Ukraine: Why Soviet Packaging is a Nightmare - Unboxing Edition
In this video we talk about Soviet logistics and how they affect the war in Ukraine. We look particularly at Soviet packaging of ammunition and the reloading of rocket artillery, like the BM-21 Grad in contrast to "Western" system that use a different approach, like container systems and in-built reloading equipment in comparison to Soviet one-time use packaging and manual labor.
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Cover design by vonKickass.
BM-21 Grad, St. Petersburg, 2009, photo by Robert Wray, CC BY-SA 3.0
BM-30 Smerch, 2008, photo by Digr, CC BY-SA 3.0
TZM-T, 2011 photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, CC BY-SA 4.0
TOS-1A, 2016, photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, CC BY-SA 4.0
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
/ 1704554112056967573
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_%C3%...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Mu...
/ 1510340733454196742
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-30_S...
characterisationexplosiveweapo...
www.militaryfactory.com/armor...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Mu...
• Time consuming process...
00:00 Intro
00:45 BM-21 Reloading Theory vs Practice
03:44 But BM-21 Grad is old
04:31 Unboxing Equipment
06:22 Unboxing Soviet Box of Doom
07:09 Interruption: Wait is that Wood?
07:37 Unboxing continued
07:50 A look inside the box
08:18 But that is for detonators
09:19 Summary
#SovietBoxOfDoom #Logistics #unboxing
Check out our books: militaryhistorygroup.com »» SUPPORT MHV «« » patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv » paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
On the flip side the "soup cans" probably provide relatively low maintenance storage... Pros and cons.
That is most ridiculous comparition i ever saw. BM-21 went into production in 1960s, HIMARS in 2005
Yet Ukraine has already lost the war. Guess logistics has not hindered Красная армия. LMAO
Just a note on your comments about sustainability. Reusable packaging in modern commercial contexts can be a bit of a gimmick; primarily aimed at greenwashing. If the cost of a disposable package at least from the manufacturer's perspective is far less than the cost of a system to recover, inspect, and re-use the package then this is what they will go for, unless forced by legislation or marketing concerns about "waste". The reality is even in peacetime we probably use more oil as fuel, let alone other resources like manpower, to get a plastic bottle back to a factory, then it would cost to produce that plastic bottle again from scratch. Ditto, probably, for the resources needed to can some ammo that you expect to store for a long time then use in a warzone.
Pro fascist bullsh!t, Ukraine & NAFO gud 🥴 Russia evil mordor 🤡
My uncle invested in a Japanese company that bought vodka from Russia. They broke even on the vodka but made a ton of money on the wood packaging. Wood costs so much in Japan and they could resell the packaging to furniture manufacturers. Weird.
most likely cedar
Please tell me they then Resold the Vodka to Russia at a premium.
Global economics baby there's a dollar for every thing
That's actually really smart. Love that idea. Wonder where I can find a chair made from the package that used to be Vodka crates lol
Weird that they didn't make a lot of money on vodka (it's extremely cheap in Russia) and very expensive in Japan 🗾
Don't miss the real reason for such packaging. Storage. These packages are terrible for front line use, but marvelous for depot storage. Why? Because for the vast majority of these item's lifecycle, they would sit in depots. Therefore, storage becomes the overriding factor in decisions on packaging. Of course, let's not forget the other real issue. Smaller packaging makes stealing and resale easier. LOL
Exactly as rough and frustrating as opening this stuff up on the frontlines would be, you're getting functional gear even if its 50 years old. It's actually something I admire about the Soviets. We can laugh at all their old vintage stuff showing up in 2024, but the fact most of still works is amazing, I just can't say that about American gear, and we didn't stockpile nearly as much either. The Soviets (and Russians) have like a cultural PTSD, this entire mentality that the world is out to get them and they need to squirrel away supplies to fight for survival Metro 2033 style, and I'm not even being sarcastic, the Mongols, Napoleon, Germany, and the devastation of WW2 still fresh in mind really lead to Russia as a whole being like the crazy American prepper guy.
Unboxes 50 year old ammo stored under terrible conditions. Ammo still works perfectly. Cries about breaking a nail opening box. This further convinces me the Ukis are all gay.
NATO standard equipment can also be stored in the packaging it is shipped and fired in, so that isn't much of an excuse. Also, why not have factory workers open those cans at the storage site and then re-package them in a way that is convenient for the front line soldiers?
@@BillyBob-bd1hj Wherever you are from, I guess they are all stupid there?
None of that is any easier to store than Western ammunition storage. Stop snorting cope over a clearly abysmal system.
As to the WWII Jerry Cans being discarded by troops, in my 15 years of experience as an Infantry soldier in combat and and in peace, your average joe will keep track of equipment they are financially responsible for such as BII, water cans, fuel cans, etc..while in peace time training and garrison, but in a combat zone they are generally not responsible financially for such items if they can be written off as destroyed or signed out of different units. Whilst in combat or in a combat zone, soldiers are often on the edge of exhaustion due to details, guard duty, patrols, and a myriad of other required duties so if not told to return fuel cans and supervised to insure it happens, it often will not. On one mission we received a pallet of various small arms ammo and were told to return the dunnage, but we had to move out on a scheduled time and couldn't return the dunnage before leaving. It sat next to the road for five days until we returned and even then it had been picked over by other units for usable ammo cans and wood.
Last I heard there were still French farmers out in the countryside using WWII Jerry cans their great-grandfathers had picked up after the GIs went past.
In WWII, the problem got so bad that the Allies started paying bounties on returned cans.
@@petesheppard1709 to be fair, they almost had to do that with Allied soldiers that 'went over the hump' too...
@@piscinaiv7937 I don't doubt it. Collecting containers for return is rarely high on soldiers' priority list.
That's why the Soviet system of one-time use boxes is actually very smart for a large conscription army in a large war. You will quickly run out of "sustainable" reusable containers on a frontline
That explains why we don't see the Terminators at the front. They are still loading the ammo belt.
yes sure and we dont see americans on the front coz they still repacking their new uranium ammo in green recycable cardbord boxes (makes me think so whats better on nato ammo box? the handle? and are they used for anything else no!? do they get reused? i dont belive that but yes you can open them like a little girl they are just overal a more complex system)
@@fdsfggr I'm not a soldier, but working in film, we handled a bunch of military stuff. The amount of thought and effort that went into US & British packaging to make it practical & ergonomic is impressive, even for some stuff from the 70's.
@@fdsfggr, the M142 & the M270 GMLRS systems proves you totally wrong. Both systems self-load either 1 box or 2 boxes. The Grad has no boxes. By the time an M142 crew of 3 people has loaded 6 rockets in the 1 total payload box package, the Russian crew of 5 have loaded half a Grad launcher at top speed, & the Grad has ¼ the range & nowhere near the accuracy of an American GMLRS rocket. "But what about the (Soviet) Uragan & Smerch MLRS systems? They have the range!" They do indeed have the range... & the total inability to reload themselves. Uragan & Smerch MLRS systems both have separate, dedicated reload vehicles. They need them because the Soviets didn't consider a military need for palletized handling of their rockets. The Americans did. And that's why a single M142 can do multiple fire missions on Russian targets in less than 20 minutes if it really needs to. It can fire, displace, de-embark, refit & re-equip in 6 minutes for a trained crew, & then re-embark to emplace for its next fire mission. A shorter-range Grad needs ~20 minutes to reload all 40 tubes, minimum, & because of Russian build quality & the fact all Grad rockets are unguided, Who Knows if any of those rockets are going to hit their targets, while the Ukrainians' rockets strike within less than 5 meters of their targets.
@@fdsfggrJust goes to show you have no idea what you are talking about.
@@fdsfggr It has to do with what I call "son-of- a-b_tchedness" in design & implementation. Or, rather, where in the chain is someone going to curse the parents of the guy above them? That's the point of failure. Soviet/Russian packaging distributes the SOBedness down the storage-to-use pipeline by using simple, cheap-as-wood materials. So the points of failure are mostly felt at the depot & the front line. US/NATO packaging requires processed, cheap-by-scale materials that can actually be precisely molded for ergonomic handling. The points of failure, therefore, are more centralized & so can be caught further up the pipeline. Assuming they're caught. Which, in a way, reflects the vast differences in doctrine surrounding logistics. From factory to front line. What way is better? Well... speaking as a guy who used to work construction, I can at least say with some real experience that I preferred operating a forklift over humping around dozens of individual pieces of stuff to where it was needed. I needed more training, & a forklift, but jobs that had a forklift got done a lot faster, with more time for quality work, as opposed to lots of manual lifting. I can only imagine what my preference might be in a shoot/scoot artillery duel. 😅
This may be the best "unboxing" video I have ever seen!
On an empty stomach too.
"sadly no sickle was available" LOL! 😆
You say this, but hand sickles were an important component of ancient Roman logistics- it allowed armies in the field to draw their grain rations directly from locally growing wheat, avoiding the trouble caused by a military forcing locals to do labor on top of already stealing their crops.
@@Blankstieg Yes, but you still needed a hammer to open the box of sickles.
It gives the troops hours and hours of manual labour that would otherwise be spent drinking vodka.
PERFECT SENSE! better doing back breaking labor than drinking before a patrol!
In soviet russia, the makework we give our conscripts is useful training for combat...
yeah also prevent them from drinking non-stop if they're working they cant drink they cant get into trouble.@@pnutz_2
Like Russians couldn't take a gulp of vodka between rounds...
Not shure if it's a good or bad fact
As an American shooting enthusiast/11B GWOT vet, I can absolutely attest to this. Former soviet and current-manufacture Wolf and Tula spam cans used to be the most affordable plinking ammo you could find...I still have some 7n6 cans I purchased years ago for $0.12us per round. American military small-arms ammo comes just about ready to rock as soon as you get it out of the transport crate. 5.56 comes in 210rd bandoleers of 10rd stripper clips, and 2 magazine adapters for the clips, so you just need a table or 2x4 to slam in 7 magazines' worth of ammo in about a minute or two. Belted 5.56 has two 200rd plastic boxes ready to attach to the SAW. 7.62 belted comes ready to feed from the 100rd cardboard box with it's own disposable cloth sling. Having been deployed to mosul and baghdad between aug 05 and dec 06, I can assure you, those 5.56 strippers are amazing under stress. Don't need light, just need to slam in 21 clips and get going. There's practically a whole culture of kicking dunnage (the reusable ammo cans) back to where you got it from, while you still have a means of transporting bulk ammo straight to people directly the fight. Just like the A2 sight picture, the millions of hours of collective brainpower and experience put into it shows. Spam cans are really cool for doomsday preppers, tho.
Spam cans are cool for the prepper side of things sure, but the regular USGI hinged / latching ammo can is still extremely capable of keeping out the elements for years and years at a time
Me, currently shooting at roughly € 0,92 per round: Soft weeping 😉
@@Werepie Not only that, they're resealable - so if you don't use all the things in the can, you flip the lid back down and latch it - almost as tightly sealed and clean as when it left the factory. What happens when Yevgeny, still hungover from last night's antifreeze binge, accidentally miscounts the number of boxes he had to open and it starts raining?
Was invading Iraq and Afghanistan worth it
@@hoilst265 And those cans have so many post-ammo uses!
What strikes me when seeing this video is the sheer appetite for raw manpower this kind of supply situation would have. I could imagine complete companies of low skilled draftees being needed and used to unpack ammunition shipments before forwarding them to batteries and individual systems. Granted, the Red Army was likely set up around having lots of low skilled draftees precisely for these kinds of reasons.
Like there is someone who won't be a draftee when shit will be grabbed by the propeller. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@worldoftancraftThe Rich lol
At least someone gets it. People don't realize how different cultures can be. It's like I saw in India. You often don't need complex machines or hyper efficient systems, if you have an abundance of manpower. It is stupid to think that one solution is best for all situations. People never think about these differences. It is a lack of imagination, of intelligence.
@@melanieenmats The fact that you can achieve the same with 50 low skilled workers as 1 skilled worker can with a forklift in half the time is NOT a positive, nor does it speak of intelligence. It either means you're desperate, incapable or stupid. The additional logistics strain alone should be obvious.
@@melanieenmats Those 50 unskilled draftees create a LOT more logistical burden than that one guy and a forklift though, you now need a 50 man crews worth of food, water, clothing, and work equipment. instead of the logistical burden to supply one guy and a keep a forklift (or two, in case you want a fully functioning spare on hand)
What strikes me about this all metal packaging is twofold - ease of manufacture (not use) and environmental stability in terms of poor storage locations (arctic, tropic, desert, jungle, etc.). "Shelf life" seems to be the overriding design requirement, well above EVERY other factor - ease of use, rapidity of use, reliability, reuse, dunnage reduction, you name it. The Red Army wanted 'stuff' that stored well, period. You can list any possible reason for this if you want for this but SOMEONE in the high command felt that stability and amount of product were vital no matter what other factors in play - transport, environmental, logistics interdiction, easy decontamination in a NBC fight, what have you. As a old Cold Warrior, I find this all extremely fascinating. Thank you.
What about the MLRS designs though? They could have made them faster to reload (even with the packaging staying as is) so we must assume they had some other logic that made them think it isn't necessary - Sheer volume of grad units? WWIII being too dynamic thus make reload times irrelevant? Agree this is very fascinating stuff, probably because it's practically never discussed.
@@ImtheHitcher MLRS reload times ARE irrelevant, they never reload on position, they never shoot 2 packets in a row. In fact they dont always even shoot one full pack.
@@ImtheHitcher the logic behind NOT having an integrated ammunition container-launch unit a'la M270 is simple. Without a truck with a proper crane you cant unload the goddamn thing. You cant load the container on the truck either. The ground is muddy? Your ammunition truck is on a slope? Crane broke? Too bad, you won't load. Meanwhile, to load and unload the BM-21 you need 3-4 guys (but even 2 will do) with at least one collective braincell. No crane needed, you can even use a horse wagon and it will do just fine.
So it's only red orcs which used one-time tare. Hypercivilized Uh-meriquans use resealable contsiner even for spam. Seriously. Review your comment. Who needs to pack back the already distributed ammo? For what purpose?Do you know anything about how counting of ammo(cases) works there? Spoiler alert, you don't put it back into broken seal container.
@acy I see your horse wagon, and raise you 2 dudes carrying rockets in a box 1 by 1 across the fields. I bet that happened at least once both for Russians and Ukrainians in the past 2 years. The reload times is not that important in many parts of the real war btw, as a WoT/WT player I remember it was quite an eye opening when one of my friends that I used to play with, explained that tank reload time is not that important in real life ether (He is Israeli tanker, was a gunner at a time) since generally it is a gunners targeting that is the main time factor.
5:59 - Good luck finding the packer & QC from 40 years ago to correct the packing process 😹
Any of those could be used 5 weeks after thr production. During a training. This charge has "lmao, look at this newspaper's job ad, you think anyone will respond 40 years later?" energy
@@worldoftancraft Also out in the field these things are still useful, if a particular container of ammunition is misfireing or causeing other problems those codes can be used to quickly identify and cordon off bad lot codes
I've still got some Warsaw Pact surplus 7.62 x 54R rifle ammo in somewhat similar "sardine cans" as I call them, because the cans of sardines we had as kids opened the same. There's a narrow ribbon around the can just below the top which holds the top on. You pry one end loose, fit a slotted key over it, and wind it all around the can to free the lid. The lid can be put back on, but it's just loose. Some of the same ammo cans do have that horrible can opener key instead. I don't know why they chose one or the other, maybe it varies by Warsaw Pact country. The sardine can key is easier, when it works, but the more ribbon which gets wound up, the worse the leverage, and the more chance of the ribbon not winding correctly, slipping off, and making a real mess. On the other hand, the ammo inside has always been good, never a single misfire. I had always assumed both were so funky because they were old surplus. It amazes me that such packaging is still used. I can't imagine being in combat, running low, and having to struggle with either packaging. I'd be tempted to take the axe to it right from the start even if it meant destroying some of the ammo inside.
25 years is best day before ammo. Longer ok if x RAY etc used to see if powder is still POWDER and not solid TNT . Why surplus is sold… help poor or get shit out of invetory ?? Think❤
That key is more common with SPAM and similar stuff.
@@454FatJack A lot of the USSR surplus was sold as it way a way to get money now and the new governments needed that. Thus it was sold for pennies on the pound, far lower then its true cost.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 There is a marginal increase in cost per can to do the Spam method. I don't know if cost, or unavailability of the machining to make such cans, or just plain institutional inertia is the cause here.
I am fairly certain that those cans would be the distribution company's job to open and hand out. Doubt the actual front line troops would be messing around with those.
I think the most interesting military surplus ammo I've ever opened was some Swiss GP11 7.5x55 ammo. It came in a black, waxed cardboard box with a cloth belt and a small wax seal holding it closed. The ammunition inside was in eight smaller paper pouches that were heat-sealed at the ends. Inside those were 10-round cardboard boxes that had perforated tabs to pull and open the box. This stuff felt more like someone had packaged a nice gift from the jewelry store rather than rifle ammo!
Well, it is Swiss, they’re hardly known for being spartan in presentation Swiss watch.. Swiss chocolate and now Swiss ammunition and what have you
@@cletusmandeletusman2328 The Swiss are the Germans on Ritalin. :)
gotta keep in mind that our military issue ammunition is near match-grade. this demands an equally expensive packaging, no? :)
Their soup can package system makes perfect sense for storing a large stockpile of ammunition long term but they really should be decanted into a more accessible reusable container before being shipped to the front line.
I have a guess that there are some other quicker system to open them and these specific boxes being the ones brought out of decades long storage. Cos, from the war news, it doesn't feel like any one finding Russian troops vulnerable during relaoding.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365they dont live long enough to have to reload
Breaking open Russian small arms ammunition is always *such* a joy. [/sarc] Your engineer correspondant is dead on. Those can openers only last (barely) two cans before becoming poor quality prybars at best. Blew my mind the first time I cracked open a can of 5.45x39mm and realized it was full of paper wrapped packets of rounds, and NO stripper clips, bandoliers, etc. And since one can was far more than a single troop's ammo issue, you'd be exceptionally lucky if your opened cans and your issue matched up exactly, but you have no way to adequately protect a partial can for later use. The troops are (if they are lucky) issued a limited number of stripper clips, that they have to retain for later reuse, by manually loading loose rounds from the paper packets. And tbere is no way to carry a quick post-firefight load of prepped stripper clips to top off your magazines during the "comsolidate and reorganize" phase after a fight. Meanwhile, US forces (and at least some NATO forces) get issued ammo in resealable cans, generally preloaded into clips and in bandoliers. Current US 5.56mm ball ammo for rifles is even packed into bandoliers that have expandable pockets, where each picket holds enough ammo for one magazine, and by pulling a white thread that loosely stitches the pockets short (so the clips can be readily retrieved), the now empty pockets will each hold a single 30 round magazine. Meaning, worse case, the supplybguys can just stand by the side of the road, opening hinged ammo cans, and just hand out several bandoliers to troops as they walk past. The troops have wverything they need to carry the ammunition and to load it into magazines (with a basic load of 7 magazines per man taking less time than the time it woild take a squad to open a singke Russian ammo can). And even if the troops have isufficient magazine pouches to carry all of their magazines (say, they're loading heavy for a particular tasking), the bandoliers can double as magazine pouches (OK, flimsy ones, but they only have to last for a single use).
I just saw a neat trick to fold an ammo-can bandoleer around both shoulders (like a bra) and boom, poor man's chest rig!
The design of those bandoliers is so brilliant. Great way to store and distribute ammo, AND can double as a bad but useable temporary pouch for magazines if you get caught off guard.
A spam can of 1080 5.45x39? Do you not know anything about a Soviet squad's basic load of ammunition? It fits that basic load perfectly. Or almost perfect. 7 dudes x 150 rnds = 1050 rnds. So you are over by 30 rnds. This doesn't account for the gunner who may be carrying a RPK or a PKM. But it makes sense if you don't know if there will be a PKM or a RPK. If an RPK it is easy enough to divide another can between the gunners in the platoon. And the wood crates came packed 2 spam cans to a wood crate and 1 opener per wood crate. So it only NEEDED to last 2 cans. It was perfect. And the theoretical standard load for a soldier with a AK-74 was 3-4 mags and an extra 60 rounds on stipper clips. Look at the mag pouches of the period. Look at the pouch with the little leather tab. That was meant for the stripper clips. But it's easier to put another 30 rnd mag in there. So carry 4x mags in the pouch. In war, there are extra mags around to be put to use.
Yeah, those 5.56mm ammo cans are great. Lots in there to make the issue of these rounds easier. That's what I was used to due to the military. You take it for granted and it's not like that everywhere. I *assumed* every armed force out there was comparatively like this.
@@Werepiebbbuuut wat abaoot muh shopping spree milicharee, which has everything it needs and doesn't? Muh penk and blæk multicam! What poorman's chest rig? I carry top fashioned LBVs at all times! Seriously, the amount of bragging in comments about "muh military" and then this. Admiration about organizers bags being able to substitute a chest rig.
Reminds me of that scene in 'Zulu Dawn' where they're running out of ammo and overrun due to the cartridge boxes taking ages to open.
Those boxes have a section across the top that can be smashed open with a rifle butt. Somewhere in the house I have a crate from WW II for 30-06 with thumb screws to open the wooden lid then a tin liner with a grab handle to peel it open. Ammo was in 20 round cardboard boxes. I think it was from 1938. M1 Carbine ammo came in 600 round cans with a key to open the can like WW I bully beef pattern cans still being sold in the US. The ammo was in bandoleers in 10 round stripper clips. US 25mm ammo 30 rounds in two 15 round belt segments in a plastic box with two latched lids about 5 to 10 minutes to reload a Bradly depending on one or two crew members handling the task.
In real life (1879) the soldiers were sent too far forward so when a rifle clogged/ would not extract and had to be cleared/cleaned there was a large gap in the line allowing the Zulus to rush through. On the ground to this day there are ring pulls from the ammunition cans in small piles spread across the ground. Opening the boxes was not particularly slow nor was loading the rifle. The Martini-Henry rifle had a range of over 1000 yards. Pushing the troops well forward was just stupid.
@@mbak7801Damn, you beat me to it.😅😅 I was about to say that.
6:30 “if you want a fully immersive experience, watch on an empty stomach” I love your humor
back in the day I got 2 spam cans of 5.45 for 80 bucks. When you pierce that thing you get this PSSSST of soviet air from 1982 directly into your nostrils it hits different.
Agree that BM-30 with 12 tubes and it's own assist vehicle would have been a more adequate example. Still with 13 minutes to reload. However, I see no practical difference since the gun crew doesn't have a chance for a second discharge and has to move positions instantly anyway. So the difference in reloading is taken from total time for position preparation, maintenance and rest - something not really valued in (post) Soviet armies. That said, you can clearly see the mechanics behind main war strategy, namely most things have to be done behind the lines in no rush. Direct engagement is only a little part. A good reminder before the second "anniversary" of what was supposed to be successful in weeks to a month or be deflected under a year.
It takes two to tango. The Russians claimed to have a sound strategy to force Ukraine to the negotiating table, just at the moment they were going to launch their full blown assault on Donbas, and the talks were sabotaged, likely by Ukraine's Western partners. Meanwhile the West claimed to have a plan to bring Russia to it's knees, and to arm Ukraine with Wunderwaffe that would be driven to Moscow, and that didn't happen either, arguably also because 'talks were sabotaged by Ukraine's Western partners'.
I like your analysis. I thought that part of the video was extremely short-sighted, a bit stupid even. What does a 4 min reload matter if you have to drive away and go hide after every shot? The west has spent so much money on hyper complex technology and it is proving to have been a lot of hot air. The systems are brilliant, yet impossible to scale up. We saw this when the US was fighting Taliban. The sheer cost of their high tech ordinance was untenable over time. This was an autistic over focus on one aspect of a weapon, not at all linking it to how they are actually being used in a conflict without air dominance.
@@melanieenmatsWhat exactly is not possible to 'scale up'? There are plenty of HIMARS, MARS, and M270 systems available and the rockets can be produced in a manageable time table should war deem it so. Unfortunately, it is Ukraine that is at war and not the US, so the luxuries of using as much ammunition as you have time available in the day is something only dreamt of by Ukrainian artillery men. 'Hyper complex technology' for real? What is so fucking complex about putting a GPS unit in a rocket? Its not our fault Soviet technology never developed past the soviets. Also, how was this seen when 'the US was fighting the Taliban'? Do you not understand the difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare or you purposefully making such an asinine comparison for whatever political reason? Of course using precision missiles against an enemy who only fights battles when they want to is prohibitively expensive, yet the US was there for some 20 years and only left because we got tired of staying there. Should us Americans had wanted to continue staying, we'd still be there. This does not compare to an enemy who fights in a conventional manner, don't need to look past the first Gulf War to understand 'hyper complex' fucks Soviet gear.
Actually, there is a big difference, especially if the vehicle has to move between shots. An M270 or HIMARS doesn't need a reloading vehicle, so any large enough truck, or just pods of missiles left at a planned location, and it can quickly leave it's firing location, reload, and hide up or head to another firing point as required. A BM-30 is going to be stuck for 13 minutes next to it's reloading vehicle with a ton of activity, where it can be spotted and engaged along with the reloading vehicle. The reloading vehicle can also be tracked by drones, and lead whoever's tracking it to the BM-21 for a double kill. There's also the issue that M270 and HIMARS are a launcher systems for multiple missile types (GMLRS, ATACMS and PrSM) all using the same support infrastructure, where's BM-30 is just for the same family of 300mm rockets. If the Russians needs to launch something else, they have to bring a completely different vehicle, and it's infrastructure.
But in a war sometimes things have to be done a rush. And that are generally the moments that matter. Having one daily harassing fire mission. You got the time. Having the enemy on the verge of overwelming friendly position is a different matter. Of course a Grad does not all it's missile loaded to be operational again. Atleast that's what i assume. That there's some form of selective fire and not all or nothing.
Please consider the following fact´s: 1. The Russian Federation has gigantic forests in siberia - the resupply of (cheap) wood is no problem and costs less energy and money (and produces less CO2) than "our" western "containers" - this changes only when the "containers" are re-used multiple times... what will be sometimes difficult in war... 2. The greatest part of the russian logistic system is based on railway transport - and unloading western-style containers without technical equipment (and often outside of railway stations in the "open field" is sometimes "difficult" - the russian "singleshot" "wood-boxes" can be transported in nearly any kind of wagon or truck, loaded and un-loaded easy (if you have enough men), and stored fast and relatively secure - when you have enough space to "spread" the "wooden boxes" over an wider area. And Russia has a lot of "area" near it railways and roads... 3. The russian "oneshot" "wooden boxes" are relatively light and can be handled and stored on swampy, icy, grassy, snowy etc. ground - the "western" "containersystem" is needing heavier equipment and better ground conditions. 4. The Wood of the russian "wood-boxes" is traditionally used in the russian military not only for heating (fire wood) but also for field-fortifications, road repairs, improvised housing etc. etc. - and you need only a saw, an axe or even only your bayonnette as tool to "transform" them in a lot of usefull things. Our "containers" are also usefull for a lot of things, but you need a lot of tools and equipment to "re-use" them - and from the logistic-point-of-view, every not-multiple-used-(weapon, ammo, tool, supply)-container is an enormous financial loss for the military. 5. You must consider that "russian" arms, ammo and equipment is constructed and build to be handled by russians and "the russian way" - like Stalin once said: Things that can break or bend are not suitable for use by russian soldiers... You can handle and store a brick much different than an egg... The russian military has a lot of experience in logistics in the worst thinkable climate conditions and with nearly always insufficient technical means - and they managed it "some how" in WW1, in the russian-finlandia-war, in WW2, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, etc. etc. - dont under-estimate their capabilities and methods. The russian army has an enormous amount of (unscilled but willing and there for nearly costless) work-force at their disposal - and they know to use it...
It's not just munitions that are packaged differently. I have observed that equipment transportation metal boxes with hinged doors cannot be opened with common hand tools, like a phillips or common screwdrivers. They use a triangle type driver that is like an allen wrench to screw the doors closed on the boxes. The metal boxes may have attached wheels or be forklift required to move. If captured in a combat zone if you don't have a triangle type drived you will need an ax or large hammer.
what did they contain and do you know of a video where they're featured? Sounds very strange, almost like the most unhandy soviet version of a pelican case imaginable.
Those common screwdrivers are relatively recent standards, with Western origins.
Let me guess: An axe, a hammer or even triangle-key will come in a box you can only open with a triangle key?
The ones I observed had technical books, clothes and band instruments. Could have been used to carry weapons. They were obviously used for deployments.@@duftmand
I love how Soviet ammo is packaged. 7.62 /54 R and my 7.62/25 ammo came this way. Heavy to say the least. Luckily I have several openers. I like because I don't have to worry about bad ammo when stored for years. PIA when opening. In addition its cheap. 20yrs ago I bought 10000rds for my tokarev pistols for 300$ surplus.
For reuse issue just look at a basic ammunition can. Western ammo cans can be used repeatedly for their purpose or when empty can be used for any number of things from seating to constructing a rudimentary shelter. When Russian cans are empty is just an opened can.
How little do you know about empty packaging. Did you grow up in the big city?
@@coyoterangerHow little you understand English? Is English your second language?
@@coyoteranger I'm sure I can think of a few uses for an opened Russian ammo can.... But most of them involve using it as a trashcan, sandbag, or toilet. You can't reseal it so it's useless for anything important. His point is that US ammo cans have a hinged reclosable lid with a rubber gasket, so they are much more useful for either storing important things or stacking things on top of. I mean hell, you can find used US ammo cans for sale everywhere, not many people are looking to buy cut open soup cans except as scrap metal.
I love the US ammo box, they can even be reused for things other than ammo and are pretty robust.
I've seen a picture of a a bunker built of empty ammo cans filled with dirt
This type of packaging(hard AF to open) is common in things that get stolen often.Seeing how even airplane coolant was stolen in the Red Army this level of care with more sensitive and harder to produce ammo makes sense.
Spam cans. 440rds :P Think something missed here is that the can that you have to dig things out of are now razor sharp. You risk both damaging the item, and yourself opening these cans.
Indeed. I always cringed a bit as I looked at those ragged edged. Get careless and they'd even tear through gloves.
Tetanus is waiting whenever you open these spam ammo cans. 😂
@@SCH292 And no telling what else...
Yeah, I opened one once and cut my arm really good trying to dig out the ammo packs.
I'm 95% sure that is for long term storage and you are supposed to open it well in the rear, not in the firefight.
but they arent, combat engineers are opening them
Assuming that was the case, how does that work? You unpack the ammunition, repack it safely into an unknown container, and drive it to the front? Or do you dig up the stuff, make piles of ammunition and then carry it to the front in jute bags because there's nothing else?
@@noah4822 Not under fire. Engineers usually do not man trenches; they gear up in the rear, go in action and came back.
@@Ecovictorian safely is debatable, but yes; or you bring the tin cans in the trenches in a calm period of time, open them and put the small packages in a bucket or something like that.
@@M.M.83-U That sounds very "russian". There must be fixed service regulations for the Russian army? As soon as you unpack the ammunition, the access problem has been solved. But another transport problem has been created, especially when the position is relocated or adjusted. You have to decide what to unpack and what to leave packed. At that point it becomes absurd when wood is actually used as a gap filler. Although it offers a certain level of protection, it is not necessarily needed if the ammunition containers are transported in relatively safe circumstances. Here it may take away transport capacity that may be needed in the situation.
Comparing the BM-21 to the HIMARS/M270 is very misleading. Yes, the way they use it in Ukraine would call for fast reloads and so on, but doctrinally they do not require this. Doctrinally the Soviet/Russian army would fight with a lot of men and material on the front. It would then find a weak spot and mass artillery (such as grads). They would then suppress enemy forces with a barrage of fires (like entire battalions of Grads would be fired all at once) and then exploit the created gap. And until the mechanized and motorized units take the objective, you have plenty of time to reload, and move up. For this, since you have a lot of these systems, and you would only ever use them massed, you don't really care about the reload time. The problem is, Russia is not committing the necessary manpower (which politically would not be feasible anyhow) to have units mass and break through like that. Also drones and surveillance and its short range have made massing these systems almost impossible. So its poor performance is not entirely the design's fault, but the fact that they are not used in a way where they could be most effective. The M270 yes is better at scout and shoot, but not because how bad the Grad is, but because it was designed for a different task. The M270 was designed to precisely take out higher value targets, especially, when air strikes are not available. For this you would want a mobile system, that is easy to reload, and could sustain high fire rates, because you expect enemy forces to remain in range. Also there is an argument to individual rocket reloading, where you want to service 3 more targets, but you have only 2 missiles left, do you wait minutes to reload (and give chance for them to disperse). Or shoot at 2, and hope that by the time you reload, the 3. one will still be there? So it is not necessarily a bad thing that you can individually reload these systems.
you also can load grad ammo on truck with 2 guys, unload it, and then reload the grad. for m270 you need a truck with a crane and good conditions, as you cant handle individual ammo. so if your ammo truck is ie stuck in the mud, there is no way to unload it.
Also, I've heard that the Russians have occasionally tried massing lots of troops together. This turns out to attract Ukranian HIMARS attention. It probably worked better back in the Soviet era without ubiquitous air recon.
Wood and tin leftovers are not actually garbadge, they are extremely good as furniture and bulding material. In fact, most of RUAF trenches and bunkers people see on the internet are made of or with those. But, seriuosly speaking, this type of packaging by soviet doctrine was ment to be opened way before it reaches the frontline. What this means is there should be some people at corps or divisonal rear-echelon HQ that sit and open them all day so regimental quartiermeister, a person issuing weapons and ammo to those who do the fighting, will only give them those small card boxes. They just don't bother.
I've opened up soviet 7.62 ammo and it was a wooden box you rip apart then on with the can openers and then you pull a string to open the metal can inside... then a string to pull out the paper wrapped ammo. Yugoslavia ammo it was 2 hinges on a box then a pull string on the metal can for the paper packed ammo... American ammo you just open the resealable box and it's there to use straight out
Finnish ammo manufacturers have tried to make 7,62*39 ammo stored in a spam cans (literal small spam/soup cans) back in the day, but it seems that it didn't stick. There are pictures of those cans on some ammo collecting forums. Before that, as far as i know, only pistol rounds were manufactured to be stored in cans, that you would peel open like old spam cans. All small arms ammo is still moved in wood boxes and cardboard packaging inside the box. Sealed cans do have the benefit of longer shelflife, but the cost of it may be higher. Btw, if anyone opens Soviet spam cans, DO NOT burn those packaging papers in your campfire. The Soviets coated those papers with nasty chemicals and it's not healthy for you. Also wash your hands always after handling any ammo. Lead isn't good for you.
If it's full copper jacket, you don't come into contact with any lead. Only copper and brass.
Counter-point, without this extensive packaging these items would likely not have lasted in Russian level of storage and thus ease of use as reserves would be a moot point as these would have seen use in the diet of rats decades ago. Likewise the Russians like storing guns in disgusting oil, but it means that if needed a soldier can be issued a weapon from the 19th century, though if he actually finds one I'm sure he could trade it in for something better as the resale value would be pretty high considering the history those would have had to have gone through to be available for deep storage, I'm sure it's better than being issued a homemade gun from North Korea at the very least.
The problem is not the extensive packaging. It's the complete lack of thinking about the end-user, when designing the package. Just look at Yugoslavian ammo cans. They are basically the same design as Soviet ones. They stack the same, also use wood as an outer package, package the same ammo, and are built for the same storage conditions. Only difference being, that the Yugoslavians actually thought about the end user: So the wooden boxes have hinges, the cans have pull-tabs/wires, and the individual ammo boxes inside also is packaged with a pull-tab, so you can take it out easily. Which means, you can open up and use the whole thing in seconds.
Everyone stores guns in disgusting oil- clearing off Cosmoline was one of the most hated jobs in the Home Guard
@@benlewis4241 Here in Britain we don't store them at all. This war round we wouldn't even be able to raid the museums as their examples have been deactivated by having large holes drilled in them. That said it's nice to hear that some places are more sensible.
@@AntonGudenus Exactly, its the same concept but executed exponentially better. What baffles me is the soviets packaged their ammo cans in wooden crates, so why did they not just bother to put a hinge on it? You already built the wooden crate, how expencive can 2 door hinges be compared to the benefits?
The WW2 Jerry can is an absolute work of genius. Our troops were issued fuel in poorly constructed square tins that were prone to leakage, nicknamed Flimsey's. Whenever the chance arose British troops would ditch their own cans and use the Germans. There are several KZhead videos on the Gerry can detailing the many innovative design features. I have one in my garage which i use for diesel when going on long trips. Many thanks, great video. Liked and subscribed.
so this is where the term comes from as a german myself this is surprising
The army board decided that disposable fuel cans were the way forward, rather than reusable. Understandable but the problem was quality control was so poor and they got such a battering in shipping that half were already leaking (as you say) on the first use.
@@benlewis4241 That would make sense. Thanks
Wood is perfect for storing detonators because it doesn't create static electricity at all.
Not like the Russians would ever ran out of wood with the taiga.
@@dannyzero692 Well they are having large uncontrolled fires. These are seasonal and were managed using army conscripts which is at least giving something useful to do. Currently they are not available so the fires burn unchecked.
Except the detonators were in the tincan.The wood was only filler.
its a shame that a metal container hugs it around, what you have to pry with another metal object
holy cope
Interesting, it does seem like somewhat overengineered storage for ammunition. However, it seems quite durable, being able to survive low-tech storage facilities, and does not really seem that different than some of the western containers I have seen (with bias towards finnish army, which has plenty of wood available). It feels somewhat incomplete without, what are the experiences of forces that had to historically use this kind of ammunition, and timeline on how western forces got better than this at handling ammunition. It needs following topics to be answered to understand the full picture: - WWII ammunition handling, prefereably by different countries - Cold War Western ammunition handling - Possible soviet sources on why such kind of ammunition handling
The Swedish cold war Bandkanon1A had it's ammo in giant 14rnd clips designed to be loaded directly into the magazine from the ammo supply truck by either the hydraulic crane on the ammo truck or the crane on the howitzer. The full reload took 2 minutes... The clips were factory packed onto standardised pine plank railroad cargo pallets, and most ammo depots had a protected cargo dock allowing ammo handlers to use hand or motorised fork lift cargo trucks to safely and conveniently shift the pallets with the ammo clips from the shelves of the depot to the ammo trucks in a roll in-load up-roll out procedure that also took no more than a minute per clip pallet. And this is clips of 14 single piece self contained 155mm howitzer cartridges... loaded into a self propelled tracked armored howitzers magazine in 2 minutes. A howitzer than can then send *all* of those 14 rounds in the magazine downrange in about 45seconds from first to last shot...
@@SonsOfLorgar Thank you, that does seem to be much more advanced than soviet system, which is much more designed for manhandling. Finnish army has to my understanding, recently tried to work its logistics into pallet system as well. Russians seem so far to have been unable to "palletize" their logistics, and Ukraine of course has no choice but to deal with things that were stored during the soviet era. However, to note, Bandkanon 1A seems to be an exeptional system, with its magazine, as US M109 does not appear to posess any kind of autoloader, and their autoloader-equipped system only coming into service in 2025. Suprisingly, other autoloader-equipped systems seem to be somewhat rare, or recent as well. So, I do have to gongratulate Sweden for developing an exeptional artillery system. (But I am still wondering why Sweden deciced to retire this system in 2003, when Finland had Gvozdika still is service until quite recently.) However, I'm still left wondering also, was the supply system this efficent in 1967, when the weapon entered service, or was this a latter addition. Edit: upon finding r/askhistorians post, the problems of Bandkanon 1 appear to be low production numbers (26 according to Wikipedia) and low mobility (until engines were upgraded in the 1990s), still, seems weird to retire 🤷♂️
@re64I expect Finland takes its defense seriously. It's only been 85 years since the Russians visited and some of them might have forgotten how it went for them the last time.
Very informative, a good overview of smaller details of the war. Very well presented.
The other thing with the Grad rockets is that after unboxing it you also have to arm the rockets before loading it into the launch tubes, so you can't even just break them out of the boxes and shove them straight in. Interesting the Chinese, who use a more complicated (but arguably faster) method of loading 122mm rockets, store their rockets in metal racks of 2 rockets each.
It is telling that China, not Russia, is iterating and improving their Soviet legacy equipment.
Czechs just put the system on a truck chassis large enough to hold a whole second rack with the RM-70.
@@ausaskar The Chinese actually ran with that idea too in a system called the Type 89. Ultimately, though, the American pod system is better and they switched to that instead.
@@jamesharding3459 Well, unlike Russia, China doesn't have the manpower to spare. Oh wait ...
Если у вас кривые руки, то конечно у вас ничего не получится. У простых российских солдат, которые эти Грады заряжают, руки явно прямее🥱🥱
"Detonators are rarely an item that needs to be quickly accessed" True but in the rare cases you need to quickly access them, you really need to access them quickly.
Soviet logistics were based on the very true assumption that they will always have more of everything than the enemy. More launchers, more ammo, more men, both at the frontline and in the rear. Also consider both the costs and production times of the things discussed and compare them to what Western equiptment costs and how slowly it's produced and it all starts to make sense.
The packages aren't "reusable" But they do provide reclamation which NATO plastic does not. The wood can be used for fire fuel or building if not badly rotted, and the cans are cans, so 100% recyclable. NATO spends a LOT of money on both single use plastic, and shipping empty boxes around. NATO wins for Logistics, but at a significantly higher cost, which given how "wars" actually have been fought the last few decades, only creates a cost burden not a logistical advantage. Having shot both AKM and Mosin-Nagant with my friends, I'm unfortunately personally familiar with the hassle of opening these damn doom boxes, as well as the flimsy bullshit packing of the interior boxes so once you get the big box open, the individual load packs fail as often as they stay together. But you also get some pocket change back when you scrap the can, and the paper internal boxes biodegrade quickly.
I still can't wrap my head around that idea that everything is in individual boxes that are made to be as difficult to open as possible.
Long term storage
@@tomhenry897 OK you can still have a tight seal without being a pain To open like in Western countries
@@blazingkhalif2 Any food canning factories can switch to canning ammo with a proverbial flip of a switch. Low skill, loose tolerant and utilizing less strategic material is the name of the game. It's all about the surge capacity in war time condition.
@@blazingkhalif2 Or at the very least, use bigger cans so that a little extra time opening results in much more ammunition.
@@blazingkhalif2Western boxes use rubber seals which degrade relatively quickly.
This is really a symptom of a completely different problem. Sealing it in tins is a very good way of storing ammunition safely for large stretches of time, and for something like small arms ammunition it isn't going to be a major bottleneck opening them up. The problem only arises when you have larger ammunition like rockets or artillery with only a few rounds in each box, which leads to the real cause behind this. The soviets never properly embraced forklifts
I can't help but wonder if all this, despite the obvious immediate problems it brings, might actually be one of the reasons why they are still able to stay in this war at all. There is a cold logic I can see behind the reliance on manpower instead of more sophisticated approaches, that being systems in a general state of disrepair would be more or less the same effort to rearm compared to the same system in pristine condition, and the troops are used to it. A lot less effective compared to western approaches for sure, but this disadvantage might transform into an advantage in a situation where logistics have already taken a heavy toll in prolonged fighting and were far from the best to begin with, losses in specialist personnel become harder and harder to replace, and most equipment having degraded to quite some extend thus the bar for what is considered combat-capable being lowered constantly. Fresh meat for the grinder seems to be in endless supply in this war, a specific bearing needed to repair a crane system for reloading and the skilled hands to replace it might be a lot harder to come by compared to just another set of hands capable of prying a rocket out of a wooden box and shoving it into a tube. Looking at it from this perspective, could it be that with equipment on par with western systems and procedures to match, but the same logistical capabilities and challenges, their whole war would have been lost decisively a while ago?
That was the Soviet scheme as I understand it, yes. They assumed that grunts would show up with no useful skills, and designed their military to function with clueless draftees who could, mostly, be relied on to point rifles in the general direction of the enemy.
To be fair, those soup-can packages can be stored for a very long time. As shown in the video - 1981 production date, but inside is pristine.
Pristine? Is powder still powder or becomeing SOLID🤔, surplus sold Why?? Charity for poor shooter , or get shit out of invetory🫡
@@454FatJack The Soviets chose to use corrosive powder an primer's as they store better. As for why its cheap? the USSR went in for the Broken-backed war theory, WW3 was going to be fought after the nukes with what was left.
1:28 Former ammo loader here ( it's called 'takelajnik' here in Russia - from 'takelaj cart', I found out about this after the service since I have never seen it's usage nor itself at all throughout my entire service). And must say it requires a lot of skill and teamwork to load those 40 RS (each almost 3 meters in lenght and 80 kg in container) into the KAMAZ with it's 3,6 meters in lenght and 1,7 meters in height (if tented, and its always tented). Long story short each takelajnik team (8 men) usually had it's own special person - 'tarakanchik' (affecionate from cocroach) - who had to crawl through the narrow gap between KAMAZ tent and RS piles deep behind them to help us load final eight containers into the remaining space which he just crawled through (!), that is, wall him up alive...
Did you time yourselves? What was your best time?
@@benlewis4241 8 KAMAZ (each 40 or 80 RS) a day for our team (8 men). It depends, though: containers condition, KAMAZ condition etc. Day can be enlarged to midnight if you cant do those 8 KAMAZ in time... So 1 KAMAZ (40 RS) approximately an hour. 1 KAMAZ (80 RS) is much much harder - long story why- but it's two hours.
The main thing about this kind of packaging is that it can be stored for a long time without any problems of of quality deterioation of the contents of those boxes, also when you have a loot of exes wood then you use it as filling because you make the same sized box for more stuff so you can cut costs and the wood is cheaper to not procces. And also you dont need to reload MLRS fast when you have abundance of those systems, and even then while the MLRS system is firing a few guys in the back are already unpacking the rockets to be used for the next reload, and also you dont need any crane to reload the MLRS so you can cut costs and if something was to happen to that crane you can still reload those MLRS systems, and if the logistics truck was to crash then you can just carry those boxes around even tho there are only 2 of you because those boxes are so small
I've opened a few cans of 7.62x39 and its definitely "annoying" but I've never opened one that had damaged ammo inside despite external container damage. They're very "long term storage" in "sub par conditions" oriented. Bad for the end user, but amazing for low maintenance long term stockpiling. Given these stockpiled munitions are being unpacked after 40 years, I'd say they're better than a cardboard box full of soiled munitions, or nothing at all.
but not better than USGI cans
The USGI cans that I've encountered have all been much thinner metal than the soviet style and I've seen quite a few rusted through, especially at the top where the handle and or can opener is welded in place. Which is fine for the US since they rotate through inventory so quickly. Its not like they're fighting the same logistical strains. Just different solutions to different problems. @@therideneverends1697
Excellent video on spam cans. I've opened one or two back in the day. Sure they're incredibly resilient against poor storage and mishandling, but I'd never thought much of their role in logistics. Very cool video!
New recruits probably spend their beginning artillery duty unpacking ammunition. Although impractical the cans are kind of fascinating. Thank you Bernhard.
what you are missing is. there is a way to open them much much faster
That being?
@@billklatsch5058 axe or knife with a hammer strike. tin cans are iffy with that combo
Yeah those cans are just meant to preserve the contents in perpetual storage and rough conditions, that’s why you need a can opener in the first place. Much of the ammunition is also very corrosive, so you need to clean your arms often to avoid pitting.
30 years storage in coditions ranging from +40 to -40
But so where the Yugosavian cans. And those can be opened with a simple pull-tab.
Exact;y the sort of thing that's fascinating to see, thank you!
One other consideration would be that when the rocket container with all the rockets gets damaged in transit, what are the chances of the entire rack being unusable? I assume that with mlrs rockets can be loaded individually as well ( i hope)
Yes, they can.
The spam cans as many American gun owners have come to call them make sense in the Soviet system and war planning. To begin with the Soviets made insane amounts of ammunition to stockpile, and the spam cans are perfect for that. If not stored in the elements, they will last decades and are airtight. They have to be really abused for the contents to be compromised. They are relatively small, compact, and store well. They are quite labor-intensive to open, and the same goes for the rest of the Soviet ammunition logistics system. But Soviet war planning incorporated a very large number of relatively unskilled conscripts who could be tasked with unsealing the large quantity of ammunition for front line troops, same goes for the reloading of various MLRS systems. I suspect the technological and economic difference between NATO and the Soviet union also contributed to the lack of auto loaders and more manual systems for artillery. The Soviets planned on a very rapid advance into Western Europe, so likely didn’t want the logistical burden of having more expensive reusable packaging to have to transport back and opted for disposable packaging instead that could be left behind as the front line moves up. I’m sure some of the decision-makers thought the chance of war was so unlikely that it wasn’t worth the cost of having an American style ammo that can be resealed and has a handle for carrying. The Soviets were nothing if not penny pinchers.
Also, remember it's the Soviet/Russian military. If there was ammunition in resealable containers, it would only be a matter of time until an ammunition warehouse had a few thousand rounds of ammo and many thousands of empty containers.
The whole point of the video was that even a unit with unlimited manpower can't reload a Grad faster. And the Russians _have_ thrown a conscript army into this conflict, and they aren't receiving any apparent logistical benefit from it.
@@mysss29 The Russian army is nothing like the old Soviet Army. The old Soviet Army was, IIRC, unlike anything the Russians of today could ever hope to match.
@@WyvernYT This is easilly prevented by haveing the opening latches factory sealed with wire. The US does this
i've opened some of these spam cans for Romanian Mauser ammunition. I have a couple still left. Their storage abilities are second to none. As a side note, my father had 30-06 ammo from Greece in the normal packaging. Well, a cat peed in it for some reason and ruined some of it. I had a cat pee in my ammo storage as well, but that spam can protected all of it! But getting into that ammo to shoot is time consuming and rather dangerous. Good video as always. Danke! -
Get anti cut gloves, a hammer and a lever, and you can pop anything open.
BM-21: 40 rockets, reloading 10 minutes (or 30 minutes, if you want) M270: 6 rockets per pod, reloading 4 minutes (per pod or both of them?) Now which one is faster? The M270 just by leaving out the number of rounds? Packaging: Yes, wooden boxes are primitive. They are disposable. They are stored and transported in their package. And might be used to build a primitive shelter, already in camouflage color. Those pods of the M270 have (or at least should) be returned for reloading. And that reloading of the pods takes no time? Is done where? How are the rockets itself stored? In pods? Without further protection in a climate controlled ware house?
lol Malding In progress. To answer your question… Back at he factory… but don’t worry that it’s across the Atlantic, we have many more pods all waiting in Supply depots that have actual air defenses… not that any Russian Aviation would be able to get up to deliver a strike package on them anyway, or better yet that you would even be able to locate them with those discount “Recon Satellites” the Russians have.
Thats called logistics, the M270 crew fires that pod then never sees it again, its reloaded at the factory like the first guy said. As far as the crew is concerned, the rip off their rockets, change the pod, fire the rockets again, get 2 new pods, repeat, the gunners never have to reload them
@@therideneverends1697And now what is the advantage in sending back the pods to the factory, get them loaded and then back to the front? Occupy more people with supplying their men? Or flying pods at least double the distance? Oh, it's "logistics"! But what does the part "logic" make in it?
@@MuellerNick Easy, because as long as the supply line remains reliable it prevents crews from needing to fiddle with anything other than loading and shooting, allowing it to have a rate of fire that can crush anything else and in mobile applications allow far more rockets to be fired before relocation. Simply put its superior in every way. plus it actually saves transport space as the rockets loaded into crates to be sent individually take up more space than the loaded pod.
@@therideneverends1697So you need a dedicated supply line that makes the supply more reliable. Makes sense. So 12 rockets allow more rockets to be fired before relocating than 40 rockets. Makes sense. Makes all sense, but just with your twisted logic.
Absolutely brilliant & I love the quick humour asides! 😂😂
10 minit is more than plenty. I think you might have missed something. I served in a unit with Bm21 and D20.
It's a combat engineer talking shit to military history visualized. The engineer hasn't seen a bm21 reload ever in person..
what army?
As was already mentioned in the comments, the priority is long term storage in harsh conditions. That's why Russia keeps drawing from Cold War reserves and has shells to fire, right now, in large scale war, and NATO fancy packaging is pointless as you are out of stock.
Well… we wouldn’t need to fire tens of thousands of artillery rounds. That is a problem exclusive to countries without any other means of effective fire support… I.e… countries with small (or in the case of Russia) incompetent air forces. People look at Ukraine and tend to draw up the wrong conclusions, thinking that is how LSCO’s are going to be for everyone. But thanks for the concern, we’ll get right on the Artillery ammunition problem and just build up massive stockpiles that we can hand out to our poorer allies that can’t afford Aircraft.
@uskrat6968 mother of cope. you still learned nothing. your fancy doctrine doesn't work against near peer opponent.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 Россия создавала запасы десятилетиями. Вы готовы к десяткам лет производства?
I would think that there's mainly 2 reasons why the soviets went with individual packaging, not only is it easier in terms of storage since most of these goods were expected to sit in warehouses and, hopefully, never be used in a cold war gone hot scenario, but also due to economic reasons, for example (this is a made up example of course, but this is in a very oversimplified manner how the soviet economy worked): GOSPLAN releases a directive demanding the production of 1 million hand grenades during the first year of a 5 year plan, ideally factory managers would try to delay production as much as possible so they hit the target exactly or are barely below, and one way to do this is to make the individual manufacturing process longer, but it also plays a second role: manipulate output statistics by making it seem like workers are being incredibly effective but in reality all they're doing is packaging bulk items individually. This is something that all industries in the soviet union had as a common practice during the 70s stagnation and 80s decline. This type of packaging definitely seems like a result of policy making and the inefficient soviet economic and political system as opposed to a belief from the military that it was more cost-effective compared to western counterparts.
there's only one thing wrong with that assumption; and that is the myth that soviet arms industry was inefficient. it was in fact the most effective and healthy part of the whole system and was fairly free of the woes you described.
@@phunkracy That is very much correct yes, however packaging from a production standpoint regarding a target set by GOSPLAN doesn't really affect whether the objective is fulfilled or not, the soviet arms industry was comparatively the healthiest since it saw the largest allocation of resources which meant that, consequently, it had constant yearly growth, but from a manufacturing and logistics standpoint there wasn't much incentive to innovate the way they did things, and individual packaging is proof of this, because they were allocated the most resources they could get away with inefficient single packaging since it went two ways, for one they didn't need to contract new tooling or train workers differently to how they had been doing so for decades, and second on paper it makes each individual worker more "efficient" in terms of shift output since there were individual worker quotas, even if on the larger picture the quantity of munitions produced remained the same.
sobralisj kak-to v kommêntariâh êkspêrty sovêtskogo Gosplana i oboronnoj promyšlênnosti.
@@tossk5496 nothing here makes sense mate. Individual productivity quotas were irrelevant, the Soviet block economy had actual difficulty finding jobs for people, there was more people than productive uses of their labour, to a point where many were working half time or fictional jobs just to fulfill the one actually important quota of full employment, which was the policy. As for boxes and military: All militaries are inherently conservative, for one. Two, the 'if it works it works' approach. The 'single packaging' is that way for a reason. One: its idiot proof. An idiot can make a steel stamped box and an idiot can unpack it. So you can put non-idiots to a more important tasks. Two: its cost effective. Three: it saves resources. A steel box is a steel box. Its not fancy like american box with rubber and tight tolerances. But rubber is a strategic resource which was at premium, in WW2 Axis had tremendous problems with supply of rubber. Meanwhile steel is one of the resources Soviets had plenty of. This video misses the mark terribly imho
@@phunkracy The soviet arms industry was not controlled by the military and it wasn't a private corporation either, it was a conglomerate of state owned factories that adopted designs and techniques according to the bureau they belonged to. The soviet arms industry was, since the first five year plan introduced in 1928 the centerpillar of industrial output in the nation and accordingly they had to obey strict state mandates regarding worker allocation, work hour quotas, output and energy consumption, the soviet union was not a liberal democracy it was a command economy and as such ***everything*** industries did was controlled by the state. The idea of individual packaging in wooden boxes for a politician in moscow makes sense, for one its cheaper because its a low cost material but for two it means they need more people because each artillery shell, each hand grenade, each fuze, each propellant charge, etc needs to be handled manually *by a single worker* and that means that the factory can employ more people and, on paper, produce more goods. This is what all 5 year plans did and this was how the entire soviet system structured itself and the idea im elaborating, obviously this is an assumption, but if you can come up with either a better founded guess or actual hard data that would obviously be factual and, as such, above my statement, you're free to disagree on a subjective basis
Question is how good is it on long term storage? For ammo produced to store for 20-30 years that don't look as horrid but for ammo going straight to the front that just looks like trouble
It has to be stored in controlled condition, defined as, "Not immersed in water or mercury." The low-grade steel is coated in zinc and then painted. Depending on what is inside, the contents may be (usually, are) sealed in nitrogen to prevent oxidation. Shelf life? With the paint intact, the zinc is intact. With the zinc intact, the steel cannot (chemically, can-not) corrode as long as there is no oxygen. With the inside nitrogen-purged, there is no oxygen. A hundred years? Six hundred years? The gunpowder inside each cartridge case *will* break down, and decompose, to some extent, because gunpowder contains its own oxydizers to sustain rapid combustion. I don't know the chemistry of Soviet gunpowder, but I know it _functions_ for at least eighty years. EDIT: That immersion warning is a direct quote from the supply manual.
@@davidgoodnow269 And its worth noteing some oxidizers, in absence of actual oxygen will have a heavily slowed break down, which could be reduced further by considerations such as the actual path of ionic exchange in question and its values where, if the chemists where particularly clever they could use something that in its breakdown still produces a biproduct that will detonate, also due to just the nature of how gunpowder works some stabilizing agents could be be mixed in the powder blend and not hinder ignition. Like you said, ive never seen the actual formula they use or used, but if stuff packaged from WW2 will still go off, and there most assuredly was progress made in the development of propellants, since then, theres no reason not to think modern ammunition from any developed country stored well will not fire with reasonable reliability a century from now
I liked this video, arguments and your conclusions.
Remember those old unboxing videos! 😂😂😂 This video bets all of them.
One big point that is missed is that container based systems are loaded at the factory to say...cannot fire off 4 rockets and then reload it.
Soviets smuggling firewood to their troops
one soldiers war?
Amazing video. And wunderbar commentary 😁
Built for long term storage That’s why see ammo from WW2 still good
Why surplus was sold? Help the poor or get shit out of invetory🤔25 years in good storage . Past it powder starts to get SOLID no powder anymore. TNT burns faster 🤯
Excellent video, as always. I would like to add a point: the Soviet army relied on large numbers of rural unskilled conscripts. With an abundance of manpower, they could compensate a little the lack of more sophisticated packaging methods. The cost upgrading it was not worth it. Today, neither Ukraine nor Russia have an abundance of spare labor, and this system is no longer efficient.
Как будто на Западе по-другому🥱🥱
So Russia is losing the unboxing war on youtube 😂 The real war on the ground seems to be a different matter
About 12 years ago I bought a Russian Surplus Mosin-Nagant rifle. Considering the less than perfect finish of the bolt action, which to be fair is cosmetic, shows that my rifle was made during wartime, as the quality would not have been acceptable otherwise. The ammo, 7.62x59R was packed in a can much like you had shown. I had to use a knife to open it, and once opened there were 480 loose rounds to be dealt with. Probably not an issue if a lot of men are loading their stripper clips and using up all the ammo once opened. While it doesn't fit very well, I transferred the ammo to a regular US Army water-tight ammo box, which is a superior manner to store, ship, and use the ammo. The rifle is actually pretty good if you don't consider the issue of dealing with the ammo. It is very accurate at distance, however the thing kicks like a mule. The accessories that came with it included the ammo belt with leather pouches for the rounds, a cleaning kit with the dried up remains of oil and grease, and of all things a bayonet. The rifle with new identification numbers for selling in the US was about $95. I think I paid about $88 for the can of 480 rounds of ammo.
One point worth considering is that the loading system on the western systems does require that you keep up on the maintenance of the vehicle. There is something to be said for having your loading system being four strong backs. Of course, the counterpoint is only needing one person expending a whole lot less energy.
In extended, high-tempo operations, strong backs often become the default...
Everyone loves the idea of a single man operating some levers reloading the whole system in 5 mins. But pray to the lord that crane doesn´t go wrong at the worst possible time, because now it is not a 5 man+ job to reload it, it has now simply become impossible. There´s pros and cons always.
@@pablolonniepachecomaldonad9184 Truth! When I see a new automated weapons system, I wonder how well it can be operated in a manual mode.
given that philosophy, it’s weird that it was the Soviets who had auto-loading tank cannons, while the West kept their human loaders.
@@gerardlabelle9626They had nearly 100,000 tanks. 300,000 crew needed instead of 400,000 means more men for meat waves
The packaging is excellent. Sealed from the environment and delivery doesn't require specialized equipment. All manually assembled. In my opinion they are assembled in a safe site and the Grads will go to the loading point to be rearmed. They will not sit on the loading site while the rockets are assembled. While the Western method uses specialized equipment, trucks for transporting the package dedicated for such purpose. Maybe the Russians are scattering these loading sites in different locations to minimize losses when detected by the enemy. One reason the Russians are shooting more rockets than the Ukrainian. Just saying.
ref: MLRS ammo. I agree with everything you said but in my humble opinion you left out two major points. 1. This form of packaging not only slows down the loading of the launcher but also the complete supply line from manufacture until final delivery. 2. In my opinion the most important. It is obvious from the photo that those rocket boxes were unpacked and 'stacked' by hand. This loading and unloading by hand was probably carried out many times throughout the complete logistics chain. Maintaining the concentration and energy levels of fighting troops in battle conditions is paramount, therefore every calorie of wasted energy is potentially critical. I personally watched a platoon of Russians, near Potsdam in 1992 shoveling coal from a rail car onto the ground and then shoveling that coal from the ground onto a covered truck. driving the truck 300 meters , shoveling it off the truck into piles where more troops were shoveling the coal from the piles into buckets to carry them to the coal fueled heating plants within the buildings. I know many won't believe me and I, myself found it unbelievable at the time.
Eastern block militaries are like that. You wont understand if you nevet served in there
@@krainexCorrect. I served in the British army in the 1970's where we also did many things by hand that the modern army doesn't. The difference is that we are 50 years further on but they aren't .
@@laurencehastings7473 i serve in Polish military right now and we still function like them
@@krainexI've worked with Poles in Berlin and they don't think like that. They were quick and clever. Maybe the reason the Polish army is lagging behind is that the soviet mindset is stiil , to some extent, still present. Even Ukraine had this problem 10 years ago but necessity forced them to innovate and develope. All armies to some extent have a history of rituals and traditions. My father had a Polish mate in the UK who fought in the British army against Hitler when Poland was invaded. I remember the speeches of Lech Valesa in Gdansk in the 1980's. An icon of resistance and freedom.
@@laurencehastings7473 Lech Wałęsa is a mixed bag
@6:30 "for full immersion I suggest watching this video on an empty stomach" Brilliant
ok and now think about this, how many GRADs are there, and how many NATO MRLS are there? Consider there is also Uragan for example which loads different... Also GRADs are basically Katyusha on a KAMAZ/URAL chassis
I recall can opening a spam can of 7.62 before and also a South Korean K1 chemical protection kit in a similar spam can. Opening it releases a unique smell I call the 'seal of freshness' (I believe it's mostly nitrogen in the protective equipment and/or as with ammo factory air)
Oh, yeah, blame the packaging, not the storage conditions. It's kinda like the bushes which defeated the counter-offensive
Bingo
You mean when the Russians unfairly used camouflage and minefields that German training was insufficient for, along with ammo from boxes that had been found in a leaky cellar somewhere?
Exactly. Westoids complaining that a box keeping stuff in prime condition since 1981 is rugged and solid
@@Francisco-ow6blcope harder. soviet packaging is AWFUL, and funny enough, western packaging has NONE of the issues that the Russians and Ukrainians are running into, plus lasts LONGER... hmmmmmm
@@Francisco-ow6blFunny, our storage does the same thing… because we aren’t savage monkeys that cannot handle the basic levels of maintenance that is required. Also, let’s have some fun… go ahead and look up all ammunition storage depot explosions that have happened in any NATO country versus how man happened in Glorious Russia. The Rus had fallen, billions must carry heavy wooden boxes
Excellent Video!
There is some change in Russian equipment. The ISDM for remote mining swaps the entire launch module with the reloading vehicle. All the older systems don't, though. And even newer versions of the BM-27 load rocket for rocket. This is also why russia is slowly moving away from massive rocket artillary, but to precision fires. The massive barrages are not effective enough and the logistical burden is too much for the russian logistics to bear (although they still manage to support massive amounts of arty). It's funny to see Russia slowly move towards Nato doctrine because it makes sense
Disposibility is a sound idea for military equipment. That goes right up to MBTs in a peer conflict. It saves alot of logistics and management. More importantly, it can be scaled up much faster.
You have to me mindful when planning the disposability though. Most of the US ammo packaging is designed to be reusable, but immediately and optionally reusable for storing something else on the front lines, rather than being *necessary* to be reused or shipped back. It's still all classified as "expendable" and certainly no one is expecting you to turn the boxes back in (so technically disposable) The truly "disposable" packaging is generally plywood, cardboard, and plastic, which is lighter and probably cheaper than a lot of the Russian packaging methods. If it has to be stored for the long term the US has climate controlled facilities that it can be stored in for decades depending on the actual lifepsan of the item. In the case of the MLRS modular rocket pods concept though, it's actually designed to speed up logistics near the front lines. Once the launcher has fired its missiles, it's just a glorified truck and needs to move anyway to avoid counter fire, so it can drive back to the depot, drop off its old launcher, and pick up a new one. If the launcher gets destroyed the truck probably got destroyed too, so there's no real benefit to making the launcher pod itself disposable.
The last time that was true was WW2 and even there it was already arguably unsustainable. Modern weapons are simply too expensive and valuable to use like that. Even the hyper simplified and optimized T-34 production of the Soviets was working at or beyond the limit with how the Soviets used their tanks. And that was while the Soviet industry was fully mobilized and could essentially just rely on the US to construct and replace any manufacturing tools and machines they needed.
@MajinOthinus If you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to use it. (Which is Ukraines' problem right now. They have some good gear they can't deploy to maximum effect because they can't replace it, e.g, challengers, patriots, Abrams, even himars to some degree.) Russia is losing more gear, but they can replace it. Ukraine can't.
@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 There is an incredibly large difference between being able to take losses and a system being disposable.
@MajinOthinus It is part of the same philosophy. A trip to the front is a one way ticket. As long as it does its job once, it doesn't need to come back. If Russia sends a tank to the front, it gets knocked out but does its job, that is a win. If Ukraine (or any NATO power outside of the US) does the same, it is a loss. This is the power of the 'everything is disposable' strategy. At the end of the day, America relies on the same approach, at least as far as equipment goes.
Ни кто в страшном сне не мог предположить, что люди разучатся открывать консервные банки! В 90х учась в университете у меня был опыт вскрытия цинков с патронами на военных сборах. Ничего сложного, несколько секунд на каждый цинк.
Well, the soviets used the wood to prevent moisture build up and to keep the climate in the package stable. A bit rustical and optically the opposite of fancy, but if youre honest actually genious.
Thinking about it, they may have used the wood as fill material in the expectation that someone was going to use a hammer and hatchet to open a can of detonators... it's something to catch the errant blade before it nicks things that really don't like being nicked, bent, or smashed into.
It is easier to open the "soviet doom boxes" from the side, not from the top, from my experience the opener doesn't dull as fast that way and the wooden pieces wont get stuck on the jagged can.
Reload time for bm-21 aint a huge issue , you shot and you move back to the rear for reload.
Czech RM70 Vampire MLRS somewhat mitigated the grad rocket reloading problem. You have one salvo loaded in the BM-21 launcher, while the second one is stored on the rack at the back of the truck. Once you fire the first salvo, you turn the launcher to the reloading position and slam the second salvo to the tubes. No need for carrying around 40 boxes to fire two salvos.
Used Boxed = Firewood And the cans remind me of the 90's buying 7.62 x 54 R or 39 in Spam Cans ... do not lose the wrench
Another thing to note is; The abundance of wooden crates makes it even harder to hide your depot or reloading position. All it takes is a drone shooting by to see a pile of wooden crates and immediately know just from the length and shape alone it's a high value target worth investigating more
They aren't reloaded at the front in the shooting position. They move to the rear to be reloaded. M270's are the same, they require a second vehicle with a crain to unload the cassette units onto the ground first and then the M270 has to use it's crane to get it into the launcher. It's hardly a fast operation for any vehicle it's just the BM21 doesn't require a second vehicle. kzhead.info/sun/g8mFqa2hrJeGeqs/bejne.html As for the soup can ammunition boxes well this is intended for long term storage in poor conditions and be cheap. The wood is there because it won't create any static shock which would detonate the chord. It's not great but it's not like there is only one guy to open cans, everyone can open them.
The one thing I will give them is their small arms ammo packaging is excellent for long term storage, assuming the can's didn't somehow get punctured or have air get in another way. I've probably opened 15 spam cans of 7.62 x 39/5.45 x 39, and only one of them had bad ammo (but the spam can had clearly been damaged) But man is it a pain to open those cans...
THey're trying to play a long game where their 'old fashioned' systems will still work long after the opponent has lost the ability to maintain their high tech systems.
An ammo can with a lid is not a high tech system. or, if for some unholy reason such a concept is considered high tech in Russia they should just call it quits now
@@therideneverends1697 Напиши Путину письмо. Он посмеется над ним за вечерним чаем😊😊
After D-Day in WW2 GI's threw away a lot of jerry cans not realizing that they were intended to be refilled at the harbor. The concept of Pipe Line Under the Ocean from GB was not common knowledge, lest the Gemans cut the important pipe.
While I can agree on a few points here - some seem to not grasp the concept of packaging. Spam cans for small arms make a lot of sense for any military. But they're exactly what they look like: storage containers. Not ammo boxes ready for use. If you're trying to open a spam can in the middle of a firefight, you've already done something wrong. Regarding the grad...loading it is absolutely slow, but it's also less than 10% the cost of any modern western rocket system, ammo is significantly cheaper, and they're generally fired in pairs or larger groups and then driven out of the area - without even firing a second time. Modern western rocket artillery is superb...and comes with a superb price. We're talking millions of dollars per rocket/missile in some instances....and even more when you add the launcher component to the reload, etc. I don't think you can compare the two systems without taking cost into account. Something tells me the Russians were sitting on far more Grad rockets than we have HIMARs, etc.
They aren't really comparable. The grads are an inaccurate area saturation type weapon while himars are much more of a sniper weapon. If you look at the cost of taking out a particular target, himars might be cheaper.
Compare the spam cans to the american counterpart. you get your ammo on stripper clips with magazine adapters. in less than a minute your ENTIRE combat ammo load can be replenished, and guess what? the ammo is still in a SEALED CAN until use.
There's a story told in my family from communist Poland (PRL / PRoP): My unle worked for the comany that exported pickles to either Sweden or Norway. The thing is they were packaged in wooden barrels so thick and well made it was much, much cheaper to buy said barrel with pickles inside than alone, dry one. these boxes sometimes remind me of that.
Thanks for the translation and the insight. I won't be using any Russian made can openers in the future!
I have experience on loading soviet-made artillery ammunition during military service in Finland. But there we were preparing the ammunition beforehand so fuses were on place and boxes opened. Of course if you need to shoot and scoot, there will be no time for that. And with all the drones around nowadays, I guess they have to load pretty much out of the box.
A few years ago I purchased a can of 5.45 ammo. It took me 20 minutes using a dremel to score the can, and a chisel to breaked to scored line, to get it open. I sliced myself twice in the process. I was then confronted with 1080 rounds of ammo, packed in 20(?) round paper packages. It was an interesting experience from a collector's perspective, but I sure as hell would not want to be dealing with that in a warzone.
Oh my god, the severity of the problem is definitely highlighted with that massive stack of tiny 30mm boxes with like 10 rounds in each for a weapon that usually has high RoF. I can’t imagine the tedious process of opening all those cans. Had to open one of the 7.62x54 cans a few years ago for range day and I swear that took like half the event, but that was just a me issue I’m sure.
The aircraft that uses those apparently has a combat load of 3500 rounds. How can one of those things actually get loaded without dozens of men pulling allnighters?
The wooden planks in the warsow pact army's were/are used for measuring the length of the firing cord for the explosives
The woodenbox reference got me