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.
Drone warfare has evolved massively in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February, moving from commercial drones spotting enemies and dropping grenades to First Person View (FPV) drones capable of taking out a tank. One branch of the possible evolution of drones which hasn’t seen a great deal of development or practical use is the mounting of small arms on them.
On 4 September, Wild Hornets, a Ukrainian drone manufacturing initiative, shared footage of what they claim is the first use of their gun-armed drone in combat. The video was shared with the caption [machine translated]: “this time, the first combat deployment was carried out—targeting a position with Russian forces. This test indicated the direction in which this project should move forward.”
The grainy footage from an FPV drone’s camera shows the barrel of an AK-74, mounted tilted to the right, at the bottom center of the frame. It is seen firing several full-auto bursts towards the ground but it’s difficult to see at what exactly. The drone is believed to be operated by the Bulava (Mace) drone team, which is believed to be attached to the Ukrainian Presidential Brigade.
Wild Hornets note that the rifle is mounted on one of their largest FPV drones, a Queen Hornet. The Queen Hornet FPVs can reportedly carry up to 9.5kg (21lbs) of payload so an AK-74 with a loaded magazine (even a 40-round RPK-74 magazine) would be no issue. The drone also has to contend with the rifle’s recoil and from the video it appears that on firing the drone’s flight is only slowed momentarily. The Queen Hornet was unveiled in March 2024, and began to appear on the frontline in July and have been used not only to drop munitions but to also deliver smaller drones downrange – acting as a carrier, and also as signal repeaters to enable other drones to travel further from their operators.
The gun-armed FPV was first seen in a video shared on 16 August. Wild Hornets shared a video showing a Queen Hornet returning to Ukrainian lines with an AK-74 hanging below it – Wild Hornets claim that the rifle was a Russian AK salvaged with a magnet. A montage then shows the salvaged rifle being mounted on a Queen Hornet, with its stock removed to save weight, and test fired. The rifle appears to be held onto the drone with zip ties and a small grey box encloses the trigger – likely containing a servo to pull the trigger.
There have been efforts to mount firearms on drones outside of Ukraine and there is also some earlier evidence of Ukrainian drone teams attempting to mount guns on the large Baba Yaga heavy drones earlier with imagery appearing in April of a large, possibly gun-armed, drone being filmed from above. In May, footage of what could also lay claim to the first use of a gun-armed drone in combat was shared. The footage was shared by the 74th Battalion of the 102nd Territorial Defense Brigade and shows a Baba Yaga drone equipped with a firearm, again firing bursts, the weapon appears to have a sighting post attached to allow the weapon to be aimed using the drone’s camera. The footage of the drone firing on Russian positions was reportedly filmed northwest of Marfopil, in Zaporizhzhia.
There is also evidence that the Russians have experimented similarly with gun-armed drones with Russian drone company Molot Aero sharing a video of their Vatya X8 drone equipped with a suppressed AK-74 in June. There is no evidence currently available to suggest this configuration has yet been used in the field. Photographs of the drone show a similar configuration to that assembled by Wild Hornets with a stock-less AK-74 mounted on its side on the underside of the drone. The footage shows the Molot Aero drone hovering over a range successfully shooting several balloon targets at relatively close range before it lands.
Most recently, in direct response to Wild Hornets’ video the Georigian Legion, a unit composed of volunteers from Georgia fighting for Ukraine, shared a short video of a drone armed with an RPG-7. The footage appears to show the launcher being tested but on speaking with the Georgian Legion they confirmed that the RPG-FPV has been used during combat operations. They have reportedly used it against vehicles, fixed positions and infantry but are looking to improve the design with better optics and increased engagement range.
One key reason we probably haven’t seen more gun-equipped drones is that mounting a firearm is a relatively poor use of a heavy lift drone. These larger, more powerful drones can be better utilised as bombers carrying large payloads over significant distances. Bombs dropped on vehicles and defensive positions have more impact than a drone equipped with a rifle-calibre firearm. It is likely very difficult to accurately aim the weapon and the magazine capacity is limited. To aim effectively the drone will probably have to fly lower than it would when bombing, thus making it more susceptible to fire from the ground.
Update – 11/9/24:
A brief clip of a quadcopter FPV drone equipped with an RPG-18 anti-armour weapon mounted upside down. Few other details currently available.
Since the February 2022 invasion the war in Ukraine has been characterised by the use of drones and remote systems. While we’ve seen aerial drone use expand and evolve extremely rapidly and naval drones have proven themselves very effective, ground based drone use has been much slower to evolve with unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) seeing some limited use delivering explosive charges, mines and taking on logistical roles.
One unmanned ground system which I didn’t expect to see is the use of ‘robot dogs’ (робот-собака). These quadrupedal, remotely operated systems were seen for the first time earlier this month, most notably with Ukraine’s 28th Mechanised Brigade.
A Unitree Go-2 robot dog being tested in Ukraine (via social media)
The first footage of the robot dogs in Ukraine was shared by members of Kurt & Company (a unit with the 28th Mechanised Brigade) on 2 August, it shows one of the dogs being demonstrated in a field navigating though fields and woodland, through brush and righting itself when it got stuck trying to climb over a fallen branch.
Another video appeared on 5 August, with the robot dog seen moving along a bombed out residential street and being carried by its operator, a member of Kurt & Company. The footage does not show the dog operating inside any buildings. The post claims the footage was filmed in Toretske, Donetsk.
On the 8 August, France24, published an article based on a demonstration of one of the robot dogs during which the model of dog was referred to as “BAD 1” and a second model “BAD 2” was referenced but described as more advanced and “could not be shown for security reasons”. The article also noted that if one of the dogs ever fell “into Russian hands… an emergency switch allows the operator to erase all its data.” AFPshared a short video from the demonstration which noted that the drones were provided by BRIT Alliance, a UK-based security company which specialises in deploying drone systems. Interestingly, some articles describe the robot dogs as ‘British built’, however, they actually appear to be Chinese Unitree Go-2 robot dogs. The Unitree name can be seen below the dog’s camera sensor in the AFP video, as well as a Kurt & Company sticker on its right side.
Ukrainian troops of the 28th Mechanised Brigade with a Go-2 robot dog (via social media)
The Unitree Go-2 has a number of interesting features including the ability to map areas using LIDAR scanning, an AI mode that helps it navigate complex terrain and a live camera feed. Unitree’s site lists them as available from $1,850 for a Go-2 air and $3,050 for a Go-2 Pro. The Go-2 Pro model weighs around 15kg, has an 8kg payload, a battery life of up to 2 hours and a top speed of just under 8mph. Intriguingly back in 2022, Russia displayed the M-81, a robot dog armed with an RPG-26, at the Army 2022 defence exposition. The M-81 was actually based on Unitree’s Go-1 robot dog.
A further video was shared on 12 August, the drone is seen camouflaged with what may be a Ukrainian digicam shirt. In the same video the word ‘B.A.D.2.’ can be seen stenciled on the body of the dog.
On the 14 August, Kurt & Company shared a series of photos of a robot dog and operator with the caption [machine translated] “Better to buy robots than lose soldiers”. In several of the photos the dog has a backpack and radio strapped and taped to its back. On examination of the images this dog appears to be of a different design and resembles the DeepRobotics Lite3 Venture model, DeepRobotics are another Chinese manufacturer. This model weighs in at 12.2kg and has a 2 hour endurance.
A DeepRobotics Lite3 Venture demonstrated in Ukraine, August 2024 (via Ukrainian Army)
The same day the brigade’s official telegram page shared another video of the robot dog being demonstrated with the caption [machine translated]:
“Asymmetric responses are effective against the enemy’s numerical superiority in manpower, and they are possible thanks to technologies and innovative approaches in the conduct of hostilities. As an example – this robot dog at the service of “Kurt&Company”. He has many talents and a wide potential for use on the battlefield. Just as drones once changed warfare, so our four-legged robotic friends will influence the course of hostilities.”
The short video included clips of the dog on the move, doing backflips, and walking along a bombed out residential street.
Also on the 14 August, Ukrainian Army social media channels also shared the same photographs previously shared with a caption quoting the commander of Kurt & Company as saying: “Such a dog should be in every unit”.
It’s unclear how many of the robot dogs might be in use in Ukraine, or if they’ve been used on operations yet. A BILD article published on 14 August, claimed that as many as 30 have been deployed but there’s no further evidence to support this. A Новини ФАКТ article stated they had been used operationally in Toretsk but this remains unconfirmed.
While the quadrupedal design of the robot dogs means they are, in theory at least, more capable of climbing stairs than tracked or wheeled UGVs their utility remains to be seen. They have less capability to carry payloads and its unclear if they’ll be used in a one-way role with explosive payloads – though given every other unmanned system in Ukraine has, it is probably a just matter of time. Unlike some of the simpler tracked and wheeled UGVs the Go-2 robot dogs are probably more expensive, harder to maintain and have a larger profile making them more vulnerable to enemy fire. It has been noted that they will also likely be utilised in reconnaissance of enemy trenches ahead of assault teams but again evidence of this has not yet surfaced.
A Unitree Go-2 robot dog being tested in Ukraine (via social media)
It seems that the role the dogs would be best used for is reconnaissance in urban areas where aerial drones can’t easily navigate inside structures, removing the need to send troops to recce buildings to locate the enemy. It seems that this is the role that the Ukrainians have in mind for the dogs. While China, the US and a range of other militaries have tested robot dogs, including the mounting of small arms and even light anti-armour weapons, if they are utilised in combat in Ukraine this will represent a battlefield first for this type of system.
Update – 20/8/24: An another video of one of the Chinese Robot Dogs, a Unitree Go-2, in Ukraine posted on 19 August.
Another video of one of the Robot Dogs in #Ukraine. This model is a Chinese Unitree Go-2 which has reportedly been provided via a UK-based security company, BRIT Alliance.
— Matthew Moss | Historical Firearms (@historicfirearm) September 8, 2024
Update – 15/1/25:
RoboCopDog.A robot dog with what appears to be a thermal camera with the Rapid Operational Response Unit (KORD) of the Ukrainian National Police.More on these robot dogs in #Ukraine here: armourersbench.com/2024/08/16/w…
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!
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!
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!
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 