd like to see a civilian take down an Abrams Tank.

Well, get me an Abrams tank that I can destroy and I will demonstrate for you how to do it.

Well, get me an Abrams tank that I can destroy and I will demonstrate for you how to do it.

Wait for another one of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efRsN3rQ9Q4&feature=related) to happen.

Nations should be ruled by their military because the military is useful and it could take over if it wanted to? That's just ridiculous.

I would agree that the military could run the government. I would also agree that, with the proper dictator, a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. However, these forms of government will only be viable for as long as they have good leaders.

It greatly pleases me to find people who realize that the form of government is only a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

Wait for another one of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efRsN3rQ9Q4&feature=related) to happen.

lol, that was funny...

My point, however, was that tanks are not invincible, and not only that if you know what you are doing they aren't even all that tough.

speaking of the abrams thing, in fact its pathetic how easy it is to take one down. Its all just a matter of where you hit it. Remember the abrams like any tank has one major disadvantage, its called "Close Combat" and no matter how many disadents you "crunch" there is always at least a dozen more that you just cannot see. Not to mention the fact that most tanks have an extreamly large blind spot when it comes to combat of any kind. Trust me (though you may have a hard time getting a tanker to admit it) the one thing a tank crew fears more then anything is ground troops. as a means of example haven't you ever seen a group of ants take down a stag beatle or a scorpian or anything else for that matter.

At one time, it may have been possible, but the United States could never be ruled by military dictatorship.

First, the military would never obey in an operation to attack their elected government.

However, if all of them obeyed, then, wow, you've got 1.4 million men and women, total, including support personnel. That's less than half of one percent of the population of the United States at over 300 million. Let's talk partisans. There are 450 million guns in the United States, NOT INCLUDING the military (but including state militias, federal, state and local police, etc.), yes, 1.5 guns per person. Next, there are, in fact, many military grade weapons on our streets, including AK-47s, Uzis, the works. Next, I HIGHLY doubt that the state militias (which we call the National Guard) would EVER side with the Federal government. They would move to preserve the sovereignty of the states. The National Guard is armed and supplied with older US military equipment, but they've got armor, infantry, aircraft, anti-armor, anti-air, and anti-ocean capabilities, as well as significant artillery.

Next, who's running the coup? The army? The navy? The air force? The marine corps? There's enough separation between their command and control capabilities that they would be unlikely to do so together. No army guy will accept a navy guy over him, nor vice versa for any of the branches. So they'd have to be jointly in charge. Then, you're going to have at least four men who want to take over the government, leaders in all four branches. The only force that can basically operate without hindrance is the Navy, simply because of its size and distance from the United States.

At best, a military coup of the United States will take over a few states. Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Delaware, maybe North Carolina, possibly Alaska. Any major state has a significant militia, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, New England states, Ohio, Texas, Florida, and California. There, you now have no petroleum (ours comes from Texas and California), no way to process petroleum imported from Europe and the Middle East (those facilities are in New Jersey and Pennsylvania). Your natural gas comes from the middle country, where it would be hell to occupy. How about coal? Great, except that most of the coal reserves are in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, two of which are fiercely independent and have significant militias, and the middle, which is all mountainous and forested, also hell to occupy. Your major mines are in Nevada and the other rocky states, more places which are hell to occupy, and your silicon mines to keep your technology going are exclusively in California and Oregon.

Oh, and, even forgetting all of those; how the HELL do you expect to get the entire military into the United States to even execute this plan?

also lets not forget. to even stand a chance the people must have a history of extreem fear when it comes to the military. lets take iraq there you had a nation that had been at war amoungst itself as well as from other nations for well over 3000 years. the people were used to that kind of thing at least every other generation or so. now lets look at the U.S, here we have a nation that as a rule doesn't much fear anything. most children are raised on combat simulations of every kind from about the age of four. just about everyone has guns or knows where to get one or more. most know how to use them and those who don't will figure it out fairly quickly. Not to mention the massive amounts of gangs and violent anti-government groups who would not take kindly to any such nonsense. In world war II Winston Churchill said that "Americans fight for souvenears". So exactily how do you plan to make a country of insane people fear you

lol, that was funny...

My point, however, was that tanks are not invincible, and not only that if you know what you are doing they aren't even all that tough.

Yes, but you need special equipment to do this. So, do you have the equipment?

Wundertat: Yes, but you need special equipment to do this.

no you don't.

I have a feeling half the military would side with the populace, so instead of civilians against Abrams, it will be Abrams against Abrams.

But the military isn't going to do anything. If this was any other country, the military would have mutinied by now after all the bullshit Bush has done.

Yes, but you need special equipment to do this. So, do you have the equipment?

No, as a matter of fact, you don't.
What you need is a knowledge of a MBT's weak points, which I do have.

Hello, I am Wundertat, a new nation, but a smart one.

I have been thinking since I joined this game, and as I have been watching the war that is now. I realized that, who really runs the goverment, the Military. If we did not have the military who would keep our nation safe. If you look back in your textbooks for History. At the end of the revolution we almost lost America to OUR own army. As you see we did not pay them, and they did NOT almost disband. If they had NOT disbanded then our country would be different. But, if you think that leaders and presidents rule a nation, you are wrong. Without a military many places would have fallen, and if an army wanted to, they could quickly take over our country, or nations, or towns, or cities easily. We need militaries, do not get me wrong. But, I feel a nations should be ruled by, a military, and a high ranking officer.

Reminds me of Machiavelli, "Good soldiers make good laws."

Hello, I am Wundertat, a new nation, but a smart one.

I have been thinking since I joined this game, and as I have been watching the war that is now. I realized that, who really runs the goverment, the Military. If we did not have the military who would keep our nation safe. If you look back in your textbooks for History. At the end of the revolution we almost lost America to OUR own army. As you see we did not pay them, and they did NOT almost disband. If they had NOT disbanded then our country would be different. But, if you think that leaders and presidents rule a nation, you are wrong. Without a military many places would have fallen, and if an army wanted to, they could quickly take over our country, or nations, or towns, or cities easily. We need militaries, do not get me wrong. But, I feel a nations should be ruled by, a military, and a high ranking officer.Why? What good does that do?

Why? What good does that do?

Dude.

Hello, I am Wundertat, a new nation, but a smart one.

Don't question it.

Reminds me of Machiavelli, "Good soldiers make good laws."I can come up with a bunch of names to prove him wrong...

Dude.



Don't question it.Hehehe. I question everything! =D

Schwullunde;13664904']Wundertat:

no you don't.

Proof? examples? Im not questioning that an MBT can be taken down...what I am questioning is your expertise in the matter


Civilians vrs. Military = Quantity vrs Quality


I think in the end only one would remain...me...i have a small arsenal in my apartment. Now if the right to bear arms included MIRV's I'd be set

My answer to this thread would be Benito Mussolini and the Italian citizens in Fascist Italy.

1945 - With Germany's defeat imminent, Mussolini attempts to flee to Switzerland disguised as a German soldier but is recognised by Italian partisans and captured on 27 April. He and his mistress, Clara Petacci, are shot and killed near Lake Como the following day.

Their bodies are then transported to Milan where they are hung by the feet with piano wire in Piazza Loreto for public display and humiliation. All of Italy rejoices at the downfall of the dictator and the end of the conflict.

Mussolini's body is buried in an unmarked grave at the Musocco cemetery outside Milan. On 23 April 1946 it is dug up by a neo-fascist and hidden. Over three months later it is retrieved by the police and secretly interred in the chapel of the Cerro Maggiore convent near Milan. On 31 August 1957 Mussolini's remains are permanently laid to rest at the family plot in Predappio.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mussolini.html

If you study that case, would you still think the Military runs the country?

I, personally, think not.

If you study that case, would you still think the Military runs the country?


This may be an Italian thing, but everyone knows the Mafia runs the country.
Always has, probably always will. Especially since it deals with the government on a daily basis.

If you study that case, would you still think the Military runs the country?

I, personally, think not.
Mussolini didn't run the RSI in anything but name, so I think your point is a bit moot. He didn't really want to do much of anything after 1943 when he was put in prison, but then Hitler sent a crack team of special forces off to rescue him so he could lead Italy under Hitler.

Mussolini basically agreed to the RSI because he wanted the Italians not to be the victims of the Nazi regime quite as much as they would have been had the Germans simply invaded northern Italy.

Reminds me of Machiavelli, "Good soldiers make good laws."
Good soldiers do not run governments, because they know it is not their job.
No, as a matter of fact, you don't.
What you need is a knowledge of a MBT's weak points, which I do have.
I would love to see you try to take on a modern tank with any kind of escorting infantry. You would die. This is basically a fact.

In the whole of the Iraq War, in which the Iraqis have had a whole ton of weapons to take out Abrams and Challenger 2 tanks out with, there have been very, very few complete write-offs of Abrams, and none at all of Challenger 2 tanks.

Like I said the American military would not turn on the American public in mass. As for civilians knowing how to fight I would add there are plenty of us veterans out in the civilian world.
Kent State dispelled any illusion I ever had that soldiers wouldn't shoot civilians. I do believe that there are enough soldiers that would stay loyal to the chain of command to keep the Armed Forces in a position as a viable fighting force.

This may be an Italian thing, but everyone knows the Mafia runs the country.
Always has, probably always will. Especially since it deals with the government on a daily basis.

Well, I´ve heard that too. And they say who goes to Parliament and all, or so I´ve heard.

A bit off-topic: Did you know that if you make a study of the water and the air in Italy, you most likely will find traces of cocaine on both? (this was told to me by my co-worker Franchesca. She lived in Italy for two years.)
If this information is not accurate, please, let me know.

I was told when I was young and stupid and worked for the UK defence dept that as a civil servant you were loyal to the country and the government in that order.

If the government turned against the interests of the country, lets say banning elections for example, then you'd be justified in disobeying anything the government told you to do

As for military coup in a western democracy.... will never happen the military is far too small to be able to do the job.
and as for aiming nukes at people..... we lived with that for 40 years, do you really think the population would cower at that... and in any case, the previous government would have more than likely destroyed the PAL codes before your military types could lay their hands on them.

A bit off-topic: Did you know that if you make a study of the water and the air in Italy, you most likely will find traces of cocaine on both? (this was told to me by my co-worker Franchesca. She lived in Italy for two years.)
If this information is not accurate, please, let me know.

Interesting. I really have no idea though.

Though I would be surprised since you would think the mafia would be more carefull about spilling it.

Dynamic Revolution:
Proof? examples? Im not questioning that an MBT can be taken down...what I am questioning is your expertise in the matter

Well sense you asked nicely:D Six years in the U.S. Army Infantry,Four of which were spent in a Cav unit working beside the Abrams, and I suppose dozens of incidents in Iraq are my qualifications and Proof/Examples

of course all one has to do is do a google search to find examples.
:D:D:D:D:D:D

Yootopia :

In the whole of the Iraq War, in which the Iraqis have had a whole ton of weapons to take out Abrams and Challenger 2 tanks out with, there have been very, very few complete write-offs of Abrams, and none at all of Challenger 2 tanks.

its unnecessary to completely destroy an Abrams. In a pitched battle just disabling it is enough, especially in a close combat situation.

Schwullunde;13665711']Dynamic Revolution:

snippity do dah

Oops...wrong quote...I meant to quote Dyakovo...But sense you probably know more than he does (I think he's talking out his a$$) and I have your ear:

....Humor me....Say I'm a member of a ragtag bunch o'resistance fighters...how would I take down a tank with no equipment.
Oh and sense you were a member of Armored Calvary I'm sure you know that tanks are almost never deployed in urban environments without infantry support. For the exact reason that they are vulnerable against infantry with anti-armor weapons....What I want to know is how I'm going to take down an MBT with a 7.62mm or 5.56mm assault rifle....Because I don't have the explosives on hand to make a IED of sufficient power to knock a tank out


Definition of "take down": To break the tank in such a way that it no longer can engage me or my men for the duration of the firefight/battle...

kool then no prob as to dyakovo cannot say, but he is right none the less. his manner of speak and terminoligy seem correct so I would err on the side of his knowing what he is saying

Interesting. I really have no idea though.

Though I would be surprised since you would think the mafia would be more carefull about spilling it.

Or they spill it as a means of controlling the people.:eek:

It´s not the Military but Cocaine who controls the countries!!!

Schwullunde;13665776']kool then no prob

*grumble* Fine....Can you Pleeeeeease tell me how to knock out an M1-A1 Abrams MBT with no anti armor weapons or equipment...if it is at all possible

well the truth is I suppose i could give some ideas based on examples from past wars. the main method is to take out the tracks using explosives. this usually renders a tank immoble. as all tanks have the problem of not being able to fire below a certain level all you do is crawl up to it and get on top. unless the crew realizes you are there you can then place explosives around the turret and thereby render the gun immobile. this should get the attention of the turret crew who probibly will open their hatch(if its closed) allowing a clevor ground troop to kill the gunner and tc. admitedly you cannot get to the driver if the turret is closed so that renders him obsolete except in the case of older tanks.

admitedly this requires explosives but a sufficiantly clevor person can produce those

Oops...wrong quote...I meant to quote Dyakovo...But sense you probably know more than he does (I think he's talking out his a$$) and I have your ear:

....Humor me....Say I'm a member of a ragtag bunch o'resistance fighters...how would I take down a tank with no equipment.
Oh and sense you were a member of Armored Calvary I'm sure you know that tanks are almost never deployed in urban environments without infantry support. For the exact reason that they are vulnerable against infantry with anti-armor weapons....What I want to know is how I'm going to take down an MBT with a 7.62mm or 5.56mm assault rifle....Because I don't have the explosives on hand to make a IED of sufficient power to knock a tank out


Definition of "take down": To break the tank in such a way that it no longer can engage me or my men for the duration of the firefight/battle...

Being a well-armed and well-educated citizen, you and your also well-armed and well-educated citizen friends go down to Home Depot. There, you collect the materials required to make IEDs of any power.

Assuming you wont be able to take the tank out with the IED, you and your well-educated citizens friends find a well-suited location (as you live in this area) and set-up your fertilizer, gasoline, propane, ect bombs to cause mass panic and confusion.

Your specially chosen group of 12 frenzied, well-armed, and well-educated, citizen friends then ambush from a pre-determined location. The tanks infantry escort is disoriented from your mixture of IEDs and small-arms fire from rooftops, that the don't notice these 12 citizen friends making a dash for the tank.

Reaching the tank, your well-armed, well-educated citizen friends lodge small propane-tank based explosives in the tread base of the vehicle, under the turret, in the phone box on the back (its a new Abrams.), maybe nestle one in the top commander or reloaders turret (just to make noise, and if they like climbing), and most importantly you fuss and mess with the rear 'grill' of the tank.

Firing various small arms, as the armored grate is useless if you insert your rifle into said armored grate, into the engine and perhaps using a heavy hammer or bolt cutter to remove some of the grill- you add some propane bombs near the engine.

Those 12 citizen friends, or such as is still alive, now retreat. Hopefully sometime before the first propane bomb is exploding - however - that is optional.

Your rebel friends, have done a similar thing at many different places along the city. The confusion ensures a poor redistribution of force, allowing your well-educated, well-armed citizen friends to melt away into the city/surrounding area once more.

exactily so, but better worded then my post.


oh i was actually part of those same said Mechanized Infantry. we almost never trained with the tankers though I suppose we should have. other units may have though.

did go to kuwait with some tankers though, but only in a non combat assignment :(

Some how...im willing to bet that that doesn't work out like that...

1. Doesn't matter if the tank is immobile it still has 120mm of fury that it can unleash on me....not to mention the co-axial mg, and the commanders mg.

2. I highly doubt that propane tanks will do anything to armor thats capable of withstanding military grade syntax...other than remove that snazy urban paint job.

And as a side note: a chemical fertilizer bomb (Ammonium Nitrate) is going to be able to destory an MBT? We are talking about a tank...you know...65 tons...960mm of composite ceramic/steel/depleted uranium


I dono....maybe I'm just ignorant. But it seems it would be far harder than portrayed...plus I highly doubt anyone is going to run out into the fire zone to plant explosives...if anything they'd prolly be killed by friendly fire

Yah, ANFO can do in a tank. I suggest reading Rock Engineering by Hoek.

as you said the gun can be a problem. though is you disable the turret at the point where the turret is attached to the main body that guns use is limited. as to the co-axial it faces foward in relation to the turret. now if you count the mg thats at the top of the turret and I beleave that the tc must pop up the hatch to use that unless I am mistaken. admitedly this scenario requires the Tc to be a complete idiot and go into a situation that gives the ground troups the advantage, and I cannot stress enough that most are not idiots.

of course in this case we are talking hypotheticals based on historical evidance as well as varrious scenario's dreamed up by the military and the designer. Now I did hear a story once about an abrams that attempted a jump for an army recruting commercial. sems it made the jump, unfortunately it couldn't move further as it fell apart. haven't confirmed said story myself.

the only thing necessary in your scenario though is to disable the tank. So taking out its tracks is the first thing. stopping the turret from turning is next. this by military standards is all thats required to kill an armored vehicle. once done the TC and the gunner can fire that 120mm maingun and the co-axial and commanders guns to their hearts content for all the good it will do in a pitched battle. in this situation the weapons have very little field of fire and is kinda useless outside of that.

this is especially true in woodland scenarios urban scenario's or any scenario with limited movement.

but to go up against a tank of any kind in an open area is suicide.

I am not fond of the IED as a weapon as it requires the vehicle in question to actually drive over it. this is unlikely in any situation except urban environments or in a convoy situation where you know the vehicles will pass.

anyway I am out of here.

Schwullunde;13666108']as you said the gun can be a problem. though is you disable the turret at the point where the turret is attached to the main body that guns use is limited. as to the co-axial it faces foward in relation to the turret. now if you count the mg thats at the top of the turret and I beleave that the tc must pop up the hatch to use that unless I am mistaken. admitedly this scenario requires the Tc to be a complete idiot and go into a situation that gives the ground troups the advantage, and I cannot stress enough that most are not idiots.

of course in this case we are talking hypotheticals based on historical evidance as well as varrious scenario's dreamed up by the military and the designer. Now I did hear a story once about an abrams that attempted a jump for an army recruting commercial. sems it made the jump, unfortunately it couldn't move further as it fell apart. haven't confirmed said story myself.

the only thing necessary in your scenario though is to disable the tank. So taking out its tracks is the first thing. stopping the turret from turning is next. this by military standards is all thats required to kill an armored vehicle. once done the TC and the gunner can fire that 120mm maingun and the co-axial and commanders guns to their hearts content for all the good it will do in a pitched battle. in this situation the weapons have very little field of fire and is kinda useless outside of that.

this is especially true in woodland scenarios urban scenario's or any scenario with limited movement.

but to go up against a tank of any kind in an open area is suicide.

I am not fond of the IED as a weapon as it requires the vehicle in question to actually drive over it. this is unlikely in any situation except urban environments or in a convoy situation where you know the vehicles will pass.

anyway I am out of here.

What if you get a crowd to swarm it? Can you get close enough to a tank that firing the main cannon would be dangerous to the personnel and could you then maybe force open the hatch and lob a grenade?

And what are the thousand ways the above would be flawed?

Some how...im willing to bet that that doesn't work out like that...

1. Doesn't matter if the tank is immobile it still has 120mm of fury that it can unleash on me....not to mention the co-axial mg, and the commanders mg.

2. I highly doubt that propane tanks will do anything to armor thats capable of withstanding military grade syntax...other than remove that snazy urban paint job.

And as a side note: a chemical fertilizer bomb (Ammonium Nitrate) is going to be able to destory an MBT? We are talking about a tank...you know...65 tons...960mm of composite ceramic/steel/depleted uranium


I dono....maybe I'm just ignorant. But it seems it would be far harder than portrayed...plus I highly doubt anyone is going to run out into the fire zone to plant explosives...if anything they'd prolly be killed by friendly fire

1) Unless it has a remote suite, which can be disabled by small arms fire if your a decent shot, the commander has to come out to use his gun. At which point, if he is surrounded by infantry, is illogical. Also, that 120mm and coax will do a whole lot of nothing if you disable the ability of the turret to turn.

2) The propane tanks aren't meant to blow the tank to tiny little pieces like another tank would. They are meant to apply a large amount of pressure to a limited area. Throw the tanks 'street wheels' off its treads, bend the turrets track so it fails to rotate properly, ect. Your not aiming to blow chunks off, just cause damage that interferes with the proper working of the machine.

And I never said the fertilizer bombs would be used against the tank. They would be big booms just for the sake of big booms, if you will. If I blow something up on your left, are you going to look to your right first?

As for friendly fire and willingness of the individual, we are already assuming that American culture will degrade to the same state it was in during the civil war, allowing the average soldier to justify shooting his neighbor across the hill, so can't we assume that in such a dire situation an American citizen may risk their skin for more than a pouch of twinkies? The greater good if you will.

depends on the country. the most powerful one militarily on the face of the planet, and thus its military is more or less usurped by a kind of corporate mafia, that lets people pretend they have a voice in it, every once in a while, to keep up appearances, such as continuing to hold elections on their regularly scheduled bases, only preselecting who the general public gets to hear anything about running for them, and then MAYBE honestly and accurately counting their votes, unless everybody wants someone the major economic intrests REALLY don't want. but really, anyone who doesn't fallow their comodify everything and screw everything else line, doesn't generally get to have anything heard about them anyway.

its all about the real control being denyable. as for the military, well its not like they're any smarter or they'd be any better, but its not like the corporatocracy really even listens to them either.

they just get sent in to murder and bully anyone who trys to protect their wives or their countryside from the corporatocracy's callusly destructive exploitation.

=^^=
.../\...

"Like I said the American military would not turn on the American public in mass. As for civilians knowing how to fight I would add there are plenty of us veterans out in the civilian world."

----- the big 'however' is that:

while not likely without orders from their comander in thief, who happens to be the civilianly 'elected' pressident. we've had a couple of terms in office of at least one now, who has set a precident of not being entirely able to be trusted not to issue them.

=^^=
.../\...

Schwullunde;13665711']Yootopia :

its unnecessary to completely destroy an Abrams. In a pitched battle just disabling it is enough, especially in a close combat situation.
Aye, my point was more that an Abrams is not just going to be kicking about on its own. It will have well-armed soldiers around it, probably more tanks and IFVs with it as well.

What if you get a crowd to swarm it?
It would be quite an effort to get a crowd to silently stalk up on a tank and its mates and attack a tank, especially since there are going to be 3 MGs on an Abrams tank, plus cannon rounds which are basically like grapeshot.

Keep in mind that it's also going to have well-armed chums around. And it's got thermals, so thinking about going after one through a forest or at night is not going to happen. Plus it can reverse about as fast as you can run. And will doubtless be operating with another unit at least vaguely in the area to come to its aid.
Can you get close enough to a tank that firing the main cannon would be dangerous to the personnel and could you then maybe force open the hatch and lob a grenade?

And what are the thousand ways the above would be flawed?
It would have to be one hell of a well-armed, disciplined and trained mob to get anywhere near the roof hatch, with absolutely no desire to live.

The National Guard is armed and supplied with older US military equipment, but they've got armor, infantry, aircraft, anti-armor, anti-air, and anti-ocean capabilities, as well as significant artillery.


Actually... my brother is in the PA National Guard, he's part of a Stryker Unit.

The entire regions national guard unit is being deployed to Mississippi at the end of the month for training excersizes before being sent to an as yet undisclosed location for further training in preperation for being sent to a currently unnamed conflict zone. The local National Guard base alone sent 70 Strykers, almost 150 Humvees, and even some Abrams Tanks. To say the National Guard is not equipped with the latest weaponry is kind of an understatement.

Linky! (http://www.meadvilletribune.com/archivesearch/local_story_121221803.html)

Oops...wrong quote...I meant to quote Dyakovo...But sense you probably know more than he does (I think he's talking out his a$$) and I have your ear:

....Humor me....Say I'm a member of a ragtag bunch o'resistance fighters...how would I take down a tank with no equipment.
Oh and sense you were a member of Armored Calvary I'm sure you know that tanks are almost never deployed in urban environments without infantry support. For the exact reason that they are vulnerable against infantry with anti-armor weapons....What I want to know is how I'm going to take down an MBT with a 7.62mm or 5.56mm assault rifle....Because I don't have the explosives on hand to make a IED of sufficient power to knock a tank out


Definition of "take down": To break the tank in such a way that it no longer can engage me or my men for the duration of the firefight/battle...
It doesn't take much if you set up the IED properly, the armor on tanks is very weak on the underside. Also, yes I do know what I am talking about, former tanker here.
I would love to see you try to take on a modern tank with any kind of escorting infantry. You would die. This is basically a fact.
Ambush/IED that makes the supporting infantry a moot point.
Schwullunde;13665776']kool then no prob as to dyakovo cannot say, but he is right none the less. his manner of speak and terminoligy seem correct so I would err on the side of his knowing what he is saying
Yup.
*grumble* Fine....Can you Pleeeeeease tell me how to knock out an M1-A1 Abrams MBT with no anti armor weapons or equipment...if it is at all possible
Homemade explosives
Some how...im willing to bet that that doesn't work out like that...

1. Doesn't matter if the tank is immobile it still has 120mm of fury that it can unleash on me....not to mention the co-axial mg, and the commanders mg.

2. I highly doubt that propane tanks will do anything to armor thats capable of withstanding military grade syntax...other than remove that snazy urban paint job.

And as a side note: a chemical fertilizer bomb (Ammonium Nitrate) is going to be able to destory an MBT? We are talking about a tank...you know...65 tons...960mm of composite ceramic/steel/depleted uranium


I dono....maybe I'm just ignorant. But it seems it would be far harder than portrayed...plus I highly doubt anyone is going to run out into the fire zone to plant explosives...if anything they'd prolly be killed by friendly fire
As I said already, the underside of tanks is weak, is 'killing' one going to be easy? No, but it certainly is not impossible. The two weak points on a tank that someone without military grade equipment can take advantage of to 'kill' it are: the underside - the armor is relatively thin there, and the treads - if you make it immobile you can fry it with molotov cocktails.

It would be quite an effort to get a crowd to silently stalk up on a tank and its mates and attack a tank, especially since there are going to be 3 MGs on an Abrams tank, plus cannon rounds which are basically like grapeshot.

Keep in mind that it's also going to have well-armed chums around. And it's got thermals, so thinking about going after one through a forest or at night is not going to happen. Plus it can reverse about as fast as you can run. And will doubtless be operating with another unit at least vaguely in the area to come to its aid.

It would have to be one hell of a well-armed, disciplined and trained mob to get anywhere near the roof hatch, with absolutely no desire to live.

Yep, frontal assault on a MBT by guerillas is suicide, the key to taking out tanks, even if you do happen to have military grade equipment is ambush/booby traps.

"fry it with a Molotov cocktails"???

What are you going to do...offer the crew a drink and hope the crash off a ciff? Throwing a molotov cocktail at a tank is like trying to piss out Thermite...you'll look extremely stupid doing it and probably end up dead or at the very least burn your wang off.

"fry it with a Molotov cocktails"???

What are you going to do...offer the crew a drink and hope the crash off a ciff? Throwing a molotov cocktail at a tank is like trying to piss out Thermite...you'll look extremely stupid doing it and probably end up dead or at the very least burn your wang off.

MBT's are not airtight, the burning liquids will leak in and damage components and make the crew very uncomfortable.
Trust me, the various tank divisions wish that MBT's were as tough as you seem to think they are, they're not though.

Moblity kills are good for disabling tanks.


You know, in the Gulf war it was actually mostly a myth that no Abrams were destroyed, (I've been reading "Iron Soldiers" about the 1st Armored division in the gulf war). They had 4 tanks hit and disabled by T-72 fire. Mainly because the tankers had relied so much on their Thermals, that when the burning enemy tanks started causing white outs, several Iraqi tanks that had been sitting engines off were missed, thus the T-72s were able to get in shots at the rear and sides of the Abrams. All of them were repairable so they weren't "Destroyed". Hence the myth.

If someone could hide from a Tanks thermals at night, (Fire blankets for instance could block heat.) You could crawl right up to a tank.

-------
I'm actually working on a plot where this sort of situation happens, the US splits on election day with portions of the military taking different sides. (Majority of the Army and Navy remain loyal to congress, but much of the Marines, Airforce and of course the mercs and defense industries take the President's side.)

I'm actually working on a plot where this sort of situation happens, the US splits on election day with portions of the military taking different sides. (Majority of the Army and Navy remain loyal to congress, but much of the Marines, Airforce and of course the mercs and defense industries take the President's side.)You don't think Texas, California, New England, and the Pacific States would split off, causing a bit more than just two sides?

Ideal tank-stopping method:

1. Locate field base where tanks park.
2. Sneak in (hard part!)
3. Plant thermite on tank above engine
4. Get the hell out and wait.

Come morning, there will be a hole melted through the engine.

MBT's are not airtight, the burning liquids will leak in and damage components and make the crew very uncomfortable.
Trust me, the various tank divisions wish that MBT's were as tough as you seem to think they are, they're not though.

...Are you being serious? Cuz sarcasm dosn't show well in text...let me give you an example:

Oh thats right in order to be impervious to Chemical, Nuclear, and Biological weapons you don't have to be airtight. How silly of me to think other wise </sarcasm>

...Are you being serious? Cuz sarcasm dosn't show well in text...let me give you an example:

Oh thats right in order to be impervious to Chemical, Nuclear, and Biological weapons you don't have to be airtight. How silly of me to think other wise </sarcasm>

They aren't impervious to any of those.
I will reiterate, I was a tanker, I know what the capabilities and weaknesses of the Abrams are.

You don't think Texas, California, New England, and the Pacific States would split off, causing a bit more than just two sides? If they did split off they would more or less be neutral and would mostly likely still lean to a side.

At the beginning of the Civil war, Kentucky did the exact same thing.

I'd like to see a civilian take down an Abrams Tank. The civilian can have all the small arms in the world and not make a dent.

That's why the Russians never lost a man while retaking Groznyj, I guess.*sarcasm*