Video results for: british tanksMore results from video 
British Paras in CH-47s Handicapped by Land Rover Gun-Trucks The British Paras are smart to understand that Parachute Airborne operations are like helicopter (More) The British Paras are smart to understand that Parachute Airborne operations are like helicopter operations: both are AIR ASSAULTS. They have connected-the-dots better than we Americans have.
However, the Jeremy Clarkson video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmtgRF-MUoM
shows that not integrating light tanks/APCs into their Air Assault force structure is a serious mistake since using unarmored, vulnerable wheeled trucks are getting British Soldiers killed in Afghanistan needlessly along roads where land mines await.
http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2007/09/mobility-protection-and-mindsets.html
For a wheeled truck to have tire floatation to have any cross-country mobility it has to be UNARMORED and this is fatally unsound on the non-linear battlefield where enemy direct and indirect fires threaten even if you avoid road land mines by cross-country mobility. In the Clarkson video he in in an unarmored, 4x4 Range Rover truck and tries to outrun and not be targeted by a Challenger 2 heavy, tracked tank with 360 degree revolving turret with stabilized gun in a game of "Cat & Mouse" in OPEN TERRAIN. Rebels on foot with guns can track an exposed truck in the open just like a tank turret can, hit it and destroy it.
"Light" obsessed military units try to employ unarmored wheeled trucks to stalk tanks with ATGMs and provide machine gun fire support for walking infantry and this video shows the foolishness of the Humvee and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMp7iEtc_i0
Land Rover mentalities....
http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2007/09/mobility-protection-and-mindsets.html
that only gets worse if you slap a thin armored box on top of the wheels so they no longer float but SINK into the soft ground or pop under the weight--aka LAVs/Strykers/MRAPs etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYFIMVgxgLM
The wheeled truck as a combat vehicle is unsound;
http://www.geocities.com/wheelsvstracks
you can see here that if even a heavy tracked tank has superior cross-country mobility over even an ultralight truck whose wheels can float over terrain but the protected tank can get easy line-of-sight (LOS) kill shots on them, LIGHT tracked tanks like the M113 Gavin, Scimitar/Bv206S/Vikings etc. will be even more superior as combat experiences with the turretless STUGs in WW2 followed by post-war light tracked tank/APC combats prove.
"Light" Airborne Units End Up Air-Delivering Crap Wheeled Trucks that's all they Own
http://www.combatreform.com/c13ounloadingcrappylandrovertruckinafghanistan.jpg
You might say, "no sweat; 16th Air Assault Brigade will C-17/C-130 air-deliver Scimitar light tanks with 30mm autocannon or FV432 Bulldogs or Royal Marine Bv10S Vikings"....
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=99E172661D4DE351
the problem is these units DON'T PARACHUTE JUMP--so an airfield or at the very least an assault landing runway has to be seized or built---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blyZUbKvfeI
wasting time (14 days+) enabling the enemy to escape or gather strength--all not necessary because the light tanks/APCs listed CAN BE PARACHUTE AIRDROPPED ALONG WITH PARAS. LIGHT tanks/APCs should be ORGANIC to LIGHT infantry so they deploy and fight together, ALL THE TIME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcSwXW49J_I
The Russian Airborne understands this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hrvgYEI90c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUF4GVszsCQ
Had Para-owned Scimitar light tanks been at Goose Green on the Falklands in 1982 Colonel Jones would have been a LIVING Victoria Cross winner because their armored hulls in the lead would have protected him from Argentine fires as he lead the dismounted assault against the dug-in enemy.
http://www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger/falklandslessonsnotlearned.htm
The west does not have the best force structures possible due to silly snob social class distinctions of various units who have self-created mental blocks of what they can and cannot do that are NOT SHARED BY THEIR EQUIPMENT that is not maximized.
P.S. the RAF Chinooks need to be painted SKY GRAY
http://www.combatreform.com/camie.htm
and the Paras need to ragtop camouflage their helmets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi3pc0aA-oc
Want to know more?
Our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century" is ONLINE for FREE skyjacked by Google!
http://books.google.com/books?id=RCWtHnYZ0LMC&pg (Less)
WW2 Mystery: 1930s British Bicycle-Infantry & Bren APCs One of the great mysteries of WW2 is what happened to all of the positive (+) reform efforts between (More) One of the great mysteries of WW2 is what happened to all of the positive (+) reform efforts between the wars by General J.F.C. Fuller, Captain Liddell-Hart and General Hobart?
http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory/sld04.htm
American military reformer, Brigadier S.L.A. Marshall (SLAM) in his masterpiece, "The Soldier's Load & the Mobility of the Nation" describes how Liddell-Hart ran "Sherman marches" with British troops loaded with under 30 pounds of gear achieving "high levels" of mobility in the 1930s as this video shows. (One of SLAM's flaws is he didn't DEFINE WITH A MPH NUMBER what "good mobility" is)
http://www.combatreform.com/combatlight.htm
British reformers were all WW1 veterans who surely knew about the German bicycle-troop success in taking the Mt. St. Pere bridge over the Marne river in 1914 in coup de main, and Vorbeck's bike victories in East Africa as well as Hutier knocking the Russians out of the war in the east with bicycle cavalry.
http://www.combatreform.com/atb.htm
On D-Day, British bike-mobile infantry freed by Hobart's "Funnies" engineer tanks swarmed 7-10 miles inland while foot-slogging Americans were still stuck on beaches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSm5nBZ4X0A
So where was the bicycle coup de main force to take Arnhem bridge in late 1944? The Germans swarmed on bikes and repulsed mobility expert Frost's men from the north side of the bridge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o44BvtQxOV4
We are going to venture that SLAM was wrong about the foot-infantry infatuated British NOT solving their individual load/mobility problems. Their M1937 pattern web gear with suspenders and two large pouches to hold magazines for Sten SMGs or Bren LMGs was far superior to American canvass web gear based on hanging things loosely by wires; though the 8-round M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle clip mini-pouches was clever and minimalist. This video shows British infantry supported by Bren gun carrier open-topped tracked APCs carrying their extra supplies of food, water and ammo, too.
No, the conclusion one has to draw in light of the CHINDITS in CBI
http://www.geocities.com/airbornemuseum/nlmb.htm
as well as European operations is that the British Army DID have their Soldiers highly mobile and well-camouflaged on foot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi3pc0aA-oc
The problem was this in itself is not a panacea;--SLAM is wrong, sometimes THERE IS NO EASY WAY TO CIRCLE AROUND AN ENEMY if a part of the force is pinned down. Sometimes you have to BLAST YOUR WAY THROUGH; and the Germans in the 1930s realized this and created the turretless STUG assault gun LIGHT TANKS to insure infantry could blast their way through. The British lost efficiency by insisting on turrets and had excellent Churchill medium infantry fire support tanks but NO LIGHT TANK STUG equivalents to keep lighter 3D maneuvering by-parachutes-and-gliders forces moving in the face of enemy fire. Why they simply didn't put a 75mm pack howitzer on some Bren gun carriers which would have saved the day on the road to Arnhem so Frost would have been reinforced and held is still a huge mystery.
http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory
The sad conclusion is that EGOS were to blame; the walking infantry doesn't want to admit it needs the help, insisting it can SLAM-infiltrate with foot fire & maneuver through any opposition and those that want to operate "tanks" want to have 360 degree swiveling turrets so they can shoot faster with less effort--even though it damns them to a huge silhouette and less armor protection and armament. It seems only the Germans were able to make the necessary hard choices based on a correct understanding of planet of earth and human war realities to get maximum efficiencies at every level. To have LIGHT TANKS that can operate in CLOSED terrain for example, you can ill afford a turret as we see the American Locust/British Tetrarch light tanks had--which damned them to weak 37mm cannon armaments. The Germans re-armed their excellent Czech 38T light tanks' 37mm cannon turrets with large 75mm guns throughout WW2. Nevertheless, egomaniac General Browning refused to glider-land available 6th Airborne Locust/Tetrarch light tanks to Arnhem in the same infantrymania that failed to put guns on Bren gun APCs--that were all over the place giving infantry a lift and carrying its supplies. The answer to being pinned down by German fires was right there in front of them! (Less)
British Tanks of WWII 2-7028 HiTMaN on esoftarchive net 
2009-09-13 - extension: rar - size: 39 MB
British Tanks of WWII 2-7028 HiTMaN on esoftarchive net
Hosted on: rapidshare.com
Groups results for: british tanks 
