The irony is that the Bushmaster these RBKA fanatics claim to die to keep is already obsolete

[R_Flagg_77]

36. I disagree, the civillian small arm would stand up just fine against tanks and drones...

Because the tank, the drone, the helicopter, bomber, body armor, so on and so forth are not all powerful. They're machines, and machines require fuel, men, and ammunition to operate effectively. So should there be a civilian uprising, using primarily the sort of small arms commonly available on the market, and improvised explosive devices; the civilians would hold their own if they use their arsenal correctly. Note the emphasis there.

Lets examine the tank... Heavy armored vehicle, tracked, armed with a variety of cannon and machine guns, communications systems; it's an excellent weapons system in it's niche. It's not a 'one size fits all' machine, it's best used against other armored vehicles, and in a supporting role for infantry operations. Most of them have large diesel engines, though the M1 Abrams family has a gas turbine engine.

With that sort of protection, armament, and mobility only a damned fool would stand up and fight one head to head. Even in another tank, you don't want to go head to head if you can help it; to say nothing of infantry or light-skinned vehicles like technicals or jeeps. But a tank has weaknesses, even the current generation of main battle tanks. A tank is a thirsty machine; it likes its fuel, it likes spare parts when it throws a track or gets dinged up on maneuvers. The tankers inside like food, they like sleep, they eventually have to answer the call of nature. A tank can be stopped, and this would apply just as much to an Apache attack helicopter as it would to be a B-52 bomber, a field howitzer, mortar, crew served machine gun, or anything else you care to mention. All these wonderful weapons systems require several times their numbers in the field in terms of trucks and support vehicles of all varieties; along with men trained in support roles. For every man fighting, there's something like three men supporting him with food, fuel, and ammunition.

You don't shoot the tank with your rifle... You kill the truck driver with your rifle. To field tanks, artillery, aircraft of any variety, it all requires a strong logistics system. Thats why the Wehrmacht got bogged down when they paid Uncle Joe a visit in 1941; the panzers ran low on gas, and the men got cold and hungry. You go after truck drivers, mechanics, pilots, cooks, medical personnel, anybody that keeps the fighting men in the field or in the air. I've examined military cargo trucks many times, and they're not much different than the trucks you see riding up and down the highway. A little sturdier maybe, but not much more so.

Besides, most of us have a glass bottle, a little gasoline for the lawnmower, a rag... You can stop a truck with that. A chain saw, steel cable, and a creative mind could slow down a convoy long enough to share your political disagreement with people in the vicinity. So hell, guns really wouldn't even be needed. Plenty of non-violent methods of stopping the flow of supplies to military operations.

Note, if you will, this is not a 'how to guide', nor do I advocate violence against my fellow man. I simply wish to share my thoughts.