I mean yeah they tend to actually have reactive armor and don't tend to be quite as vulnerable to the "turret tossing" as those operated by the Russians. But this isn't about western vs soviet tanks. The point was the "many thousands of high-quality Soviet tanks" appear to be quite vulnerable to very inexpensive and widely available equipment that Ukraine have become adept at using.

It also doesn't help that those tanks are employed in a completely inane way by the Russian side.

> they tend to actually have reactive armor

Soviet tanks also have reactive armour. You can easily see those boxes on a photo of a tank. Or did you mean some other kind of armour?

Some soviet tanks are supposed to have reactive armour. The same way the Russian troops were supposed to be issued with body armor and the tank columns invading Kiev from the north were supposed to have fuel.

I don’t think anyone’s particularly hopeful about any breakthrough from either side, and the Russians do not seem to be the comically inept force they’re sometimes portrayed as. But it’s no secret that they’re poorly resourced and were ill-prepared for the conflict Putin started.

Not immune, but far better protected and safer to operate than an aging rust bucket with a cope net that has to advance to close range just to hit it's targets.

Obviously, it is such a simple solution no one but HN members has found about it.

I have seen a video from Ukraine where they bragged that a net above a tank has caught two Russian kamikadze drones (they got stuck in it and didn't explode).

So you manage to catch a 180kph drone with a fish net. Impressive.

Congratulations now you've traded a soldier with better reflexes than most professional baseball players for a $500 drone.

I have seen a video from Ukraine where they bragged that fishing net over a tank has caught two Russian kamikadze drones (they got stuck in it and didn't explode). That's why I wrote that comment about a fishing net.