[Content Warning: War, Death]
Armchair generals are going to be analyzing “prosumer” drone videos of the fighting in Ukraine for a long time to come. And, I predict, there will be a lot of harsh words for the Russians. Some of that will be fair, and some won’t.
One of the things that makes me grit my teeth when I look at the youtube comments is comments like, “Stupid Russians in tanks without infantry!” Let me get to that.
This is not an assault/close quarters combat; it’s a “route march” – i.e.: command said “go to XYZ and take up position, quell any resistance necessary on the way.” Those aren’t tanks. There are some tanks, but those are mostly armored personnel carriers. If they were assaulting a position, the infantry, who are in the armored personnel carriers doing the “personnel” part of being carried, would be deployed and advancing slowly with fire support from the armor and off-board artillery.
The scenario in these shots is ambush, not assault being repulsed. In other words, it’s exactly the kind of ambush against a column that I was writing about a couple days ago. [stderr] Comparatively, it’s a small column – it’s not one of the 40km cluster-columns and this isn’t Raate Rd.
Also, the Russians are learning: their vehicles are spaced so that there’s no chance of an artillery round blowing up several of them at once.
The lead tank, a T-90, appears to take some smallish arms fire. Probably an attempt to hit the commander. The commander’s riding up in the turret, unbuttoned, and they’re a popular target for sharpshooters. The tank (again, correctly) pops smoke and reverses. This a) gets them out of any potential incoming fire like pre-registered artillery and b) the smoke lets the rest of the column immediately see that something’s up.
Again, the youtube comments are things like “Stupid Russians walk into an ambush!” Well, no. They were proceeding to try to get to where they were supposed to be and that entails moving through hostile ground because, in an insurgency, it’s all hostile ground. They are not stupid Russians. They are probably mostly terrified young men who’d rather be playing Call of Duty than living it, and there are maybe one or two sociopaths in their unit who think this is all fun.
Now’s the bad part. Was this just harassment fire, or is this a serious ambush? The Russians aren’t being stupid and grouping up; the problem is that the column is still moving at the back end and it’s stopped at the front end. Now comes a sort of rapid parking shuffle as the various vehicle commanders place themselves out of the direct line of fire (they have no idea what direction the ambush is coming from other than “up”) Also there appear to be 2 TOS-1 MLRS vehicles attached to the column. Remember how, in the WWII movies, everyone tried to shoot at the guy with the flamethrower? The TOS-1 are not popular right now.
I circled a few of the better-positioned vehicles, just for the heck of it. The Russians are trying hard, after all, it’s their lives on the line. Like the BDRMs upper left, that decided to snug up against the concrete wall. It’s 50/50, they may be in cover, now, or they may be jack-lit.
If you single-frame this, the artillery shell that dropped on the column-head blasts a circular spot in the road about 30 feet ahead of the tank. That’s not aimed fire; it’s probably pre-registered and it didn’t hit the t-90 because of random variances in the round, the gun bore, and high altitude winds. A friend of mine who was a major in the US Army artillery told me once that they could pretty much hunt deer at 10 miles with a 155 except for those 3 random factors. I’ve seen various bits of footage of Ukrainian artillery and it looks like they’ve got US-made 155mm Paladin self-propelled guns, just not many. And those that there are are probably in “shoot and scoot” mode because they are a very important target.
Anyhow, “boom.”
I’ve also seen pictures of the shrapnel patterns from those shells. The guys in the T-90 are fine, but they’re going to be stunned for a while. Look at the blast-wave reflecting across the street. There are also going to be a few random chances for absolutely horrific things from shell fragments. It’s random; most of the time you’ll be fine but sometimes the guy next to you gets turned inside out. Or sometimes you’re that guy. There’s probably a lot of yelling and cussing and Putin’s name being taken in vain.
BAM.
At the other end of the little cluster, we have 3 casualties: 2 guys who were out of their vehicles (why!?) and their vehicle. It looks like a T-90 and it looks like an NLAW or some other kind of ATGM. You can go back and forth a frame at a time and it’s not possible for me to see where the impactor came from. It wouldn’t be possible for the Russians, either.
Also, I mis-identified what appears to be a fenced-in yard for a TOS-1. There is a TOS-1 down there but it’s stuck in the middle of the road. It’s the blocky thing with the giant white target-circle painted on the top (WTF, Russians?)
Things have gone from “bad” to “worse” and are veering toward “truly horrible.”
One of the other vehicles comes under some kind of heavy small-arms fire (I think). If the ambushers were US troops, I’d guess it was an automatic grenade launcher or something like that, but this might be a classic RPG-7 or something like that. It’s gutsy, no matter what – that’s a big wad of Russians and they just saw a few of their guys vaporised. They are going to blow the snot out of anything they see moving.
At this point, traditionally, an ambush would take one or two more shots then scram (“di di mau”, Vietnamese for “get the fuck outta here”) I haven’t seen anything that looks like an attempt by the Russians to return fire – they still probably have no idea where they are being attacked from. That’s an important point: they don’t know the size and composition of the ambush, but they can tell that the ambushers know what they are doing, and have someone with a 155 on the telephone. Just typing that makes my knees feel weak; I would not like to be there, sitting in a tin can waiting for the sky to scream with incoming artillery. As Sazz said, “if you hear it you may be OK; it’s the ones that you never heard that got you.”
Then, something I don’t comprehend happens: the TOS-1 appears to hip-shoot a round at something and the whole column decides it’s time to be buggering off.
But I’m not sure if I am interpreting that correctly. I mean, I’m right about the “buggering off” bit, but MLRS launches produce a lot of back-blast and there’s no sign of gigantic plumes of flame coming out the back of the TOS-1. On the other hand, that’s not an ATGM hitting the TOS, either, because there’s an absence of humongous explosion. If it’s a near miss it’s really near, like near enough to blow a track off the vehicle. (A TOS-1 is an old T-72 chassis with an MLRS head replacing the original turret).
Additionally, there are Russians walking around out there. Literally walking around, not running or crawling.
I don’t know the Russian for “let’s get the fuck out of here” but it appears that everyone pulled a tight 180 and the column’s on the move again, advancing toward the rear. One burning Russian T-90 marks the score. The Russians probably never saw a Ukrainian and, if that was the TOS-1 taking a shot, it was probably “suppressive fire” i.e.: shooting at a smoke cloud where the ATGM was launched. Whoever took out that T-90 would have relocated immediately.
That’s what the Russians are going to be up against for the forseeable future. Low-cost attacks that don’t just kill and destroy, but re-write the Russians’ tactics. Somewhere, whoever ordered that column to go from Point A to Point B now has to get on the phone and repeat that order, or figure out where else that column should or could be. It becomes a cascading error. What if that column has a logistical train that’s going to the destination via a different path, and the logistical train gets there but the column doesn’t? The commander has to sort all of that out, with partial knowledge, in real-time. Back in Gulf War II there was that US logistics unit that got turned around and wound up driving around trying to locate their unit, and found a bunch of Iraqis to surrender to, instead. [That was my old reserve unit! 95 ARCOM]
Here’s what I find fascinating about that video: nobody fucked up. Both sides followed fairly sensible doctrine, given the unsensible situation they found themselves in. When that happens, and everyone follows doctrine, then the war becomes a numbers-game. What we just witnessed was “attrition in action.” A tank and a couple of guys were traded for a missile that was, basically, free, because it was paid for by some British taxpayers. Every time the Russians are subjected to a trade like that, their chance of “winning” in any meaningful sense goes down. Meanwhile, every doctrine framework will tell you that the Russians are about 500,000 men short to take and hold an area with a population the size of Ukraine. I remember the jokes during the Iraq war about the “Rumsfeld Doctrine: you take just enough troops to lose.” That was funny but it turned out to be exactly correct: the US was able to defeat the Iraqi military with a small, overpowered force that could win at any point of battle – but there was no way for that small force to exert control over such a large population. The US needed about 500,000 troops to control Iraq, too. More for Afghanistan because of the terrain.
My sympathies to all involved; it’s a shitty situation brought on by humanity’s bad tendency to put the worst people we can find in positions of power over us all.
Here’s the full video:
One thing is an aye opener for me. Those (cheap by military standards) drones look like they make excellent artillery spotters.
Can you imagine being a soldier in a situation where *every* small drone you see (and especially the ones you don’t see) could mean heavy mortar rounds or grenades coming your way? Not funny.
Also makes me wonder if a prosumer drone could carry a laser big enough to “paint” targets for guided munitions. If that is the case, life as tank crew is going to suck pretty hard.
Why use expensive planes and their pilots that are easy to track, if you can use a drone to target with deadly accuracy, and fire from a remote location?
I’m wondering why they didn’t hit more vehicles. Maybe the missiles are not that plentiful?
Thanks for the analysis, Marcus
@4 try to get at least one good panic per missile…
rsmith@2
Invisible mil. drones have been a thing for over a decade.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section1A.t-8.html
The problem with christmas-present quad-copters still is batteries technology: you only get 15 minutes or so flight time.
MIT’s gas-powered drone is able to stay in the air for five days at a time.
The guys running around outside the vehicles either had something wrong with their vehicle, or simply panicked and tried to run away once the shooting started.
Like the Russians the Ukrainians have AGS17 automatic grenade launchers, but I doubt they’d be hauling one around in a case like this. Too heavy at 31 kilograms. Probably save those for defending trench lines and the like. On the other hand the Poles gave them RPG40s, which despite what the name implies are a revolver launcher for 40mm grenades, and easily carried by one man.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/putin-approves-russian-use-of-middle-east-fighters-against-ukraine
Syria is gathering soldiers from it’s forces to fight for Russia in Ukraine. It’s really a mercenary force but being presented as volunteer soldiers. For Russia it will give them some cheap expendable soldiers with experience in city fighting.
JM @10: I hope the Syrians understand that if they are captured, they probably won’t be protected by the Geneva Conventions. Same goes for any foreigners who volunteer to fight for Ukraine.
@11 They’ll be exactly as protected as any other soldier – that is, at protected as the opposite party is willing to make them. Frankly I’d consider those volunteering on the Russia side to have better odds, on that matter alone, than those volunteering on the Ukrainian side.
Perhaps I just got an answer for a question I have had for some time: Those TOS-1 clearly have some substantial armor on the tops and sides of those missiles. But what about the ends. They might have an armored plug that pressure blows off but, I’m assuming it isn’t so weak a single rifle bullet might cause a launch or explosion, what about repeat strikes and serious shrapnel? Could it be that the missile was damaged and launched itself? The launch, to my untrained eye, didn’t look like a regular launch. More like a squib round.
If this is true what about the other end? Could we see TOS-1 crews getting lonely after the rest of the convoy pictures themselves dealing with thermobaric explosives. Reminds me of the pictures of flamethrower operators. They had dedicated teams to cover and protect them. But those teams tended to lend support from a discrete distance. Fire has a visceral effect.
It’s time to get tactical.
My Little Marines Tactical Pony Squad
“A tank and a couple of guys were traded for a missile that was, basically, free,”
And the Ukrainians forced the Russians to waste the fuel for all those vehicles coming and going, plus the opportunity cost of those soldiers sitting in vehicles for those hours, plus demoralization for those soldiers and a morale boost for Ukraine, plus this footage which shows the rest of the world that making investments in Ukraine-bound weapons is quite effective…
—
The thing about being a defender with a supply of fifteen minute drones is that you don’t need to keep the drones up continuously. The invaders aren’t going overland in the mud, they’re coming in on the roads that you have well-mapped and can keep observed. If Pavel says that they are coming in on E95 at about 40Km/H and you know Pavel is about 8 Km out, you have about ten minutes to look at your map and tell the right artillery unit where it’s going to fire, and for them to get a couple of drones up to spot for them. If you’re doing really well, Pavel’s just the last of four or five observers to report.
Ah, there was a better version of that one with subtitles of the for the internal Russian chatter. They mention that they are being hit by artillery, tanks, and drone carried munitions (they say Brayaktar – that doesn’t mean that is accurate, just that they believe that).
Ukraine seems pretty solid at getting not only good footage, but audio too. It will be interesting to see if we get more and better photography and video from other places, although more likely it already exists and I’m just not in those places and reading those news stories.
Not an expert at all but that was an interesting informative analysis. Thanks.
I’ve been wondering for a while now how the Russian high command failed to learn anything from the past twenty years of conflict in the middle east. It seems like anyone who spent the past two decades watching the misadventures of the US should have realised that occupation was never an option. Did they think they could do it better? Did they think the people of Ukraine would welcome their liberators with open arms? I’ve always thought of Russian politicians as being reliably cynical, but this whole program seems founded on hope and prayer.
lorn@13:
Looking at the images of a TOS-1 on Wikipedia, I would not agree that the rockets are in an armored enclosure.
Just look at the thicknesses of the welds on the rocket frame compared to those on the T-72 chassis that it’s mounted on…
I would say that the launcher is military grade construction but not armored.
Completely OT because I cannot find the music thread to share. I might be getting old and creaky, but I still enjoy rocking out to a good drum and guitars heavy metal tune. Tool is one of few modern bands that can stand beside such legends as Led Zeppelin. IMO
The song ‘The Pot’ works as an invasion soundtrack, or equally well for smashing hot iron with a hammer. It hits hard, and high… high.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=civuoU_NE38
The Spotify thread is here [stderr]
The song ‘The Pot’ works as an invasion soundtrack, or equally well for smashing hot iron with a hammer. It hits hard, and high… high.
You are right! I have added it to my forging playlist.
rsmith @19:
“I would say that the launcher is military grade construction but not armored”
I’m no expert but it looks to me to be cased on the sides with what I estimate to be somewhere between 12 and 25mm of what I take to be typical RHA or high-hardness steel. Hard to say from photos. There are the angles and, of course one never knows how much caulk fillet or the thickness of paint there may be.
https://newsv.kataucap.com/host-https-metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/SEI_90912419.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=480%2C320
The tell was, for me, was the number, size, and apparent thickness of the clearly visible access ports and panels. If the side was standard military tough you might have panels that are a very few millimeters thick and, because that makes removing the entire side practical, there would be no need for individual panels and ports. This is like the hood of a car. It is easy to open and so there is no need for a dedicated port so you can check the dipstick. On the other hand, if your hood was solid half-inch or better steel, and a real pain to remove without a crane, a dedicated dipstick port makes a lot of sense.
Then again a comparison of TOS-1 versus TOS-1A:
https://photo.weaponsystems.net/image/s-carousel/n-ar_mrl_tos-1_p06.jpg/–/img/ws/ar_mrl_tos-1_p06.jpg
No apparent access panels versus lots of them. Does that mean the TOS-1 was unarmored? I suspect that the difference comes down to this small detail on this page:
https://weaponsystems.net/system/321-TOS-1%20Buratino
” Development
1971 – 1979 (design project)
1980 (Soviet state trials) ”
The design dates back to before the fall of the USSR. Way back to when money was flowing and they were willing to spend cash to make things look nice. Russia, after 1982 or 83 was cash poor, with a GDP in line with Italy.
The TOS-1 system, is designed to operate in offense and unfriendly ground. But you could point to the truck mounted rockets, why aren’t they armored? The truck mounted units are available, seemingly, in the thousands. Lose a few and no big deal. Russian doctrine expects losses. Second the roles are similar in kind but not degree. 122 mm blast/ fragmentation warheads versus 220mm with an option for thermobaric warheads.
Also the TOS-1s were not produced in great numbers. Hard to get good numbers but one citation says the original production run of TOS-1s as 650 units. Some of these were sold to Iraq. Most TOS-1s in Russia have been converted to TOS-1A variants with 24 rockets versus the original 30 but accommodating longer, longer range, rockets. This modification, performed in the typical practical but rough Russian manner, explains the bolt pattern. A slightly educated guess, accounting for sales and expected losses, there might be 400 remaining but that is likely generous.
Point here is that the TOS-1/1A system is designed for front line use and represents a significant investment so, I think it is reasonable to assume, the rockets are likely protected to some extent. Why mount delicate rockets on a tank hull? Easier to simply mount them on an unarmored truck or tracked vehicle.
The minimum level of protection that makes sense in this context is protection from small-arms fire and light fragments. Where you draw that line, what you consider small arms and at what range, falls between 12mm and 25mm of armor.
I wish I still had contacts. I could peruse the manuals and official source materials. Intelligence people can discern huge amounts of information from a photo. Some chance someone could simply examine a TOS-1A and tell us how thick the steel is.
@18 Ian King
From what I’ve read, the problem was that Putin got dictator syndrome: anyone who told him anything that he didn’t want to hear got in trouble, so everyone learned to just tell him things that he did want to hear. At this point the generals are probably spending 10% of their time working on battle plans and logistics and 90% of their time trying to figure out whom they can shift the blame to.
I’ve been wondering for a while now how the Russian high command failed to learn anything from the past twenty years of conflict in the middle east.
I’m going to have to go with Beau’s theory, that the Russians thought they were going to do a cakewalk and it was going to be a PR stunt. They didn’t expect a fight and they expected everyone to cower in terror and surrender once they heard a bit of artillery in the distance and saw a bunch of helicopters and some jets. That would also explain the force structure – they didn’t send nearly enough people.
It’s interesting to consider that Russia may lose this one outright. That would be incredible.
Maybe if one thing good comes out of the last century and this one it’s that insurgencies win and that populations don’t have to simply roll over when their political leaders surrender. That’s really interesting and it’s going to crimp imperialists’ style for a long time to come.
I think you probably need add a pretty big chunk in for figuring out how to get the money they’ve embezzelled from the military budget out of the country…
lorn@22
Look at the TOS-1A pictures on Wikipedia. Especially at the hinges at the back, and the overlap with the side of the box. I would say 10–12 mm. But not 25 mm.
Also look at the welds. Those are not welds you’d expect on a 25 mm plate.
If that box was armored, why not make two simple hinged plates to protect the front and back as well?
Because they have lots of T-72 around?
Note that the Russians still use the BM-21 Grad, which is based on a truck chassis. But that has a much longer range, so it is suited for use way behind the front line.
Marcus Ranum@24
We can certainly hope so. Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean that they won’t try.
What to know about the 100 US ‘Switchblade’ drones heading to Ukraine
It’s hard to keep up. I was looking for an article on the 5th Russian general killed in Ukraine and found this:
link