https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2024/12/30/russians-have-begun-installing-wooden-armor-on-mt-lb-afvs/
 

have a laff at this

 

 

9 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2024/12/30/russians-have-begun-installing-wooden-armor-on-mt-lb-afvs/
 

have a laff at this

 

 

 

Letter of 'Z' on their tanks, suggesting their demise.

Z is the very last of the English alphabet.

It also stands for Very The End.

8 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2024/12/30/russians-have-begun-installing-wooden-armor-on-mt-lb-afvs/
 

have a laff at this

 

 

US forces did it in WW2 with their Sherman tanks. Likewise here when the Army took back Lumpini they had wooden pallets on their Armoured Personell carriers.

 

They do it in the mistaken hope of providing enough standoff so that if a hollow charge warhead hits the jet of molten metal it produces will have its energy sufficiently dissipated by the wood that it won't penetrate the armour.

On 1/1/2025 at 8:49 PM, mokwit said:

US forces did it in WW2 with their Sherman tanks. Likewise here when the Army took back Lumpini they had wooden pallets on their Armoured Personell carriers.

 

They do it in the mistaken hope of providing enough standoff so that if a hollow charge warhead hits the jet of molten metal it produces will have its energy sufficiently dissipated by the wood that it won't penetrate the armour.

Indeed, wood is certainly protection against small arms. Seems some posters don't know much about warfare in their obvious belief in anything western propaganda tell them.

Reactive armour is the way to go but Russia uses wood like fools

On 1/1/2025 at 2:49 AM, mokwit said:

US forces did it in WW2 with their Sherman tanks. Likewise here when the Army took back Lumpini they had wooden pallets on their Armoured Personell carriers.

 

They do it in the mistaken hope of providing enough standoff so that if a hollow charge warhead hits the jet of molten metal it produces will have its energy sufficiently dissipated by the wood that it won't penetrate the armour.

 

Most modernized armoured units, including the Russians use Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA).

Most Russian tanks are in the scrapyard waiting for repair haven’t you heard

50 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Reactive armour is the way to go but Russia uses wood like fools

It is rumoured that various high ranking officers in the "armoured vehicle upgrading program" made a lot of money selling off the explosive reactive armour!

 

Certainly a lot of the knocked out/captured Russian armour had dummy or empty ERA panels

 

5 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Reactive armour is the way to go but Russia uses wood like fools

and your military qualifications to say that are? Even been in the military?

5 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Most Russian tanks are in the scrapyard waiting for repair haven’t you heard

Proof?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Proof?

 

Doing a good impersonation of a junk yard

It's amazing how the Russians for the last couple years are continually taking ground against the Ukraine army using shovels and wood armoured tanks. 

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Most modernized armoured units, including the Russians use Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA).

On TANKS, not Armored Personnel Carriers (which this is), which do not have it BY DESIGN. They also tend to have thin armour to improve mobility.

 

type: 'why don't troop carriers/Armored Personnel Carriers have reactive armour?' into Grok for a detailed explanation as to why.

 

Many APC designs have firing ports for crew protection from infantry with RPG's. The US Bradley has a specially designed port firing gun for example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, pegman said:

It's amazing how the Russians for the last couple years are continually taking ground against the Ukraine army using shovels and wood armoured tanks. 

Not only that, according to western media they have already run out of artillery shells, they have lost all but a handful of their tanks and all their trucks have flat tyres (but somehow manage to bring up the rotten food rations).

 

There are some very "unsophisticated" people here who just accept one sides propaganda as the truth.

10 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Reactive armour is the way to go but Russia uses wood like fools

Russia uses reactive armour on TANKS, not Armored Personnel Carriers (which this is), which do not have it BY DESIGN. They also tend to have thin armour to improve mobility. Same applies to Western designed APC's

 

One reason APC's do not have reactive armour is because if it is hit and explodes it could kill or maim any disembarked troops in the vicinity. They are TROOP CARRIERS.

 

Are you Ukranian or just not informed? I'd put you on ignore but you make me laugh.

2 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

 

Doing a good impersonation of a junk yard

unfortunately the poster doesn't know the difference between a Tank and and APC which is what the top picture shows. So how can we rely on this info?

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and your military qualifications to say that are? Even been in the military?

Likely just as many as someone who has qualifications in changing military bed pans.

12 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Most Russian tanks are in the scrapyard waiting for repair haven’t you heard

 

And the remainder have been stored until turret tossing becomes an Olympic sport.

4 hours ago, mokwit said:

On TANKS, not Armored Personnel Carriers (which this is), which do not have it BY DESIGN. They also tend to have thin armour to improve mobility.

 

type: 'why don't troop carriers/Armored Personnel Carriers have reactive armour?' into Grok for a detailed explanation as to why.

 

Many APC designs have firing ports for crew protection from infantry with RPG's. The US Bradley has a specially designed port firing gun for example.

 

 

To the attention of General Blowhard: The  OP article mentioned an APC. The IDF has fitted  its at risk Bradley class vehicles  with the design. Many years ago it was  reported that The Israeli Military Industries has developed a set of new armor protection components comprised of a high-explosive reactive armor and a composite structure of armored steel, rubber and ballistic ceramics.  It has used  smaller systems on other  at risk  vehicle classes. This approach has  been used by other militaries. The primary  use is for tanks, but multiple  vehicles had adapted versions for designated purposes.

 

However,  the use of this type of armor  will be obsolete as the new  armor technology is fully deployed. Since you are a self appointed military procurement expert you will be aware that  the US military awarded BAE a full-rate production contract in August 2023 to continue manufacturing the AMPV Family of Vehicles (FoV) at a high and sustained rate. The AMPV FOV consists of five, multi-mission variants including the General Purpose, Mortar Carrier, Mission Command, Medical Treatment and Medical Evacuation vehicles. The new armor surpasses the survivability of HERA.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

The primary  use is for tanks

I would have thought that proved my point.

 

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

The IDF has fitted  its at risk Bradley class vehicles 

As per the Grok answer, it is sometimes fitted to "at risk" APC's. Israel is hardly a good example as any Bradley used in urban areas like Gaza is at extreme risk from RPG7 and the Hamas developed hollow charge personal anti tank rockets. They are fitting it to "at risk" APC's as per the grok answer there are multiple reasons why it is not normally fitted, but you are highlighting THIS ONE  example from a different conflict which is a different situation as somehow proving a point.

 

You think you are making a point but you are not making any point at all.

 

Seriously, just stop replying to my posts this is the third time I have schooled you in 24 hours and each time you come back with a non answer. After I have left this here long enough to be sure you have seen it I will put you on ignore.

 

Others on this web board can judge for themselves as to which of us knows what he is talking about and which doesn't. I am happy for them to make that judgement for themselves.

 

 

On 1/1/2025 at 2:38 PM, 3NUMBAS said:

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2024/12/30/russians-have-begun-installing-wooden-armor-on-mt-lb-afvs/
 

have a laff at this

 

 

 

 

Do you even know what an APC is?

7 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

 

Doing a good impersonation of a junk yard

Unable to open your link. Keep getting spam which I can't delete.

 

Anything on a normal web site without spam?

50 minutes ago, mokwit said:

I would have thought that proved my point.

 

As per the Grok answer, it is sometimes fitted to "at risk" APC's. Israel is hardly a good example as any Bradley used in urban areas like Gaza is at extreme risk from RPG7 and the Hamas developed hollow charge personal anti tank rockets. They are fitting it to "at risk" APC's as per the grok answer there are multiple reasons why it is not normally fitted, but you are highlighting THIS ONE  example from a different conflict which is a different situation as somehow proving a point.

 

You think you are making a point but you are not making any point at all.

 

Seriously, just stop replying to my posts this is the third time I have schooled you in 24 hours and each time you come back with a non answer. After I have left this here long enough to be sure you have seen it I will put you on ignore.

 

Others on this webboard can judge for themselves as to which of us knows what he is talking about and which doesn't. I am happy for them to make that judgement for themselves.

 

Don't bother posting in reply to my posts anymore, I won't see them. I can't be bothered to engage with people like you.

Seems we have a few posters that get their info off biased sites.

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be making silly posts like that.

 

Do you even know what an APC is?

He doesn't know what propaganda is and how it fools people like him.

 

Literally a photo of APC and a lorry with wood tacked on and he thinks the Russian army has collapsed. Note they put it on a TRUCK. trucks are generally not used for assaulting enemy positions, but they are used to bring up supplies for armies

 

My best guess is that due to the RECENT RUSSIAN RAPID ADVANCES the supply trucks have to go through areas with pockets of Ukrainian troops left stuck there by the advance, so non frontline vehicles* traveling to the front have to protect themselves from attacks by feral Ukrainians, who likely have hand held anti APC level weapons like RPG7s. We don't see any wood on any footage of tanks.

 

In ww2 the territory between the Normandy beaches and the front line was referred to as "Indian Country" due to left behind pockets of German soldiers shooting at trucks taking supplies to the front.

 

SO: what he thinks shows Russia is losing is more likely a reflection on the success of Russia's advance.

 

*the APC is the old model BT1, which would likely not be used in the front if newer models were available (the propaganda is they use the old models because all the BT2 have been destroyed already).

 

 

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems we have a few posters that get their info off biased sites.

Also doesn't understand that this is an extremely SPECIFIC to Israels situation example, and armies spend their money depending on the tradeoffs and what war they expect to have to fight. Russian equipment used in Ukraine was largely designed for fighting as part of a large force on the German plains.

 

Also armies can have completely different philosophies and priorities depending on all kinds of situations that affect decisions on how to equip. All kinds of cost and tradeoff decisions are made. Israel is a small country surrounded by larger population countries mostly, so just like Germany in late ww2, the focus is on crew protection.   l already stated that the expectation of fighting in a built up area like Gaza, not the German plains  would justify armoring the most 'at risk' APC's. This is why Israel, and I think ONLY ISRAEL, developed the anti missile machine guns for mounting on armoured vehicles - because that is what fitted the war it expected to fight and e.g. population considerations.

 

as I said, I can't be bothered to reply to him anymore, but will answer anybody elses queries on anything I post.

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

Russian equipment used in Ukraine was largely designed for fighting as part of a large force on the German plains.

The entire point of vehicles like APCs is that they were designed for a fast moving mobile war, and traded off protection for speed. In a close battle conflict like Ukraine more protection is an acceptable compromise. Given that I doubt Russia has loads of spare reactive armour, wood is entirely appropriate. Good protection against small arms. Spare track is also used where it is available.

27 minutes ago, mokwit said:

He doesn't know what propaganda is and how it fools people like him.

Without getting into Russian vehicle identification which can even confuse me, I wonder how many commenting on the use of supplementary protection even know the difference between an APC and an MBT, without googling it, or have even driven one.

 

PS re your avatar that was a great movie series.

13 hours ago, pegman said:

It's amazing how the Russians for the last couple years are continually taking ground against the Ukraine army using shovels and wood armoured tanks. 

What is the goal of the war now?  

7 hours ago, TedG said:

What is the goal of the war now?  

IMO for Russia it's to gain control of the East before it ends, and for Ukraine it's to get some sort of treaty to end the war.

Do you have any thoughts on it yourself?

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO for Russia it's to gain control of the East before it ends, and for Ukraine it's to get some sort of treaty to end the war.

Do you have any thoughts on it yourself?

The goal at the start was for Putin to make Ukraine a vassal state.  He failed.