@@Bandog23At their most simple an FPV-drone can be an RPG rocket or a mortar bomb duck taped into a quadrocopter. It isn't exactly a high end weapon system and insurgents have used drones as well. Their big advantage over ATGMs is that they are more affordable, disposable and can be anywhere just like your ordinary RPGs or LAWs or AT4s etc. When used correctly even an RPG-7 can be sufficient a weapon to destroy IFVs and many types of tanks. There are also more modern warheads for light AT weapons.
Thunder run at dusk in deserts of The Subcontinent: Who will win? Pakistan: 3000 Infantry supported by 45 Tanks and 2 Artillery Batteries India: 120 Infantry supported by couple of RCLs and 1 Artillery battery and air support arriving only in the morning after the battle. This was Battle of Longewala, 1971. Result: Decisive Indian victory. 2 Indian soldiers KIA, two jeep-mounted RCLs and few camels destroyed. 200 Pakistani soldiers KIA, 35 tanks and 500+ vehicles destroyed. Example of a successful Thunder Run: 16 December 1971, an Indian Army Lt Gen walks into room of a Pakistan Army Lt Gen in the latter's HQ in a provincial capital city that has 26,000 Pakistani troops inside it. The city is under siege by a mere 3000 Indian troops. When the Indian General exits the room, the war is over, the Provincial Capital is now the Capital of a new Nation and the 26,000 Paki troops in the city along with the rest of the 67,000 spread throughout in other cities and countryside, are P.O.W.s.
That's literally Russias strategy and it has worked many times but they love to say how dumb they are. America calls it a thunder run so therefore it is "Smart" "strategic" "unique" "brave" lol the hypocrisy is insane.
LOL, yeah, reminds me of a 40km long convoy that was supposed to take a country in 3 days. It's like the wet dream of every US airforce airman come true.
I think you're muddying the terms, which to be fair has already been done by countless others. The classic thunder runs are an adaption of using heavy armour inside urban areas, where their mobility is often limited and they're therefore usually considered less suited than for open terrain, by sticking to roads and long fire arcs and essentially raiding the city with tanks. It doesn't really make sense to describe any fast advance, potentially with light vehicles such as the Kharkiv Offensive, as a thunder run.
@@tremendousbaguette9680 Not when you are under Russian propaganda.. its sad to see so many young and old taken from street.. dying for nothing. In both Chechnya and Ukraine. Remember that one call between russian and chechnyan how they dont want to fight russians, yet for russian it would mean bullet to head..something many judge but wont understand until their whole family is under threats
Ah, not hating I just had a funny moment. I read this comment and just thought it was stating something given. “When it works it works, when it doesn’t it doesn’t” 😂
Absolutely, the Russian runs on Kyiv were doomed. NLAW the lead and trailing vehicles and call in drone corrected artillery. That's the BIG difference with Baghdad, even if they could knock out lead vehicles, calling in artillery or airstrikes? Absolutely no chance, they were just small groups of guys with AKs and RPG-7s.
The Flying Columns used by the US Army’s 1st Cavalry Division to breakthrough the Japanese Army to get to Manila in WW2 is another example of a Thunder Run success.
@christianlim772 The bicycle troops working with light tanks and truck mounted infantry was a wild gamble! But they completely handcuffed the British and empire forces who lacked motorized transportation to effectively withdrawal. Shit was wild!
@@McTeerZor LMFAO. Hey modern special forces on modern electric mountain bikes is an actual thing. Not sure if you’ve ridden one but it feels unnatural in the best way. First time I ride a $10,000 bike I said “this feels like the future”
Against a skilled or near-peer opponent, Thunder Runs are foolish. Some vehicles will inevitably get disabled and columns stopped. Now you have a 360 degree battle with you exposed and immobile.
Nope a attritional war against a near pier is foolish. Maneuver warfare has worked well since ww2 with the German blitz into France. If you are not good at maneuver warfare you have to fight like the Russians and lose thousands until/if your enemy runs out of manpower. You need air cover, logistics and coordination. If you have all three maneuver warfare is for you. If you don’t then be prepared for a long bloody war.
I'd agree but with the caveat that it's about the difference between forces in the actual engagement (rather than the overall difference between the opposing armies in the whole war). E.g as the video describes, although the Ukrainian military is overall significantly smaller and less powerful than the Russian military, they were able to employ these sorts of tactics very effectively because they were able to concentrate their best forces against underequipped rear units that were not prepared or intended for combat.
It doesn't have to be against a weaker enemy. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was against the Russians and yet it was a success. What makes a thunder run effective is that the people conducting it needs to be competent and have prepared the operation well. If you f u c k up the operation, or if your commander is incompetent, you will all get slaughtered while behind enemy lines. Also, you're suggesting that compared to Russia, Chechnya was a skilled and near-peer military. Which is hilarious.
@@aaroncabatingan5238To be fair, the Chechens were themselves highly motivated and heavily armed, formerly Soviet conscripts many of whom veterans of the Afghan War One of the disadvantages of universal conscription is that you train those who can become insurgents
It's different, back in the 90 Russia's economics situation was really, like, REALLY freaking awfully DIRE, there are stories about pilots having to buy fuel with money from their own pockets to make their choppers fly and go to assist troops on the battlefield; the government was so broke it was incapable of providing uniforms to their soldiers, that's why there are many pictures of Russian Soldiers from the first Chechen War wearing a mish-mash of equipment and uniforms with different camo patterns, this also explains the overall lack of motivation and drunkenness among the troops. Situation in Ukraine it's not similar at all, in fact it couldn't be any more different. Sure they've had setbacks but not as bad as it was during the first Grozny campaign.
A point that can't be overstated and I don't see addressed in the video is the incredibly poor training of Iraqi forces in Baghdad. The RPG-7s, even with the old PG-7V warheads they usually had for them, were capable of perforating all of the rear, a large part of the side, and a very small portion of the frontal arc of the Abrams, and essentially all of the Bradley. The problem was that Iraqi forces simply were not able to use them, and when they did, the vast majority missed. Iraqi forces also were generally unable to organize any kind of cohesive defense and thus became isolated and vulnerable; especially relevant once the US had seized control of the city center.
This also applies to Ukraine now - but in a different way. Just a couple days ago I watched a documentary where a Ukrainian soldier talks about where he learned to take out tanks (cant recall if he was a tanker or had an RPG), and he had learnt it... from War Thunder. War Thunder has taught people how to d
@@ASlickNamedPimpback That's really not the same at all. The Iraqi example was that the soldiers were incapable of operating their weapon systems. What the Ukrainian is describing is using War Thunder to learn weak spots etc. on Russian vehicles, but War Thunder doesn't teach how to actually hit those, that would still need to be learned through military training. But that's really just a continuation of simulators and training videos that militaries have been using for nearly a century. Making them into fun games that soldiers also play in their spare time is only an advantage for their learning.
I can confirm the bar part. In 1986, stationed at Camp Casey, Korea, my battalion had at least 2 thunder runs. One to the bars of the local town and one a Sunday morning run through the same said town. These were lead by our battalion commander in each case. Good times. 😀😳
Difference is the U.S. can keep up the supply lines. The Germans outran them….the U.S. is going to make sure NO MATTER WHAT the supply of fuel, bullets, and food is there. That’s either thunder runs are better
Sure doesn't seem like the vague concept of "media/propaganda" coined the term, considering the conversation about possible sources. Is propaganda to blame for "fish" being a poorly specified word too? 🙄
@@user-to9ge8ii9n Not a single source of this term is releated in any way to military doctrine. In many of them media are mentioned, in some military are mentioned too, but is a way "some officer/general dropped this term". Not "they planned the operation according to thunder run rules". There are no rules, there is no definition. And "fish" is very clearly defined, biological term. Wtf you tried to mean?
While in Iraq in 05-06 we did Thunder runs on MSR to disrupt IED placements. On some occasions we did stop checks to look at shops for IED material. 1 such run netted 3 pages of bomb making material and munitions. It took EOD, 8-gun trucks and 3 M113 tracks to remove it all. We could not destroy in place as it was too close to needed electrical Infrastructure. Was supposed to be 4 hours, turned into 17 by the time we returned to the Barracks in the FOB.
Nothing about that sounds "thunder run" as anyone understands it. Bogged down sweep and clear is about as opposite as you can get outside of trench warfare. Thanks for cleaning up our mess, though. Cheers!
Thunder run might be successful if some factors are existing 1) air superiority 2) within range of sufficient artillery support 3) enemy C4ISR is disabled 4) sufficient armor assets 5) all bridges and roads are passable 6) no micromanaging from higher ups-ground commander given the initiative 7) ground commanders and troops are eager to fight and given full support
That’s false rear security is provided by follow on units. Maneuver warfare only works against conventional armies not guerrilla forces. The whole objective of maneuver warfare is to breach the enemy’s defenses and shove an army through. It takes high levels of coordination to achieve. Russians tried it in Ukraine but couldn’t protect resupply lines and didn’t have the coordination of air and land assets to do it well. Ukraine was successful twice in the sumy region and in Kursk. It’s a good tactic used since ww2 with the German blitz into France. If you have the air force and the logistics it can be replicated by any army. People forget that Iraq had a lot of SAMs that the USA Air Force had to take out before it became a permissive environment for maneuver warfare.
I don’t think that’s true. Now it’s not a blitzkrieg where they fortify one main corridor but it’s not just a big scouting party either. It’s something in between that.
@@allenseeallendo5844 the first use of the phrase thunder run was Vietnam. It was used to describe convoy ops on roads. Where you would have mine resistance vehicles driving ahead setting off any land mines and shooting at bushes to dissuade ambushes. During Iraq it was used to describe maneuver warfare/blitzkrieg. That’s when the USA army jammed units threw a gap and if a unit hit contact, follow on units would bypass and continue the momentum. Blitzkrieg is maneuver warfare. It’s just that blitzkrieg is associated with bad people.
@@paul-jr4kc You are right on the definition of thunder run but Blitzkrieg is not modern maneuver warfare. Modern maneuver warfare is strength against weakness the blitzkrieg tactic was strength agains strength.
Operation Compass by General O'Connor is another thunder run example, what was intended as a five-day raid lasted several weeks and resulted in the encirclement of the entire Italian 10th army some 150,000 men, the British Eighth army around 36,000 men captured 133,000 soldiers, 400 tanks and 1,293 artillery guns.
@@이이-n4z8y To be fair to Wavell, O'Connor's Commander in Chief was under so much pressure at the time he had to handle 5 separate campaigns. 1. East Africa Campaign (recapture territory and secure the Red Sea) 2. Seize the Levant from the Vichy regime (Syria/Lebanon Campaign) 3. Secure and defend Cyprus 4. Defend Greece/Crete 5. Hold Cyrenecia That's A LOT of responsibility to have after already dealing with defeats to the Axis powers in France and Norway. You throw in an entire Italian field army invading and you can see that the British were really pushed to their limits of logistics.
Recon by fire, scaring the enemy commanders into making mistakes, temporarily cutting supply lines, (and reopening friendly supply lines), and of course causing infinite mischief against the enemy; yeah I'd say it works. (ps. Kim Olmstead explained Thunder Runs to us in the 1/1 CAV back in 1982)
It absolutely does And him listing the chechens being "Better armed and trained" than the Iraqis which still had thousands of tanks and RPG's by then is hilarious
I would define a "Thunder Run" more narrowly; I think the Americans' Thunder Run into Baghdad is the classic example. Ukrainian jabs and feints into Russian held territory are, IMO, not Thunder runs.
I really like the Call of Duty Deathscreen like quotes from patreons at the end of the video. Waiting for the eventual "Friendly fire - isn't." - Unknown.
Not really, as the German army was allocating resources to protect their flanks as well as leaving garrison forces at significant points such as road and rail crossings, villages and captured prisoners and supplies to capture the terrain. In the Baghdad thunder run the Americans did nothing to protect their flanks and the detachments at Larry, Moe, Curley were only expected to secure supply columns and an exfil route if the swing to BIA was halted.
As a layman, I feel like "thunder run" is just an all encompassing term to avoid saying blitzkrieg, for operations that certainly look like blitzkriegs
Reminds me of the marine brass that warned macArthur during the Korean war against pushing to the border of china so fast without letting logistics and infrastructure catch up. Then 150,000 Chinese came at the 30,000 marines not yet properly supported... so many insane stories of the survivors. Can only imagine how many stories will never be heard from the ones that fought hard but got killed to the last man.
Thunder run for me is a YOLO force move left click with ground vehicles passing by enemy held territory and not stoping until exiting said territory. It is essentially a "drive by" but with a larger force.
If your "thunder run" is just sending large amounts of armored vehicles across open terrain to exploit a weak point in enemy lines, it's not a thunder run. It's simply a well placed armored thrust.
Cavalry forces don't necessarily mean horses. Modern Cavalry regiments switched their horses for tanks but are still Cavalry. (My great uncle was in a British cavalry Regiment stationed in Palestine i 1938. By 1940 they had switched to tanks - his Regiment was still a cavalry Regiment - and still is). Basically the ethos is still the same.
@@Jstar7771 No. He's saying we cannot call it a cavalry raid because there is no horses used. Cavalry is a type of unit. A cavalry unit with tanks can and do use cavalry raids.
You also need enough troops to support a thunder run. Russia attempted to invade Ukraine on 6 different axises during the opening stages of 2022 with only 100k troops. Ukraine simply let them pass and smashed all the rear units which caused the entire convoys to run out of fuel. Ukraine's counter attack in 2022 easily overran the Russias because they had so few soldiers and no defenses in the area. When Ukraine tried again in 2023 they ran into prepared positions and didn't even make it to the first lines of defense.
4:00 US Tanker here (19K4O). It was always my understanding that when we fired main gun rounds the sound at distance mirrored thunder. As Armor units made their way through a battle space it must sound like "rolling thunder." Which in turn made sense to me and others to call a rapidly advancing Armor element a "Thunder Run."
IMO the "Thunder Run", no matter which definition you use for it is just a modernization of traditional cavalry tactics. Heavy cavalry (tanks and mech. inf) concentrate their mass into a charge across a narrow front in hopes of breaking through the frontline and circling around to hit the defenders in their rear. Once an unprotected flank is found or a hole is made in the front by friendly forces light cavalry (Wheeled AFVs, technicals, moto. inf) surge through to exploit it, using their mobility to cause widespread chaos in the enemy rear and avoid getting into pitched battles they are unlikely to win.
Just finished the video from The Operations Room about the 2003 thunder run in Iraq, algorithm doing its thing recommending this video!!! Video was posted four months ago, “The First Baghdad Thunder Run, Iraq 2003..” For the fellow nerds out there! This channel gave examples, operations room breaks down those examples “ as accurately as possible” along with a whole bunch of other missions! A collaboration between ~The Intel Report & The Operations Room~ would definitely be awesome!
Fog of war is still a thing, it's difficult to speak meaningfully about Ukraine when both sides are concealing their real losses and overestimating the enemy's losses.
@@MarvinRB3nevermind the fact that, when getting into the level of detail TIR would need, a lot of videos about the war in Ukraine get demonitized pretty quickly.
I'm not sure. Kings and Generals tried to do that and the result was inevitably partisan and full of conjecture and propaganda. I think war is one of those topics you need a bit of distance from to be able to talk about in an unbiased and informed way. I can't wait for that time to come regarding Ukraine. Currently it is an example of a war where the emotions and information operations need to be reduced before we can analyse it properly.
Ahh its cool this thunder run thing. Thunder sounds fierce, fast, and violent. Kind of like lightning. And a run is like rapid operation, something you might do in war. Kind of sounds like war.....done in a lightning fast way. Like a lightning war of sorts.....
When I think of "thunder run" I think of the SAS raid on Sidi Haneish airfield the night of 26 July 1942. It doesn't really fit the current definition but it was a jolly good show.
One of the stories I read is that the Russians drove a column of tanks straight to the presidential building. The area appeared to be deserted. So the Russians parked their tanks. One in front of the other, thinking, We won, now what? Then a Russian tanker asked a civilian passing by for a cigarette. Who then shot him and immediately the tanks got lit up by RPG's!
Great historical review of the Military Thunder Run! You left out a great deal about the evolution of the Ukrainian FPV Drone and how this technology on the battlefield has eliminated Russian armor. Any semblance of a (future) Russian thunder run on Ukraine is null and void.
Another excellent and informative video! Can you perhaps look into Indian Army's operation khukri in Sierra Leone? It was similar to operation Barras by the British but is much lesser known.
I think the defining characteristics of a thunder run is to completely disregard any flank protection during a very narrow ("Shwerdpunkt") axis of advance.
I have talked personally with General Tommy Franks about his use of Thunder Runs, and he highly emphasized how they're not applicable in every situation, and are simply just a tool to punch through lines
One such thunder run has been made by Americans during the 2nd World War in the Philippines island of Luzon using a only a convoy of trucks packed with GIs armed with their rifles and grenades. The trucks all had roof-mounted heavy machine guns and a 30 cal. mounted on the passenger side of the truck cabin. Some of the soldiers riding a the back were also armed with machine guns which together with their rifles were fired from the sides. The trucks had their canvas roof taken down exposing the soldiers to the elements. They rolled at near the maximum speed of the trucks as road conditions allowed, nearly bumper to bumper. The soldiers rained concentrated fire at every Japanese checkpoint and troop concentration that they encountered, never stopping and never dismounting their vehicles until they reached their objectives. It sowed widespread terror and confusion among the Japanese.
I wouldn't call Mogadishu a Thunder Run. They didn't use any armor until they were withdrawing. If they had Bradleys or even M113s, they would have much more successful. After the initial crapshow, local forces were gathering for an attack on American forces. The US brought in 4 Abrams and did a gunnery outside the city. Things calmed down immediately and the attacks never came.
I was there during the thunder runs with the 3rd infantry division. There was so much that we got out of it it gave us a better look into the City and also what we might go up against. But at the end of the day they were not prepared on any level to deal with the speed and power that we had. I can honestly say if the majority of the Iraqi units hadn't given up I probably would have been more impressed and things might have been a little harder.
Thunder Run is like cramming all of your tanks, armored vehicles, supporting vehicles and men onto one single road or route and then dash toward your intended destination, that road or route would be occupied or defended by concentration of enemy formation and you will try to neutralize the enemy while dashing to your destination. It only works if the enemy doesn't have heavy armor like MBTs defending the route, also a heavy concentration of Anti tank and anti air missile launchers and also the enemy doesn't have any artillery (anything larger than 81mm mortar) support. Thunder Run formations usually are sitting duck to enemy artillery barrage and smart enemy targets the lead vehicles and vehicles in the middle of the formation. I don't know if the Russian formations were rushing towards Kiev was a thunder run, but Ukrainian artillery supported by drones halted their advance by concentrating heavy artillery barrages on the route they were on.
So, basically; it is an aggressive high-risk high-reward tactic whose success depends on "soft" conditions (battlefield situation) rather than "hard" conditions (material superiority). I would say that it qualifies as a tactic that works, as long as you know when to employ or not employ it.
The name "Thunder Run" I have long believed is a reference to the Division code "Marne Thunder" which is in reference to the Division's striking power. This tactic has long been employed throughout military history where it is commonly called "The Cavalry Raid" and perhaps among the most successful are Rommell's 7th Panzer Division in France in 1940 where it was running rampant so deep behind Allied lines it earned the nickname "The Ghost Division" because not even the German High Command knew where it was half the time!
There was a time when Hollywood was going to do a film on Zucchino's book starring Matthew McConaughey and Gerard Butler but it languished in Development Hell and was cancelled. (I guess, no official cancellation was made) Id appreciate you doing a more in depth video(s) on the First and Second Chechen Wars. Info on the them, especially here on TH-cam, is kinda scarce. 😀
A thunder run compared here to reconnaissance in force, such as "Faced with orders from nervous superiors to halt on one occasion, he managed to continue his advance by stating he was performing a 'reconnaissance in force'. Guderian's column was famously denied the chance to destroy the Allied forces trapped in the pocket at Dunkirk." The tables turned when the thunder run was airborne, just a bridge too far.
Speed, surprise, violence of action, and hope. The reality is a thunder run, recon by fire, armored thrust, light strikes, whatever you want to call it, requires luck to pull off successfully. To me it has always seemed like a Hail Mary approach since it has the potential to make great gains or massive losses.
Kinda disappointed in this video, there's a lot of Fudd lore misinformation. Their RPGs were perfectly capable of penetrating M1 tanks In the sides and rear, a real threat when driving down the street with buildings passing on both sides. That's how an Abrams was lost in the first run, it was hit in the rear by an RPG knocking out the engine. This was not a "superior armor" thing, Bradley's don't even have any RPG rated armor at all hence later in the GWOT they got massive ERA arrays. Bradley's are not RPG proof or even mildly resistant, it's entirely luck on if the enemy land a good shot. Their armor is rated against 30mm autocannon that's it. The comparison to failed Russian runs being about RPG quality and armor is basically straight bullshit. You don't need NLAW or Javelin to punch through a tank's side armor as they drive past on the street, without an APS system or heavy ERA skirts all tanks would get taken out by a hit from a 50 year old RPG.
The real deciding factor in successful runs is if the enemy is organized or not. That's basically it, the ones that succeed are against disorganized enemies while the ones that fail are against organized defense.
Seems like thunder runs are _extremely_ high risk high reward kinda things. And should really only be used when you have _such_ a force advantage that the battle is already won - but you still have to drive through to make it _undeniable_ to _everyone._ But it's really like sticking your neck into a logistics noose, so you'd better be absolutely certain....
The British LRDG in N. Africa (WW2) did not cause havoc behind enemy lines. Their job was strictly recon. It was the SAS that operated with its mission being to attack and destroy its targets, such as enemy airfields and the German planes on them.
The Chechen fighters in Grozny moved around in small vehicles and targeted the tanks from above or below often firing at the same spots to defeat the reactive armor.
I thought a Thunder Run was what you do at a festival when you've eaten something you shouldn't have, and you've got to find an unoccupied portaloo in time?
the idea makes sense but suspect is very risky if not adequately supplied or if the enemy reacts to it rapidly. it is rather like the good old fashioned cavalry raids in 17th,18th and 19th century where cavalry was used to make rapid advances into enemy territory for reconnaissance and creating confusion.
Spot on. A lot of seemingly modern armoured tactics are just classic cavalry tactics that became viable again once the armour and mobility tanks provided allowed maneuver back on the battlefield.
Otherwise known Shock troops, blitzkrieg, and breakout. I play chess, and have studied warfare over time. At some point you'll want to break on through, rather than fight a war of attrition.
Mogadishu was not a "thunder run", it was a hastily organized rescue mission that was grossly underarmored and ran into a hornets nest of resistance. While some of the American supply convoys in Vietnam might have been called thunder runs the standard armored convoys, using a variety of uparmored and well armed gun trucks, used similar tactics, moving quickly with support from aerial assets.
Thunder runs, are whatever mobile force projection you need and can do, short of a formal full scale offensive, and its determined by your resources and the desired outcome. So, it can manifest in a lot of different ways.
With the proliferation of drones creating almost infinite ISR, your thunder run will be picked up before you even put for foot on the gas. Then it won't come in so thunderous.
I'd argue that one of the earliest thunder runs was the march from Harfleur to Calais in autumn 1415 - the objective was pure propaganda, to show that a march in force could be conducted through enemy territory, and that the enemy couldn't stop it. Admitedly it was a complete failure as a thunder run, given that it was intercepted, blocked, and forced to fight a pitched battle, but the battle itself was sucessful enough that the overall objective was achieved.
They work when the military conducting the operation isn't completely inept, doesn't leave even lowest man in the dark of what the mission is and has support.
Go to ground.news/operationsroom to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link and get 40% off unlimited access this month only.
ground news? are just piles of rubbish, no exception to any other news company.
Well maybe they work when an force doesnt have a lot of FPV drones. Iraqis werent really good in defending cities too.
@@Bandog23At their most simple an FPV-drone can be an RPG rocket or a mortar bomb duck taped into a quadrocopter. It isn't exactly a high end weapon system and insurgents have used drones as well.
Their big advantage over ATGMs is that they are more affordable, disposable and can be anywhere just like your ordinary RPGs or LAWs or AT4s etc.
When used correctly even an RPG-7 can be sufficient a weapon to destroy IFVs and many types of tanks. There are also more modern warheads for light AT weapons.
Thunder run at dusk in deserts of The Subcontinent: Who will win?
Pakistan: 3000 Infantry supported by 45 Tanks and 2 Artillery Batteries
India: 120 Infantry supported by couple of RCLs and 1 Artillery battery and air support arriving only in the morning after the battle.
This was Battle of Longewala, 1971. Result: Decisive Indian victory. 2 Indian soldiers KIA, two jeep-mounted RCLs and few camels destroyed. 200 Pakistani soldiers KIA, 35 tanks and 500+ vehicles destroyed.
Example of a successful Thunder Run: 16 December 1971, an Indian Army Lt Gen walks into room of a Pakistan Army Lt Gen in the latter's HQ in a provincial capital city that has 26,000 Pakistani troops inside it. The city is under siege by a mere 3000 Indian troops. When the Indian General exits the room, the war is over, the Provincial Capital is now the Capital of a new Nation and the 26,000 Paki troops in the city along with the rest of the 67,000 spread throughout in other cities and countryside, are P.O.W.s.
"Thunder run" sounds cool. "Let's just line up and drive there" not so much.
"Let's make a thunder run to Taco Bell"
That's literally Russias strategy and it has worked many times but they love to say how dumb they are. America calls it a thunder run so therefore it is "Smart" "strategic" "unique" "brave" lol the hypocrisy is insane.
@@timmccarthy9917 "Let's make a thunder run to the toilet after Taco Bell"
@@timmccarthy9917 Lot more 'thunder' AFTER a Taco Bell run than before. 😂
"Thunder run" when it works "suicide charge" when it fails
Everyone wants to do a thunder run until they get into a traffic jam
Well that don't matter to me. Because I Am The Definition of A Thunder Run with Lightning and a Nado Boiii!!!!
Everyone wants to do a thunder run till the thunder is quickly followed by heavy rain.
LOL, yeah, reminds me of a 40km long convoy that was supposed to take a country in 3 days. It's like the wet dream of every US airforce airman come true.
Everyone wants a thunder run until it’s time to do thunder run things.
40 mile long convoy stuck on their way to Kiev comes to mind
I feel like we only lable something as a "thunder run" after its successful. You definitely don't here about every decimated convoy of light vehicles.
Great point
hear*
I think you're muddying the terms, which to be fair has already been done by countless others. The classic thunder runs are an adaption of using heavy armour inside urban areas, where their mobility is often limited and they're therefore usually considered less suited than for open terrain, by sticking to roads and long fire arcs and essentially raiding the city with tanks. It doesn't really make sense to describe any fast advance, potentially with light vehicles such as the Kharkiv Offensive, as a thunder run.
In my house, a 'thunder run' usually happens depending on what we had for dinner! Input equals output!🍑😂
I’ve only ever heard of wagners march on Moscow referred to as a “thunder run” even though it failed miserably.
When a thunder run works, boy does it prove effective. But if it doesn't, oh how the turns have tabled.
High risk, high reward.
@@tremendousbaguette9680 Not when you are under Russian propaganda.. its sad to see so many young and old taken from street.. dying for nothing. In both Chechnya and Ukraine. Remember that one call between russian and chechnyan how they dont want to fight russians, yet for russian it would mean bullet to head..something many judge but wont understand until their whole family is under threats
@@jandys6328Wallahi 🤦🏻♂️ not Chechnyans, *CHECHENS.*
@@jandys6328And before you say it’s semantics, take your semantics and shove them up your ass. 😐
Ah, not hating I just had a funny moment. I read this comment and just thought it was stating something given. “When it works it works, when it doesn’t it doesn’t” 😂
thunder run just means using the fast move button in Wargame Red Dragon
Spend 5,000 points on T-34s, mass select, keybind, navigate to enemy spawn on minimap, fast move, ???, win
Your comment is a perfect example of: "Those who have nothing intelligent to say, but they feel they must say something".
@@slappy8941 It was funny though. You're just a damp towel.
@@slappy8941shut up nerd
@@slappy8941Your comment is the perfect example of: "I didn't get the joke so I must be pretentious"
If you’re fighting an enemy that’s capable of fighting back, “thunder runs” end up as “cooked tankers”
ends up as court martialed and disgraced at home and savaged by your nation's press.
Absolutely, the Russian runs on Kyiv were doomed.
NLAW the lead and trailing vehicles and call in drone corrected artillery.
That's the BIG difference with Baghdad, even if they could knock out lead vehicles, calling in artillery or airstrikes?
Absolutely no chance, they were just small groups of guys with AKs and RPG-7s.
Iraq was more than capable of fighting back.
They just had all their shit destroyed weeks before American boots showed up.
The Flying Columns used by the US Army’s 1st Cavalry Division to breakthrough the Japanese Army to get to Manila in WW2 is another example of a Thunder Run success.
Or like how Japan took the Philippines
@@chiapets2594Absolutely - although the advance down Malaya by the IJA's bicycle troops is like the analog version of the Thunder Run.
That is a fantastic point. Same concept similar results.
@christianlim772 The bicycle troops working with light tanks and truck mounted infantry was a wild gamble! But they completely handcuffed the British and empire forces who lacked motorized transportation to effectively withdrawal. Shit was wild!
@@McTeerZor LMFAO. Hey modern special forces on modern electric mountain bikes is an actual thing. Not sure if you’ve ridden one but it feels unnatural in the best way. First time I ride a $10,000 bike I said “this feels like the future”
Against a skilled or near-peer opponent, Thunder Runs are foolish. Some vehicles will inevitably get disabled and columns stopped. Now you have a 360 degree battle with you exposed and immobile.
Nope a attritional war against a near pier is foolish. Maneuver warfare has worked well since ww2 with the German blitz into France. If you are not good at maneuver warfare you have to fight like the Russians and lose thousands until/if your enemy runs out of manpower. You need air cover, logistics and coordination. If you have all three maneuver warfare is for you. If you don’t then be prepared for a long bloody war.
I'd agree but with the caveat that it's about the difference between forces in the actual engagement (rather than the overall difference between the opposing armies in the whole war). E.g as the video describes, although the Ukrainian military is overall significantly smaller and less powerful than the Russian military, they were able to employ these sorts of tactics very effectively because they were able to concentrate their best forces against underequipped rear units that were not prepared or intended for combat.
I figure that all depends on the terrain. In highly buildup areas that’s definitely the case, but if you got room to manoeuvre it’s a different story.
It doesn't have to be against a weaker enemy. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was against the Russians and yet it was a success.
What makes a thunder run effective is that the people conducting it needs to be competent and have prepared the operation well. If you f u c k up the operation, or if your commander is incompetent, you will all get slaughtered while behind enemy lines.
Also, you're suggesting that compared to Russia, Chechnya was a skilled and near-peer military. Which is hilarious.
@@aaroncabatingan5238To be fair, the Chechens were themselves highly motivated and heavily armed, formerly Soviet conscripts many of whom veterans of the Afghan War
One of the disadvantages of universal conscription is that you train those who can become insurgents
"Ran out of fuel and were captured wandering aimlessly" all this time and they had learned nothing...
You gotta respect your troops first if you want them to learn things!
No respawn - no learning
Learning nothing is a military specialty.
It's different, back in the 90 Russia's economics situation was really, like, REALLY freaking awfully DIRE, there are stories about pilots having to buy fuel with money from their own pockets to make their choppers fly and go to assist troops on the battlefield; the government was so broke it was incapable of providing uniforms to their soldiers, that's why there are many pictures of Russian Soldiers from the first Chechen War wearing a mish-mash of equipment and uniforms with different camo patterns, this also explains the overall lack of motivation and drunkenness among the troops.
Situation in Ukraine it's not similar at all, in fact it couldn't be any more different. Sure they've had setbacks but not as bad as it was during the first Grozny campaign.
The corruption of Russia knows no bounds
A point that can't be overstated and I don't see addressed in the video is the incredibly poor training of Iraqi forces in Baghdad. The RPG-7s, even with the old PG-7V warheads they usually had for them, were capable of perforating all of the rear, a large part of the side, and a very small portion of the frontal arc of the Abrams, and essentially all of the Bradley. The problem was that Iraqi forces simply were not able to use them, and when they did, the vast majority missed. Iraqi forces also were generally unable to organize any kind of cohesive defense and thus became isolated and vulnerable; especially relevant once the US had seized control of the city center.
I think you mean “overstated”
This also applies to Ukraine now - but in a different way. Just a couple days ago I watched a documentary where a Ukrainian soldier talks about where he learned to take out tanks (cant recall if he was a tanker or had an RPG), and he had learnt it... from War Thunder. War Thunder has taught people how to d
@@ASlickNamedPimpback That's really not the same at all. The Iraqi example was that the soldiers were incapable of operating their weapon systems. What the Ukrainian is describing is using War Thunder to learn weak spots etc. on Russian vehicles, but War Thunder doesn't teach how to actually hit those, that would still need to be learned through military training. But that's really just a continuation of simulators and training videos that militaries have been using for nearly a century. Making them into fun games that soldiers also play in their spare time is only an advantage for their learning.
@@fridrekr7510 yeah that's what "in a different way" means
@@ASlickNamedPimpbackit’s completely different altogether, please just let the grown ups talk
I can confirm the bar part. In 1986, stationed at Camp Casey, Korea, my battalion had at least 2 thunder runs. One to the bars of the local town and one a Sunday morning run through the same said town. These were lead by our battalion commander in each case. Good times. 😀😳
"Thunder Run" is like "Blitzkrieg" - popular term coined by media/propaganda, not having any specified meaning in actual military doctrine.
Difference is the U.S. can keep up the supply lines. The Germans outran them….the U.S. is going to make sure NO MATTER WHAT the supply of fuel, bullets, and food is there. That’s either thunder runs are better
Word.
Sure doesn't seem like the vague concept of "media/propaganda" coined the term, considering the conversation about possible sources. Is propaganda to blame for "fish" being a poorly specified word too? 🙄
@@user-to9ge8ii9n You don’t know what you’re talking about. Blitzkrieg wasn’t a word used in German doctrine during wartime. Period.
@@user-to9ge8ii9n Not a single source of this term is releated in any way to military doctrine. In many of them media are mentioned, in some military are mentioned too, but is a way "some officer/general dropped this term". Not "they planned the operation according to thunder run rules". There are no rules, there is no definition.
And "fish" is very clearly defined, biological term. Wtf you tried to mean?
While in Iraq in 05-06 we did Thunder runs on MSR to disrupt IED placements. On some occasions we did stop checks to look at shops for IED material. 1 such run netted 3 pages of bomb making material and munitions. It took EOD, 8-gun trucks and 3 M113 tracks to remove it all. We could not destroy in place as it was too close to needed electrical Infrastructure. Was supposed to be 4 hours, turned into 17 by the time we returned to the Barracks in the FOB.
you were fighting donkeys with ak's mate........
Nothing about that sounds "thunder run" as anyone understands it. Bogged down sweep and clear is about as opposite as you can get outside of trench warfare.
Thanks for cleaning up our mess, though. Cheers!
Would love to see more videos about the wars others countries were involved in.
Thunder run might be successful if some factors are existing
1) air superiority
2) within range of sufficient artillery support
3) enemy C4ISR is disabled
4) sufficient armor assets
5) all bridges and roads are passable
6) no micromanaging from higher ups-ground commander given the initiative
7) ground commanders and troops are eager to fight and given full support
So...not a real war then?
In the 70s, Vietnamese force ignored the main Cambodian army and drove straight into Cambodian cities and won the war against Cambodia
A thunder run requires lack of rear security.
Exactly. It doesn't really work against highly trained, properly equipped, motivated and experienced soldiers.
That’s false rear security is provided by follow on units. Maneuver warfare only works against conventional armies not guerrilla forces. The whole objective of maneuver warfare is to breach the enemy’s defenses and shove an army through. It takes high levels of coordination to achieve. Russians tried it in Ukraine but couldn’t protect resupply lines and didn’t have the coordination of air and land assets to do it well. Ukraine was successful twice in the sumy region and in Kursk. It’s a good tactic used since ww2 with the German blitz into France. If you have the air force and the logistics it can be replicated by any army. People forget that Iraq had a lot of SAMs that the USA Air Force had to take out before it became a permissive environment for maneuver warfare.
I don’t think that’s true. Now it’s not a blitzkrieg where they fortify one main corridor but it’s not just a big scouting party either. It’s something in between that.
@@allenseeallendo5844 the first use of the phrase thunder run was Vietnam. It was used to describe convoy ops on roads. Where you would have mine resistance vehicles driving ahead setting off any land mines and shooting at bushes to dissuade ambushes. During Iraq it was used to describe maneuver warfare/blitzkrieg. That’s when the USA army jammed units threw a gap and if a unit hit contact, follow on units would bypass and continue the momentum. Blitzkrieg is maneuver warfare. It’s just that blitzkrieg is associated with bad people.
@@paul-jr4kc You are right on the definition of thunder run but Blitzkrieg is not modern maneuver warfare. Modern maneuver warfare is strength against weakness the blitzkrieg tactic was strength agains strength.
Operation Compass by General O'Connor is another thunder run example, what was intended as a five-day raid lasted several weeks and resulted in the encirclement of the entire Italian 10th army some 150,000 men, the British Eighth army around 36,000 men captured 133,000 soldiers, 400 tanks and 1,293 artillery guns.
Another example of a strong force doing it against an inferior foe.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 Reading comprehension should be taught better in schools
It's a better Thunder Run than the American one in Iraq
@@human4116History should be taught more. The Italians had more , but they were inferior in all aspects.
@@이이-n4z8y To be fair to Wavell, O'Connor's Commander in Chief was under so much pressure at the time he had to handle 5 separate campaigns.
1. East Africa Campaign (recapture territory and secure the Red Sea)
2. Seize the Levant from the Vichy regime (Syria/Lebanon Campaign)
3. Secure and defend Cyprus
4. Defend Greece/Crete
5. Hold Cyrenecia
That's A LOT of responsibility to have after already dealing with defeats to the Axis powers in France and Norway. You throw in an entire Italian field army invading and you can see that the British were really pushed to their limits of logistics.
Recon by fire, scaring the enemy commanders into making mistakes, temporarily cutting supply lines, (and reopening friendly supply lines), and of course causing infinite mischief against the enemy; yeah I'd say it works. (ps. Kim Olmstead explained Thunder Runs to us in the 1/1 CAV back in 1982)
It absolutely does
And him listing the chechens being "Better armed and trained" than the Iraqis which still had thousands of tanks and RPG's by then is hilarious
I would define a "Thunder Run" more narrowly; I think the Americans' Thunder Run into Baghdad is the classic example. Ukrainian jabs and feints into Russian held territory are, IMO, not Thunder runs.
I really like the Call of Duty Deathscreen like quotes from patreons at the end of the video. Waiting for the eventual "Friendly fire - isn't." - Unknown.
So in short: it's a modern banzai charge and the chances of success depends if the enemy happens to have low quality equipment and/or low morale.
A superlative production. Thank you so much.
Really love this format. Good work!
Great job on this one, guys!
Could one consider Rommel's push of the 7th Panzer division during the Campaign against France as a Thunder Run?
I'd argue Yes, definitely
But Market Garden no. Right? One passable road forced with tanks. But it was unsucessfull, so it is not a thunder run but a fart stop.
@@zeljkokuvara6145 it’s not a Thunder Run because it doesn’t eschew its supply lines.
Not really, as the German army was allocating resources to protect their flanks as well as leaving garrison forces at significant points such as road and rail crossings, villages and captured prisoners and supplies to capture the terrain. In the Baghdad thunder run the Americans did nothing to protect their flanks and the detachments at Larry, Moe, Curley were only expected to secure supply columns and an exfil route if the swing to BIA was halted.
As a layman, I feel like "thunder run" is just an all encompassing term to avoid saying blitzkrieg, for operations that certainly look like blitzkriegs
Reminds me of the marine brass that warned macArthur during the Korean war against pushing to the border of china so fast without letting logistics and infrastructure catch up. Then 150,000 Chinese came at the 30,000 marines not yet properly supported... so many insane stories of the survivors. Can only imagine how many stories will never be heard from the ones that fought hard but got killed to the last man.
Thunder run for me is a YOLO force move left click with ground vehicles passing by enemy held territory and not stoping until exiting said territory.
It is essentially a "drive by" but with a larger force.
A thunder run is when you hit every bar in Itaewon Korea for one beer until you throw up.
If your "thunder run" is just sending large amounts of armored vehicles across open terrain to exploit a weak point in enemy lines, it's not a thunder run. It's simply a well placed armored thrust.
Since we no longer use horses we can no longer call it a calvary raid.
Cavalry forces don't necessarily mean horses. Modern Cavalry regiments switched their horses for tanks but are still Cavalry. (My great uncle was in a British cavalry Regiment stationed in Palestine i 1938. By 1940 they had switched to tanks - his Regiment was still a cavalry Regiment - and still is). Basically the ethos is still the same.
@@Davey-Boydhe’s referring to when they did use horses and attack in a quick manner .
@@Jstar7771 No. He's saying we cannot call it a cavalry raid because there is no horses used. Cavalry is a type of unit. A cavalry unit with tanks can and do use cavalry raids.
@@Davey-Boyd ahh my mistake
You also need enough troops to support a thunder run. Russia attempted to invade Ukraine on 6 different axises during the opening stages of 2022 with only 100k troops. Ukraine simply let them pass and smashed all the rear units which caused the entire convoys to run out of fuel. Ukraine's counter attack in 2022 easily overran the Russias because they had so few soldiers and no defenses in the area. When Ukraine tried again in 2023 they ran into prepared positions and didn't even make it to the first lines of defense.
Crazy timing. I was pondering this exact question during the evening commute yesterday 😮
4:00 US Tanker here (19K4O). It was always my understanding that when we fired main gun rounds the sound at distance mirrored thunder. As Armor units made their way through a battle space it must sound like "rolling thunder." Which in turn made sense to me and others to call a rapidly advancing Armor element a "Thunder Run."
IMO the "Thunder Run", no matter which definition you use for it is just a modernization of traditional cavalry tactics. Heavy cavalry (tanks and mech. inf) concentrate their mass into a charge across a narrow front in hopes of breaking through the frontline and circling around to hit the defenders in their rear. Once an unprotected flank is found or a hole is made in the front by friendly forces light cavalry (Wheeled AFVs, technicals, moto. inf) surge through to exploit it, using their mobility to cause widespread chaos in the enemy rear and avoid getting into pitched battles they are unlikely to win.
Just finished the video from The Operations Room about the 2003 thunder run in Iraq, algorithm doing its thing recommending this video!!!
Video was posted four months ago, “The First Baghdad Thunder Run, Iraq 2003..” For the fellow nerds out there! This channel gave examples, operations room breaks down those examples “ as accurately as possible” along with a whole bunch of other missions!
A collaboration between ~The Intel Report & The Operations Room~ would definitely be awesome!
We are the same person ha :)
@@TheIntelReport OK I’m totally not gonna act like I knew that! I’m baffled how I missed that!
I would really like that you make a video about war in Ukraine. There are countless new topics you could discuss with your excellent analysis
Fog of war is still a thing, it's difficult to speak meaningfully about Ukraine when both sides are concealing their real losses and overestimating the enemy's losses.
@@MarvinRB3nevermind the fact that, when getting into the level of detail TIR would need, a lot of videos about the war in Ukraine get demonitized pretty quickly.
It's too early. Whenever the war ends, historians will spend years separating fact and fiction. There has never been a war quite like it.
@@V.Perez1985give it a few years until the next one pops up. History won’t be suppressed. No matter how controversial
I'm not sure. Kings and Generals tried to do that and the result was inevitably partisan and full of conjecture and propaganda. I think war is one of those topics you need a bit of distance from to be able to talk about in an unbiased and informed way. I can't wait for that time to come regarding Ukraine. Currently it is an example of a war where the emotions and information operations need to be reduced before we can analyse it properly.
Ahh its cool this thunder run thing. Thunder sounds fierce, fast, and violent. Kind of like lightning. And a run is like rapid operation, something you might do in war. Kind of sounds like war.....done in a lightning fast way. Like a lightning war of sorts.....
You might call them Storm Troopers. :D
Williamson Murray was my history prof at OSU in the 1980s. His lectures were incredible.
I'd say the etymology worked out something like this: Blitzkrieg = 'lightning war' ~ 'thunder run'
Interesting watch, thank you!
Interesting to see video footage from the subject of one of your previous videos.
Congratulations from Brazil. Your channel is amazing
When I think of "thunder run" I think of the SAS raid on Sidi Haneish airfield the night of 26 July 1942. It doesn't really fit the current definition but it was a jolly good show.
How many thunder runs do you need to add together until you have a blitzkrieg?
Didn't know anything about Grozny before this, thanks!
One of the stories I read is that the Russians drove a column of tanks straight to the presidential building. The area appeared to be deserted. So the Russians parked their tanks. One in front of the other, thinking, We won, now what? Then a Russian tanker asked a civilian passing by for a cigarette. Who then shot him and immediately the tanks got lit up by RPG's!
@@DeltaEchoGolf lmao
Great historical review of the Military Thunder Run! You left out a great deal about the evolution of the Ukrainian FPV Drone and how this technology on the battlefield has eliminated Russian armor. Any semblance of a (future) Russian thunder run on Ukraine is null and void.
Another excellent and informative video! Can you perhaps look into Indian Army's operation khukri in Sierra Leone? It was similar to operation Barras by the British but is much lesser known.
It seems like thunder runs only work if you could fairly easily win without them.
I think the defining characteristics of a thunder run is to completely disregard any flank protection during a very narrow ("Shwerdpunkt") axis of advance.
I have talked personally with General Tommy Franks about his use of Thunder Runs, and he highly emphasized how they're not applicable in every situation, and are simply just a tool to punch through lines
Perhaps the real Thunder Runs were the friends we made along the way!
Rommels ghost division in France is a good example for thunder runs
"thunder run sounds cool but can only be done against completely inferior forces" is the truth.
Would be interesting to see a more in depth episode on the Grozny tank run.
Need to do a new update on syria-aleppo
I have been a part of Thunder Runs in the Levant a couple of times. Very good, if done right.
Isn't a Thunder Run just a Blitzkrieg?
One such thunder run has been made by Americans during the 2nd World War in the Philippines island of Luzon using a only a convoy of trucks packed with GIs armed with their rifles and grenades. The trucks all had roof-mounted heavy machine guns and a 30 cal. mounted on the passenger side of the truck cabin. Some of the soldiers riding a the back were also armed with machine guns which together with their rifles were fired from the sides. The trucks had their canvas roof taken down exposing the soldiers to the elements. They rolled at near the maximum speed of the trucks as road conditions allowed, nearly bumper to bumper. The soldiers rained concentrated fire at every Japanese checkpoint and troop concentration that they encountered, never stopping and never dismounting their vehicles until they reached their objectives. It sowed widespread terror and confusion among the Japanese.
I wouldn't call Mogadishu a Thunder Run. They didn't use any armor until they were withdrawing. If they had Bradleys or even M113s, they would have much more successful. After the initial crapshow, local forces were gathering for an attack on American forces. The US brought in 4 Abrams and did a gunnery outside the city. Things calmed down immediately and the attacks never came.
I was there during the thunder runs with the 3rd infantry division. There was so much that we got out of it it gave us a better look into the City and also what we might go up against. But at the end of the day they were not prepared on any level to deal with the speed and power that we had. I can honestly say if the majority of the Iraqi units hadn't given up I probably would have been more impressed and things might have been a little harder.
4:59 seems like an excellent FPV of a tank, it almost looks like you're playing Battlefield.
I would nominate the 1979 Hammer's Slammers
Novel series by David Drake as the origin of the term: Thunder Run.
I think it's worth to mention Rommel's shenanigans from 16-17 May 1940 in this context. I would say that was the OG thunder run.
Thunder Run is like cramming all of your tanks, armored vehicles, supporting vehicles and men onto one single road or route and then dash toward your intended destination, that road or route would be occupied or defended by concentration of enemy formation and you will try to neutralize the enemy while dashing to your destination. It only works if the enemy doesn't have heavy armor like MBTs defending the route, also a heavy concentration of Anti tank and anti air missile launchers and also the enemy doesn't have any artillery (anything larger than 81mm mortar) support. Thunder Run formations usually are sitting duck to enemy artillery barrage and smart enemy targets the lead vehicles and vehicles in the middle of the formation. I don't know if the Russian formations were rushing towards Kiev was a thunder run, but Ukrainian artillery supported by drones halted their advance by concentrating heavy artillery barrages on the route they were on.
So, basically; it is an aggressive high-risk high-reward tactic whose success depends on "soft" conditions (battlefield situation) rather than "hard" conditions (material superiority). I would say that it qualifies as a tactic that works, as long as you know when to employ or not employ it.
I think "Blitz" when I hear "Thunder Run", but maybe they're different.
i think size and objectives are probably the main differences between the two but not all that different no.
kinda like a blitz of a kreig
worst defeat in modern russian military history is a competitive list
The intro missed captain america spazzing out😂
It's just another name for 'raid', which is a tactic as old as dust. We just use vehicles now instead of horses.
Outstanding episode, guys. Well done.
Thunder run, from what I understand, is basically a armoured vehicle cavalry charge where you push in and directly out, am I right?
I also heard the term thunder run coming from the Vietnam war era from my grandfather. So im gonna go with the two guys reasoning over the other guy.
The name "Thunder Run" I have long believed is a reference to the Division code "Marne Thunder" which is in reference to the Division's striking power. This tactic has long been employed throughout military history where it is commonly called "The Cavalry Raid" and perhaps among the most successful are Rommell's 7th Panzer Division in France in 1940 where it was running rampant so deep behind Allied lines it earned the nickname "The Ghost Division" because not even the German High Command knew where it was half the time!
I don’t recall any thunder runs in Mogadishu; may I ask what date(s) the(those) occurred.
It's also the WWII Soviet Tactic or Probing Attacks to find weak points to punch an attack into like using a bayonet until it penetrates.
There was a time when Hollywood was going to do a film on Zucchino's book starring Matthew McConaughey and Gerard Butler but it languished in Development Hell and was cancelled. (I guess, no official cancellation was made)
Id appreciate you doing a more in depth video(s) on the First and Second Chechen Wars. Info on the them, especially here on TH-cam, is kinda scarce. 😀
Thunder Run is one of my favorite military history books of all time, along with Generation Kill.
@@cm275 Me too. G Kill as a limited TV series stands up there with Band of Brothers IMO.
'Not A Good Day to Die' is also up there with my fav books
Please make 2018AD Battle of Khasham vid in the future?
AD lol
A thunder run compared here to reconnaissance in force, such as "Faced with orders from nervous superiors to halt on one occasion, he managed to continue his advance by stating he was performing a 'reconnaissance in force'. Guderian's column was famously denied the chance to destroy the Allied forces trapped in the pocket at Dunkirk." The tables turned when the thunder run was airborne, just a bridge too far.
So, basically, there is no such thing as a "Thunder Run" because they encompass too many variables.
Speed, surprise, violence of action, and hope. The reality is a thunder run, recon by fire, armored thrust, light strikes, whatever you want to call it, requires luck to pull off successfully. To me it has always seemed like a Hail Mary approach since it has the potential to make great gains or massive losses.
The greatest thunder run was the Battle of Crater, during the Aden Emergency.
I've just realised the first "thunder run" was in WW2: Monty's Operation Market Garden.
Kinda disappointed in this video, there's a lot of Fudd lore misinformation.
Their RPGs were perfectly capable of penetrating M1 tanks In the sides and rear, a real threat when driving down the street with buildings passing on both sides. That's how an Abrams was lost in the first run, it was hit in the rear by an RPG knocking out the engine.
This was not a "superior armor" thing, Bradley's don't even have any RPG rated armor at all hence later in the GWOT they got massive ERA arrays. Bradley's are not RPG proof or even mildly resistant, it's entirely luck on if the enemy land a good shot. Their armor is rated against 30mm autocannon that's it.
The comparison to failed Russian runs being about RPG quality and armor is basically straight bullshit. You don't need NLAW or Javelin to punch through a tank's side armor as they drive past on the street, without an APS system or heavy ERA skirts all tanks would get taken out by a hit from a 50 year old RPG.
The real deciding factor in successful runs is if the enemy is organized or not. That's basically it, the ones that succeed are against disorganized enemies while the ones that fail are against organized defense.
Fascinating.
Seems like thunder runs are _extremely_ high risk high reward kinda things.
And should really only be used when you have _such_ a force advantage that the battle is already won - but you still have to drive through to make it _undeniable_ to _everyone._
But it's really like sticking your neck into a logistics noose, so you'd better be absolutely certain....
The British LRDG in N. Africa (WW2) did not cause havoc behind enemy lines. Their job was strictly recon. It was the SAS that operated with its mission being to attack and destroy its targets, such as enemy airfields and the German planes on them.
The Chechen fighters in Grozny moved around in small vehicles and targeted the tanks from above or below often firing at the same spots to defeat the reactive armor.
Please consider doing a project on the first battle of Baqubah from June 24, 2004.
I thought a Thunder Run was what you do at a festival when you've eaten something you shouldn't have, and you've got to find an unoccupied portaloo in time?
No, that’s called a “bum rush”.
the idea makes sense but suspect is very risky if not adequately supplied or if the enemy reacts to it rapidly.
it is rather like the good old fashioned cavalry raids in 17th,18th and 19th century where cavalry was used to make rapid advances into enemy territory for reconnaissance and creating confusion.
Spot on. A lot of seemingly modern armoured tactics are just classic cavalry tactics that became viable again once the armour and mobility tanks provided allowed maneuver back on the battlefield.
Otherwise known Shock troops, blitzkrieg, and breakout.
I play chess, and have studied warfare over time. At some point you'll want to break on through, rather than fight a war of attrition.
Mogadishu was not a "thunder run", it was a hastily organized rescue mission that was grossly underarmored and ran into a hornets nest of resistance. While some of the American supply convoys in Vietnam might have been called thunder runs the standard armored convoys, using a variety of uparmored and well armed gun trucks, used similar tactics, moving quickly with support from aerial assets.
Thunder runs, are whatever mobile force projection you need and can do, short of a formal full scale offensive, and its determined by your resources and the desired outcome. So, it can manifest in a lot of different ways.
With the proliferation of drones creating almost infinite ISR, your thunder run will be picked up before you even put for foot on the gas. Then it won't come in so thunderous.
I'd argue that one of the earliest thunder runs was the march from Harfleur to Calais in autumn 1415 - the objective was pure propaganda, to show that a march in force could be conducted through enemy territory, and that the enemy couldn't stop it. Admitedly it was a complete failure as a thunder run, given that it was intercepted, blocked, and forced to fight a pitched battle, but the battle itself was sucessful enough that the overall objective was achieved.
Mogadishu was insertion by air and extraction by ground to keep the enemy guessing. Wildly overcomplicated and ended in failure
They work when the military conducting the operation isn't completely inept, doesn't leave even lowest man in the dark of what the mission is and has support.
Yeah, I think we have to give credit to the the SAS and LRDG for the invention of Thunder Runs.