[video=youtube;cH_E6YSQqTo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH_E6YSQqTo[/video]
Made me want to move to Ukraine and enlist
[img]http://i.gyazo.com/7b954e0f705913965a462825658253a0.png[/img]
I've never understood the ex-eastern bloc countries' obsession with riding on the top of APCs, they're called armored personnel carriers for a reason right?
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46948818]I've never understood the ex-eastern bloc countries' obsession with riding on the top of APCs, they're called armored personnel carriers for a reason right?[/QUOTE]
Tbh it's USA that is obessed with riding under 10 layers of armor.
Like Brits due to their huge middle east experience always had light personnel carriers with many people inside being gunners, facing all sides around the vehicle. It's based on the idea that under thick armor you can't spot an ambush, which is the primary danger in the middle east.
People on armor instead of under it can quickly scatter around and start fighting. If the vehicle will be intact at this point they get a hand over their attackers, if it's destroyed then they are at least even.
I think it roots down to WWII where if a tank shot an APC all people inside would be dead or permamently injured, so riding on armor gave you more chance to survive.
US soldiers used to ride ontop of their APCs in Vietnam.
My 2 cent.
Edit:
For extra info, if an explosive detonates under an APC everybody sitting inside will instantly have their legs broken. USA's modern APCs like Styker have special protective layers of rubber on the floor to counter that, but it doesn't work if there is a really huge bomb.
Things actually got so bad in Nam that they fortified the tops of their M113's with bricks, sandbags and whatever they could find while riding atop them. In the event of a hit they would hop off.
[IMG]http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_08_2008/post-467-1218750523.jpg[/IMG]
Often when you see columns of BRDM's and BMP's on roads with guys on them, it's often due to all the space being used up inside. This is outside combat.
[IMG]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/08/23/Gori-460x276.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46948865]Tbh it's USA that is obessed with riding under 10 layers of armor.
Like Brits due to their huge middle east experience always had light personnel carriers with many people inside being gunners, facing all sides around the vehicle. It's based on the idea that under thick armor you can't spot an ambush, which is the primary danger in the middle east.
People on armor instead of under it can quickly scatter around and start fighting. If the vehicle will be intact at this point they get a hand over their attackers, if it's destroyed then they are at least even.
I think it roots down to WWII where if a tank shot an APC all people inside would be dead or permamently injured, so riding on armor gave you more chance to survive.
US soldiers used to ride ontop of their APCs in Vietnam.
My 2 cent.
Edit:
For extra info, if an explosive detonates under an APC everybody sitting inside will instantly have their legs broken. USA's modern APCs like Styker have special protective layers of rubber on the floor to counter that, but it doesn't work if there is a really huge bomb.[/QUOTE]
So it's doesn't have anything with any attempts to "look cool" and disregard safety?
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;46948937]So it's doesn't have anything with any attempts to "look cool" and disregard safety?[/QUOTE]
Not entirely sure.
I would have thought this was in the 80's, if there had been an independent Ukraine back then.
Anyways, here's a more serious, recent one:
[video=youtube;yYX7KVEtfLo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYX7KVEtfLo&list=FLmkGnNmRyNBrWriWqFCravg&index=11[/video]
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46948818]I've never understood the ex-eastern bloc countries' obsession with riding on the top of APCs, they're called armored personnel carriers for a reason right?[/QUOTE]
Those soviet APC's are uncomfortable as fuck to sit in, FYI.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46948865]Tbh it's USA that is obessed with riding under 10 layers of armor.
Like Brits due to their huge middle east experience always had light personnel carriers with many people inside being gunners, facing all sides around the vehicle. It's based on the idea that under thick armor you can't spot an ambush, which is the primary danger in the middle east.
People on armor instead of under it can quickly scatter around and start fighting. If the vehicle will be intact at this point they get a hand over their attackers, if it's destroyed then they are at least even.
I think it roots down to WWII where if a tank shot an APC all people inside would be dead or permamently injured, so riding on armor gave you more chance to survive.
US soldiers used to ride ontop of their APCs in Vietnam.
My 2 cent.
Edit:
For extra info, if an explosive detonates under an APC everybody sitting inside will instantly have their legs broken. USA's modern APCs like Styker have special protective layers of rubber on the floor to counter that, but it doesn't work if there is a really huge bomb.[/QUOTE]
Older BMP APCs also had an idiotic fuel tank design; the passengers' knees touched the main fuel tank and the only exit - the back doors - was also a reserve fuel tank. A lucky hit could turn the passenger compartment into a hellish inferno. It's almost as dangerous to ride on the top of the vehicle instead of riding inside the armored coffin.
[QUOTE]US soldiers used to ride ontop of their APCs in Vietnam.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, i heard about those M113s(?) had a problem with the floor peeling upwards and shredding/impaling the troops riding in the back if they went over a mine.
Turn on the captions.
[QUOTE=Amfleet;46948999]I would have thought this was in the 80's, if there had been an independent Ukraine back then.
Anyways, here's a more serious, recent one:
[video=youtube;yYX7KVEtfLo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYX7KVEtfLo&list=FLmkGnNmRyNBrWriWqFCravg&index=11[/video][/QUOTE]
Wow. That might be the most touching recruitment video I've ever seen.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46948865]Tbh it's USA that is obessed with riding under 10 layers of armor.
Like Brits due to their huge middle east experience always had light personnel carriers with many people inside being gunners, facing all sides around the vehicle. It's based on the idea that under thick armor you can't spot an ambush, which is the primary danger in the middle east.
People on armor instead of under it can quickly scatter around and start fighting. If the vehicle will be intact at this point they get a hand over their attackers, if it's destroyed then they are at least even.
I think it roots down to WWII where if a tank shot an APC all people inside would be dead or permamently injured, so riding on armor gave you more chance to survive.
US soldiers used to ride ontop of their APCs in Vietnam.
My 2 cent.
Edit:
For extra info, if an explosive detonates under an APC everybody sitting inside will instantly have their legs broken. USA's modern APCs like Styker have special protective layers of rubber on the floor to counter that, but it doesn't work if there is a really huge bomb.[/QUOTE]
Ah, yeah that reminds me of reading about how Russian soldiers during the Chechan Wars would ride on the top of their APCs so when they were ambushed by fortified Chechens with RPGs they weren't all taken out at once.
[QUOTE=Amfleet;46948999]I would have thought this was in the 80's, if there had been an independent Ukraine back then.
Anyways, here's a more serious, recent one:
[video=youtube;yYX7KVEtfLo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYX7KVEtfLo&list=FLmkGnNmRyNBrWriWqFCravg&index=11[/video][/QUOTE]
I respect those who fight to keep Ukraine united so much.
I watched this whilst eating mamas red borscht, never felt so slav
[QUOTE=desertdog11;46949209]Yeah, i heard about those M113s(?) had a problem with the floor peeling upwards and shredding/impaling the troops riding in the back if they went over a mine.[/QUOTE]
I heard it was because the ceiling was really low so every bump would make them hit their heads
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46948818]I've never understood the ex-eastern bloc countries' obsession with riding on the top of APCs, they're called armored personnel carriers for a reason right?[/QUOTE]
Easier and quicker to disembark, which would be better off than riding inside since iirc Soviet APCs are underarmoured as fuck
[editline]17th January 2015[/editline]
BTR-70 for example has a maximum of 7mm of armour according to wikipedia
and theres also this for BTRs
[quote]Another difference was in the location of the side doors, which on the vehicle's predecessor were located above the beltline between the second and third pairs of wheels on both sides of the vehicle. However, the designers of the BTR-70, moved the doors below the beltline. As Soviet tactics calls for unloading troops from the vehicle while it is in motion, this change increased the risk of a soldier being pulled under a wheel and injured or killed, although it also meant that the troops could get out quicker and expose themselves less to the enemy.[/quote]
[editline]17th January 2015[/editline]
So basically getting out of a moving BTR-70 is impossible
This is like a skit from some old comedy-show from the '90s.
[QUOTE=Amfleet;46948999]I would have thought this was in the 80's, if there had been an independent Ukraine back then.
Anyways, here's a more serious, recent one:
[video=youtube;yYX7KVEtfLo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYX7KVEtfLo&list=FLmkGnNmRyNBrWriWqFCravg&index=11[/video][/QUOTE]
Wow that's actually a really nice video. Instead of glorifying war they just give you the truth: Normal people are forced into war - Defending their freedom.
The captions made it even better.
Better then the stuff we have in Norway
[video=youtube;waM580skaEs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waM580skaEs[/video]
Tbh it's probably totally fake (as in made to mock the ukrainian army).
[QUOTE=Araknid;46951726]Easier and quicker to disembark, which would be better off than riding inside since iirc Soviet APCs are underarmoured as fuck
[editline]17th January 2015[/editline]
BTR-70 for example has a maximum of 7mm of armour according to wikipedia
and theres also this for BTRs
[editline]17th January 2015[/editline]
So basically getting out of a moving BTR-70 is impossible[/QUOTE]
Russian army is so metal that they fear death disembarking from a BTR, even out of combat.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46952358]Russian army is so metal that they fear death disembarking from a BTR, even out of combat.[/QUOTE]
Ads pretty rought too:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1idTSSc_7Ts[/media]
sometimes i get sad for not being allowed into army due to small neural damage in my shoulder that fucked up my arm handling, wished to be a sniper and shit and piss without a trace in existance.
I am recovered nowadays and spent 10 years in my life in passion for bows and arrow aswell, maybe i can be a military bowman?
Oh christ I just found an ad now for Belarusian army
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSF7iIyXrwQ[/media]
[editline]18th January 2015[/editline]
Why are slav army ads so good
[QUOTE=karimatrix;46952436]Ads pretty rought too:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1idTSSc_7Ts[/media]
sometimes i get sad for not being allowed into army due to small neural damage in my shoulder that fucked up my arm handling, wished to be a sniper and shit and piss without a trace in existance.
I am recovered nowadays and spent 10 years in my life in passion for bows and arrow aswell, maybe i can be a military bowman?[/QUOTE]
You'd be a fool for willingly joining the Russian military. Their suicide rates are through the roof despite not being actively at war, and it's mostly because of the brutal hazings.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46957908]You'd be a fool for willingly joining the Russian military. Their suicide rates are through the roof despite not being actively at war, and it's mostly because of the brutal hazings.[/QUOTE]
That for conscripts.
If karimatrix was to become a sniper he would have a good life outside of combat. Snipers along with other qualified professionals (like pilots and military engineers) tend to have it okay.
My roommate is close friends with a guy that got into Alpha Spetznaz during his conscription. It's said that there was no dedovshina. Even more, soldiers had to report every bruise they got. They were looked after like crazy.
That being said you have to be crazy to willingly become a sniper, snipers end up as outcasts of their own army and it's generally really tough for one's head.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46958918]That for conscripts.
If karimatrix was to become a sniper he would have a good life outside of combat. Snipers along with other qualified professionals (like pilots and military engineers) tend to have it okay.
My roommate is close friends with a guy that got into Alpha Spetznaz during his conscription. It's said that there was no dedovshina. Even more, soldiers had to report every bruise they got. They were looked after like crazy.
That being said you have to be crazy to willingly become a sniper, snipers end up as outcasts of their own army and it's generally really tough for one's head.[/QUOTE]
yea gonna call bullshit on your friend's friends story of there being no hazing in the Spetz. The Spetz and Paratrooper divisions are absolutely notorious for it.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46959705]yea gonna call bullshit on your friend's friends story of there being no hazing in the Spetz. The Spetz and Paratrooper divisions are absolutely notorious for it.[/QUOTE]
Can you prove it?
Paratroopers - true. But it's not like they are elite (they think they are, but they are just infantry that thinks highly of itself and does a few para jumps a year).
I only heard of hazing in shit-tier branches. It wouldn't make sense for special forces to have any of it because there every soldier is too costly to replace with another one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
