comment: >
  
  So what they are saying is that they are terrified of western tanks.
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.