No you didn’t. You provided a Huffpo article devoid of real facts and information. According to the Huffpo and most civilians everything with armor is a tank. Before the Obama rule how many police departments had working tanks? The answer is none. Ever been in a tank? Do you understand the logistical train it takes to maintain one? Do you understand what you have to do to just get it ready to fire? Do you understand that you just can’t pick up ammo for it at the local sporting goods store? Do you understand it consumes 6 gallons per mile of jet fuel? Do you understand they break just sitting while parked? Do you understand that it wouldn’t be able to cross many bridges or drive down roads without tearing them up unless driven very carefully? No police department is getting a tank. Some will get armored vehicles because they are cheaper than Bearcats but that’s it. Like the “tank” in the picture in the article you posted which is actually an armored vehicle designed specifically for police use and not the military.
Mentioned in the initial link…but I will concede that the official word on what will be authorized won’t be known until we see what the executive order actually says.
No it means that it’s not a federal requirement. Local governments can still control what their police departments acquire. Especially in the case of vehicles where the initial cost might be negligible but there will be an ongoing maintenance cost. They of course will have to budget for that.
The only reason to think it would include (actual) tanks is general news reporters’ loose terminology referring to any armored vehicle as a ‘tank’. It’s a roll back to a previous policy. The previous policy often included wheeled armored transport vehicles with no fixed armament like MRAP’s being supplied to police departments. In some cases it included tracked armored personnel carriers with no fixed armament (M113 family). The provision of either of those types might be questioned depending on numbers, circumstances, what the cost of manning and maintaining them is, even if they’re ‘free’ upfront, and so forth. But it never included actual tanks in recent history. That’s a red herring, and ‘prove it doesn’t include tanks’ is approaching ‘prove you’re not a camel’.
No, it wasn’t, at least not that I can see. You’ve specifically claimed here that “This roll-back allows for weaponized armored transport”. That word, “weaponized” has a specific meaning and the HuffPo article does not say anything about “weaponized armored transport”. It mentions “tracked armored vehicles”. Do you understand that “weaponized” and “tracked” are two different words with very different meanings?
ETA: BTW, this appears to be the official Presidential action on the matter.
That’s not true. All it means is that when applying to get the equipment the federal government is not looking for an approval from local government. Police departments are subordinate to their elected leadership. Mayors and councils can not interfere with police matters like how investigations are conducted or who gets arrested but they certainly can have a say in the logistical end of a police department. If a council says no to equipment the department won’t apply.
I can’t say the same for county departments run by and elected sheriff. We have county freeholders that are involved but I’m sure it’s different around the country.
A lot of people don’t understand the difference between a tank, an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Armored Personal Carrier, armored car or just a military-ish looking truck.
These are not vehicles used in every-day policing. They are called in for riots or with SWAT teams when you have some sort of Charles Whitman, Boston Marathon Bomber or 1997 North Hollywood shootout situation where terrorists, criminals or other assorted lunatics have the standard police out-gunned.
Like a little boy with a hammer, give it to the police, and they’ll find a use for it. We’ve already seen the “warrior mentality” out there – see the Balko book. With more weapons, this could get worse, and this is why some are worried.
You’re absolutely right. I’m good with the military giving local police departments surplus equipment that is just the military’s version of stuff you’d see in normal civilian life.
But that isn’t exactly what we’re talking about here, is it?
Re: Tank Debate
The Obama EO prohibited “tracked armored vehicles” which are “vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.” Separately, all weaponized vehicles were also specifically prohibited, regardless of whether they were also tracked armored vehicles. So I think it’s fair to say that the revoked EO prohibited tanks.
The disconnect, I expect, is that while the revoked EO prohibited tanks, that doesn’t mean it was the only policy or regulation doing so.
I know. A good journalist would probably seek to gain that understanding and then explain it to their readers. HuffPo are not good journalists in my view. They’ve duped our beloved Czarcasm into believing tanks are coming.
I must apologize for confusing the wording on that article with the ones from The New York Times, Washington Post and a slew of others. Among the items that are being unbanned are tracked armored vehicles and weaponized aircraft, among other things.
Weaponized aircraft?
Please recommend a source you trust, then.
Cite?
My understanding is that under the new rules the feds won’t require police departments to get permission from their local government. By the doesn’t mean the local government won’t require their own police department to get permission.
As an retired Armor officer, let me first address one of my big pet peeves with the media. They call every big vehicle with armor a tank even when they clearly aren’t tanks. Whether that’s a result of the widespread ignorance of the differences or fueling that ignorance, it produces big misunderstandings.
Reasons I saw for use of light armored vehicles in law enforcement support tasks, that the media likes to call tanks while my teeth grind, during my time in the Guard:
- I was in the Michigan Guard during the time of the Malice Green trials. My Company Commander at the time had an officer’s call where we reviewed the OPLAN (Operations Plan) the state had developed in case the National Guard was required to respond. It was only 25 years after the 67 Detroit Riot so there was insitutional memory of just how very, very bad that could be. My tank battalion was the state reserve in case things got very bad. We weren’t taking out tanks. We were supposed to take the armored personnel carriers (M113, along with the mortar (without the mortar itself) and command post variants of the M113. The majority of our M113s were from the battalion medical platoon where they served as ambulances. The planned usage in Detroit was based on the same factors that made us use them as ambulances. They offered protected mobility. They also offered the capability to ignore/drive over a lot of improvised barricades and roadblocks. Responding to something like snipers pinning first responders (in Detroit in 1967 that included fire fighters) or non-first responder civilians becomes a lot easier with protection from small arms. It also offers options short of deadly force, with it’s risks of collateral casualties, when responding. It also offers options for use of force that are more limited, like driving troops up to the door of an apartment building housing a sniper so they can go inside and focus on just him instead of just shooting up the building.
- The Michigan NG also operated a Counter-Drug Task Force that supported state and local law enforcement. It was entirely manned by full-time personnel. The state provided air capability, to supplement police assets, for reconnaissance and to provide rotary wing lift in and out of areas not readily accessible to normal police vehicles. They also operated several variants of the USMC LAV-25; the variant did not include the armed turret. Those offered superior cross country mobility over even the SUV equipped law enforcement. They also offered protection. Part of the threat they were addressing included marijuana fields on public land protected by small arms fire and anti-personnel boobytraps (which included explosive devices aka IEDs.) Protected mobility improved police officer safety and reduced the odds of things turning into what is essentially a small unit infantry fight in the middle of public land. Incidentally I did see the vehicles they operated referred to as “tanks” …again with lots of grinding teeth on my part.
There really is a use case for what are colloquially mislabeled as “tanks” in law enforcement operations. Whether that’s provided as a supplement from the Guard or located inside civilian law enforcement is more of an organizational issue. There are advantages and disadvantages to both schemes. Better mobility and protection is an asset whichever organizational scheme is chosen. It’s an asset that can even enable lower usage of deadly force by offering options to law enforcement besides simply shooting back. Mislabeling every armored vehicle that looks scary as a tank obscures reality by making people think of this instead of this.
The definition of tank is “a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track”, right? I just want to make sure that I use the correct words when it comes to this subject.
AIUI, not just any guns, but has to be something of big caliber, i.e., 80-120mm. There is also something that makes a tank different in definition than a mobile howitzer like a Paladin, but can’t quite figure out what.
What do you mean by “carrying guns?” A Prius can carry guns. A tank has a weapons system incorporated into the design. It’s primary purpose is the main gun. Armored personnel carriers can “carry guns” but the are designed to carry personnel. Remove the gun from an APC and it still works.
Apparently he has signed the order and the White House has released a copy of it, but I can’t find it-help?
I was just going off of several dictionary definitions. If there is an official government definition, please post.