Another Russian tank with improvised drone protection.

Oh look an unwieldy massive target with a monstorously large target profile, zero offensive capabilities, attrocious maneuverability with a suicidally slow reverse gear and absolutely catastrophically bad situational awareness.

Perfect target for a 155mm shell spotted in by a drone talking to fire control.

Also holy shit these are a main battle tanks wet dream of a target, armor design prioritizes having a low minimally exposed profile because otherwise tanks will eat them for lunch.

This is how a main battle tank is supposed to look, no the rules haven't changed Russia/Putin is just desperate and high off their own supply of bullshit.

or any other arty, or any competent ATGM, or bomber drone, or mines (perhaps also laid by a drone), or FPVs detonated on command (with EFPs or something like segment of MON-100 mine)
That tank is ridiculous but those offset plates would stop the shaped charges in armor piecing rounds because the jet that does the penetration forms before it reaches the tank's actual armor.
A minimal profile doesn't matter when you are going up against drones instead of other tanks.
- Ok you are mixing up a couple of different things here.
  Ok first, no, this is a common misconception with High Explosive Anti-Tank munitions, especially sophisticated ones like the RPG-7 that I imagine has actually gotten a decent amount of people killed from believing it. This was a big thing in attempting to up armor Strykers and other armored vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan for the US army since the threat of RPGs was so prevalent, and the brutal reality is unless there is a specific counter to a specific warhead such as some of the slat style armor on Strykers that was designed to fuck up the contact sensor on the RPG warhead, detonating a HEAT round before it impacts armor actually IMPROVES the armor penetration of the molten hot jet formed by the HEAT round.
  In general I believe HEAT type rounds perform best when they have about a meter or of space to form a molten jet, so detonating a HEAT round before the armor proper is actually a problematic proposition. For a typical main battle tank HEAT round this kind of detonation before the main armor on this shitty "tank" would likely do nothing for survivability in the best case scenario.
  This ‘bird cage’ (Figure 1b) put around the vehicle exploits a specific weakness in the design of the detonation chain of two of the most common antitank rounds for the RPG-7 system, using, respectively, the PG-7 warhead (the oldest and likely most proliferated antitank ammunition for this system) and the PG-7M warhead (based on the same functioning mechanism as the original PG-7, but having a smaller maximum diameter). Next to these two very widespread types of ammunition, a number of other Soviet types of ammunition work on the same principle, e.g., the PG-7L warhead also for the RPG-7 weapon system, the warhead of the RPG-18 disposable antitank rocket launcher, and of the SPG-9 recoilless rifle.
  Contrary to what many may believe, the main defeat mechanism for the PG-7(M) warhead, when fired against such a cage armour system, is not based on an increase in standoff distance, as with the so-called ‘bazooka plates’ from World War II (Figure 1c). A simple comparison between the two types of protection clearly shows the much more complex (and hence expensive) geometry of a typical cage armour system when compared with the simple sheets used for the historical bazooka plates, which would have sufficed if the goal was only to create standoff distance.
  https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/10/5064
  Perhaps the most common myth which has arisen around HEAT warheads is that they can be easily defeated through the use of small amounts of standoff (empty space), with popular opinion frequently considering a gap of 0.3 m to 1 m to be sufficient to nullify the penetrative power of the jet. Once again, this is mistaken, as can be readily seen from footage of overfly top attack (OTA) weapons such as NLAW, which often activate their warheads at more than a metre over their target.[15] Nonetheless, common arguments that standoff defeats HEAT warheads have pointed to the adoption of spaced armour, including side skirts, and statistical armour protection such as bar armour (also known as slat armour), and RPG netting (such as Tarian) as proof that standoff is somehow effective against HEAT warheads. Again, these are largely inaccurate, and have arisen from a fundamental misunderstanding of how such forms of protection actually work.
  To understand why, the first thing to note is that HEAT warheads actually require a relatively high degree of standoff distance just to reach their maximum penetration potential. The exact optimal distance will vary depending on various factors in the warhead design, such as liner material, liner angle, liner thickness, liner grain size, defect tolerance in liner manufacturing, explosive filler type, detonation wave shaping, along with various other factors, and will vary among different warheads. However, as a general rule, it is not possible to get the maximum level of performance out of a jet without a degree of standoff – simply put, some physical space is needed for the jet to focus itself into the optimal shape.
  https://euro-sd.com/2024/06/articles/38841/the-most-misunderstood-weapon-in-the-world-mythbusting-heat-warheads-and-their-countermeasures/
  The PG-7VR round is intended for engaging all types of tanks (including those protected with ERA), armoured and soft-skin vehicles and for suppressing of enemy`s manpower inside building and installations. It is equipped with a tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead. According to the specifications, PG-7VR has a caliber of 105 mm, a weight of 4.5 kg, an effective firing range of 200 m, and a penetration capability of more than 0.6 m of homogenous armour.
  The PG-7VL round is intended for engaging all types of tanks (including those protected with ERA), armoured and soft-skin vehicles and for suppressing of enemy`s manpower inside buildings and installations. It is equipped with a HEAT warhead. According to the specifications, PG-7VL has a caliber of 93 mm, a weight of 2.6 kg, a maximum effective firing range of 300 m, and a penetration capability of more than 0.5 m of homogenous armour.
  https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/defence-security-industry-technology/analysis-russian-defense-industry-rpg-rocket-propelled-grenade-launchers-and-rounds-12201173?highlight=WyJydXNzaWEiXQ%3D%3D
  https://armyrecognition.com/military-products/army/anti-tank-systems-and-vehicles/rocket-launcher/rpg-7-russia-uk
  Second, main battle tanks such as the Abrams or Leopard use Armor Piercing sabot rounds. They aren't chemical, they are massive hunks of sharp metal, they don't care about some fluff in front of the armor plating or reactive/explosive armor meant to disrupt the formation of a HEAT jet, they will punch through all of it just the same. If a freight train is hurtling towards you, derailing the train just before it hits you isn't really a defense as you still have a freight train hurtling towards you.
They’re called cope cages for a reason!
- There is a difference between adding a cope cage intelligently to armor and just completely undermining the basic function and usefulness of armor by letting go of all other design considerations except "Drone is bad".
  https://united24media.com/latest-news/ukraines-diy-tank-armor-is-so-effective-even-china-and-russia-are-copying-it-12093
  China has registered a patent for a foldable anti-drone protection system for tanks that closely resembles Ukraine’s so-called “hood,” according to Defense Express on September 30.
  The development follows earlier reports that Russia had already adapted the Ukrainian design for its own armored vehicles.
  The Chinese version was patented by Dragon Shield Intelligence Equipment and is expected to be marketed under the name Dragon Shield.
  The non-bullshit version of this.

This reminds me I need to shave my balls

I want to see them in an open field during a thunderstorm

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas ~ 🎄

Alright everyone in the tank.

How sir?

...well shit

This is not a cope-cage. This is what a cope-cages nightmare would look like.

It is doing a lot of effort in the coping department though.

That’s not a tank - it’s Sigue Sigue Sputnik’s tour bus.

Another person knows about Sigue Sigue Sputnik‽‽‽

Stick and stones will break my bones

And hopefully stop the drones?

when you're all out of t-90s and all that's left are hairballs

Does this make any sense to anyone? Sure it'll keep grenade size explosives away*, but shouldn't a tank be able to take that easy peasy?

*Kinda, a grenade/mortar can still be dropped, but I guess the drone can't land directly, so depends on the drone?

I assume it's meant to work like slat or spaced armour, which aims to interfere with the detonation of the shaped charges that are quite common in anti-tank weapons. Modern tank armour can more or less handle them, but there's a lot of not-very-modern armour in service in this war
- I'm looking at the wire spikes and wondering what they're good for. Those won't interfere with any serious munition.

Do drones explode as soon as they feel resistance? I always thought it was more like kamikaze style where they fly into something completely and then the impact detonates the munition, not a bunch of sensors that trigger it as soon as it touches something like a landmine.

From the videos, it looks like there are two wires in the front that connect when they hit something. My guess is that’s what detonates it.
- Interesting. I feel like this defence would be easily defeated if instead of two wires, it's more of a cantilevered wire on a plastic/metal arm that requires a specific amount of force to bend, located on the nose of the drone, and the Secord contact point inset into the body of the drone, so when it crashes head on into something the two points connect but only if it really makes contact with something solid
- That’s just one way a drone can detonate. It’s simple & effective. The two wires you see in some drone videos are part of the detonator circuit. When the wires touch the circuit is complete and the explosive is detonated. So just crash the drone into pretty much anything and up it goes.
  But you can also rig a drone to detonate remotely, which can be helpful in certain situations. Drones that are controlled fiber-optically can be used for precision attacks where you might want to fly them into buildings, etc. and not have them detonate prematurely by bumping into something.
  The Ukraine attacks on Russian bombers 4-5 months ago likely used a combination of these. They would want the drones to detonate when they crashed into the aircraft, but wouldn’t want to risk them detonating while they were being transported to where they were eventually launched. When the drones launched near the targets they were likely remotely armed, so that when they crashed they would detonate, but not before then.

Russian “ingenuity” hehehe

Looks like everyone's helmet during swooping season here! Fucking Magpies