Towns getting IED-RESISTANT APC's and MRAPs (tanks!)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
A Painful Truth



Military equipment tends to be highly specialized and very expensive to maintain.

Allowing your local police agency to obtain surplus military equipment takes money and resources away from law enforcement.



this is also a good point. I remember reading an article where a town got one of these vehicles. they didn't want it, but it was free (with grant).

but the upkeep on the vehicle was high and they couldn't afford it. so it had been sitting in storage and costing the town thousands they just didn't have for a vehicle they didn't use.

so they had a choice. justify having it, raise taxes, or sell it. they were trying to sell it.


this is a burden many departments really don't need. so to justify it they start a swat team. use the team for idiotic reasons.

to many smaller town PD's want to play like they are LA swat teams..
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,092
136
A Painful Truth

Military equipment tends to be highly specialized and very expensive to maintain.

Allowing your local police agency to obtain surplus military equipment takes money and resources away from law enforcement. But if they obtain military equipment, they will use it whether or not they have the appropriate training and experience.

About every 2 weeks, somewhere in the US, a SWAT team raids the wrong home

Police aren't soldiers. Allowing them to dress up like soldiers doesn't change that.

Law enforcement isn't war.

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
MP Academy Graduate
US Army 69-71

Well said.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/2...wide-getting-armored-vehicles-left-over-from/


From Fox news:

It's armored. It's heavy. It's intimidating. And it's free," said Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple, among five county sheriff's departments and three other police agencies in New York that have taken delivery of an MRAP.



I'm sorry, but what a fucking moron. Unokitty hit it earlier, these things are NOT free. They are extremely expensive to maintain and they are extremely expensive to fuel. The Police departments also don't have trained mechanics to fix these vehicles so who is going to do it?

These "free" vehicles are going to eat up budgets better spent on buying bullets so cops could actually train with their weapons and not be incompetent clowns whenever they discharge their weapon or better yet hire more cops. That will do more to protect the citizenry than these armored behemoths. Last I checked the USA doesn't have an IED problem.

If these assholes want to play soldier then they should have joined the Army. Leave the war toys on the battlefield.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
this is also a good point. I remember reading an article where a town got one of these vehicles. they didn't want it, but it was free (with grant).

but the upkeep on the vehicle was high and they couldn't afford it. so it had been sitting in storage and costing the town thousands they just didn't have for a vehicle they didn't use.

so they had a choice. justify having it, raise taxes, or sell it. they were trying to sell it.


this is a burden many departments really don't need. so to justify it they start a swat team. use the team for idiotic reasons.

to many smaller town PD's want to play like they are LA swat teams..

I think this is the main reason these small town police departments are getting these vehicles... federal money. So now you have to maintain these vehicles, train people, and get extra insurance for when your podunk agency raids the wrong house and you kill the homeowner.

I see federal money running out and these all end up in the back lot of the police department.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Your title is very misleading, and flat out wrong. There is NO such thing as an IED proof anything. Even the article says "IED resistant". I also don't consider Columbia SC to be a "small town", at 131k. Or Boise at 212k. I stopped after two links. They also are not tanks. You have THREE things that are INCORRECT in the title. Stop trying to further your agenda by changing words. You just sound ignorant.
There is absolutely a tank that is IED-proof. It's called a septic tank. I dare you to find any account of a septic tank being lost to an IED.

In all seriousness, his title sucks ass but his point is valid. As Kadarin says, if they have it they will use it against us, and we're being forced to buy it for them.

For a second I glanced at this thread's title and thought it said "Small towns getting JEDI-proof tanks. . . ."

star-wars-5.gif
:D +1

A Painful Truth

Military equipment tends to be highly specialized and very expensive to maintain.

Allowing your local police agency to obtain surplus military equipment takes money and resources away from law enforcement. But if they obtain military equipment, they will use it whether or not they have the appropriate training and experience.

About every 2 weeks, somewhere in the US, a SWAT team raids the wrong home

Police aren't soldiers. Allowing them to dress up like soldiers doesn't change that.

Law enforcement isn't war.

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
MP Academy Graduate
US Army 69-71
Well said, though put those two thoughts together and . . .

"We have liberated your nation. No longer will Kuwait suffer under the boot of the invading Iraqi tyrant."

"Um, this is Yemen. Nobody invaded us. Well, besides you guys I mean."

"You're wel - wait, what?"

Just as well that the military exhibits a lot better C3 than does SWAT. On the other hand, perhaps those high maintenance costs will dissuade the cops from using SWAT for every single warrant.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,585
3,796
126
Here's the thing: cops get shot at. They use the APC as a barrier between themselves and gun fire. Oh but that's right, all the cop haters on here want the cops to get shot.

Well, according to this site only one Boise officer has been shot and killed in the last 16 years:
http://www.odmp.org/agency/358-boise-police-department-idaho

I'm not sure that warrants an armored vehicle.

Looking at the crime stats for Boise and OSU these aren't exactly hot beds of people who shoot at cops. I think maybe the ones buying these or getting them 'free' have watched a few too many movies where police are battling people with armored cars\humvees and armed with assault rifles and RPGs.

Which is odd because if those movies taught us anything besides how militarized our police need to be its that cars are completely bullet proof negating the need for an MRAP
 
Last edited:

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
from wiki:
FBI Mine Resistant Ambush vehicle.
United States Department of Homeland Security Rapid Response Teams have used MRAPs while assisting people affected by natural disasters such as hurricanes.[96][97] The Department of Homeland Security has also used MRAP-style vehicles while fighting illegal narcotics smuggling.[98] The Federal Bureau of Investigation used an MRAP-type vehicle in a kidnapping and hostage case in Midland, Alabama.[99]

Police departments inside the United States are acquiring MRAP vehicle through the 1033 program, which allows the Defense Department to redistribute equipment it no longer needs to state and municipal agencies. Rather than buying a new vehicle, which would cost $535,000-$600,000 to produce, some police departments like the Ohio State University Police Department have picked up surplus MRAPs from the Pentagon for free. By October 2013, nearly dozen departments in several states had acquired the armored vehicles. Domestic agencies plan to use them in disaster relief roles, as they can go through flooded areas unlike normal police armored vehicles, and to respond to terrorist threats, like playing a role in guarding sports stadiums. MRAPs used by police forces have the machine gun turret removed and are repainted from their original flat desert tan to black. Organizations have become critical about police use of military vehicles and worried about police militarization. Proponents of the domestic acquisitions say MRAPs fill the roles as standard police Lenco BearCat armored vehicles, but they cost $200,000 while MRAPs can be received for free.[100]

In early October 2013, the Northwest Regional SWAT team of United States received a BAE Caiman 6x6 MRAP. The armored vehicle will primarily be used for rescue situations. In a situation with a gunman, it could be put in between them and personnel. In a natural disaster situation like a flood or blizzard, the Caiman could drive through feet of water or snow and possibly rescue people trapped in their homes. The Caiman normally costs $412,000, but was obtained for no cost through a federal program to give surplus military equipment to law enforcement agencies. Northwest Regional SWAT was on a waiting list for over a year for a vehicle before receiving the Caiman.[101]

Since becoming available in the summer of 2013, 165 MRAP vehicles had been acquired by police and sheriff’s departments. The American Civil Liberties Union has concerns of "increasing militarization of the nation’s police," and that the military hardware could escalate violent situations. Many vehicles have been obtained by rural police with few officers or crime. Police have rejected the notion of militarization and maintain that an MRAP would be an addition to their inventory to be prepared for any situation, with the main purpose of protecting occupants. Police in Boise, Idaho used their vehicles to serve a warrant to a suspect that was thought to be armed, and was found with two guns and 100 lb (45 kg) of explosive material. One was placed in front of officers to protect from a possible explosion. The Albany County Sheriff's Department has received an MRAP, which will be used alongside military surplus Humvees that have already been used for storm evacuations and to pull downed trees. About 150 other surplus vehicles, including Humvees, are in use by police departments in situations that the MRAPs could be used in. 731 more MRAPs are requested for domestic use. Though the vehicles are obtained for free, they have drawbacks for law enforcement. Some types weigh as much as 18 tons, which limits mobility on certain bridges, roads, and uneven ground. Fuel efficiency can be as little as 5 miles per gallon. Refitting a vehicle with a closed turret, black paint, new seating, loudspeakers, and emergency lights can cost around $70,000.[102]


weight being the biggest issue, they could destroy a lot of roads in many places driving them around
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
endthelie.com sounds very respectable

I wish to subscribe to their newsletter.



Really...are people this dense? The OP says tanks and all they showed were APCs. Here's the thing: cops get shot at. They use the APC as a barrier between themselves and gun fire. Oh but that's right, all the cop haters on here want the cops to get shot.

Go find something to do with your time that doesn't involve making up things to be upset about. Or go try on tin foil hats. Or listen to Art Bell. Just STFU

OHHHH, and regular civilians don't get shot at, by cops? Remember the Chris Dorner fiasco? Open season on pickup trucks. And they were using the same "military style assault weapons with extended high capacity magazines that can spray 100's of bullets a minute and belong in a war zone!". But nope, don't let civilians have weapons. Don't let them conceal carry. I'm worried that the divide between citizen armaments and the law enforcement is growing.. . i don't like it.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126
You sound like an apologizer for the militarization of our police force.

You sound like someone who likes spreading false information. I simply corrected the poster who posted INCORRECT information. Changed words from the link he dropped. I would have no problem with him reporting facts from the links he dropped. He did the exact opposite, to try and make things seems worse than they are. That's the bottom line. You have to try to change things, it's actually very easy to copy things verbatim.

But good try at taking a swing at me, you missed almost as badly as him.

FTFY



So are you for or against providing armored vehicles that are IED resistant to towns where no IEDs have been deployed and do not, in any way, represent the conditions the vehicles were meant to be deployed in (ie insurgent heavy areas)

That doesn't even start to address why Ohio State University needs an IED resistant armored vehicle to guard their football games.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2013/09/30/ohio-state-university-police-get-ied-resistant-military-vehicle-for-use-on-football-game-days/

We don't even have these in Detroit and thats far more war torn than any place in Boise or OSU

I don't agree with the vast majority of cities owning these types of vehicles, if used for strictly intimidation tactics. There are various other uses I could think of that would be great to have one of these vehicles however. What seems to have happened, is with the draw down of military presence in Iraq/Afghan there are plenty of these vehicles that are now not needed. And were sold to various cities. I may be way off base, it's just my guess I have not researched it at all. So no I don't agree in it if used improperly, but I also don't agree in people falsifying information to suit their needs. Like the OP obviously did. It is pretty obvious after reading a few posts he has an agenda. I have never seen him before, so I have no prior knowledge of his posting habits.

edit, seems I was close to being right. Except they were free.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
You sound like someone who likes spreading false information. I simply corrected the poster who posted INCORRECT information. Changed words from the link he dropped. I would have no problem with him reporting facts from the links he dropped. He did the exact opposite, to try and make things seems worse than they are. That's the bottom line. You have to try to change things, it's actually very easy to copy things verbatim.

But good try at taking a swing at me, you missed almost as badly as him.



I don't agree with the vast majority of cities owning these types of vehicles, if used for strictly intimidation tactics. There are various other uses I could think of that would be great to have one of these vehicles however. What seems to have happened, is with the draw down of military presence in Iraq/Afghan there are plenty of these vehicles that are now not needed. And were sold to various cities. I may be way off base, it's just my guess I have not researched it at all. So no I don't agree in it if used improperly, but I also don't agree in people falsifying information to suit their needs. Like the OP obviously did. It is pretty obvious after reading a few posts he has an agenda. I have never seen him before, so I have no prior knowledge of his posting habits.

edit, seems I was close to being right. Except they were free.

It's pretty bad, i don't need to falsify information. I don't have a background in military equipment. . so it looked like a tank to me and one of the links i read at some point did refer to them as tanks. and some of the towns mentioned were small. 200k people isn't a metropolis. . . and with very low crime? they don't need one either! i changed the title for you. As for my agenda, yeah, it's that i don't like the militarization of the police force here in america. It's a threat to freedom.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
These vehicles are ridiculous. Cops who have watched too many movies.

Yippee kiyay mother trucker.

You never know when German terrorists are going to hold a Christmas party hostage. Now these previously vulnerable small towns will be equipped to deal with that.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
There is absolutely a tank that is IED-proof. It's called a septic tank. I dare you to find any account of a septic tank being lost to an IED.

In all seriousness, his title sucks ass but his point is valid. As Kadarin says, if they have it they will use it against us, and we're being forced to buy it for them.


:D +1


Well said, though put those two thoughts together and . . .

"We have liberated your nation. No longer will Kuwait suffer under the boot of the invading Iraqi tyrant."

"Um, this is Yemen. Nobody invaded us. Well, besides you guys I mean."

"You're wel - wait, what?"

Just as well that the military exhibits a lot better C3 than does SWAT. On the other hand, perhaps those high maintenance costs will dissuade the cops from using SWAT for every single warrant.

why? they're not paying for it . . .
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
OHHHH, and regular civilians don't get shot at, by cops? Remember the Chris Dorner fiasco? Open season on pickup trucks. And they were using the same "military style assault weapons with extended high capacity magazines that can spray 100's of bullets a minute and belong in a war zone!". But nope, don't let civilians have weapons. Don't let them conceal carry. I'm worried that the divide between citizen armaments and the law enforcement is growing.. . i don't like it.

Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
I'm sorry, but what a fucking moron. Unokitty hit it earlier, these things are NOT free. They are extremely expensive to maintain and they are extremely expensive to fuel. The Police departments also don't have trained mechanics to fix these vehicles so who is going to do it?

These "free" vehicles are going to eat up budgets better spent on buying bullets so cops could actually train with their weapons and not be incompetent clowns whenever they discharge their weapon or better yet hire more cops. That will do more to protect the citizenry than these armored behemoths. Last I checked the USA doesn't have an IED problem.

If these assholes want to play soldier then they should have joined the Army. Leave the war toys on the battlefield.

:thumbsup:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/2...wide-getting-armored-vehicles-left-over-from/


From Fox news:





I'm sorry, but what a fucking moron. Unokitty hit it earlier, these things are NOT free. They are extremely expensive to maintain and they are extremely expensive to fuel. The Police departments also don't have trained mechanics to fix these vehicles so who is going to do it?

These "free" vehicles are going to eat up budgets better spent on buying bullets so cops could actually train with their weapons and not be incompetent clowns whenever they discharge their weapon or better yet hire more cops. That will do more to protect the citizenry than these armored behemoths. Last I checked the USA doesn't have an IED problem.

If these assholes want to play soldier then they should have joined the Army. Leave the war toys on the battlefield.

Worse is how he feels they are "intimidating". That is what our police want to do is intimidate. Not protect and serve.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Worse is how he feels they are "intimidating". That is what our police want to do is intimidate. Not protect and serve.

intimidation is a form of control. Police need to be in control of all situations.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
Worse is how he feels they are "intimidating". That is what our police want to do is intimidate. Not protect and serve.

They still protect and serve. . . . just not citizens. they have NO duty to protect a citizen. their duty is the law.