What is old is new. On 12 September, Russian journalist Alexander Kots shared a photograph of a recoilless gun mounted on a drone on his Kotsnews telegram channel channel. The idea certainly isn’t a new one. The use of a recoilless gun on aerial platforms dates back to the 1910s with the development of a series of recoilless guns by Commander Cleland Davis (US Navy) which were experimentally mounted on a variety of early military aircraft.
While the Davis Gun was abandoned shortly after the end of World War One, it was influential and its principle of operation was utilised in later recoilless guns. Essentially it worked along the premise of Newton’s Third Law of Motion, that all things have an equal and opposite reaction – as such Davis connected two guns back to back, with the backwards-facing gun firing a counter-weight.
Fast-forward over a century and the concepts is again revisited in miniature and mounted on a quadcopter drone. Kots described the recoilless gun in his post [machine translated]: “Large pellets are loaded in the front, and an equal counterweight is loaded in the back. Thus, a lightweight drone becomes capable of hitting small air targets without the risk of falling into a tailspin from the recoil.” The image shared appears to show a smoothbore weapon attached to the drone with plumbing clamps with several electrical wires running to it, likely for ignition of the charge.
The developer of the drone, the chief engineer of Russian company BRT, shared Kots’ post commenting [machine translated]: “Our BUBUKA hit the news. I made it, taught it to shoot, and gave it to our FPV players… – I don’t fly myself, it’s not my thing,” lamenting that “since then – no response, no greetings. I’m not even sure they tried to test it.”
The engineer followed this up by posting footage of a test of the recoilless gun, explaining [machine translated]:
“The principle is fully functional. And it was used more than 100 years ago, on plywood planes. On the FPV, as I see it, for its use, you need to solve 2 main problems: – – aiming at the target. – correct ballistics of shot ammunition (dispersion, mass of shot charge, etc.).”
In the video the engineer exclaims that ‘both ways [fired] just fine’ with the grass in front of both barrels clearly impacted by the test. It’s unclear what kind of shot the recoilless gun is designed to use likely a buckshot-style round able to spread on leaving the barrel and sufficiently damage a drone to down it.
It appears that the ‘Bubuka’ may not yet have been tested or used in the field but it is an interesting design mitigating one of the major factors of firing a weapon from a drone – recoil. However, the recoilless gun has a number of drawbacks too. While the gun allows the drone to engage another drone kinetically without having to fly into it, the gun only has one shot which magnifies the difficulty of scoring a hit when aiming is difficult. It’s clear, however, that the evolution of drone warfare in Ukraine is continuing at pace with recent efforts by both sides to mount AK-pattern rifles to drones and the increasing number of drone vs drone engagements occurring.
Update 28/12/24: It appears that a Ukrainian team has also developed a recoilless gun-armed drone. Several videos were shared of an FPV drone equipped with a pair of barrels which are likely electrically initiated and have counter-weight charges as the earlier Russian drone did. The videos show a series of successful drone vs drone engagements.
This Ukrainian footage of an drone armed with a pair of "shotgun" barrels is intriguing. We'll know more if a photo of the drone appears but it may be using a recoilless system, with a counterweight charge. 1/ pic.twitter.com/GLOypaojNG
— Matthew Moss | Historical Firearms (@historicfirearm) December 28, 2024
Update – 3/1/25: A telegram associated with BRT has posted additional photos of their recoilless gun drone developed in early 2024 and expressed Thier frustration that a similar Ukrainian drone has had operational success.
I’m excited to share this collaboration with firearms researcher Deni Almaskhanov, of Just Guns. Deni had the chance to attend the Army 2024 exposition in Moscow earlier this month. He has very kindly shared some great video and information about the latest version of Kalashnikov Concern’s RPL-20 light machine gun.
The RPL-20 at ARMY 2024 (Deni Almaskhanov)
The Russian armed forces haven’t used belt-fed LMGs since 1959 when the RPD was replaced by the RPK. The RPK-74M has been considered obsolescent since 2011. Kalashnikov Concern began exploring an RPK replacement in the 2010s with the RPK-16. The RPK-16 failed to satisfy the military due to issues with overheating and the reliability of its 96-rounds drum magazines. The RPL is a direct follow-up to the ‘Kipchak’ program during which the now extremely rare RPK-16 was trialed.
The RPL-20 was initially unveiled four years ago during the Army 2020 exposition but was stated to still be in development.
RPL-20 in its 2023 iteration (Kalashnikov Concern)
The RPL is a belt-fed light machine gun, chambered in 5.45×39mm, it feeds from metal non-disintegrating belts, carried in 100- or 200-rounds textile boxes, with a quick attach/detach mechanism. It fires from an open bolt but does not have a quick change barrel, although it is possible to replace the barrel during the disassembly of the weapon. This aligns the RPL with the simultaneously emerging Western concept of the light assault machine guns like the FN EVOLYS and the Knight’s Armament LAMG amongst others.
Russian patent diagram for the RPL-20 (Russian Patent Office)
Deni explains that the lower receiver is “fixed with a pin in the front end and a latch in the rear end… the latch is pressed, unlocking the pivoting movement of the lower receiver. Such a design was chosen to address the common requirement for all the modern firearms – a continuous top Picatinny rail that would allow for reliable mounting of accessories and aiming devices.” The receiver can be opened this way to reload, however, a faster and more expedient method of reloading the RPL-20 is to simply push a new belt through the firearm’s feed block and pulling the starter tab until the first round seats.
The RPL-20’s pistol grip and selector (Deni Almaskhanov)
The RPL-20 has a 2-position adjustable gas block mounted onto the barrel. Kalsashnikov Concern’s chief-designer Sergey Urzhumtsev describes the action of the machine gun as ‘an upside-down PKM’, but there are some important mechanical differences, such as the fact that the RPL-20 uses a push-through belt, unlike the PKM which pulls each cartridge backwards from the belt before chambering it.
On the right side of the receiver, the RPL has a non-reciprocating T-shaped charging handle mounted onto a strong coil spring that is intended to prevent the charging handle from bending the weapon’s receiver or breaking the handle in the event of a heavy strike against it.
There are selector switches on both the left and right sides of the receiver only and the weapon fires in fully automatic fire only. The pistol grip and the buttstock are the same as those being also used on the 2nd and 3rd generations of the AK-12. The buttstock differs slightly in that it has an adjustable cheek rest and a foldable shoulder rest that can be flipped up over the shoulder. The gun on display was also seen with a cant-adjustable vertical front grip attached to the 6 o’clock rail.
The RPL-20’s charging handle (Deni Almaskhanov)
There is a small Picatinny rail at the muzzle end of the barrel intended for attaching the bipod in the forward position. With an alternate position on the handguard giving the user some tactical flexibility. The handguard is not a separate piece but a continuation of the upper receiver and it is connected to the barrel via the gas block. The weapon has a threaded muzzle device to allow the fitting of suppressors.
There are some notable external changes from the earlier iteration of the RPL. The weapon now has fixed front and rear sight protectors rather than folding iron sights. It also has some changes to the receiver geometry with the receiver no longer having a step but a slope ahead of the breech and more, angled, ventilation holes in the receiver.
RPL-20 as introduced in 2020 (Kalashnikov Concern)
The RPL-20 is reportedly undergoing state trials this year, so its remains to be seen if the light assault machine gun concept is one which the Russian MoD wishes to pursue. The nature of the war in Ukraine means that urban fighting and trench clearing have become increasingly important, perhaps this is a niche into which the RPL would fit.
My special thanks again to Deni for sharing this brilliant footage and information with me so I can bring you guys this video. Please do check out Deni’s pages – Telegram, Instagram, Youtube.
The RBS-17 has been in Ukrainian service for quite some time with Sweden announcing in June 2022, that they would provide the missiles. The RBS-17 was a development of the AGM-114 Hellfire, entering service in the the early 1990s. It is a man-portable missile which weighs 48kg in addition to the launcher, firing system and laser targeting module. It is typically operated in the field by a five man team – two operating the laser targeting system and three on the weapon itself.
We first saw the RBS-17 in use in the field in a video posted in October 2022, by a page called ‘Bigcats’, the lo-res clip shows the launch of a pair of missiles. In December 2023, the Swedish government published an article and video about Ukraine’s use of the RBS-17 and the training the Swedish armed forces provided on the system. Most recently in May 2024, a clip of an Armenian volunteer unit, NEMESIS, showed a team operating an RBS-17. The video shows NEMESIS team members carrying a missile to the launcher, this gives an indication of just how ‘man portable’ they are. They load the missile and then take cover in the nearby tree-line. We can then see one man manning the control unit and the missile is launched.
It is worth noting that Norway has also provided it’s Hellfire Shore Defense System, which is externally very similar in appearance to the RBS-17. Some of the missiles in use are likely Norwegian HSDS.
Since then we have had a series of excellent clips which are amongst the most detailed so far. The clips were posted to various TikTok accounts and show a team, which appears to be attached to one of the Ukrainian Marine brigades, operating the missile system.
My colleague Weapons_Illustrated shared a series of videos he found on a Ukrainian serviceman’s Tiktok channel which were posted in summer 2024 but have since largely been removed. One simply shows a launch of a missile filmed relatively close to the launcher. Another pans along a missile body showing a message scrawled on the casing and also the missile’s lot number ‘98001’. While slightly blurred one Bofors sticker appears to read ‘Norwegian Hellfire Shore Defense Missile ‘ The video concludes showing a night launch across a body of water before cutting to a thermal camera showing an impact downrange. Another video shows the missile control system before cutting to showing a missile launch and then a clip of a strike on a large building which has its roof blown off. A video posted by the same channel on 20 July included a new launch video showing a missile being fired before cutting to a screen showing the destruction of a building near a large body of water. The landscape visible may suggest the footage was filmed along the Dnieper River, possibly near Krynky.
With further research I came across another affiliated account which had a number of videos showing the launch of RBS-17s dating back to January 2023. The first video posted on 3 January shows a launch of an RBS-17 with a picture-in-picture video of the operator at the launch control terminal. On the 5 March another video was posted from the same position, when the videos were actually filmed is difficult to confirm, this time the video also concluded with a clip of the impact of the missile on a target, a large building, downrange. On 13 May, a short video of the RBS-17s control terminal lit up was shared. A video posted by the account on 23 October, includes a slowed down clip of a launch and a clip showing a missile hit a target building.
The most recent video, posted on 11 December, features the launch of an RBS-17 filmed with multiple camera angles. One shows the video from the launch control station with a picture-in-picture view of the operator at the controls as well as a show showing the missile leaving the launcher, which has been positioned on a road. The video concludes with some overwatch drone feed footage of an impact on a building.
Update – 15/08/24:
One of the accounts which previously shared launch videos also recently shared a new video of a missile being launched from the edge of a field. Given earlier videos posted by the same individual showed HSDS markings this missile may also be a Norwegian HSDS.
#Ukraine: New video of the use of the #Norwegian 🇳🇴 Hellfire Shore Defense System (HSDS) by 🇺🇦 #Ukrainian forces somewhere on the front line.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 the use of drones for reconnaissance and tactical missions has evolved so rapidly it has come to characterise the war. The tactic of dropping hand grenades from commercial drones has evolved into the use of larger drones and larger munitions and the use of first person view (or FPV) one-way, kamikaze drones.
L-R: V3 XL ‘Big Mac’, V2, V1 & small VOG-sized casing (via Joe MacDonald)
Joe MacDonald, a British volunteer currently fighting in Ukraine, has kindly shared a short video showing some of the newest munitions that have been in use with his drone team for some time. Joe has led the development of a series of munitions of varying sizes. These range from small 450g bombs up to 3.5kgs which are dropped from a range of drones, small Mavic-type drones up to the ‘Baba Yaga’ heavy bomber drones.
This short video from Joe just goes to illustrate the importance of 3D printing in the development and manufacture of drone dropped munitions. The 3D printed casings are loaded with explosives and shrapnel which can then be fuzed ready for deployment in the field. The 3D printed designs have only grown more sophisticated, evolving originally from printed trail sections and nose cones.
3D printed drone munition casings with tail assemblies (via Joe MacDonald)
Importantly, the use of 3D printing allows for the casings and tails to be standardised and consistent. The 3.5kg V3 takes up to 24 hours to print, they could be printed faster but Joe explained that this sacrifices rigidity and robustness and he prefers the munitions his unit uses to be soldier-proof and capable of standing up to handling. Joe also noted that packing the casings with plastic explosive takes force which the cases have to be able to stand up to. While there are plenty of other case and tail designs in use the designs Joe led the refinement and development have been used by numerous Ukrainian brigades.
Special thanks to Joe for sharing the video and taking the time to explain how drone munitions are assembled, I highly recommend checking out Joe’s channel, Big Mac’s Battle Blogs, he regularly shares some really interesting insights.
In recent weeks there have been a spate videos showing Russian troops using TM-62 anti-tank mines as improvised satchel charges. We’ve already seen TM-62s used as drone dropped munitions and as demolition charges. The videos shared most recently show the dramatic effect that the TM-62s can have on structures. But they aren’t the first videos of the mines being used in this way to emerge from the conflict.
Back in April 2023, overwatch drone footage was shared which showed a Ukrainian soldier using a satchel charge, which appears to be a TM-62, to destroy a Russian fighting position. The charge detonates about 10 seconds after it’s tossed into the position. Almost a year later in early March 2024, another piece of drone footage showed troops from the 2nd mechanised battalion of the 30th mechanised brigade destroying what appears to be the entrance to a cellar near Syn’kivka, in Kharkiv Oblast, with a TM-62 satchel charge.
A Russian soldier posts a TM-62 through a window (via social media)
Several days later another video showed a member of the 81st Airmobile Brigade using a TM-62 to destroy Russian dugouts near Bilohorivka. In the video a Ukrainian serviceman can be seen lighting a length of safety fuze which appears to be taped to the body of the mine. He then throws the mine into a hole in the roof of a dugout and takes cover – approximately 20 seconds later it detonates. Several grenades are thrown into the dugout and another mine is brought up, we can see the mine is being carried by its attachable webbing carrying handle. The safety fuze on the mine is lit and thrown into a covered section of trench and detonated approximately 22 seconds later.
On 12 April, the 109th Territorial Defense Brigade shared video of urban operations in which Ukrainian troops, with covering fire from HMMWVs, used satchel charges to destroy several buildings. The drone footage of the operation isn’t clear enough to make out if the satchel charges used are TM-62 based but the charges clearly have a significant blast effect.
Depending on the variant TM-62s mine are packed with 7.5kg (17lbs) of explosive and is normally centrally fuzed by a mechanical MVCh-62 pressure fuze. It is a High-Explosive Blast (HE-Blast) mine typically with a TNT filling. While extremely potent they aren’t designed to be thrown, weighing 9.5–10kg (20-22lbs).
A Ukrainian soldier lights a safety fuze to ignite a TM-62 (via social media)
While in some videos its clear that some sort of cord fuze was used to initiate the mine in some of the more recent footage it appears that grenade fuzes may have been used. This gives the user very little time to escape the blast radius.
On 2 July, a Russian telegram channel shared the first of several videos of Russian troops using TM-62s to clear positions. The location of the video isn’t stated but it shows Russian soldiers tossing a pair of what appear to be a TM-62Ps (which have a red-orange Bakelite case). Two days later another drone video showed [better quality version] a Russian soldier run up to a building and throw a TM-62 through a ground floor window, he runs clear but the mine detonates just three seconds later. It’s unclear from the video when he initiated the fuze, likely before approaching the building. The charge effectively collapses the corner of the two storey structure’s outer wall.
A TM-62 satchel charge destroys the corner of a building (via social media)
Russia telegram channel WarGonzoshared another video on 5 July, reportedly filmed in Niu-York, Ukraine, showing a member of the 9th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade using a TM-62 to destroy a building which was said to have been occupied by Ukrainian troops. The Russian soldier can be seen pulling a pin on what may be a grenade fuze just before throwing the mine through a window. The mine detonates just three seconds later completely destroying the small building.
Another spectacular video was shared on around 7 July, showing two Russian soldiers deploying a pair of TM-62s against a large building, the location of which isn’t stated. They are seen approaching the building, pulling fuze pins and tossing the mines in. As they turn and run the mines detonate just three seconds later demolishing the building.
While in most of these videos the men deploying the mines appear to get clear they do beg the age old question of whether some of the soldiers deploying the mines are inevitably ‘hoist by their own petards’ – the etymology of that phrase being a reference the the dangerous business of 16th century sappers being killed or injured while deploying Petards, a historic equivalent to a modern demolition or satchel charge.
16th century engineer deploying a petard (via Library of Congress)
It’s clear from the available imagery that both Russia and Ukraine have utilised TM-62s as ad-hoc satchel or demolition charges since at least early 2023 (and likely earlier). It’s unclear how widespread of a practice the use of the mines is but it is clearly highly effective and while it puts the user deploying the mine at significant risk it appears an effective way of clearing enemy positions if the charge can be delivered successfully.
Update – 30/09/24: Footage of what may be an assault demolition, of an apartment block in Toretsk, using TM-62s.
— Matthew Moss | Historical Firearms (@historicfirearm) October 21, 2024
Update – 5/12/24:
Omega Team, an SOF unit with Ukraine’s National Guard, employ multiple TM-62s during a hit and run raid on a Russian strong point in an apartment block.
— Matthew Moss | Historical Firearms (@historicfirearm) December 5, 2024
Update – 12/12/24:
An recent video of Ukrainian combatants using multiple TM-62 (or similar) anti-armour mines (минированию) as satchel charges in Toretsk was shared. The video shows half a dozen charges comprised of a pair of mines taped together with a delay fuze. These charges are thrown into the ground floor of a damaged building.
Double TM-62 (or similar) anti-tank mines used as satchel charges.
Since my last article/video on Russia’s ‘turtle tanks’ the adapted vehicles have continued to be used on several fronts but on Monday, 17 June Ukrainian forces captured their first turtle tank intact.
Known by numerous names by both sides including ‘Blyatmobiles’ (Блятьмобиль) and ‘assault garages’ (штурмовые гаражи), ‘Tsar Mangals’ (Царь мангал) or simply ‘sheds’ (сарай) the tanks are characterised by them being equipped with large counter-FPV shells made from readily available sheet metal (and other non-standard materials) and are sometimes equipped with electronic warfare jammers to provide additional protection against drones and sometimes with mine clearing devices such a mine rollers or ploughs. They appear to have been developed to provide improvised breaching vehicles capable of penetrating Ukrainian minefields, withstand drone attacks and in some cases deliver troops to an objective.
Front of the Turtle Tank captured in the field (via ArmyInform)
From posts on Ukrainian social media the tank was reportedly captured by troops from the 22nd Separate Mechanised Brigade but the vehicle was first encountered near Klishchiivka by soldiers of the 244th battalion of the 112th Territorial Defense Brigade that had been seconded to the 5th Assault Brigade.
The turtle tank allegedly became lost in the Klishchiivka area and saw an M113 APC belonging to the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Assault Brigade and began following it. When the M113 crew spotted the enemy tank it attempted to hide. The tank, however, continued to follow and on reaching the M113 a member of the turtle tank’s crew said to be the driver got out to ask for directions. He was captured by medics of the 244th Battalion. From the footage available it appears that the following morning troops of the 22nd Separate Mechanised Brigade approached the tank and captured an undisclosed number of Russian troops who were travelling in the rear of the turtle tank’s counter-FPV shell. Despite numerous sources and accounts the timeline of the tank’s capture remains somewhat unclear.
The immobilised Turtle Tank captured in the field (via 22nd Separate Mechanised Brigade)
Subsequently released footage from a 22nd Mechanised Brigade drone appears to show the Turtle Tank being damaged by a drone dropped munition before it was captured. The post with the video claimed that the turtle tank’s crew became disorientated after the drone attack and mistakenly drove towards Ukrainian lines. Lt. Colonel Serhiy Misyura, of ArmyInform, also noted that the vehicle was struck by an FPV. Lt.Col. Misyura claims that the drone dropped munition detonated next to one of the tank’s road wheels and immobilised it. After it was captured Ukrainian troops were able to get the tank moving again and drive it to the rear.
Drone footage then shows the capture of the tank’s crew and the vehicle moving off towards the Ukrainian rear. Teoyaomiquu shared a short clip filmed by a member of the 93rd Mechanized Brigade which showed the captured tank passing by, the 22nd Mechanised Brigade’s flag can be seen flying from the top of the tank. In a photograph of the tank and some of the men who captured it the same flag can be seen. Another piece of footage showing the tank close up also appeared online on the 18th June. The video shows the front, rear and left side of the tank’s counter-FPV shell.
Right side of the captured Turtle Tank (via ArmyInform)
On the 19th June, the 112th Territorial Defense Brigade shared a short video showing the confused captured tank driver sat in the rear of an M113. On the 20th June, ArmyInform, the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ news outlet published a video on their YouTube channel giving us an up close look at the captured tank in detail during which Lt. Colonel Misyura describes it as a ‘marvel of modern Russian engineering’.
The Ukrainian Army were quick to capitalise on the propaganda value of finally capturing one of the Tsar Mangal (Tsar’s Barbaque) / assault sheds in tact, at the time of publication the video has over 650,000 views on YouTube alone.
Examining The Turtle
Since late April we have seen many variations on the ‘turtle tank’ theme, this example is certainly one of the least refined. Firstly, the tank does not appear to have been equipped with mine clearing kit as some of the other tanks have. However, it has been outfitted with what appear to be some sort of EW jammer to counter drones. Additionally, we can clearly see several UDSh smoke generators, held in a pair of brackets on either side of the shell. These have sometimes been misidentified as standard TM-62 anti-tank mines but the UDSh is a smoke generator which mimics the mine’s shape for training purposes. In this case they have been repurposed to enable the tank to create a mobile smoke screen. According to CAT-UXO the UDSh can be initiated electronically or manually and once ignited discharges smoke for 8-10 minutes. In the ArmyInform video it is also noted that the Kontakt ERA blocks seen on the tank’s glacis are empty.
Ukrainian troops pose in fron of the captured Turtle Tank (via social media)
The tank itself is a T-62M and according to Ukrainian sources the turret is fixed in place and the tank carried no ammunition for its main gun, making it largely defenceless in isolation from supporting elements. The counter-FPV shell is crudely assembled made up of a mish-mash of materials including metal sheeting which ranges from rusted bare metal to various worn paint colours, wire fencing and metal caging. There also appears to be rubber matting attached front and rear to help keep dust down. The top of the shell over the tank’s engine deck appears incomplete and may have been damaged. In the ArmyInform video which shows the area in-detail it is clear that the counter-FPV shell’s support struts were welded directly to the top of the hull and a number of large and small shrapnel holes in the shell are visible.
Top of the captured Turtle Tank (via ArmyInform)
It appears that between when the vehicle was captured and when the ArmyInform video was filmed the Ukrainian have removed the assemblies, which may have been EW jammers, on the front of the tank. Its unclear how long the adapted tank has been in service but their is evidence of past repairs and there are numerous spray painted slogans on its panels including ‘god is with us’, ‘Hero-Z’ and ‘154 RUS’ (a possible joke reference to Russian vehicle registration plates). If this is the case it might hint at the origins of the Russian crew. ‘154’ is a registration code for the Novosibirsk Oblast which is the home of the 41st Combined Arms Army. In one clip of the tank it also has what appears to be a stolen ‘1941’ sign (possibly from a Great Patriotic War memorial) attached to the rear of its shell.
Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!
A quick look at a couple of recent additions to the TAB Reference Collection: a 1979 dated Colt M203 grenade launcher manual and a 1959 dated Irish Defence Force manual for the Carl Gustaf m/45 submachine gun!
The small Colt M203 manual covers everything you need to know about how to operate and maintain your 40mm grenade launcher. The booklet measures just 5 inches by 3.5 inches.
I’ve recently aimed to expand the TAB Reference Collection into Irish Defence Force material, this 1959 manual for the m/45 Carl Gustaf submachine gun joins an Irish manual for the FN FAL I acquired last year.
Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!
Super thrilled to have passed the 100,000 subscriber mark over on YouTube!
The channel has been around since 2017 and has taken me to some incredible places and given me the chance to examine some amazing weapons everything from Ferguson rifles to the HK G11! Very grateful to everyone who has watched my videos over the years. Starting off on shaky ground stumbling over pieces to camera to disassembling and examining one of a kind John Browning prototypes and everything in between!
You may have found me through my videos on the war in Ukraine. While never something I thought I’d be covering in real-time I hope they’ll provide a useful resource in years to come. I can only hope it’s a series of videos that ends soon. I really appreciate everyone who has watched my work, commented and shared the videos. Massive thank you to past & present supporters on Patreon they have hoped me justify spending so much time on making videos!
Thank you also to friends and colleagues who have helped with research and been supportive over the years. Working on historical and contemporary firearms content has led me to becoming friends with some incredible historians, researchers and video creators which have really enriched my life. So, all in all, reaching 100,000 subscribers may seem insignificant compared to some of the huge YouTube channels out there but when you’re a fairly quiet British fella who likes firearms and history it’s wonderful to be able to share the passion with so many others each week. Thank you.
I thought I’d celebrate by doing a question and answer / ask me anything. So ask me anything! Firearms history, my background, favourite colour, questions about my videos on Ukraine, and I’ll try to answer as many as I can in a video or live stream! Leave questions in the video’s comments or email them here.
In September 2023, the United Kingdom has announced the selection of the Knight’s Armament Company KS-1 as the new individual weapon for the Ranger battalions and the Royal Marines Commandos. Back in January, while attending SHOT Show 2024, I was able to get a first hands on look at the new rifle which has been designated the L403A1. The requirement for the new rifle was released back in August 2021, as part of Project Hunter, and called for the “procurement and support of an Armalite Rifle (AR) platform Alternative Individual Weapon (AIW) System.”
Alternative Individual Weapon (AIW) System comprises the weapon and a ‘Signature Reduction System’ [suppressor] and an ‘Optic System’. The AIW replaces the SA80/L85 series of rifles and Colt Canada L119s in service with the Rangers and elements of the Royal Marines Commandos. After two years of competition the UK MoD announced that Knight’s KS-1 has been selected as the L403A1, beating off reported competition from Heckler & Koch’s HK416A5, SIG Sauer’s SPEAR-LT, Daniel Defense’s M4 and Glock’s new GR-115F.
The rifles will be procured via UK-based company Edgar Brothers and the £90 million ($110 million) contract will see up to 10,000 new rifles delivered over the next decade. An initial £15 million order for 1,620 AIW systems was placed with the first rifles delivered before the end of 2023.
Anatomy of the L403A1 (Edgar Brothers)
The system is built around the Knight’s Armament Company KS-1 (SR-16) and includes the Knight’s QDC/MCQ-PRT suppressor, a magnified 1-10 LPVO optic from Vortex and an Aimpoint ACRO P-2 red dot, however, the rifle we examined had a Leupold DeltaPoint Pro mounted in its place. The rifle I had the chance to examine was in the configuration of L403A1 but did not have any markings unique to the British rifles which will likely have an ‘L number’ marking on the magazine well. On its left-side the rifle has ‘5.56mm KS-1’ on its upper receiver and bellow it on the lower receiver’s magazine well ‘STONER RIFLE [KAC’s roll mark] and [the weapon’s serial number]’. On the right side the magazine well is marked ‘SR-16 5.56mm, KNIGHT’s ARMAMENT CO. TITUSVILLE, FL, USA’. The weapon has the Knight’s URX-6 ML OK handguard.
The KS-1 is the latest iteration of the SR-16 series, it has a 13.7in (35cm) barrel, which if you look closely you can see is dimple cut to reduce weight. The rifle unloaded weighs in at 6.88lbs (3.1kg) and its overall length is 32.2in (82cm) with the stock collapsed and 34.2in (87cm) extended. The QDC/MCQ-PRT weighs an additional 13.9oz and adds just over 2 inches to the weapon’s length. The rifle uses a direct gas impingement system (or more correctly described as Stoner’s internal piston system). The rifle examined at SHOT Show was fitted with a Magpul SL-K Carbine Stock rather than the Magpul CTR which will equip the AIW. Similarly, it was equipped with Knight’s own Folding Micro Rear Sight rather than the Magpul MBUS Pro folding iron sights which the L403’s will be issued with.
The UK MoD required the rifle to have a removable trigger guard for cold weather use as the RM Commandos in particular regularly operate in cold weather environments, so Knight’s also designed a reinforced trigger guard, with a spring detent, that is more robust.
In terms of ergonomics and handling you can’t learn too much from handling an unloaded rifle for about 5 minutes but it felt fairly well balanced and had standard AR-15 type controls – including ambidextrous magazine and bolt releases. It had some heft to it (even unloaded) weighing approximately 4.3kg or 9.5lbs (after doing some maths adding up the stated weights for all of the AIW’s components: optics, suppressor, weapon). Which while heavier than a stock M4A1 it is lighter than an L85A2 and A3.
Special thanks to Knight’s Armament Company for allowing me to take a look at the rifle.
Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!
For several weeks now we’ve tracked the interesting phenomena of Russia’s tanks equipped counter-FPV shells, known by many names – Tsar’s BBQs, assault sheds, Blyatmobiles or Turtle Tanks. These vehicles began to appear in April around Krasnohorivka but since then have spread to numerous other sectors. Most recently they have played a role in the Russian offensive towards Kharkiv.
They combine a number of features including the large characteristic sheet metal shells, electronic warfare systems to jam drone control frequencies to protect against first person view (FPV) suicide drones. They also often feature devices such as mine plough and rollers to enable them to act as breaching vehicles.
Since other last video there have been even more interesting variations on the ‘turtle tank’ concept and also a fair amount of imagery showing them being successfully engaged. Which raises the question: has the tide turned on the Turtle Tanks?
On the 8 May photos of a Russian T-72B3 being fitted with a counter-FPV shell were posted. OSINT account Naalsionoted that while the tank had tactical markings denoting the 68th Guards Tank Regiment, 150th Motorised Rifle Division, 8th Guards Combined Arms Army, Southern Military District, the original Telegram post said that the work was carried out by the 104th Separate Tank Battalion of the 7th Guards Airborne Assault Division. In the photos we can see the assembly of a frame projecting from the tank’s sides with slightly angled sheet metal being welded to the frame.
Ukraine’s Presidential Brigade shared some FPV footage of what may be another ‘Turtle Tank’ near Vuhledar. The resolution of the footage is low but the vehicle appears to have an EW module on top of its counter-FPV shell. Its unclear if the shell is solid s heet metal or if its is a mesh screen which covers the top part of the vehicle and has been shrouded in camouflage netting.
On 13 May, photographs of a pair of tanks fitted with shells were shared, with at least some of the work seemingly being completed in the field with a welder hooked up to a generator. The first vehicle has a visible framework and the sheet metal used to have surface rust. A possible second tank has a less angled shell and horizontally orientated metal sheeting. Markings visible on the first tank may suggest it tank belongs to the 3rd Motor Rifle Division’s 752nd Motor Rifle Regiment.
Also on the 13 May, the 3rd Assault Brigade claimed that the 3rd along with the 66th Mechanized, and 77th Airmobile Brigades had engaged Russian forces on the Kharkiv front and struck a ‘turtle tank’ with FPVs.
Footage of a recovered damaged ‘turtle tank’, which may be the tank which was immobilised during the initial assaults on the Kharkiv front, shows the tank’s shell badly damaged and its left-side track lost, however, its KMT-6 mine plough is still present.
The clearest imagery of of a knocked out ‘turtle tank’ which has appeared so far also emerged on 13 May. Three images taken by an observation drone show a T-62 which shares a numerous construction characteristics with the earlier ‘porcupine turtle’ seen on 5 May. It has similar protective grills made from cages which completely cover the outer metal sheets of the counter-FPV shell. However, its rear is not enclosed by sheet metal but a combination of sheets and grating.
The tank doesn’t have any visible electronic warfare equipment but is fitted with what appears to be a BTU-55 dozer blade mounting point (H/T – Ross) which is no longer present and not visible in the available imagery (although what appears to be a KMT-6 mine plough can be seen on the ground behind the tank). The tank clearly has signs of fire damage along its side and rear and the front portion of its shell as been blown inwards and warped, cause unclear though it may have been an artillery strike, ATGM hit or an FPV. Intriguingly, inside the shell appears to be an earlier pre-existing ‘cope cage’ shelter on the turret which does not not a part of the outer shell structure.
Further examples of tanks equipped with counter-FPV shells, which both sides increasingly refer to as ‘сарай’ or sheds, have been shared. Drone footage of a Russian T-72B3 equipped with a ‘shed’ was shared early on 14 May showing the vehicle on fire, with smoke billowing from its roof, and under attack by FPVs. The footage has reportedly been geo-located to Novovodyanoe, in the Luhansk region. Again the shell is made up of sheet metal with a rear hatch and an additional mesh roof screen. The tank has a broken track and one shot from the footage appears to show the vehicle surrounded by TM-62 anti-tank mines suggesting the vehicle entered a mine field. The vehicle does not appear to be fitted with a mine plough or roller.
Additionally imagery of another T-62-based ‘turtle tank’ were also shared, date and location unknown, but the now standard construction of a rough internal framework made from box metal and then sheet metal welded onto the frame. From the photos it appears it may be fitted with a mine plough. Only one side of the shell has been completed but there is also a small ladder welded onto the frame at the rear for access to the engine deck. Intriguingly, we can also see that the frame itself has been welded to the tank’s turret with two angled struts meaning that the tanks turret cannot be traversed at all.
On the 14 May, footage of another knocked out ‘turtle tank’ emerged showing a burning tank near Andriivka in Donestsk. The tank appears to have been part of an armoured assault which may have been halted by artillery fire. The tank appears to be a T-62 fitted with KMT-6 mine plough. The vehicle is on fire with a significant portion of its shell blown off on its right side. The video also shows an FPV drone striking the tank from the rear. A further video appears to show an FPV able to enter the rear of the shell. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense attributed the destruction of the tank to ‘Javelins and FPV drones’ deployed by the 93rd Mechanised Brigade.
On the evening of 14 May, the 79th Air Assault Brigade shared video of another Russian attack in Novomykhailivka, in Donetsk. This showed several intriguing vehicles including a hybrid-turtle which had a layer of tyres under some cage armour and a camouflage net. [Additional footage here] Another brief shot showed a tank, with no visible main gun, moving across open ground. It is equipped with a KMT-7 mine roller and a counter-FPV shell/shed which is open fronted with no additional protection such as a chain curtain or wire cages. It appears the assault was met with both artillery and FPVs.
On the 15th, observation drone footage was shared of a badly damaged, burning ‘turtle tank’ which was destroyed by the Ukrainian 72nd brigade during a Russian attack in the Vuhledar sector. The date of the engagement is unconfirmed but the video shows the vehicle being destroyed in a spectacular explosion, likely due to a cook-off of ammunition.
On the 15 May another image of a converted T-72 in Donetsk emerged. Visible in the photo is a sheet metal counter-FPV shelter equipped with a layer of outer wire cages. A KMT-6 mine plough is fitted and a chain curtain protects the turret while providing decent visibility for the tank’s frontal arc. Additionally a commercial surveillance camera has been attached to the roof of the shell. An АЕК-902 smoke discharger is attached to the top of the shell and ERA blocks have been attached to the skirt and then enclosed partially by a wire screen.
On the 16 May, Russian military vlogger Large Caliber Trouble shared a series of videos which featured armoured vehicles fitted with counter-FPV shells. The first video showed an armoured assault with three vehicles with shells/sheds and one tank without. The footage, from an observation drone, is too low resolution to fully make out the configuration of the Turtles but its clear that the lead vehicle is equipped with a set of mine rollers. The assault column is bracketed by Ukrainian artillery fire and the lead tank is damaged and forced to turn back. While the second moves up and deploys smoke from an AEK-902 launcher the lead tank appears to take a direct hit to its rear, possibly from an FPV drone.
One of the tanks is called the ‘scorpion’ and is tasked with “clearing mines and identifying enemy points”. In a video showing the vehicle in action it is clear that the design is substantially different to previous ‘turtle tanks’ with no visible main gun, a fully enclosed front and an overhanding sheet metal rear awning. The vehicle is also equipped with a KMT-7 mine roller. In another post he described the vehicle as “a captured tank with a cut-off turret” that used “different building materials for [the] armor”. He claims it was “hit by 8 anti-tank guns and countless artillery shells.”
As always with these breakdowns we have to remember that we don’t have the full picture and the available imagery represents a fraction of what is happening on the frontline. As mentioned in the previous article/video the ‘turtle tanks’ are just as susceptible (if not more) to conventional means of knocking out tanks: mines, artillery and anti-tank guided missiles. It remains to be seen if a new trend is emerging that suggests that Ukraine is now increasingly capable of successfully countering the Russian assault sheds or if indeed the Turtle Tank will adapt again.
Updates
Update – 19/05/24:
On 18 May, the drone unit with the 3rd Assault Brigade shared further video of the ‘turtle tank’ that was first seen on 8 May. Filmed at the same time they stated that they came across an immobilised and abandoned ‘turtle tank’ and made several sorties to damage the vehicles engine and main gun.
Also on the 18 May, FPV camera footage from the 93rd Mechanised Brigade’s SIGNUM unit showed the ‘turtle tank’ first seen in footage shared on 14 May, near Andriivka in Donestsk. The first FPV can be seen to dive and strike the upper, right side of the shell. Another comes in low targetting the tank’s wheels while a third attacks the open hatch at the rear.
On the 19 May, several photos of hybrid-Turtles were shared by the Russian Ugolok_Sitha telegram channel showing T-62Ms with either a mine roller or a plough as well as camouflaged cope cages or Turtle-style counter-FPV shells made from gratings rather than solid sheet metal which have then been camouflaged with netting.
It emerged on 19 May that the ‘Scorpion’ showcased by Large Caliber Trouble three days earlier had apparently been successfully engaged. CyberBoroshnoshared a short clip showing the vehicle being struck by FPV drones and set alight. CyberBoroshno suggested the vehicle was an ‘atypical MT-LB’ but it is likely the tank, which had had its gun removed, was a T-62M.
The ‘Scorpion’ Turtle Tank about to be hit by an FPV (via social media)
On the evening of the 19 May, the 81st Airmobile Brigade shared drone footage of a pair of MT-LBs, both equipped with counter-FPV shells and both destroyed. The first MT-LB appears to have had its corrugated metal shell panels blown off and is burnt out. The second vehicle’s shell design is different with sheet metal panels and a cage frontage. The footage is said to have been filmed near the village. Belogorivka, Lugansk
Update – 20/05/24:
On 20 May, a Ukrainian telegram channel shared a video of another ‘Turtule Tank’, again with no visible main gun but with the usual trapezoidal sheet metal shell. The vehicle has a set of KMT-7 mine rollers and appears to strike two mines while moving at speed. A crew member is then seen running from the tank on foot as another explosion, possibly from an FPV, is seen on the left side of the tank. It is claimed the video was filmed on 18 May, near Novomykhailivka.
Also on the 20 May, the ADAM Tactical Group, shared a video of an FPV striking the rear of a moving vehicle which appears to have a counter-FPV shell. The low resolution of the footage makes it difficult to identify the vehicle. The construction of the vehicle’s shell is similar to that of the T-72B3 seen on the 14 May which had a pine green painted shell and supporting cross pieces visible on the shell’s top plates.
Update – 22/05/24:
On 21 May, CyberBoroshnoshared footage of a Russian ‘turtle tank’ damaged Marinka in the Donetsk region. The vehicle has seemingly already been disabled and the rear of the shell damaged. The shell has a secondary layer of bages on top of the sheet metal shell. The shell appears to have a considerable number of Kontakt-1 ERA bricks on the rear of its shell.
A Turtle Tank engaged by the ‘Rubizh’ Brigade (via social media)
Also on the 21 May, the 2nd battalion of the 4th Rapid Reaction Brigade “Rubizh” destroyed a turtle tank in Makeevka, Lugansk. The video shows the tank with heavy damage to its shell, with a fire on its right side. The very brief clip shows what may be a Bonus or 155 SMART round detonating above the tank while its stationary, alternatively it may be a close range engagement of the tank with an infantry anti-tank weapon.
Update – 23/05/24:
A video of an abandoned T-62BV enclosed in a hybrid ‘shell’ made from mesh being struck by FPVs was shared on the 23 May. Additionally, a telegram channel shared what was claimed to be a conversation between Russian combatants discussing the possibility of using rubber matting on ‘turtle tanks’. This post included a photograph of a very rustic looking ‘turtle tank’ which featured a mix of metal sheeting and fence wire enclosing the rear opening.
Photo of a rustic ‘turtle tank’ shared on 23 May, featuring a mix of steel sheeting and wire (via social media)
Also on the 23 May further footage of a ‘Turtle Tank’, first seen on 6 May, was shared showing the tank burnt out and completely destroyed after it was previously seen immobilised.
Update – 28/5/24:
On the 27 May, Ukraine’s 71st Jaeger Brigade shared further drone footage of a classic Turtle Tank with a low profile, well built counter-FPV shell. The Ukrainian Armed Forces press centre first shared video of this engagement on the 25 May, dating the footage to at least before the 25 May. The post did not state the location of the engagement, just that it was successfully engaged by FPVs. Two of which entered the rear of the shell and detonated near the turret ring. The tank appears to be equipped with mine rollers, fitting the Turtle Tanks’ conventional role as breachers.
Some recent footage of a Russian 'turtle tank' being destroyed by FPV drones of Ukraine's 71st Jaeger Brigade.
— Matthew Moss | Historical Firearms (@historicfirearm) May 28, 2024
Footage published in late May, with date and location unconfirmed, shows a BMP-2 fitted with a counter FPV shell being damaged by a munition being dropped by a drone. The vehicle already seems to have been mobility killed.
An interesting hybrid-Turtle was seen in footage shared by the Apachi FPV Strike Group on 27 May. It shows a tank with what appears to be a net over a frame work protecting the turret and two layers of spaced armour on its sides (see images below).
Also on 27 May, a single photograph of a T-72 being equipped with cage turret protection and horizontal slat protection on its sides was shared. It’s unclear what the vehicles finished form will by but other similar configurations have been covered with camouflage netting to make targetting more difficult for FPVs [Example].
Russia's Zvezda published a short video of Russian repair crews welding a mine plough on a #TurtleTank which is based on a damaged T-72 with its turret removed. There is a 2nd Turtle is in the background.
— Matthew Moss | Historical Firearms (@historicfirearm) May 28, 2024
On 28 May, Russia’s Zvezda Newspublished a short video of Russian repair crews welding a set of mine ploughs on a Turtle Tank (or as the report calls them Tsar-Mangal / Tsar’s barbecue). The report notes that the T-72 featured was damaged so its turret was removed and a counter-FPV shell added to create a APC capable of carrying troops. In the footage a second Turtle Tank can be seen in the background. The report did not state the units location.
A still from footage showing a transporter, carrying a Turtle Tank, which was involved in an accident in Belogrod (via social media)
On the evening of the 28 May, footage of a road traffic accident near Korocha, in the Belgorod region, showed several vehicles involved in a crash including a Russian tank transporter carrying a Turtle Tank (see above). The KamAZ tank transporter can be seen jackknifed and on fire. The tank can be seen fitted with mine ploughs and a trapezoidal counter-FPV shell, with a open front and an enclosed rear.
Support Us: If you enjoyed this video and article please consider supporting our work here. We have some great perks available for Patreon Supporters – including early access to custom stickers and early access to videos! Thank you for your support!
The Armourers Bench 