The propaganda clips are useless because they regularly mess up the chronology of events for psychological effect.
At the speeds and in the terrain that you can see in the clip it is impossible to hold onto the vehicle. If troops ride on top - which due to poor ergonomics is an accepted necessity and not doctrine - and an ambush happens they either immediately dismount or go inside through the top hatches. If you stay on top and BTR accelerates and goes off road you're likely to seriously injure yourself whether you fall of or not. If you're being shot at you're dead. So if there was anyone on top of the vehicle we should clearly see them fall off like in other clips. A dead body can't hold on to a BTR driving like this one.
You can exit the BTR through two side hatches, which open in a way that allows the troops to ingress and egress while the vehicle is in motion. You can also exit it through top hatches which is why it may seem like the someone is falling from the top. But to me it looks like the soldier is falling from the side hatch. When you pause the clip at the moment when the figure is seen falling to the ground there's a dark spot between the 2nd and 3rd wheels. This is likely an open side hatch.
Likely the vehicle was hit by the Bradley and the troops inside decided to escape even before the vehicle was in safe location because a Soviet APC/IFV is not a safe place. Particularly the BTRs which have engines in all the wrong places to retain buoyancy. If a BTR gets hit with 25mm it's not like a BMP where the engine is in a compartment at the front. Everything fills up with hot irritating smoke, fluids etc. There are fire hazards everywhere because BTRs have little in the way of fire suppression. You want to leave asap.
An important factor to consider is gun stabilisation and vehicle stability.
BTRs have neither. The gun is not stabilised. The vehicle has very poor suspension and relatively low mass. The target must be at point blank for the gun to hit if the BTR is in motion. The gun of BTR-82A was intended to provide fire support from a distance for dismounted infantry performing assault with infantry tactics. It was a cheap interim solution to improve a major weakness in infantry company firepower. They are not meant for vehicle vs vehicle combat let alone in such scenarios like shown in the clip. I'm genuinely confused as to what the gunner is trying to shoot at.
Bradley on the other hand has gun stabilisation and is a tracked vehicle of approximately twice the mass so it can hit the BTR with high accuracy while moving. It also has better armour so it can risk taking some hits. BTRs can't because they're essentially the same as BTR-60 which is a cheap mass-produced amphibious troop carrier. Because of that protection inside the BTR is symbolic, even less so than in a BMP-1/2. As soon as an BTR is in combat and it can't withdraw it's "everybody out" for the troops because they're literally in the middle of the vehicle i.e. at the highest hit probability area. So all the hatches are opened and BTR can be evacuated through four hatches on three sides: right (1) left (1) and top (2).
I'm surprised that the Bradley kept going. Was there an artillery barrage happening at the same time? Otherwise the correct behaviour is to stop, take aim and just rip the BTR to pieces. Actually the Bradley should attempt to charge at the BTR because it has 2x mass and 2,5x the engine power plus tracks and a reinforced frontal plate. If it forced the BTR to take a sharp turn it could even cause it topple over.
Green crews in both?
Economy of means: piston-engine propeller aircraft vs piston-engine propeller drones. The training for pilots is also much shorter.
The use of cheap trainer aircraft against drones and cruise missiles is a natural solution. Kalibrs and X-101 travel at 0,6Ma. That's something an L-39 can handle if it's armed with Stingers. Drones are best disposed of by turboprops. Turboprops also have the advantage of being able to travel at near-stall speeds at extremely low altitudes which makes them impossible to hit by most air-to-air missiles.
They can also be based and launched at improvised airstrips with much greater ease than even the most robust fighter jet. Ideally we should see mass use of these aircraft.
Ever since late 2022 Ukraine only needs to defend its airspace against cruise missile and drone attacks. Over the course of the first 2-3 months Russia has shocked itself into a state of utter impotence as far as massed offensive use of air assets is concerned and restricted itself to defensive operations within its own airspace and offensive operations over the frontline only. They ran out of gas like a bodybuilder in a freak MMA fight after 1 minute.
If you compare Russian ground forces and how they adapted to the conflict, despite horrendous losses, and Russian air force, which really hasn't lost that much, the contrast is very stark. Russian air force has failed to improve their performance over two years of the conflict for a very simple reason: they weren't a significant factor to begin with - which is why they were never given a strong political position in the system. If VKS played a major role early on, they'd be pushed to the forefront like the VDV, or the mercenaries were. They'd be given a chance. But for all the legitimate complaints that they could provide they failed as an institution. Psychological impact of air power is exaggerated because unlike artillery it can be seen and therefore mental images can be associated with it. Which is why the propaganda shows air power as a factor on both sides. But in practical terms Russian aviation only recently began to play a greater role with the increased use of glide bombs (innovation for Russia) but only after all other measures were exhausted. It was not an invention borne out of necessity. It was an invention borne out of "that's the only thing left".
VKS has had all the means necessary to successfully project force but they didn't know how and they were afraid to learn the hard way. VKS is the Ronda Rousey of air warfare.
But the missile barrages and constant stream of drones is a major problem and can have an effect greater than that of the allied strategic bombing offensive in WW2. Anything that can help with those is an asset. Yak-52, Mirage 2000-5 as long as it flies and has weapons. The main problem is time, and here comes the real question: donations to Ukraine have been used as political theater since the beginning. Remember Leopards vs Abrams? This likely is the same thing. This is why everyone talks very loudly, rumour mills turn like crazy but hardy anything is done.
How does one come up with something so dumb and then makes it even dumber with poor phrasing? I envision a bright future for you on TikTok.
Last edited:
