Should We Have Grey Army Tanks? - Page 2

lord of the mark · February 12, 2003, 18:09

re: tanks at airports

Obviously theyre worried about someone trying to get INTO the airport, not out from it. Presumably to go grab a plane and use it as a weapon again. here in washington we've got stinger missiles around, and fighters on patrol. clearly intel must indicate an airborne threat.

Here in the US when they want to protect a building they tend to use humvees - stationed around the pentagon for example (both forest camouflage and later desert cam) Of course they had it laid out so youd have to drive straight by the humvees and get blasted by machine guns to get by. Perhaps the layout of Heathrow makes a humvee less useful? or they dont have enough humvees???

Sprayber · February 12, 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I don't see any tanks in the photos.

That's because your from a country that knows what real tanks are.

Az · February 12, 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Obviously theyre worried about someone trying to get INTO the airport, not out from it. Presumably to go grab a plane and use it as a weapon again. here in washington we've got stinger missiles around, and fighters on patrol. clearly intel must indicate an airborne threat.

and a ta.. *looks at MtG* an armored vehicle will help them how in stopping someone to get into the airport?

MichaeltheGreat · February 12, 2003, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I just remembered that the last army to paint its tanks grey was the Wehrmacht (and they were made to stop in 1945). Perhaps painting British Army tanks grey would give the wrong impression - then again, perhaps not

Actually, they only painted them grey until late 1941 in the European theater (African front vehicles were shipped from the factory with desert sand or desert pink base colors as soon as factory mods were ordered for service in Africa), then unauthorized field mods of grey + forest green, grey + rust brown, or all three colors became predominant. From late 1942, ochre yellow was the official base color, with field units authorized to make two and three color camoflage patterns with the same green and brown secondary colors to match local conditions and seasons.

Around November 1944 (depending on the factory) shortages of paint caused most new vehicles and guns other than heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyers to again be shipped in grey for all remaining production to the end of the war.

MichaeltheGreat · February 12, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

and a ta.. *looks at MtG* an armored vehicle will help them how in stopping someone to get into the airport?

They're IFVs, with a 30mm chain gun and a NATO standard 7.62 mm coaxially mounted medium machine gun, all keyed to a gunner's magnifying sight and slew and firing controls. About the most stable medium weapon platform you can get, with exceptional accuracy out to ~800 meters for the MMG mount, and about 2,500 meters for the chain gun. (Both are ballistically limited by the rounds fired, not the platform.)

Whether they have the lines of sight and fields of fire is another question, but if you had to pick a vehicle out of a line 600 meters away, that'd be the tool of choice.

Another question would be whether they're idling and in position to move forward and block an entering vehicle, even a car bomb. At Narita airport in Tokyo, terrorist threats for decades have cause the Japanese to keep an armored bus running in position to close off the entrance road and block/ram/intercept any potential car bomb or gate runners who try to force their way past the initial security inspection. The Jieitai has kept a composite reinforced company of light infantry and mechanized infantry as a permanent perimeter security force at Narita since it opened.

Az · February 12, 2003, 18:40

They're Scorpions, IIRC.

That's not the point MtG. I don't think they'll be able to recognize the target properly.

What if they'll fire a 30mm round into... a fuel dump?

MichaeltheGreat · February 12, 2003, 20:58

IFV = Infantry Fighting Vehicle as a generic, instead of "tank"

but yep, they look like Scorpions from what I remember. (I don't much pay attention to second tier armies' equipment

)

I'd assume they'd be called onto a target, but using the 30 chain gun could be a bit dicey. Not likely to hit a fuel dump, but you wouldn't want to be in the neighborhood of a target as light as a car, or within a few hundred meters downrange, either.

KrazyHorse · February 12, 2003, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli

HTF putting armoured vehicles in airports helps? What do they expect, a battalion of Al-Quaeda tanks rolling in from Jumbos?

It's just a pathetic attempt by the Brit goverment to get more support to the Iraq war.

Who are you, and what have you done with Eli?

raghar · February 12, 2003, 22:44

This tanks are more cute.

Kingof the Apes · February 13, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by raghar
This tanks are more cute.

TELETANKS!!!!!

Al Queida: "Big hug!"

MichaeltheGreat · February 13, 2003, 01:45

I remember that line from one of my Floyd-abuse posts.

GePap · February 13, 2003, 02:09

I will feel safe at airports only when 50 ton Mecha are stationed at every entrance.

In evry situation I have been in which security was extremely high (usually a bunch of guys with automatic rifles standing around) I have never felt safer: the fact that they are there, and not somewhere else, means where-ever I am is more likely to attract trouble, and thus inherently less safe. If it were safe, the guys with the guns would not be there, now would they?

Oerdin · February 13, 2003, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
What always amuses me is that British army vehicles on public roads always drive around with their lights on as if other drivers won't see them because they are camouflaged. Perhaps someone should tell them it doesn't work that well!

The US does the same thing. They call it a "safety precaution ".

Oerdin · February 13, 2003, 02:38

Gepap: You have a point about the guys with machine guns not making people feel safer. I remember the first time I was in Panama; it was kind of uncomfortable to walk into a mall and see a group of 18 year old Army privites all standing there with machine guns.

Asher · February 13, 2003, 04:53

Paint the ****ers pink and give them a bike bell to get people's attention.

Attach a Canadian flag for good measure.

Tattila the Hun · February 13, 2003, 06:31

Would be interesting to see really heavy tanks on airports, like Abrams or... Leopard?

T-72's are nice too.

TheStinger · February 13, 2003, 06:36

All our MBT's are on there way to the Gulf so we have to make do with the smaller ones.

Daz · February 13, 2003, 06:52

So basically, England is defenseless?
Whooo, hooo! Someone invade it, quick!!!!*

As for the heavily armed security people at airports: they are not meant to make you feel more secure. They are there to make wannabe terrorists feel insecure!

*disclaimer: not that I have anything against England.

Daz · February 13, 2003, 06:57

GePap: are you sure there is no other reason you feel insecure because of the armed people at airports?

You too oerdin! Maybe we should tell Mr. Bush about you two

Solly · February 13, 2003, 09:17

Mike, what's wrong with "army tank"?

Tolls · February 13, 2003, 09:56

"All our MBT's are on there way to the Gulf so we have to make do with the smaller ones."

And as far as I know this lot were supposed to be in the gulf. They're supposed to be defending the RAF airfields...which seems to imply that mobilisation and deployment is a bit behind schedule.

MikeH · February 13, 2003, 09:59

I don't know really. It sounds like something a 6 year old would say.

What's wrong with "Should we have grey tanks?"

Sirotnikov · February 13, 2003, 20:41

Sure, it much less safe when there's a threat.

However, the presence of armed guards on a scence does not cause a threat. It is merely an indicator. The level of the threat does not depend on the availability of armed guards. It's merely an indication of a possible threat.

Thus, if there was still a threat, but there were no guards, I would feel much less secure. If there is a threat and there are sufficient guards, then I feel fairly secure.

And i do feel secure when I know that there are several highly trained guards, watching over me, just in case some unexpected threat decides to realize itself in the middle of a public place.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:44

Quote:

And i do feel secure when I know that there are several highly trained guards, watching over me, just in case some unexpected threat decides to realize itself in the middle of a public place

You would.

Az · February 13, 2003, 20:58

You look great in the mask, Siro.

Don't mind the little canadian troll.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 21:00

Troll? Where?