Suppose the bad guys have tanks?
zorbo
Run if you can.
If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
If there is more than one, try to seperate them using decoys, lures,
obstructions etc. combined with smoke and radio jamming (if they have
thermal imaging sights, the smoke will not be enough, set lots of fires).
If the foe has a brain (and you should assume they do) there will be
infantry with the armor. Hit them first while staying out of the armor's
way.
If the armored baddies have their hatches open, a molotov cocktail or other
expediant device might end the problem fairly quickly if they are willing to
let you get close enough and climb on their tank. It seems unlikely that
this will happen. You may be able to dump water into an open hatch from a
high window which would cause them some trouble with their electronics.
Alternately, a bucket of gasoline, kero, or deisel dumped into an open hatch
will probably cause the occupants to want to consider the option of
surrender before things get warm.
Assuming the above is unworkable, encourage the armor crews to "button up"
with small arms fire. This will reduce their visibility and, almost
certainly, their effectiveness. Make those first shots count by aiming for
exposed heads. Go for the driver first. With a bit of luck, he'll wreck
the thing for you. Get the commander next, if he's still up.
Now you have to stop him. During the Hungarian uprising against the
Soviets, patriots were able to temporarily stop the enemy tanks on a few
occasions by painting the bottoms of dinner plates black or green and
placing them on the ground upside down. The crews thought they were mines.
Large rocks can cause a tracked vehicle to lose a track. You can blind the
crew by attacking vision ports and optic systems with spray paint, mud, etc.
or EXTREMELY accurate small arms fire. Inserting iron rails or big crowbars
into the suspension will immobize the vehicle. Get both sides, otherwise
he'll pivot on his good track and mangle you.
Now, the good news is that if you are close enough, they can neither see you
or shoot at you. The bad news is they are fully aware of this and often
have small firing ports and a couple grenades to toss out hatches for just
such an occasion. Also, there are escape hatches that you need to look out
for. And beware of directional mines (claymores) placed on the hull.
Finally, don't discount the ability of a main gun's muzzle blast to mess up
your day.
Once you have them stopped (see how easy this is!) you could offer them a
chance to surrender. If you aren't feeling that generous, molotov cocktails
applied liberally to the engine compartment is pretty much your only choice.
If they don't have an NBC filter system, you might be able to persuade them
to come out with smoke, but most modern AFVs have some sort of system.
Armored vehicles won't fill your pantry, but they make great trophies.
Good Hunting.
History67
I suppose if you suspect they will use a particular route, you could just build
a deadfall trap. You need not make a nussiance of yourself either, A large,
deep hole with flat sides, covered so it
1. Looks like the rest of the road
2. can be driven on
Remember, armour is slightly heavier than your sedan, what will support traffic
might just catch you some steel.
Back hoes and bulldozers are pleantiful, have fun!
Banklash
>Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
>are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
As in after they have expended it all in your direction.
>Now, the good news is that if you are close enough, they can neither see you
>or shoot at you. The bad news is they are fully aware of this and often
>have small firing ports and a couple grenades to toss out hatches for just
>such an occasion. Also, there are escape hatches that you need to look out
>for. And beware of directional mines (claymores) placed on the hull.
Now for the reality: Tanks don't travel alone. They travel in packs with loads
of pesky infantry around for close in support. Only in an armor-on-armor battle
would the infantry in their Bradley's get left on the sidelines.
Also, M1s, as far as I know, don't have "firing ports" or an escape hatch
underneath.. Those "claymore mines" on the hull are reactive armor. They are
triggered by a hit from a shaped charge warhead and are designed to disperse
the focused gasses from the explosion.
Tankers are well aware of their limitations. They operate in combined arms
teams. If they come at you, you'll have helicoptors overhead, Bradleys scouting
out in front and on the flanks and undoubtedly some fixed wing aircraft on
call. It is an almost unstoppable juggernaut. It'll take a pretty big crowbar
to stop it.
Dave Marciniak
> Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
>
> Run if you can.
>
> If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
>
> Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
> are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
Try Dave's Mi-Ai Abrams tanks.
They're $19.95 each.
For that price you get a bag of inflatible tanks. Blow them up and they
look like the real thing. Each one measures 18 feet in width and 24 feet
in length. They weigh 80 tons and come five to a package.
Locate them on hillsides, in community halls or in your bedroom.
You can't lose.
CanopyCo
I beleave that the origonal post was that "the bad guys" had the tank.
I can beleave someone managing to steal a tank from the national gard. Seen it
once on real tv or some sutich. That will likly be 1 tank in the hands of some
wantabe soldurs. My personal plan in sutch a case is to notify the local
militairy personel of its last location and direction and get out of the county
fast. :-)
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Suppose the bad guys have tanks?
>From: bank...@aol.com (Banklash)
>Date: Fri, Sep 25, 1998 22:59 EDT
>Message-id: <19980925225915...@ng90.aol.com>
>
>
>>Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
>>are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
>
>As in after they have expended it all in your direction.
>
>>Now, the good news is that if you are close enough, they can neither see you
>>or shoot at you. The bad news is they are fully aware of this and often
>>have small firing ports and a couple grenades to toss out hatches for just
>>such an occasion. Also, there are escape hatches that you need to look out
>>for. And beware of directional mines (claymores) placed on the hull.
>
>Now for the reality: Tanks don't travel alone. They travel in packs with
>loads
>of pesky infantry around for close in support. Only in an armor-on-armor
>battle
>would the infantry in their Bradley's get left on the sidelines.
>
>Also, M1s, as far as I know, don't have "firing ports" or an escape hatch
>underneath.. Those "claymore mines" on the hull are reactive armor. They are
>triggered by a hit from a shaped charge warhead and are designed to disperse
>the focused gasses from the explosion.
>
>Tankers are well aware of their limitations. They operate in combined arms
>teams. If they come at you, you'll have helicoptors overhead, Bradleys
>scouting
>out in front and on the flanks and undoubtedly some fixed wing aircraft on
>call. It is an almost unstoppable juggernaut. It'll take a pretty big crowbar
>to stop it.
></PRE></HTML>
mj...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> In article <6uhbre$mt...@ns1.netrax.net>, "zorbo" <nos...@netrax.net> wrote:
>
>> Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
>>
>> Run if you can.
>>
>> If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
>>
>> are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
>
>
> They're $19.95 each.
>
> For that price you get a bag of inflatible tanks. Blow them up and they
> look like the real thing. Each one measures 18 feet in width and 24 feet
> in length. They weigh 80 tons and come five to a package.
> Locate them on hillsides, in community halls or in your bedroom.
>
them.
Andy Collier
> Now, the good news is that if you are close enough, they can neither see you
> or shoot at you. The bad news is they are fully aware of this and often
Well, during the gulf, we operated in combined arms - the Bradleys would
hose the tanks and each other with M60 or SAW - or the tanks would hose
each other with the coax 7.62 mg. (Anything less than 50 cal bounces off
for the most part). That pretty much kept the crunchies (Iraqi infantry)
from getting stuck in the tracks of the AFVs and M1's.
NOSPAM
>Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
>
>Run if you can.
>
>If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
>
>Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
>are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
It's best to attack their supply lines. The modern tank usees an
awesome amount of fuel per day. No fuel and they become nice
paperweights :-)
Frank
www.washtimes.com/investiga/investiga1.html
"Honest! I'm just a collector of militaria!"
-Frank Coleman
SWSURVIV1
can you say DYNAMITE?
Steve Strong owner of S.W. MI. SURVIVAL SUPPLY. Sam Andy Foods dealer.
Its better to have it now and throw it away in 20 years than need it at Y2K and
not have it. PGP Public Key available on request. Only the unprepared will
die young.
mj...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
How well have professional soldiers, say German troops in WWII fared against tanks, say Russian
T34's?
adam_p...@yahoo.com
other substance that when the two combined resulted in the production
of Acetelyne. When an engine sucks in Acetelyne it tends to do bad things
the idea was to place the two compunds in a glass jar inside a glass jar
close to the area you expected the tanks to be and rupture both containers
with a shot combining the two elements.
In article <6uhbre$mt...@ns1.netrax.net>,
"zorbo" <nos...@netrax.net> wrote:
> Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
>
> Run if you can.
>
> If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
>
> Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
> are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
> Now, the good news is that if you are close enough, they can neither see you
> or shoot at you. The bad news is they are fully aware of this and often
> have small firing ports and a couple grenades to toss out hatches for just
> such an occasion. Also, there are escape hatches that you need to look out
> for. And beware of directional mines (claymores) placed on the hull.
> Finally, don't discount the ability of a main gun's muzzle blast to mess up
> your day.
>
> Once you have them stopped (see how easy this is!) you could offer them a
> chance to surrender. If you aren't feeling that generous, molotov cocktails
> applied liberally to the engine compartment is pretty much your only choice.
> If they don't have an NBC filter system, you might be able to persuade them
> to come out with smoke, but most modern AFVs have some sort of system.
>
> Armored vehicles won't fill your pantry, but they make great trophies.
> Good Hunting.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Geoffrey L. Hardin
They are extremely simple to make, very effective and can be made quite
quickly.
Just a thought.
Geoffrey L. Hardin,
geo...@abcs.com
In article <dmarcini-250...@cmx1-pm1-160.dial.up.net>,
dmar...@up.net (Dave Marciniak) wrote:
> In article <6uhbre$mt...@ns1.netrax.net>, "zorbo" <nos...@netrax.net> wrote:
>
> > Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
> >
> > Run if you can.
> >
> > If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
> >
> > Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
> > are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
>
> Try Dave's Mi-Ai Abrams tanks.
>
> They're $19.95 each.
>
> For that price you get a bag of inflatible tanks. Blow them up and they
> look like the real thing. Each one measures 18 feet in width and 24 feet
> in length. They weigh 80 tons and come five to a package.
> Locate them on hillsides, in community halls or in your bedroom.
>
> You can't lose.
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
>I seem to remember learning about a trick involving magnesium and one
>other substance that when the two combined resulted in the production
>of Acetelyne. When an engine sucks in Acetelyne it tends to do bad things
>the idea was to place the two compunds in a glass jar inside a glass jar
>close to the area you expected the tanks to be and rupture both containers
>with a shot combining the two elements.
>
If the tanks are running internal combustion engines then acetylene
will cause them to self destruct. Acetylene will detonate when
compressed, as opposed to burning. Don't know how it'll work in the
turbines though.
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
NRA Life Member
Ham - N6SXR
Remove "REMOVETHIS" from address before replying
Rick Hamell
> hose the tanks and each other with M60 or SAW - or the tanks would hose
> each other with the coax 7.62 mg. (Anything less than 50 cal bounces off
> for the most part). That pretty much kept the crunchies (Iraqi infantry)
> from getting stuck in the tracks of the AFVs and M1's.
The only problem is this scratches the paint....
*grin*
Rick
zorbo
Banklash wrote in message <19980925225915...@ng90.aol.com>...
>Now for the reality: Tanks don't travel alone. They travel in packs with
loads
>of pesky infantry around for close in support. Only in an armor-on-armor
battle
>would the infantry in their Bradley's get left on the sidelines.
Read my post again.
>Also, M1s, as far as I know, don't have "firing ports" or an escape hatch
>underneath.. Those "claymore mines" on the hull are reactive armor.
I am familiar with reactive armor. It is found on modern top-o-the-line
Main Battle Tanks. But there are many more AFVs than just the M-1 Abrams and
the Challenger and claymores mounted on the hull has been used before. Let
us not forget the many armored cars available for bank-duty. As to the lack
of escape hatches, I don't know of any AFV that doesn't have a "non-obvious"
hatch somewhere.
>Tankers are well aware of their limitations. They operate in combined arms
>teams. If they come at you, you'll have helicoptors overhead, Bradleys
scouting
>out in front and on the flanks and undoubtedly some fixed wing aircraft on
>call. It is an almost unstoppable juggernaut. It'll take a pretty big
crowbar
>to stop it.
Assuming that they have the men and material to mount such an operation. If
they do, you're pretty much fucked. But it seems a lot more likely that
you'd face a small group of renegades intent on making themselves the local
warlords rather than a whole tank company with mech infantry and helos in
support.
zorbo
mj...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote in message ...
>How well have professional soldiers, say German troops in WWII fared
against tanks, say Russian
>T34's?
Depends on how much warning they had and what manner of gear was available.
Several ingenious gadgets have been developed for this purpose and a shaped
charge is relatively easy to improvise. (See the Frankford Arsenal "Black
Books" series)
Hey, I didn't say it would be easy, just that it could be done. (You'll
note my 1st bit of advice - "Run if you can.")
y.u.p
This seems a bit off topic in that its pretty unlikely anyone can afford to run
this
gear... do you know what a tanks fuel mileage is like??? However, it is
a question that has a straight forward answer... ever heard of the
Czech B40 anti-armour missile? Shoulder launched, punchs a hole
thru 2 feet of armour... favourite of former Soviet allies?
(Greg)
Zorbo:
No flames or disrespect intended but as a former serviceman with armor
experience I must take exception to most of your reasoning. For
clarity's sake I will state that I assume that you are talking about
anti-armor tactics used by civilians or guerrillas against a tank or
tanks employed by a standing army. If we're talking about a rogue
tank commandeered by "Spikey-Haired Mutants" in an EOTW scenario I
still object to most of your reasoning but I would grudgingly say that
it does get "easier".
OK, here goes: In my somewhat-educated opinion, the notion of
untrained, civilians taking on and defeating modern armor with field
expedient weapons in all but the most unlikely scenarios is either
romantic nonsense perpetrated by the movies or severe dementia.
Either way it's a quick way to get yourself killed.
Combat-ready tanks and AVFs are not invincible but from the lone
survivalist or small survival group's perspective (sans explosives)
they are close enough to being invincible to make the notion of
combating them absurd. I would say that an apt analogy would be
trying to kill a tiger face-to-face without a projectile weapon. The
only advice that makes any sense at all is to avoid contact, or as you
put it, "run". Forget tank traps; you cannot dig a hole big enough to
hinder a tank without a bulldozer.
Tanks, in the hands of the military, are never employed on their own;
they always have infantry close by. This is tried and true doctrine
worked out in actual combat from the Spanish Civil War to the Gulf
War. Any professionaly-trained aggressor who has the means to employ
armor against you will know this doctrine and follow it.
You obviously know this since you stated it in your post and recommend
dealing with the infantry while staying out of the armor's way.
Considering the close proximity of the two in combined-arms operations
and the effective ranges of the weapon systems involved the success of
taking out one or the other independently without equally modern and
effective weapons is wildly misguided reasoning.
If, for the sake of argument, we ignore the concept of protecting
infantry the approaches you recommend are still flawed. All of the
other tactics you cite such as molotovs, bars in the tracks and
pouring water down the hatch (?) require very close proximity to the
vehicle, which is inherently dangerous, and rely on a brand of luck
that is hard to come by more than once or twice in a lifetime.
Weapons like molotovs are overrated in their effectiveness against
armor. The molotov cocktail (a flammable liquid in a hand-thrown
glass container with some form of thickener and a rag wick) may have
been effective against WWII-era tanks with open ports and no
filtration systems but against buttoned up modern tanks the best you
can hope for is to scorch the paint and draw unwanted attention to
yourself. A saturation attack, especially on the cupola would
temporarily obscure the TC and gunner's vision but it would not hurt
the tank or AFV to any appreciable degree.
True, a molotov down the hatch would "kill" the tank since the crew
would be cooked or have to bail out but the likelihood of your being
in the exact position and circumstance to pull this off and survive is
remote at best. It certainly cannot be cited as a common tactic to be
practiced in all but the most unlikely (and desperate) circumstances
The other up-close-and-personal tactics you cite such as bars in the
suspension are dubious at best, especially since you need a buddy that
is as "brave " as you are to do the other track. I suppose in theory
it is possible, but again, the circumstances are so remote that you
cannot rely on it to be effective more than once; especially if you
again consider the escorting infantry that will be there to keep you
from getting in under the tank's deadspace.
Without modern anti-armor weapons, lots of explosives and proper
training the only tactic that I can see as being reasonably effective
against a tank or an armored force (other than avoidance) would be to
kill or disable the crew *before* they're combat-ready (i.e. when
they're in a chow line or off taking a dump) or to attack their
support system (another form of avoidance) like fuel dumps or
maintenance facilities.
Direct confrontations with combat-ready tanks or AFVs by Joe Average
is suicide in all but the most unlikely scenarios.
Again, no flames intended just friendly disagreement.
Respectfully,
Greg
Just say no to "tank tipping"!
>Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
>
>Run if you can.
>
>If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
>
>Its best to attack enemy armor when they are headed back to their base: they
>are more likely to be tired, inattentive and low on fuel and ammo.
Chris Watson
thermite (just what _is_ this stuff anyway?) and some home substances that
was concoted to defeat a tank. Without the training, I have no clue on how
to make one though...
--
Christopher D. Watson
Network Engineer
cdwa...@blackboard.com
Louis Boyd
>
> I remember in infantry training an 'eagle cocktail' that consisted of
> thermite (just what _is_ this stuff anyway?) and some home substances that
> was concoted to defeat a tank. Without the training, I have no clue on how
> to make one though...
>
is difficult to ignite, but once ignited it produces lots of heat
, molten iron, and aluminum oxide. There is no explosion or
blast effect. The heat does the damage. In sufficient quantity it
could melt it's way through a tank. Getting to the tank to
place it would be the problem. Thermit is commonly used
for certain types of welding. Thermite grenades exist. When
ignited and placed on most objects they will melt through in
a couple of minutes. It would problby take more than one to
go through the top of a modern tank.
Lou Boyd
Chris Watson
last choice. We put the Eagle Cocktail on the lid of the tank. A
_definitely_ deperate measure! In a crunch, you could use improvised
mines (need training) to try to blow a tread, though a more effective
means of defeating armor is to steal the AT weps of the OpFor.
> Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and powdered aluminum. It
> is difficult to ignite, but once ignited it produces lots of heat
> , molten iron, and aluminum oxide. There is no explosion or
> blast effect. The heat does the damage. In sufficient quantity it
> could melt it's way through a tank. Getting to the tank to
> place it would be the problem. Thermit is commonly used
> for certain types of welding. Thermite grenades exist. When
> ignited and placed on most objects they will melt through in
> a couple of minutes. It would problby take more than one to
> go through the top of a modern tank.
>
> Lou Boyd
--
Tony Fisher
> I remember in infantry training an 'eagle cocktail' that consisted of
> thermite (just what _is_ this stuff anyway?) and some home substances that
> was concoted to defeat a tank. Without the training, I have no clue on how
> to make one though...
IIRC, thermite is a mix of iron oxide (rust) and aluminium powder,
which, once ignited will burn at a very high temperature, and can
burn through metal. The problems would be getting close enough to
the armour without being killed and getting the device to stay put
once placed.
You try it while I run the other way... ;-)
--
Tony Fisher "...a 1"x1"x2" cube..." http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~mauvt/
PGP public key fingerprint A4 E5 7C A2 39 DC A8 31 36 E8 B2 C5 2F 59 1F 01
"This morning's unprecedented solar eclipse is no cause for alarm."
zorbo
(Greg) wrote in message <360fca8a...@news.primenet.com>...
>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 20:17:51 -0400, "zorbo" <nos...@netrax.net> wrote:
>
>Zorbo:
>
>No flames or disrespect intended but as a former serviceman with armor
>experience I must take exception to most of your reasoning. For
>clarity's sake I will state that I assume that you are talking about
>anti-armor tactics used by civilians or guerrillas against a tank or
>tanks employed by a standing army. If we're talking about a rogue
>tank commandeered by "Spikey-Haired Mutants" in an EOTW scenario I
>still object to most of your reasoning but I would grudgingly say that
>it does get "easier".
I'm prior service myself. I had in mind rogue military types as well as the
aforementioned "mutants".
>OK, here goes: In my somewhat-educated opinion, the notion of
>untrained, civilians taking on and defeating modern armor with field
>expedient weapons in all but the most unlikely scenarios is either
>romantic nonsense perpetrated by the movies or severe dementia.
>Either way it's a quick way to get yourself killed.
That seems likely. I didn't say otherwise.
>Combat-ready tanks and AVFs are not invincible but from the lone
>survivalist or small survival group's perspective (sans explosives)
>they are close enough to being invincible to make the notion of
>combating them absurd. I would say that an apt analogy would be
>trying to kill a tiger face-to-face without a projectile weapon.
That's about the size of it.
> The
>only advice that makes any sense at all is to avoid contact, or as you
>put it, "run". Forget tank traps; you cannot dig a hole big enough to
>hinder a tank without a bulldozer.
Ever hear of an "abatis"? A tank that throws a track is in trouble.
>Tanks, in the hands of the military, are never employed on their own;
>they always have infantry close by. This is tried and true doctrine
>worked out in actual combat from the Spanish Civil War to the Gulf
>War. Any professionaly-trained aggressor who has the means to employ
>armor against you will know this doctrine and follow it.
Agreed.
>You obviously know this since you stated it in your post and recommend
>dealing with the infantry while staying out of the armor's way.
>Considering the close proximity of the two in combined-arms operations
>and the effective ranges of the weapon systems involved the success of
>taking out one or the other independently without equally modern and
>effective weapons is wildly misguided reasoning.
I consider a scoped 30-06 a modern and effective weapon, at least against
infantry. It would be my first choice. (My AK would be my second choice)
Clearly, in open country, the armor will reign supreme. But I don't live in
open country.
>If, for the sake of argument, we ignore the concept of protecting
>infantry the approaches you recommend are still flawed. All of the
>other tactics you cite such as molotovs, bars in the tracks and
>pouring water down the hatch (?) require very close proximity to the
>vehicle, which is inherently dangerous, and rely on a brand of luck
>that is hard to come by more than once or twice in a lifetime.
Agreed. It would also require some amount of warning.
>Weapons like molotovs are overrated in their effectiveness against
>armor. The molotov cocktail (a flammable liquid in a hand-thrown
>glass container with some form of thickener and a rag wick) may have
>been effective against WWII-era tanks with open ports and no
>filtration systems but against buttoned up modern tanks the best you
>can hope for is to scorch the paint and draw unwanted attention to
>yourself. A saturation attack, especially on the cupola would
>temporarily obscure the TC and gunner's vision but it would not hurt
>the tank or AFV to any appreciable degree.
Engines must breathe. Would you be willing to sit in an AFV, even the most
modern, while I toss a couple mollies onto the engine compartment?
>True, a molotov down the hatch would "kill" the tank since the crew
>would be cooked or have to bail out but the likelihood of your being
>in the exact position and circumstance to pull this off and survive is
>remote at best. It certainly cannot be cited as a common tactic to be
>practiced in all but the most unlikely (and desperate) circumstances
I would consider a tank coming down my street with the intention of
"enslaving" the local populace to be a desperate circumstance.
>The other up-close-and-personal tactics you cite such as bars in the
>suspension are dubious at best, especially since you need a buddy that
>is as "brave " as you are to do the other track. I suppose in theory
>it is possible, but again, the circumstances are so remote that you
>cannot rely on it to be effective more than once; especially if you
>again consider the escorting infantry that will be there to keep you
>from getting in under the tank's deadspace.
True.
>Without modern anti-armor weapons, lots of explosives and proper
>training the only tactic that I can see as being reasonably effective
>against a tank or an armored force (other than avoidance) would be to
>kill or disable the crew *before* they're combat-ready (i.e. when
>they're in a chow line or off taking a dump) or to attack their
>support system (another form of avoidance) like fuel dumps or
>maintenance facilities.
Yes, that would be best.
>Direct confrontations with combat-ready tanks or AFVs by Joe Average
>is suicide in all but the most unlikely scenarios.
Most likely, but consider the alternative.
>Again, no flames intended just friendly disagreement.
That's okay, it wasn't meant as a serious post.
MMRRMIKKEE
jkcop...@mindspring.com
"weak link" on any tank. If a tank loses a track, it become a heat sink
with a big gun attached.
James...
qwa...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6uuto4$86q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>even tanks can be defeated by infantry, albeit with great risk. I think
>someone else would be better at answering this than me since i have no
>military experience but I do know that things like thermite and oxygen-iron
>rods can melt anything known to man, the only question is how much, how
fast.
>I think that if I were confronted with (a) tank(s), I would most certainly
>RUN and let someone else demonstrate their bravery.
>
>
>In article <36121e1a...@news.santafe.edu>,
> red...@hotmail.com (MMRRMIKKEE) wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 20:17:51 -0400, "zorbo" <nos...@netrax.net> wrote:
>> I say if the bad guys have tanks, then get a nice used A-10
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
qwa...@hotmail.com
Jester
If you can't hide you run until you get to someplace it can't go. Infantry can
take out a tank with a variety of weapons, the LAW comes to mind. I doubt very
many of us will be packing a LAW ((Although I know some of you will!!!)) If
confronted with a tank, I suggest you just hide or move along. If for some
reason you have to defeat the tank, then I suggest waiting it out. The people
inside have to come out sooner or later. Their food supply will run out
eventually, and I would think sooner than later, as they have chosen to attack
you with their tank.
With this fantastic (uh-huh) posting, I think I'm going to go buy a half dozen
LAWs and a couple of Stingers. I guess I could mount a Hellfire on the roof
and teach my wife how to use it?
If this post was put up here to indicate that a foreign army has invaded and you
are being confronted by tanks, then I suggest surrender or defeat, because a Tank
Company is just a support element for an Infantry Battalion, so you're gonna have
many soldiers around you if you have one tank.
Joseph Demko
>someone else would be better at answering this than me since i have no
>military experience but I do know that things like thermite and oxygen-iron
>rods can melt anything known to man, the only question is how much, how
fast.
>I think that if I were confronted with (a) tank(s), I would most certainly
>RUN and let someone else demonstrate their bravery.
>
My late uncle, a highly decorated WWII vet, told me that they heard rumors
in the European theater that the Soviets used trained dogs to destroy tanks.
Apparently, the dogs were trained to run beneath a tank (how do you get a
dog to do that?) carrying a doggie backpack full of explosive. He didn't
know how they triggered it, whether the dogs would do it when the tanks were
moving, or even if it was really done at all. I wouldn't put anything past
those whimsical low-tech Soviets, though.
MMRRMIKKEE
wrote:
It is true. Simple behavior mod. Put nice hunks of meat under tanks,
let the dogs associate tanks with meat. Next have tanks with engines
on, next have the rolling slowly. There you have it. I still say
just get a nice used A-10.
qwa...@hotmail.com
while ago:
The United States was experimenting with using bats (yes, the flying-mice
kind) to deliver tiny incendiary packages in a large city; the bats love to
hide in attic, roofs, barns, etc, all the best places to start a fire. well,
they dropped 1000 some odd of the little critters over a "practice city" made
of cardboard (or maybe it was an actual base/city?). All they wanted to do
was go through and count how many bats made it to their intended targets. As
you might guess, things didn't go smoothly...some error in paperwork had the
bats carrying actual incendiary devices rather than placebo ones, the entire
area burned to the ground in a matter of hours, even with a complete fire
crew fighting the blaze!
Weren't there experiments done with trained dolphins carrying explosives for
use against ships at sea? I can't remember.
In article <LVSQ1.449$k43.1...@news.sgi.net>,
"Joseph Demko" <mak...@usaor.net> wrote:
>
> qwa...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6uuto4$86q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >even tanks can be defeated by infantry, albeit with great risk. I think
> >someone else would be better at answering this than me since i have no
> >military experience but I do know that things like thermite and oxygen-iron
> >rods can melt anything known to man, the only question is how much, how
> fast.
> >I think that if I were confronted with (a) tank(s), I would most certainly
> >RUN and let someone else demonstrate their bravery.
> >
>
> My late uncle, a highly decorated WWII vet, told me that they heard rumors
> in the European theater that the Soviets used trained dogs to destroy tanks.
> Apparently, the dogs were trained to run beneath a tank (how do you get a
> dog to do that?) carrying a doggie backpack full of explosive. He didn't
> know how they triggered it, whether the dogs would do it when the tanks were
> moving, or even if it was really done at all. I wouldn't put anything past
> those whimsical low-tech Soviets, though.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
zorbo
by starving them and putting food under the tanks. The mine, in a "doggy
saddle bag", had a tall wand attached to the detonator - wand goes down,
bomb goes off.
Unfortunately the dogs would run under the nearest Russian tanks instead of
German tanks cuz they were trained with Russian tanks and could tell the
difference in shape.
Needless to say, after the initial deployments of this weapon system, it was
recalled and much self-criticism was engaged in.(Doubtless accompanied by
several executions)
The Germans did use dogs successfully as battlefield messengers and resupply
units. I have a photo in a book of a dog carrying grenades and ammo to some
krauts in a shell hole.
qwa...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6v1ehi$lpg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
(Greg)
>The dog-mine story is true. The way they got the dogs to run under tanks is
>by starving them and putting food under the tanks. The mine, in a "doggy
>saddle bag", had a tall wand attached to the detonator - wand goes down,
>bomb goes off.
>
>Unfortunately the dogs would run under the nearest Russian tanks instead of
>German tanks cuz they were trained with Russian tanks and could tell the
>difference in shape.
>
>Needless to say, after the initial deployments of this weapon system, it was
>recalled and much self-criticism was engaged in.(Doubtless accompanied by
>several executions)
>
>The Germans did use dogs successfully as battlefield messengers and resupply
>units. I have a photo in a book of a dog carrying grenades and ammo to some
>krauts in a shell hole.
The Germans had their own little version of this called Goliath. It
was a small robot tank controlled by a remote control. The idea was
similar in approach to the Russian dog-bombs in that when a Russian
tank would approach dug in infantry they would maneuver these little
tanks underneath the approaching tank.
Each Goliath carried an explosive charge which would be command
detonated once underneath the Russian tank. Like the Russian dogs,
the Goliath tanks saw limited service.
The real innovation in anti-armor warfare also came from the Germans
in the form of the Panzerfaust which was the first effective
one-shot-then-throw-away weapon. It really helped even the playing
field between infantry and armor.
Greg
Jester
The best weapon against a tank, is another tank. Let's just leave an
invasion to the military (they have pretty tanks that we paid for). If
the enemy infantry threaten us, we can snipe a few of them......but most
of us don't have the munitions to stop a tank.
(Greg)
Granted, the discussion of anti-armor techniques may be considered off
topic to most folks on this group it is assumed that the tanks will
either be someplace else or not rolling at all for one reason or
another.
However, the concept of using armor is not solely relegated to the
military. The same concepts apply to stopping heavy construction
equipment that has been commandeered by looters or other trouble
makers to overcome barriers or other defenses.
Remember, not all looters and rioters are skilless street scum. There
is bound to be a few people who know how to drive a dump truck,
garbage truck or a bulldozer. They'll get hungry and desperate right
along with the rest if things get bad enough.
I am not saying that construction workers or garbage collectors are
looters and pillagers at heart. I'm just saying that the concept of
using a big machine to bash your way into, or roll over an obstacle
does not take military training.
If I can think of it you can bet others have or will, too. Armor's
greatest asset is shock and brute force. Tanks are the highest
evolution of this but a D-9 Cat will do in a pinch especially against
untrained civilians.
Zorbo whimsically started the thread with tanks in mind, and I am the
first to say, just forget about fighting a tank without real anti-tank
weapons and training, but against improvised armor you do have a
chance if you give it some thought ahead of time.
Respectfully,
Greg
YMarvel904
Some one earlier had mentioned the Hungarian revolution. Hungarian citizens
battled soviet tanks and did destroy several. Molotov cocktails was one of the
implements of destruction used. Another was blowing gasoline thru a fire hose
and then a M cocktail. I liked that one. A book by James A. Michner (title long
ago forgoten) described it best.
Doug Lenertz
conus, doing their job, while others swoop in to take advantage / damage /
hostages. the topic is quite valid and informative.
Jester
saying that I don't expect to see any T-80's rolling down any of my
neighborhood streets anytime soon. A valid point was made about improvised
armor, such as heavy machinery, bulldozers and the like. Again, I would
have to pit ingenuity over braun in that fight, as I still am not going to
invest thousands of dollars into anti-tank weapons. If "an enemy" does
occupy this country (or invade), then I will have to hope and pray that my
group will be able to be as successful in guerilla warfare as those young
folks were in "Red Dawn". Those who drive tanks generally have anti-tank
weapons?
qwa...@hotmail.com
In article <3615fb64...@news.primenet.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Banklash
>anybody seen the movie "TANK"? Some tanks are in private hands.
How many have operational weapons? Where do you get 75mm rounds for a Sherman?
Jester
qwa...@hotmail.com wrote:
> anybody seen the movie "TANK"? Some tanks are in private hands.
>
Logistically, having a tank is a very bad idea. Most tanks get 4 or less MPG
and they are diesels. Finding shells for the big gun is expensive as
well. If you blow a track...god help you. I remember when I was in the
service and we'd come back from a field exercise. Those tank crews used to be
busy for the next couple weeks trying to get their tanks back into shape.
trie...@webtv.net
about doing in a tank.
Any abusive or threatening email will be laughed at, then deleted.
Personal homepage
http://members.tripod.com/~norg/bt.htm
mj...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
> I really can't believe that we've spent so much time discussing tanks?
> The best weapon against a tank, is another tank. Let's just leave an
> invasion to the military (they have pretty tanks that we paid for). If
> the enemy infantry threaten us, we can snipe a few of them......but most
> of us don't have the munitions to stop a tank.
The best defense against tanks are low speed aircraft armed with 37 mm and 40 mm cannon.
How does one obtain an A-10 or Attack helicopter?
Or will it be better to buy a WWII aircraft? Anybody got a Stuka they want to sell?
mj...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
>
>>anybody seen the movie "TANK"? Some tanks are in private hands.
>
Got machine tools? Make them.
Bud
Well, you could always go to the boneyard up at Davis Monthan AFB,
Tucson. Lots of planes (A-10's included) in long term storage up
there. Don't know what it might take to make them fit to fly though.
Bud
You have never lived until you have almost died.
to those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor
the protected will never know.
anonymously posted on a bunker at Khe Sahn, RVN
Like the song says, "All gave some, but some gave all."
remove the "spam" in the email address to reply
Arne Carlsten
: On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 16:20:26 GMT, Jester <tjj...@usaor.net> wrote:
: >I really can't believe that we've spent so much time discussing tanks?
: >The best weapon against a tank, is another tank. Let's just leave an
: >invasion to the military (they have pretty tanks that we paid for). If
: >the enemy infantry threaten us, we can snipe a few of them......but most
: >of us don't have the munitions to stop a tank.
Actually, the best weapn against a tank is an infantryman with a cheap
anti-tank missile or a laser-designator for artillery or tac-air.
Not that too many of us have any of that sitting in the hall closet...
: Granted, the discussion of anti-armor techniques may be considered off
: topic to most folks on this group it is assumed that the tanks will
: either be someplace else or not rolling at all for one reason or
: another.
Well, there are two "less-improbable" scenarios involving tanks and other
armored vehicles: armor being used by trained soldiers as a result of
invasion, military coup or such; and armor being used by opportunistic
soldiers and/or bandits after a collapse (insert your favorite collapse-
inducing scenario here).
Fighting trained soldiers in an armored task force who have a functioning
supply system just isn't a good idea. If that's what you're faced with,
do what any rational light infantry, guerrillas or other forces would do:
flee to someplace the tanks can't follow, and choose targets that are
softer. Shoot the guys driving the fuel trucks, shoot the UPS guy who's
delivering the repair parts, shoot the cooks and the pay clerks and so
on...
The looters-with-a-tank scenario strikes me as potentially more likely.
There are a lot of armored vehicles scattered about the country in Reserve
and Guard armories. But this dispersion also is to our benefit in
defending against folks who'd try to steal a tank or such and use it
against us: these Reserve and Guard units have no ammunition on hand for
the large caliber armament, nor do they have the bulk of the logistics
tail that is needed to keep an armored vehicle operational in the field
for a prolonged period of time. Main gun ammunition will be stored far
away, and doled out piecemeal for training and qualification firing.
Ammunition for the machineguns is also not stored at the armories; but
it's a lot easier to find .308 Winchester, and maybe even some .50 BMG,
than to find 25mm or 120mm...
That's not to understate the damage an M1 or Bradley could do with just
its 7.62mm machineguns and the vehicle itself; but it greatly reduces the
tank or AFV's effectiveness. Counter-mobility measures (cribs, ditches,
dragon's teeth and such) are much more effective if the attacking force
can't use artillery and explosive shells from main armaments to suppress
the defenders while infantry and engineers breach the obstacles.
: However, the concept of using armor is not solely relegated to the
: military. The same concepts apply to stopping heavy construction
: equipment that has been commandeered by looters or other trouble
: makers to overcome barriers or other defenses.
This is a good point. It doesn't take a multi-million dollar M1 or
Bradley to plow through your defenses. A Cat D-7 with some sandbags and
steel plate can do a lot of damage.
: Remember, not all looters and rioters are skilless street scum. There
: is bound to be a few people who know how to drive a dump truck,
: garbage truck or a bulldozer. They'll get hungry and desperate right
: along with the rest if things get bad enough.
: I am not saying that construction workers or garbage collectors are
: looters and pillagers at heart. I'm just saying that the concept of
: using a big machine to bash your way into, or roll over an obstacle
: does not take military training.
: If I can think of it you can bet others have or will, too. Armor's
: greatest asset is shock and brute force. Tanks are the highest
: evolution of this but a D-9 Cat will do in a pinch especially against
: untrained civilians.
: Zorbo whimsically started the thread with tanks in mind, and I am the
: first to say, just forget about fighting a tank without real anti-tank
: weapons and training, but against improvised armor you do have a
: chance if you give it some thought ahead of time.
Even against "real" armor it's not hopeless. Without the heavy ordnance,
a tank or AFV is just a guy with a machinegun behind some metal. He has
to get close enough to shoot you or crush you to do you any harm; and
obstacles will serve two purposes here: make it difficult for him to reach
you, and increase the chance that he'll get stuck or damage something, and
be trapped. If that happens, time is on _your_ side. A 12-year-old with
a .22 can always be spared to sit behind some rocks and wait for the
tankers to get thirsty enough...
An additional odd in our favor is that it's unlikely a gang that has
stolen a tank or two or a half-dozen APCs or such is going to be able to
keep them running for long. Nor will they be masters of fighting as a
combined arms team. Defense in depth, with an emphasis on counter-
mobility measures, will make your site a lot of work to take. More work
than they're likely to want to attempt, when there are much easier (and
safer) pickings elsewhere.
--
Arne Gustav Carlsten
Flagstaff, Arizona
Chomh da/na le muc...
Chris Watson
<a...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> An additional odd in our favor is that it's unlikely a gang that has
> stolen a tank or two or a half-dozen APCs or such is going to be able to
> keep them running for long. Nor will they be masters of fighting as a
> combined arms team. Defense in depth, with an emphasis on counter-
> mobility measures, will make your site a lot of work to take. More work
> than they're likely to want to attempt, when there are much easier (and
> safer) pickings elsewhere.
I am in agreement that the best defense is tank vs. tank. However, if my
correpondance with Zorbo is correct, I think we are considering and armed
populace versus and armed government scenario post Y2K. Chaos rules in the
streets and the Government is cracking down on Constitutional rights.
(Remember Waco! - Editor) The ability to find a way to defeat an armored
vehicle with initial tools through aquiring antitank waepons from the dead
enemy through using aquired vehicles is the thought process ere.
Chris
David L. Pope
>
> Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
>
> Run if you can.
>
> If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
[snip]
How much does your 'average' tank weigh? If you can't penetrate the armor,
perhaps you can just flip the thing on its back. One could even set a 'snare' so
you don't need to be in the area.
Random
Jeff Schwartz
>
> zorbo wrote:
> >
> > Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
> >
> > Run if you can.
> >
> > If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
>
> [snip]
>
> How much does your 'average' tank weigh?
35 to 45 tons.
>If you can't penetrate the armor,
> perhaps you can just flip the thing on its back. One could even set a 'snare' so
> you don't need to be in the area.
Don't know about that ... but soft ground so it sink in, weakend bridges,
stuff like that would reduce mobility.
-----
In Hungary, the locals put metal pie-pans open-side down all over the
road. The Russians interperted these as land-mines, and waited around
until an EOD team showed. After a couple days, the Russians started
ignoring the pie-pans, and driving over them.
Thats when the Hungarians started adding real mines to the mix. Not many
(they didn't have many) , but just enough to get the Russians nervous
again, and make them send EOD out for all the pie-pans.
Didn't kill many tanks, but it did bottle them up for a while.
-----
Had a Hebrew School teacher tell a story about the Yom Kippur war - his
unit was assigned anti-tank duty. They had a scout helicopter and rifles.
They rummaged around a dump, and using tire valves and coke bottles and
glue, made glass containers holding 2-3atm of air.
When dropped from the chopper onto the tanks, they made a huge noise, and
did no damage. The chopper would then fly off. Inevitably, the tank crew
would wait a while, then become curious about how bad the damage was.
When they got out to look, the snipers became effective :)
----
>
> Random
PS: Seen Fiona lately?
(Greg)
<ran...@lucent.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>How much does your 'average' tank weigh? If you can't penetrate the armor,
>perhaps you can just flip the thing on its back. One could even set a 'snare' so
>you don't need to be in the area.
>
> Random
Mr. Pope:
Your average main battle tank weighs in anywhere from 50 to 70 tons;
an average APC runs 13 to 25 tons. As for flipping it on its back I
would have to say that the chances are pretty slim.
Tanks were designed to breach obstacles like trenches and barbed wire.
They have excellent cross country capability and they are damned heavy
and can crush most conventional obstacles you can think of.
Sure, tanks can get stuck and they can throw a track and if you had a
big enough hole you could trap one if the crew will oblige you by
driving into it. However, without dedicated engineering equipment I
don't see anti-tank obstacles being too prolific in your average
American neighborhood. An American M1A2, for instance, has a
trench-spanning range of almost 3 meters. That would be a hell of a
ditch to dig with a shovel!
If you had some heavy lift capability such as a crane or front loader
I suppose you could commandeer some of those cement barriers they put
on highways to divide lanes of traffic. These would make decent
"dragon's teeth" and would present a respectable obstacle to a tank.
In fact, it was these concrete dividers that high-centered the nut who
stole a National Guard M60 a few years ago in San Diego.
Natural barriers present the most practical anti-armor obstacles to
the civilian. Heavy woods, mountains, swamps and canyons are not
tank-friendly. For folks in the Midwest or for me here in the desert
Southwest it's a bit more difficult.
SIncerely,
Greg
Bud
>zorbo wrote:
>>
>> Assuming you don't have military approved anti-tank weapons:
>>
>> Run if you can.
>>
>> If you can't and are feeling exceptionally brave that day:
>
>[snip]
>
>How much does your 'average' tank weigh? If you can't penetrate the armor,
>perhaps you can just flip the thing on its back. One could even set a 'snare' so
>you don't need to be in the area.
>
> Random
Somewhere around 54 tons.
MULTIFROG
About 450 lbns of agricultural dynamite will flip a tank. The hard part is
getting it to roll over your trap:)
M.F.
zorbo
Chris Watson wrote in message ...
>I am in agreement that the best defense is tank vs. tank. However, if my
>correpondance with Zorbo is correct, I think we are considering and armed
>populace versus and armed government scenario post Y2K. Chaos rules in the
>streets and the Government is cracking down on Constitutional rights.
>(Remember Waco! - Editor) The ability to find a way to defeat an armored
>vehicle with initial tools through aquiring antitank waepons from the dead
>enemy through using aquired vehicles is the thought process ere.
Good point.
People who want to make sure they have the "best" rifle/handgun/etc. are
probably wasting their time.
Your enemies will provide you with all the weapons you need, if you live.
If you don't live, you won't need any weapons.
If you have no enemies, whatever you already have is enough.
"There is no such thing as a deadly weapon. Only deadly people."