I don't know, I really am honestly suspecting some sort of co-ordinated attack on this forum.
When one angle doesn't work, they switch right to another one. The most inane accusations and absurd speculations. Shit being thrown on every wall in the hope that something will stick. And multiple accounts repeating the same things
Adding to that I've already been personally accused of being some leading propagandist by one such post-24/02 member. FFS bitch, I enlighten people for free, my service to you.
Lord knows why NATO would bother with this forum. Perhaps because it's enough for a web resource to be an accumulator of information. A place where people can verify facts and draw conclusions from them is a big no-no for the Western war propaganda effort.
I consider all the accounts registered years ago with some single digit posts No as boots.
Look at the construction and body of those posts. Either a simple trolling question or some kind of statement. Hardly interested in any answers.
caveat emptor wrote:
Even the Lancet with a HEAT warhead is not enough to guarantee the destruction of heavy armored vehicles. Of the 14 such machines, only 3 were completely disabled.
This is a type of conclusions I like most. Captain Obvious to the rescue!
Lancet is a pinpoint accurate small drone created to avoid collateral damage while carrying out it's mission.
There is perfectly nothing wrong in a fact that it can't tore a tank to pieces. Wasn't designed to do so.
On the other hand, a version with a HEAT warhead is effective against tanks and armored vehicles - there were some materials where cumulative jet penetrated through and flew away, but in some cases, it is too heavy to effectively destroy non/lightly armored targets.
The very same case was with the PT-76 swimming tanks. Those were armored so lightly, that serious AT missiles from grant launchers, RPG or ATGMs were amazingly noneffective against them, as the jet just penetrated them through, and didn't increase the pressure inside the hull. So if a crew member was lucky enough not to sit on the stream way - they stayed relatively unharmed.
And that is what we are seeing now.
But keep in mind, that Ukros potential of servicing the vehicle park is deteriorating steadily. Smaller repair facilities have been deliberately targeted back in Summer. They lack any practical potential for repairing the NATO-delivered pieces. A junkyard they get is a vehicle zoo from all perspectives. More and more information emerging, that a huge issue is the lack of spare tires. Those are very fragile to the destruction caused by artillery fire and causes the situations when a perfectly fit vehicle must be abandoned because they can't replace tires for it.
They don't produce those tires, multiple types of vehicles donated create a waste need of different tires sizes that is a logistic nightmare.
Conclusion is, that even realively small damage caused by the small Lancer may be an irrevocable loss because they can't repair that anymore.
Last edited by ALAMO on Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:27 pm; edited 1 time in total