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.
Way back in October 2022 video of the extremely rare Ukrainian RG-1 circulated online thanks to Yuri, an American member of the Ukrainian armed forces (known as Nucking_Futs_Yuri, best known as for his combat footage of him manning an M2 Browning and firing numerous AT-4s from a HMMWV). Yuri and his colleague Kaiser, a German volunteer, very kindly shared their videos of the RG-1 filmed when they had the chance to fire the weapon during some range time. As far as I can tell those videos remain one of the few occasions that the weapons have been seen during the ongoing fighting following Russia’s invasion. Since October 2022, I’ve been holding off on making a video about the RG-1 in the hopes more imagery might appear – there have only been two more sightings.
Yuri with an RG-1 at the range, October 2022 (via Yuri)
The RG-1 “Piston” (РГ-1 “Поршень”) was developed as a cost effective force multiplier, to provide the firepower of an AGS-17 in a man portable package. Information on the weapon is scarce and I’ve had to dig through a number archived Ukrainian news articles and other sources to pull together some of the story of the RG-1.
A 2014 article from UkraineIndustrial.info suggests the project to develop the RG-1 was launched in 1999 and continued until 2007. It was reportedly developed by the Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant. A.M. Makarov with the design team including Alekseev Yury Sergeevich, Serbin Vladimir Viktorovich, Zagreba Alexander Ivanovich, and Mezhuev Nikolay Nikolaevich
RG-1 grenade launcher with red dot sight mounted on quadrant sight bar (Yuzhmash)
The RG-1 is a self-loading grenade launcher which fires 30×29mm VOG-17-pattern grenades. Some sources refer to specially made, lighter grenades made for the RG-1. Numerous sources also refer to a training round and a round designed for use against light armoured vehicles. The ammunition was reportedly developed by the Pavlograd Mechanical Plant, which is run by Yuzhmash. The RG-1’s relatively long barrel allows it to engage targets at ranges out to around 800m. The weapon does not appear to have a gas piston and it’s barrel is fixed suggesting it isn’t recoil operated. It may be gas blowback operated, though it’s unclear if it has any sort of bolt delaying system in place. The weapon has a large main spring soaking up the recoil as well as a large top-ported muzzle brake.
The weapon’s weight is reportedly around 12kg (26.45lbs) loaded and 10.8kg unloaded. It has a 30cm (11.8in) barrel, has an integral bipod and feeds from a five round box magazine. The box magazine rocks forward to lock into the receiver, with the paddle magazine release located forward of the magazine (the reverse of the standard AK position). To load the weapon the bolt has to be pulled to the rear, but with no bolt hold open device it has to be held to the rear manually. There is a quadrant sight on the left side of the weapon’s receiver with a Picatinny rail for mounting optics. The buttstock has a rubber pad and from the available imagery there appears to be two designs of stock.
Uprom.inforeported in 2018, that as of Spring 2017, the RG-1 was not in full-scale production but prototypes had been undergoing field trials with the 79th Airmobile Brigade during fighting in Donbas, as early as 2016.
30×29mm VOG-17-pattern grenades in RG-1 magazine (via Yuri)
Speaking to Yuri in 2022, he noted that his unit didn’t bother using the RG-1 as they had plenty of 40mm grenade launchers in inventory, including then-newly arrived M320s. Yuri explained that “the RG-1 was a stop-gap weapon to give the average man the capability to fire VOGs without having to get an AGS into position.” The low velocity 40mm grenade launchers are smaller, lighter, easier to carry and, according to Yuri, have better range an accuracy than the RG-1.
A second sighting of an RG-1 came in mid August 2023, when another video of the weapon being fired on a range was shared. The most recent sighting came in October 2023 when a curious photograph of General Kyrylo Budanov, chief of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence, was published showing an RG-1 in the corner of his office.
Gen. Budanov poses with Joker paining next to an RG-1 (via social media)
The RG-1 is an extremely interesting weapon. Designed to fulfil a tactical niche between the common GP-25 single-shot under-barrel grenade launcher and the heavy AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher. Essentially the RG-1 was intended to be light enough for the operator to manoeuvre and act as an integral support element within the squad. However, in the current phase of the war the proliferation of low velocity 40mm grenades has largely rendered the RG-1 unnecessary. If you’ve seen other imagery of RG-1s in use please do let me know.
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!
There are a number of different RPG-7 pattern rocket launchers in use in Ukraine including the American PSLR-1s, the Czech LGL-7s and the Bulgarian ATGL-L and WRPG-7 to name a few. One of the most interesting to appear is the Chinese Type 69.
The Type 69s were potentially supplied by one of the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, which held them in inventory during the 1990s and 2000s. The Type 69 was in service it the Estonian armed forces as the M-69, and remained in inventory into the early 2010s. Another possible origin is that they were part of a seized shipment of small arms and light weapons supplied to the Houthis in Yemen by Iran, which was intercepted en route. Though no Type 69s have been seen in the released imagery of seized shipments.
Training with Type 69 (via 22nd Separate Mechanised Brigade)
The Type 69 is a clone of the Russian RPG-7, manufactured by China’s state arsenals it has been successfully sold around the would by NORINCO and Xinshidai. It entered service with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the 1972, replacing the earlier Type 56, and served into the late 1990s.
The Chinese RPG’s distinguishing features include the absence of a rear pistol grip, an orangey-brown fluted heat-shield around the tube, a forward bipod, and a folding carrying handle fitted to the top of the launcher. There is also a fold‐down shoulder support which is removeable. The Type 69-1, introduced in the 1980s, is slightly shorter than the original Type 69 and has slightly different sights, with the rear sight assembly more centrally positioned on the tube. The Chinese RPGs seen in theatre so far appear to be Type 69-1s.
Two Type 69s in a Ukrainian armoury (via social media)
The earliest evidence of Type 69s in Ukraine I’ve come across is a video posted by the Ukrainian YouTube channel Tacti Coach on 29 November 2023 which discusses RPG-7s in general but features a Type 69. Subsequently, on 19 January 2024, the 22nd Separate Mechanised Brigade shared several photos of troops training with Type 69s.
Another undated photograph shows the interior of a Ukrainian armoury, with crates of ammunition and transit chests with a Barrett M107 and two Type 69s.
Training with Type 69 (via 22nd Separate Mechanised Brigade)
On 21 January, a Ukrainian combatant believed to be associated to Ukraine’s special operations forces shared a photograph holding a Type 69 by its carry handle. On the 18 February, the 22nd Separate Mechanised Brigade again shared an album of photos showing troops training with the Type 69 giving us the best look at the Chinese RPG in Ukraine so far.
In future articles/videos we’ll look at other RPG-7 variants in use in Ukraine. We have previously examined a number of RPG-7 related topics, mostly focused on improvised warheads.
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!
Ukraine’s family of unmanned surface vessels (USVs) continues to grow as the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) have developed a Grad rocket-armed Sea Baby drone. The one-way or kamikaze USVs deployed by Ukraine in the Black Sea have been instrumental in engaging the Russian Navy, however, more recently new variants have emerged as Russia has begun to adapt and successfully engage the Sea Babies which in turn has seen the Ukrainians seek to adapt.
The first video of the rocket-armed USV in action recently emerged and the SBU has released some photographs which appear to show the drone in testing. On 22 May, an anonymous SBU source toldThe Kyiv Independent that the new drones have been used in combat “against Russian positions on the Kinburn spit,” a stretch of often fought over land on the coast near Mykolaiv. “This technological solution is already showing powerful results,” with the source adding “Our Sea Baby is not just a drone, but a multifunctional platform that is constantly being improved.” So far it seems the rocket-armed USV has been used against shore targets rather than to engage the Russian Black Sea Fleet, firing on a moving target from an unstable platform may be much more of a challenge. It remains to be seen if this USV variant has been put to use engaging vessels at sea. The Grad Sea Baby gives the SBU the useful ability to strike shore targets anywhere along the Russian-occupied Black Sea coast. From available imagery, at least three of the rocket-armed variants have been built.
Ukrainian Sea Baby surface drone in the Black Sea launches a volley of missiles towards Russian positions. pic.twitter.com/CQFaLKB9B6
— WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) May 22, 2024
The drones have been equipped with six 122mm Grad rocket launch tubes. The BM-21 multiple rocket launch system is used by both Ukraine and Russia. It’s size, ubiquity and relative cheapness makes it an obvious choice for mounting on the six meter long Sea Baby. The latest versions of the Sea Baby are reportedly able to carry 400 kg warheads over 500 miles at speeds of up to 48 knots.
The Grad rockets have a range of anywhere between 20 and 50 km depending on the type of rocket used. It’s unclear if a sea-based launch impacts the rocket’s range or accuracy but depending on sea conditions dispersion of the munitions is almost certainly affected. While accuracy may be impacted the rockets still give the Sea Baby a useful stand off capability, allowing the USVs to engage targets at a distance rather than having to make it physically all the way to the target to detonate its payload. How the rockets are aimed or the launcher is zeroed isn’t yet clear. The tubes do not appear to be adjustable for elevation as photos appear to show them fixed in place at a slight angle. Available photos show the launcher being tested ashore at a range, perhaps the tubes are bore sighted.
Sea Baby drones equipped with "Grad" rocket launchers. Now, these drones have become even deadlier for the russian fleet.
This isn’t the first time rockets have been fired from a Ukrainian USV, back in January 2024, footage of a USV firing smaller rockets at a Russian patrol vessel emerged. The rockets are believed to be RPV-16 or RPO-A thermobaric rockets. Some of this footage, along with other older video, was included in a short clip which showed off the rocket-armed Sea Babies. While this footage may not show a Grad launch Vasyl Malyuk, head of the SBU, has said during a press event with UNITED24, that “For the first time, the SBU used the “Sea baby” drone, equipped with the “Grad” rocket salvo fire systems, in December 2023,” adding that this represented a “new milestone in the history of sea battles.” Newsweekreported that the Sea Babies fitted with Grad launchers were paid for using United24 donations, with each USV estimated to be worth $221,000.
Another short video of the Grad rocket-equipped Sea Baby USV, likely filmed yesterday during a United24 event.
— Matthew Moss | Historical Firearms (@historicfirearm) May 24, 2024
Most recently we also saw another curious Ukrainian USV emerge, equipped with an improvised air-defense system with two repurposed AA-11 ARCHER (R-73) air to air missiles. The air defense USV emerged as Russian helicopters began to effectively engage the Ukrainian USVs. Given the rapid evolution of Ukraine’s USVs it would not be surprising to eventually see one equipped with an anti-ship missile, such as a small RBS-17.
Sea Baby equipped with six Grad tubes (via SBU)
The small cross section and speed of the Sea Baby drones allow them to infiltrate and approach Russian Black Sea vessels both at sea and in port. However, Russia has developed rudimentary tactics for successfully engaging them either with helicopters or with small arms and other defensive fire from vessels. A stand off capability, be it a USV equipped with unguided Grad rockets or an anti-ship missile, adds another dimension the Russians will have to adapt to. The Grad-armed Sea Baby is the latest indicator that Ukraine’s USV fleet is continuing to diversify to meet new threats and operational requirements.
An earlier version of this article first appeared at OvertDefense.com.
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!
Drones have come to define the war in Ukraine with both sides making prolific use of the them for observation and ordnance delivery. Both sides have struggled to find adequate countermeasures for the drone threat with everything from fishing nets to anti-drone guns and from cope cages to complex electronic warfare jammers to disrupt UAV frequencies over larger areas.
The threat to individual soldiers has become increasingly serious with many units resorting to pressing sporting shotguns into service. However, not every combatant can carry a shotgun and a number of companies, engineers and fabricators have turned their attention to providing soldiers with a cheap, mass manufacturable, and effective weapon which can be issued to individual soldiers en masse.
Loading the adapter into a GP-25 (via Ingra)
In this article/video we’ll look at one of these efforts from a Russian company Ingra (ИНГРА). Ingra have developed an adaptor that converts a GP-25, 40mm under barrel grenade launcher, into a single-shot 12ga shotgun. On 13 April, Ingra announced [machine translated]:
“Friends, the INGRA company has created a new, unparalleled device ROSYANKA [Sundew] for the destruction of quadrocopters. The testing stage has been completed. ROSYANKA changes the caliber of the underbarrel grenade launcher to fire a 12-gauge hunting cartridge with an effective range of 15-30 meters. The tests carried out showed the reliability, safety and efficiency of the device. We have reached the next stage, which is the production of a pre-production batch for testing by the troops. Our task is to fill the troops with the ROSYANKA product in a short time.“
Later the same day they shared their first videos demonstrating the adaptor in action. In the first video the adaptor is shown being loaded with a 12ga cartridge and then inserted into a GP-25, just as a grenade would be. A second short video shows the adapter being used to shoot down a commercial quadcopter drone.
A Rosyanka 12ga adapter and pouch (via Ingra)
On their telegram channel the company posted a pair of photographs showing targets shot with an adapter at 30 metres. They claim 5mm of penetration but do not mention the length of the adapter’s barrel. From one of the photographs Ingra shared it appears that the ROSYANKA was developed in three barrel lengths, estimated to range between 2 and 5 inches in length.
On around the 5 May, the company released a slicker video demonstrating the adapter. The design appears simple, it has interfaces that allow it to be loaded and held in the GP-25s barrel which align the cartridge, which is loaded into the adaptor’s breech, with the GP-25’s firing pin. To unload the adaptor it has to be released from the launcher by depressing the grenade release catch, then the spent case needs to be extracted from the adaptor and a new cartridge loaded. The video also shows that a rear sight adapter is fitted to aid aiming the weapon.
On the 10 May I spoke to one of the company’s representatives, before the adaptor had been launched on company’s website, he explained that would be available soon and that it would cost around 12,000 rubles ($130). On the 14 May, the adaptor was launched on Ingra’s website at a lower than expected cost of 9,300 Rubles or US$102. The adapter is currently listed as unavailable on Ingra’s website but posts on the company’s social media urge interested parties to contact them directly to order.
Firing on a commercial quadcopter drone during a range demonstration (via Ingra)
In a video, shared on the 13 May, Ingra demonstrated the operation of the adaptor and also noted that it is compatible with GP-25, GP-30 and GP-34 pattern grenade launchers. Ingra’s website provides some specifications and confirms that the adapter is only available in one barrel length, of the three previously shown. The adapter is 250mm/9.8in long and weighs in at 340g/12oz. The manufacturer states is has an effective range of between 15 and 35 metres (50-115 feet) against a target with a 500mm/19.6in cross section. The adaptor can be used with 2 3/4 and 3in loads and has a warranty for up to 100 rounds of the Siberia 32g No.3 12ga which is Ingra;s recommend load. The adaptor comes with instructions, a rear sight adapter and a small pouch.
On the 16 May, Ingra shared another range video featuring a Russian combatant trying out the Rosyanka adaptor against floating balloons. The adaptor is being used in a GP-25 mounted on an AKMS with a PBS-1 suppressor. The combatant testing the adaptor notes [his comments were machine translated] the importance of seating the cartridge fully in the breech and keeping your hands clear of the muzzle in case of accidental discharge. He suggests having the GP-25 on safe to avoid an accidental discharge, hinting that one may have occurred earlier. He also demonstrates using a rod to push the spent cartridge case out of the adaptor’s breech.
Now that the adaptors are available it remains to be seen if we and when we’ll see them in use in the field with Russian troops. The system is clearly well thought out, simple to manufacture and potentially fairly effective at under 40 metres. It adapts a readily available infantry weapon to a pressing new role and may also have some close quarter anti-personnel applications.
It undoubtedly provides the operator with a means of engaging a drone but it also has drawbacks. The reloading process is comparatively slow meaning that the user is likely to only have one chance to engage a drone if it is one of the faster FPV drones and is unlikely to otherwise match a conventional shotgun in terms of reload times when engaging drones engaged in munitions dropping or observation. It also means the grenadier has to choose what to have loaded ready in his GP-25 in various situations. The limited availability of underbarrel grenade launchers also means that, depending on the unit, only one soldier per squad will have the ability to use the adaptor.
Update – 20/06/24:
A Russian telegram channel posted several photos of a damaged adaptor, stating [machine translated]:
“The first test was not successful; during the first shot, the skirt of the cartridge was torn off (it remained in the GP25, the barrel itself jumped out of the GP and flew away 30 meters.”
It may be that the user loaded the adapter with a cartridge not recommended by the manufacturer.
Update – 11/7/24: Photographs of a production ROSYANKA disassembled showing the threads which allows the barrel piece to screw into the wider breech section.
Update – 27/4/25:
Here we have a GP25 in a DIY standalone stock loaded with a BRT shotgun insert which was developed to engage drones.
— Matthew Moss | The Armourer's Bench (@historicfirearm) April 27, 2025
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!
In a recent article/video we looked at the proliferation of Russia’s unusual ‘Turtle Tanks’ which are protected by ad hoc, locally fabricated counter-FPV shells. Since then we’ve gotten a good look at several more Turtle Tanks and our first look at the driver’s point of view.
Footage, filmed on 27 April, of another Russian armoured assault into Krasnohorivka shows a column of four infantry fighting vehicles with what appear t o be counter-FPV shelters following a tank with a ‘cope cage’
On the 29 April, a Ukrainian Telegram channel posted a short video of a ‘Turtle Tank’ attack in the Bakhmut direction, noting that [machine translated]: “the equipment is stupidly scalded with metal, from 5 units it was possible to destroy a tank and an armored personnel carrier. A lot of FPV was spent on one tank. Everyone laughs at their construction of barns, but in fact they work like hell.” The tank appears to have a box like shelter with a sloped forward roof over its gun and glacis. As seen in earlier videos the tank is leading a column of armoured vehicles during the assault, clearing a path for them. It appears to detonate a mine with its mine plough and retreats.
At the start of May a pair of T-62s with hybrid counter-FPV shelters were seen in photos taken by a UAV, location unconfirmed. These images illustrate the blurring of the lines between ‘cope cage’ equipped tanks and the ‘turtle tanks’. Like the earlier turtle tanks they’re fitted with EW sets & KMT-6 mine ploughs but do not have shells made entirely from sheet metal. Instead, they appear to have used chainlink and gratings, one piece of which appears to have Kontakt (explosive reactive armour (ERA) mounted. One of the vehicles appears to have been used to transport supplies. One T-62 has broken tracks, the other top damage.
A hybrid combining elements of the Turtle Tank with that of earlier ‘cope cages’ (via social media)
Around the same time the Ukrainian 79th Air Assault Brigade shared video of Russian attacks near Novomykhailivka, in Donetsk, the footage included a brief clip of a ‘turtle tank’ with a small forward opening, camouflage over its shell frame and no sign of a mine plough or roller fitted. On 2 May, the 33rd Mechanized Brigade shared footage from thermal camera-equipped FPV drones showed a Russian tank being used to transport troops, the profile of the counter-FPV shelter is visible but the low definition of the thermal footage makes it difficult to analyse its construction. The vehicle, however, appears to be equipped with a mine plough and possibly an EW module.
Also on 2 May, Ukrainian drone fundraiser Teoyaomiquushared a video of a Russian assault near Ivanivske which shows a pair of Russian armoured vehicles with counter-FPV shells, one of which deploys a smoke screen. The 1st Assault Battalion of the 5th Separate Assault Brigade also shared footage from the Russian assault showing the shell-equipped vehicles.
On the 5 May a short video was posted by a Russian combatant which showed an entirely enclosed MT-LB with steel plates surrounding the top of the vehicle and its wheels. It also has an additional mesh roof cover to add additional top protection. Two cutouts in the side and one in the front for the driver also have mesh covers to give some visibility. On the same day video of a destroyed BTR-MDM which had been encased in a counter-FPV shelter was shared, showing the rear of the vehicle enclosed.
An evolved Turtle Tank with added cages on its superstructure (via social media)
Perhaps the most striking evolution of the ‘Turtle Tank’ appeared on 5 May, a tank completely enclosed except for a small gap at the front. Protective grills made from cages completely cover the outer metal sheets of the counter-FPV shell. One Russian telegram channel likened it to a rolling ‘poultry farm’. The vehicle also has a KMT-7 mine roller. Additional video of the porcupine-like tank gives us the first look at what it is like driving one of these ‘turtle tanks’, with his hatch open the driver has an almost clear view ahead (apart from the solid awning above him and the partial grill cage protection to his front) but no view to the left or right front quarters of the tank.
A Turtle Tank driver using a camera feed to steer (via social media)
Several days later footage from inside what appears to be the same tank shows the driver steering by video monitor. The readout on the monitor suggests the video’s resolution is 4K H.265 but the field of view appears limited, with the camera seemingly positioned on the shell’s awning looking down between the KMT-7’s two rollers. The system used is from Russian automotive accessory company Eplutus and appears to be one of their rear view camera monitors.
Another piece of UAV footage shows another ‘turtle tank’ with a much boxier shell. It again has all of the major features seen in earlier examples: a sheet metal shell which encloses most of the top part of tank, a set of mine rollers and a EW jammer module on the roof. Some sources suggest the footage was filmed near Bilohorivka, in Luhansk. It’s unclear when the footage was filmed but the vehicle appears stationary with access grates to the tank’s rear deck left open.
The 7 May saw evidence of the proliferation of t he ‘turtle tank’ concept with Russian social media sharing photographs of a ‘Turtle Tank’ fabricated by the Russian 40th Naval Infantry Brigade, these indicate that the concept is continuing to proliferated, perhaps without any central influence. The tank is encased in a counter-FPV shelter made up of three large metal sheets, a poorly fabricated angled roof which slopes at the rear with a flat top and a wire mesh slopping front piece. Additionally on the floor there appears to be a chair curtain similar to those seen on other ‘turtle tanks’. The rear has an extended deck and appears to be enclosed. A skirt of Kontakt-1 ERA has been roughly added around the skirt. As with other Turtle Tanks the ‘V Turtle’ is equipped with what appears to be an RP-377 electronic warfare jammer. It also has a KMT-6 mine plough fitted. A large white V has been painted on the sides of the shell and Russian flag rings added to the barrel.
A Turtle Tank built by the 40th Naval Infantry Brigade (via social media)
On 10 May, footage of an FPV drone attacking an immobilised ‘turtle tank’ emerged. The tank is again enclosed by a counter-FPV shell and has a mine plough. The feed from the drone also suffers from some interference as it approaches the vehicle suggesting that an EW module may be present nearby, perhaps aboard the tank. However, it appears that a mine has damaged the tank’s tracks and the vehicle has been abandoned allowing an FPV to attack via an open rear hatch. The footage was reportedly filmed during the first day of the new Russian offensive towards Kharkiv. This again shows that not only is the concept proliferating but also that the ‘turtle tanks’ are still vulnerable to conventional anti-tank weapons like mines.
Also on the 10 May, the Russian military channel, Large Caliber Trouble, shared a photo of the porcupine turtle tank which had been damaged by FPV strikes showing the cage bars bent and some holes in the counter-FPV shell. The post claims that the tank was “attacked by 40 kamikazes, [but] thanks to electronic warfare, most of them fell and only 8 FPVs were able to cause damage.” The condition of the vehicle after the engagement is unknown. The suggestion that a large number of FPVs attacked the tank supports the earlier Ukrainian comments about ‘a lot of FPV [being] spent on one tank.’
A ‘turtle tank’, possibly a T-80, seen on the eastern front on the first day of the Russian Kharkiv offensive (via social media)
A key question is how can the Turtle Tanks be defeated? Basically just like any other tank can be: anti-tank guided missiles with tandem warheads, dense mines belts, direct hits by artillery, use of multiple FPV drones to damage and breach the shell with additional drones to exploit gaps made.
We will probably see further proliferation of the ‘turtle tanks’ in coming weeks but with time the Ukrainians will probably find ways to engage these protected tanks more effectively, as is so common in war there will probably be a continued evolution of measure and counter-measure.
Update – 13/5/24:
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 sides.
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 sheet 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 T-80U with shell were shared with at least some of the work seemingly being completed in the field with a welder hooked up to a generator. The outer framework of the shell is visible and the sheet metal used seems to be well rusted. Markings visible may suggest the 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 what may be the ‘turtle tank’ which was immobilised during the initial assaults on the Kharkiv front shows the shell badly damaged and its left-side track lost its KMT-6 mine plough is still present however.
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 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 is 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.
Update – 14/5/24:
Further examples of tanks equipped with counter-FPV shells, which both sides increasingly refer to as ‘сарай’ or sheds. 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.
Update – 15/5/24:
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.
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 surveillence camera has been attatched 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.
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 