• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The War in Ukraine

Ukrainian Bradley takes out 2 x BTR-82's and dismounts attempting to cross an open field in daylight. Craziness.

 
Ukrainians using FPV drones to take out Russian UAV's:


Cheaper than a SAM
 
Ukrainian Bradley takes out 2 x BTR-82's and dismounts attempting to cross an open field in daylight. Craziness.

And that is why you don’t ride on top of vehicles
 
And that is why you don’t ride on top of vehicles

This is a TTP that the Soviets/Russians have used for a long time, and was quite popular in Afghanistan. It's not the first time I've seen it used in Ukraine.

The Russians are making a decision about what kind of risk they think is the most dangerous at any given moment. The decision to ride on top comes down to a tradeoff between survivability against mine strikes or against direct fire. It might also be driven by some of the quirks of the BTR (it's not the easiest vehicle to dismount). If commanders believe the biggest threat is hitting a mine, they usually put the troops on top.

In this case, it looks like the commander chose poorly.
 
This is a TTP that the Soviets/Russians have used for a long time, and was quite popular in Afghanistan. It's not the first time I've seen it used in Ukraine.

The Russians are making a decision about what kind of risk they think is the most dangerous at any given moment. The decision to ride on top comes down to a tradeoff between survivability against mine strikes or against direct fire. It might also be driven by some of the quirks of the BTR (it's not the easiest vehicle to dismount). If commanders believe the biggest threat is hitting a mine, they usually put the troops on top.

In this case, it looks like the commander chose poorly.

For all the trade off of protection / survival that can be made the realities in this conflict are that the number one threat is artillery, and being on top vs in the armoured box is a poor trade in that regard. Having had the opportunity to drive around in a BMP 2 for a bit, I’m of the opinion that ergonomics plays a very large factor in the unwillingness to spend much time inside them. Frankly it’s an example of poorly designed vehicles eroding their actual purpose.
 
For all the trade off of protection / survival that can be made the realities in this conflict are that the number one threat is artillery, and being on top vs in the armoured box is a poor trade in that regard. Having had the opportunity to drive around in a BMP 2 for a bit, I’m of the opinion that ergonomics plays a very large factor in the unwillingness to spend much time inside them. Frankly it’s an example of poorly designed vehicles eroding their actual purpose.

You are correct, it's a response to some of the inherent limitations of the vehicle. They aren't particularly well protected against any sort of threat, and Russian vehicles are notorious for their ergonomics. Crew comfort was never a significant design consideration.

I understand why they do it, but I don't think it's a particularly smart TTP. Even in Afghanistan - where they faced very little threat from indirect fire - it often resulted in excessive casualties from small arms.
 
A few decades ago, when we were somewhat talking to the Russians, I got to have a discussion about that with two of their Spetsnaz. They where of the opinion their vehicles where flaming death traps that where very hard to exit under fire due to the cramped space - as such they chose to ride outside, preferring any to chance DF and IDF to burning alive inside.
 
A few decades ago, when we were somewhat talking to the Russians, I got to have a discussion about that with two of their Spetsnaz. They where of the opinion their vehicles where flaming death traps that where very hard to exit under fire due to the cramped space - as such they chose to ride outside, preferring any to chance DF and IDF to burning alive inside.

I have heard that complaint before. That's what I was getting at when I suggested that they aren't easy to dismount from. Some of the vehicles apparently have a bad habit of catching fire as a result of a mine strike.
 
A few decades ago, when we were somewhat talking to the Russians, I got to have a discussion about that with two of their Spetsnaz. They where of the opinion their vehicles where flaming death traps that where very hard to exit under fire due to the cramped space - as such they chose to ride outside, preferring any to chance DF and IDF to burning alive inside.
Goes to the ergonomics. BMP2s are very low, but that also means cramped. Seating designed to let you shoot out of it also means you’re not in a good position to get out.
 
Ukrainian Bradley takes out 2 x BTR-82's and dismounts attempting to cross an open field in daylight. Craziness.

Crews love the Bradley but hate the old Abrams that they received. Too easy to mission kill with FPV and a high visibility / high value target.

 
Crews love the Bradley but hate the old Abrams that they received. Too easy to mission kill with FPV and a high visibility / high value target.

Reading this report it sound more like a employment/ expectations of the tank is incorrect then anything else.
It is interesting the rounds carried are not suitable for their mission. It does not sound like they do a lot of tank on tank fighting,( I guess that's what the Bradleys are doing) But more of infrastructure destruction. That is more of a logistic side of things. I would think they would have been provided with something other then sabot rounds, if not then those who provided the ammunition did not evaluate the Ukrainian's employment of their tank. Which leads to a whole host of other issues.

As for being a high value target, darn rights. Those tanks can take out a T72 past 3km in the right terrain. The Russians have nothing that can match that. That would make me a bit concerned driving around in one of 30ish tanks with a x marked on my turret, at the same time I might have a guy with a shot gun or two sitting guard.
 
Seems prudent for the time being...

The Black Sea fleet isn't bringing a lot to the fight right now, but still presents some tempting targets for the Ukranians to hit when the opportunity arises

Between their flag ship, a relatively modern sub, and a bunch of smaller vessels...probably best to move those ships elsewhere if they aren't contributing much to the current fight


(Also at a real disadvantage considering real time Intel being provided by the Americans and Ukraine's luck so far with their Neptune anti ship missiles)

(On a similar note, in another universe it's too bad their carrier is busy self-divesting in drydock...would have been kinda cool to see a carrier sink like in The Sum of all Fears, but not when it's full of service members)
 
Seems prudent for the time being...

The Black Sea fleet isn't bringing a lot to the fight right now, but still presents some tempting targets for the Ukranians to hit when the opportunity arises

Between their flag ship, a relatively modern sub, and a bunch of smaller vessels...probably best to move those ships elsewhere if they aren't contributing much to the current fight


(Also at a real disadvantage considering real time Intel being provided by the Americans and Ukraine's luck so far with their Neptune anti ship missiles)

(On a similar note, in another universe it's too bad their carrier is busy self-divesting in drydock...would have been kinda cool to see a carrier sink like in The Sum of all Fears, but not when it's full of service members)
It would be a shame if some sea mines were laid in the canal connecting the Black sea and Caspian Sea, or even is some ships were hit in the Caspian.
 
A few OSINT sources are now wondering if the Russian storage bases might have run out of salvageable T72s.

Not ideal, but even older tanks can still be useful if they are used in a limited role. I seem to recall that the Israelis still have some Centurion variants and derivatives in service (but not as MBTs). Using older and potentially obsolescent equipment has always been part of Soviet/Russian planning. The Russians probably see T54s and T55s as potentially still useful in an infantry support role, as 100mm HE and the coax MG will still be effective at killing dismounts or unarmored targets.

That said, it's still a very limited platform. It would be extremely vulnerable to any modern AT system and wouldn't stand much chance in a tank-on-tank fight. Due to the age, keeping it running would also be a problem for the maintainers.
Sorry wouldn't want to crew a Sherman of any mod1
 
Kinda odd ....
Bit of back story from earlier this year (usual caveats re: TASS/official RUS media) ....
 
Kinda odd ....
Bit of back story from earlier this year (usual caveats re: TASS/official RUS media) ....
French mercenaries odd?
 
Back
Top