Yuma sheriff gets armored car to patrol border


PDA






Desertdog
October 8, 2005, 06:37 PM
Yuma sheriff gets armored car to patrol border
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=3953913
Yuma County sheriff's deputies will now be patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border in a surplus British military armored personnel carrier.


The $18,000, nine-ton, six-wheeled vehicle is needed because of increased attacks against deputies and U.S. Border Patrol agents by drug and migrant smugglers, sheriff's and patrol officials said. The agencies frequently work together.

The Border Patrol's Yuma sector also has a new armored car, this one a 4 1/2 ton vehicle picked up from the Baltimore police. It's set to go into service in a few months.

Law enforcement officers in the border region are increasingly subject to rock throwing, gunfire and being rammed by fleeing vehicles.

In the first six months of 2005, 167 assaults, 104 rock throwing incidents and six cases of officers targeted by gunfire have been documented by the agencies in the Yuma region, sheriff's Maj. Leon Wilmot said.

In August, a rock thrown by an illegal immigrant forced a Border Patrol helicopter to land west of Yuma. The rock hit the rotor blade of the A-Star chopper, forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing. No one was hurt.

Wilmot said he hopes the armored personnel carrier deters the violence, and stops those who try to ram their way to freedom.

"Hopefully, when they see this, they'll know they just can't run into this and get away," Wilmot said.

Border Patrol spokesman Michael Gramley said federal officers already use "war wagons" pickups with detention compartments in the back and metal grates on the windows to protect agents from rock throwers.

But the new military vehicles will be the first capable of withstanding gunfire.

If you enjoyed reading about "Yuma sheriff gets armored car to patrol border" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
beerslurpy
October 8, 2005, 06:54 PM
Why not? The LAV is useless as a frontline combat vehicle.

The LAV can be disabled by 50 cal and 14.5mm arounds as well as being vulnerable to the usual rpg and ied culprits. Its basically an M113 with crap armor, no off-road ability and too much weight to transport combat-ready on a C130.

Its basically a POS, unless you intend to use it against civilians who dont have access to anti-tank technlogies or the ability to effectively set ambushes. Which does make me wonder why the army is attempting to replace the superior M113 with it.

Biker
October 8, 2005, 06:55 PM
Now we just need to equip it with a caltrop spreader and some anti-illegal missiles.
Biker

Tokugawa
October 8, 2005, 09:22 PM
Biker, you are part of a small elite who know what a caltrop is. Maybe we should take a poll. Or a test. Here is the test.
A caltrop is-
1 - a trollop, spelled differently.
2- a tropical californian
3- A form of cow dung
4- something General Giap wished he had invented for grunts to step on. Instead, he used the pungi stake.

Biker
October 8, 2005, 09:37 PM
I thought that 'Pungi' was a province of India whose flag was something along the lines of "Don't Tread On Me". :D
Biker

Moparmike
October 8, 2005, 09:50 PM
Now we just need to equip it with a caltrop spreader Ow.

beerslurpy
October 8, 2005, 10:05 PM
*** are you talking about? Everyone knows what a caltrops is. They have only been in use since like 2-3000 years ago when men developed the ability to shape metal into pointy things.

Sam
October 9, 2005, 01:05 AM
Wonder how long it will be before some enterprising fellow from SOTB figures he can cook the occupants with a couple pints of increasingly expensive fuel?
:D
Sam

Sir Aardvark
October 9, 2005, 03:20 AM
Gasoline and Lux detergent makes a fine BBQ.

garyk/nm
October 9, 2005, 12:53 PM
Hmmm....AZ desert in the summer-time, 115-120 degrees on the ground, and driving around in mobile ovens. Yep, makes sense to me!

A nine-ton, slow moving target.

Wonder how many volunteers they get to go on this joyride?

beerslurpy
October 9, 2005, 01:23 PM
The hilarious thing is that when the mexicans leave the road, the LAV is gonna follow them and get stuck in the sand.

JShirley
October 9, 2005, 01:29 PM
Not to rain on anyone's fantasy, but a LAV-III weighs 2x as much as the vehicle
described in the article...and I somehow don't think even LEOs could get one for $18,000. :rolleyes: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lav-gen3-specs.htm

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/

Lupinus
October 9, 2005, 01:33 PM
Easy way to fix it?

National Guard.

For Christ sake's it's about time they are deployed to guard us already.

modifiedbrowning
October 9, 2005, 02:41 PM
I just think it's funny that the BP is getting their APC from the Baltimore Police. What did the Baltimore Police need it for I wonder.

Lupinus
October 9, 2005, 02:57 PM
Probably had it for riot situation's. I'd be willing to bet they had it modified to have a water cannon or some such, or was there to be used to get riot police where they needed to be.

I stil lsay the best thing is to put the national guard or other military o nthe boarder.

Then let's see if they fire on our actual military unit's and risk a war.

Biker
October 9, 2005, 09:03 PM
Bush will not allow this to happen - it would cost him votes. He'd rather sell all of us out than chance that.
And Jammer - Every time an illegal crosses the border, it makes us weaker and makes the country he left stronger. ;)
Biker

PromptCritical
October 9, 2005, 09:41 PM
The $18,000, nine-ton, six-wheeled vehicle is needed because of increased attacks against deputies and U.S. Border Patrol agents by drug and migrant smugglers, sheriff's and patrol officials said.

Funny, no mention of the MExican Army firing on the Border Patrol. :scrutiny:

Mexican soldiers attack BP agent (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26852)

I also remember reading a story where the some Mexican soldiers shot up a Border Patrol truck.

beerslurpy
October 9, 2005, 09:49 PM
It might be a down-armored turretless LAV3. Or some more primitive variant thereof. I'm guessing it will stop 30 cal, but beyond that I wouldnt want to bet my life.

LAR-15
October 9, 2005, 10:32 PM
They need some Humvees.

Then the Mexican Army won't shoot at them- thinking they Mexicans too.

Kharn
October 9, 2005, 10:33 PM
The USMC's LAV is 8 wheeled, not 6.
18,000lbs is too small to be the 6 wheeled LAV-300 (aka V-300 Commando), I dont know if the British used them (since thats where its noted as being surplused from), but the US military does not.

If they really wanted to go after illegals, they should consider a Stryker, the LAV's bigger, badder brother (heavier armor and weapon, at the expense of losing its amphibious ability, not like they really need that in the desert), but those are going for about $2mil fully outfitted.

Kharn

Greg L
October 9, 2005, 11:54 PM
Sheesh Tokugawa, if Giap had looked at any pictures of D-day he would have seen the GI's trying to take cover under industrial sized caltrops as they were trying to get above the water line.

There isn't anything new under the sun (more or less, of course your milage may vary :neener: :uhoh: )

JShirley
October 10, 2005, 10:16 AM
I was part of the second Stryker Brigade, 1-25th. (A Co, 1-5 Infantry). The Stryker is not larger nor better armed than a LAV. The chief difference is that a Stryker (IAV) has a remote weapons station instead of a turrent, theoretically allowing it to fit inside a C-130.

John

Kharn
October 10, 2005, 10:42 AM
Jshirley:
The LAV is 2 feet shorter than a Stryker (251" vs 275") and 10,000lbs lighter.
Doesnt the LAV's (more correctly, the Bison, the APC variant of the LAV system) ring mount only traverse 270deg, and isnt their standard weapon on a M240? Or at least thats all the Marines are putting on the LAV/Bison variant we're building for them.

There's also a significant performance difference in the armor, but for that, you'll have to go to publically available sources to see exactly how different the armor is between the two.

Did you guys deploy with a few M93A1 Foxes?

Kharn

armoredman
October 10, 2005, 11:16 AM
Surplus British APC? A Saxon?

El Tejon
October 10, 2005, 11:22 AM
Yeah, but we're not a police state!

Living in a police state is a small price to pay for living in a free country! :D

Another feckless toy for the police so they can look like they are "doing something". :rolleyes:

DRZinn
October 10, 2005, 11:30 AM
isnt their standard weapon on a M240?Nope, they have a 20mm cannon too.

Kharn
October 10, 2005, 12:11 PM
DocZinn:
Thats the turreted version, apples to oranges since it cant carry troops. Now if you want to talk main guns, we can bring up the Stryker MGS with its 105mm tank cannon (off the old M1 Abrams before they upgraded to 120mm), .50cal and 7.62. :evil:

Kharn

erikm
October 10, 2005, 12:53 PM
6 wheeled, british and secondhand? I wonder if someone laid their hands on a surplus Saracen and decided it might make a cool police APC (or rolling oven).

If someone takes one trundling around Arizona, I hope for his sake that he installs an extra air conditioning unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Saracen_APC
http://www.clash-of-steel.co.uk/gallery/pages/view_entry.php?image_number=121

Note that its main use has been urban, it saw lots of use in northern Ireland.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

JShirley
October 10, 2005, 03:06 PM
The LAV III forms the basis of the US Army's Interim Armoured Vehicle (IAV) program and has been named the Stryker. (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/)

As one can see from the link I posted previously, the LAV III (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lav-gen3-specs.htm) has a combat weight of 18 tons. It holds 3 crew and 8 troops.

The IAV (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-icv.htm) have a combat weight of only one ton more than the LAV III...and the LAV III has primary armament of a 25mm cannon.

John

Kharn
October 10, 2005, 04:36 PM
JShirley:
The LAV-III was the ancestor of the Stryker, correct. But the vehicle labeled "LAV" in the US military is the version used by the USMC, the smaller and lighter LAV-I. Nobody in the Army calls the Stryker a LAV-III, only General Dynamics does that while trying to market their goodies to non-American markets.

Kharn

DRZinn
October 10, 2005, 04:41 PM
Thats the turreted version, apples to oranges since it cant carry troops.Check this out: (http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/b54eb957c0d3b17a852562830058111b?OpenDocument) That's the only version I'm even a little familiar with, but it has a 25mm cannon (I said 20) and carries 6 Marines besides the crew.

rmgill
October 10, 2005, 05:10 PM
Erikm has it right. At about 8 tons, 6x6 and Ex British, it'd have to be a Saracen APC. They're inexpensive for their size and still able to take some punishment. I have the smaller cousin, the Daimler Ferret. Still quite capabable.

As for ballistic protection, it'll depend on the Mark, the Mark 6's had 7.62mm AP protection from the sides (all around) and were the final form of vehicle used to deal with the IRA in Northern Ireland.

No doubt, unless the knuckle-heads crossing the border are toting around RPGs or an M2 50, they're going to be dealing with more than they can handle. The Saracen will take a 7.62mm MG in the turret and one more on the rear skate ring. 8 Dismounts will help too.

The Saracen's debut was in Malaysia during the communist insurrection down there that the British won.

Kharn
October 10, 2005, 06:06 PM
DocZinn:
You're right, I thought the LAV-I with the turret couldnt carry anyone and wasnt mentioned on the site I checked.

Kharn

If you enjoyed reading about "Yuma sheriff gets armored car to patrol border" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!