• @supersolid_snake
    link
    231 year ago

    Lmfao at all these armchair generals who think tanks present a challenge to a guerilla groups, let alone a modern Russian army.

    2006 Lebanon was literally a refutation.

    • @cfgaussian
      link
      19
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Any tank is better than no tank. But at the end of the day war is a numbers game. Ukraine started with over a thousand tanks and lost most of them. Russia still has many thousands and can make many more. A few hundred western tanks will be annoying and prolong the fighting for a few more months but will not change the balance of power or the trajectory of the war.

    • @Shrike502
      link
      171 year ago

      I mean, a tank is a threat to guerilla groups, unless they have RPGs or ATGMs. And even then - modern tanks have systems for detecting being getting aimed at with laser targeters. And they have longer range. And never travel alone (unless the commanding officer is a moron).

      • @PolandIsAStateOfMind
        link
        201 year ago

        Yikes they are all on the denial level of “anything that isn’t 100% conforming to my view is automatically paid troll and traitor”

      • 陈卫华是我的英雄OP
        link
        181 year ago

        They claim that those shots only involve “destroying the ammo box” but the crew stays alive due to compartmentalization without explaining how the tank is supposed to function without ammo. Peak liberal logic

        • @supersolid_snake
          link
          19
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I can’t believe it took the world this long to realize that what liberals believe has no bearing on reality or the truth. They can just be bypassed and ignored entirely. Them saying dumb shit like this is proof.

        • Yiazmat
          link
          171 year ago

          lol I saw those comments and was thinking “okay… then what?” like, yeah the crew is still alive but what are they supposed to do now that their ammo exploded? And do they think the enemy will just fire once and that’s it?

          • 陈卫华是我的英雄OP
            link
            171 year ago

            Never mind the ammo itself, what about the ammo box? The tank won’t be able to hold ammo anymore and will have to be shipped back to the West for repairs, its good as destroyed

            • @REEEEvolution
              link
              61 year ago

              Aw come one. Just 1000 km each way. It’ll be back by tomorrow.

              Spoiler

              It won’t.

          • @Shrike502
            link
            81 year ago

            The crew could leave? Provided the tank is still mobile

            • @ComradeSalad
              link
              12
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There is no way a tank could sustain a catastrophic ammunition detonation like that and still have the engine operational. Protecting the crew is understandable, but the crew and engine both is absurd.

            • Yiazmat
              link
              111 year ago

              yea that’s what I mean, like the tank would be forced to leave the battlefield

              • @Shrike502
                link
                91 year ago

                The crew could be put into a different tank and continue fighting, as opposed to becoming red smears

        • JucheBot1988
          link
          111 year ago

          They are going to use the power of ZELENSKY and the AMERICAN EAGLE to EPICALLY DRIVE the tank into the Russians orks, SLAVA UKRAINI!

        • @REEEEvolution
          link
          71 year ago

          Easy: The tank commander summons his comically large bayonet and puts it on the tanks gun. Then they do a bayonet charge.

  • @201dberg
    link
    151 year ago

    Well tbf it did deflect that missile. It would have otherwise kept going straight but the tanks sure put a stop to that.

    • @ComradeSalad
      link
      151 year ago

      The tank armour did a good job of deflecting the missile INTO the ammunition compartment.

        • @ComradeSalad
          link
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nah, your good man. Anti tank missile is one of those funny little words that the brain just wants to say with no logical explanation.

          • @TheAnonymouseJoker
            link
            31 year ago

            There is also how the tank itself ended up making itself useless… it made me chuckle. It would be like one guy protecting his friends from a water balloon barrage, but the water ends up on everyone anyway.

    • @ComradeSalad
      link
      23
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s actually not flying erratically, if you look at the smoke trail it is flying in an off center corkscrew manner, which is a intentional design choice in the Kornet ATGM for guidance and control purposes.

      This is because missile systems need to be stable enough to fly straight towards a target, but unstable enough to be controlled and steered by an operator. The off center spiral gives it both of these qualities as the spin stabilizes the missile like a bullet, while the off center rocket nozzles gives it the instability for steering.

      That’s why you can see the missile jerk violently and then straighten out completely in the last few moments before impact. The operator was actively steering the missile into its terminal trajectory.

      • @DerPapa69@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        131 year ago

        That’s absolutely mental, I was not aware of that. How does the operator communicate with the missle? Is it wireless?

        • @ComradeSalad
          link
          13
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There are many different ways to communicate with a missile, but most ATGMs are either wire guided or use a laser “beam rider”.

          The Kornet uses the beam rider method in which an operator “paints” the enemy vehicle with a laser designator which tells the missile via radio waves what target to lock onto and what course to maintain. As the missile nears is target the operator can move the laser point to further aim the missile. This can either be done by an operator manually or by an automatic firing system, which “talks” with a radar system in the missile that compares data from the receiver and missile to tell the missile how close it is to its target, when it needs to begin its terminal approach, and any other information that the missile needs to factor in.

          So basically yes, there is a radar device in the launcher, and radar device in the missile that communicate. The missile is telling the receiver what it sees, and the receiver guides the missile in.

          This is also what radar jamming focuses on stopping. The countermeasure detects the missile and receiver, and attempts to flood the radio waves the receivers on the missile and launch platform are using to communicate, to “confuse” the missile.

    • @Shrike502
      link
      81 year ago

      Either it’s got sensitive controls - i.e. the guiding laser is wobbling - or it’s a programmed thing to dodge countermeasures. My bet is on the former

    • 陈卫华是我的英雄OP
      link
      51 year ago

      My guess is that ATGMs look like that when viewed from behind (Kornets, Javelins, etc. look like that too), and also because the missiles spin midair, like bullets. IDK

  • Bury The Right
    link
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But-but some armchair military expert on quora told me that nothing short of a direct hit from a battleship cannon is capable of destroying an Abrams. 😢