3 ms·
The Economist is not misinformed. Those western analysts might be misinformed, but the Economist isn't. The cages are being called cope cages. Incidental to
by RobertMiller 5y ago
The Economist is not misinformed. Those western analysts might be misinformed, but the Economist isn't. The cages are being called cope cages.
Incidental to that, I'm not so sure the analyists are actually wrong. Most of the cope cages look a lot like statistical slat armor to me; e.g. designed to disable AT shaped charges, but utterly ineffective at stopping burning petrol from covering the top of the turret. Molotovs break open on these slats, they don't bounce off. Furthermore, at least some of the cope cages have been augmented with sandbags piled up on top. If they were meant to shield the tank and crew from burning petrol, they'd get more mileage out of sheet metal than sandbags. If anything, these cope cages turn into BBQ grills for Russian tankers trying to bail out.
- RealityVoid 5y agoNot to mention so far most causes of Russian armor loss was not caused by motolovs but by actual AT weaponry. Not one case of Molotov damaged tank that I am aware of. Related to statistical armor, it only woks on RPG fired and I picked off of some subreddit the following article that explains how it is supposed to work: https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour
- unethical_ban 5y agoI'm not saying they aren't being called "cope cages", I'm saying it sounds, eh, sophomoric to put that in the leading paragraphs of an article.