War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[urbanoid]

for rent

Edited November 5 by urbanoid

[Stuart Galbraith]

Tradoc is back. Publication from February this year on Russian military tactics, as seen in the Ukraine war.

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN40737-ATP_7-100.1-001-WEB-4.pdf

[Soldier36]

Footage of Russian servicemen inspecting a Ukrainian armored vehicle "Kozak-5". The armored vehicle "Kozak-5" got stuck in a swamp during the retreat of Ukrainian units from the Kursk region of Russia. Ukrainian armored vehicles "Kozak-5" have been produced by the Kiev company NPO "Praktika" since 2016. Ukrainian units damaged the front axle of the armored vehicle and abandoned it, but it remained on the move. Russian units pulled out the armored vehicle "Kozak-5", but after evacuating it to the rear, its gearbox and driveshaft broke. Now the vehicle has been sent for restoration. The armored vehicle "Kozak-5" is built on the chassis of the American SUV Ford F-550. The armored vehicle "Kozak" is the first Ukrainian armored vehicle protected from a mine explosion, it can withstand an explosion of up to 3 kilograms of TNT. The Kozak-5 armored vehicle can carry up to 8 people and reaches speeds of up to 120 km/h.

 

 

 

[Soldier36]

Episodes of training of Russian servicemen at training grounds in Buryatia. Despite the fact that these are training sessions, servicemen use live ammunition. The video shows a BMP-1 combat vehicle and new Russian robotic systems NRTK "Courier"

 

 

[Soldier36]

The Russian Uralvagonzavod has sent another batch of upgraded TOS-1A Solntsepek to the Russian troops. The TOS Solntsepek combat vehicles have been upgraded in accordance with the wishes of the soldiers. The video shows that the combat vehicles are equipped with grilles that protect against FPV drones and ammunition drops from above. As it became known, the TOS-1A Solntsepek is now equipped with the Volnorez electronic warfare systems for protection against drones. We have previously reported on them. It is not reported which version of the Volnorez electronic warfare system is installed, but it is known that it has already been successfully tested. The accuracy of the TOS-1A Solntsepek has been increased, it is now measured in meters, the general director of the VNII Signal reported. The TOS-1A Solntsepek is actively used by the Russian troops. The systems mainly operate at night. All equipment undergoes testing before being handed over to the customer.

 

 

[bojan]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Considering how much crap the Bradley got in the 1980's from the press,

Current version is far cry from the original one, it has ~2.5-3 times as much armor on both front and sides, it has normal seating in the crew compartment etc.

OTOH, neither was Bradley horrible at the time of introduction, it was best armored IFV ATM (if only by a narrow margin over BMP and Marder), it had thermals from a day one, decent ATGM, good gun. Poor crew compartment seating was sorted at some moment (ODS version?).

When you exclude BMP-1 and HSS-30 which were first ones, so bound to have issues (utter unreliability and wonky exit on HSS, weapons unsuitable for infantry support on BMP-1) , real stinkers were AMX-10P, that gets partial reprieve for being early one, but was both lightly armored and armed with so-so reliability (HS-115 engine was not great) and Warrior which had relatively decent hull but had standard British problem of "money ran out at turret ring level".

[JWB]

Ukrainian Ground Forces in the Kursk Region of Western Russia, are claiming to have had their First Engagement with North Korean Troops; as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated today that over 11,000 North Korean Soldiers have now been Deployed to the Kursk Region.

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1853521819237544217

 

[Josh]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Considering how much crap the Bradley got in the 1980's from the press, its proven in its last 2 wars to be a really excellent bit of kit. To the point where I wonder why the US Army is bothering to replace it.

The baseline brad drivetrain and chassis is I believe used in the AMPV which is replacing all M-113 derivatives. So a Brad based vehicle will be with the US for decades, even if in a secondary role.

As to why replace it: total revamp of armor, sensor, and drivetrain requirements.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Current version is far cry from the original one, it has ~2.5-3 times as much armor on both front and sides, it has normal seating in the crew compartment etc.

OTOH, neither was Bradley horrible at the time of introduction, it was best armored IFV ATM (if only by a narrow margin over BMP and Marder), it had thermals from a day one, decent ATGM, good gun. Poor crew compartment seating was sorted at some moment (ODS version?).

When you exclude BMP-1 and HSS-30 which were first ones, so bound to have issues (utter unreliability and wonky exit on HSS, weapons unsuitable for infantry support on BMP-1) , real stinkers were AMX-10P, that gets partial reprieve for being early one, but was both lightly armored and armed with so-so reliability (HS-115 engine was not great) and Warrior which had relatively decent hull but had standard British problem of "money ran out at turret ring level".

Well... the gun was good for its day. The II was good for its day, and the thermals they retrofitted in Warrior were good. The rest of the turret, particularly the abysmal chain gun, was crap.But rather than reinventing the wheel, I shall, never understand why they didn't slap the Bradley turret on it later, as GKN already did for Kuwait. Probably scared of buying 25mm ammunition.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

34 minutes ago, Josh said:

The baseline brad drivetrain and chassis is I believe used in the AMPV which is replacing all M-113 derivatives. So a Brad based vehicle will be with the US for decades, even if in a secondary role.

As to why replace it: total revamp of armor, sensor, and drivetrain requirements.

If T15 looked Imminent, I could understand it. It isnt.

They would be better off putting the money into an Abrams replacement imho.

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If T15 looked Imminent, I could understand it. It isnt.

They would be better off putting the money into an Abrams replacement imho.

Also in the works. Both efforts I think were delayed by the Ukraine war so lessons learned could be digested.

[Markus Becker]

If anyone is interested, there’s an 18 minute story out reporting on the PBV302 training in Ukraine. It shows the vehicle and offers impressions from the people there. While it is in Ukrainian, it is possible to turn on auto-generated subtitles in English on via the settings. Not perfect but you get an idea what they’re talking about:

 

 

[Yama]

10 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Interview with M2 Bradley driver:

The appearance of an infantry fighting vehicle, which is named after the American general of the Second World War, Omar Bradley, was expected in Ukraine as salvation. And enemies - with fear. And the machines proved to be very reliable. "This BMP was invented and developed in such a way as to save human life," the guys who are fighting on the "Bradley" emphasized several times during our conversation. They were equipped with the 47th "Magura" brigade. It was on them that the volunteer fighters tried to break through powerful defense system of the occupiers in the Zaporizhzhia region. 

Super reliable! Her armor works wonders! This car was created to save lives, - replies Slavik . - I have already driven seven cars. All of them either flew in - direct hit, in the side, from above, or were blown up on mines. And no one died! The seventh also left by itself, it has already been repaired, like the first ones that were damaged... I changed four cars in Zaporizhzhia... Three are already near Avdiivka. Джерело: https://censor.net/ua/r3516787

Report from the summer battles of last year was very positive, claiming Bradley could take anything, except heavy-duty ATGM's from attack helicopters.

But I don't think it has been much argued (or at least during last 30 years), that Bradley is bad, more akin that it's uneconomical. It has not been a huge export success.

Has there been any musings about sending Warriors to Ukraine? Probably would be pointless though, even if BA can spare some.

[bojan]

2 minutes ago, Yama said:

...Has there been any musings about sending Warriors to Ukraine? Probably would be pointless though, even if BA can spare some.

Another issue would be how many uparmor kits are available, because base vehicle has ~ BMP-1/2 level of protection.

[Yama]

I read that first as 'half of the BMP level of protection' and thought "dear me, that's not good".

[bojan]

M113 is ~1/2-2/3 of BMP-1/2/Marder/M-80A level and widely used And base Bradley, w/o any uparmor, even old 1/4"+1/4" spaced steel plate is M113 level  . Warrior is somewhat better, but only protected from 14.5 from a front "at short range" and 12.7mm from sides @ 500+m.

Base CV90 is also not much above BMP-1/2/Marder/M-80A level.

[Markus Becker]

How relevant is this difference in protection given the weapons used to kill them? As long as you are not seen all is fine and as long as you can run away once you are seen you might be fine??

[bojan]

Big difference between thin are moderately thick armor is ability of later not to be broken due the HE effect of the shaped charge warheads and ability to better stand arty fragments. While close hit by 152/155 HE will KO practically any AFV big difference will be in survivability, will crew compartment be penetrated by shell fragments or not.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Yama said:

Report from the summer battles of last year was very positive, claiming Bradley could take anything, except heavy-duty ATGM's from attack helicopters.

But I don't think it has been much argued (or at least during last 30 years), that Bradley is bad, more akin that it's uneconomical. It has not been a huge export success.

Has there been any musings about sending Warriors to Ukraine? Probably would be pointless though, even if BA can spare some.

At the moment, we cant. Because Ajax has been so delayed, and because Scimitar was on its last legs, we are using Warrior in the recce role to fill in for Ajax till it arrives. Not quite as bad as it sounds, they do have some fairly good TIS retrofitted to them, and at least they arent prone to stress cracks.

We dont have that many of them in any case. we only ever bought 789 of the section vehicles IIRC (and for that reason FV432 remained in service) and we totalled half of that in Iraq. Partly battle damage, but possibly also  corrosion. Some idiot at the MOD decided they would save money by bringing the vehicles back as deck cargo and they suffered salt corrosion.

Besides, even if we sent them, I bet a fiver we wouldnt send the uparmour packages, which is probably the best thing about Warrior.

[old_goat]

14 hours ago, bojan said:

Current version is far cry from the original one, it has ~2.5-3 times as much armor on both front and sides, it has normal seating in the crew compartment etc.

OTOH, neither was Bradley horrible at the time of introduction, it was best armored IFV ATM (if only by a narrow margin over BMP and Marder), it had thermals from a day one, decent ATGM, good gun. Poor crew compartment seating was sorted at some moment (ODS version?).

When you exclude BMP-1 and HSS-30 which were first ones, so bound to have issues (utter unreliability and wonky exit on HSS, weapons unsuitable for infantry support on BMP-1) , real stinkers were AMX-10P, that gets partial reprieve for being early one, but was both lightly armored and armed with so-so reliability (HS-115 engine was not great) and Warrior which had relatively decent hull but had standard British problem of "money ran out at turret ring level".

One more thing, the direct soviet counterpart of the Bradley is not the BMP-1, but the BMP-2.

And the BMP-2 really wasnt bad in its time. The only real disadvantage was the lack of thermals and shitty ww2 tech ammo for 30mm. In all other aspects it was very comparable. And to be honest, I'd rate the BMP-2 slightly better than the pre-A3 versions of Marder. 

Edited November 6 by old_goat

[seahawk]

Vastly superior. Marder is crap.

[alejandro_]

1 hour ago, old_goat said:

And the BMP-2 really wasnt bad in its time. The only real disadvantage was the lack of thermals and shitty ww2 tech ammo for 30mm. In all other aspects it was very comparable. And to be honest, I'd rate the BMP-2 slightly better than the pre-A3 versions of Marder. 

Spanish soldiers that had the opportunity to see it in exercises were quite impressed with BMP-2, as it had a modern FCS (this was a few years ago). 

I have not come across much criticism of Bradley, maybe it was described as complex and expensive, but as others have pointed out it had a thermal sight and AT missiles. 
 

[Yama]

Major issue with BMP series is poor mine protection, particularly with oldest models.

[old_goat]

22 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

Spanish soldiers that had the opportunity to see it in exercises were quite impressed with BMP-2, as it had a modern FCS (this was a few years ago). 

Was it a finnish one? Those were quite extensively modernized.

 

[old_goat]

10 minutes ago, Yama said:

Major issue with BMP series is poor mine protection, particularly with oldest models.

Yep. Original BMP-1/2 are a deathtrap when it comes to mines. Thats why soviets preferred the BTRs in afghanistan, which were surprisingly resistant. Later the BMP-1D/2D variants were improved with better mine protection, but I think only these got the conversion kits.