comment: >
  
  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.
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.