How to stop a stolen tank?

If you can get an Abrams going 45 mpg you’re a much better man than the Army ever knew.

Now 45 mph I could readily believe. :smiley:

I was listening to the news for the San Diego incident, and one of the things they reported (true or not, I dunno) was that a response team with hand-held anti-tank weaponry was “on its way” from Camp Pendleton. That seems like a not-unreasonable thing to do: load 'em in a truck and go.

Concertina wire? Huh.

Well, since you brought it up…Heemeyer killdozer one on one with IDF D-9. Let’s say killdozer being operated by crazed amateur psychopath and D-9 by appropriately trained IDF operator. Arena is small urban terrain.

Who would you bet?

Step 1: Obtain a helicopter with a fire-retardant foam cannon. Also recruit a very fast man.

Step 2: Helicopter foams the tank, covering all peep holes and periscopes.

Step 3: Wait until the driver either get hung up on an obstacle or can’t drive without visibility. Then the very fast man can plant a C4 charge on the tread and score a mobility kill.

Step 4: Load the tank onto a flatbed truck and dump it in jail. The rest left as an exercise for the Department of Corrections.

I bet on the IDF D9. Better visibility and that remote controlled cannon. Killdozer soon be deaddozer.

Two fairly immutable rules of combat: Amateurs don’t win against pros. Amateur-designed weapons don’t win against pro designed weapons.

There are no guarantees in combat. But my money’s all on the IDF here.

Or

Step 4: Drop it off a bridge into a river. The rest is left as an exercise for the operator.

:smiley:

They used tear gas in Aus. in 1993. http://i.imgur.com/ZiBQ7pd.jpg

Quote: “There was nothing we could do to stop it because it can climb over whatever you put in it’s way.”

Thank you for the answers everyone!

Well while it would certainly make good television I was kind of thinking how the authorities would best balance speed and effectiveness at stopping the tank with public safety. :slight_smile:

They got rid of the tanks in my state back in 2005 but that’s how they did it then. One tank at each of the line companies. Half of the others on our books were at Fort Dix, the other half were at Fort Drum. Of course we couldn’t maintain physical control of them. They were frequently loaned out to other units and were beat to shit when we got them.

I don’t know about you but I was never in a tank that wasn’t leaky. Having burning gasoline leak down on my head would be pretty effective.

I can’t talk about those special tanks. You don’t have clearance.

*** With a note to everyone who’s not Loach, there are a lot of acronyms I didn’t bother to spell out because that wouldn’t help much by itself.

Our tanks weren’t shared. The state had it’s own National Guard facility we trained at. For part of my time as PL we even got to keep them inside MATES’ climate controlled building. My 5.5 years and 6 ATs combined as a PL and then line Company XO were all in a unit a little over an hour from MATES. It was common for us to hold first formation at MATES. We scheduled aggressively to make most field training months a MUTA-5 so we spent a lot of time with our babies. Both of the Company Motor Sergeants in that period were also stunningly good; both also worked as the full time state technician supervising the satellite OMS located in our armory. I may have forgotten just how spoiled I was before your reminder.:stuck_out_tongue:

The M60A3s I started on came to us out of depot rebuild two years before so they were in great shape. It wasn’t all that hard to keep up on things when the parts could be had. The M1s were only to 10/20 standards before coming to us. Their issues were numerous and sometimes bizarre.* There were generally important things to fix before replacing a mangled seal. Even on them the leaking was more a slow and torturous drip IME. I’m not sure how much gas would have a chance to get through in the time it burned and if it would still be burning getting through the gaps.

It is a good point though. My unit was extremely well off. That’s not the norm. The crappy training set we drew from for an OPFOR mission would make me a lot less comfortable with a Molotov. A hash look could make some of them abort, throw track, or both.

    • Including “Christine” the tank in a sister company that would just startup sometimes.

While i could jam the track of any parked tank with relatively little effort, jamming the track of a tank in motion is another story.

If i had to stop one in short order, i suppose i would use some concrete construction barriers.
Those are pretty available in short order.
A few rows spaced apart could create somewhat of an adhoc tank trap should it try to climb over them.

Im not really going to do much as far as shooting it or blowing it up without outside assistance.

Was that OPFOR mission in the early 90s? For…can’t remember what they called it, was the first of a series of training exercises for active duty Army units, if I recall correctly. Seem to remember something about the Army thinking about turning Gowen Field into an intrinsic training post ala the NTC at Irwin or the JRTC at Polk

The little deli I worked at during that time made our yearly overhead and bonus from which ever unit it was (were?) that was visiting.

And from my experience with IDNG you know my brother…

Back half of the 90s and it was for an Enhanced Readiness Brigade in the Guard. All that cool spiffy new equipment, real parts budgets, and extra training days they had made them fun to kick the dog snot out of.

I was only at Gowen for that 2 week AT. If he was a 19K net instructor I probably saw him. Sergeant Somebodyorother, right? :stuck_out_tongue:

Bumped.

Sometimes you really, really want a bottle of Russian wine: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/tank-russia-man-steals-wine-bottle-supermarket-armoured-vehicle-apatity-a8152861.html

There was some discussion about Halon fire extinguishers on the other thread. Halon is far from dangerous to human life; this is a common myth. In fact, CO2 is worse. Halon does not combine with oxygen and after use, the only problems will be whatever damage the fire did. The reason Halon has been withdrawn is because it is a CFC and production stopped in 1994. I have seen Halon work and it is magic - the fire just stops; I can easily see why you would want to use it in an environment like the inside of a tank.

Sticky bomb! Hey, it worked for Tom Hanks.

The pictures I saw looks like a variant of the MT-LB. Vaguely that makes it an armored personnel carrier although it was more used as a utility vehicle with tracks than for actually carrying infantry. It weighs less than a fifth of what later variant Abrams do.

A lot suggested here would work. Even a .50 caliber sniper rifle with armor piercing ammunition could penetrate at reasonable ranges. It is also not a tank.

You have to make do when it’s time for the beer run and you are already drunk. :wink:

Didn’t work too good for the lucky guy with the short fuse. And also not so good for the rest of they guys dancing around the tank they succeeded in killing when the Germans brought the FlaK 38 up.

It’s tank because every tracked armored combat vehicle is a tank, and every rifle is an AK-47, etc.

Stupid press. (Willfully stupid, probably, because they don’t care about the real distinctions and assume no one else does either.)