That reason is more visible with this still from an earlier video @RALee85 posted.
The majority of the Russian truck's cargo bed is made of wood planks.
This truck was hit by a small mortar shell that blew apart the wood. twisted down & severed the steel frame holding them. 2/
The choice of a wooden truck bed was one made for cost reasons.
Wood is cheaper than steel.
Plus if your industrial quality tolerances are bad, it is easier to cut a wood plank to match than make another steel frame with the right fit. 3/
The US Army builds it trucks and trailers with sheet steel beds for durability, world wide deployability and long, usable, life-cycle reasons.
The US Army uses its trucks a lot in lieu of the Railways.
So it puts them to really hard use over a 20 year service life. 4/
This emphasis on durability at a higher costs per truck means things in combat, good things for the crew & US Army.
Wood shatters and becomes high velocity fragments when subjected to blast effects.
Steel doesn't. It bends. 5/
The trucks Russian uses generally operate at colder northern latitudes where wood is a good cost-design trade off.
America covers more north-south latitudes than Russia & the US Army has no clue where a President will send them next. So metal truck beds are the design choice 6/
Vehicle design is always a trade off of performance features for unit cost.
Vehicles appropriate for one nation's military won't be for another.
The problem for Russian conscripts in Ukraine is the cheaper Russian truck bed design choice is helping to kill them.
7/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This means the world has changed so radically that any US Army officer higher than Captain is negative value added on a drone battlefield because their professional military education is as obsolete 1930's US Horse cavalrymen Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures were in 1944.
The problem for an independent EU nuclear deterrence force is sheer numbers, the EU lack of them.
What the Putinists have proven is that Western deterrence assumptions about "acceptable losses" were naive mirrored thinking, attributing Western values to Russia.
The assumption of credible "deterrent effect" has to be shifted into the loss band of annihilation of threat forces - anything less than that, as the Ukraine war proves, is an acceptable loss for the Putinists.
We are at over a million Russian casualties to date.
That means a 200 kiloton nuke in either St. Petersburg or Moscow, or dozens of tactical nukes into airfields & missile fields across Western Russia as an EU nuclear response to a Russian first strike are acceptable at a minimum.
It looks like my 4th Gen nukes posts here on X shook out data from US three letter agencies. Who belatedly realized that classifying physics was both self-defeating & stupid.
The bad news is the FYEO web site is now reporting a _NINTH_ 4th Gen. nuclear tech approach by China with metal nitrogen/nitrogen anion salt.
Specifically, this new Chinese approach to 4th generation nukes that create fusion device without a HEU/PU fission trigger can be packaged as small as 100 to 200 grams and can fit into a group two size class drone.
My worst-case 4th Generation nuclear scenario was based on explosively pumped flux compression generator fusion primaries with U-238 jackets in something sized to fit into an ATACMS warhead.
The statistical comparison in the FBI data from pre-1961 is invalid as the underlying medical systems have so changed as to utterly pollute the "murders per 100,000" data.
Violent crime data pre-1961 and post 1961 are apples to oranges comparisons.
2/
-Trauma care centers (1961),
-Standardized trauma procedures (1978),
-Adoption of military Korea/Vietnam medical emergency treatment & air transport procedures,
-Improved triage (1986)
-And (since 2011) widespread adoption and use of blood clotting bandages...
3/
Chairman Xi suffers from the traditional dictator's trap of believing his own sh*t because he has made it too dangerous for his cronies and underlings to tell him the truth.
Thanks to that, Chairman Xi's Regime has pretty much no resilience in adversity because it's so kleptocratic and it's all about what the guy in charge can do for his next set of corrupt cronies today.
2/
This 1970's comment about the Shah of Iran is so historically on point in 2026 because it shows how Xi's regime is failing "The dictator on the wall test."