Wikipedia

Improvised vehicle armour

Improvised vehicle armour is a form of vehicle armour consisting of protective materials added to a vehicle such as a car, truck, or tank in an irregular and extemporized fashion using available materials. Typically, improvised armour is added in the field and it was not originally part of the design, an official up-armour kit, nor centrally planned and distributed. Improvised armour is used to protect occupants from small arms, crew-served weapons, artillery (or tank gun) fire, and mines. Improvised additions have included metal plate, scrap metal, sandbags, concrete, wood, and, since at least the 2000s, Kevlar. These materials vary widely in their ballistic protection.

Improvised armour added to a truck by railway shop workers for the Danish resistance movement near the end of World War II

Improvised vehicle armour has appeared on the battlefield for as long as vehicles have been used in combat. Though usually used in military or conflict contexts, improvised vehicle armour has also been used in non-combat contexts, such as to protect the vehicles of strikebreakers.

History

edit

World War I

edit

The first armoured cars to see combat in World War I were entirely improvised, although this soon changed as the war continued. A few were used by the Belgian Army during the German invasion.[1] The British Royal Naval Air Service received reports of this and converted some of their own cars.[1] Improvised conversion continued until December 1914 when the first standardized design entered service.[1] The British Royal Naval Air Service in Dunkirk sent teams in cars to find and rescue downed reconnaissance pilots in the battle areas. They mounted machine guns on them[2] and as these excursions became increasingly dangerous, they improvised boiler plate armouring on the vehicles using metal provided by a local shipbuilder.[citation needed]

World War II

edit
 
An M4 (105) Sherman with spare track-links welded onto its sloped frontal glacis-plate for additional armoured protection, shown here at Langenberg Liberation Memorial in Ede, Netherlands

Most armies involved in World War II adopted some form of improvised armour at some point. The Home Guard in the United Kingdom equipped itself with a number of vehicles with improvised armour, such as the Bison concrete armoured lorry, intended to be used for defending airfields. Later in 1944, some Cromwell and Churchill tanks had sections of tracks attached to their existing armour to provide yet more extra protection.[3] US M8 Greyhound armoured car crews would sometimes line the floors of their vehicles with sandbags to provide extra protection against landmines.[4]

The addition of improvised armour to tanks was performed by both Axis and Allies forces due to the arms race between the designers of antitank weapons and the designers of tank armour. In some cases, a tank that was effectively protected against existing antitank weapons at the time of its manufacture ended up, once finally tested and delivered to the battlefield, being vulnerable to newly designed antitank weapons. As such, tank crews would ask field repair workshops to increase their protection, using a wide range of armouring principles, including welded or bolted on metal "skirts" around treads and turrets (spaced armour) and welded screens (slat armour). Some German improvised armour was designed to protect weak points, such as sandbags added by Afrika Korps tank crews to the turret joint. On the Eastern Front, some tank crews added sandbags due to fears of magnetic mines.

 
A Sturmgeschütz III with added spaced armour and large wooden beams.

The German military became aware of these improvised armour approaches used by their troops and issued a recommendation against using most of them in 1944 in the Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (Newsletter for the Armoured Forces).[5] While the German military was aware that improvised armour boosted tank crews' morale (by giving a sense of increased security) the analysts argued that many improvised armouring techniques were not effective. For example, welding spare tank treads to a turret was not effective, as treads were not armour-grade steel, and concrete was found to offer little protection while also leading to excess fragmentation. Some improvised armour, such as adding concrete or welding on tank treads on an 80 to 90-degree angle, actually made enemy weapons more effective, and both approaches overtaxed the tanks' powertrains from the extra weight.[6]

Welding on improvised Schürzen (skirting) was not permitted, due to concerns that welding the original factory plate armour could weaken it; however, using brackets to mount turret-side and back skirts or side skirts was permitted.[7] Side skirts were permitted because the Soviet 14,5 mm antitank rifles could penetrate the less-armoured sides of the Panzer.

Some US tanks had spare tracks attached to their armour. This was done with the M4 Sherman and Stuart tanks. Besides spare track-links, other improvised armour included wooden logs, tree trunks, armour plating from other destroyed or abandoned tanks and even a thick layer of concrete, albeit the lattermost very rarely. Concrete was sometimes added above the driver to protect the thinner roof above a driver from antitank rifle fire coming from above. Soviet tank crews sometimes welded bed frames to their tanks to protect against shaped charge explosives such as the German Panzerfaust anti-tank weapon. The bed frames were an early version of modern slat armour, which was used in the 2000s to protect tanks against rocket-propelled grenades such as the RPG-7.

During the North African Campaign, the German Afrika Korps attached strips of spare tracks to the front of their Panzer IIIs [8] and Panzer IVs. Elsewhere, such as on the Eastern Front and in Italy, the German military also relied on add-on plates of armour of varying thickness (including the well-known Schürzen add-on side armour plating), cement and timber to increase the armour of their tracked combat vehicles, especially those with weaker armour like the Marder series of self-propelled anti-tank guns and the StuG III (many of these were given either timber, concrete, additional armour plating or spare tracks to increase their battlefield survivability). Most German vehicles exported to their allies in the war also carried such forms of armour, such as StuG IIIs sent to Finland, which carried both log (on the sides) and concrete (frontally) armour.

Vietnam War

edit

In the Vietnam War, U.S. gun trucks were armoured with sandbags and locally fabricated steel armour plate.[9]

Troubles

edit
See also: South Armagh Sniper (1990–1997) and Attack on Derryard checkpoint

During The Troubles, the Provisional Irish Republican Army used several types of improvised tactical vehicles.

Strike of 1984

edit

During the 1984 UK miners' strike, buses used for transporting strikebreakers to work were armoured against attacks by strikers by fitting metal bars to their windows. These improvised armoured buses were nicknamed "battle buses".[citation needed]

Iraq War

edit
 
A U.S. Army 5-ton cargo truck with improvised armour on the doors, rear gunner's box, and an improved bumper

During the Iraq War, improvised vehicle armour was colloquially referred to as "hillbilly armour", "farmer armour" or "hajji armour" by American troops.[10]

During the occupation that followed the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, insurgent forces deployed roadside bombs, RPG teams, and snipers with small arms to attack military vehicles on supply convoys and other known routes.[11]

To protect themselves from these threats, American troops began reinforcing their Humvees, LMTVs and other vehicles with whatever was available, including scrap metal, kevlar blankets and vests, compromised ballistic glass and plywood. In some cases they relied on Iraqis to assist them in these efforts, and referred to the result as "hajji" armour.[11] They were also officially advised to line the floors of their Humvees with sandbags to deaden the impact of IED and land mine explosions.[12]

Some officers in Iraq were disciplined over their refusal to carry out missions in what they considered improperly-armoured vehicles.[13]

Hungarian troops were said[by whom?] to be covering their non-armoured Mercedes-Benz G-Class vehicles with ballistic vests on the outside.

Military-supplied "up-armour"

edit
 
"Hillbilly" scrap armour plate on door of U.S. Army 8x8 HEMTT at a base at Ar-Ramadi, Iraq

The US Army began deploying "up-armour" kits to better protect military vehicles in August 2003, two years before the Marine Corps would. Three levels of "up-armour" were implemented:

  • Level I: fully integrated armour installed during vehicle production or retrofit (including ballistic windows)
  • Level II: add-on armour (including ballistic windows)
  • Level III: locally fabricated armour (interim solution, lacking ballistic windows)

The process of up-armouring all vehicles was to be complete by mid-2005.[14]

As recently as February 2006, the Army was welding additional armour onto the armoured Humvee variant M1114 and five-ton MTV in Iraq.[15]

The United States Marines developed their own marine armour kit (MAK), consisting of bolt-on armour for the crew compartment, ballistic glass, suspension upgrades, and air conditioning. However, the kit was not fielded until early 2005, and even then only to certain specified units.[16] Level I armour kits are now phasing out MAKs for MTVRs and M1114 HMMWVs.

Marvin Heemeyer

edit

In the Marvin Heemeyer incident, a disgruntled man built an improvised armoured bulldozer and attacked buildings and police. The machine used in the incident was a modified Komatsu D355A bulldozer,[17] fitted with makeshift armour plating covering the cabin, engine, and parts of the tracks. In places, this armour was over 1 foot (30 cm) thick, consisting of 5000-PSI Quikrete concrete mix fitted between sheets of tool steel (acquired from an automotive dealer in Denver), to make ad-hoc composite armour. This made the machine impervious to small arms fire and resistant to explosives: three external explosions and more than 200 rounds of ammunition were fired at the bulldozer and had no effect on it.[18]

Rumsfeld questioning incident

edit
 
A U.S. Army LMTV cargo truck with up-armoured cab
 
A 10K forklift outfitted with hillbilly armour protecting its cab
 
An airman works on a truck as part of an expanded program to improve the armoured protection for U.S. troops. Balad Air Base, Iraq (April 2005).

The practice of U.S. troops reinforcing their vehicles with improvised armour became well known after a U.S. soldier questioned U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the need to salvage armour from scrap materials on 8 December 2004, at Camp Buehring, Kuwait.[19][20] The question was met with cheers from fellow troops.[21]

Wilson: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armour our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?"

Rumsfeld: "It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have – not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. You can have all the armour in the world on a tank and (still) be blown up..."

Rumsfeld was paying a visit to approximately 2,300 troops on the eve of their deployment across the border to Iraq. Specialist Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team (Tennessee Army National Guard) asked the question, but it was later revealed that Lee Pitts, an embedded reporter for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, had asked Wilson to make the inquiry.[22][23][24]

Several related questions were asked of Rumsfeld by other troops. Some of Wilson's fellow soldiers and commanders supported his inquiry in later interviews. Col. John Zimmermann, staff judge advocate of Wilson's unit said that 95 per cent of the unit's 300 vehicles lacked appropriate armour, and suggested that it was the result of a double standard used to equip the National Guard as compared with active-duty forces.[25][26]

On 9 December 2004, President George W. Bush responded to the incident, saying that the expressed concerns were being addressed.[12]

On 10 December 2004, it was reported that following the incident, Armor Holdings, Inc., the company producing armoured Humvees for the Army, was asked to increase production from 450 to 550 per month—its maximum capacity.[27] Also on 10 December, Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA, House Armed Services Committee) issued a news release harshly critical of the Bush administration and The Pentagon: Meehan described the shortage of armoured vehicles as "a dangerously exposed center of gravity" of America's military presence in Iraq, and the lack of preparedness for insurgent tactics such as deploying improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as "symptomatic of a headlong rush to war."[28]

On 15 December 2004, the Department of Defense held a special briefing on the issue of up-armouring. Officials stated that the process of up-armouring SPC Wilson's unit was nearly complete on 8 December, and was completed within 24 hours of the incident. Brig. Gen. Jeff Sorenson, Deputy for Acquisition Systems Management, stated during the briefing that fully armoured vehicles had been isolated and destroyed in the former Soviet Union's campaigns in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and that the hearts and minds aspect of the Army's counterinsurgency efforts would be negatively impacted were soldiers to remain isolated from the populace in fully armoured vehicles.[14]

The incident sparked criticism of Rumsfeld,[29] and led some to question the nation's commitment to its troops.[30]

Mexican drug War

edit

Drug cartels involved in the Mexican Drug War have in a number of cases fitted improvised armour to heavy trucks.[31]

Libyan civil war

edit

During the 2011 Libyan civil war, anti-Gaddafi forces were seen operating T-55 tanks and technicals (trucks with mounted machine guns and other crew served weapons) with improvised armour mounted on them, likely in an attempt to improve survivability against superior Libyan Army hardware such as T-72 tanks.

Russo-Ukrainian War

edit
 
Metal plates welded onto a truck in Ukraine
 
A neutralised and abandoned Russian T-72B3M tank with makeshift slat armour attached to the turret, during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

During the war in Donbas, units on both sides of the conflict improvised and experimented with adding armour to vehicles like trucks or BTR-80 amphibious armoured personnel carriers or similar.[32][33]

In late 2021, various Russian tanks were observed with top-mounted improvised slat armour made from steel grilles.[34] In December 2021, the Ukrainian Army released video of a military exercise in which an armoured fighting vehicle (apparently a BTR mated to a T-64-like turret) protected by armour of this sort was destroyed by one of the two Javelin missiles fired. However, the actual combat effectiveness of this style of armour was still unknown.[35] In 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine where it saw combat usage, it was pejoratively referred to as "emotional support armour" or "cope cages"[36][37][38][39][40] among online communities, as an expression of skepticism over their effectiveness. Military analysts have suggested that the armour was most likely designed in an attempt to mitigate the threat of top-attack weapons such as the FGM-148 Javelin, alternatively against RPGs fired from above in cities, loitering munitions and drone attacks.[41][42][43] In May 2022, it was reported in Russian media interviews with Russian tankers who had returned from Ukraine that their crews eventually removed the cages, as they obstructed the use of machine guns and radios, and prevented timely evacuation if the tank caught fire.[44] In June 2022 similar structures were seen on some Russian deployed T-62 tanks.[45] In May 2023 a Russian T-72B3 was seen with improvised top armour with explosive reactive armour bricks mounted on it.[46]

After the invasion Russian forces began to add improvised armour to their trucks.[47] First in the form of scrap metal, logs and armoured panels from armoured vehicles such as APCs and later in the form of more form-fitting welded plates.[47]

Improvised armour has also been employed by the Ukrainian army, and has been observed repeatedly in the battlefield on howitzers, IFVs, tanks and foreign-donated equipment.[48][49][50]

Syrian civil war and conflict against the Islamic State

edit

In their role in the ongoing Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict and Syrian civil war and finding themselves lacking in the amount of modern armour, members of the Kurdistan peshmerga and People's Protection Units (YPG) were reported to have fabricated homemade armoured fighting vehicles of widely varying designs to fight ISIS militants, who are armed with captured modern armour. Many of the improvised vehicles were converted tractors and farm equipment fitted with Soviet-era guns, some with elaborate paint schemes and designs. Western commentators and reporters have likened the appearance of some of these vehicles as like the makeshift vehicles featured in the Mad Max post-apocalyptic action multi-media franchise.[51] The allied Free Syrian Army rebels have also been reported to have fashioned similar makeshift armoured fighting vehicles.[52]

Battle of Marawi

edit

During the Battle of Marawi, the ground forces of the Philippines' Army and Marine Corps used wooden armour plating on their armoured personnel carriers such as the GKN Simba, V-150, M113A2 and Marine LAV-300 FSV/APC to protect against rocket propelled grenades fired from the Maute and Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the city.[53][54][55][56][57]

Storm chasers

edit

In recent years, some storm chasers in the United States have developed purpose-made vehicles, such as the Tornado Intercept Vehicles designed to survive the hostile environment inside a tornado. These vehicles are built on truck and SUV chassis with heavy armour shells built onto them consisting of steel, kevlar, polycarbonate, and Rhino Linings to protect against airborne debris.[citation needed]

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ a b c Livesey, Jack (2007). Armoured Fighting Vehicles of World Wars I and II. Southwater. pp. 12–13. ISBN 978-1-84476-370-2.
  2. ^ Band of Brigands p 59
  3. ^ Forty, George (1995). World War Two Tanks. Osprey. p. 9. ISBN 1-85532-532-2.
  4. ^ Livesey, Jack (2007). Armoured Fighting Vehicles of World Wars I and II. Southwater. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-84476-370-2.
  5. ^ Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen No. 14, August 1944. Berlin : Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1944. 40 p. Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen No. 15, September 1944. Berlin : Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1944. 30 p.Reisebericht über die Teilnahme an der Rüstungsbesprechung und Rücksprache beim P.A. 1944. 6 p. General der Artillerie Nr. 240/44 g.Kdos.
  6. ^ Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen No. 14, August 1944. Berlin : Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1944. 40 p. Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen No. 15, September 1944. Berlin : Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1944. 30 p. Reisebericht über die Teilnahme an der Rüstungsbesprechung und Rücksprache beim P.A. 1944. 6 p. General der Artillerie Nr. 240/44 g.Kdos.
  7. ^ Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen No. 14, August 1944. Berlin : Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1944. 40 p. Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen No. 15, September 1944. Berlin : Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, 1944. 30 p. Reisebericht über die Teilnahme an der Rüstungsbesprechung und Rücksprache beim P.A. 1944. 6 p. General der Artillerie Nr. 240/44 g.Kdos.
  8. ^ Jorgensen, Christer; Chris Mann (2001). Tank Warfare The Illustrated History of the Tank at War 1914–2000. Amber Books Ltd. p. 87. ISBN 1-86227-135-6.
  9. ^ Gardiner, Paul S. "Gun Trucks: Genuine Examples of American Ingenuity," Archived 2 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine Army Logistician, PB 700-03-4, Vol. 35, No. 4, July–August 2003, Army Combined Arms Support Command, Fort Lee, Virginia. ISSN 0004-2528
  10. ^ Hirsh, Michael; Barry, John and Dehghanpisheh, Babak. "'Hillbilly Armor': Defense sees it's fallen short in securing the troops. The grunts already knew," Newsweek, 20 December 2004.
  11. ^ a b Moran, Michael. "Frantically, the Army tries to armor Humvees: Soft-skinned workhorses turning into death traps," MSNBC, 15 April 2004.
  12. ^ a b "Bush: Soldiers' equipment gripes heard: To colleagues' cheers, soldier complained about armor to Rumsfeld," MSNBC, 9 December 2004.
  13. ^ Currey, Richard. "Waiting For Justice: The Saga of Army Lt. Julian Goodrum, PTSD, Hillbilly Armor, and Whistle-Blowing," Archived 28 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine The VVA Veteran, March 2006.
  14. ^ a b "Special Defense Department Briefing on Uparmoring HMMWV," U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), News Transcript, 15 December 2004.
  15. ^ Hunter, Duncan. "Military is Functioning Well in Iraq," The San Diego Union Tribune, 17 February 2006.
  16. ^ Crum, R. USMC Maj. "New Marine Armor Kit to Upgrade 'Hummers'," Transformation, 2 December 2004.
  17. ^ "Crews Begin Dismantling Granby Bulldozer". KMGH-TV. 15 April 2005. Archived from the original on 15 March 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2006.
  18. ^ "Man who bulldozed through Colo. town is dead". NBC News. 5 June 2004. Retrieved 31 August 2006.
  19. ^ Burns, Robert. "Soldiers criticize lack of armor," Associated Press, 9 December 2004.
  20. ^ "Rumsfeld Responds to U.S. Soldier's Grilling: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Tries to Quell the Firestorm Over the 'Hillbilly Armor' Issue," ABC News, 9 December 2004.
  21. ^ Sonnenfeldt, Helmut and Nessen, Rob. "You Go to War with the Press You Have," Washington Times, 30 December 2004.
  22. ^ It was widely reported that Wilson was "asked" to make the inquiry by Pitts or somehow "pressured" by him. Tom Griscom, executive editor of the Times Free Press, wrote the following in a 10 December 2004, editor's note: "Questions have been raised as to whether Mr. Pitts used the soldier or put words in his mouth. While Mr. Pitts states that he discussed the armour question with the soldiers, Spc. Wilson chose to ask the question."
  23. ^ "Reporter planted GI's question for Rumsfeld: Says issue of unarmored vehicles wasn't being covered," CNN, 10 December 2004.
  24. ^ Pitts, Lee. Email from Pitts to colleagues, 8 December 2004 Archived 18 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine, posted on Poynter Institute website by Jim Romenesko, 9 December 2004.
  25. ^ "Soldiers Must Rely on 'Hillbilly Armor' for Protection: Troops Scavenge Scrap Metal to Protect Combat Vehicles," ABC News, 8 December 2004.
  26. ^ Schmitt, Eric. "U.S. defense chief taken aback by pointed questions," The New York Times, 9 December 2004.
  27. ^ "U.S. to boost armored Humvee output: Pentagon ups order after soldier's question causes stir," NBC News, 10 December 2004.
  28. ^ "Meehan Calls for Ramped Up Armoring of Vehicles," Archived 3 May 2007 at the Wayback Machine Congressman Martin T. Meehan (MA05), news release, 10 December 2004.
  29. ^ Kristol, William. "The Defense Secretary We Have," Washington Post, 15 December 2004.
  30. ^ Costello, Tom. "Lack of armor sign of the times in Iraq," MSNBC, 9 December 2004.
  31. ^ Cave, Damien (7 June 2011). "Monster Trucks on the Road, From Gangs in Mexico". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  32. ^ N.R. Jenzen-Jones; Jonathan Ferguson (18 November 2014). Raising Red Flags: An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine. Armament Research Services Pty. Ltd. ISBN 978-0-9924624-3-7.
    Full PDF on armamentresearch.com
  33. ^ "Ukrainian 'Fortress On Wheels'". 4 August 2014. Retrieved 14 November 2017 – via www.rferl.org.
  34. ^ Roblin, Sebastien. "Russian Tanks Massing Near Ukraine Sport Mods Against Drones, Javelin Missiles". Forbes. Archived from the original on 11 March 2022. Retrieved 11 March 2022.
  35. ^ Thomas Newdick (23 December 2021). "Ukrainian Troops Test Javelin Missile Against Russian Cage-Style Improvised Tank Armor". The Drive. Brookline Media Inc.
  36. ^ "Russian tanks in Ukraine are sprouting cages". The Economist. 14 March 2022. Archived from the original on 16 March 2022. They have indeed been mockingly dubbed by Western analysts as "emotional support armour" or "cope cages". Superficially, they are an example of what is known in military circles as field-expedient armour—in other words, stuff that has been added to vehicles after they have entered service.
  37. ^ James Dwyer (10 March 2022). "How do anti-tank missiles work, and how helpful might they be for Ukraine's soldiers?". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 15 March 2022. These are colloquially termed "cope cages" by various communities on the internet. Of course, they will do little to minimise the impact from a missile, but they do demonstrate that Russian soldiers are fearful of the threat the missiles present.
  38. ^ "What to know about the role Javelin antitank missiles could play in Ukraine's fight against Russia". Washington Post. 12 March 2022. Archived from the original on 12 March 2022. Social media has been littered with photos of destroyed Russian tanks with cages. The images have acquired a symbolic resonance so quickly that Internet users have coined the term "cope cage" earning a page on the Internet's primary meme directory.
  39. ^ "Igazi tankszörnyet zsákmányoltak az ukránok". Portfolio.hu (in Hungarian). 2 March 2022. Archived from the original on 15 March 2022. Érdekes egy szót említeni a „kutyaólként" vagy "csirkeketrecként," angolszász forrásokban „cope cage," vagyis durván „dolgozd fel ketrecként" emlegetett improvizált páncélzatról a tornyon. A páncélzat célja az lenne, hogy megvédje a harcjárműveket a felülről érkező drónrakétáktól vagy páncéltörő rakétáktól. [It is interesting to mention the terminology surrounding the improvised armour on the tower, referred to as "dog kennel" or "chicken coop" in Hungarian, or "cope cage" in Anglo-Saxon sources. The purpose of the armour is to protect the combat vehicles from drone missiles or armour-piercing rockets coming from above.]
  40. ^ Wallace, Ben (9 May 2022). "Speech by Defence Secretary on Russia's invasion of Ukraine". gov.uk. National Army Museum, London. Archived from the original on 23 February 2023. Russian soldiers' futile use of pine logs as makeshift protection on logistical trucks and attaching overhead 'cope cages' to their tanks, it's nothing short of tragic. But their commanders' failures to adapt before entering them into such a conflict is criminal.
  41. ^ Alia Shoaib (26 March 2022). "Russian soldiers appear to be fixing makeshift cages to the turrets of their tanks in a crude effort to protect themselves against Ukraine's anti-tank missiles". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 26 March 2022. "The cages are supposed to defend against anti-tank weapons that strike the top of the vehicle, where the armor is the thinnest. "The idea is that if you set off a bazooka or a Panzerfaust... they're set off early and so they don't hit the tank itself..." Crump explained. However, the cages are largely ineffective against the modern anti-tank weapons used by the Ukrainians, such as the Javelin and NLAW... Many modern weapons are designed to counter that sort of protection
  42. ^ "Russian tanks in Ukraine are sprouting cages". The Economist. 14 March 2022. Archived from the original on 16 March 2022. Another idea is that the cages are a response to the conflict in 2020 between Armenia and Azerbaijan, over Nagorno-Karabakh, in which large numbers of Russian-made Armenian tanks were destroyed from above by MAM-Ls ... A third possibility is that the cages are meant as protection against RPGs ... which are being fired at tanks from above. This ... is a preferred tactic in urban warfare, where buildings offer shooters the necessary elevation.
  43. ^ Newdick, Thomas (24 November 2021). "Russian T-80 Tank With Improvised Anti-Drone Armor Reportedly Appears In Crimea". The Drive. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 11 March 2022.
  44. ^ Sergei Valchenko (24 May 2022). "Танкист-герой рассказал о спецоперации и погиб: "Победим, но легко не будет"". Moskovskij Komsomolets (in Russian). Archived from the original on 24 May 2022. Обвесы (металлические решетки для защиты от противотанковых ракет) мы сначала все наварили на танки, а потом их все сняли. Во-первых, неудобно: пулемет не двигается, антенна когда замыкает об решетку – сгорает радиостанция, связь пропадает. И если будет какое-то возгорание, там просто нереально будет вылезти из танка... Поэтому их все сняли и выкинули. [At first we welded the body kits (metal grilles for protection against anti-tank missiles) to the tanks, but then they were all removed. Firstly, it is inconvenient: the machine gun is unable to move, and the radio connection disappears when the antenna touches the grille. If there is some kind of fire, it will be simply unrealistic to get out of the tank... So they were all removed and thrown away.]
  45. ^ Parsons, Dan (6 June 2022). "Ancient Russian T-62 Tanks Spotted Wearing Cage Armor In Ukraine". The Drive. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
  46. ^ Payne, Stetson (6 May 2023). "Russian Tank With 'Cope Cage' Covered In Explosive Reactive Armor Emerges". The Drive. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
  47. ^ a b Newdick, Thomas (6 April 2022). "Russia's Increasingly Bizarre "Artisanal" Armor Looks More Mad Max Than Major Power". The Drive. Retrieved 8 April 2022. 
  48. ^ Malyasov, Dylan (5 July 2023). "Ukraine adds armor 'cages' to its artillery systems". Defence Blog. Retrieved 19 August 2023.
  49. ^ Epstein, Jake. "Photos capture the crude cages Russian and Ukrainian crews are welding on their tanks and armor as a last-ditch defense". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 August 2023.
  50. ^ Rommen, Rebecca. "Ukraine sends the powerhouse 82nd Air Assault Brigade into battle, as generals decide 'to put all their chips on the table,' says defense analyst". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 August 2023.
  51. ^ Saner, Emine (30 September 2014). "Battlefield DIY – the homemade armoured vehicles fighting Isis". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 November 2017 – via www.theguardian.com.
  52. ^ Vocativ (1 October 2014). "DIY Tank Used in Fight Against ISIS". Archived from the original on 21 December 2021. Retrieved 14 November 2017 – via YouTube.
  53. ^ "Wood-reinforced vehicles foil Maute antitank weapons". 21 June 2017.
  54. ^ "Will Makeshift Wooden Tank Armor Protect Our Troops in Marawi?".
  55. ^ "These ISIS-Fighting Philippine Tanks Are Clad in DIY Wooden "Armor"". 7 June 2017.
  56. ^ "Images surface of wood armor on Philippine military vehicles fighting ISIS: Could that actually work against an RPG?". 9 June 2017.
  57. ^ "IN PHOTOS: Military opens Mapandi bridge to media amid heavy fighting in Marawi". 30 August 2017.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Improvised_vehicle_armour&oldid=1248296131"
  NODES
admin 1
chat 1
Idea 2
idea 2
INTERN 3
Note 2
USERS 1