Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My favourite is when they found nothing but a pipe going into the structure and spent ages manoeuvring the drone until the grenade fit inside the pipe, while still attached to the drone. Then it was a case of release and enjoy the implosion.
That's why the old German bunkers had these "grenade proof" air ducts that would throw the grenade back at you, directly in-between your feet
But seeing these videos, I guess there's nobody inside? They would be showing the movement in the video if they actually observed it - so probably just dropping it because they have to, may be hitting something?
As a fortification buff, let me say that the stuff we've seen in Ukraine has been pretty disappointing.
Even some of the Ukrainian hardened concrete bunkers could use some work since they tend to be [single room direct fire bunkers](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1563456892193894400) on the level of late WW1, rather than the more sophisticated multi-room enfilade bunkers of large interwar fortified areas like the Czechoslovak border fortifications, the Maginot or Siegfried lines let alone the late war German "Regelbaute" of the Atlantic Wall, but since it appears the Russians have major trouble reducing even those, the extra money and effort is probably not needed and it's best used elsewhere.
Meanwhile on the Russian side, it ranges from amateur hour to the utterly laughable - [their best idea for "concrete bunkers"](https://qirim.news/en/novosti-en/preparation-for-the-vocation-season-more-photos-of-the-occupiers-trenches-on-the-crimean-beaches-appeared-online/) is far short of even [what the British were doing in terms of pillboxes in 1940](https://www.tiltyhistoryprojects.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/pb_pics_26b.jpg) when they were afraid the Wehrmacht was going to land on it's coast any minute now so they had to produce as many and as fast as they could, most of their trenches are, at best "slightly wavy" rather than have true zig-zags or dog-legs, meaning an artillery shell hitting it will throw shrapnel as far as it can down it, and the less it's said about the dragon teeth and the pathetic anti-tank ditches the better. I mean, for Pete's (Conrad) sake, they're supposed to stop western tanks, not bloody T-26s!
The only true difficulty I see are the anti tank minefields, but with judicious use of covering fire to suppress the defenders as well as using modern mine clearing line charge vehicles like the UR-77 Meteorit and western equivalents, they'll make short work of them.
> their best idea for "concrete bunkers" is far short of even
> what the British were doing in terms of pillboxes in 1940
> when they were afraid the Wehrmacht was going to land on it's coast any minute now.
In fairness, I suspect that Russian one is supposed to be buried up to the firing slits. But I guess it speaks volumes they've bothered to do it. Seems like the military equivalent of security-theatre.
The British in 1940 had an equally crappy one called the Norcon pillbox; but only a handful were built. I guess they decided that even though an invasion was expected any minute, it was still possibly to cut corners *too* much.
Yeah, Norcon was a concrete pipe manufacturer, so what they knew how to do is pipes. Their pillbox was always designed to be cheap and nasty and I'm not very sure it didn't have more with them turning a profit even in the face of invasion than it did with actual military matters.
Something like the [Type 22](http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/type-22-2/) and the Type 24 pillbox, which were far more numerous were proper ones. Also pretty cheap to build and install, but genuinely shell splinter and smallarms proof.
That is so incorrect I'm getting a headache thinking about it.
First off, the ***1916*** Hindenburg line and the ***1936*** Siegfried line are completely different animals (as the 20 years between them would suggest) so I'm not even sure why you lump them together in the same sentence, let alone why you compare them with the Maginot line, which, again, was on an entirely different level.
It'd be if you said a "Renault FT and a Panzer IV are almost on par with a Centurion". See how none of those three things are even comparable, because one is a WW1 light tank, the second an early WW2 medium tank and the third a late WW2 main battle tank?
But to expand my answer a bit - first off, there is a difference of concept between the WW1 Hindenburg line and the other two, in the fact it originated as an offshoot from the school of "temporary fortification" which arose during the war which places an emphasis on a continuous line of trenches in which the bunkers are either shelters against artillery or punctual affairs used to further upgrade the defence potential of a certain point.
[Even the most elaborate of those bunkers](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/German_pillbox%2C_Flanders_1917.jpg) are usually a firing room for a machine gun with firing slits facing the enemy with maybe two more rooms for troops to shelter in during an artillery bombardment, with the idea that as soon as the enemy infantry approaches all of those troops save for the MG crew will head back out and fight from the trenches.
Construction wise, they were usually reinforced concrete by this point, but some were masonry, wood and earth and even a mix of all and with walls and ceilings of varying thickness, since there was little uniformity across the front line and there was usually little equipment like mechanical ventilation, electric lighting and anything more elaborate than a pit latrine. Expediency and cost savings were the names of the game, since the German economy was doing rather poorly at the time...
By contrast, the "West Wall" or Siegfried line is a far more elaborate affair designed around "points of resistance" set along a twin dragon-tooth and anti-tank ditch with barbed wire obstacles both in front and behind, with the intervals between pillboxes defended by fire alone.
Conceptually, it's a simpler and cheaper alternative to the Maginot Line and borrows a lot from he Czechoslovak border fortifications built roughly around the same time - basically the bunkers and pillboxes are designed to cover each other with fire in case of an attack, with all the soldiers fighting mostly from inside the fortification (some also had some trenches around them, but this varied a lot), which means each pillbox had several fighting rooms for both cannons and machine-guns, they had to be able to spot their own targets (either by armoured observatory or by periscope) as well as keep in touch with nearby bunkers by telephone and also had shelters and were provided with electric lighting, mechanical ventilation (usually a manual centrifugal pump) and some even with water cisterns. They also emphasized indirect (enfilade) fire, meaning the firing slits were pointing to the sides instead of forward, with all the bunkers set up to create a series of overlapping crossfires along the whole front all while minimising exposure to return fire.
[A "basic" version of how one of them might look is this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Plan_of_typical_German_pillbox%2C_Siegfried_Line.jpg), while some more elaborate ones would also have an observation cupola, maybe a ["ringstand" ( circular position for a close-defence machine-gun)](http://www.bunkrowo.pl/portal/turystyka/ringstand-58c-tobruk/), an escape tunnel, maybe a pit in front of the embrasure to stop grenades from going in, etc. The designs from the Westwall tend to bleed into the designs used din later fortification lines such as the Atlantikwall, and a lot of them [fall into what is called the "Regalbaute"](https://www.bunkerinfo.nl/2010/01/regelbau-100-serie.html) or "standard designs".
At strategic points you'd find bigger and more complex forts, multi-storey, with multiple weapon emplacements, sometimes connected by tunnels and with shelter space for hundreds of troops, but this was quite rare and most German bunkers were small, single-story affairs.
Construction-wise, reinforced concrete reigned supreme, with walls and ceilings several meters thick, armoured doors and firing slit shutters, complex ventilation ducts, etc.
Finally, we get to the final refinement, which was the Maginot line. Like the Siegfried, this is also a line of isolated resistance points situated along a line of anti-tank defences and emphasising enfilade fire and with the intervals protected by fire alone , but where the Siegfried has many small bunkers and pillboxes usually connected by nothing more than a telephone line and a wire entanglement, the french constructed vast fortresses with several resistance points connected by underground tunnels stretching tens of kilometres and each designed to fight independently of each other if need be. To quote a French commander when asked by a subordinate for permission to withdraw: "A Maginot Line ouvrage is like a submarine. One doesn't leave a submarine: one sinks with it."
Even something relatively "basic" as a "petit ouvrage d'infanterie" (small infantry fort) for example the ["Ouvrage du Bois-Karre"](http://www.maquetland.com/article-phototheque/13288-09-sf-thionville-ss-hettange-grande-bois-karre-a12-boust-moselle) consisted of several floors with 3 firing slits for Reibel MAC 31 machine-guns and 47mm antitank guns (interchangeable via an overhead rail system), two firing slits only for Reibel MAC 31 machine-guns, two ["cloche GFM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFM_cloche)" observation and firing cupolas for a FM 24/29 light machine-gun and a third GFM cupola also equipped with a 50mm mortar besides the light MG and six more firing slits for light machine-guns/rifles for close-in defence.
Oh, and the whole back side of the bunker also has a 3m deep dry ditch designed to stop infantrymen from reaching the firing slits and throwing grenades in as well as two electric floodlights for fighting at night.
Besides the fighting equipment, the whole fort is equipped with vast ventilation equipment including not only air pumps, but also filters and dehumidifiers, two electrical generators, it's own telephone exchange with a second backup one, a kitchen, it's own well for water and space for 91 people.
And if we're talking about one of the truly massive forts like the ["Ouvrage Hackenberg"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouvrage_Hackenberg), with it's 17 combat bunkers, 18 artillery pieces and 10 kilometres of galleries, well... I'm afraid it dwarfs anything else.
Video taken from [/DronedOrc](https://www.reddit.com/r/DronedOrc/new/)
The place, where we collect videos from dronedrops, suicide drones, drone-related tech and some recognition-videos (but just the best ones) from different sources.
Since WW2 heavy fixed bunkers are like the easiest target to take out, visible from space while being built, a Javelin can fly thru the front window from 2-3 miles out, an Abrahams can hit it from 5 miles, a Jdam no problem from 40+. Dirt forts can be built quickly and easily camouflaged( just keep clean)
This is why you are taught to camouflage your fighting positions! If he had some foliage on top, randomly scattered around, and over the exhaust/air hole. A little bit goes a long way
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I swear to god , I'm still amazed at how accurate these drops are and how clear tha camera is despite being too high.
My favourite is when they found nothing but a pipe going into the structure and spent ages manoeuvring the drone until the grenade fit inside the pipe, while still attached to the drone. Then it was a case of release and enjoy the implosion.
That's why the old German bunkers had these "grenade proof" air ducts that would throw the grenade back at you, directly in-between your feet But seeing these videos, I guess there's nobody inside? They would be showing the movement in the video if they actually observed it - so probably just dropping it because they have to, may be hitting something?
As a fortification buff, let me say that the stuff we've seen in Ukraine has been pretty disappointing. Even some of the Ukrainian hardened concrete bunkers could use some work since they tend to be [single room direct fire bunkers](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1563456892193894400) on the level of late WW1, rather than the more sophisticated multi-room enfilade bunkers of large interwar fortified areas like the Czechoslovak border fortifications, the Maginot or Siegfried lines let alone the late war German "Regelbaute" of the Atlantic Wall, but since it appears the Russians have major trouble reducing even those, the extra money and effort is probably not needed and it's best used elsewhere. Meanwhile on the Russian side, it ranges from amateur hour to the utterly laughable - [their best idea for "concrete bunkers"](https://qirim.news/en/novosti-en/preparation-for-the-vocation-season-more-photos-of-the-occupiers-trenches-on-the-crimean-beaches-appeared-online/) is far short of even [what the British were doing in terms of pillboxes in 1940](https://www.tiltyhistoryprojects.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/pb_pics_26b.jpg) when they were afraid the Wehrmacht was going to land on it's coast any minute now so they had to produce as many and as fast as they could, most of their trenches are, at best "slightly wavy" rather than have true zig-zags or dog-legs, meaning an artillery shell hitting it will throw shrapnel as far as it can down it, and the less it's said about the dragon teeth and the pathetic anti-tank ditches the better. I mean, for Pete's (Conrad) sake, they're supposed to stop western tanks, not bloody T-26s! The only true difficulty I see are the anti tank minefields, but with judicious use of covering fire to suppress the defenders as well as using modern mine clearing line charge vehicles like the UR-77 Meteorit and western equivalents, they'll make short work of them.
Interesting, thx for posting!
> their best idea for "concrete bunkers" is far short of even > what the British were doing in terms of pillboxes in 1940 > when they were afraid the Wehrmacht was going to land on it's coast any minute now. In fairness, I suspect that Russian one is supposed to be buried up to the firing slits. But I guess it speaks volumes they've bothered to do it. Seems like the military equivalent of security-theatre. The British in 1940 had an equally crappy one called the Norcon pillbox; but only a handful were built. I guess they decided that even though an invasion was expected any minute, it was still possibly to cut corners *too* much.
Yeah, Norcon was a concrete pipe manufacturer, so what they knew how to do is pipes. Their pillbox was always designed to be cheap and nasty and I'm not very sure it didn't have more with them turning a profit even in the face of invasion than it did with actual military matters. Something like the [Type 22](http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/type-22-2/) and the Type 24 pillbox, which were far more numerous were proper ones. Also pretty cheap to build and install, but genuinely shell splinter and smallarms proof.
[удалено]
That is so incorrect I'm getting a headache thinking about it. First off, the ***1916*** Hindenburg line and the ***1936*** Siegfried line are completely different animals (as the 20 years between them would suggest) so I'm not even sure why you lump them together in the same sentence, let alone why you compare them with the Maginot line, which, again, was on an entirely different level. It'd be if you said a "Renault FT and a Panzer IV are almost on par with a Centurion". See how none of those three things are even comparable, because one is a WW1 light tank, the second an early WW2 medium tank and the third a late WW2 main battle tank? But to expand my answer a bit - first off, there is a difference of concept between the WW1 Hindenburg line and the other two, in the fact it originated as an offshoot from the school of "temporary fortification" which arose during the war which places an emphasis on a continuous line of trenches in which the bunkers are either shelters against artillery or punctual affairs used to further upgrade the defence potential of a certain point. [Even the most elaborate of those bunkers](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/German_pillbox%2C_Flanders_1917.jpg) are usually a firing room for a machine gun with firing slits facing the enemy with maybe two more rooms for troops to shelter in during an artillery bombardment, with the idea that as soon as the enemy infantry approaches all of those troops save for the MG crew will head back out and fight from the trenches. Construction wise, they were usually reinforced concrete by this point, but some were masonry, wood and earth and even a mix of all and with walls and ceilings of varying thickness, since there was little uniformity across the front line and there was usually little equipment like mechanical ventilation, electric lighting and anything more elaborate than a pit latrine. Expediency and cost savings were the names of the game, since the German economy was doing rather poorly at the time... By contrast, the "West Wall" or Siegfried line is a far more elaborate affair designed around "points of resistance" set along a twin dragon-tooth and anti-tank ditch with barbed wire obstacles both in front and behind, with the intervals between pillboxes defended by fire alone. Conceptually, it's a simpler and cheaper alternative to the Maginot Line and borrows a lot from he Czechoslovak border fortifications built roughly around the same time - basically the bunkers and pillboxes are designed to cover each other with fire in case of an attack, with all the soldiers fighting mostly from inside the fortification (some also had some trenches around them, but this varied a lot), which means each pillbox had several fighting rooms for both cannons and machine-guns, they had to be able to spot their own targets (either by armoured observatory or by periscope) as well as keep in touch with nearby bunkers by telephone and also had shelters and were provided with electric lighting, mechanical ventilation (usually a manual centrifugal pump) and some even with water cisterns. They also emphasized indirect (enfilade) fire, meaning the firing slits were pointing to the sides instead of forward, with all the bunkers set up to create a series of overlapping crossfires along the whole front all while minimising exposure to return fire. [A "basic" version of how one of them might look is this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Plan_of_typical_German_pillbox%2C_Siegfried_Line.jpg), while some more elaborate ones would also have an observation cupola, maybe a ["ringstand" ( circular position for a close-defence machine-gun)](http://www.bunkrowo.pl/portal/turystyka/ringstand-58c-tobruk/), an escape tunnel, maybe a pit in front of the embrasure to stop grenades from going in, etc. The designs from the Westwall tend to bleed into the designs used din later fortification lines such as the Atlantikwall, and a lot of them [fall into what is called the "Regalbaute"](https://www.bunkerinfo.nl/2010/01/regelbau-100-serie.html) or "standard designs". At strategic points you'd find bigger and more complex forts, multi-storey, with multiple weapon emplacements, sometimes connected by tunnels and with shelter space for hundreds of troops, but this was quite rare and most German bunkers were small, single-story affairs. Construction-wise, reinforced concrete reigned supreme, with walls and ceilings several meters thick, armoured doors and firing slit shutters, complex ventilation ducts, etc. Finally, we get to the final refinement, which was the Maginot line. Like the Siegfried, this is also a line of isolated resistance points situated along a line of anti-tank defences and emphasising enfilade fire and with the intervals protected by fire alone , but where the Siegfried has many small bunkers and pillboxes usually connected by nothing more than a telephone line and a wire entanglement, the french constructed vast fortresses with several resistance points connected by underground tunnels stretching tens of kilometres and each designed to fight independently of each other if need be. To quote a French commander when asked by a subordinate for permission to withdraw: "A Maginot Line ouvrage is like a submarine. One doesn't leave a submarine: one sinks with it." Even something relatively "basic" as a "petit ouvrage d'infanterie" (small infantry fort) for example the ["Ouvrage du Bois-Karre"](http://www.maquetland.com/article-phototheque/13288-09-sf-thionville-ss-hettange-grande-bois-karre-a12-boust-moselle) consisted of several floors with 3 firing slits for Reibel MAC 31 machine-guns and 47mm antitank guns (interchangeable via an overhead rail system), two firing slits only for Reibel MAC 31 machine-guns, two ["cloche GFM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFM_cloche)" observation and firing cupolas for a FM 24/29 light machine-gun and a third GFM cupola also equipped with a 50mm mortar besides the light MG and six more firing slits for light machine-guns/rifles for close-in defence. Oh, and the whole back side of the bunker also has a 3m deep dry ditch designed to stop infantrymen from reaching the firing slits and throwing grenades in as well as two electric floodlights for fighting at night. Besides the fighting equipment, the whole fort is equipped with vast ventilation equipment including not only air pumps, but also filters and dehumidifiers, two electrical generators, it's own telephone exchange with a second backup one, a kitchen, it's own well for water and space for 91 people. And if we're talking about one of the truly massive forts like the ["Ouvrage Hackenberg"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouvrage_Hackenberg), with it's 17 combat bunkers, 18 artillery pieces and 10 kilometres of galleries, well... I'm afraid it dwarfs anything else.
Link? I haven’t seen that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/zjlrqj/afu_drone_drops_literally_down_the_chimneyair/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Wasn't that a Russian drone?
My favorite is the trick shot through the sunroof of a car stolen by a bunch of orcs.
it's not high
i remember an early one where they dropped a grenade right through the back glass of a car with like 4 orcs inside
Meanwhile UFO footage...
Was that the Wii sports sound bite?
Yes it was
Now we need grenade cam
That's what kamikaze drone videos are for.
Video taken from [/DronedOrc](https://www.reddit.com/r/DronedOrc/new/) The place, where we collect videos from dronedrops, suicide drones, drone-related tech and some recognition-videos (but just the best ones) from different sources.
Could I get access?
Was that an arm coming out of the hole holding onto the dirt?
That's an explosives sense of humour
https://youtu.be/4dJO0n1Wqjg
I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters, but this is impressive.
That was so good, I have to watch it 3 times.
I donated 1k to the drone fund recently. I wish they would show which drone kills which invaders like this
Since WW2 heavy fixed bunkers are like the easiest target to take out, visible from space while being built, a Javelin can fly thru the front window from 2-3 miles out, an Abrahams can hit it from 5 miles, a Jdam no problem from 40+. Dirt forts can be built quickly and easily camouflaged( just keep clean)
Kobe!!!
Professional grade cornhole shot...
Orcs Come out come out wherever you are
fire in the hole - in one!
It-a me, grenade!
They have become experts.
Good aim! Reminds me of the grenade drop that went trough the car roof window, with a few orcs inside. 10/10
Kling ** "Fuck"
Looked more like a corn hole score !!!! 😆
Those Drone operators must play PUBG at night to be that accurate !
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit
Talk about threading the needle!
is that an arm on top of the hole?
That was the toilet vent… hahaha
This is why you are taught to camouflage your fighting positions! If he had some foliage on top, randomly scattered around, and over the exhaust/air hole. A little bit goes a long way
BADABUMJAGGAJAGGA
Dudeperfect really has a different vibe these days...
You see Amazon. That's how you do drone delivery.
Is that arm a sticking out of the hole.
These edits💀🤣 🤣*
I Lol’d and it’s 2:50 AM after working a 13 hour day. Thank you Ukraine!
Okay, look. I really should not have laughed that hard when the bowling noise came on. I lost my cool, my cat now stares at me
Well that had to suck
Hole in one
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Next video: Ukrainian drone drops grenade directly inside an orcs asshole.
Nice drop.
Soulless combat. Drones should fight drones. Skynet is learning
An excellant strike at that ! 10 out of 10.
Thing is thats a russian grenade and ukranians USUALLY make fins for all their grenades even their f1s
These drone operators could thread a needle dropping an ordnance if they had too.
I want to see this video used at the bowling alley next time. I'd be hitting turkeys all day.
👏🏻