comment: >
  
  This will take quite some time. They produced a shitload of tanks. If they throw all the junk they have lying around (given they would get it working again) at Ukraine it will take at least 6+ years to get rid of it all at that pace.
context: There were two of them destroyed this week in quick succession. >
  
  So was that all of them or are there a couple more? >
  
  Around 10 were built
  However Ukraine has destroyed Russias only T-80UM2 >
  
  Now they've gone from rare to legendary holographic >
  
  Oh sick dude! I’ll trade you for it!! >
  
  I give you 10 energy cards. It's a good deal, 10 cards for 1. You get 9 more than you started with. >
  
  A friends mom drove to my house and fleeced me back in the day. Was pretty shitty. >
  
  Some parents do really heinous shit for their kids.
  I got shamed for selling lemonade and candies on a sidewalk stall once because some kid's mom was upset that her kid bought some. Made me give the money back despite her kid having had a bunch of candy and lemonade. It was like maybe 2 bucks.
  Fuck you Kimberly, you deserve your messy ass divorce. >
  
  Kimberly sounds like a bit of a cunt. >
  
  Kimberly sounds like if Karen secretly turned into a heavy alcoholic. >
  
  They seem to pull equipment from all over. >
  
  What if Kazakhstan decided to invade Russia right now? >
  
  My friends from Kazakhstan are easily the most chill people I know. The only thing those guys would invade is an indian buffet on a Wednesday. >
  
  As kazakh, i am offended, because why indian buffet? There is no kebab places around you? >
  
  As an Indian, I will also invade a kebab buffet. >
  
  As a Canadian, I 'll invade both buffet and say I'm sorry >
  
  Seriously, throw in a pitcher of Coke and you know how I’m spending my afternoon. >
  
  Fire extinguisher guy should have been hauling ass to the tree line. >
  
  If you have two vehicles and one just got snipped, I would stand far from the other! >
  
  $25,000,000 each! >
  
  so the original budget was 100M then... >
  
  What a waste.  Think of all the yachts that could've bought >
  
  Aren't these billionaire yachts usually multi-hundred-million dollar yachts? >
  
  Yeah, it'd buy like half a yacht on a good day >
  
  
  The Tor-M2 was designed to intercept attacks from cruise missiles, gliding bombs, aircraft, helicopters and drones,
  
  Gets destroyed by projectile 
  
  M982 Excalibur-guided projectiles
  
  Sounds like an ARPG trash mob. Immune to fire, lightning,  water, air, poison, gravity, etc.  Gets taken out by a physical attack. >
  
  Since it was spotted by drone, and designed to intercept drones, I'm curious what ones were involved.
  I'm guessing it's designed to take on something military-grade like a Reaper, and was spotted by a small consumer drone that it maybe couldn't even detect?
  And then yeah, obviously not going to stand up to guided artillery shells >
  
  Yea cheap commercial drones are a massive problem with current AA capabilities. Either you’re burning an $80k+ missile to possibly destroy a several hundred dollar drone, an S300/400 missile that are $1 mil and $4 mil respectively, you’re relying on a Gepard equivalent, or you’re using small arms fire which is the most cost effective but least effective at hitting a distant and possibly moving target. >
  
  Actually, big radars can't really even see little quadcopters. Modern systems have a speed discriminator built in so it doesn't pick up birds and the like. Basically, they're so small and slow, the system thinks they're birds. >
  
  RIP all birds in future war zones. >
  
  I mean the future of drone warfare is just “deny that whole area, kill anything that moves that doesn’t have IFF” so rip to anything in future war zones.
  More like Geneva suggestions and Geneva guiding principles >
  
  Just make sure your killbots don’t have a preset kill limit >
  
  It stopped after killing ten soldiers and said we had to upgrade to the next biggest package for it to kill the rest. >
  
  Took out 2 of them so far. >
  
  They only have 4, and only one T80-UM2 but that's one of the two destroyed. >
  
  I like the way they try to put out a fire in a missile carrier with a hand held fire extinguisher. >
  
  I like how they don't think to get the fuck out of there and instead try to put out a fire.  Drone strikes and artillery are like lightning, they don't hit the same place twice, right? >
  
  maybe he was just trying to save his friend >
  
  Maybe. That's honestly not a behavior we've seen out of Russian troops very often at all, though, so it seems unlikely.
  We can't ask the fire extinguisher guy in any case, because he got blasted when the second shell came in. >
  
  I don't think they were around when the second shell came down. But they stayed for too long after the first shell. >
  
  I mean I watched a dude get killed by the second shell and then his smoking  corpse get thrown about 50 feet by the third, so they were still around. >
  
  How is there recording of that? >
  
  I mean I'm pretty sure the video linked in this article shows a corpse getting flung by the second shell, about 2/3rds of the way through. >
  
  Correction: it HAD a range of 10 km and it HAD an altitude range of 12km. >
  
  Tbf *they CLAIMED it had... >
  
  Not a bad point actually. Russia (and the USSR before them) had a habit of making equipment that simply had larger numbers than Nato systems.
  So a Russian tank could fire 4.5 km while a Nato equivalent tank only had 4 km. But the accuracy would be so shit that it's useless.
  So it wouldn't surprise me if what you said turns out to be true. >
  
  Works perfectly fine to me. It took out 1 Ukrainian missile. >
  
  Actually just a fancy GPS guided artillery shell. >
  
  Cmon man, let them have that one, they used a whole tactical SAM battery for it... 🤣 >
  
  This is huge, Russia has only a handful of rare systems, and zero mythics.  With their manufacturing so crippled by sanctions, they'll be using uncommons by next winter. >
  
  What do you mean by "uncommons"? I googled it but nothing leapt out as being militarily relevant. Does it simply mean "uncommon equipment"? >
  
  I'm guessing he's making a joke related to role playing computer games. Often items are common, uncommon, rare, epic, legendary etc, so rare > uncommon. >
  
  Gotcha thanks! Middle-aged lapsed gamer here so I missed that one. >
  
  so how good is it, since it obviously didnt see that coming? >
  
  Not many that can intercept and shoot down artillery shells.
  Ukraine claims to have used one of the excalibur shells which Russia might not have taken into consideration. >
  
  There are also a few videos of spotter drones flying unharmed in surprisingly close proximity but I'm not familiar with the AA system or what it's supposed to detect. >
  
  Those drones would have the radar cross section of a bird, radars developed in the 80s are not going to be tuned to look for them. >
  
  Well … there are persistent stories about when the U.K. Royal Navy was testing out its first Phalanx CIWS installations the operators cranked the sensitivity just a mite too high and a docked destroyer accidentally engaged a flock of seagulls as they flew past. 
  Fortunately on the seaward side. “Pink mist and feathers” was the description. >
  
  Sounds like those seagulls pissed someone off. >
  
  They were enemies laying explosives! They kept shouting "MINE! MINE MINE!" >
  
  Motherf*cker, I nearly choked damnit! have your upvote! >
  
  P Sherman is how Filipinos say fisherman. 42 wallaby way. >
  
  I believe I heard the inspiration for that was because there were a lot of Filipino animators working on finding nemo. >
  
  The toughest job in Russia must be propagandist. They really do not get much to work with. >
  
  Meh, once you abandon all connection to the truth it gets easier.
  "The great Russian Air defense system destroyed the vaunted American Excalibur Artillery shell!  Kiev will fall within days!"
  I can do this all day. >
  
  I am sure drinking helps or just changing the names in the reports. Cross out Ukraine and write in Russia, and vice versa. Job done, more Vodka. >
  
  From what I've seen, they basically do this with videos from the Ukrainian army sometimes, they just claim the sides are switched. >
  
  Headline is a little misleading, the system destroyed was a rare variant of the Tor made specifically for arctic operation. The Tor air defence system is actually pretty widely used. >
  
  And they missed the important part. The actual launcher is the one in the back. What got destroyed was the vehicle that tows it around. >
  
  For all intents and purposes, it was destroyed too via the shrapnel. It'll require a full rebuild just to make it functional. Artillery of that size has a lot of sharpnel. >
  
  Nothing rarer than russian equipment that does what it's supposed to. That wasn't one of them. >
  
  There is an old joke: What doesn't ring and doesn't fit in the ass? A Russian device for ringing in the ass. >
  
  What is as big as a house, belches huge clouds of smoke, burns 30 kilos of coal per hour, and cuts an apple into 4 pieces?
  A Soviet machine designed to cut an apple into 5 pieces. >
  
  Now I gotta watch Chernobyl again >
  
  Seems that this war will demilitarize russia instead.