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
Deploying lots of anti-tank and anti-personnel land mines with Gator cluster munitions dispensers was one of the major themes of the 1980's Follow On Forces Attack (FOFA) doctrine.
The doctrine was highly effective, hence Ukraine using it in 2026.
I called out the Chinese invasion requirements for Taiwan in May 2023 complete with a prediction they would have to be building satellite detectable 1944 invasion of Normandy Mulberry style infrastructure.
In that thread I connected classic "irrational regime" Chinese 'Wolf Warrior diplomacy' as a behavior indicator of how they would view the world wide maritime trade and financial collapse invading Taiwan would cause as advantageous to China.
I did two further @grok analytical passes which reduced the truck movements, first to 3K to 8K truck movements:
"Revised estimate: Likely 3,000–8,000+ effective military/logistics truck movements per month on key southern routes (e.g., M-14 segments, Mariupol–Taganrog/T-0509, Berdiansk/Melitopol spurs), potentially higher in gross passages but far lower in productive throughput than Western equivalents due to systemic non-mechanized constraints."
2/
And then down to 2.5K to 7K truck movements, See:
"Likely 2,500–7,000 effective military/logistics truck movements per month on key southern routes (M-14 segments, Mariupol–Taganrog/T-0509, Berdiansk/Melitopol spurs), with gross passages potentially higher to offset massive inefficiencies—but productive throughput remains severely constrained by non-mechanized realities, supplements like rail/barge, and systemic intelligence blind spots."
A hundred Russian trucks, with a high proportions of fuel tankers and wreckers concentrated on one or two supply roads or a single road junction in a couple of weeks is a horse of a different color.
That is anti-access area denial (A2AD) on a stick.