1/ Reacting to videos of numerous destroyed Russian vehicles on the road to Pokrovsk, Russian warbloggers say that civilian vehicles are now used in preference to armour because commanders fear reprimands if armoured vehicles are lost. ⬇️
https://x.com/prestonstew_/status/1889055465478226233
2/ 'Military Informant' writes: "The enemy publishes footage of destroyed Russian light vehicles in the Pokrovsk direction.
As can be seen, civilian cars were converted into buggies and are used for the rapid delivery of infantry, similar to motorcycles earlier."
As can be seen, civilian cars were converted into buggies and are used for the rapid delivery of infantry, similar to motorcycles earlier."
3/ A soldier writes to the neo-Nazi group Rusich to explain why; it's not just about a shortage of armoured vehicles, but the personal consequences for commanders if they lose them. Men are expendable, but armour is not:
4/ "Hello! We have a Ural "Tornado" armoured vehicle in our unit. About six months ago they issued it, they use it to transport household goods, exclusively deep in the rear. But mostly it sits idle.
5/ "And logistics are carried out to the firing position by a loaf [UAZ-452 Bukhanka] and a simple KamAZ [truck] without armour.
6/ "That is - if the "Tornado" is burned during a combat mission, but the personnel are saved (thanks to the armour characteristics of this vehicle), as a result the unit commander will get his ass torn up for the loss of the vehicle." /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
