Tank Crushes Car

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by fruitloops, Oct 30, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Apologises if this has been posted already, but it has just been brought to my attention and I found it rather funny
    Hopefully the link below will take you striaght to the video (am still learning to add links)

    Taken from the Northern Echo

    Inquiry after tank taken for drunken ride

    [video width=250 height=200]http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/audiovideo/news/index.var.1031.0.0.php[/video]

    A MILITARY investigation is under way after a drunken soldier filmed a civilian friend going for a ride in a tank and crushing a car.
    The incident happened in the early hours of the morning at Catterick Garrison, in North Yorkshire, after the pair had been on an all-night drinking session.
    The soldier allegedly sneaked his friend onto the Army base and showed him where the tanks were stored before allowing him to get behind the controls.
    The drunken friend steered the tank into a parked car, knocking a wheel off the back. Then the pair decided to demolish the vehicle and record it on video.
    The video shows the 24-ton Warrior tank rolling towards the white Vauxhall, then halting briefly before climbing the car and flattening it beneath its huge tread.
    Afterwards the desert-coloured Warrior drives away and the soldier, who filmed the incident on a mobile phone, is heard laughing so hard the picture shakes as he tries to focus on the wrecked car.
    The soldier is from the 2nd Duke of Lancaster Regiment and is from Merseyside.
    He can be heard throughout the video encouraging and shouting instructions to his friend.
    Gavin Greenwood, a military expert, asked: "Why was the tank not immobilised?
    "This represents a very real problem if soldiers can simply jump onto lethal pieces of military kit at any time, day or night."
    A Ministry Defence spokes-man said: "This is an ongoing investigation. At this stage no arrests have been made."
    The Military Police are understood to have told the Crown Prosecution Service that because a civilian was involved, it will be up to them whether to take any further action.
    It is understood that the soldier, who has not been named, took his friend back to the Bourlon Barracks, at Catterick Garrison.
    According to The People newspaper, the friends continued drinking throughout the night and then the next morning, the civilian asked his friend to show him a tank.
    The Warrior tank was equipped with a canon and a machine gun, but the weapons were not loaded.
    The vehicles are driven by a two-man crew and can hold eight soldiers inside.
    Warriors have been used extensively in Iraq because they give some protection against anti-tank mines and improvised explosive devices.
    It is not the first time Catterick Garrison has been at the centre of a security breach scandal.
    In 2004, four high-powered rifles were stolen from Bourlon Barracks.
    And in November last year, a civilian cook was found with an imitation gun at the base.

  2. Apology accepted
  3. For those having difficulties with the search function, try this thread.
  4. Thats my bloody caravan!
  5. can't get the video to show... anybody know of somewhere I can download it from??


  6. Since when has a Warrior been a bloody Tank :?
  7. elovabloke

    elovabloke LE Moderator


  8. If it's got tracks the media call it a tank.

    Anyway, point stands that anything not a landy is a tank. Never heard a 432 described as anything else - why should media care about warrior? (plus tank sounds more DRAMATIC oh my god someone just ran over someone's most beloved of possession heartlessly in a huge tank with two weapons loaded with depleted uranium and limbless afghan kids from deepcut)
  9. elovabloke

    elovabloke LE Moderator

    Just because some jurno cnut gets it wrong is not an excuse for those on this site to compound their fcuking stupid ways. Tanks provide shock and orr, warriors provide ahhh o yes, a load of seasick troops shouting "Get me out of here". 8)
  10. Anyway, it was a Vauxhall ..... wots the problem?
  11. Go on, then ....... it's about time I knew what defines a tank. I was chatting to someone, recently, but only managed to establish that the difference between "infantry armoured vehicles" and tanks was not that the latter had guns and tracks, because infantry AV's could also have guns and tracks...........

    So, what is the "umbrella" term for all these tracked vehicles? Is it Armoured Fighting Vehicles? And what are the criteria that define or differentiate each type?

    Or is there a website that explains all this? Because, the trouble is, I wouldn't even know what to type into a Google search.

    Or ........ should I stroll down the road and bother the folk at the Tank Museum with my questions?
  12. Apparently, tanks have to stand still to fire, guns don't.
  13. And that's IT 8O Well thank you, Dale. Better than "42", I suppose.
  14. I don't think so!
  15. Isn't it the other way round.........Tanks can Move and Fire, Guns can't.......

    Unless this was a wah......