German Police Confiscate APC

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2004-02-11 08:43pm

Police Confiscate APC in Online Auction
Wed February 11, 2004 10:00 AM ET

BERLIN (Reuters) - German police seized a 10-ton armored personnel carrier that two men had put up for auction online, authorities said on Tuesday.

"The men bought the tank from the Greek army and brought it to Germany. They were evidently looking to turn a profit," said a police spokesman in the state of Hesse.

The 24.5-foot-long amphibious Russian BTR 60, found in the town of Raunheim, no longer had guns but was still fully armor-plated, which meant it contravened German law.

The Greek and German owners had to breach the armor to render it useless for combat and then proceeded with the sale, fetching $11,000, but are being investigated for possibly violating weapons laws.

The APC can be driven on German roads with a proper permit.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

linky

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-11 09:29pm

You gotta be kidding? that law sux.. rendering the weapons inoperative is one thing, but braching the armour? what are the Germans afraid of a putch?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 09:32pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:You gotta be kidding? that law sux.. rendering the weapons inoperative is one thing, but braching the armour? what are the Germans afraid of a putch?

In all liklihood, yes.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-11 09:35pm

This is just stupid, the armor on a BTR-60 doubles as the hull, you can't simply remove it, to "breach" it they'd have to cut sections clear out and replace them with lower grade metal.. but if anyone actually wanted to do anything with it they could simply weld a steel plate back over the holes.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-11 09:50pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:You gotta be kidding? that law sux.. rendering the weapons inoperative is one thing, but braching the armour? what are the Germans afraid of a putch?
In all liklihood, yes.

Yes I can imagine that the German populace would be shivering in fear at the thought of der uber BTR overthrowing the state and ushering in the Fourth Reich...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-11 09:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:This is just stupid, the armor on a BTR-60 doubles as the hull, you can't simply remove it, to "breach" it they'd have to cut sections clear out and replace them with lower grade metal.. but if anyone actually wanted to do anything with it they could simply weld a steel plate back over the holes.

Ahh..you need to understand the mentality of buracrats to see why this was done..

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 10:07pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Yes I can imagine that the German populace would be shivering in fear at the thought of der uber BTR overthrowing the state and ushering in the Fourth Reich...

I was thinking it might be a West German-era legacy law intended to prevent communist sympathizers from stockpiling otherwise fully operational but disarmed military vehicles legitimately, but which could then be quickly armed from hidden supply dumps to form the core of an insurgency group.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-11 10:11pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Yes I can imagine that the German populace would be shivering in fear at the thought of der uber BTR overthrowing the state and ushering in the Fourth Reich...
I was thinking it might be a West German-era legacy law intended to prevent communist sympathizers from stockpiling otherwise fully operational but disarmed military vehicles legitimately, but which could then be quickly armed from hidden supply dumps to form the core of an insurgency group.

Thats quite possible..yet it does seem bizzare. Here, and in Assie and Britian, I am sure in the States, if you want a fully armed MBT you can have one..albeit with the main armament disabled {MG's in NZ, Aussie, Britian must also be disabled}.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-02-11 10:22pm

Alright, who from HAB is responsible for this?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-11 10:35pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats quite possible..yet it does seem bizzare. Here, and in Assie and Britian, I am sure in the States, if you want a fully armed MBT you can have one..albeit with the main armament disabled {MG's in NZ, Aussie, Britian must also be disabled}.

I don't know if you could have even machineguns on an armored vehicle in the US, though enlarging the holes for the machine guns and firing a rifle through them could be an option if someone was so inclined. I doubt they are allowed. I'm near certain that for military aircraft in private ownership in the US you need to damage weapons hard points and any internal gun mountings in such a way that they can't be used. A similar restriction would seem likely for armor.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-11 11:02pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats quite possible..yet it does seem bizzare. Here, and in Assie and Britian, I am sure in the States, if you want a fully armed MBT you can have one..albeit with the main armament disabled {MG's in NZ, Aussie, Britian must also be disabled}.
I don't know if you could have even machineguns on an armored vehicle in the US, though enlarging the holes for the machine guns and firing a rifle through them could be an option if someone was so inclined. I doubt they are allowed. I'm near certain that for military aircraft in private ownership in the US you need to damage weapons hard points and any internal gun mountings in such a way that they can't be used. A similar restriction would seem likely for armor.

Interesting..in NZ, you may have HMG's, mortars, artillery etc so long as the weapon is disabled, and you have the proper licence.

If I had a tank, therefore, I could have the main gun in close to working order {not that you can get ammo for one at the gun store even if it did work

} as well as the HMGs . As far as I know that goes for aircraft as well, bomb racks may be a different story however.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-11 11:14pm

Don'tcha love draconian laws that are completely ridiculous and only serve to cause greif to those who deserve none?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-02-11 11:20pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Alright, who from HAB is responsible for this?

Shep of course, Hab is still trying to get the nuclear powered type Eleven to sucessfully launch V666 rockets.....

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-11 11:25pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:Alright, who from HAB is responsible for this?
Shep of course, Hab is still trying to get the nuclear powered type Eleven to sucessfully launch V666 rockets.....

SHHHH!!!

You'll blow his cover! People are suppsoed to think he's jumped ship for a while!

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-02-11 11:32pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats quite possible..yet it does seem bizzare. Here, and in Assie and Britian, I am sure in the States, if you want a fully armed MBT you can have one..albeit with the main armament disabled {MG's in NZ, Aussie, Britian must also be disabled}.
I don't know if you could have even machineguns on an armored vehicle in the US, though enlarging the holes for the machine guns and firing a rifle through them could be an option if someone was so inclined. I doubt they are allowed. I'm near certain that for military aircraft in private ownership in the US you need to damage weapons hard points and any internal gun mountings in such a way that they can't be used. A similar restriction would seem likely for armor.

Somewhere in the back of my hazy mind, I remember reading an article about the sale of surplus M-113's. They had the same condition. The armor had to be "punctured" or "disabled".

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-11 11:36pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Somewhere in the back of my hazy mind, I remember reading an article about the sale of surplus M-113's. They had the same condition. The armor had to be "punctured" or "disabled".

That's most likely just in the PRC. I know people that have Sherman tanks that are quite operational. And I'd say that a Sherman is a bit more deadly and survivable than a M113.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-12 01:24am

Wonder what the Greek Army was doing with a BTR-60PB.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-12 01:36am

Vympel wrote:Wonder what the Greek Army was doing with a BTR-60PB.

Got it of the Isreali's who got of the arabs?

or a greek citizen simply brought it of the Russians?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-12 01:43am

Nathan F wrote:Don'tcha love draconian laws that are completely ridiculous and only serve to cause greif to those who deserve none?

Dude, get a grip. They should have known the law before they brought the vehicle into Germany. If they didn't know the law, well, ignorance is no excuse, and if they DID know the law, then fuck 'em.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-12 02:12am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Got it of the Isreali's who got of the arabs?
or a greek citizen simply brought it of the Russians?

Greece took possession of surplus East German military hardware after reunification. Most likely, BTR-60PBs were purchased along with the BMP-1A1s (upgraded by reunified Germany) that I know they bought/ got for free (can't remember).

CFE compliance and all that, Germany had way too much armor after unification.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-12 02:15am

Vympel wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Got it of the Isreali's who got of the arabs?
or a greek citizen simply brought it of the Russians?
Greece took possession of surplus East German military hardware after reunification. Most likely, BTR-60PBs were purchased along with the BMP-1A1s (upgraded by reunified Germany) that I know they bought/ got for free (can't remember).

CFE compliance and all that, Germany had way too much armor after unification.

Well there you go...Nice and simple..

Or is it..................?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-12 02:29am

Sea Skimmer wrote: I don't know if you could have even machineguns on an armored vehicle in the US, though enlarging the holes for the machine guns and firing a rifle through them could be an option if someone was so inclined. I doubt they are allowed. I'm near certain that for military aircraft in private ownership in the US you need to damage weapons hard points and any internal gun mountings in such a way that they can't be used. A similar restriction would seem likely for armor.

Well, I don't know about the legality of it, but a guy who lives near me named Jacques Littlefield has a rather large collection of armored vehicles (the largest private collection in the world according to him) and I know that several of the weapons on his tanks and APC's are fully functional. Of course, this is also the man who tried to import a SCUD missile, so I'm not sure if that says anything about the law.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-12 02:31am

EDIT: Here's his collection in case anyone is interested:

Link

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-02-12 02:40am

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-12 04:12am

The Kernel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: I don't know if you could have even machineguns on an armored vehicle in the US, though enlarging the holes for the machine guns and firing a rifle through them could be an option if someone was so inclined. I doubt they are allowed. I'm near certain that for military aircraft in private ownership in the US you need to damage weapons hard points and any internal gun mountings in such a way that they can't be used. A similar restriction would seem likely for armor.
Well, I don't know about the legality of it, but a guy who lives near me named Jacques Littlefield has a rather large collection of armored vehicles (the largest private collection in the world according to him) and I know that several of the weapons on his tanks and APC's are fully functional. Of course, this is also the man who tried to import a SCUD missile, so I'm not sure if that says anything about the law.

Oh I've heard of him, sounded like he was one of those guys who thought Red Dawn was a documentary.