Russia defends armored vehicles with wood, despite potential drawbacks
The Russian forces, from the onset of the conflict, have demonstrated a propensity for using wood as a form of protection. During the phase referred to as the Kiev stage, wooden materials were deployed to shield lorry radiators from incoming small arms fire. While, in theory, this solution was devised to bolster radiator defence, it simultaneously impeded air flow, thereby leading to engine overheating.
Instances were reported where tanks were camouflaged in wood, making them appear as mere lorries transporting wooden supplies. Some military factions used wooden beams to enhance protection for their infantry fighting vehicles from the BMP-3 series, 2S3 Akatsiya howitzers. Currently, we witness the deployment of planks as anti-cumulative covers on BMP-2s.
The use of wood as a defensive asset isn't the most efficient solution given its relation between protection level and weight. However, in specific contexts, these materials can offer some degree of effectiveness. Boards will not exhibit resistance against bullets discharged from machine guns or automatic cannons, but they might create a feasible barrier against cumulative warheads.
This is especially crucial with regards to obsolete, single-warhead PG-7VL grenades, that are frequently employed with improvised kamikaze drones. Though the cumulative stream exhibits formidable armour-burning capabilities, its range is considerably limited. Thus, triggering a 0.5-metre penetration warhead at a distance of 0.6 metres from the actual armour could offer potent protection.
In such circumstances, creating an obstacle in front of the actual armour to provoke premature detonation of the warhead is necessary. Wood, whilst not the most efficient choice, serves as a moderately effective solution and is relatively superior to having no protection whatsoever. A better alternative could be overlays constructed from lightweight composites or even bar armours, which comprise elements of a fence welded together.
The planks observed in the photo seem to be too thin to effectively execute their designed function, and in actuality, might only function as additional ballast that negatively impacts the manoeuvrability of the BMP-2. This could also result in the accelerated degradation of suspension components over time.
