Oldest Vehicle Still In Production Becomes Key To Russia’s War Effort

Battle Loaf Uaz452
ADVERTISEMENT

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine rolls on, the toll of war continues to mount on both sides. Two long years of combat have seen Russia’s ground forces lose thousands upon thousands of trucks and armored vehicles. Manufacturing capacity to replace those losses is limited, and new military-spec vehicles don’t come cheap. The dire situation of Russian logistics has thus led to an unexpected turn.

Enter the Bukhanka, which roughly translates to “loaf” in English. It’s the colloquial Russian term used to refer to the UAZ-452 for its resemblance to a loaf of bread. It’s also known as the “Scooby Doo Van” to some commentators. The humble four-wheel-drive van has a distinguished position as one of the oldest vehicle designs still in production today. It first debuted in 1965, four years before NASA landed men on the moon. It shares its title with the Beijing BJ212, which also entered production the same year.

Russia was once thought to have one of the most formidable land armies on the planet. Two years of war have brought that into question, as has the use of unarmored vehicles for logistical purposes.

Originally designed for military use, the UAZ-452 originally shipped with a 75 horsepower 2.4-liter engine capable of running on terrible gasoline with as little as 72 octane. A 1985 upgrade saw the model adopt a 99-horsepower engine. Today, UAZ ships the van with a 2.7-liter engine good for 112-horsepower. It expects higher-quality 92-octane fuel, however.

The bread-like van still retains the same loaf-like body style that stretches all the way back to its birth in 1965. It’s one of those cases where the manufacturer hasn’t seen fit to ain’t-fix what ain’t-broken. The current sales brochure indicates several bodystyles are available, including a cab-chassis, trayback, and truck versions. It also goes by the name UAZ Classic. While it was designed for military users, it was as a utility vehicle, not a combat vehicle.

Screenshot 2024 06 07 125014
Multiple body styles are available. Bukhanka (loaf) most specifically refers to the van version, also known under designation UAZ-3741.
Uaz 452v 2206 1985 Photos 1
As this photo from 1985 indicates, the model has changed little over the years.
Screenshot 2024 06 07 124954
A contemporary model in the “Expedition” trim. Bright orange is not recommended for military users.
73c55265 43e9 4012 8231 16fee101de0a
Interior appointments are basic but have been modernized over the years.

Ultimately, the Bukhanka had the basics down pat from the start. It has a regular four-wheel-drive system with a low-range transfer case and diff locks available for when the going gets tough. Approach and departure angles are solid if not exceptional, at 30 degrees and 27 degrees apiece. It’s also rated to ford depths up to 1.6 feet. It’s a simple formula and one that makes few concessions to ride comfort or NVH. Regardless, it works. The Bukhanka gets where it needs to go, and it remains easy to maintain and repair when necessary.


The Bukhanka is a simple, rugged off-roader, but that’s not enough to survive on a modern battlefield. As covered by DanielR on Twitter, the increasing use of the ancient UAZ platform is proving problematic for Russian forces. Thin steel panels do nothing to protect against strikes even from the lightest quadcopters employed by Ukrainian forces. The UAZ is also not fast, nor particularly stable or maneuverable at speed. That makes it incredibly difficult for a crew traveling in a Bukhanka to evade or escape attack from incoming high-speed FPV drones.

The design of the fuel tanks doesn’t help, either. They’re mounted under the vehicle on each flank, where they can easily be punctured or ignited by enemy fire. And like the rest of the vehicle, the fuel tanks are completely unarmored. Aiming for the broadside of a Bukhanka is a surefire way to take it out of action.

This wouldn’t be such a problem for logistical use in rear areas far from active combat, but these vehicles have increasingly been pressed into delivery duties near the front lines, hauling ammo, soldiers, and supplies. As a result, burnt-out Bukhankas are becoming an increasingly common sight in Ukraine. Typically, they’re taken out by small drones flown by Ukrainian forces. In turn, the Bukhankas have adopted cage armor as a basic form of defense, though how effective it is remains an open question.

Screenshot 2024 06 07 115552
New examples can be had cheap.

Since the war began in 2022, open source intelligence tells us that Russian forces have lost tanks, trucks, and infantry fighting vehicles in their thousands. And yet, despite its weaknesses, the Bukhanka remains present on the battlefield. Why? Because it’s cheap, and it’s available. Russian forces are scrambling for every vehicle they can get, and new Bukhankas cost less than 1.5 million rubles ($16,800 USD).  In wartime, that’s sometimes all that matters. For similar reasons, Russian forces have also been making significant use of Chinese-sourced “golf carts” as reported by Forbes.

Ultimately, it’s hard to imagine an equivalent in Western terms, but let’s take a shot anyway. Imagine if the US Army was resupplying troops from 1965 Ford Econolines. It’d be an odd look for modern warfare. the Econoline isn’t really in the same class as the Bukhanka, but it’s eerie how reminiscent the Russian van is of the 1960s Ford design.

1963 Ford Econoline
The UAZ design is not so dissimilar from the Ford Econoline of old.

Social media today is full of explicit videos from the front lines of the Russian invasion. Discretion is advised before one goes researching in this area.

By no means is The Autopian a war news outlet. Regardless, it’s newsworthy that one of the oldest vehicles currently in production has become a staple of a “superpower” in a major conflict. In much the same way as the Toyota Hilux became infamous as a “technical” (a civilian vehicle converted for battlefield use), the Bukhanka is making a name for itself in the turmoil of this European battlefield. Unless there is some grand change in Russian industry or the status of the war, expect Bukhankas to keep winding the roads behind the front lines, where they will remain easy targets. For a strained Russian logistics effort, better options appear hard to come by.

Image credits: UAZ, Ford

 

About the Author

View All My Posts

62 thoughts on “Oldest Vehicle Still In Production Becomes Key To Russia’s War Effort”

  3. These, the turtle tanks, the motorcycle sleds, and the zombie-like re-emergence of that one T-55 are all amusing to look at because it resembles more like what Zambia fielded in the Rhodesian Bush War rather than the former second largest military power in the world.

    That said, with the number of Soviet stockpiles sold off to south central Asia and central Africa between 1975 and 1990 it’s no wonder that Russia has run out of stuff to field. Their oligarchy has been heavily focused on financial manipulation of eastern Europe by controlling titanium and methane exports as a soft power exploit rather than maintaining or even reconstructing their military as a hard power pressure. That lack of hardware kicked them in the dick with Chechnya, but they covered it up well enough that mostly only historians know nowadays. The only way they managed to occupy Georgia was through a series of suckerpunches hidden behind the backs of the Ossetians. And during the 2014 invasion of Ukraine they rushed hard enough and destroyed enough local sources of information that the wider international information outlets didn’t find out about the Black Sea fleet’s garbage equipment and operational fuckup until 2022.

    Russia’s known for a while that without increased production capabilites they couldn’t go for a long term entrenched conflict and so they got really good at covering it up. Just like any sleight of hand trick however, eventually the illusion failed.

  4. These, the turtle tanks, the motorcycle sleds, and the zombie-like re-emergence of that one T-55 are all amusing to look at because it resembles more like what Zambia fielded in the Rhodesian Bush War rather than the former second largest military power in the world.

    That said, with the number of Soviet stockpiles sold off to south central Asia and central Africa between 1975 and 1990 it’s no wonder that Russia has run out of stuff to field. Their oligarchy has been heavily focused on financial manipulation of eastern Europe by controlling titanium and methane exports as a soft power exploit rather than maintaining or even reconstructing their military as a hard power pressure. That lack of hardware kicked them in the dick with Chechnya, but they covered it up well enough that mostly only historians know nowadays. The only way they managed to occupy Georgia was through a series of suckerpunches hidden behind the backs of the Ossetians. And during the 2014 invasion of Ukraine they rushed hard enough and destroyed enough local sources of information that the wider international information outlets didn’t find out about the Black Sea fleet’s garbage equipment and operational fuckup until 2022.

    Russia’s known for a while that without increased production capabilites they couldn’t go for a long term entrenched conflict and so they got really good at covering it up. Just like any sleight of hand trick however, eventually the illusion failed.

  5. The article says the latest engine in these is expecting 92 octane fuel, which sounds high to my American ears (most stations where I live max out at 91 octane). I’m assuming that must be some different scale for octane rating than what we’re used to in the USA? I have a vague memory that there are (at least) two numerical systems for rating the octane content in gasoline – anyone know the story there?

    1. It’s almost certainly 92 RON (Research Octane Number; the standard measurement in most of the world). There’s another measurement method called MON, which is typically about 10 points lower than RON. American gas pumps display the AKI number, which is the average of MON and RON (so typically 5ish points lower than RON).

      So 92 RON is basic 87-octane.

    4. US octane ratings are basically -6 compared to the rest of the world (ballpark).
      93 octane US is equivalent to about 97 octane most elsewhere. There is 100 and 102 octane in Europe that is equivalent pretty much to good Premium in the US.
      The US 100 octane (racing) is 110-ish in Europe.

      Octane ratings being measured on RON or MON ratings, US octane number is (RON+MON)/2, Europe is RON

      http://www.pencilgeek.org/2009/05/octane-rating-conversions.html

      The 72 octane cited above is equivalent to about 65 US octane, and was/is a Soviet-only monstruosity, which was the main gas available in the USSR once you leave the big cities (where one could sometimes find the equivalent of the US Regular as the highest octane rating available.

  6. The article says the latest engine in these is expecting 92 octane fuel, which sounds high to my American ears (most stations where I live max out at 91 octane). I’m assuming that must be some different scale for octane rating than what we’re used to in the USA? I have a vague memory that there are (at least) two numerical systems for rating the octane content in gasoline – anyone know the story there?

    1. It’s almost certainly 92 RON (Research Octane Number; the standard measurement in most of the world). There’s another measurement method called MON, which is typically about 10 points lower than RON. American gas pumps display the AKI number, which is the average of MON and RON (so typically 5ish points lower than RON).

      So 92 RON is basic 87-octane.

    4. US octane ratings are basically -6 compared to the rest of the world (ballpark).
      93 octane US is equivalent to about 97 octane most elsewhere. There is 100 and 102 octane in Europe that is equivalent pretty much to good Premium in the US.
      The US 100 octane (racing) is 110-ish in Europe.

      Octane ratings being measured on RON or MON ratings, US octane number is (RON+MON)/2, Europe is RON

      http://www.pencilgeek.org/2009/05/octane-rating-conversions.html

      The 72 octane cited above is equivalent to about 65 US octane, and was/is a Soviet-only monstruosity, which was the main gas available in the USSR once you leave the big cities (where one could sometimes find the equivalent of the US Regular as the highest octane rating available.

  9. They’re even running out of Scooby Doo vans now. Lately they’ve been resorting to motorcycles and Chinese side-by-side ATVs for troop transport.

  10. They’re even running out of Scooby Doo vans now. Lately they’ve been resorting to motorcycles and Chinese side-by-side ATVs for troop transport.

  13. This article gives a whole new meaning to “pinching a loaf”. I’m sure there are lots of euphemisms for excrement in Ukraine right now.

  14. This article gives a whole new meaning to “pinching a loaf”. I’m sure there are lots of euphemisms for excrement in Ukraine right now.

  17. Just the set of wheels you need to operate a unprotected line in Ariel Parity. Going anywhere that even smelled like combat zone in one of those would be a bottom 3 job for me. You would have a longer lifespan Calvary charging a trench with a broadsword.

Leave a Reply