It should be noted that there is a long history and many armies including highly industrialized well funded have come up with some unorthodox unapologetically unapproved modifications to combat vehicles.
The thing is rarely are said modifications actually practical. Extra track links on the front of a Sherman don’t actually increase protection. Water cans on the side of APCs don’t do much again modern Shaped charge warheads if the vehicle already has a cage.
Hillbilly armor from early in the Iraq war was a mix of Sand bags on the floor and scrap metal welded on the sides of vehicles. Eventually the U.S. government bought MRAPS but that didn’t stop some from continuing the practice despite the Army having proven that some of the modifications did not actually do anything. A double V hull is far superior to sandbags. Actual ballistic plate is better than random sheet metal.
Because although necessity is the mother of invention sometimes what soldiers come up with is just plain stupid.
Often said modifications are done based on assumptions of a threat or how the solution “should” work not how it does work. It adds extra weight to vehicles putting extra stress and reducing service life.
In the case of what the Russians are doing well some of it can be justified and made practical. Institutionalized into an actual viable system assuming that the Russian MIC wants to make the investment.
A example that can work is Cope cages which though still kinda “meh” can provide some limited defense against top attack by bomblets and if built properly top attack RPG even some albeit only some ATGMs. Assuming it’s properly built, designed and mounted. However it does come with trades in terms of roof mounted weapon elevation, situational awareness and ease of evacuation of the tank by the Commander, Gunner (Loader where applicable).
However Cope cages are an exception one that is built of a solid theory and derivative of a proven concept. Slat armor/Spaced armor
We have seen other pointless to more of a risk to the users concepts as well. Case in point the Turtle tank/Assault Shed/ Mobile Barns/BylatMobile.
Often built on older MBTs. These vehicles are first (at least based on the captured example) being used as half assed APCs?! The example captured is a T62 with the gunners hatch welded shut. The gun is disabled the turret is fixed in place No additional sensors or cameras so only the driver has a view of the outside which is awful and only from at best the raised “Parade driving” position.
The structure is sheet metal and cage which might stop an FPV drone or a grenade but anything beyond remotely AP will go through the “shed”. Including small arms, RPGs, ATGMs automatic cannons and tank/artillery fire. The infantry seems to use the engine deck. Which I am sure is nice for the infantry in February not so much in June. There only real defense is Just drone jammers. Even the tanks’s ERA is gone. It’s about as stealthy as a freight train due to all that metal added on top of the turbocharged diesel engine. They have been seen with Mine rollers and dozer blades but with all of this what do you have? Maybe the coax works but it looks like the commander’s MG is gone and with a point of view about as good as a glory hole. So even if it worked it would be blind firing. So you have a vehicle that is doing the job of an APC but worse. The better option it seems would have been to add the drone jammer to a BMP, APC or MRAP APC. If you need the extra coverage then a proper cope cage. Turtle tanks really have no redeeming qualities
Next up the Copecycle!
Despite enclosing a motorcycle with slat armor looked like absolute nonsense, a new wave of "cage mania" should be expected in the russian army
en.defence-ua.com
If the Bylatmobile is WW1 then the Cope Cycle is Eastern front WW2.
A motorcycle with a side car but they added a cage around it to counter FPV drones.
The problem should be obvious. They have been using these as makeshift Jeeps getting infantry to the trenches. Similar to how some western armies have been using Quad ATVs like MRZR.
However these are obviously not armored vehicles. So in the video we see the results. An FPV drone hits one of these vehicles and although it appears the driver survived as these have been used for carrying up to three people not great survival odds. So well someone could produce caged bikes or ATVs… wait…
It just occurred to me, that commercial industry does make such vehicles. They are used on Golf courses to protect grounds keepers from gulf balls on driving ranges. Yet a beyond those niches it’s not a practical vehicle set. It’s only going to protect maybe 1 out of 3 on the bike from a very specific FPV drones type or for the day when the primary objective is a frontal assault on a Gulf course with a batting cage and Tennis Court ball machine turned into crude crew served weapons.
Again we have something that has no value, because it’s a mission that could easily be accomplished by an existing APC or MRAP APC.
aagth1.blogspot.com
www.babcockinternational.com
www.rheinmetall.com
defence-industry.eu
www.jutarnji.hr
xaydungchinhsach.chinhphu.vn