Posted on Nov 19, 2022
Texas Guard to send tank-like military vehicles to the border
2.59K
66
23
15
15
0
Posted in these groups: Texas ARNG
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Edited 2 y ago
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 7
8
8
0
Oh good lord, the media including the Army Times, have an agenda and that agenda is not the truth.
(8)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
SGT James Murphy Calling the 113 a "tank-like military" vehicle. They know its not heavily armed, nor heavily armored. Remember, they said descriptors are important. They want people to think illegal aliens are facing heavy weapons.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Gov. Greg Abbott invokes 'invasion clause' of U.S., Texas constitutions
While a state senate committee reviewed the costs of Operation Lone Star inside the capitol building a group of immigration advocates called the border opera...
Thank you my friend and brother-in-Christ MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. for posting the perspective from the armytimes.com author Davis Winkie that the Gov. Greg Abbott has decided to send M113 armored personnel carrier vehicles to the border.
Since the cartels are not only undermining security but threatening the health, welfare and lives of citizens and non citizens by using fentanyl and other dugs to kill unsuspecting drug users, I think that engaging them at any level makes sense [short of nuclear and chem/bio] at the border [including airspace above and whatever lies below the surface.
Gov. Greg Abbott invokes 'invasion clause' of U.S., Texas constitutions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yggOkRNN10k
It is ludicrous to label the M-113 as a tank-like vehicle IMHO. I had to chuckle when reading 'Such vehicles are by definition bulletproof and can withstand small explosions. In the civilian world, lighter, wheeled armored personnel carriers are sometimes used to carry police SWAT team."
The Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) is much more bullet proof than the M-113 family of vehicles. If the cartels are a threat, it would make more sense to send some MRAPS IMHO.
The Texas Military Department said in a written statement that in addition to the 10 armored vehicles, the Texas National Guard is increasing “aircraft flights and security efforts” on the border.
“These actions are part of a larger strategy to use every available tool to fight back against the record-breaking level of illegal immigration,” the department said. “The Texas National Guard is taking unprecedented measures to safeguard our border and to repel and turn-back immigrants trying to cross the border illegally.”
Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in March 2021, sending thousands of soldiers and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers to the border while accusing the Biden administration of failing to secure the border. The effort has included placing shipping containers and rows of DPS and military vehicles along the Rio Grande to deter migrants from crossing, plus using state money and donations to build border barriers.
Armored personnel carriers like the M113 are designed to carry infantry troops across modern battlefields alongside tanks. They can be equipped with a range of weapons: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, antitank missiles or even large cannons similar to those mounted on tanks. It’s not clear what weapons, if any, will be on the Texas Guard’s M113s at the border.
Such vehicles are by definition bulletproof and can withstand small explosions. In the civilian world, lighter, wheeled armored personnel carriers are sometimes used to carry police SWAT teams.'
FYI LTC Trent Klug LTC (Join to see) MAJ Byron Oyler ~1343414:SSG Franklin Briant] SSG Donald H "Don" Bates SSG (Join to see) SSG Byron Howard Sr SGT Brent Scott Sgt Kelli Mays SGT Jim Arnold SP5 Michael Rathbun SPC Michael Oles SR Sgt Albert Castro SFC Randy Purham SSG Ed Mikus SSG Mark Ives SPC Americo Garcia SPC Mark Huddleston CPO Tim Dickey
Since the cartels are not only undermining security but threatening the health, welfare and lives of citizens and non citizens by using fentanyl and other dugs to kill unsuspecting drug users, I think that engaging them at any level makes sense [short of nuclear and chem/bio] at the border [including airspace above and whatever lies below the surface.
Gov. Greg Abbott invokes 'invasion clause' of U.S., Texas constitutions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yggOkRNN10k
It is ludicrous to label the M-113 as a tank-like vehicle IMHO. I had to chuckle when reading 'Such vehicles are by definition bulletproof and can withstand small explosions. In the civilian world, lighter, wheeled armored personnel carriers are sometimes used to carry police SWAT team."
The Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) is much more bullet proof than the M-113 family of vehicles. If the cartels are a threat, it would make more sense to send some MRAPS IMHO.
The Texas Military Department said in a written statement that in addition to the 10 armored vehicles, the Texas National Guard is increasing “aircraft flights and security efforts” on the border.
“These actions are part of a larger strategy to use every available tool to fight back against the record-breaking level of illegal immigration,” the department said. “The Texas National Guard is taking unprecedented measures to safeguard our border and to repel and turn-back immigrants trying to cross the border illegally.”
Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in March 2021, sending thousands of soldiers and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers to the border while accusing the Biden administration of failing to secure the border. The effort has included placing shipping containers and rows of DPS and military vehicles along the Rio Grande to deter migrants from crossing, plus using state money and donations to build border barriers.
Armored personnel carriers like the M113 are designed to carry infantry troops across modern battlefields alongside tanks. They can be equipped with a range of weapons: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, antitank missiles or even large cannons similar to those mounted on tanks. It’s not clear what weapons, if any, will be on the Texas Guard’s M113s at the border.
Such vehicles are by definition bulletproof and can withstand small explosions. In the civilian world, lighter, wheeled armored personnel carriers are sometimes used to carry police SWAT teams.'
FYI LTC Trent Klug LTC (Join to see) MAJ Byron Oyler ~1343414:SSG Franklin Briant] SSG Donald H "Don" Bates SSG (Join to see) SSG Byron Howard Sr SGT Brent Scott Sgt Kelli Mays SGT Jim Arnold SP5 Michael Rathbun SPC Michael Oles SR Sgt Albert Castro SFC Randy Purham SSG Ed Mikus SSG Mark Ives SPC Americo Garcia SPC Mark Huddleston CPO Tim Dickey
(7)
(0)
SGT James Murphy
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. - I'm building me one of these. BTW: This Milwaukee Wisconsin Man was murdered for supporting President Trump. So we're not that far off.........
(1)
(0)
Leave it to a pair of idiot writers to call an old APC a "Tank-like military vehicle".
What's next, calling a UPS van a "SWAT-like" transport?
Other comments that show the 'great familiarity' of the writer trying to drum up FUD*
"Armored personnel carriers like the M113 are designed to carry infantry troops across modern battlefields alongside tanks. They can be equipped with a range of weapons: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, antitank missiles or even large cannons similar to those mounted on tanks. It’s not clear what weapons, if any, will be on the Texas Guard’s M113s at the border."
"Such vehicles are by definition bulletproof and can withstand small explosions."
I expect this from a civilian newspaper (which one of the writers was from), but not from the Army Times.
---------------------
* FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Disbelief
What's next, calling a UPS van a "SWAT-like" transport?
Other comments that show the 'great familiarity' of the writer trying to drum up FUD*
"Armored personnel carriers like the M113 are designed to carry infantry troops across modern battlefields alongside tanks. They can be equipped with a range of weapons: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, antitank missiles or even large cannons similar to those mounted on tanks. It’s not clear what weapons, if any, will be on the Texas Guard’s M113s at the border."
"Such vehicles are by definition bulletproof and can withstand small explosions."
I expect this from a civilian newspaper (which one of the writers was from), but not from the Army Times.
---------------------
* FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Disbelief
(5)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
MSG Thomas Currie - But the whole purpose of the MGS was to provide mobile protected firepower to fighting forces. The M113 is nothing like that, it's a transport system, and it is almost obsolete on the modern armored battlefield.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
COL Randall C. - Even if it does not scare the cartels Sir, they still have a few brain cells a path of less resistant is better. All we have to do is make NM look like an easier pathway (I am a TX resident.)
(2)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
MAJ Hugh Blanchard - Yes, "mobile protected firepower" was the official pitch -- but that was never what the MGS was capable of doing.
The first major mistake in the program was making Armor branch the proponent for the MGS. If you look at the original concept, where the MGS was supposed to be an infantry support vehicle, we didn't really have any branch in a good position to design the vehicle, but Infantry would still have been a better choice. Instead of designing a vehicle to provide firepower in support of dismounted infantry (which is what the MGS was supposed to do), Armor tried to design a mini-tank on the mandated Stryker chassis. The result was an inappropriate gun and a vehicle that was never honestly able to meet the requirement for air transport in a ready-to-fight configuration.
It should have had a low- or mid-velocity gun with a shorter barrel and much less recoil. It did not need a "tank killer" gun because within the Stryker Family of Vehicles the MGS was never intended to be a tank killer. It was meant to take out infantry strongpoints like machine guns and small bunkers. There were (and still are) several off-the-shelf guns that would have been more appropriate than the M68.
Using MOS 19K as the crew for the MGS was also an armor-driven poor choice. OCOA championed using 19K as a way to defend the number of 19K slots in the Army, not because it was the best choice for the vehicle in its proper role.
The first major mistake in the program was making Armor branch the proponent for the MGS. If you look at the original concept, where the MGS was supposed to be an infantry support vehicle, we didn't really have any branch in a good position to design the vehicle, but Infantry would still have been a better choice. Instead of designing a vehicle to provide firepower in support of dismounted infantry (which is what the MGS was supposed to do), Armor tried to design a mini-tank on the mandated Stryker chassis. The result was an inappropriate gun and a vehicle that was never honestly able to meet the requirement for air transport in a ready-to-fight configuration.
It should have had a low- or mid-velocity gun with a shorter barrel and much less recoil. It did not need a "tank killer" gun because within the Stryker Family of Vehicles the MGS was never intended to be a tank killer. It was meant to take out infantry strongpoints like machine guns and small bunkers. There were (and still are) several off-the-shelf guns that would have been more appropriate than the M68.
Using MOS 19K as the crew for the MGS was also an armor-driven poor choice. OCOA championed using 19K as a way to defend the number of 19K slots in the Army, not because it was the best choice for the vehicle in its proper role.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
MSG Currie, you made very good comments about the MGS. Yes, that program had several issues. But the basic article was an alarmist hit piece from uninformed "woke" authors criticizing the Texas National Guard's use of M113s for mobility in tracking down illegal aliens. The authors act as if the M113's are to be used in executing armored assaults against illegal aliens, which is ridiculous.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google