What's the tactical advantage of the "second army of the world" using technicals?

What's the tactical advantage of the "second army of the world" using technicals?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    1. Cheap
    2. Small profile
    3. Easy to blend in urban environments
    4. Less fuel needed
    5. Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >cheap
      Can't wait to see the 4 wheel drive Lada replacement for the Toyotas Hilux or Ford Rangers

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >5. Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it

      Won't even notice.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it
      Huh, so I must be immune to 50 cal

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >5. Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Easy to blend in
      Not when you paint fricking military signals on the side.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >1. Cheap
      thats s strategic advantage, not a tactical one
      and this relies on its operators being equally as cheap
      >2. Small profile
      not a big factor in getting hit unless you are somehow expecting 2km long engagements
      >3. Easy to blend in urban environments
      a car driving in the middle of the battlefield is a cause of concern
      and its necessary to place emblems and markings on the vehicle anyways to prevent friendly fire
      >4. Less fuel needed
      operational, not tactical, advantage
      and
      >5. Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it
      tanks have machine guns

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it
      Well frick me, I guess I'm immune to tank rounds too.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because armed pick up trucks offer great mobility at the cost of limited protection and have proven effective in several wars and military operations, kiddo.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    there's nothing wrong with high speed low drag usage of technicals
    it's not a good idea in this case because russia is fighting a grinding ww1 era conventional stall but with drones mixed in

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      i'd say technicals are kinda garbage for war like the one in ukraine. Better to ditch the MG and get more cargo capacity

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      i'd say technicals are kinda garbage for war like the one in ukraine. Better to ditch the MG and get more cargo capacity

      The best way to use technicals in a war like Ukraine is have a autocannon / mortar / cannon techie back up, engage garrisoned positions at long range and frick off before arty / drones can reply.
      They won't be super effective but if you are sending HE from beyond effective small arms / AT range you can keep getting away with it.
      t. guy that fricking loves technicals and wants the west to use them more.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They certainlybhave their uses if you are in a budget, I think Ukraine has been using some too, as you say, it allows for highly monile weapons teams, particularly for mortar support, keep these things cycling across the frontline and it will force your enemy to divert resources to a rapid response force, all in all is better than being stuck in a poece od shit trench awaiting for a drone to frag you.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I knew they were snow Africans but damn

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If they fill a gap inside a winning and advancing army is ok.
    If is on a struggling army means 3rd world tier taxtics for 3rd world tier county.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >that one seething Vatnik in the comments

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >people like this actually exist
      This homosexual would’ve been lynched during the red scare, too bad that’s not happening now

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I liked when opinions were illegal
        Frick off.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >we're not failing, it's the enemy who is failing
      >we may be failing, but the enemy is failing more than we are
      >we may be failing more than the enemy, but WHAT ABOUT USA?
      god damn this shit is predictable

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Republican play book.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Democrat play book

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Republican play book.

          >muh both sides
          Russian play book.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Let me guess, he thinks the military has too many “diversity hires”, hence it’s worse than Russia.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > We're losing to Ukraine because America is supplying them, it's basically Russia vs all of NATO
      >America would have lost to Ukraine anyways, Russia is still stronger
      These people need to be rounded up and isolated from the rest of humanity. They're bringing us all down as a species.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >History and Horse Playing

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        yjk

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >vatnik
      None of these dudes are Russian, they're all 16 year old contrarians living in the West

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, you know what? Frick it.
        I'll say it out loud. God cursed me with being a Russian and I find these buttholes much much more annoying than your average paid vatBlack person.
        Imagine some dickwad who's never lived a day in this shithole telling you how great you have it and how all the shit you had to eat is not your government's fault because your government is so based and does everything right.
        I understand Ukrainians have it much worse and that I deserve the world's smallest violin, but I just wanted to vent a little.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Are you currently in Russia?

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hehehe, they know....
    Technicals are the tools of the desperate, and the poor. They should have said something along the line of "training in technicals, so more tank is freed for combat" or something

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Here before adhoc schizo

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How long before they run out of pickup trucks and start using Tachanka's again?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They'd just eat the horses

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >They'd just eat the horses
        >eat
        Anon, those horses wouldn't be able to walk properly their buttholes would be so sore.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >They'd just eat the horses
        >eat
        Anon, those horses wouldn't be able to walk properly their buttholes would be so sore.

        Mmmm horse with white sauce

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Would be an admission of defeat, the Ukrainians invented and popularized those.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        There was a vid of what looked like actual Tachankas driven in mass somewhere on the occupied lands some months ago. I remember commenting on it.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ISIS-American tier

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Viable. Reported

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    All militaries use technicals.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      what are those little things on top of the windscreen for?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Stops grunts sitting on the windscreen when the soft top is down.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        anti-homeless technology

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Tie offs for the retractable roof that conveniently mask the sharp edge of the roof for camouflage

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Protects the driver from pidgeons. Most german windows have this, you can also use nets. Taubenschütz

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You are technically correct.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Picture these things getting shredded by Bofors 40mm once the IFVs roll around

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Literally snow nigeria

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The US is experimenting with datalinked M320 technicals for SHORAD

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn't the US military go round some used pickup lots and get some old dodges and ford's instead of toyota's?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You can only make technicals out of Toyotas, it's a universal law

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Easier to find parts for a landcruiser out in bumfrickistan than a 95 F-150 I assume

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        toyota is the car brand with the most manufacturing on US soil if i remember correctly

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        American trucks are dogshit, they consistently score awfully on reliability, you know, that thing the military might want

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >no 360 rotation capability
    Thats gotta suck

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I love shitting on the Russians as much as the next guy but as far as I remember, the Russians experimented with technicals as far back as Syria.
    They apparently got the idea from ISIS militants who would do lightning raids with technicals and then GTFO before the air support could show up.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They don't even bother to paint them in camo.

      I think the idea is that if a military power wanted that type of capability they would produce a purpose built light armored vehicle that is just as fast and well armed, like the armored HMMWV's Ukraine was using. That modern Russia can't even do that much in full wartime production mode says a lot.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Russians experimented with technicals as far back as Syria. They apparently got the idea from ISIS militants who would do lightning raids with technicals and then GTFO before the air support could show up.
      Those frickers then have the gall to claim that Ukrainians learned about technicals ("Bandera-mobiles") from Islamic terrorists.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't there a meme going around that whenever a russia accuses anyone of anything it's to deflect from the fact they're the ones actually doing it?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I still would shit on them. That's a fricking civilian vehicle, made out of sheet metal and aluminum and designed to crumple and dent to protect it's occupants from crashes. Even recon stuff like

      https://i.imgur.com/XKdc6Ee.jpg

      All militaries use technicals.

      has at least been modified and adapted before rolling them out to war. It's very blatant (even just from the fact that it's still got the commercial paint job) that they just grabbed whatever and stuck a gun on it, which is fine for a desperate minor power but completely ridiculous for a regional power that calls itself a "superpower". What happened to their Tigrs?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        On a sidenote, anyone know what brand and type of truck they're using? Because I doubt it's Toyota tough if it's Russian domestic.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          mercedes G wagon military spec, they also make a civilian model too if you're interested

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >2nd army in the world.
    I keep seeing this, why is this accepted English now? Shouldn't it be:
    >2nd best army in the world.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >What's the tactical advantage
    It's better than nothing

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't humvees basically technicals? Haven't American special forces used technicals since the 80s?

    You can make fun of Russia for shit, but this is stupid

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Aren't humvees basically technicals? Haven't American special forces used technicals since the 80s?
      >You can make fun of Russia for shit, but this is stupid
      Picrel are not the same as a civilian truck, for one thing shooting it with small arms won't kill everyone inside. The Tigre is the Russian version but like all things Russian they built a handful of them over years, now they are gone, they can't make many more and are down to using unarmored trucks and coping about it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the older humvees are a bit patchy

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      A technical refers specifically to upgunned civilian vehicles. It comes from "technical loans" development aid that Somalia and other African could make in the 80-90s with the stipulation that they couldn't be used on military hardware, so they used the loans to buy a frickload of civilian trucks and slapped guns on them.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It is a little embarrassing, but technicals are unironically good vehicles. The only reason proper armies like the US and Europe don't use them is because they are effectively suicide vehicles.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Watched SAS Rogue Heroes once.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The LRDG and SAS linkup is one of the reasons I find the North African theatre to be one of the more interesting.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >self-proclaimed second army in the world
    >reduced to ISIS tactics after just 1.2 years of 2-day special military war

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Technicals don't deserve the bullshit they get on this board. Basically a humvee with less armor and a bigger gun. A better humvee, in other words.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >A better humvee, in other words.
      funny, that's how the humvee started, and they changed it because it sucked in actual combat conditions

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >actual combat conditions
        Up-armored humvees are meant to patrol occupied territory, not take new territory. Technicals are better.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly I disagree with most of the posts here mentioning you need to develop a specific military vehicle versus consumer. You are not going to out engineer Toyota there's a reason capitalism works this way they have the best product. I'd rather be in the reliable lighter Toyota then stuck in a slow unreliable humvee with heavy armour bolted on it.

          these posters talk big shit, but if they were to actually go into combat, they'd want to be behind a plate of bulletproof glass as often as possible

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            dismounted infantry officially deboonked?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Exactly I disagree with most of the posts here mentioning you need to develop a specific military vehicle versus consumer. You are not going to out engineer Toyota there's a reason capitalism works this way they have the best product. I'd rather be in the reliable lighter Toyota then stuck in a slow unreliable humvee with heavy armour bolted on it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Which HMMWV have you driven under what conditions and what broke? They've quite ordinary truck drivetrains.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Army mechanic here. Most humvee parts were designed with a much shorter service interval than the Toyota. Just look up the maintenance manual for both and compare. Practically speaking most are old, abused, and neglected with a million things broken in it. They are pretty simple and easy to work on though. Generally most military vehicles require a literal army of maintainers to keep running. To be fair idk how toyota would handle the same conditions and abuse but I’ve personally owned a few they are pretty solid.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >You are not going to out engineer Toyota there's a reason capitalism works this way they have the best product.
        .... they're making fricking pickup trucks, not fighting vehicles.
        This is like using a Cessna as combat aircraft and arguing it's just because capitalism is superior.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Also if you can't "out-engineer" private companies the obvious, historical choice is to give them a contract to design and build your vehicles.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Gonna be bumpy on the spine for the gunner. All bumps and whiplash God damn no thanks

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The cope here is just sad. Technicals are great when you don't have purpose built options that can do it better. It's that Russia doesn't have those vehicles that is so fricking funny. The US has tens of thousands of HMMWV's Russia instead has corruption and pickup trucks.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ENTER...
    The Technical...
    PERFECTED.
    Aussie SAS vehicle

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Aussie SF use Supacat HMT's these days.
      I think the RFSU's and recon units still have open top 6x6 G-wagons though.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Technicals really only thrive in a low intensity battlefield in a more conventional one you will have machine gun nest everywhere.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Weird there hasn't been a "conventional" war in like 30 years. This is the new normal. These are the new conventions.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Unarmored vehicles can just outrange machine gun nests with heavier weapons. The real problem is that they have no protection from artillery so you really don’t want to be riding around in one on the front lines.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Bongs used them pretty good in Afghanistan; frick sitting in that thing in Ukraine though

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is the future reformists want

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the fricking office chair

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Every nation has used technicals tho. Yes, even USA. Except USA calls them 'non-standard tactical vehicle'.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Probably a grift to compensate for Lada's collapsed export sector lol

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They are fast and can deliver AT missiles, you can mount anti air guns in them too, they are kinda like glass cannons, reasonably good at the offensive taking into account how cheap they are to field and how many you can deploy due to that reason, they shine when they use high numbers and speed to overwhelm a defensive position in a sudden high concentration of fire power, they suck when met with a high concentration of armor or ambushed by infantry in a bottle neck... well almost any ground vehicle has that problem really

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *