• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve said:
Are you sure?
Click to expand...

I am sure that I should not post before finishing the first cup of coffee in the morning.:rolleyes::boggled:

But the point remains. Some wars have no clear winners. Win/lose in Ukraine may be a false dichotomy. The aim remains to ensure the best possible outcome for Ukraine. That may end up being something that isn't really a victory over Russia, even if it isn't a victory for Russia.
 
crescent said:
That part was well known for years. The concern is that with Seoul so close to the border, accuracy would not be needed to pound the city and create panic.
Click to expand...

Yes, a (non nuclear tipped) shell that cannot be guaranteed to land even a mile within its target, has no tactical value. But it has value as a terror weapon.
 
crescent said:
I am sure that I should not post before finishing the first cup of coffee in the morning.:rolleyes::boggled:

But the point remains. Some wars have no clear winners. Win/lose in Ukraine may be a false dichotomy. The aim remains to ensure the best possible outcome for Ukraine. That may end up being something that isn't really a victory over Russia, even if it isn't a victory for Russia.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: And yes, i understood and agree with your point regardless of your early morning math skills.
 
More hilarity: a new video shows BMPs getting hit, while carrying the infantry... on top. Kind of defeating the whole idea of an armoured personnel carrier.

I kind of wonder what took them so long to realize it's more dangerous to sit inside, what with it being hard to get out, literally having your back against a big fuel tank, and the same ammo cookoff problem as their tanks.
 
Chances are they were also carrying infantry inside. You might kid yourself that riding on the outside you could have a chance of seeing a drone coming and leap for your life.
 
Well, the question isn't as much what I kid myself as what some Russian officer kids himself. :p

And not just about top attacks, but also mines. The Ukrainians are know to mine the hell out of the area, and IIRC more vehicles are lost to mines than missiles and artillery. Is it safer being on top when it runs over a mine and catches fire? Hell if I know, but I can see someone thinking they might.

That said, I suppose it's also quite possible that they were just trying to carry twice the troops. Doesn't seem consistent with previous patterns, but I suppose they can try to innovate.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
More hilarity: a new video shows BMPs getting hit, while carrying the infantry... on top. Kind of defeating the whole idea of an armoured personnel carrier.

I kind of wonder what took them so long to realize it's more dangerous to sit inside, what with it being hard to get out, literally having your back against a big fuel tank, and the same ammo cookoff problem as their tanks.
Click to expand...

What took them so long? I was under the impression that the practice dates far back into Soviet times, and is almost as old as the BMP itself.
 
theprestige said:
What took them so long? I was under the impression that the practice dates far back into Soviet times, and is almost as old as the BMP itself.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of it before myself, but I can't say I'm well versed in Soviet military doctrine, given that they were a rather secretive bunch. But in Ukraine it took them almost two years to come to that conclusion.
 
Dr.Sid said:
It dates back to ww2. Notice the handles on t34 turrets ?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's part of it. Anyone who thinks the British are over-obsessed with WW2 might consider the Russians. If there's one thing every Russian knows, it's that they defeated the Nazis by riding heroically into battle clinging to a tank.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm pretty sure that's part of it. Anyone who thinks the British are over-obsessed with WW2 might consider the Russians. If there's one thing every Russian knows, it's that they defeated the Nazis by riding heroically into battle clinging to a tank.
Click to expand...

In WW2 it was a valid tactic.
One thing the Russians took a long time to learn is that tanks need close infantry support.
 
OH, in WW2, i.t was standard for all armies. Because APCs really came late and in relatively small numbers, and IFVs were still like a decade in the future. So how are you going to carry your infantry around, if you're not fully motorized and later mechanized like the UK? Well, have them ride on a tank. Not like they're gonna keep up with the panzers on foot or with horse drawn carts for Germany, amirite?

(Though in the USSR, the cavalry obsessed Kliment Voroshilov did come up with, hey, let's make divisions with one tank regiment and 2 cavalry regiments. Because nothing ever went wrong with sending cavalry against stuff with machineguns. Seriously, the guy actually had Mikhail Tukhachevsky, the proponent of armour and motorized/mechanized warfare purged, for not being one of the good old cavalry guys. But I digress.)

But you know, even back then it was obvious that it's an advantage to have some other mean of carrying the rest of the tank division than them riding on the tank. Not just because of protection, but when the composition of a division settled to about one platoon per tank, plus the other components like artillery, engineers, etc... you know... where the EFF are you gonna fit all those on a tank?

Yeah, that's the composition problem even ol' KV faced, as early as 1941. You literally can't fit 20 to 30 guys on a tank, so maybe use horses?

At any rate, WW2 is WW2, and BMP times are quite a bit in the future. The whole POINT of the BMP was to be an APC that carries a squad close to the battle inside, dismounts them, and then fights alongside them. The whole POINT of the BMP was to replace the trucks of the motorized infantry part of a tank division with something that was both more survivable AND more useful in the actual combat after dismounting them. You know, by being able to also fire machineguns and lob bigger projectiles to support them.

The current Russian idea of carrying them on top and then buggering off to leave them to fight alone is really neither. It's literally a worse use of an IFV than just using a GAZ or Ural truck instead. I mean in a truck they're at least partially behind the engine block, and it doesn't have internal ammo to cookoff :p
 
Last edited:
In Nam, US troops often, perhaps usually in some areas, rode on top of M113s, using sandbags for some degree of protection. This was due chiefly to the danger of mines.

Granted, the M113 was a 1st generation APC, but it still continues in service today. A lot of work has gone into making modern APCs mine-resistant, with what degree of success I don't know, although if grunts are still riding topside then it looks as if improvements are needed.

As for drone defense (oh jesus, here he comes on his hobby horse again!), the barn door is wide open. Probably the quickest (partial) solution would be electronic. I'll defer to the geeks on that topic, because 1) developments are coming so fast, and 2) I don't known diddly about electronics.

I was drafted in 1967. But for a passel of luck, I might have found myself riding up top of an M113 somewhere out in Indian country. I doubt I would've enjoyed it. How about you?
 
3 days of almost unmitigated disaster for Russia.

Ukraine estimates, Russian losses as:

3480 men, 104 APC's, 78 tanks, 90 artillery guns, and 132 other vehicles.

Just an entire mechanized brigade, plus extra artillery.

Russia has taken no notable ground in that time.

Hopefully the US Senate gets their heads out of their asses, and gets Ukraine what they need... but I think probably not. They're now expecting Trump to get re-elected so are full on Vatnik mode :mad:

Maybe the EU, rest of NATO, can get Ukraine enough to carry on.

sackett said:
In Nam, US troops often, perhaps usually in some areas, rode on top of M113s, using sandbags for some degree of protection. This was due chiefly to the danger of mines.

Granted, the M113 was a 1st generation APC, but it still continues in service today. A lot of work has gone into making modern APCs mine-resistant, with what degree of success I don't know, although if grunts are still riding topside then it looks as if improvements are needed.

As for drone defense (oh jesus, here he comes on his hobby horse again!), the barn door is wide open. Probably the quickest (partial) solution would be electronic. I'll defer to the geeks on that topic, because 1) developments are coming so fast, and 2) I don't known diddly about electronics.

I was drafted in 1967. But for a passel of luck, I might have found myself riding up top of an M113 somewhere out in Indian country. I doubt I would've enjoyed it. How about you?
Click to expand...

For western APC's, very successfully. Assuming you mean with respect to crew protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom