"Don't Be Alarmed": Army Trains MPs To Drive Tanks On U.S. Streets

My gods people...calm down.

Those are NOT tanks. They are NOT heavily armored. They simply are armored patrol vehicles. They aren't even APCs. A modern APC is more dangerous then that thing.

reply to post by Foxe


Good point, I live near a major army base and a air national guard base so I see Humvees on the road from time to time. Sometimes real tanks like the M1 Abrams will roll through the outskirts of town on the train tracks. That is a little bit unnerving simply because it looks like a mobilization for war, but nothing to be afraid of. I highly doubt any of the vehicles are loaded with ammo.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Good!!!! If anyone even thinks about invading this country the last obstacle in our way should be our troops not knowing how top operate tanks on its won territory. How freaking dumb would that be?

These army dudes can drive a tank through the forest and rivers and all kinds of uneven terrain, you think they're going to lock up with uncertainty when they hit a paved road?

Even though I sense a ulterior motive for the training, it may have more to do with the fact that your average battle tank would shred your average paved road without road tracks on.

Also a further note.

It is illegal to drive true tanks on roads unless ofc wartime. Treads rip up the asphalt and it needs serious replacement after the fact. Tanks are also not something you -want- to use in the urban environments (see Syria) if you can help it [can't always help it]

A light, fast, mobile vehicle like this one is instead used. A: Quick, wheeled, won't ruin roads. B: Not as expensive a loss as a tank.

Losing a tank can hurt your ability to fight an army. Losing an APC or a Scout / Recon / Security armored vehicle is less drastic of a loss. In a tactical POV.

Regardless, these are NOT TANKS.

Perhaps I am missing something but why MPs. Why do the Military Police need to run around in armored vehicles in civy land?

P

Originally posted by pheonix358
Perhaps I am missing something but why MPs. Why do the Military Police need to run around in armored vehicles in civy land?

P

I have to say this was the question burning through my mind as I was reading this post, MP's (Military Police) should have absolutely no need what so ever for any kind of armoured vehicle, whether it is an APC or a tank or are the fights between drunken sailors and soldiers so bad now they need to be broken up with a tank?

My only thought as to why MP's would need armoured vehicles is to support regular police in a crisis situaton, such as a civil insurrection, and this would have to be on their own soil because if it was in a different country then regular troops would do it.

A lot of you people are brushing this off, don't just presume it is a normal military exercise, there is absolutely nothing normal about MP's train to use armoured vehicles under any circumstances. Add that to recent reports of DHS buying hundreds of millions of ammunition and also tendering for urban combat weapons with muzzle suppressors, people should be worrying about this, it is very strange

reply to post by PrinceDreamer
MPs have had these for years now. My unit was right next to an MP unit in 2008 and believe it or not they even had armored amphibious vehicles that were wheeled. Can't cite the model, but I'll admit it always struck me as odd.

I'll repeat. Military trains, Jones cries, nothing new.

With the world and such disarray and the ever present threat of all out world war, would it not make sense to train our soldiers to fight on our own soil? As an American citizen, do you feel so secure that no would would ever dare invade U.S soil? As far fetched as it may sound, our military trains for every contingency. I see this as no different.

That's not even considering how more and more often, combat occurs in an urban setting.

Spin it however you want, but I see this as a proactive approach to an ever changing field of battle.

I have a friend in the military that trains for civil defense every single week.

Good news is, most of the military is on our side.

This is why they train private security firms and paramilitary because they have no allegiance to us or this country.

Preparing for nationwide riots perhaps?

People are getting very restless in other parts of the world. Maybe they are worried that North America is next.

How come when they do these equipment movements they always buy fuel at pilot truck stops lol?

It is called MOUT (military ops in urban terrain) and it has been going on for as long as war has been going on. Do you think that WW1 took place in a barren field somewhere? No all wars involve urban terrain.

www.globalsecurity.org...

If you think driving a tank on streets is bad have you ever driven a rental car on a tank trail? I did. It was a lot of fun. Hertz sued me for that.

All that not withstanding, yeah the hell is coming to you sooner or later.

reply to post by Black_Fox


It just might happen that sometime they may need to drive these vehicles within the city limits. Transporting them from one base to another just as is happening with this story.
Why is this a thread?
Can I start a thread about buses and cars driving on military bases and what the meaning of that could be ?

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


There was a story on faux news a couple days ago. It was about a New Jersey cop that went nuts at his ex wife's house in Pennsylvania. They showed some kind of APC vehicle doing doughnuts in the front yard. It just seemed very strange that a small municipality like that would have vehicles like that. Maybe it was from a larger force than I am aware, but still?? Google it. It seemed that they really wanted us to see that hardware.

reply to post by denynothing


I live in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Anyone famaliar with the area knows that I am virtually surrounded by the military at every quarter. I see tanks on the road from time to time. I see lots of convoys for military vehicles going from one base to another. It always gets everyones attention when a military "parade" goes by but no one goes running to the house to turn on CNN to see if the country is at war.

reply to post by Xaphan


Not on the weekend. That is for barbeques and family. The war rally is Mon-Fri only and ends at 5:00PM because thats when we go home for dinner.

reply to post by Numbers33four


Yeah, I was going to say that too. Unless you get in a time machine and go back to the Civil War all wars are fought in urban settings. It does not make sense to send the soldiers out to the country when the bad guys live in town.

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Numbers33four

 

Yeah, I was going to say that too. Unless you get in a time machine and go back to the Civil War all wars are fought in urban settings. It does not make sense to send the soldiers out to the country when the bad guys live in town.

Now it is all moot. Just send in the drones and the prez will watch it like porn.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

This is how they slowly desensitize the civilian population to accept large military vehicles driving down the street. In a few years we will become conditioned, and finally they will arrive at our house to take us to our assigned FEMA camp sites.

I don't follow the leap of logic.

First - these training programs aren't going to be done in rush-hour traffic. Why? Because lawyers and newscasters will have orgasm-induced heart-attacks when a Town&Country minivan mixes it up with a Bradley Assault Vehicle with a predictable outcome. So - there's not much of an opportunity to desensitize us.

Second - I fail to see how tanks driving through your cul-de-sac is going to desensitize anyone. If anything - it will cause the more paranoid in our nation to go ape # and start shooting - which is only gong to fan the flames when people in said heavy armor exercise self-defense. Which would result in a nation-wide panic because all the books and videogames of false Orwellian utopias would suddenly be vindicated.

Third - Let's say you're used to seeing tanks drive through your town. Just as you are used to seeing police cars patrol the local parks.

How does that translate into a sudden willingness to comply with an order to leave your home and join a camp?

Moreover... what is there for anyone to gain in doing such a thing (including "the powers that be" - who, being as in control as they allegedly are, already enjoy more profit and power than could ever be attained by reigning over tent cities with virtually no industrio-economic capability)?

Especially for the soldiers... why would I follow an order to haul you in? What's in it for me? A pay check? Sorry - don't pay me enough to get shot at by people who hunt deer regularly and aren't a problem to society. Selection of the detained women? Might work for some - but human psychology tends to favor pair bonding and the competition for progeneracy has, essentially, formed the basis for human psychological evolution and society. A shift from the current system by which almost every male is guaranteed a chance to have children (combined with every woman's ability to select a mate) is going to be met with considerable resistance. Just because a soldier gets to lead a small harem in payment for compliance doesn't necessarily mean his children will - and this logic will not escape our minds and hormones evolved to compete in such hierarchies.

Plus - a land campaign in the U.S. is suicide. Even worse ideas involve putting tanks in cities, anyway. They are bullet and explosive magnets. If it goes boom - it will be levied against that piece of heavy armor. Sure - not an issue when it's 5.56 and 7.62 rounds - but there's simply not enough security on supplies of anti armor weapons to preserve that advantage for long against a nation with arms proliferation of 50% current and over 100% potential.

If it doesn't have the overwhelming support of the population - even 'fringe' elements consisting of less than 5% of the population could effectively stone-wall an full-scale military campaign (of almost any scale that could be assembled, practically, by any nation or combinations of nations on the planet - to include our own).

Unless you factor in strategic weapons - nuclear/biological weapons, area effect bombing, etc - but at that point, you're not aiming to conquer a population. You'd be aiming to exterminate it.

In which case - you wouldn't bother training soldiers to drive tanks through streets that will be melted by the intense thermal radiation of nuclear weapons. You'd simply launch a few nuclear weapons and watch as near-autonomous MADD responses effectively dismantle most modern industrial population centers for decades before the surviving smaller regions can effectively re-network around the damage and reconstruct destroyed manufacturing means.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Right?
That's exactly what crossed my mind..lol

I don't have any heavy artillery in my preps yet.