comment: >
  
  Achievement Unlocked!
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Looking at the video--was the system destroyed or was it the tow vehicle destroyed?  Or are the "two" vehicles really just one integrated system? >
  
  They're one system, I believe the rear vehicle is the missile launcher itself and the front one is the command and control vehicle for it. The Arctic variant is just segmented like that for some reason. >
  
  When a polar bear comes, you drop the trailer. Then you can try to ram it with the command and control vehicle. >
  
  A mate from work is from Russia.
  He has been living here fir 20 years so he is not, what shall i say? Broken?
  His comments on captured gear is always.
  I wonder how broken it is and if it can be fixed.
  "Nothing is in good quality, im not saying it does not work im just saying it is not working as intended" >
  
  
  His comments on captured gear is always. I wonder how broken it is and if it can be fixed.
  
  If the Ukrainian military is anything to go by, the answer is that quite a lot can be fixed and repurposed for the ukrainians, assuming it's not a burned-out shell. There was a time at the start of the war, when Russians were abandinging their gear, where Ukrainian military engineers were going round teaching farmers how to maintain and repair soviet tanks. >
  
  Rare, as in so rare nobody is trained properly on how to use it >
  
  Rare as in it was actually functional and fully assembled with non-jerry-rigged parts. >
  
  Seems like only works in the arctic >
  
  Less chance of attack, ergo it has a better success rate there. Unless an angry polar bear takes a dump on it... >
  
  Ya know, if you're redeploying rare equipment from other parts of the world, it's likely you don't have a lot of alternatives lying around.
  Just for those that keep saying "Russia has plenty of equipment."
  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that most of Russia's air defense across the country hasn't been gutted the past few months. Like, large batteries reduced to just singular units.
  And for when we see a T-14 break down in Ukraine, we'll know that they've hit rock bottom in terms of tanks available for refurbishment. >
  
  When they were moving air defense systems away from Petersburg (and the border with Finland) I heard a lot of planes flying over my house at night. All of them with turned off transponders, of course. Had no idea whats inside, but was certain that it must be military in nature. >
  
  This title reads the same way as  "Prehistoric Fish Found in some deep place near Africa, for the first time in a million years." But for people who subscribe to Guns & Ammo instead of National Geographic. >
  
  I think when we think of “futuristic” weapons we tend to think of lasers and invisible aircraft. No, this is some next level stuff. A GPS guided artillery shell. That is some futuristic stuff. It takes some balls to sit in a tank when you know these things exist. >
  
  These shells are expensive but if used properly can be so effective. They cost about 50-60,000 dollars each but typically things like tanks, artillery guns and armored vehicles cost at minimum 1-2 million dollars. If you can destroy a 2 million dollar artillery gun with a 50,000 shell then that’s a great return. If you CAN’T destroy the artillery gun there is also a good chance the 2 million dollar artillery gun will inflect many millions of dollars worth of damages. >
  
  Absolutely. Seems like it has a lot of advantages over other options. I’d assume the main drawback would be more limited range compared to a missile >
  
  They have nearly twice the range of the himars. >
  
  Should this be xposted to 'r/ThatLookedExpensive' ?
  It sure didn't look cheap. >
  
  My favorite part was where people stayed in the exact location that artillery just hit.
  Lightning may never strike the same place twice, but artillery sure can. >
  
  This headline reads like the Ukrainians destroyed a weather phenomenon. >
  
  It sounds like a command and conqueror weapon >
  
  I think i saw that in the combat footage sub, recall it was one of those high precision artillary shells that did the job, even went for double taps like 3-5 of them just to be sure.
  makes me wonder what was going on in the decision making process that made the russians deploy such a rare and probably valuable asset within Ukrainian Firing range. >
  
  In war, often don't know which weapons are effective until they are in a real battlefield.
  Sometimes there are surprises.
  On the plus side, in the great WW2 British hunt to "Sink the Bismark" battle cruiser, who would have predicted the initial blow that led to its demise would be inflicted by a WW1 design bi-plane?
  On the flip side, in the 1944 Normandy invasion, many tanks lost because they were launched at sea, and it turns out that even with floatation devices, tanks ummm sink quickly. >
  
  The Fairey Swordfish was designed in the 1930s, it wasn't WWI-era. And while it was considered to be obsolete at the start of the war, it was still the Royal Navy's main torpedo bomber and by the time of its use against Bismarck (which was a battleship, not a battlecruiser) had already proven itself in Norway, Mers-el-Kébir, Taranto, Cape Matapan, and numerous other operations. >
  
  Watching Russia collapse is quite comical, given how much they were hyped up over the years. >
  
  Make no mistake though - Russia is perfectly willing to sacrifice another 200-500K men. They might relent at around 500K total killed if the word gets out to the people, which it might not. Since lots of Russians are saying they're willing to lose 1M, you can pretty much cut that in half. Nothing a Russian says is reliable. >
  
  Whether or not they will, or can, sacrifice that many men to the meat grinder isn't the issue. Geopolitically they've been shown to be a military laughingstock. Ukraine is more than holding their own with fewer troops, older surplus arms from allies, and no air power to speak of. In a conventional conflict with NATO, the devastation on the Russian side would make the Highway of Death look like a fender bender, and everyone watching now knows that. Russia went from grudgingly-acknowledged Great Power status to the new Sick Man of ~~Europe~~ Eurasia. Where it was feared before, that fear is now reserved for the potential chaos its seemingly-inevitable collapse will cause for others. >
  
  
  no air power to speak of.
  
  NATO air power would have ended this conflict in a month.  Both sides are lacking any real air power presence; Ukraine was under equipped to begin with, so that's no real surprise.  The real surprise is Russia's lack of dominance by now.
  If they can't control the skies over Ukraine, against the Ukrainian Air Force, they wouldn't have lasted 48 hours against NATO.  And once NATO has air superiority, Russia basically can't move armor. >
  
  When asked, the Minister in charge denied having a new Dacha built outside of Moscow.
  The owner of the factory and the minister have not been seen for a few weeks. >
  
  Can't wait for Ukraine to get the F16s >
  
  Its getting even more rare! Might even go extinct at his pace >
  
  were they... destroyed from the air? >
  
  Yeeeeeaaaahhhhhhh!!!!! >
  
  mmmm tasty destroyed russian equipment. delicious. >
  
  They’ve destroyed two already and I think Russia only had 12 >
  
  Ground-based AA system "shot down" by Ukraine, they say.
  Proofreaders and copy editors just do not exist in the news business anymore. >
  
  Rofl, yeah. >
  
  Looks like they TOR it a new one.
  .....I'll see myself out now..... >
  
  So it was destroyed by the thing it was supposed to destroy >
  
  The Russian was designed to take out missiles, helicopters, etc.  
  Reportedly destroyed by a 155mm GPS artillery shell.
  Not the same thing, different radar signature, different trajectory.
  Probably also could be taken out by a Javelin or Nlaw anti-tank missile.
  If you want to stay alive, gotta keep updating threat database!
  EdIt: added 155mm gps >
  
  Not just a 155mm shell… a gps guided shell! >
  
  Point remains. The Russian arctic anti-air system was not designed to take out artillery shells.
  Also, valuable gear like that is supposed to be part of a combined arms system, including friendly infantry, tanks, aircraft, to keep enemy artillery far far away.
  What was it doing out there, apparently alone and vulnerable? >
  
  I think the bigger problem was that it was in range of a 155mm gun. Typically as soon as artillery shells start landing the side that’s being shelled can use counter battery radar to pinpoint where the shells are coming from and fire back. Of course excalibur shells are so accurate that you really only need to fire one or two before leaving which means the Russian artillery likely didn’t have enough time to pinpoint the Ukrainian fire and respond. The Ukrainian gun may have only been in position for 1-3 minutes. The Ukrainian gun was also very likely not anywhere close enough to Russian positions for the Russians to have been able to use tanks or infantry. If Ukraine can hit an AA system with artillery then the AA is way too close. >
  
  "It burned brightly..." It sure did, Brother Swan. >
  
  Ukrainians always have great taste in music for their videos. Sounds like an XX remix, anyone have a track ID? >
  
  Shazam says it's "Caught in the Life" by "Chris", which I think is wrong. You are correct that it samples Intro by XX, and thanks for saying that. It was driving me crazy trying to remember where that sample was from, and Shazam wasn't helping. >
  
  what air defence doing >
  
  Actually I'd say they're WELL DONE at this point.  Amirite? >
  
  That was beautiful.
  BTW CAN WE GET SOME CARD DECKS MADE with their prized hardware? >
  
  My favorite comment:
  
  why didn't the Russians have anti-missile missiles protecting their system? 
  
  r/noncredibledefense is everywhere >
  
  Soon, Russia will deploy only NFTs versions of their best weapons >
  
  Should have gone with an epic anti-air system. >
  
  Now it is even more rare... >
  
  👍👍💯 >
  
  Even more rare now! >
  
  That's why this system is rare 😉 >
  
  So, it is rarer now or it was crispy well done? >
  
  Fuck man, those Kalitta 74 guys have to fly into Ukraine to deliver military weapons? Hahaha that's so freight though. It's like can't have a US Air Force plane delivery these systems better get some low cost cargo operator to do it. >
  
  2 so far. Once you figure out how to destroy one, the second is easy >
  
  Interestingly, just in the last couple days, I swear I've read multiple instances where US officials thought that the F16 would prove a liability for Ukraine due to Russian air defense capabilities. Today, this happens. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? >
  
  Now even rarer. >
  
  ?? TORs are hardly rare. They've been making them since the 70s >
  
  There have only been 12 total made of this specific variant (Tor-M2DT) however. >
  
  Does Ukraine have an account on here to give awards too for destroying it? >
  
  So if they were designed to detect drones, and a drone attack did it in, what happened then? Did they not see the drone coming? >
  
  So now they're a bit rarer >
  
  Damn nice shot >
  
  Mate I don't think it's the first time rather the third one >
  
  слава Україні
  😎🍻 >
  
  Looks like it’s great at catching artillery. >
  
  At what point do you think Putin gets served the special tea? >
  
  Russians will definitely say that it was USA battle ship destroyed it, or it is fake news and everything is fine, or even better UFO destroyed it under USA command. >
  
  Its evil NATO and homosexuals in the US according to Russia propaganda. >
  
  That Tor anti-air system successfully destroyed at least two incoming shells... with itself. >
  
  FUCK YOU RUSSIAN WAR MACHINEEEEEEEE. The west will continue to prevail >
  
  Fantastic that there are so many democratic South Africans  against  that Barberian Putin. >
  
  Not picking sides but how come we hear more about damages done by Ukrainian to Russia than opposite….I mean to ME it screams propaganda 
  Just wondering >
  
  You also scream propaganda. >
  
  How much action is there in the Arctic that you would have special weapons systems for there? >
  
  Get a globe and check out how close "things" are when you go over the north pole rather than the long way around (sideways). >
  
  I wasn't commenting on proximity but rather the location of any action that's going to happen, the combat. It doesn't seem like the action, if there were to be action, would be taking place in Arctic regions. I mean I guess you've got Murmansk and Archangel. Not sure how strategic those are in the big picture for missiles or aircraft to be coming close enough to be in range of such systems there. Or what else there might be worth fighting over along the north coastal regions. If you wanted to fight Russia in Russia, which of these places would you bother to attack as opposed to the stuff farther down and to the west? I don't know the answer but was surprised that Arctic areas would be in play in that regard. >
  
  It takes 18 minutes for a nuclear missile to cross the north pole between Russia and the United States. It takes 30+ minutes if the missile is launched along a latitude. 
  The anti-air facility in the OP was designed (as OURS are) to give a few minutes more warning of such an attack. No one will fight there. No battles will be staged there, if for nothing else the logistical nightmare it would be. 
  Missiles. Sure, aircraft too, but keep in mind they would be flying from their respective bases and there are very few of those within the arctic circle. >
  
  Whoopsie.... >
  
  Operational russian military equipment in general is rare these days. >
  
  Obviously the ANC  all have their heads up Putins arse.....   so much creeping....   they have not only sold their miserable soul's  to him    They have sold OUR COUNTRY to him for their benefit. >
  
  Gotta say, the remix of The xx's song Intro was pretty cool... Anyone know the remix version? >
  
  Time for another Allied invasion of Arkhangelsk? >
  
  Looks like that air defense system needs its own air defense system. >
  
  When did Ukraine have a piece of the Arctic for the Russians to have this thing near it?