Ukraine Veteran about Improvised Russian Weapons
It seems the Russian have merged an MT-LB with an anti-submarine warfare launcher RBU-6000. Quite made fun of this, but a German combat engineer that serves in Ukraine strongly disagrees, he outlines that the mockery is quite misplaced.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» 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
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
DISCLAIMER D: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2018, 2019 & 2020.
/ daspanzermuseum
DISCLAIMER A: I was invited by the Military History Park Pivka (Slovenia), my friend and I received a special tour, demonstration, food and goodie packs.
KZhead Channel of the Military History Park Pivka:
/ @parkvojaskezgodovinep...
Homepage: parkvojaskezgodovine.si/en/
Twitter: / pvz_pivka
Instagram: / parkvojaskezgodovine
Cover design by vonKickass. Using the following images:
Werner Willmann, CC BY-SA 3.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/b..., via Wikimedia Commons, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Ministry of National Defence Republic of Lithuania, GFDL www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html, via Wikimedia Commons, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZhead Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
/ 1705854304513384691
/ 1705726469924639218
/ 1706332959144390736
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-LB
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBU-6000
#mtlb #ukrainewar #mockery
00:00 Intro
01:05 “Sponsorship”
01:23 MTLB
02:36 RBU-6000
03:43 Complaints & Context: Why not underestimate
06:59 Ex Navy Officer Chimes in
08:30 “No Free Lunch”
09:29 Summary
You can follow the Combat Engineer here: twitter.com/ButtjerFreimann »» GET OUR BOOKS «« » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Panzer: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.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
9:00 I don't know about this case, but more often than not the naval chimeras are used by the Naval Infantry units.
I hope an Iskander hits his repair facility
Reminds me of croatian troops who used naval mines that they rolled down hills and mountains against advancing serbian troops.
Lmao imagine the serbian faces
Good times....
Release the (unintelligible) Sphere
Yes, small badly funded and equipped Armies will use stuff like this. The Ukrainians do all sorts of makeshift things. But Russia is supposedly oneof the worlds Super Powers. With the largest and most capable Army on the planet. They should not need to be sending Redneck Specials into the war zone.
That sounds straight out of Wile E. Coyote's idea
It's not unheard of. During WWII the British had the Matilda Hedgehog and Land Matress rocket artillery systems.
Very true and they weren't bad conversions. Also take a look at the German/US habit of throwing all types of weapon systems on halftracks. They looked adhoc but were nearly all very very capable platforms so poeple shouldn't just mock these creations out of hand.
And by what we've heard both were far from stellar. Correct me if I'm wring, but Matilda Hedgehog is one off prototype that couldn't even pass testing proper and is known solely thanks to Warthunder where it's also unusable? Given that track record, it's no surprise people started to ridicule the improvised MLRS above too.
@@adamjaquay4279 Both the Vietnamese and Afghanistanees were famous modifying US equipment. It's not stupid or crazy if it works.
This land based rocket systems were used with well known procedures and tools. They knew how to adjust it on every vehicle and how to aim. This naval weapon was never built for land based aiming procedures. So your comparison makes no sense at all...................
It is not that "It's not unheard of", it's that it should not be nessecary
RBU is a potent anti sub weapon. Those rockets can be programmed to explode in a set depth. During the submarine hunt the rockets are programmed based on the sonar data. It can be used against land targets with no issues. The auto loader that is available for the NAVY variant obviously doesn’t fit on MTLB. Those rockets are pretty heavy to load manually. I also don’t know how they aim the weapon. Please can you look into a bit deeper? Very interesting subject. Thank you.
With rockets weighting 112-113 Kg, that must be not so funny to reload the launcher on the top of a MT-LB.
It's a potent anti sub weapon if you literally run over a submarine near the surface. US missile subs loiter far too deep for this thing to be effective and attack subs will outrun it. This weapon deployed on a vehicle will be used against civilians in an urban setting. It's not guided and just explodes, they're going to lob it where they think soldiers are dug and in and just kill innocent people.
@@nicolas2419 agreed
Watching this thing reload on a ship is very neat. However, the whole reloading shaft goes through multiple decks. Watching an RBU 6000 fire is entertaining too. Some of the older submarine hunters have two of them. It looks kinda cool. The newer 1124m class corvettes have only one RBU.
@@a..7773 How are shaped charges helpful against subs?
Il never understand why some people are so eager to underestimate their enemies
No the full name did not give a full general idea. 1:28 It gave me a heart attack
You are welcome!
Its pretty much a short range Uragan rocket launcher. If you need a building gone(along with all the other buildings on the block), its a perfect small unit solution. Afterall, you never have enough artillery.
I know this is going to sound weird but in the last few days I developed an unhealthy obsession with the MT-LB. Look, I know it's weird, but I was even looking up how to buy one to retrofit. I'm utterly fascinated by this little gun tractor that's now being turned into an artillery piece or tank destroyer. Many commenters in videos who drove them in their services said they're pieces of shit but I want one so badly. I found some sites that resell them and even looked up some turbocharged marine diesels. If that thing can do ~40mph with a 240hp diesel, imagine what that could do with a new 800hp turbocharged motor!
You're not alone in this. They've got a charming duck face, they look rugged, stable, trusty, because they have a minimalist design elegance. The tiny MG turret for the passenger seat is the cherry on the sundae. I've been on one, and for me it just kinda makes me think about going innawoods to take my mind off complicated problems. Which is ironic, given how much they're participating in this moronic war.
“Local man arrested after having sex with armored vehicle”
MTLBs are used by civilians in Siberia when it is necessary to travel across taiga wilderness. kzhead.info/sun/g6drl69pfKGte68/bejne.html It's rugged, has great cross country mobility, and not too fuel hungry
@@konstantinriumin2657 you know thr channel Survival Russia? His refurbished GazProm tractor which he calls "The 'Gator" reminds me a lot of the MT-LB.
@@SuperTf2fan Okay, it's not that bad...
10/10 Russian pronunciation hahaha
Having worked in (civil) logistics , one small problem I think of immediately, is that you have generally standardised ammo, but the one special type that has to be channeled to one or a few specific places. But then, when I think of the Ukrainian army... They field just about every piece of kit produced in east and west in the last 50 years. And then some.... Their logistics of ammo and spares must be wild.
Naturally.
I imagine postwar for both sides: Supply guy offered a menu... so many choices, breaks down in tears from Supply Chain PTSD.
For russia, it is less complicated. There is very little ammunition for heavy weapons still available, so the mines will have most of their attention. Naval mines have a special place in the supply chain: The surface fleet has been dysfunctional since 1991 and depth charges are obsolescent, so nobody will miss the RBU. Very few African nations care about ASW capabilities, so Shoigu and Gerasimov could not sell off much of them, thus their supply will be plentiful. Nobody cares about anything productive in russia, so the cartridges will get loaded onto railway cars and meander their way there over the course of weeks. Knowing russia, the directive to convert MTLBs into these launchers was probably issued before Greg complained about ammunition shortages outside Bakhmut
it took about 6 months for ukraine's logistic situation to resemble civil war china
@@charlesc.9012 Who exactly told you "very little ammunition for heavy weapons still available" and how do you think they still fight - and holding up relatively successfully?
I remember when the T62 came in. Everyone laughed at it until it started getting used properly. Now theyre another SPG doing IDF at long range killing people like every other tank.
Is even more amusing when countries that haven’t built a tank since the T62 was competitive and couldn’t field a single tank battalion today if they had to mock Russia.
I'm still laughing. The tank being "used properly" is less efficient that proper SPGs due to accuracy, range and barrel life concerns, while being too vulnerable to cheap FPV RPG-7s. Please. I wish all Russian SPGs could be magically turned into T-62s. I'd laugh so much harder.
@ChucksSEADnDEAD They're out there lobbing unused shells and who gives a fuck if they break. It's as good as an MTLB with an MT12 on it if not better. I remember all the NAF******s creaming themselves over the Ukrainians throwing those together.
In 1991 the United States used M110 howitzer barrels as bomb casings to quickly field a guided bunker busting bomb in a matter of days. Everyone called that brilliant, and they were right.
Invention of Bunkerbusters
Its always fascinating to hear about improved weapons. More please!
improvised, not improved
Russians use these on rivers/estuaries to destroy small boats/sea drones and they have always had purpose built anti-naval mortar vehicles as well as improvised. (I think it was a version of the Grad with depth charges) Edit: Yes the BM-21PD, uses PRS-60 ammunition has a range of 0.3 to 5km and a programmable depth of 3m to 200m
so it is still sort of intended role but only carrier is different?
"Russians use these on rivers/estuaries to destroy small boats/sea drones" - and that based on what souse? And how exactly you are pointing this thing? Ti hit moving target?
@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 As with the BM-21PD aiming is rather limited, its an area saturation weapon.
@@watcherzero5256 Not sure hos is it relate to my question. I was asking how do you know "Russians use these on" and how they are pointing it - to fast mooing targets. I did not say nothing about BM-21PD
Against WHAT BOATS?!
Personally the biggest problem I can think with such a system is still the range. Yes, the TOS-1 has a similar range, but that's why the thing's built on a literal tank hull. The improved-range TOS-2 (which seems to barely exist) is truck-based instead. (The TOS-1 also likely has more firepower but that's not really relevant). The MT-LB has much less armour by comparison.
The tools in Ukraine's toolbox destroy everything almost equally up until now, so the risk is realistically the same
MT-LB is probably the most mobile platform used on both sides. So getting close in itself is not a problem. The MT-LB ZU-23-2 varient in the forests have proven just as deadly as the famous terminator.
tos 2 should be more mobile at least on road and whole lot cheaper. not sure how much rockets each can carry but there is room for tos 2 for sure.
@@readhistory2023 soooo without the APC how are you going to move thousands of troops up to the combat line? Make them walk? APC is very much worth the investment.
Its optimistic to think you can sneak up on a M777 with T-72s providing cover. There is a window in ranges for this work, but the likelihood of being able to escape afterwards seems unlikely as the effectiveness of this is nowhere near what a TOS-1 can do. I suspect the MBLT is going to have a bad day, even if it works.
I think the biggest issue would be effectively implementing it into a units structure and also how it is ranged in and fired, because you can't really put a ships targeting system into an MT-LB now can you.. It also adds extra strain onto the supply chain, so ammo could be hard to come by. I'd really like to know if they "produce" these vehicles in batches and give them to units that are specifically trained on these systems, as this would help with a lot of its issues, though it wouldn't fully negate them.
Effective implementation in the structure of units will not be a problem because such weapons systems are a local unit initiative and not something large-scale for the entire Russian army. It's like the story with the installation of 23mm shipboard autocannons on MTLBs, which in principle only appeared in the Naval Infantry due to access to Navy warehouses.
If you consider "effective", "structure", "logistics" and "training" unnecessary, then all the problems are magically solved.
Maybe these are intended as kind of a coastal battery, against marine drones? They could park these near strategic objects like bridges and harbours to protect them, and the fact that they are mobile makes it harder for Ukraine to take them out before a drone strike.
As far as the Black Sea Fleet ammo depos are available to the Russians there should be lots of them... sitting useless because the Ukrainian submarines are non-existent. Said so, any possibility to give an alternative use by the Russians to an existing ASW weapons system makes sense.
The "first in first out" principle of inventory management. You try use up your oldest material first when practical. This is more efficient in the long run reducing costs to dispose and replace expired or obsolete equipment.
Great to have you back man!
at this point, I can imagine model kit brand would sell an all-in-one MT-LB kit with variety of ridiculous mounts
Makes even more sense if they're being removed from damaged or destroyed ships. If you have an inoperative ship, but you can yank a couple of these off and provide them with a decent amount of ammunition - all the better.
I believe these conversions are coming from the Pacific Fleet marines and such.
The Russian Federation hasn't lost all that many ships, and the ships that have been damaged or sunk tend not to carry RBU-6000s (Moskva probably being the one exception). Given the considerable downsizing of the Russian Navy since the fall of the Soviet Union there should be more than enough mountings from decommissioned and scrapped ships if they want to use them.
@@forcea1454 that and since Ukraine isn't exactly known for their big submarine fleet, the RBU stockpiles are available to use.
More shows running out of army ammo so using the navy’s ammo Might see more if Russia can’t make or source more ammo
@@PrivatePAuLa29a but muh NATO aggresion!
I really was concerned that you were having a stroke at 1:29 🤣🤣
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.
I am so happy that you are doing better and are back to posting. I've missed you sense of humor. I particularly liked the umlaut on the not @0:57 .
Your mentioning of the RBU being somewhat related to the WW2 Hedgehog system is interesting in that I seem to remember reading years ago that Hedgehogs were used in the D-Day landings for bombardment of the landing beaches to supress the enemy and help "clear" obstacles and mines, with the ongoing UAF counteroffensive and the difficulties of breaking through the Russian defensive lines it did occur to me if the UAF had a similar system to Hedgehog would that help their operations, obviously logistical support probably precludes this but would cluster munitions used this way maybe give a similar effect?
Nice to have you back....happy new year
Good solid video. Thank you for covering this.
Obviously it can shoot, but it will have big problems with accuracy. After mounting on MT-LB it loses all automatisation systems, also MT-LB's chassis has pretty bad stability (have seen videos with mounted autocannon and it was shaking as hell). So it means that such improvised weapons have much lower accuracy, but Russian weapons have low accuracy at all and it will be much worse.
Also the Ukrainians have also had a certain success in improvising drones? Also using a pre-WW1 water-cooled machine gun in fixed positions?
Yeah, but Ukraine hasn’t been calling itself the worlds 2nd greatest military for the past 40 years
@@SuperTf2fanNeither has Russia. Literally all the praise and 'Kiev in 3 days' came from western outlets.
@@AnnoNymusare you serious, or have you not seen a single piece of Russian propaganda? Kyiv in 3 days, Poland in three weeks, and the UK in a month was their original estimates. Russian leaders literally booked accommodations in Kyiv. The first major Russian military action of the war was to try and steamroll Kyiv. How else could you explain the Russian shipments of security equipment that got intercepted on the way to Kyiv?
@@SuperTf2fan None of your listed 'estimates' have ever been featured on any Russian media platform. 'Kiev in 3 days' was propagated by US media in the first days of the war.
@@AnnoNymus I wonder why they said that Russia was focusing on taking Kyiv in a few days. Maybe it was because a majority of their forces beelined for Kyiv after an opening artillery barrage and strategic strikes. Or were those failed attacks just a feint? And why would infantry bring parade uniforms on the opening days of a war, unless they expected to use them soon? Besides, if you can’t recognize Mikhail Solodonikov as being from Russian state media, you must be blind as a bat lmao. TZD
I think it's safe to assume the people mocking it were Americans
Add thousands of miles away from any armed Russian soldiers.
“Scraping the barrel…”
The inter service logistics issues raises some interesting thoughts about their relationship. Also at what point does something change from improvisation to mid conflict development, war has always been a time of improvement?
People seem to lack understanding why such a system can be very useful. Range is pointless if you dont need it, big boom on the other hand is very much appreciated. Look up the usage of mine clearing charges against enemy positions in forests (Kharkov front) by both Ukrainian and Russian forces. Those mine clearing charges have about the same range as RBU, but the effect is terrifying and devastating. You dont need range in the forest, you also dont want to have a full proper MLRS system there like Grad or Tornado, this MTLB with RBU can supplant the engineering vehicles currently used since there are waaaaay more MTLBs and RBUs compared to dedicated demining vehicles. You dont need a complicated loading system on the vehicle because all it will do is drive out to the firing position, let loose with all rockets and then immediately retreat back.
A wonderful video about improving weapons...thank you
Improvisation may also indicate that original weapons simply don't perform adequately in certain situations, and, hence, one improvise to fill in the gap. We have seen this *a*lot* when it comes to drone defense, for instance.
No, it doesn't. This is only the case when you mainly see such system and nothing else. What you mainly see are heavy bombardement from bomber, artillery, long range missiles system and drones - not that. It's just some extra firepower for infantery level troops.
Could be a way to tap into another ammo pipeline. Their navy isn’t doing a whole lot of sun hunting.
I had the same idea for using Anti-submarine weapons, In the role of trench clearing to saturate and suppress the enemy.
Dankeschön für die informativen und gut recherchierten Videos. Hier ein Themenvorschlag: Rotation von Militäreinheiten zur und aus der Front mit Blick auf Herausforderungen, Nutzen/Kosten und wie verschiedene Armeen das umsetzen. Eventuell wäre hier das Buch „Kampfkraft“ von Martin van Creveld ein Startpunkt? Eventuell mit Einordnung in den heutigen Ukraine Konflikt?
Danke für die Spende, hab ich leider erst jetzt gesehen! Rotation, eventuell, kam das bei Creveld vor? Mir kam das bisher - außer in Nebensätzen - noch nie wirklich unter.
For the "No Free Launch" Part. 8:31 We saw multiple situations where Naval Crews were deployed in the Combat. It could be possible that this MTLB were even belonging to the Navy and its Naval Infantry. Also it could be possible that ASW Soldiers were used in this Vehicles since the Black Sea Fleet is currently blocked and there is no threat for enemy Submarines. That would give you Crews that are trained on this System with maybe also trained Naval Infantry that is trained on the Vehicle aswell. This would be a better deployment of such troops then we saw before when Sailors were put into MBTs.
I have a simple thing to point out about this whole scenario: Anyone who mocks a weapon system based on it being "silly" or "obscene" should be ignored entirely, to find it entertaining is one thing, but to dismiss it as a bad weapon just proves their own ignorance to warfare. Anything capable of producing explosions, small or large at a distance, even if relatively short, should NOT be taken lightly, go ask a Veteran from Syria and see if they like being targeted by a literal trebuchet, slingshot or hellcannon, they are all "silly" weapons, yet are capable of killing all the same, especially when loaded with lots of explosives.
Fine. I want the entire Russian army to be outfitted with just this. It's a great weapon. I wish I could snap my fingers to trade every Russian tank, IFV, helicopter, fighter and bomber for these. Don't mock!!!
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD What an intelligent take.
@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009 It is. I took what you said at face value. Don't mock!
Looks scary A F, absolutely shouldn't be underestimated. I think they using naval weapons to consume ammunition more evenly, their naval weapons aren't used at all.
It's big and goes boom. Anti-submarine rockets are definitely on the list of things I wouldn't want to get hit by.
Such videos show that being an expert doesn't means that your opinions are always good and that you can give an adequate assessments on everything related
this gotta be the first time a mainstream channel is not a blindly anti Russian propaganda machine but a proper unbiased analysis
about 5 months ago and to the start of this conflict, this was the most snickering anti Russian channel you could find.
The first rule of victory in warfare. Do what you can with what you have where you are.
hearing you say shoot and scoot was worth the video alone
lol 😂
I like the breath in before the prononcuation attempt
If I were a Russian Lieutenant getting ready to assault an enemy and they have already been softened up by conventional artillery, grad rockets and drones and a major calls me on the radio and asks if I would like a few RBS-6000 rockets shot at the enemy, even if they are kinda crappy and have poor guidance systems, I could only say "yes please". Any extra explosives fired at the enemy, barring friendly fire incidents, is a good thing.
If you are being forced to use this, you don't have the tube and rocket artillery to properly soften the position. War is about resources and you always have a shortage of something. You aren't given the option. You're given this instead of proper fire support. Just like drones wouldn't be used if aircraft were in the sky picking off the enemy. That's how it works.
The main question is how accurate it is and how the warhead can generate enough blast/shrapnel
considering it fires a barrage of these rockets, probably accurate enough with enough blasting power to destroy fixed positions outside of an armored bunker.
@@BillMcD Assuming it hit in the first place. My humble guess is they they would probably use in conjunction with drone firing the few first rocket for adjustment and the the whole rest in one salvo.
This is a one shot weapon. Each rocket weighs about 250 pounds & there’s no way you’re going reload it after it’s used.
Anti-submarine weapon? Sturmtiger when?
This is the first video that I have watched since you did a terrible interview with some person who claimed himself to be an expert but whose knowledge on the topic proved to be profoundly lacking. I am extremely happy to see that you are providing the kind of value in your videos that you used to provide before accepting the faux expert for interviews. I will again become a regular viewer.
Ridiculous and deadly
Haven't known that it was intended for shore bombardment too and has impact fuzing. That's complicates things.
Russia is not running out of equipment, this is a little datk.... But Russian Engineers have the luxury of testing weapons concepts, against live targets.
Thank you for the fair video
The way you pronounced the full name of MTLB at 1:27 made me to learn patience.
Thanks, I enjoyed your video. Well-made and good evaluation of the new Russian wonder weapon.
David Axe wrote about this latest Frankenstein artillery, and had a decidedly mixed opinion about it.
Such impoverished solutions show us two things : 1) they have supplies issues 2) for the time being they find ways to come around them Plus one more : improvised weapons can still kill, like any weapon
How did you connect supplies issues with it?
Just draw from the navy
@@serheyyavotsky1246 if they didn't they wouldn't had to find alternatives 😉
A possible translation of "[...] sind nicht ohne" from one of the quoted tweets could be "are/is not nothing", which is a colloquial way of saying that something is significant
Are you sure? Since my American proof reader was very confused by the quote.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized relatively sure for colloquial use (I wouldn't use it in formal speech, but neither have I heard "nicht ohne" in formal settings). But if you or your proofreader aren't certain, then no worries. The rewritten translation you provided does capture the meaning
Yeah, he confirmed it, I guess there might be regional / national differences as well.
The fact that improvised weaponry gets mocked says everything. Nothing has been learned and they'll feel why.
How accurate can it be? I agree the necessity is the mother of invention (or repurpose). It does reek of desperation though.
Most important future of MTLB it is excellent cross-country mobility in difficult terrain like mud , shell craters or trenches. It have long track ground contact , low ground pressure and is centre balanced ( not nose heavy). Basically if MTBL has stuck, nothing else will cross that terrain.
It only makes sense to replace the conventional tank with mechanized missle carriers. It’s the equivalent to battleships and air craft carriers.
This a weapon designed to hit submerged submarines, so its accuracy is based upon area saturation. With shape charges that is unlikely to damage armored vehicles unless it direct hits. It could be dangerous to soft targets, but it requires saturation to guaranty that. Plus you’d have to find a target not protected by something like a T-72 that’d shred a MTLB Shore bombardment is also an area-effect tactic unless there is a direct target identified. Mockery is following on from the naval AA guns recently land vehicle mounted where the lack of a warship mass underneath makes aiming impossible due to lack of appropriate recoil control.
BM 21s?... The Afghanis (taliban or whatever) shot a couple of these at us while in Tarin Kowt in 2011. It seems like whatever fieldcraft that was used, the projectiles seemed a little larger than mortars. It could have been a combination of car batteries, drain pipe, mechanical washing machine timers. Not really sure. I'm sure it was set up on a timer and crudely aimed. It could have hurt alot of people, but fortunately there were no casualties that I aware of. I see did two more later on impact on the airfield and throw gravel and dirt against a bunch of storage containers. I wouldn't underestimate your local guerilla sapper or equivalent. The reason I suspect they were sent on "timers" or remote detenation because I was on an airfield with Apaches and Kiowas at the time. The aircraft would having looking for individuals with minutes of attack and would have showered the local area with ordnance of an extreme prejudice. I saw this a month before when the local provincial governor (warlord/ sanctioned drug lord) was attacked with VBIEDs at his local compound. I also this happen in Iraq a couple times when we had mortars shot at us on the FOB.
very good analysis
I don't get how this could be aimed?
Well Rommel used an anti aircraft 88mm gun in North Africa against tanks. We know that worked great.
I would be curious if they'll start adapting 76.2-130mm Naval guns next. They should have tons of that stuff in storage as well.
Unlikely, the mountings are too heavy. 130mm Ammunition should be compatible with the 130mm M46 however.
I mean they are using the 57mm AZP S-60 cannon mounted on MTLB's and trucks.
@@thesayxx Those aren't naval guns, they were already existing towed Medium Anti-Aircraft guns. You can't put something like an AK-130, A-190, AK-176, AK-725, ZIF-75 or ZIF-31 on a truck. They're too heavy, have too much recoil, in many cases require significant volume under the mounting for ammunition handling, and require significant electrical and/or hydraulic power to operate.
@@forcea1454 That gun is literary the ZIF-72 without the autoloader and the encasement. And yea, ofc you cant mount a 130mm 100 ton naval turret on a truck.
@@thesayxx The Naval Mountings are twin and quadruple mountings. You would have to cut individual guns and their elevation gear from the mountings (although the guns may share the same cradle, in which case you will have remove the individual weapons from the cradle and build your own elevation and traverse gear to get a usable weapon) and removing the autoloader for the larger weapons putting in a new feed system would require considerable work, especially since the feed systems from said naval guns were directly below the mounting itself. The SM-24, ZIF-31, ZIF-71 & ZIF-72 were unrelated to the S-60, other than being ammunition compatible, they were designed by a different design bureaus. Naval guns at best are only going to be viable as a reserve of spare barrels, unless they are single manually-operated mountings for 57mm guns and below.
To improvise like this , still suggests the weapons intended for the role were not optimal in design or were not supplied in sufficient quantity. And suggests the system may not function optimally in the new role. Logistically, such use is difficult to properly accommodate . The significance of improvised weaponry cannot be assumed to be either highly advantageous Or pathetic , until put into practice.
the Allies used such things in ww2... mounted on tanks...I'm hearing a lot of flannel about ' stabilization' from sources such as Forbes.. who seem to get confused about what stabilization is, depending on who is using it
you mean rockets on sherman?
That's like laughing at the use of maxim machine guns. Is it old and improvised? Yes. Do you want it shooting at you? No.
Depending on how accurate it is it might be effective as a discount javelin guided by a drone
Lack of ammo and systems or introduction of different weapons to aliviate the load of more conventional systems is a factor here, for sure. Other hand, maybe the purpouse is other Clearing Minefields!. maybe testing a system to do it. at least, when shooted from ships that rockets make pretty accurate circles on target.....( combined with full filled termobaric warhead you could do "safe" passages in a counteroffensive, try anyway. just an idea
Everyone is going to act like this is because of Russia being poor. Yet they forget Vietnam gun trucks, sandbags on Shermans etc. Everyone does this kind of thing.
And US trucks and humvees in Iraq war with all manners of bolt on armor and improvised weapons... they dont remember or pretend they dont to feel better about themselves
@@phunkracy I don't know why, those field modification speak to the genius of the men on the ground. Love me some Mad Max shit.
@@phunkracyare you really pretending that up armoring a Humvee is the same thing as removing an anti submarine weapon from a ship and strapping it to the back of a tractor? One improves the capability of the vehicle to accomplish it's mission, the other changes the vehicle's mission entirely. You're Special (with a capital R).
@@LeCharles07 yes its literally the same also how does strapping few tonnes of scrap and machine guns to a hauler truck improves the capability of a truck to fulfill missions of hauling? Your mom sure thinks youre 'special'
@LeCharles07 My friend, as the poor joker stuck working on the leftover HMMWV's, let me just say, bolting on armor as an "upgrade kit" is not an upgrade. The vehicle was lightly armored, sure. It doesn't mean that it wasn't good beforehand. It was actually better for overall engine performance and the old up-armored ones I see less of than the standard canvas HMMWV's.
my first reaction was "wait a second, why are you mocking mlrs?"
Jesus, an RBU-6000 on the local battlefield would suck with a capital S. Each one of those little bastards carries about 47 pounds of high explosives, but, they are set up for the concussive kill (or shaped charge)of a submarine, don’t know what kind of fragmentation damage you’d get!
i think it might even be more accurate to connect it to the shaped charge munitions that the Germans made for the 37mm AT guns, were they deadly? very much so, were they developed out of desperation? pretty much
1:29 You tried maaaan, you tried :D
@4:59 It really doesn't. If you think about it literarily (5 syllables, not "literally") it kind of does though.
you said there's no translation for the phrase "Mehrfachraktenwerfer" Google translate calls it a "Multiple Rocket Launchers" ....... am i wrong? or is google translate right? (BTW:: Love the videos, they're so informative and i will be subscribing to your telegram members page once i get paid! Keep up the good work!)
Uhm are you sure I was referring to that word? What timestamp?
This is a panzerfaustwerfer. It Fausts panzers by werfing.
I'm always interested to learn about expressions that don't translate well, and now I know that "sind nicht ohne" is one in English, since the literal translation of "is not without" doesn't make much sense. 4:45
I'm ruining my brain right now, thinking if "isn't nothing" would work, or if it's just a mixture of my poor German, and having a bunch of loanwords from it in my native tongue.
We've had the same propaganda about the S300. "The Russians are converting them to land attack because they're running out of missiles." The S300 is obsolete, replaced with the S400 in 2007. They're just using up old stock.
And your point being ? Because there has been a massive decrease in s300/400 launches that’s for sure
@@MrTangolizard Point being they are using old stock in ground attack role. Which is somewhat smart if you think about it. You wouldnt rely on an old S300 rocket to protect a valuable point from air threats (thats how you get 2 Polish farmers and a tractor killed). Hitting a ground target of opportunity does not carry such a risk, and you still put that old rocket to some use instead of destroying it (which is ironically the unofficial motto of the whole damn war by the looks of what both sides are using).
@@thesayxx my point is they clearly don’t have the missiles as they are not intercepting the Ukrainian missiles
@@MrTangolizard im not even gonna try to debate that CNN type of delusional point of view.
@@thesayxx blah blah everything I don’t like is CNN Jesus grow up will u firstly I’m British so CNN isn’t our thing 2nd I’ve not watch mainstream media in years but facts are facts Ukraine managed to hit the naval HQ with a pretty slow missile and s300/400 did nothing
The concept has been done before. The allies had a Matilda II variant with hedgehog launchers in the back. The tests were promising enough, but the war ended before they saw any combat.
That Matilda was developed by Australia in late 1944, and was successfully tested, but the war in the Pacific ended before any more Matildas were modified. Today the prototype is now preserved at the Australian Army armor museum at Puckapunyal in Victoria.
@@kristoffermangilaI was under the impression they had six tanks. The concept was an interesting one, at any rate.
They shouldn't be mocked for using the weapon on a land vehicle, it's powerful, works just fine and can mess you up just the same as any MLRS or mortar. They *should* be mocked for *needing* to use this weapon on a land vehicle as the world's "second best" military.
5:10 basically a ww2 light cruisers broad side
Finaly, a not biased technical analisys of Ukraine's war news. Congrats, guys like you are scarce today.
i use the same type of valon searcher in helmand
I know why you say it, but i think the entire world knows by now that you've been invited to the panzermuseum munster the entire world except some judge
"Panzerfaust-Werfer"🤗🥰
This was a pretty cool video on an unconventional but likely really quite hard hitting Mad Max system. I think my favourite is still the Ukrainian twin linked Maxim guns with red dot sight.
The mocking comments are correct, the system doesn't work well on ships either
I'm glad to see my assessment when seeing this thing is pretty similar to a problem. A sign of a larger systemic problem of ammunition and available systems but still a deadly platform given these rockets pack a big punch albeit shorter ranged. But that's not dissimilar to the TOS. While there will be additional logistical burden, it is better than a outright lack of weapon systems. After all Ukraine already is doing things like this and have proven successful. Also since the Russian navy isn't doing much and already participate in the ground war, some of the problems would be mitigated.
It is both a touch pathetic and potentially dangerous. It shows shortages and it has a great potential for underperforming, but anything that can yeet ordenance at you should not be underestimated.
It doesn't show shortage because it's just an extra, it's more firepower for infantery level troops, that's it. If that would be the only thing you see, sure, but you actually don't see much of those extra system and mainly the usual, heavy bombardements, long range missiles and many, many drones.
If not short why make it
Hm, both sides seem to keep putting weapons ontop of MT-LB's
Military acronyms almost always use the shortest syllables, and in the case of the M113 that is true. You sound green when you say it the way you do. Its "M One One Three" (four syllables), not "M one hundred thirteen" (5 syllables).
couldn't a version of this be used to do rapid mine clearing paths?
It makes the army bigger, that navy units can be added to land combat. More service units.
If it looks silly but can sling large quantities of HE in your general direction, it's not quite as silly as one might think.
It amuses me how everyone thinks this is the state of our military despite the fact that my unit is equipped with 2023 produced T-90s, BMP-3s and the latest Multicam VKBO uniform sets, but the enemy we fight wear jeans and flannels with yellow tape and early US body armour from the 2000s (in our sector atleast).
How does it feel to invade other nations without any reason besides a landgrab ordered by an old man?
@@blowbert9126 Probably the same when any western power does it.
come back home in one piece chuvak. how do you feel about the war ?