comment: >
  
  Burn at the end of the barrels as they send it.
context: I'm surprised they didn't announced their destruction already. >
  
  You're joking, but they did proudly announce the destruction of several Bradley's months before their delivery... >
  
  They said they destroyed the crowd-funded Lithuanian Bayraktar a month before it was due to leave the factory >
  
  They're still claiming to have destroyed more HIMARS than have even been delivered to Ukraine, right? >
  
  Yep. Last time I heard about it they had destroyed twenty seven of them. Only 20 were ever shipped. >
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware they have in fact not destroyed a single HIMARS. >
  
  Both sides are playing the propaganda game. I doubt Ukraine would want to confirm a kill for the Russians. I wouldn't be surprised if a few had been hit given how high priority they must be as targets. >
  
  
  Both sides are playing the propaganda game.
  
  People frequently say this in these threads, but it's about as accurate as "both-sidesing" U.S. political parties. If you look at Ukraine's reported numbers on various things in the war, they come a hell of a lot closer to numbers confirmed by other sources than the Russian's numbers do. >
  
  You may be right but truth is the first casualty in war and it would be naive to think Ukraine isn't using propaganda to their advantage too >
  
  There’s propaganda and then there’s just silly lies.
  Russia can do insidious political propaganda like QAnon, but it can’t do wartime propaganda. >
  
  Yea well they're not schools, hospitals or residential apartments so I doubt they can hit them >
  
  It is really impressive that they developed such a niche targeting system to only hit non-combatants.
  And to think Ukraine simultaneously designed a system to only target high ranking Russian generals and commanders is really impressive. >
  
  It's a fair strategy on the part of the Ukrainians. 
  Take out the officers and the conscripts are now left without direction because Russian doctrine does not give soldiers the autonomy to act unlike American doctrine. 
  Basically you kill the officer and everyone is left in a confused mess and you can either take them out or break their morale and make them retreat. >
  
  Most countries' military doctrines don't give their soldiers autonomy. It's one of our biggest advantages. >
  
  It's a difficult strategy though - if the average Russian solider was given any autonomy they'd just go home. >
  
  There is that. Other countries could give themselves a big leg up by adopting our practices, but tradition, and authoritarian countries really don't want to encourage independent thought/action. >
  
  That’s how you get a military coup. >
  
  Must be how Petreus evolved >
  
  Given it's only 14 being sent, yeah maybe the chances are they all get destroyed eventually. The question is what the Challengers destroy in the mean time.
  The only thing to have ever taken out a Challenger 2 in combat is... another Challenger 2.
  From its wiki: "During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter [one] was hit by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident."
  They are, uh, pretty tough nuts to crack. >
  
  In that blue on blue as I recall the shooting tank delivered a first round hit through the top hatch as well .. like they shoot so well they don't even need to worry about armour. >
  
  To be fair in that case the hatch was open, and directed the shrapnel downwards straight at some ammo being loaded.
  A perfect storm of bad luck. >
  
  Like the shell checked medical records en route and hit them in the bad knee.
  That's insane. >
  
  Not that it makes it better, but gotta feel a little thankfully it missed the commander's recent colonoscopy. >
  
  Russia warns any Challenger tanks sent to Ukraine from Britain 'will burn Russian tanks'
  Fixed it >
  
  Alternatively, they "will burn lots of fuel advancing towards the Russian border." >
  
  It’s so nice of them to be environmentally conscious. >
  
  Mark my words. Russia is going to claim soon they destroyed 100 western tanks parked on the second floor of a parking building. >
  
  That “HIMARS destroyed” video where they dropped some munitions on the second floor window of a building was fucking hilarious and baffling in equal measure. >
  
  There is SOME merit to their claims of destroying HIMARS. Its been said the Ukrainians have been constructing wooden versions that they trot out. Russia destroys an arts and crafts project with millions of dollars worth of missiles. >
  
  This was a video where they just bombed a building. Not even a parking garage. Like, how the fuck would a HIMARS even get in there? >
  
  I haven’t seen the video just speaking more generally.
  You see, your western brain cannot comprehend Ukrainian Nazi tactics. They hollow out buildings and put in a retractable ceiling. HIMARS inside building, destroy building, destroy HIMARS. /s >
  
  HIMARS are actually powered by hospitals. >
  
  Well they do both start with H....... >
  
  Hospital
  Is
  My
  Artillery
  Round
  Shooter
  Seems pretty obvious.. >
  
  And somewhere a Russian army intel officer, half a bottle of vodka down is like: “I knew it!” >
  
  I'm sure they look forward to announcing the destruction of all 45 of the 12 Challenger tanks sent.  They might even wait until after the tanks arrive to claim to have destroyed them. >
  
  They are gonna do both. Two times >
  
  Is anyone else's response to Russian threats become just a dismissive "ok"?
  For me it's either that or the R&M scene when Jerry is in the daycare and he storms out thinking he is fighting the system and the attendant says,  "OK then, that was always allowed". >
  
  I mean, threatening to blow up weapons you are sending into war is exactly that energy.
  Just like: Ok, that IS how combat works. Have you been not doing that or something? >
  
  "Oh shit, better not give Ukraine those tanks if they aren't going to be returned in mint condition". >
  
  Are you saying they might lose their deposit!? >
  
  I believe the correct official response from the UK should be 'lolk' >
  
  loluk >
  
  loluok? >
  
  I really don’t see the point of threatening to blow up weaponry being sent into war.
  Do they think the Brits are scared of putting their tanks in danger? It’s a tank. That’s very literally the intended purpose of it. >
  
  I feel like they assume every country deals with the same logistics issues they do
  "12 challenger tanks!? That must be a quarter of their entire force! I bet only half that force is even functional too!" >
  
  I mean, we don't have many of them - 227 or something.
  We haven't had much use for tank warfare in the last 80 or so years. Focus has been on other more flexible priorities like aircraft etc.
  There're not doing us much use and we're retiring a bunch anyway. >
  
  UK is notorious for underfunding things that they need and then suddenly realising that they need it. At least by shifting some stock around they may start pushing harder to replace a 30 year old design and get the UK to rearm to more modern systems. >
  
  So what they are saying is that they are terrified of western tanks. >
  
  I mean the West has ton of true Gen 3 tanks compared to Russia. Only 750-1000 T90s are built with 200 of those exported compared to the over 10,000 M1s built with the US have 2500 in active service and 5600 that in an emergency situation can be reactivated. Some of the 5600 mothballed ones have been getting prepped to possibly be sent over tp Ukraine and it would absolutely overwhelm the Russian mechanized united alone. >
  
  Not to even mention that T-90 is just a T-72 with a new name from the marketing department. >
  
  ya, it's literally the same tank with some "modern" optics >
  
  …said the largest supplier of tanks to Ukraine. >
  
  Lmfao too true. >
  
  Let’s be having you 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 >
  
  Righto chaps >
  
  Wow, that's a whole lot of deescalation from their regular talks about nuking everyone who challenges them. They're getting tired. >
  
  I'm sure they received some behind the scenes messages about why making those threats is hazardous to Russia's health. >
  
  At this point I don’t think they can damage their image further. This will last years. >
  
  *generations >
  
  Ah, that'll stop Britain. I'm sure they weren't aware that Russia would want to blow up the tanks shooting at them. >
  
  Russia was threatening to Nuke the UK every other tuesday a couple of months ago. Threatening to blow up tanks we send to Ukraine doesn't really sound very threatening anymore. They already played their biggest card and over used it to the point it no longer has any meaning. >
  
  Nobody cares what Russia thinks. >
  
  I don't personally care about their feelings but the end of the war will come exactly when Russia thinks it is better for them to end it than keep going. So we basically have to stomp their faces in until they get the picture. >
  
  Yeah, burn your t-72's >
  
  I think they are either burnt or in Ukrainian hands already. They’re fielding T62s now. >
  
  Ouch... Just the sight of a modern tank on the battlefield would be demoralizing when you're rolling around in a crank start vehicle. Lol >
  
  Given that most of the crank start vehicles don’t even have thermal optics, the sight of a modern tank while you’re in one implies you’re quite literally moments away from death. >
  
  Exactly! >
  
  Sounds like fighting talk, game on - let's go Britain. >
  
  BANG BANG
  CAM ON INGERLAND
  BANG BANG
  SEND SOME FOCKEN TAENKS
  BANG BANG >
  
  ... what accent was that supposed to be? >
  
  Soccer stadium >
  
  Just like they got all those HIMARS right? If I recall it was a dude with a Kalashnikov rifle who took out 13 by himself? 
  But to be fair they have a better chance of hitting these than artillery/MLRS but still we know they'll go for more residential targets first. >
  
  Ukrainians with Challenger 2 tanks: "You first!" >
  
  The Russian tanks are the ones being destroyed, captured, or abandoned. If Putin is scared of western tanks, then good. >
  
  Every time they put out a statement or threat like this we should just up the number we send.
  14 Challys!
  'they will burn'
  30 Challys!
  'we will nuke London'
  100 Challys!
  'we will nuke the entire west'
  3000 glorious Challys of Britain! >
  
  Think we only have 200 odd unfortunately >
  
  That is unfortunate, was just an NCD reference though >
  
  Some probably will get destroyed, but as long as more Ukrainian crews get home than Russians then it was worth sending them. >
  
  Exactly weapons get destroyed in war that’s how it is >
  
  “Will burn thru Russian lines”…fixed it. >
  
  "will burn because of overheating due to too much usage." >
  
  So I believe I’ve seen somewhere that no challenger 2 has ever been lost in combat… so go for it Russia, maybe start with Putin having a go himself first >
  
  Yeah I read they went 200-0 vs Russian-made tanks in Iraq. No wonder they are pissed at this announcement. >
  
  Well it would be very strange if they said these tanks “will drown”. >
  
  Even the strongly pro-russian citizens must look at a statement like this and think:
  
  So significantly upgraded tanks are being given to Ukraine;
  Russia's been having trouble with the old crappy tanks Ukraine has already;
  that's going to be easier said than done to destroy these new tanks. >
  
  Nationalism is a hell of a drug, I bet they can rationalize any defeat as some Pyrrhic victory in which they are somehow both the victims of oppression and the champions of the world. >
  
  I am sorry, my "russia warns" message box is full, maybe try again some time latter? Maybe in 200 or 500 years? >
  
  I think Putin may have more pressing matters if the tank's are supplied with Sabot rounds. >
  
  Doubt they'll even need them unless they decide to take out 3 tanks lined up in a row, training rounds would probably kill most of the junk putin's fielding, let alone HESH or ADFSDS. >
  
  Russia’s army is about the same as North Korea’s…..worthless >
  
  I really don't think Russia gets the British. If they destroy the Tanks and put it on social media. Britain will just send a bigger package.
  Russia thinks they are this stubborn scary Bear. But they definitely are in the fucking around phase before finding out.
  If they had any fucking sense they would just not talk about them. >
  
  Historically it’s very common for authoritarian states to underestimate democracies and to assume they don’t have the “stomach” to keep going when things get tough. The Kremlin seems to have fallen victim to this classic blunder. 
  The Ukrainians are absolutely committed to fighting for their freedom and the memories of the Holodomor will not soon be forgotten and Bucha and Irpin has already shown what happens when Russia takes towns. In WWII 1.6 million Ukrainian soldiers died in the Red Army but they drove out the fascists. If Stalin’s genocide couldn’t break Ukrainians and Hitler’s invasion couldn’t then I don’t think a few missile strikes on critical infrastructure will do so either. I want this war over soon but I also know Ukrainians would fight for years or even decades rather than unconditionally surrender to Russia.
  For NATO/NATO allies it’s even simpler. The economy, population and weapons are so vast that they can prop Ukraine up for years or even decades while barely inconveniencing their people. Russia’s energy blackmail of the west has failed and Russia is trying to go up against the production capacity of a group of nations with roughly a billion people and with a majority of the world’s economy. Putin thinks democracies are weak but they can (and will) do this for years if necessary. The only question is how much material, resources and manpower does Russia want to throw away. >
  
  Unless Russia has some A10s to imitate the A10's blue on blue habits, not sure that will happen any time soon. >
  
  Not particularly worried about the TANKS. GTFO >
  
  Yes, they'll burn so much ammo over russian positions! >
  
  It's true. George Santos destroyed 20 of them already with lightning bolts from his anus. >
  
  Can tanks mysteriously fall out of top floor windows? 🤔 >
  
  I mean yes, but in the case of this particular tank, that really becomes the floor's problem. >
  
  I mean of course there will be tank losses. No Tank is indestructible >
  
  True, but I'd rather be in a Chally 2 over pretty much any other tank. I think the only one ever knocked out was by another Chally, and one of them took over 70 RPG hits without going down >
  
  Going up against the trundling museum pieces that Russia is fielding is going to a walkover. >
  
  It was state of the art 30 years ago. Now it's been retired by the UK MoD. 1/3 of their Challengers are getting a refit to turn them into what will be called Challenger3, the other 2/3 are getting scrapped as obsolete. We're giving Ukraine the obsolete ones which is better than nothing but it's not as dominant as it would have been in its prime.
  You wouldn't want to fight 56 year old Mike Tyson today and he'll probably still fuck you up but it's not like fighting him at his peak. >
  
  Agreed, but let's not forget that these 30 year old tanks are coming up against...30+ year old tanks. 
  As I understand it, anything short of a T-90M will be utterly outclassed by the Challenger. These tanks were designed with completely different doctrines in mind - Soviet tanks were designed to advance very quickly across the weaker bridges of Eastern Europe, and overwhelm NATO with sheer numbers, whereas NATO designed their tanks to basically be juggernauts, capable of taking and dishing out huge levels of punishment before going down. 
  If I'm Ivan Conskriptki, the very last thing I'd want to see is large deliveries of both Challengers and Leopards. Chobham and Dorchester armoured vehicles have shown themselves to be incredibly resilient when compared to T-72Ms with ERA, for example. >
  
  Russia's problem now is, not only are our tanks built to be juggernauts, but we can also make more than they can. >
  
  will burn... yo ass! >
  
  Russia will probably claim to have destroyed all of them 4 times over within a week of them arriving >
  
  HAHAHAHA Oh wait, you're being serious; let me laugh some more HAHAHAHA BWAH...
  Russian forces sees Challengers in the field? They'll be Brave-Sir-Robin'ing outta there. >
  
  Send some coconuts to the Kremlin? >
  
  I really doubt at this point Russia could take on any of the Western tanks they really going to hate it when those Bradleys hit the field lol >
  
  To be fair. Russia is kind of an expert on having burning tanks in Ukraine. >
  
  To be fair even if they manage to destroy them, Britain will find it interesting to find weak spots to fix them if they manage to destroy them. If they aren’t destroyed you proved your tank is a fine piece of equipment against Russia. Win-win I guess >
  
  It's a war, everything burns sooner or later, it's what they do before they burn that matters. >
  
  I know this is propaganda for internal consumption.
  But I think that if you need to boast about how you will desteoy equipment that isn't even delivered yet, it's not a good sign for how condident you are.
  Confident militaries with the power to back it up wouldn't bother bragging and just blow up said equipment. >
  
  To be fair that's what Putin thinks happens to tanks you send to Ukraine. >
  
  The only Challenger 2 tank ever destroyed in combat was friendly fire. Another one took 14 RPG hits and lived. These things are tough >
  
  Yeah. Burn through Russian defense fortifications. >
  
  Man Russian threats lost their punch so quickly. >
  
  Why? Is the Russian Army driving them too? >
  
  They are an authority on burning tanks, so... >
  
  Will burn lots fuel as they pound the Russian positions... >
  
  This signals that they're scared of them. >
  
  Russia’s mouthpiece is getting dangerously close to becoming the next “Baghdad Bob” >
  
  They probably will eventually, although it may take a while. The point of sending 12 Challenger 2s was never to provide an indestructible fleet of tanks. It was to break the ice on the rest of Europe sending Leopard 2s.
  Don’t get me wrong though just those 12 Challenger 2s if operated well, will ruin (end) many Russian soldiers lives for quite a long time. They’re mostly vulnerable from above, but the threat from drones is largely overstated. >
  
  …so what’d yall have for lunch? >
  
  Tofu nuggets with peanut sauce, slaw and rice! >
  
  Sounds fire! Please tell me it was sticky rice >
  
  Hahahaha there you go! I’m jealous, I’m still making plain white rice out here. Sticky rice or bust! >
  
  I think about how many times I’ve seen the bully lose. Just about every time >
  
  How are they doing with the HIMARS? Still zero destroyed? >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  British tanks sent to support the Ukrainian military effort against Russia "Will burn", Moscow has warned.
  German chancellor Olaf Scholz is under pressure to approve an increase in international military support for Kyiv by allowing the export of Leopard 2 battle tanks to Ukraine.
  President Zelensky said that Ukraine needs tanks to win the war and is "Awaiting a joint decision" on the subject because "One country cannot provide us with a sufficient number of them."
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: tank^#1 Ukraine^#2 support^#3 supply^#4 president^#5 >
  
  Yeah they'll burn.... gunpowder!! >
  
  These tanks will burn russians. They just didn't finish the sentence. >
  
  Fo sho >
  
  Specifically will “Burn through our outdated equipment and troops at an astonishing rate “ is more likely what he meant to say… >
  
  Burned out from killing so many vatniks maybe. >
  
  "...fuel that doesn't come from Russia while they defend the civilians being murdered by Russian terrorists." >
  
  So Russia will burn instead then >
  
  To be fair, nobody knows more about burning tanks right now than Russia. >
  
  Diesel. Quite sure they burn diesel fuel. >
  
  They're metal.  They can't. >
  
  Dr Thermite disagrees. >
  
  You have a point >
  
  Just like the HIMARS >
  
  russians seem very concerned about these tanks, I say quadruple the order. I've seen 8 Ukrainian soldiers with their eyes cut out in the last 4 days, russia is elevating their rate of warcrimes and the world needs to start policing it. First is to place a free pass for the removal of Wagner from the planet. Destroy their bases in Africa, lock all of their travel down. Then send troops into Ukraine to remove those terrorists. >
  
  ‘They will burn…a lot of fuel effortlessly ripping through Russia’s troops.’ >
  
  “… lots of fossil fuels while rolling over the tragically sacrificed militarized Russian population.”  Talk about taken out of context, they’re really concerned about the environment folks /s >
  
  Yeah burn your ass, ya Russian cunts! >
  
  The turrets will burn from overheating maybe from hitting the waves of zombies >
  
  I imagine this was said in a Dr Evil voice with pinky at side of mouth…. Soon Putin will be demanding…gasp…”1…million… dollars” to stop the war. >
  
  The Challengers will pop Russian tank tops like champagne bottles. >
  
  Like to see them try... Challenger 2's were designed from the ground up as MBT killers, battlefield apex predators.  Whereas the Russian tanks are getting towed away by Ukrainian tractors... >
  
  Oh no! Russia's threatening violence after illegally invading a sovereign nation as part of a land grab? I guess we probably shouldn't send the tanks after all, right guys? /s >
  
  Russia warns any Challenger tanks sent to Ukraine from Britain ‘will burn’....
  through their ammunition as they absolutely tear a swath through Russian lines >
  
  Feel like the article should be "Britain warns Challenger tank sent to Ukraine will bath in the burning wrecks of Russian tanks". >
  
  The only way I learn equipment is heading to Ukraine is when Russia says they will destroy it. >
  
  Just because the russian tanks burn that doesn't mean all tanks will >
  
  Russia has lost 3000 Main Battle Tanks, 6000 APCs, 500MLRS, and 5000 Supply Trucks, 250 Jets, 250 Helicopters, many of their best trained pilots.                                          
  Except for the indescriminate city leveling with artillery, the raping, civilian murdering, kidnapping and torturing, they aren't shit. They excell at War Crimes Only. And they will pay. Russia is going down. >
  
  In case anyone is not in the loop on these kind of statements from Russia allow me to translate for you:
  “Any Challenger tanks sent to Ukraine will burn… a lot of our army to the ground. Please do not send them. Thanks!” >
  
  Burn the tea because they’re too busy lighting up old T-72s maybe, but I doubt the English would be that careless. >
  
  yeah, it's burning some fuel >
  
  Yes, the same Challenger tanks that took fourteen RPGs and a ATGM... with no serious damage, able to be repaired in 6 hours. Right. 
  To say these things don't do the usual turret launch maneuver that Russian tanks do when hit is the understatement of the century. >
  
  These idiot Russians are about to fuck around and find out. Western training, gunnery, guns and optics are death incarnate for their foes. Absolute turkey shoot. >
  
  In the words of Dr. Evil “riiiiiiiiiiight” >
  
  Right-wing, Trumpers, Russian Nationalists, always projecting, it's so sad and childish. >
  
  European tankies are in there too. Which is funny. Imagine how pro-russian rightwingers in America would feel if they found out that they were in the same camp as Stalinists-communists in EU. >
  
  Better Russian than a Democrat.
  At least I recalled that being used when Trump was close to Putin. >
  
  Fossil fuels >
  
  Then their soldiers might finally be able to stay warm. >
  
  I think the UK knows the capabilities of the Russian tank and its challenger 2 tanks. Time will tell. Could test for the challenger 2 tank though😉. >
  
  Russian tanks are no problem the the Challenger 2's. The only unknown is the new Iranian weapons, which, I believe is the reason the UK are sending them. >
  
  Didn't the British install some sort of heat sink? I don't see any other reason they would burn, or even overheat, in a war with Russia. >
  
  At some point the Russians will eventually get a lucky shot in a fight or hit it with artillery. Even if equipment is far superior its never invincible. It'll inevitably take losses if you deploy it in combat. That being said I can't believe the Russians still haven't managed to get lucky and knock out a HIMARs speaks volumes to how stupid they are