Are demilitarizED military tanks and APCs unarmoured?

[Archinist]

I'm mostly talking about the ones you can buy in shops. When they are demilitarized, is their armour removed and replaced with a thin layer of weak metal, or do they retain their armour?

[Broomstick]

Er... they're sort of made of armor.

No, the armor is not removed. Weapons and critical/classified control systems are removed. For something like a tank intended for public display the engine might be removed or disabled to prevent hijinks by wannabe joyriders. Basically, the minimum required to make such a thing safe for whatever civilian purpose they are used for.

You can buy tanks and APC's in a shop near where you live?

[Archinist]

Er... they're sort of made of armor.

No, the armor is not removed. Weapons and critical/classified control systems are removed. For something like a tank intended for public display the engine might be removed or disabled to prevent hijinks by wannabe joyriders. Basically, the minimum required to make such a thing safe for whatever civilian purpose they are used for.

You can buy tanks and APC's in a shop near where you live?

No, but there are a bunch of shops on the internet that advertise having tanks and AFVs. All of them are outdated, but once I saw a T-72 being sold there.

The armor could be removed and replaced with something easily penetrable by normal bullets (not much stronger than a car) but supports could be implanted to structurally support the vehicle.

Here are some examples.

https://www.tradetrucks.com.au/detail/t ... kot-114642

http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/whe ... vz.77-dana

http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tra ... -tank-t-72

[AMX]

Depends on local laws.
Typically, the armor is cut away at specific spots, and the hole covered with sheet metal.

Completely removing the armor is generally impossible, because it's structural - if you remove all of it, there's nothing holding the other parts together.

[Archinist]

Depends on local laws.
Typically, the armor is cut away at specific spots, and the hole covered with sheet metal.

Completely removing the armor is generally impossible, because it's structural - if you remove all of it, there's nothing holding the other parts together.

If they did it in a proper factory setting, it wouldn't really matter. They could just disassemble it and remove the armor then fill it in and reassemble it.

[AMX]

That would be more expensive.
Also, it would arguably not be the same vehicle anymore, but rather a new vehicle using old components - that reduces the collectors' value.

[Broomstick]

Yes, if you're going to remove all the armor, including the structural components which are then replaced, it's probably cheaper just to make a look-alike replica.

[Sea Skimmer]

No, but there are a bunch of shops on the internet that advertise having tanks and AFVs. All of them are outdated, but once I saw a T-72 being sold there.

The armor could be removed and replaced with something easily penetrable by normal bullets (not much stronger than a car) but supports could be implanted to structurally support the vehicle.

That won't really work because if you have a 50 ton tank like a T-72 it needs to be made of seriously thick metal just to hold itself together and the baseline armor is that structure. Such that it would be more or less bullet proof even if made of the weakest steel around. No real reason exists to care though, the US is not exactly overwhelmed be rebel groups armed with legally bought M113s.

The US and most western countries make no restrictions on ownership of armored vehicles, only ownership of high caliber weapons to go on those vehicles is limited. Some parts of the developing world and Japan among others meanwhile ban all civilian ownership of military equipment, at which point they don't care if you remove the armor or not. You simply can't have it. In those countries you would also face restrictions on building your own armored vehicle, but you could get away with a mild steel whatever..though authorities might look real closely at you doing so.


http://i40.tinypic.com/20zpgqr.jpg
This diagram illustrates the structural issue in a T-64 tank, notice the side armor is actually thicker at 80mm where the suspension connects to the hull then the hull above it. That's cause it just had to be thicker to allow the hole to be drilled without creating a weakness.

[The_Saint]

I know someone with one of the Skots in Australia, still has it's 'armour' (otherwise known as it's hull). There's a few privately owned Centurions and M113's in the country as well. All essentially original as regards armour protection.

Of the Centurions I know of one has a 'fake' gun (wood, alloy, etc. Looks the goods outside but quite obvious inside the turret). Another has original gun but the barrel has a few holes drilled through it, muzzle has been partially plugged up with weld slag and the whole breech assembly is cut, drilled and simply missing parts.

Conversely when the Leopard AS1s were disposed of their fates were very closely decided on by the government.


I guess it all depends on local laws and expectations. Here in Australia there isn't a militia movement that might desire armoured vehicles like in the USA. On at least one occasion someone got drunk and went on a rampage in an M113 knocking down power poles and telephone boxes. I seem to remember they crashed it into something that didn't fall over and police rammed it with a large bulldozer to stop it moving further.

[Mr Bean]

There was a famously/infamous a place you could go in Indiana to the Vincennes War Museum in Vincennes Indiana which was a grand name for the private collection of tanks, apc's and artillery pieces owned by the town judge and the town sheriff. The town judge had family land where he slapped a series of oversized Quonset huts, some filled with museum type things but the rest linked and turned one super long garage.

Every T-34, Sherman Firefly, M3 Lee, Centurion, T-72 and more tanks were fully functional and well maintained with only the gun barrels plugged and the various coaxial MG's or top MG's removed. Because this was a museum and this was Indiana everything was fine from the legal point of view. On the judges death they built a proper museum last I heard and moved everything indoors. But prior to that for a reasonable fee you could go tearing around old farm land in a fully working Sherman or T-72 if you so wished. I know all this because I was a volunteer at this place prior to shipping out for the Navy way back in 2000 and it was highly amusing to hear them describe their museum scheme.

Because while a normal citizen can't own several large high caliber weapons, a museum is just fine with having fully functioning machine guns and artillery pieces on hand. Where they would get the 155mm shells who knows but the German Flak guns, American 90mms and Soviet block mobile artillery guns all worked and the Iraq T-72 plug might not have been up to spec.

[Broomstick]

Plenty of former military airplanes in the US in civilian hands, too (see my avatar), including those from foreign places like MiG's. You're required to remove the guns/missiles/other weapons but that's it - the mounting remain and little to no other changes take place. You can fly them around as much as you can afford to (fuel costs are typically astronomical).

LOTS of former military hardware of all sorts in civilian hands in the US.

[Archinist]

But in some areas of America, isn't it possible to have the guns and cannons working as intended and don't some places sell ammunition for them?

In that case, wouldn't that be a bit dangerous? What if a group of dangerous criminals bought a bunch of light IFVs and went around shooting everyone and running them over?

Even unarmed it would be extremely difficult for the police to stop a group of 20 or 30 T-72 tanks from rampaging around a city.

[Lord Revan]

As far as I know even in the US there's strict limits as to what kind of guns you can have, so something like high caliber machine gun or a modern artillery peice/ tank cannon in fully functional condition is not gonna something you'll find normally if at all in civilian hands.

if you got 20-30 T-72 pampaging thru a city cops won't no longer deal with it, it's a job for the National Guard or the military and to them 20-30 tanks isn't something that's all that hard to stop. 1 de-armed tank could be seen as problem for the police but around 2 dozen tanks? Nope that's gone past "problem for the police" to "problem for the military", bare in mind that even when de-armed a tank is so fast and heavy that they're a leathal weapon in and of themselves.

[Elheru Aran]

Ammunition above a certain caliber is horrendously expensive anyway. .50 BMG, about the biggest you can go in a rifle caliber... let's see what Google says... first result for 'cost of a single round of .50 BMG' brings us to this link:

http://www.luckygunner.com/rifle/50-cal-ammo

Which states a box of 10 rounds is 36 bucks and change, so that's 3 bucks sixty-something cents per CARTRIDGE. That means each individual shot costs three dollars and change.

Not much if you're willing to just have a few shots' worth of fun, but on a military basis... rate of a standard .50 Browning Heavy Machine Gun, which is pretty much the industry standard for that caliber *everywhere*, is ~500 rounds per minute. Say you fire a 5-second extended burst, that will expend around sixty rounds, for a cost of two hundred-plus dollars. Not cheap.

EDIT to note: A large bulk purchase would probably bring the cost down, of course, as opposed to just a single box for civilian use. But it'll still cost a lot of money for rounds that you can shoot through in literally only a few minutes' worth of fire.

Now for 'large arms' (as opposed to 'small arms')...

http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/howitzer_rounds.html

Note: 155mm (one of the most common artillery rounds): cheapest is $400+, and that's for an ILLUM round... a freaking flare. If you want explosives, that's $500+. If you're feeling particularly rich, you can buy a round that scatters mines (FASCAM RAP) for $6970.

Basically... there are a (very few) municipalities that do permit private ownership of military hardware... but there's a LOT of Federal paperwork you have to go through if you want anything FUNCTIONAL. And if by some strange chance you go through all that paperwork successfully... the costs of ammunition, never mind up-keep of making sure everything stays functional, etc... will run you right up in a jiffy.

[Zixinus]

There is actually a very infamous case of someone going on a rampage in a heavily-armoured vehicle, although this was bulldozer with home-made armor: killdozer.

The thing about going on a rampage in a armored vehicle is that you are unlikely to survive. It's not different from going on a shooting spree. Plus, the thing about an unarmed tank in a city is that it is comparatively (well, to a care at least) easy to run away from or to go somewhere with it where the tank can't follow. Remember that tanks can get stuck and can brake down too.

In that case, wouldn't that be a bit dangerous? What if a group of dangerous criminals bought a bunch of light IFVs and went around shooting everyone and running them over?

Because life isn't GTA. If they go on a rampage, they won't be slapped with a fine and respawn, they'll either die or face life in prison. See the example I linked of someone trying it.

Criminals commit crimes for profit: they are not interested in randomly killing people. The better criminals, people in higher levels of organized crime and the like, actually avoid killing people and violence because that's bad for business and attracts attention they don't want. Oh, they'll still use violence but in carefully-arranged, precisely focused doses on rivals and such but not for its own sake. What you are thinking of are sociopaths.

The people who would have the money and resources to get ex-military armored vehicles are not interested in rampages. Simply odds are that if you can afford it and the resources (and hopefully, license-checks) to get them, you already are a person that can get most other things. A tank is as useful to a mafia-man as it is to Joe Average, which is to say very little aside for fun.

I could imagine some mafia-men maybe buying old, surplus armored vehicles like Humvees and the like to have something that is resistant to bullets during a war or something, but more likely they'll buy more luxorious and more discreet armored cars.

If things have deteriorated to the point that criminals buy tanks to make their business go, then things likely have gone down the drain in that country that "warlord" might be a more accurate title.

[Lord Revan]

Ammunition above a certain caliber is horrendously expensive anyway. .50 BMG, about the biggest you can go in a rifle caliber... let's see what Google says... first result for 'cost of a single round of .50 BMG' brings us to this link:

http://www.luckygunner.com/rifle/50-cal-ammo

Which states a box of 10 rounds is 36 bucks and change, so that's 3 bucks sixty-something cents per CARTRIDGE. That means each individual shot costs three dollars and change.

Not much if you're willing to just have a few shots' worth of fun, but on a military basis... rate of a standard .50 Browning Heavy Machine Gun, which is pretty much the industry standard for that caliber *everywhere*, is ~500 rounds per minute. Say you fire a 5-second extended burst, that will expend around sixty rounds, for a cost of two hundred-plus dollars. Not cheap.

EDIT to note: A large bulk purchase would probably bring the cost down, of course, as opposed to just a single box for civilian use. But it'll still cost a lot of money for rounds that you can shoot through in literally only a few minutes' worth of fire.

we should also remember that not all ammo are alike, you can't just put a round meant for a .50 cal hunting rifle into machine gun and expect it to work properly or the other way around. Not mention that if you buy large enough amounts of any ammo the authorities will get curious as to what you need that much ammo for, after all few people have need for enough ammo to wage war (literally), as Hollywood a)most of the rounds are blanks or dummies b)they work with the authorities when live ammo is needed and more often then not there's an official making sure the ammo is used correctly.

[Lord Revan]

Even at "golden age of gansters" in the 1920s and 1930s the Mafia was careful to not go from "a problem for the police" to "a problem for the military" collectively because they weren't stupid and knew that if they cause too much disruption the military would brought to deal with them and the military would have orders to "shoot on sight" and "shoot to kill" not arrest. That way they didn't around shooting random things with SMGs that's an invention of Hollywood and the actual body count for that era isn't that big, since in the end the Mafia was intrested in getting money thru selling illegal(and therefore expensive) alchohol rather then scoring "evil points".

For example the problem with Al Capone wasn't that they couldn't arrest him (they did several times in fact) but they couldn't convict him for various reasons (mostly due to bribery but other reasons as well).

[RogueIce]

Now for 'large arms' (as opposed to 'small arms')...

http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/howitzer_rounds.html

Note: 155mm (one of the most common artillery rounds): cheapest is $400+, and that's for an ILLUM round... a freaking flare. If you want explosives, that's $500+. If you're feeling particularly rich, you can buy a round that scatters mines (FASCAM RAP) for $6970.

Basically... there are a (very few) municipalities that do permit private ownership of military hardware... but there's a LOT of Federal paperwork you have to go through if you want anything FUNCTIONAL. And if by some strange chance you go through all that paperwork successfully... the costs of ammunition, never mind up-keep of making sure everything stays functional, etc... will run you right up in a jiffy.

*cough* *cough*

http://www.pmulcahy.com/misc_pages/faq.htm

Q: The prices you list don't make any sense. How close to reality are they?

A: They bear no resemblance to reality whatsoever (except possibly by coincidence). They are more a reflection of the items' relative worth in game terms.

But in some areas of America, isn't it possible to have the guns and cannons working as intended and don't some places sell ammunition for them?

In that case, wouldn't that be a bit dangerous? What if a group of dangerous criminals bought a bunch of light IFVs and went around shooting everyone and running them over?

Even unarmed it would be extremely difficult for the police to stop a group of 20 or 30 T-72 tanks from rampaging around a city.

Contrary to your typically underinformed beliefs, you can not just stroll up to your local Guns 'n' Ammo store in the US and buy fully functioning artillery and tanks.

Buying too large a quantity of fertilizer gets you a visit from the FBI, unless you're already on some kind of "farmer with legitimate reasons" list.

Even if there are fully functioning AFVs and IFVs out there in private hands, I can promise you they went through a shitload of checks and licensing and other assorted paperwork before they got their hands on them. Anyone trying to buy their own armored platoon is getting themselves on at least a couple federal watchlists.

[Elheru Aran]

...er, never mind about that website then. Didn't know it had anything to do with a game. My bad there.

That said, we can probably with a reasonable degree of safety assume that artillery rounds start in the hundreds of dollars per round at a minimum, and that the fancier they get (guidance, sabot, whatever) the cost goes up. Purchasing in bulk does mitigate the cost somewhat.

The point still comes down to, in order for a private entity to purchase the ammunition to make civilian owned military equipment capable of causing harm, past all the red tape, paperwork and federal investigations, it would be ridiculously expensive.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, and the kind of person who is smart and functional enough to amass that money, and pass through those investigations and background checks without getting arrested as a suspected terrorist...

They would have no interest in having a bunch of tanks drive around in a city for the heck of it.

[Elheru Aran]

Far more likely would be some kind of museum, or a private entity like those companies where you can pay $500 for half a hour of driving around a real tank and mashing a few junk cars. If those want to do a 'live fire' demonstration, odds are they'd just call the nearest Army base and ask them to drive a proper tank by, or they'll just put a few large-caliber fireworks down the barrel of a demilled gun.

[Broomstick]

But in some areas of America, isn't it possible to have the guns and cannons working as intended and don't some places sell ammunition for them?

There are some locations in the US where, for example, you can fire actual automatic chain-fed guns. Such places are registered, pay a shitload of licensing fees, and are watched by the local law enforcement authorities. I think there are also some places that allow you to drive tanks and so forth, but the same rules apply. Anyone desiring to acquire these items is going to have to go above and beyond the usual to get permission and will probably be first back-ground checked and then periodically looked at by various government entities.

It's not a free-for-all.

[Vendetta]

Yes, and the kind of person who is smart and functional enough to amass that money, and pass through those investigations and background checks without getting arrested as a suspected terrorist...

They would have no interest in having a bunch of tanks drive around in a city for the heck of it.

Or if they did they'd film a movie to have an excuse. (Several private tank collections loan their vehicles out for movies).

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I meant have the tanks drive around destructively.

What I'm trying to communicate to Archinist is that in real life, people who are powerful and successful are NOT comic book villains. Almost no one who has the skills and intelligence to organize a large operation, amass millions of dollars of wealth, or otherwise do the things it would take in order to cause mass destruction would actually want to do so randomly.

Nearly all organized violence, even the violence of the Mafia or a large terrorist group, is specifically intended to serve some useful purpose.

Having twenty or thirty tanks drive around smashing into things in a city would be like a super-scaled-up version of petty vandalism. The kind that teenage thugs like to commit. Breaking windows, spray-painting people's walls and cars, that kind of thing.

Except that only profoundly immature or crazy people, with the mindset of lunatics or juvenile delinquents, actually consider that kind of random destructiveness to be worth their time.

People with the resources to cause random destruction on a vastly larger scale do not do it. If they do use their resources to cause violence or destruction, it will be a specific form of violence that serves some specific purpose and is planned out ahead of time.
_______________________

The absolute upper limit we've seen of random destruction for the sake of destruction is mass shooting events, where the 'resources' involved consist of one person and a gun. Everything else (including most terrorist bombings, and high-profile incidents like the "Killdozer" case in Colorado) involve someone who is mentally stable and competent enough to engage in long range planning... and who therefore targets very specific things for destruction. Because even if they have every intention of dying (as did Heemeyer in the "Killdozer" case), they still want to actually accomplish some goal that they think is important. And they only carry out the actions that are consistent with that goal.

There is no type of targeted destruction that a private citizen could usefully accomplish, in a way that served their purposes, with twenty or thirty tanks driving around.

Either they're wasting their money and could more profitably use all that wealth and influence in better ways to get what they want...

Or what they want is mass destruction for its own sake, and they're too stupid or crazy to pull together that kind of resources.

[Lord Revan]

Also movies that would need tanks have tons of more people then the cast and directors (and producer(s)) among those people checking that any equipment is used safely and local authorities most likely know exactly what is used in those films but since it's not petty vandalism but legal use those those equipment the authorities don't make noise out of it (expect maybe to warn locals if needed). There's a good reason Mythbusters used sheriff department bomb range with a former law enforment bomb expert handling the bombs when dealing with explotion myths, rather just doing it themselves on a random empty field.

"It's for the movie" isn't a silver bullet grants you unrestricted access to military hardware, we just don't normally see the deals and checks needed as they're not relevant.