The roof was an NBCD protection, a feature against Gas & nukes!!! It does protect against blast, but little more!!! That & the M113 were also meant to be light enough for water crossing! Later Orc APC's have the snorkel tube on the rear!!!
@@williamt.sherman2573no it's not. Russian soldiers will always ride on top of their existing IFV and APC until there's new large IFV or APC that have adequate interior space and thick armor like Namer IFV. Current BTR, BMP have really poor thin armor and the BMP especially has very low ceiling that soldiers have to squeeze in and out. Also if the BMP hit a mine, the soldiers could jump away or being thrown off with better chance of survival. Also more eyes on the lookout could spot for hidden enemy especially RPG sneak attack apart from faster immediate deployment.
ALMIGHTY GOD KABIR is the father of all souls that JESUS, MOHAMMAD, GURU NANAK, VEDH was telling in BIBLE, QURAN, GURU GRANTHA SAHEB Iyov 36:5 - Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) See, El is Kabir, and despiseth, not any; He is Kabir in ko’ach lev (strength of understanding). Translation: Supreme God is Kabir, but despises no one. He is Kabir, and firm in his purpose. In all Bible translations, the word Kabir has been translated as "Mighty" or "Great" whereas Kabir is the original name of Supreme God. Conclusion: This verse of the Bible proves that Kabir is Complete God. The one who worships God Kabir by taking initiation from the complete saint sent by him gets complete salvation. After attaining salvation that souls rest in peace in the eternal abode Satlok forever. The throne of God is in Satlok( ETERNAL PLACE) 😊😊❤
My father told me he and friends would always pick the top because how common ambush was in chechnya they would use rpg you would get thrown off and be fine instead of being trapped inside dying from burning to death
@@Bdigital9482 no he said because of ambush they stuffed the vehicles with supplies the vehicles being full of supplies they had to ride on top what I said is my father would ride on top because you would survive getting hit when ambushed because you get thrown off there is difference hince there's a point to what I said
@@TheBrutalDeluxe my bad I didn't see the other comment I thought he was saying to me the video said they road on top because of the increase survivability witch it didn't most likely because you would only know that if you went through it but yea he did say the thing about a 360 view in the video
We often removed the hood from our _Berliet_ Army trucks in out anti guerrilla operations in Portuguese Africa, because we found that once hitting an anti tank mine - and there were millions! - the hood was always projected up and backwards, often killing or wounding the driver and the Officer seated next to him. How the engine and electrical installation coped with rain is beyond me!
@@VladVlad-ul1io I'm Portuguese but fortunately was ten when the war ended. But I did study everything related with the wars in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau. My Uncle did fight in Guinea, which was by far the worse place; he remembers once having to stay more than one week underground, under a continuous rain of B-40 rockets and 82mm mortars. It wasn't funny, and the PAIGC was a very capable adversary. My watchmaker was a Sargent in the _Commandos_ and fought the MPLA in Angola. He was ambushed several times, and also ambushed them back and killed a lot of people. To this day he carries shrapnel in his body. Some areas were as safe as Luanda, others were as dangerous as Vietnam. By the end of the war we were clearly outgunned in Mozambique and Guinea, and our aircraft were being attacked by SAM-7s, Dshk and ZPU-14/4... We lost 8800 men in all three fronts in 13 years of fighting.
A Vietnam veteran neighbor told me the tank or APC crew didn't want the support infantry in their vehicle. It's where they lived and kept their things, including Playboy magazines.
The US has flexible 2qt plastic water bladders you can crush up to reduce the size of so you always have a "full" water bladder. This keeps the water from slushing around when you're moving. Although the regular canteen and the newer South African style square 2qt bottles are hard plastic so you can't do that.
I was wondering if 'slosh' was a possible reason - when I went skiing and winter mountaineering a lot, I used a 2 litre 'pop' (fizzy drink) bottle in a bum bag that I wore under my jacket just above my pelvis at the back. As I drank out of it through the day, I'd squeeze it flatter and flatter so it wouldn't slosh. It was always a nice temperature to drink, and softened the occasional fall!
That's an old practice and american troops did that too in Vietnam war. Old armored troop carriers have very cramped, hot and noisy interiors, so it is not a nice place to stay for several hours. When entering a combat zone they would get inside the vehicle though, to get better protection against firearms and artillery splinters. More modern armored vehicles normally made to be somewhat ambush protected, so they must have interiors with better ergonomics so people can stay inside for a much long time.
Those are the reasons the Australian Bushmaster IMV is well liked. It's air conditioned so you are normally more comfortable inside and well protected from mines machine gun fire and shrapnel. As it has a high profile and lacks heavy armor it is best used supporting troops not attacking enemy strong holds.
Thank you so much for presenting this information without being sensationalist, biased or just downright derogatory. It's just the history and facts, truly a rare breed.
I crewed on various M113 variants. It quickly became apparent that the "armor" of that vehicle was useless against anything more than a rifle and small shell fragments and the vehicle was simply a very effective way to kill a whole squad with one shot. I do however think these lightly armored APCs give much needed protection from air-burst artillery and wonder what the Russian/Ukrainian "tank riders" do when engaged by such?
They think something like this: after the start of the fight, your AFV is no longer your friend, and you need to stay away from it. Interestingly, in Ukraine, it was the Western AFVs that turned out to be the most effective types of weapons, in the sense that they surpass the AFVs of the Soviet bloc
@@casperarms Makes perfect sense. My question is what is the SOP for when traveling on top of the AFV and then coming under artillery fire? Obviously this wasn't much of a concern in A-Stan or Chechnya but seems more common in UKR.The Bradley did good work in the GWOT and I'm not surprised it is doing well (when employed correctly) in UKR. Still, it seems they are still relying on quite a few BMP-2s and BTRs. Thanks for the reply and thanks for providing your insight.
@@wyorca To begin with, the mere presence of soldiers on the roof of the AVF is not prescribed in any way by the instructions. And what they do in practice when attacking artillery, being on the roof of an AFV is a good question, I would be interested to know myself)
I would assume that BMP riders know the risks of artillery fire and that choosing to ride the vics instead of getting inside is a sort of "calculated risk". They know they're less protected, they just judge the benefits of a faster dismount to outweigh the risks of artillery. The other element is that fire support takes a few minutes to call in, even with expert forward observers, command posts and gunners, so ideally, by the time the enemy fire support reaches the riders, they'll be long gone. The issue there being when the vehicle approaches obstacles like minefields or deep ditches, in which the column they're travelling in often will slow down long enough for the last few vehicles to be caught in artilley barrages.
Another thing with the BMP specifically, the rear doors also serve as additional fuel storage. So, in the event the vehicle is hit, the very way out for the passengers could be on fire. This is also why you see the butt pads, riding on top is not very comfortable, so they created the butt pads to help a bit
The doors serve as reserve fuel tanks, not primary tanks. They are used for extended transit and not topped off when going into battle. In circumstances where there does happen to be fuel in the door tanks and the possibility of being shot at, the door tanks are emptied first, before selecting the primary tank. When a BMP is likely to be shot at, the door tanks are likely to be empty. Russians may not think exactly like us, but they are not all insanely stupid.
hence why I said "additional fuel storage", and that's one of the reasons a Ukrainian mechanized platoon I was training told me that they ride on top for, amongst others outlined in the video. Due to hampered/strained logistics and fuel shortages, some vehicle commanders are choosing to keep any additional fuel on board the vehicle in the event the GLOC collapses on portions of the front that see exchanges of territory and or increased fire on logistics routes. @@mikearmstrong8483
If we were in a convoy, we built a sandbag fort on top and sat there. You had a 360 degree view and you could shoot back. It was all about firepower back then. You put as much high speed metal in the air as possible. Mines were another consideration. There was no real armor on anything so you ended up sandbagging floors and sides of everything except solid rock. You can never fill too many sandbags.
This practice is done mostly close to the contact zone for ease of transport and sync, nobody wants to leg it on foot through mud and grass, as soon as the engagement starts all of them disperse
From the days of the old tank rides of WWII, Russia had no APCs at their disposal so riding on tanks into combat was a fast way to have infantry support to those tanks. The tradition of tank riding of their grandfathers and great-grandfather's today lives on, as well with the knowledge that most APC aren't that great to protecting those inside. Vehicle riding isn't that new.
Aside from the few hundred American M3 halftracks from lend-lease and captured German Kfz251s pressed into service, what Russian APCs were around in WWII?@@kanabis134
Casper, you sure is on purpose ? I have carried the flask for 2 years and it squashed itself alot, throwing it into the meshok when empty, forgetting about it, i threw my bag after few hours of walking thru forest and that throw dented it ALOT. The material is very thin, good for weight and price of manufacture but they dent alot that way, especially in the middle
They never had to take fire in one, did they? It's not a matter of statistics then. You want to do something to stop people shooting at you and you can't do much inside a tin can.
When I got in 1988 West Germany we would ride open hatch all the time NEVER closed Ever. Wasn't till the M-2 Bradley's that we had to ride hatch closed or your turret wouldn't Rotate. But didn't ride on top of the M-113 just open hatch. US ARMY 1st Infantry Division 1st Battalion 16th Infantry Regiment Panzer Kaserene, West Germany 1988-1991.
Desant tactics are still widely in use among Eastern European armies especially those that operates Soviet era equipment. However due to the much more spacious, ergonomic and armored Western IFVs like the Bradley, CV-90, Warrior and others, this tactic is not very common and usually results in much better survivability for the troops in a surprise attack like ambush or suicide drone attack. Of course if sit on top like that they defeat the whole point of the IFV/APC which was to protect them, the infantry. Can’t express enough how important it is that the men sit INSIDE the vehicle that is supposed to protect them, sitting outside is not only lazy but DANGEROUS, and the mental gymnastics needed to justify this desant tactic is insane. Reminds me of the Vietnamese armed forces trying to explain to its troop why they don’t have armor so they can “move around faster in the jungle” instead of “we can’t afford to give you all armor so make do”.
If taking small arms fire from a concealed enemy, they're all doomed. I will always remember that picture of a disabled ruzzian BTR in war day one, in Hostomel Aerodrome. There was nearly one dozen dead bodies all piled up in the BTR roof. I bet they had no time not even to take the safety off from their AKs. All dead, with their St.George ribbons as conspicuous as reflective tape. So much hubris.
Yeah, this sounds like such a Russian thing. “AP rounds exist, so you’re not safe inside…. So let’s just fucking sit out there on top of it, completely out in the open” “Brilliant Vasilli, brilliant! I imagine that’s not water in that flask of yours….”
No, not buying it. Armor doesn't stop everything even in a tank. Sandbags were the only thing that made me feel safe. If the bad guys are shooting up your lightly armored vehicle what are you going to do? You can't go out then. Gun ports suck. You're spam in a can waiting for an RPG. If you're already outside, you can do something and believe me you're going to want to do something even if it's just hiding under your helmet in a hole. First thing to think about when the Army tells you to do something? Do I want to do just the opposite? Remember, the rules are made by bureaucrats just like everyplace else.
You mention mines, RPG-hits was also a situation you would not like to experience from the inside. I read that the rule among soviet soldiers in Afghanistan was not even a foot inside the compartment. As long as the RPG didn't hit you directly, you would likely escape with shrapel and bruises. If you was inside you would get horrible burns.
modern antivehicle ranged attacks seek to penetrate to the inside instead of pack high amounts of explosive so this makes sense. explosion gets contained inside and doesn't penetrate out
I think despite danger soldiers do enjoy fresh air on top of their vehicles instead of being cramped uncomfortable inside the armed vehicles. I am a Namibian who grew up during the war in my country. South African soldiers usually rode on top of their armed vehicles during thrir patrol despite ambushes and land mines.
One BTR-80 carries one Squad inside, i.e. about twelve men well squeezed. It has the power to carry several more on the top and this may be advantageous. Actually they are not much more vulnerable than the grunts inside. They are safer from an antitank mine and fire but far more exposed to rifle and MG fire and shrapnel. Facing outwards they have far better awareness in a counter ambush situation. They also risk to fell and be overrun by the vehicle behind, or be abandoned where they fell. Or get pneumonia. In the end of the day it makes no great difference. I believe this stems from the time in WW II where the Soviet Army had no APCs and had to make do with Infantryman riding in Tanks, which has several advantages too.
But of an issue with drones now, but it had to change at some point. Or when enemies have afv’s with 20 mm plus. Seen multiple videos of a squad getting shredded by explosive shells. What isn’t mentioned is that the horrible design of the tiny entry doors on the vehicles ,want they were slow to get out.
in ww2 the soviets would put big handles on their T34 tanks so the red army could ride them into battle (the fact that t34 turret is situated in the front of tank also helps) and hang on to the tank during the ride...back then they didnt have APCs and this is actually a good method to get directly into the action quickly. nowadays i guess they just dont like how small the BMP1 and 2 are, BMP3 should be a bit better but similar since they like to have the exit hatch open in the rear during the ride. and sitting inside and outside might not make that much of a different since its gg anyway with a direct hit on the crew compartment by say an artillery shell....
Yeah, one of the reasons is that troop compartment on both BMPs and BTRs were designed for soldiers that aren`t caring modern body armor and bags. So it`s easier to carry supplies inside while you are moving out of combat.
APCs fail to be AFVs because the entire category is a legacy of the post-WWII nuclear, not conventional, doctrines. That's why APCs anywhere are so easy to destroy. Surviving troops don't realize the best place to be in combat is NOT sitting in a steel (or 5083 aluminum in M113 FOVs case) target but to dismount and disperse. G.I.s rode APC in Southeast Asia for mobility because humans cannot carry all their supplies and weapons so the risk was worth it.
The answer is Afgan and both Chechen campaigns were anti-guerilla wars, with no a) combat line b) heavy weapon from enemy side. Ukranian war is totally diffdrrent, it is "the war of artillery" and we do not see any more troops on the top of armored wehicles
Interesting. I knew some of this. But you filled in a lot of blanks. I have heard some refer to the russian light armor as a mobile coffin/crematoria also.
@@wolfgangemmerich7552 true, however I heard those are only for the extra fuel and they are mostly emptied in case the bmp is going to battle, not sure though?
most of the world use reactive armor to protect their vehicles, russians use russians as their reactive armor. (it is safer for the troops to ride on top of BMP/BTR then inside cuz they offer no anti mine/ied protection)
During the last months fightings in the eto ww2 the US, British & Canadians used ,, Turretless" Sherman Tanks as personel carriers ; nicknamed as ,, Kangagaroos" .
Even if the armor you ride on can survive a mine or an IED - you don't want to be inside when it goes off The cold war APCs used by Russia & America have very little armor on the underside. The shape of the undercarriage focuses the blast energy up & into the hull. The South African Kaspir had the right idea
Ironically your comment has a small truth to it. During the Chechen War, some explosive reactive blocks were found to be missing the explosives in then rendering them ineffective. Crazy. But riding on top been around for Decades.
This video is only partially true. Russian troops do ride on the tops of their vehicles due to the ease of dismounting. However, that's heavily influenced by the fact that the doors on the BTR are horribly placed in the middle of the wheels and have been known to kill/seriously injured soldiers in the past. The older BMP doors are also unpowered, meaning they can be difficult to open in a hurry. In addition, the poor situational awareness of Russian vehicles is in part due to their poor optics and the overall low visibility afforded to vehicle crews. This is something that modern NATO vehicles work very hard to avoid, providing commanders with 360 degree situational awareness provided via a range of optics that are normal light, thermal and night vision. While Russia has touted similar systems, an analysis of vehicles we've seen in Ukraine shows that few Russian vehicles actually have these systems equipped and on many of them the systems were found to be inoperable. This is possibly due to Russian commanders selling off critical systems before the war as optics system components tend to fetch a high price at resale and corruption has long been a bugbear for the Russian military. It may also be due to the normal issues of faulty systems coming from the factory (as anyone from any military can relate to) or, most likely, a combination of factors.
👍👍👍 Interesting and factual. Yep, interiors of the Armoured Troop Carriers can carry lots of additional 'stuff' .. most important 😏. In a potential combat area, I was never comfortable 'cooped up'. I would rather take my chances outside .. better to be shot than burn. 'Flat-ish' water bottles sit more comfortably on the belt / body. In the hot Southern African Bush, NOBODY .. with any common sense, 'gyppo'd their bottles to carry less water.
The answer is much simpler. Russian APCs are just horribly designed. Aside from being internally really small and cramped to host troops inside(look at any BMP that are built probably for dwarves), all Soviet APCs often have tiny doors which are often located in weird places(look up BTR) and a hit on APC by a medium size projectile often leads to the doors getting stuck, trapping the troops inside. Russians ride on top of APCs out of necessity and not for some really smart reason, and they take heavy casualties doing that. But hey, have commanders in Russia ever cared about that? People are disposable in their military doctrine and broader state philosophy lol
@@caturtrisnantoaji679 Going to Crimea without Air and Artillery superiority was a dumb idea from the very beginning. Mud, or mowing armor has nothing to do with that. Though in mud season both sides are struggling to move even on roads not to mention fields.
The funny thing: initially all the APC's were open top nowadays almost all of them have a roof so that soldiers can comfortably sit on top of it
The roof was to protect against air bursts from artillery.
@@ptonpcthis was a joke.
@@ptonpc I know, it was a joke 🤣
The roof was an NBCD protection, a feature against Gas & nukes!!! It does protect against blast, but little more!!! That & the M113 were also meant to be light enough for water crossing! Later Orc APC's have the snorkel tube on the rear!!!
@@ptonpcand aircraft
Truly a battle wagon for the ages. There's something so photogenic of a bunch of soldiers atop an APC.
Sardines?
@@GHST995 no joe, its the VDV way
@@williamt.sherman2573 says the civil war general....
@@williamt.sherman2573no it's not. Russian soldiers will always ride on top of their existing IFV and APC until there's new large IFV or APC that have adequate interior space and thick armor like Namer IFV. Current BTR, BMP have really poor thin armor and the BMP especially has very low ceiling that soldiers have to squeeze in and out. Also if the BMP hit a mine, the soldiers could jump away or being thrown off with better chance of survival. Also more eyes on the lookout could spot for hidden enemy especially RPG sneak attack apart from faster immediate deployment.
ALMIGHTY GOD KABIR is the father of all souls that JESUS, MOHAMMAD, GURU NANAK, VEDH was telling in BIBLE, QURAN, GURU GRANTHA SAHEB
Iyov 36:5 - Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
See, El is Kabir, and despiseth, not any; He is Kabir in ko’ach lev (strength of understanding).
Translation: Supreme God is Kabir, but despises no one. He is Kabir, and firm in his purpose.
In all Bible translations, the word Kabir has been translated as "Mighty" or "Great" whereas Kabir is the original name of Supreme God.
Conclusion: This verse of the Bible proves that Kabir is Complete God. The one who worships God Kabir by taking initiation from the complete saint sent by him gets complete salvation. After attaining salvation that souls rest in peace in the eternal abode Satlok forever. The throne of God is in Satlok( ETERNAL PLACE) 😊😊❤
My father told me he and friends would always pick the top because how common ambush was in chechnya they would use rpg you would get thrown off and be fine instead of being trapped inside dying from burning to death
Also a higher chance of spotting the ambush before it happens, I assume.
That’s exactly what the guy said in the video. Why repeat?
@@Bdigital9482 no he said because of ambush they stuffed the vehicles with supplies the vehicles being full of supplies they had to ride on top what I said is my father would ride on top because you would survive getting hit when ambushed because you get thrown off there is difference hince there's a point to what I said
@@SlavCo-INC Yes, before he said that he said it gave the men on top a 360 degree view around them. 1:33 Digital was replying to huntclan by the way.
@@TheBrutalDeluxe my bad I didn't see the other comment I thought he was saying to me the video said they road on top because of the increase survivability witch it didn't most likely because you would only know that if you went through it but yea he did say the thing about a 360 view in the video
US troops rode on top of M113s in Vietnam , a lot of the time , because the 113 was vulnerable to mines .
We often removed the hood from our _Berliet_ Army trucks in out anti guerrilla operations in Portuguese Africa, because we found that once hitting an anti tank mine - and there were millions! - the hood was always projected up and backwards, often killing or wounding the driver and the Officer seated next to him. How the engine and electrical installation coped with rain is beyond me!
@@duartesimoes508 Are you portuguese who fought in Angola?
@@VladVlad-ul1io I'm Portuguese but fortunately was ten when the war ended. But I did study everything related with the wars in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau. My Uncle did fight in Guinea, which was by far the worse place; he remembers once having to stay more than one week underground, under a continuous rain of B-40 rockets and 82mm mortars. It wasn't funny, and the PAIGC was a very capable adversary.
My watchmaker was a Sargent in the _Commandos_ and fought the MPLA in Angola. He was ambushed several times, and also ambushed them back and killed a lot of people. To this day he carries shrapnel in his body. Some areas were as safe as Luanda, others were as dangerous as Vietnam. By the end of the war we were clearly outgunned in Mozambique and Guinea, and our aircraft were being attacked by SAM-7s, Dshk and ZPU-14/4...
We lost 8800 men in all three fronts in 13 years of fighting.
A Vietnam veteran neighbor told me the tank or APC crew didn't want the support infantry in their vehicle. It's where they lived and kept their things, including Playboy magazines.
@@jameshudkins2210Kind of weird for an armored personnel carrier driver to hate carrying personnel.
The US has flexible 2qt plastic water bladders you can crush up to reduce the size of so you always have a "full" water bladder. This keeps the water from slushing around when you're moving. Although the regular canteen and the newer South African style square 2qt bottles are hard plastic so you can't do that.
I was wondering if 'slosh' was a possible reason - when I went skiing and winter mountaineering a lot, I used a 2 litre 'pop' (fizzy drink) bottle in a bum bag that I wore under my jacket just above my pelvis at the back. As I drank out of it through the day, I'd squeeze it flatter and flatter so it wouldn't slosh. It was always a nice temperature to drink, and softened the occasional fall!
Plastic canteens make water truly horrible. Aluminium canteens are great.
Roof riding goes back to the Afghan war, carried on with the first and second Chechen wars. If something is not broke, don’t fix it! 😂
It was also done during WW2.
@@Spaibothat was with tanks, so they couldn’t get inside to begin with
No you can see plenty of pictures of australian troops riding on the rooves of apcs in vietnam for example.
@@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 these aren’t Australian troops
Soviet/Russian troops have no clue that it's a transport.
They still think it's a some sort of cabriolet...
That's an old practice and american troops did that too in Vietnam war. Old armored troop carriers have very cramped, hot and noisy interiors, so it is not a nice place to stay for several hours. When entering a combat zone they would get inside the vehicle though, to get better protection against firearms and artillery splinters.
More modern armored vehicles normally made to be somewhat ambush protected, so they must have interiors with better ergonomics so people can stay inside for a much long time.
Those are the reasons the Australian Bushmaster IMV is well liked. It's air conditioned so you are normally more comfortable inside and well protected from mines machine gun fire and shrapnel. As it has a high profile and lacks heavy armor it is best used supporting troops not attacking enemy strong holds.
Most APCs have a common nickname : Grunt Coffin.
Thank you so much for presenting this information without being sensationalist, biased or just downright derogatory. It's just the history and facts, truly a rare breed.
I crewed on various M113 variants. It quickly became apparent that the "armor" of that vehicle was useless against anything more than a rifle and small shell fragments and the vehicle was simply a very effective way to kill a whole squad with one shot. I do however think these lightly armored APCs give much needed protection from air-burst artillery and wonder what the Russian/Ukrainian "tank riders" do when engaged by such?
They think something like this: after the start of the fight, your AFV is no longer your friend, and you need to stay away from it. Interestingly, in Ukraine, it was the Western AFVs that turned out to be the most effective types of weapons, in the sense that they surpass the AFVs of the Soviet bloc
@@casperarms Makes perfect sense. My question is what is the SOP for when traveling on top of the AFV and then coming under artillery fire? Obviously this wasn't much of a concern in A-Stan or Chechnya but seems more common in UKR.The Bradley did good work in the GWOT and I'm not surprised it is doing well (when employed correctly) in UKR. Still, it seems they are still relying on quite a few BMP-2s and BTRs. Thanks for the reply and thanks for providing your insight.
@@wyorca To begin with, the mere presence of soldiers on the roof of the AVF is not prescribed in any way by the instructions. And what they do in practice when attacking artillery, being on the roof of an AFV is a good question, I would be interested to know myself)
I would assume that BMP riders know the risks of artillery fire and that choosing to ride the vics instead of getting inside is a sort of "calculated risk". They know they're less protected, they just judge the benefits of a faster dismount to outweigh the risks of artillery. The other element is that fire support takes a few minutes to call in, even with expert forward observers, command posts and gunners, so ideally, by the time the enemy fire support reaches the riders, they'll be long gone. The issue there being when the vehicle approaches obstacles like minefields or deep ditches, in which the column they're travelling in often will slow down long enough for the last few vehicles to be caught in artilley barrages.
Russian bmds (airborne apcs) get penned by 50 cal machineguns even from front
Another thing with the BMP specifically, the rear doors also serve as additional fuel storage. So, in the event the vehicle is hit, the very way out for the passengers could be on fire. This is also why you see the butt pads, riding on top is not very comfortable, so they created the butt pads to help a bit
The doors serve as reserve fuel tanks, not primary tanks. They are used for extended transit and not topped off when going into battle. In circumstances where there does happen to be fuel in the door tanks and the possibility of being shot at, the door tanks are emptied first, before selecting the primary tank.
When a BMP is likely to be shot at, the door tanks are likely to be empty. Russians may not think exactly like us, but they are not all insanely stupid.
hence why I said "additional fuel storage", and that's one of the reasons a Ukrainian mechanized platoon I was training told me that they ride on top for, amongst others outlined in the video. Due to hampered/strained logistics and fuel shortages, some vehicle commanders are choosing to keep any additional fuel on board the vehicle in the event the GLOC collapses on portions of the front that see exchanges of territory and or increased fire on logistics routes. @@mikearmstrong8483
If we were in a convoy, we built a sandbag fort on top and sat there. You had a 360 degree view and you could shoot back. It was all about firepower back then. You put as much high speed metal in the air as possible. Mines were another consideration. There was no real armor on anything so you ended up sandbagging floors and sides of everything except solid rock. You can never fill too many sandbags.
This practice is done mostly close to the contact zone for ease of transport and sync, nobody wants to leg it on foot through mud and grass, as soon as the engagement starts all of them disperse
Finally a channel dedicated to answering these questions about the RU army
From the days of the old tank rides of WWII, Russia had no APCs at their disposal so riding on tanks into combat was a fast way to have infantry support to those tanks. The tradition of tank riding of their grandfathers and great-grandfather's today lives on, as well with the knowledge that most APC aren't that great to protecting those inside.
Vehicle riding isn't that new.
No the first apcs were made from modified m3 grants. The ussr did not develop a apc untill the 1950s.pf@@OSTemli
@OSTemli the _Wehrmacht_ was.
They definitely had apcs during ww2
The tradition itself may live on, but the soldiers themselves won't live for very long... 😬 ⚰⚰⚰⚰⚰⚰
Aside from the few hundred American M3 halftracks from lend-lease and captured German Kfz251s pressed into service, what Russian APCs were around in WWII?@@kanabis134
Because it looks hard af
Casper, you sure is on purpose ? I have carried the flask for 2 years and it squashed itself alot, throwing it into the meshok when empty, forgetting about it, i threw my bag after few hours of walking thru forest and that throw dented it ALOT. The material is very thin, good for weight and price of manufacture but they dent alot that way, especially in the middle
When i joined the US Army in 1982, the Vietnam Vets taught us to ride in the roof of the M113.
But the Safety Nazi's eliminated that practice by 1985.
They never had to take fire in one, did they? It's not a matter of statistics then. You want to do something to stop people shooting at you and you can't do much inside a tin can.
When I got in 1988 West Germany we would ride open hatch all the time NEVER closed Ever. Wasn't till the M-2 Bradley's that we had to ride hatch closed or your turret wouldn't Rotate. But didn't ride on top of the M-113 just open hatch. US ARMY 1st Infantry Division 1st Battalion 16th Infantry Regiment Panzer Kaserene, West Germany 1988-1991.
Desant tactics are still widely in use among Eastern European armies especially those that operates Soviet era equipment. However due to the much more spacious, ergonomic and armored Western IFVs like the Bradley, CV-90, Warrior and others, this tactic is not very common and usually results in much better survivability for the troops in a surprise attack like ambush or suicide drone attack.
Of course if sit on top like that they defeat the whole point of the IFV/APC which was to protect them, the infantry.
Can’t express enough how important it is that the men sit INSIDE the vehicle that is supposed to protect them, sitting outside is not only lazy but DANGEROUS, and the mental gymnastics needed to justify this desant tactic is insane. Reminds me of the Vietnamese armed forces trying to explain to its troop why they don’t have armor so they can “move around faster in the jungle” instead of “we can’t afford to give you all armor so make do”.
If taking small arms fire from a concealed enemy, they're all doomed. I will always remember that picture of a disabled ruzzian BTR in war day one, in Hostomel Aerodrome. There was nearly one dozen dead bodies all piled up in the BTR roof. I bet they had no time not even to take the safety off from their AKs. All dead, with their St.George ribbons as conspicuous as reflective tape. So much hubris.
Yeah, this sounds like such a Russian thing.
“AP rounds exist, so you’re not safe inside…. So let’s just fucking sit out there on top of it, completely out in the open”
“Brilliant Vasilli, brilliant! I imagine that’s not water in that flask of yours….”
I mean armor still doesent move that fast in jungle so thats partially right
Don't speculate too much gonna hurt your pea brain.
No, not buying it. Armor doesn't stop everything even in a tank. Sandbags were the only thing that made me feel safe. If the bad guys are shooting up your lightly armored vehicle what are you going to do? You can't go out then. Gun ports suck. You're spam in a can waiting for an RPG. If you're already outside, you can do something and believe me you're going to want to do something even if it's just hiding under your helmet in a hole. First thing to think about when the Army tells you to do something? Do I want to do just the opposite? Remember, the rules are made by bureaucrats just like everyplace else.
You mention mines, RPG-hits was also a situation you would not like to experience from the inside. I read that the rule among soviet soldiers in Afghanistan was not even a foot inside the compartment. As long as the RPG didn't hit you directly, you would likely escape with shrapel and bruises. If you was inside you would get horrible burns.
modern antivehicle ranged attacks seek to penetrate to the inside instead of pack high amounts of explosive so this makes sense. explosion gets contained inside and doesn't penetrate out
2:28 OMG. I can't imagine myself in this situation. That picture shows that war is so scary
I think despite danger soldiers do enjoy fresh air on top of their vehicles instead of being cramped uncomfortable inside the armed vehicles. I am a Namibian who grew up during the war in my country. South African soldiers usually rode on top of their armed vehicles during thrir patrol despite ambushes and land mines.
One BTR-80 carries one Squad inside, i.e. about twelve men well squeezed. It has the power to carry several more on the top and this may be advantageous. Actually they are not much more vulnerable than the grunts inside. They are safer from an antitank mine and fire but far more exposed to rifle and MG fire and shrapnel. Facing outwards they have far better awareness in a counter ambush situation. They also risk to fell and be overrun by the vehicle behind, or be abandoned where they fell. Or get pneumonia. In the end of the day it makes no great difference. I believe this stems from the time in WW II where the Soviet Army had no APCs and had to make do with Infantryman riding in Tanks, which has several advantages too.
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
The doors on Russian APC/AFV's are incredibly small!
Getting the squad out in a hurry will get the vehicle destroyed while in loiter mode!!!
... and the ,, reardoors " are the Fuelcans !
@@wolfgangemmerich7552 I found that hilarious as well! ;p
its called reactive armor ofc....if one gets hit the group reacts!
US troops sat on top of the M113 in Vietnam. Mines were a problem there too.
But of an issue with drones now, but it had to change at some point. Or when enemies have afv’s with 20 mm plus. Seen multiple videos of a squad getting shredded by explosive shells. What isn’t mentioned is that the horrible design of the tiny entry doors on the vehicles ,want they were slow to get out.
They ride on top to avoid being inside when mines brew up the vehicle.
US troops did this in Vietnam.
Some canteens are collapsable like the US 2 QT
the 4 wheeled vehicle at 2:27, what's it called? thx
BRDM-2
@@crimson7692thank you
This is great content. Thank you
You figure squashed flasks a major concern?!
They ride on top of the AFV in case they hit a landmine. We did same in VietNam.
The only russian canteen worth a shit is the VDV one, the other one from world war two only carries about 700ml of water
because there is a chance for them to bail. They can't quickly do that if they chill within the APC.
Brilliant, thank you.
So when they hear that anti tank missile coming they can jump off and run
That thing on barrel is not water flask. It is used flare. Protects barrel from dust and mud.
I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about)
@@casperarms Russians protected their guns in Afghanistan using empty flares.
in ww2 the soviets would put big handles on their T34 tanks so the red army could ride them into battle (the fact that t34 turret is situated in the front of tank also helps) and hang on to the tank during the ride...back then they didnt have APCs and this is actually a good method to get directly into the action quickly. nowadays i guess they just dont like how small the BMP1 and 2 are, BMP3 should be a bit better but similar since they like to have the exit hatch open in the rear during the ride. and sitting inside and outside might not make that much of a different since its gg anyway with a direct hit on the crew compartment by say an artillery shell....
Yeah, one of the reasons is that troop compartment on both BMPs and BTRs were designed for soldiers that aren`t caring modern body armor and bags. So it`s easier to carry supplies inside while you are moving out of combat.
APCs fail to be AFVs because the entire category is a legacy of the post-WWII nuclear, not conventional, doctrines. That's why APCs anywhere are so easy to destroy.
Surviving troops don't realize the best place to be in combat is NOT sitting in a steel (or 5083 aluminum in M113 FOVs case) target but to dismount and disperse.
G.I.s rode APC in Southeast Asia for mobility because humans cannot carry all their supplies and weapons so the risk was worth it.
Simple army rounds? Like steel-cored Chinese surplus AK-47 rounds?
great video, very informative
The answer is Afgan and both Chechen campaigns were anti-guerilla wars, with no a) combat line b) heavy weapon from enemy side.
Ukranian war is totally diffdrrent, it is "the war of artillery" and we do not see any more troops on the top of armored wehicles
The Russian Army it is just a wave of corps (just numbers,).. my opinion..!
Same reason as they have done since anti tank mines came out.
Russia is so big, what do you want them to march?
Interesting. I knew some of this. But you filled in a lot of blanks. I have heard some refer to the russian light armor as a mobile coffin/crematoria also.
It could also conceal the number of troops. An opponent can't tell if the BMP is full or not.
Do you know & where the BMP`s Fuelstorage is placed ? Imagine you are sitting in a BMP with fuelcans used as reardoors.
@@wolfgangemmerich7552 true, however I heard those are only for the extra fuel and they are mostly emptied in case the bmp is going to battle, not sure though?
most of the world use reactive armor to protect their vehicles, russians use russians as their reactive armor. (it is safer for the troops to ride on top of BMP/BTR then inside cuz they offer no anti mine/ied protection)
Roof riding goes back to WW II, when Russian soldiers rode on tank roofs.
I think everyone did it.
The USA soldiers on Vietnam stay up of their APC for the temperature of the weather (Vietnam have Tropical weather)..
THE MEN ALL OVER THE TOP OF THE TANK WERE MAYBE FOR ADDED TRACK TRACTION????
And now with top attack anti tank missiles like the tow, they kill everybody on top with a bit of luck.
Because it looks cool
They refused to pay for the ticket and ride inside, sitting in comfy chairs
Because you get deaf at the inside when an explosion bangs on the outside
Well their AFVs are literal death traps, I wouldn't want to ride _inside_ one either
American soldiers did the same thing in Vietnam riding on top of their M-113 APC’s.
This is literally what is in my video))
@@casperarms I know I saw the video.
During the last months fightings in the eto ww2 the US, British & Canadians used ,, Turretless" Sherman Tanks as personel carriers ; nicknamed as ,, Kangagaroos" .
That Javelyn’s gonna turn them into mincemeat
Sitting on top makes them extremely exposed to drones however.
Even if the armor you ride on can survive a mine or an IED - you don't want to be inside when it goes off
The cold war APCs used by Russia & America have very little armor on the underside. The shape of the undercarriage focuses the blast energy up & into the hull.
The South African Kaspir had the right idea
The reason is simple. Those vehicles were designed for an average Soviet soldier in the '70, short, thin and with no bulky armour whatsoever.
They rode on top back then too though.
"Bulky armor" still exists in 2024? Lmao.
nice video!
Thanks)
Human reactive armor is way cheaper than explosive reactive armor - and Russia do got a lot of people.
Ironically your comment has a small truth to it. During the Chechen War, some explosive reactive blocks were found to be missing the explosives in then rendering them ineffective. Crazy. But riding on top been around for Decades.
Human reactive armor
Problem now is drone attacks from above
This video is only partially true. Russian troops do ride on the tops of their vehicles due to the ease of dismounting. However, that's heavily influenced by the fact that the doors on the BTR are horribly placed in the middle of the wheels and have been known to kill/seriously injured soldiers in the past. The older BMP doors are also unpowered, meaning they can be difficult to open in a hurry. In addition, the poor situational awareness of Russian vehicles is in part due to their poor optics and the overall low visibility afforded to vehicle crews. This is something that modern NATO vehicles work very hard to avoid, providing commanders with 360 degree situational awareness provided via a range of optics that are normal light, thermal and night vision. While Russia has touted similar systems, an analysis of vehicles we've seen in Ukraine shows that few Russian vehicles actually have these systems equipped and on many of them the systems were found to be inoperable. This is possibly due to Russian commanders selling off critical systems before the war as optics system components tend to fetch a high price at resale and corruption has long been a bugbear for the Russian military. It may also be due to the normal issues of faulty systems coming from the factory (as anyone from any military can relate to) or, most likely, a combination of factors.
👍👍👍
Interesting and factual. Yep, interiors of the Armoured Troop Carriers can carry lots of additional 'stuff' .. most important 😏.
In a potential combat area, I was never comfortable 'cooped up'. I would rather take my chances outside .. better to be shot than burn.
'Flat-ish' water bottles sit more comfortably on the belt / body. In the hot Southern African Bush, NOBODY .. with any common sense, 'gyppo'd their bottles to carry less water.
simple answer : it beats walking
The main killer of the iron horse is mines and rpg, so why trap yourself in that tin can.
Where are you from man?
FPV drone says hello to them
Safer outside than put-in !
Same way the English opened up their jeeps in Ireland.
Should have just brought back half tracks
Why ride? Because who the fuck wants to walk 23 kilometers?
I thought they kept troops on top to protect tanks and armored vehicles.
That's messed up but Funny😂
Forgot to mention that riding inside sucks.
Fear of Drones
Extra armor against loitering munitions.
Troops are cheap, vehicles are harder to replace.
reminds me of WW2 photos.
Russian soldiers sat on the engine deck of t-34's in WW2!
The answer is much simpler. Russian APCs are just horribly designed. Aside from being internally really small and cramped to host troops inside(look at any BMP that are built probably for dwarves), all Soviet APCs often have tiny doors which are often located in weird places(look up BTR) and a hit on APC by a medium size projectile often leads to the doors getting stuck, trapping the troops inside.
Russians ride on top of APCs out of necessity and not for some really smart reason, and they take heavy casualties doing that. But hey, have commanders in Russia ever cared about that? People are disposable in their military doctrine and broader state philosophy lol
its the special body armor for special operations 😂
They are like a half cat, have 3 life to live.
Also russians like to fly on tank turrets in space...
Cuz its cheaper than reactive armor?
😂😂😂
Russia really need to built APC like bradley, something that use REAL armor
in russian mud, too much armor kill you...
@@caturtrisnantoaji679Bradley's in the Ukrainian mud are doing just fine
@@Nathan-Roman when weather bad(rainy, or snow melt), ukraine relocate their armor to better area(urban)..that hinder their plan to go to crimea...
@@caturtrisnantoaji679 Going to Crimea without Air and Artillery superiority was a dumb idea from the very beginning. Mud, or mowing armor has nothing to do with that. Though in mud season both sides are struggling to move even on roads not to mention fields.
Cause they make better targets...
Tank riders are old Russian TRADITION! At least from the beginning of the Winter War.
also: the driver farted
Maybe they just want to get it over with.
Russians might as well use pickup trucks then
WW2 nostalgia
That's easy . So they don't have to walk .
*infantry protection*
Why do westerners make videos over complicating simple things
Cause they have run out of body bags
You don't have to search for the flask if you fire it straight up in the air. Evidently, the video maker is scrub.
Flesh armor.
No armor is best armor. If youre on the roof at least you can escape