re: Here’s what an advanced Russian tank looks like after getting hit with a missile

quote:

---

Inb4 darth

---

Tough to do in a Russian military themed thread. Bravo. I assumed it was his thread based on the title alone.

ETA: I should have know better though. A Darth thread would have been titled "Russian tank withstands missile strike; USA so fricked"

I wonder if they can just print money and take on debt like we do

Oil back up baw

Yep. IIRC, that "W" in TOW stands for wire guided.

quote:

---

I've shot T-72s and T-80s with a sabot depleted uranium round from M1A2s

---

What the frick does this have to do with what the OP posted?

quote:

---

I'm a retired tanker.

---

Congratulations.
You should should know the difference between an M829 round and a TOW round.

Reactive armor has been around since even before my days as a tanker. How is this news??

And as another old tanker has already pointed out, reactive armor isn't worth a shite when you hit it with a Sabot anyway. And thats the exact two of round a tank would be firing at another tank anyway. The only armored vehicle on the battlefield that would be firing a TOW would be a Bradley.

It's not like our tanks haven't had reactive armor for nearly 30 years......

quote:

---

I've shot T-72s and T-80s with a sabot depleted uranium round from M1A2s

---

Wait... I engaged T-72s in Desert Storm. But they didn't have any T-80's. The T-72 was their best tank and even it was the Soviet export version with shitty optics. Not even the Republican Guard had T-80's. Where have you engaged T-80's??

I don't know if the the older models had reactive armor or not.

It's just stupid to compare a TOW round with an M829.
For one thing, the tank round weighs about 3 times what the TOW round weighs.