In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
What we'll be up against -- SHTF & JBT
River Rat
Member Posts: 9,022 ✭
Okay, I'm kind of slow to pick up on a new concept. Take, for example, dystopian imagery of gov't v. serfs scenarios. Then I come across something like this, which was apparently developed with Homeland Security in mind:
http://tonyrogers.com/weapons/smar_truck.htm
Not quite the Airport Stretch Limo I figured our boys and gals in blue would require. Keep this stuff up, and I'll eventually turn paranoid.
So, let's look for the design flaws now. When push comes to shove, how will we take one of these things down? It's got a remote-controlled .50 in there for taking down American citizens, so keep that in mind.
Is our new slogan "What would Molotov do?"
http://tonyrogers.com/weapons/smar_truck.htm
Not quite the Airport Stretch Limo I figured our boys and gals in blue would require. Keep this stuff up, and I'll eventually turn paranoid.
So, let's look for the design flaws now. When push comes to shove, how will we take one of these things down? It's got a remote-controlled .50 in there for taking down American citizens, so keep that in mind.
Is our new slogan "What would Molotov do?"
Comments
WTH[?][?][?]
Talking about how to take one out might get one investigated as a terrorist suspect.
It has acoustic gunshot locators and is probably bullet resistant so shooting at it would be a bad idea. I read that it has an anti-RPG feature, but who the hell has RPGs? The interior is leather so it is not a military vehicle. It would probably be used to escort VIPs from one location to another through hostile territory.
low tech can defeat hi tech every time[;)]
Yes! Tiny Finland fought the mighty Russian empire to a standstill in the Winter War of 1939.
Finland had virtually no air force or armor. They had a bunch of bad * riflemen on skis.
To fight the many Russian tanks, the Finns invented the Molotov cocktail.
Vyacheslav Molotov was the Russian foreign minister who had engineered the Finland invasion, so you can see the Finns also had a sense of humor.
I would imagine that a couple of Molotov cocktails would make life uncomfortable for the government narcs in that expensive vehicle.
There was something like that displayed at the Shot Show.
Let me guess it was in a Suburban, roof popped open and it came out would look like this.
Thats the one from Dillon Aero.
if it took down a Tiger frontally at 1000m, it would certainly make short work of one of those ice cream-mobiles.
quote:Originally posted by fordsix
low tech can defeat hi tech every time[;)]
Yes! Tiny Finland fought the mighty Russian empire to a standstill in the Winter War of 1939.
Finland had virtually no air force or armor. They had a bunch of bad * riflemen on skis.
To fight the many Russian tanks, the Finns invented the Molotov cocktail.
Vyacheslav Molotov was the Russian foreign minister who had engineered the Finland invasion, so you can see the Finns also had a sense of humor.
I would imagine that a couple of Molotov cocktails would make life uncomfortable for the government narcs in that expensive vehicle.
So, in keeping with the theory that old tech always beats new tech...
How would a baddass Finn on skis do against day and night vision with thermal imaging, and gunshot direction location equipment? My money would be on 1 shot and your out. Molotovs are fun when you're a kid but an on-road vehicle like this would likely just hit the gas and run over whoever was in the way. If it has thermal vision and a computer then it would be logical to assume that it would be programmed to alert the occupants of anything that is hot enough to be on fire. So you flick your bik and have a gun turret pointed at you. I'm also pretty sure that high temperature and fire retardant materials are more available now adays than they were way back when everything was low tech.
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
quote:Originally posted by fordsix
low tech can defeat hi tech every time[;)]
Yes! Tiny Finland fought the mighty Russian empire to a standstill in the Winter War of 1939.
Finland had virtually no air force or armor. They had a bunch of bad * riflemen on skis.
To fight the many Russian tanks, the Finns invented the Molotov cocktail.
Vyacheslav Molotov was the Russian foreign minister who had engineered the Finland invasion, so you can see the Finns also had a sense of humor.
I would imagine that a couple of Molotov cocktails would make life uncomfortable for the government narcs in that expensive vehicle.
So, in keeping with the theory that old tech always beats new tech...
How would a baddass Finn on skis do against day and night vision with thermal imaging, and gunshot direction location equipment? My money would be on 1 shot and your out. Molotovs are fun when you're a kid but an on-road vehicle like this would likely just hit the gas and run over whoever was in the way. If it has thermal vision and a computer then it would be logical to assume that it would be programmed to alert the occupants of anything that is hot enough to be on fire. So you flick your bik and have a gun turret pointed at you. I'm also pretty sure that high temperature and fire retardant materials are more available now adays than they were way back when everything was low tech.
THAT's why you'll need science geeks on your side.
any one of those fancy detecto-sets CAN be spoofed, if you know how it operates and how to jam that sucker. Any optical or sound detection system (whether biological or technological) has a saturation point. As a primitive example, take your digital camera and point it at a light source, then down to the ground: notice that the screen takes a while to display your floor, since the detector array was "paralyzed" by too much signal.
Early radar used to be foiled (literally) by tinfoil.
Now I don't know all the details of the sensors that the new DHS ice cream-mobile is equipped with. But you can bet if push came to shove somebody would show up on the side of good who DID know the details.
Just present more targets than it can track at one time.
Yes. The VIP in the vehicle would be constantly tracked and supported by other vehicles at all times and you would probably loose everyone that didn't cower and flee before the action, but if it's that important this could work. Of course the real target probably traveled by helicopter and this was just a decoy convoy.
Just present more targets than it can track at one time.
You first.[}:)]
IF the Military actually brought its might to bare in an effort to put down an all-out insurection here, there would mostly be dead civies.
The firepower avaiable from the US arsenal is staggering, from the WWII till present "leftovers" to the newest high tech equipment.
ONE of these, disscounting the newest on board technology, would be an almost insurmountable problem...I doubt those nifty Piper Cubs would count as an actual Air Force. The Military has a lot of very nasty flying machines.
Since these are capable of defeating most anything on the ground, IN the ground OR air, best find an empty mine shaft to hide in.
A few well equiped BN's with ground support, armor support,
with half a dozen of the above along for the ride, would need more than Malotove cocktails to get their attention, let alone a Combat ready Division or two, or three, or four etc., full battle rattle, would be a very formidable force to deal with, can you say "massacre".
Then ONLY if God intervened on our behalf, directly involved...hands on approach using all the powers at his dissposal, and us dashing rebels did win...what about the aftermath?
There is always an aftermath, unless your the hapless Palastinians.
How well has their low tech fight made out the last 60+ years?
The guy with the biggest, the mostest guns & mostest people is going to lay down the rules...some other Country, Mexican Cartel, who?
There would be a huge number of groups, War Lords that would be competeing for power,whos side to take...the eventual winner, winner takes all...and I doubt if a Court of Law is going to be utilized much...the term summarily comes to mind here.
Might just not be the glorious return to the Founding Fathers ideas as the dreamers dream...[;)]
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
quote:Originally posted by fordsix
low tech can defeat hi tech every time[;)]
Yes! Tiny Finland fought the mighty Russian empire to a standstill in the Winter War of 1939.
Finland had virtually no air force or armor. They had a bunch of bad * riflemen on skis.
To fight the many Russian tanks, the Finns invented the Molotov cocktail.
Vyacheslav Molotov was the Russian foreign minister who had engineered the Finland invasion, so you can see the Finns also had a sense of humor.
I would imagine that a couple of Molotov cocktails would make life uncomfortable for the government narcs in that expensive vehicle.
So, in keeping with the theory that old tech always beats new tech...
How would a baddass Finn on skis do against day and night vision with thermal imaging, and gunshot direction location equipment? My money would be on 1 shot and your out. Molotovs are fun when you're a kid but an on-road vehicle like this would likely just hit the gas and run over whoever was in the way. If it has thermal vision and a computer then it would be logical to assume that it would be programmed to alert the occupants of anything that is hot enough to be on fire. So you flick your bik and have a gun turret pointed at you. I'm also pretty sure that high temperature and fire retardant materials are more available now adays than they were way back when everything was low tech.
Yeah you are right. Thank God we have all the high tech weapons, that is why we won the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan War.
Federal Government: "One more word out of you and we'll cut off the disability, social security, and SSI checks."
Gunbroker Militia: " "
Talking about how to take one out might get one investigated as a terrorist suspect.
I was thinking more along the lines of defending America, American citizens, and the U.S. Constitution against one.
My point is: does acquiring this type of machinery make the U.S. Government a terrorist suspect?
quote:Originally posted by buckstar
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
quote:Originally posted by fordsix
low tech can defeat hi tech every time[;)]
Yes! Tiny Finland fought the mighty Russian empire to a standstill in the Winter War of 1939.
Finland had virtually no air force or armor. They had a bunch of bad * riflemen on skis.
To fight the many Russian tanks, the Finns invented the Molotov cocktail.
Vyacheslav Molotov was the Russian foreign minister who had engineered the Finland invasion, so you can see the Finns also had a sense of humor.
I would imagine that a couple of Molotov cocktails would make life uncomfortable for the government narcs in that expensive vehicle.
So, in keeping with the theory that old tech always beats new tech...
How would a baddass Finn on skis do against day and night vision with thermal imaging, and gunshot direction location equipment? My money would be on 1 shot and your out. Molotovs are fun when you're a kid but an on-road vehicle like this would likely just hit the gas and run over whoever was in the way. If it has thermal vision and a computer then it would be logical to assume that it would be programmed to alert the occupants of anything that is hot enough to be on fire. So you flick your bik and have a gun turret pointed at you. I'm also pretty sure that high temperature and fire retardant materials are more available now adays than they were way back when everything was low tech.
Yeah you are right. Thank God we have all the high tech weapons, that is why we won the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan War.
From Vietnam and onwards I would call modern wars. Modern wars are fought and lost by SOP, not technology. We have the technology to destroy any country. SOP is used to drag out wars for profit motive, not conventional win/loss. In Vietnam there was the wave attack, now we have 3000 round per minute Gatling guns and grenade machine guns. For stupid hick uprisings we have UAVs with thermal optics and automated alerts. Low tech does not beat high tech or it would not be high tech. The overwhelming advantage is limited by SOP to provide make-believe equality and to maximize profit gains by extending wars. Ask another soldier, you have my opinion. If you think you can fend off a local police force on your lonesome then you are stupid. To fend off a military operation, you are only alive as long as it is deemed necessary for goals that are beyond you. You are nothing. You came from nothing and will return to nothing. You will live as long as you are profitable to those who profit from you.