0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
780 $
COLLECTED IN DECEMBER

Uran-9 Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicle (Infographics)

Donate

Uran-9 Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicle (Infographics)

Click to see the full-size image

A photo supposedly showing Russia’s Uran-9 combat robot in Syria is circulating in Russian social media. The Uran-9 was tested in Syria in 2018 and entered service in January 2018.

Uran-9 Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicle (Infographics)

Click to see the full-size image

The Uran-9 is designed to deliver combined combat, reconnaissance and counter-terrorism units with remote reconnaissance and fire support. It weighs 10t and is armed with a 30 mm Shipunov 2A72 automatic cannon, 4 ready-to-launch 9M120-1 Ataka anti-tank guided missiles, 6 ready-to-launch Shmel-M reactive flamethrowers and a 7.62 mm Kalashnikov PKT/PKTM coaxial machine gun. Additionally, it can carry 4 Igla surface-to-air missiles. The combat robot is operated by a single service member and can be remotely controlled up to a maximum distance of 3,000 m. The road speed of the Uran-9 is 35km/h and the cross-country speed is 25km/h. The Uran-9 is equipped with a laser warning and target detection system, as well as identification and tracking equipment. The fitted day and night vision allows for detection of targets at a maximum distance of 6 km during the day and 3 km at night.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Britam

    In the photograph of the Combat Robot in Syria, it is emblazoned with a suitably sinister Logo of a Skull and Bombs. OK, par for the course. However, why is the lettering around the Logo in English? This is supposedly a Russian machine. Shouldn’t the lettering be in Cyrillic Russian script?

    • Neurasth

      I assume its just a watermark of whoever posted that picture.

      • Britam

        It’s a possibility, but it fits too neatly on the vehicle pictured. Someone else mentioned the marking above ant to the right as possibly a Transformers logo. So, either the Russians running the test have a sense of humour or the photoshopper does. Either way, a pretty good bit of psyops.

  • Avi Schwartz (IDF:71, hamas:0)

    1 single Javelin or Spike missile and say goodbye to Mister Robot Tank :D

    • AJ

      Haha like those Israeli tanks Hezbollah destroyed in 2006 war!!

    • Wayne Nicholson

      Same can be said for any armoured vehicle and it’s always been thus. Armoured vehicles have always needed infantry protection and even in WW2 most tanks were knocked out by infantry …. not other AFV’s or aircraft. The difference between then and today are better armour and better armour piercing weapons.

      it’s not a question that an AFV is at risk of being knocked out by ATGM’s or even RPG’s as was the case of the Abrams in Iraq. The question is would you rather lose the AFV or the AFV and it’s crew? It’s not hard to repair a tank for a surviving crew but once you’re out of crews to man your tanks you’re finished.

      • PZIVJ

        Western allied tank loses in WW2:
        “Gun fire caused the most casualties, and then mines. Casualties due to panzerschrecks and panzerfausts were much less common. Overwhelming majority of losses due to gunfire were caused by 75mm and 88mm cannon.”
        But also note: “From a toll of ten percent at the time of its introduction in 1944, the Panzerfaust type of weapon went on to attain a peak of effectiveness in the spring of 1945 of from 25 to 35 percent of all tank casualties.”
        Not sure how many of the gunfire loses where from antitank guns, as opposed to AFV.

        • Wayne Nicholson

          “I assume most loses where from antitank guns”

          Exactly. Anti-tank guns manned by infantry. On the East front you can add the anti-tank rifle to that. Every Soviet rifle battalion had an anti-tank platoon and they also had separate anti-tank battalions.

          I remember reading an account from a Panzer commander …. I think it was Gerhard Raus …. who said what he feared most was running into anti-tank gun ambushes because they were small, easily hidden and difficult to see even when firing at you.

          People mistakingly think that tanks fought other tanks in WW2. Tanks avoided other tanks in WW2. When tanks fought tanks someone made a mistake. The armoured spearhead was supposed to get behind the lines, take ground and cause havoc in the rear. Running into other tanks would ruin your day.

          And the Soviet horrendous tank losses early in the war were because the Soviet mech divisions were sent into battle without mounted infantry ….. the Soviets were rebuilding the red army and had tanks but didn’t have trucks for the infantry or repair / refueling vehicles for the tanks. They would lose tanks on the way to battle due to mechanical breakdowns and running out of fuel and when they got there they were easily picked off by German infantry because they had no infantry to support them.

          Everyone like to theorize on what the turning point of the war was for Germany and whether Germans could have won the war with more / better tanks and aircraft. The turning point of the war was losing 750k trained infantry during Barbarossa. They never recovered from that. Infantry was vital to blitzkreig …. they were most successful when they were outgunned in the tank department but had a full complement of experienced infantry. Without the infantry it didn’t matter how good your tanks were.