>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
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.
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
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 fuck 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 fucking loves technicals and wants the west to use them more.
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.
>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
> 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.
Okay, you know what? Fuck it.
I'll say it out loud. God cursed me with being a Russian and I find these assholes much much more annoying than your average paid vatmoron.
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.
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
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.
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.
>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 fuckers then have the gall to claim that Ukrainians learned about technicals ("Bandera-mobiles") from Islamic terrorists.
I still would shit on them. That's a fucking 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?
>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.
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 fuckload of civilian trucks and slapped guns on them.
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.
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
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.
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.
>You are not going to out engineer Toyota there's a reason capitalism works this way they have the best product.
.... they're making fucking pickup trucks, not fighting vehicles.
This is like using a Cessna as combat aircraft and arguing it's just because capitalism is superior.
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 fucking funny. The US has tens of thousands of HMMWV's Russia instead has corruption and pickup trucks.
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.
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
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
>cheap
Can't wait to see the 4 wheel drive Lada replacement for the Toyotas Hilux or Ford Rangers
>5. Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it
Won't even notice.
>Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it
Huh, so I must be immune to 50 cal
>5. Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it
>Easy to blend in
Not when you paint fucking military signals on the side.
>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
>Immune to tank rounds since it will go straight through it
Well fuck me, I guess I'm immune to tank rounds too.
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.
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
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 fuck 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 fucking loves technicals and wants the west to use them more.
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.
I knew they were snow Africans but damn
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.
>that one seething Vatnik in the comments
>people like this actually exist
This gay would’ve been lynched during the red scare, too bad that’s not happening now
>I liked when opinions were illegal
Fuck off.
>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
Republican play book.
Democrat play book
>muh both sides
Russian play book.
Let me guess, he thinks the military has too many “diversity hires”, hence it’s worse than Russia.
> 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.
>History and Horse Playing
yjk
>vatnik
None of these dudes are Russian, they're all 16 year old contrarians living in the West
Okay, you know what? Fuck it.
I'll say it out loud. God cursed me with being a Russian and I find these assholes much much more annoying than your average paid vatmoron.
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.
Are you currently in Russia?
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
Here before adhoc schizo
How long before they run out of pickup trucks and start using Tachanka's again?
They'd just eat the horses
>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
Would be an admission of defeat, the Ukrainians invented and popularized those.
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.
ISIS-American tier
Viable. Reported
All militaries use technicals.
what are those little things on top of the windscreen for?
Stops grunts sitting on the windscreen when the soft top is down.
anti-homeless technology
Tie offs for the retractable roof that conveniently mask the sharp edge of the roof for camouflage
Protects the driver from pidgeons. Most german windows have this, you can also use nets. Taubenschütz
You are technically correct.
Picture these things getting shredded by Bofors 40mm once the IFVs roll around
Literally snow nigeria
The US is experimenting with datalinked M320 technicals for SHORAD
Couldn't the US military go round some used pickup lots and get some old dodges and ford's instead of toyota's?
You can only make technicals out of Toyotas, it's a universal law
Easier to find parts for a landcruiser out in bumfuckistan than a 95 F-150 I assume
toyota is the car brand with the most manufacturing on US soil if i remember correctly
American trucks are dogshit, they consistently score awfully on reliability, you know, that thing the military might want
>no 360 rotation capability
Thats gotta suck
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.
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.
>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 fuckers then have the gall to claim that Ukrainians learned about technicals ("Bandera-mobiles") from Islamic terrorists.
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?
I still would shit on them. That's a fucking 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
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?
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.
mercedes G wagon military spec, they also make a civilian model too if you're interested
>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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
>What's the tactical advantage
It's better than nothing
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
>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.
the older humvees are a bit patchy
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 fuckload of civilian trucks and slapped guns on them.
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.
Watched SAS Rogue Heroes once.
The LRDG and SAS linkup is one of the reasons I find the North African theatre to be one of the more interesting.
>self-proclaimed second army in the world
>reduced to ISIS tactics after just 1.2 years of 2-day special military war
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.
>A better humvee, in other words.
funny, that's how the humvee started, and they changed it because it sucked in actual combat conditions
>actual combat conditions
Up-armored humvees are meant to patrol occupied territory, not take new territory. Technicals are better.
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
dismounted infantry officially deboonked?
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.
Which HMMWV have you driven under what conditions and what broke? They've quite ordinary truck drivetrains.
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.
>You are not going to out engineer Toyota there's a reason capitalism works this way they have the best product.
.... they're making fucking pickup trucks, not fighting vehicles.
This is like using a Cessna as combat aircraft and arguing it's just because capitalism is superior.
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.
Gonna be bumpy on the spine for the gunner. All bumps and whiplash God damn no thanks
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 fucking funny. The US has tens of thousands of HMMWV's Russia instead has corruption and pickup trucks.
ENTER...
The Technical...
PERFECTED.
Aussie SAS vehicle
Aussie SF use Supacat HMT's these days.
I think the RFSU's and recon units still have open top 6x6 G-wagons though.
Technicals really only thrive in a low intensity battlefield in a more conventional one you will have machine gun nest everywhere.
Weird there hasn't been a "conventional" war in like 30 years. This is the new normal. These are the new conventions.
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.
Bongs used them pretty good in Afghanistan; fuck sitting in that thing in Ukraine though
This is the future reformists want
>the fucking office chair
Every nation has used technicals tho. Yes, even USA. Except USA calls them 'non-standard tactical vehicle'.
Probably a grift to compensate for Lada's collapsed export sector lol
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