"Tankenstein Vehicles of the Russia Ukrainian War, Part VIII" Topic
3 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2016-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article What is this waving figure?
Featured Workbench Article Here's Suzi - before and after...
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 22 Apr 2026 6:21 a.m. PST |
As the war in Ukraine drags on into its fourth year with no end in sight, drones and robotic systems are becoming increasingly prevalent on the battlefield… Inch High Guy: link |
Micman  | 22 Apr 2026 11:21 a.m. PST |
Boy that is a rabbit hole! |
| Red Jacket | 22 Apr 2026 11:38 a.m. PST |
Are the "add-on" protective measures a result of the modern military relying more heavily on rocket and drone based weapons as opposed to what would have been traditional dumb anti-tank artillery shells? Based upon absolutely no evidence, it simply strikes me that both rockets and drones are more "fragile" than a metal artillery shell relying upon kinetic energy to punch through defensive measures? Would an armor piercing dumb shell, employing explosive-launched hardened projectiles relying upon kinetic energy, be defeated by rebar cages? Would a sabot projectile fired from a tank main gun, punch through "cope cages" and relatively thin/unhardened add-on armor? Granted, rockets and drones are much more accurate and and probably cheaper in the long run than deploying more tanks or artillery platforms. |
|
