Here is a video that demonstrates the battle drill the US army uses for react to ambush. The tactics differ depending on if it’s a near or far ambush. Both rely on an element assaulting through the ambush but who it is depends on if it’s a far ambush. It’s a drill. It’s practiced constantly. If an ambush happens everyone down to the newest private already knows what to do. For armor the tactics are similar but a bit different.
The movie actually continues a bit beyond Hitler’s suicide. Interestingly, the story (and reality) ends with the Soviets (Russians) winning. That makes the comment even more ambiguous, IMHO.
I don’t now. If you look closely, it looks like a smoke trail coming from the building to the right of the tank. Its very quick. Maybe detcord setting the mine off?
It looks to me like the smoke is coming from the tank not heading towards the tank when I zoomed in. I believe the tank revved it’s engine to get up the other side of that ditch/obstacle. That’s the side exhaust would come out.
I don’t think anyone got rid of anti-tank mines; they are explicitly permitted by the Ottawa Treaty. The reasoning behind prohibiting anti-personnel mines is that they are indiscriminate about who they kill, military or civilian, and they persist to be a deadly problem decades after conflicts end. Neither of those are real issues with anti-tank mines, which require vehicle pressures to detonate them.
It might be a translation issue, but there’s a video here on Radio Free Europe where a Ukrainian soldier states at around 1:17 that “We managed to come up on them from the rear, mined their position and they fell into our trap. They were damaged by mines and were then shelled by our artillery.” At around 3:20 in the video the journalist is describing the contents of a destroyed Russian truck in the convoy, “This is what’s left of them. Judging from what’s left of the cargo, those were anti-tank mines,” and the contents do indeed look like the remains of anti-tank mines.
There have been multiple articles about mines being used. The anti-mine accord was not signed by Russia (or the US for different reasons). But it does appear to be mostly anti-tank mines being used.
As I understand it, one of the reasons IEDs became so common in Iraq was that the insurgents kept getting the crap beat out of them during their own ambushes. The aggressive response of the American units caught them by surprise, and they didn’t know how to stand against the Americans they thought they were about to kill coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
IEDs let them kill or injure a few Americans, but at much less risk to themselves.
The discussion about anti-personnel mines made me curious about claymores, so I looked it up.
Development and Production of New Landmines
Bolding… erm, mine:
Claymore-type mines, also known as directional fragmentation munitions, are among the most common mines in the world. The United States first produced Claymore mines in 1960 and has since produced 7.8 million of them for a cost of $122 million. When used in command-detonated mode, Claymores are permissible under the Mine Ban Treaty. When used in victim-activated mode, usually with a tripwire, they are prohibited.
As far as I know all command detonated mines are allowed. Victim detonated anti personnel mines of any kind are not. For signatories anyway. The US (along with South Korea) has not signed the treaty mostly because of the realities of the DMZ. Russia has its own reasons not to sign.
When a tank force is ambushed - advising “rush the position” makes me think of the gangster movies. the good guy has a gun pulled on half a dozen bad guys. One of them says “rush him, guys, he can’t kill all of us!” Oddly enough, nobody makes the first move.
Which is why you have drills so it’s engrained. The safest thing to do is to have your frontal armor towards the enemy. Modern top attack missiles negate some of that but you still don’t want the enemy to have plenty of time to set up a shot on your flank or rear. You want them to try and get off a shot with 60 tons of death coming straight at them at 40mph. Russian tanks also have notoriously slow reverse gears. If they try to back out of an engagement they are sitting ducks. As far as I know even the latest upgrade tanks have that problem.
Well, if you come under fire from an ambush, you have several options:
- Run away from it - not great because your back is now exposed and you can’t outrun a bullet
- Run to the nearest cover - A good first step as it buys you time. But there’s pretty good chance that the ambushing force may have already pre-sighted or booby trapped all the potential cover spots.
- Attack towards the ambushers - You don’t get pinned down and you force the ambushers to stay under cover or possibly withdraw.
I suppose the correct option depends on the specific circumstances. But if you can’t do 1, at least 3 gives you some opportunity to take the momentum back.
Speaking of which, the one spot where you’re pretty sure there AREN’T any booby traps is where your attackers are. So, you want to be there.
It’s not just the mathematics of a $100k Javelin vs a $6 million tank. Knowing that there might be a bunch of infantry hiding in all that urban rubble waiting to attack your vulnerable flanks or roof prevents you from driving those 60 tons of death at 40 mph straight at anything. So now you have to creep along slowly, supported by infantry (who are vulnerable to sniper fire, mortars, and everything else).
I kind of envision the sequence from Full Metal Jacket where the Marines are entering the ruins of Hue. The infantry have to escort the tanks in, taking casualties from mortar and sniper fire. And when they need tank support, the tanks are unavailable. From the videos I’ve seen of ambushes in Ukraine, that film wasn’t that far off the mark.
Look closely at who trained most of the Arab nations. Hint: Not us. And there’s a reason we didn’t, couldn’t, train Arabs/Muslims very well: a few glaring exceptions aside, most Western-style militaries aren’t about blind obedience and Inshallah. All jokes about U.S. Marines aside, even the lowest-ranked jarhead, going into battle, gets briefed on objectives, the anticipated phases or “benchmark goals” of the battle, contingencies, and are relentlessly drilled until it’s almost spinal-reflex on the reaction-tactics (if “A” happens, do “B;” if “C” happens, do “D,” etc.).
An argument could be made either way: depending upon your strategy, an enemy tank sunk turret deep in mud for several hours (days?) could be considered an effective kill. Is it better to wait until softer assets (like Engineers/Recovery Teams) show up and then blow the shit outta them? This maybe works if you’re just playing for time, as the Ukrainians seem to be doing; do enough damage to slow the invaders, harass them with spoiling attacks and ambushes to slow them, bog them down, force them onto non-optimal routes (mud), and let international pressure force the Russians to stop or withdraw, rather than actually slog it out all the way to the “endgame” with them militarily.
But at this point, the Ukrainians have demonstrated they can take on Russia and have the fancy new toys to do so; their best strategy is to keep going and push Russia out of the eastern provinces. After all, part of the reason for the stalemate instead of a determined push before, was fear that an all-out offensive in the east would trigger… a full-scale Russian invasion.
The toys are not new. They had them pre-invasion. Demonstrating an ability to harass and defend against an attacking enemy is much different than being able to mount an offensive yourself. We have seen a lot of Russian losses. There have been massive losses of Ukrainian equipment as well. Ukraine was not able to defeat Russian backed separatists for the last few years. I have doubts that they could do anything to push back the Russian army at all let alone out of the breakaway republics. Only a break in will back in Moscow would do that.
But that was my point - they were not “unable” so much as cautiously unwilling to mount the level of force required to fully defeat the breakaways, for fear of provoking Russia. Hence that much-violated local ceasefire the last few years. Plus there was the tit-for-tat risk of adding bigger equipment to the fight, followed by the rebels getting better equipment (and “volunteers”) from Russia. The risk of retaliation is moot, and the Russians probably will have less incentive to throw troops into that region. Or, the troops will be less incentivised to do so.
It depends on what happens next. Will the Russians grind to a halt and then withdraw (“declare victory and depart”)? Or will we see Ukrainian offensives pushing them back? If the latter, why stop before Donbass? The whole point and their national pride means removing any semblance that Russia got anything it wanted, I assume.
I read somewhere (from a rather solid source IIRC, donno UK-defense maybe) that Russia has 75% of their functioning armed forces already involved in this war. If they had significant reserves somewhere sitting on the sidelines, they would have brought them in by now instead of being humiliated by ukrainsky tractoristas.
Although at times Putim seems to me the kind of boss who would send his mooks to be humiliated just so he can then further rub it in their faces if they make it back alive.