>

Not an anti-Russia as much as a GTFO Ukraine thing. But hey they control the narrative in their media.
Yea well they're not schools, hospitals or residential apartments so I doubt they can hit them >

It is really impressive that they developed such a niche targeting system to only hit non-combatants.
And to think Ukraine simultaneously designed a system to only target high ranking Russian generals and commanders is really impressive. >

It's a fair strategy on the part of the Ukrainians. 
Take out the officers and the conscripts are now left without direction because Russian doctrine does not give soldiers the autonomy to act unlike American doctrine. 
Basically you kill the officer and everyone is left in a confused mess and you can either take them out or break their morale and make them retreat. >

Most countries' military doctrines don't give their soldiers autonomy. It's one of our biggest advantages. >

It's a difficult strategy though - if the average Russian solider was given any autonomy they'd just go home. >

There is that. Other countries could give themselves a big leg up by adopting our practices, but tradition, and authoritarian countries really don't want to encourage independent thought/action. >

That’s how you get a military coup. >

Must be how Petreus evolved >

I'm surprised they didn't announced their destruction already. >

You're joking, but they did proudly announce the destruction of several Bradley's months before their delivery... >

They said they destroyed the crowd-funded Lithuanian Bayraktar a month before it was due to leave the factory >

They're still claiming to have destroyed more HIMARS than have even been delivered to Ukraine, right? >

Yep. Last time I heard about it they had destroyed twenty seven of them. Only 20 were ever shipped. >

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware they have in fact not destroyed a single HIMARS. >

Both sides are playing the propaganda game. I doubt Ukraine would want to confirm a kill for the Russians. I wouldn't be surprised if a few had been hit given how high priority they must be as targets. >

Both sides may be playing fast and loose with the truth, but it's a little more believable that Russia has destroyed none than that they've destroyed more than were delivered. I want Ukraine to start claiming Russian missiles are just creating duplicates, so now they have more than they did before. >

0 is certainly plausible.
Thing is, even if it was some non-zero number, the Americans are still flying planeloads of rocket pods in.  Even the 20 that Ukraine has is stretching logistics chains along that route to their limits.... any losses would be easily replenished, and a few momentary losses wouldn't have a particularly noteworthy impact on the amount of heat they're sending downrange.
I'm looking forward to seeing a number of NATO folks go on a special logistics vacation into Ukraine.  Get those HIMARS shooting more often. >

With russia have munitions troubles and military reorgs they might be running out of ammo dumps and generals to target >

Russia warns any Challenger tanks sent to Ukraine from Britain 'will burn Russian tanks'
Fixed it >

Alternatively, they "will burn lots of fuel advancing towards the Russian border." >

It’s so nice of them to be environmentally conscious. >

Mark my words. Russia is going to claim soon they destroyed 100 western tanks parked on the second floor of a parking building. >

That “HIMARS destroyed” video where they dropped some munitions on the second floor window of a building was fucking hilarious and baffling in equal measure. >

There is SOME merit to their claims of destroying HIMARS. Its been said the Ukrainians have been constructing wooden versions that they trot out. Russia destroys an arts and crafts project with millions of dollars worth of missiles. >

This was a video where they just bombed a building. Not even a parking garage. Like, how the fuck would a HIMARS even get in there? >

I haven’t seen the video just speaking more generally.
You see, your western brain cannot comprehend Ukrainian Nazi tactics. They hollow out buildings and put in a retractable ceiling. HIMARS inside building, destroy building, destroy HIMARS. /s >

HIMARS are actually powered by hospitals. >

Well they do both start with H....... >

Hospital
Is
My
Artillery
Round
Shooter
Seems pretty obvious.. >

And somewhere a Russian army intel officer, half a bottle of vodka down is like: “I knew it!” >

Given it's only 14 being sent, yeah maybe the chances are they all get destroyed eventually. The question is what the Challengers destroy in the mean time.
The only thing to have ever taken out a Challenger 2 in combat is... another Challenger 2.
From its wiki: "During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter [one] was hit by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident."
They are, uh, pretty tough nuts to crack. >

AFAIK the Challenger 2 didn't meet any Iraqi tanks during operation telic. Even during Operation Granby (Desert Storm) I don't think Challenger 1s encountered any T-72s.
Modern russian kinetic ammo can very likely penetrate a CR2 armour frontally, even through the thickest parts. I don't know how bad the Russian ammo situation is, but the CR2 is far from invunerable. Furthermore I would worry about it's own ammo's ability to penetrate some of the newer russian tanks frontally (aside from weakspots). 
It'll be interesting to see the CR2s in action but there is a very good chance of them being damaged or destroyed if they start slugging it out with T-90Ms or 72B3s. >

Challenger probably has a range advantage though, can't shoot back if you get killed first >

vs a similar russian tank? Really depends, some don't have any thermals and some have better thermals. UK upgraded some CR2s with third gen thermals but I'm not sure if those are being sent or if they'll have the original gen 1.5 ones. Range is likely comparable and recon is done with drones on both sides. >

C1 had the longest confirmed kill, over 5100m. Not sure how relevant that is to the C2, but I suspect it is still... capable of out distancing a T-gen tank. >

That kill was largely because the situation presented itself. At that range the tank couldn't be properly ID'ed but the shots were allowed because there was no chance of friendly vehicles in the location. The CR1 had a pretty poor fire control system compared to its contemporaries, any current day western or russian tank would be able to match the shot. >

I'm sure they look forward to announcing the destruction of all 45 of the 12 Challenger tanks sent.  They might even wait until after the tanks arrive to claim to have destroyed them. >

They are gonna do both. Two times >

Is anyone else's response to Russian threats become just a dismissive "ok"?
For me it's either that or the R&M scene when Jerry is in the daycare and he storms out thinking he is fighting the system and the attendant says,  "OK then, that was always allowed". >

I mean, threatening to blow up weapons you are sending into war is exactly that energy.
Just like: Ok, that IS how combat works. Have you been not doing that or something? >

"Oh shit, better not give Ukraine those tanks if they aren't going to be returned in mint condition". >

Are you saying they might lose their deposit!? >

Sounds like fighting talk, game on - let's go Britain. >

BANG BANG
CAM ON INGERLAND
BANG BANG
SEND SOME FOCKEN TAENKS
BANG BANG >

... what accent was that supposed to be? >

Soccer stadium >

So what they are saying is that they are terrified of western tanks. >

To say nothing of Ukrainian tractors. >

Don't forget the skilled farmers driving them. >

I believe the correct official response from the UK should be 'lolk' >

loluk >

loluok? >

Wow, that's a whole lot of deescalation from their regular talks about nuking everyone who challenges them. They're getting tired. >

I'm sure they received some behind the scenes messages about why making those threats is hazardous to Russia's health. >

At this point I don’t think they can damage their image further. This will last years. >

*generations >

Let’s be having you 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 >

Righto chaps >

I really don’t see the point of threatening to blow up weaponry being sent into war.
Do they think the Brits are scared of putting their tanks in danger? It’s a tank. That’s very literally the intended purpose of it. >

I feel like they assume every country deals with the same logistics issues they do
"12 challenger tanks!? That must be a quarter of their entire force! I bet only half that force is even functional too!" >

I mean, we don't have many of them - 227 or something.
We haven't had much use for tank warfare in the last 80 or so years. Focus has been on other more flexible priorities like aircraft etc.
There're not doing us much use and we're retiring a bunch anyway. >

…said the largest supplier of tanks to Ukraine. >

Lmfao too true. >

Yeah, burn your t-72's >

I think they are either burnt or in Ukrainian hands already. They’re fielding T62s now. >

Ouch... Just the sight of a modern tank on the battlefield would be demoralizing when you're rolling around in a crank start vehicle. Lol >

Given that most of the crank start vehicles don’t even have thermal optics, the sight of a modern tank while you’re in one implies you’re quite literally moments away from death. >

Exactly! >

Just like they got all those HIMARS right? If I recall it was a dude with a Kalashnikov rifle who took out 13 by himself? 
But to be fair they have a better chance of hitting these than artillery/MLRS but still we know they'll go for more residential targets first. >

Ukrainians with Challenger 2 tanks: "You first!" >

Nobody cares what Russia thinks. >

Ah, that'll stop Britain. I'm sure they weren't aware that Russia would want to blow up the tanks shooting at them. >

Russia was threatening to Nuke the UK every other tuesday a couple of months ago. Threatening to blow up tanks we send to Ukraine doesn't really sound very threatening anymore. They already played their biggest card and over used it to the point it no longer has any meaning. >

Well it would be very strange if they said these tanks “will drown”. >

It's happened. >

The Russian tanks are the ones being destroyed, captured, or abandoned. If Putin is scared of western tanks, then good. >

“Will burn thru Russian lines”…fixed it. >

"will burn because of overheating due to too much usage." >

Some probably will get destroyed, but as long as more Ukrainian crews get home than Russians then it was worth sending them. >

Exactly weapons get destroyed in war that’s how it is >

So I believe I’ve seen somewhere that no challenger 2 has ever been lost in combat… so go for it Russia, maybe start with Putin having a go himself first >

Yeah I read they went 200-0 vs Russian-made tanks in Iraq. No wonder they are pissed at this announcement. >

Not particularly worried about the TANKS. GTFO >

I am sorry, my "russia warns" message box is full, maybe try again some time latter? Maybe in 200 or 500 years? >

Every time they put out a statement or threat like this we should just up the number we send.
14 Challys!
'they will burn'
30 Challys!
'we will nuke London'
100 Challys!
'we will nuke the entire west'
3000 glorious Challys of Britain! >

Think we only have 200 odd unfortunately >

That is unfortunate, was just an NCD reference though >

I think Putin may have more pressing matters if the tank's are supplied with Sabot rounds. >

Doubt they'll even need them unless they decide to take out 3 tanks lined up in a row, training rounds would probably kill most of the junk putin's fielding, let alone HESH or ADFSDS. >

Russia’s army is about the same as North Korea’s…..worthless >

Even the strongly pro-russian citizens must look at a statement like this and think:

So significantly upgraded tanks are being given to Ukraine;
Russia's been having trouble with the old crappy tanks Ukraine has already;
that's going to be easier said than done to destroy these new tanks. >

Nationalism is a hell of a drug, I bet they can rationalize any defeat as some Pyrrhic victory in which they are somehow both the victims of oppression and the champions of the world. >

I mean of course there will be tank losses. No Tank is indestructible >

True, but I'd rather be in a Chally 2 over pretty much any other tank. I think the only one ever knocked out was by another Chally, and one of them took over 70 RPG hits without going down >

Going up against the trundling museum pieces that Russia is fielding is going to a walkover. >

It was state of the art 30 years ago. Now it's been retired by the UK MoD. 1/3 of their Challengers are getting a refit to turn them into what will be called Challenger3, the other 2/3 are getting scrapped as obsolete. We're giving Ukraine the obsolete ones which is better than nothing but it's not as dominant as it would have been in its prime.
You wouldn't want to fight 56 year old Mike Tyson today and he'll probably still fuck you up but it's not like fighting him at his peak. >

Agreed, but let's not forget that these 30 year old tanks are coming up against...30+ year old tanks. 
As I understand it, anything short of a T-90M will be utterly outclassed by the Challenger. These tanks were designed with completely different doctrines in mind - Soviet tanks were designed to advance very quickly across the weaker bridges of Eastern Europe, and overwhelm NATO with sheer numbers, whereas NATO designed their tanks to basically be juggernauts, capable of taking and dishing out huge levels of punishment before going down. 
If I'm Ivan Conskriptki, the very last thing I'd want to see is large deliveries of both Challengers and Leopards. Chobham and Dorchester armoured vehicles have shown themselves to be incredibly resilient when compared to T-72Ms with ERA, for example. >

Russia's problem now is, not only are our tanks built to be juggernauts, but we can also make more than they can. >

Yes, they'll burn so much ammo over russian positions! >

will burn... yo ass! >

Unless Russia has some A10s to imitate the A10's blue on blue habits, not sure that will happen any time soon. >

It's a war, everything burns sooner or later, it's what they do before they burn that matters. >

I really don't think Russia gets the British. If they destroy the Tanks and put it on social media. Britain will just send a bigger package.
Russia thinks they are this stubborn scary Bear. But they definitely are in the fucking around phase before finding out.
If they had any fucking sense they would just not talk about them. >

Can tanks mysteriously fall out of top floor windows? 🤔 >

I mean yes, but in the case of this particular tank, that really becomes the floor's problem. >

Russia will probably claim to have destroyed all of them 4 times over within a week of them arriving >

It's true. George Santos destroyed 20 of them already with lightning bolts from his anus. >

To be fair that's what Putin thinks happens to tanks you send to Ukraine. >

HAHAHAHA Oh wait, you're being serious; let me laugh some more HAHAHAHA BWAH...
Russian forces sees Challengers in the field? They'll be Brave-Sir-Robin'ing outta there. >

The only Challenger 2 tank ever destroyed in combat was friendly fire. Another one took 14 RPG hits and lived. These things are tough >

I really doubt at this point Russia could take on any of the Western tanks they really going to hate it when those Bradleys hit the field lol >

Yeah. Burn through Russian defense fortifications. >

To be fair. Russia is kind of an expert on having burning tanks in Ukraine. >

Man Russian threats lost their punch so quickly. >

Why? Is the Russian Army driving them too? >

I know this is propaganda for internal consumption.
But I think that if you need to boast about how you will desteoy equipment that isn't even delivered yet, it's not a good sign for how condident you are.
Confident militaries with the power to back it up wouldn't bother bragging and just blow up said equipment. >

They are an authority on burning tanks, so... >

Will burn lots fuel as they pound the Russian positions... >

This signals that they're scared of them. >

I think about how many times I’ve seen the bully lose. Just about every time >

They probably will eventually, although it may take a while. The point of sending 12 Challenger 2s was never to provide an indestructible fleet of tanks. It was to break the ice on the rest of Europe sending Leopard 2s.
Don’t get me wrong though just those 12 Challenger 2s if operated well, will ruin (end) many Russian soldiers lives for quite a long time. They’re mostly vulnerable from above, but the threat from drones is largely overstated. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)


British tanks sent to support the Ukrainian military effort against Russia "Will burn", Moscow has warned.
German chancellor Olaf Scholz is under pressure to approve an increase in international military support for Kyiv by allowing the export of Leopard 2 battle tanks to Ukraine.
President Zelensky said that Ukraine needs tanks to win the war and is "Awaiting a joint decision" on the subject because "One country cannot provide us with a sufficient number of them."


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: tank^#1 Ukraine^#2 support^#3 supply^#4 president^#5 >

Yeah they'll burn.... gunpowder!! >

These tanks will burn russians. They just didn't finish the sentence. >

Fo sho >

Specifically will “Burn through our outdated equipment and troops at an astonishing rate “ is more likely what he meant to say… >

Burned out from killing so many vatniks maybe. >

"...fuel that doesn't come from Russia while they defend the civilians being murdered by Russian terrorists." >

So Russia will burn instead then >

To be fair, nobody knows more about burning tanks right now than Russia. >

Diesel. Quite sure they burn diesel fuel. >

They're metal.  They can't. >

Dr Thermite disagrees. >

You have a point >

Sending tanks to fight Russia is welcomed but rather curios move. I read it as NATO have done due diligence and now sure that Russia can not do much harm to these machines. Burned western tank will provide very powerful message… I do hope that NATO have done homework and possibility of this to happen is near zero. >

It'll only provide a "very powerful message" to people who are completely detached from reality. War is war. Some of the tanks will get burned and destroyed, it's unavoidable. Leopards 2 have been disabled by talibans before, Abrams have been disabled before, Chinooks were shot out of the sky and A10's were blown out of the sky.
There's no tank that can survive a well-placed ATGM shot. No technology is sacred. War will always have casualties, even on the winning side. >

Just like the HIMARS >

To be fair even if they manage to destroy them, Britain will find it interesting to find weak spots to fix them if they manage to destroy them. If they aren’t destroyed you proved your tank is a fine piece of equipment against Russia. Win-win I guess >

russians seem very concerned about these tanks, I say quadruple the order. I've seen 8 Ukrainian soldiers with their eyes cut out in the last 4 days, russia is elevating their rate of warcrimes and the world needs to start policing it. First is to place a free pass for the removal of Wagner from the planet. Destroy their bases in Africa, lock all of their travel down. Then send troops into Ukraine to remove those terrorists. >

‘They will burn…a lot of fuel effortlessly ripping through Russia’s troops.’ >

“… lots of fossil fuels while rolling over the tragically sacrificed militarized Russian population.”  Talk about taken out of context, they’re really concerned about the environment folks /s >

Yeah burn your ass, ya Russian cunts! >

The turrets will burn from overheating maybe from hitting the waves of zombies >

I imagine this was said in a Dr Evil voice with pinky at side of mouth…. Soon Putin will be demanding…gasp…”1…million… dollars” to stop the war. >

The Challengers will pop Russian tank tops like champagne bottles. >

Russia warns any Challenger tanks sent to Ukraine from Britain ‘will burn’....
through their ammunition as they absolutely tear a swath through Russian lines >

The only way I learn equipment is heading to Ukraine is when Russia says they will destroy it. >

In case anyone is not in the loop on these kind of statements from Russia allow me to translate for you:
“Any Challenger tanks sent to Ukraine will burn… a lot of our army to the ground. Please do not send them. Thanks!” >

Right-wing, Trumpers, Russian Nationalists, always projecting, it's so sad and childish. >

At this point they're just one big joke, I found this article and I wanted to publish it so we could ridicule their ridiculous posturing.  They're clearly worried about the west sending more stuff over, and they should be.
Or they needn't worry and just fuck off home is a way out of this 🤷‍♂️ >

How are they doing with the HIMARS? Still zero destroyed? >

Then their soldiers might finally be able to stay warm. >

Didn't the British install some sort of heat sink? I don't see any other reason they would burn, or even overheat, in a war with Russia. >

At some point the Russians will eventually get a lucky shot in a fight or hit it with artillery. Even if equipment is far superior its never invincible. It'll inevitably take losses if you deploy it in combat. That being said I can't believe the Russians still haven't managed to get lucky and knock out a HIMARs speaks volumes to how stupid they are >

Burn at the end of the barrels as they send it. >

Oh, they meant to say "Any Challenger tanks sent to Ukraine will burn through Russian armor like a hot knife through butter." 
At least Britain is willing to test out their tanks in a proper war environment; it will make for some awesome footage when we see the first vids of Ukrainian operated Challengers taking out Ruzzians from 2 miles away. I am starting to suspect that the limiting factor to giving Ukraine more tanks and IFVs is going to be the amount of people trained to operate them; but a "train the trainer" type of scheme could probably help ramp up the amount of trained drivers and commanders. >

Meh 🫤 >

How is this news.  He says a lot of shit...most of it shit. >

Trust us, we know what burning tanks look like
And this time, we swear they will belong to you, not us >

Paper army. 
Russia has nothing to make threats. >

will burn who? Russian soldiers? Great >

No! DON'T SEND TANKS TO UKRAINE! STOP IT OR YOU WILL REGRET IT! We will destroy them anyway! You know, we could nuke you if we wanted to!
Always the same shit with Russia. >

Of course they will, grandpa, now take your pills. >

I guess they mean because the cannon barrels will burning hot because they will be firing so much ordinance down range. Ukrainian tank crews “I can’t believe how much aaaaasssss we’re whoopin!!” >

I'm sure the Ukrainians are real real scared of what he says lol just like the 3 day war rhetoric, laughable. >

That would mean Russia would have to hit military targets... so probably not likely >

You can tell when Russia is scared when they talk like this
Bring on the tanks >

Bad intelligence Vlad, the kettle inside is electric.
You know, because the Challenger tanks were designed and built less than half a century ago. >

I can already see arussia declaring they destroyed a bunch of tanks
Ukrainians count the tanks they have…”we gained one?” >

Oooh! Oh-! Shiver me timbers! >

That sounds like… a challenge. >

...through their forces like a hot knife through butter.
Completed the article title for accuracy. >

I'm sure they will... firing the gun all day will result in some burn through. >

If I was Ukraine, I would make dummy Challenger tanks out of wood and stick them near the front line.  Let them become an artillery/drone magnets. >

The Ukrainians did that for HIMARS, I'd assume they'd do the same for these tanks >

Wait, does Russia think its Spontaneous combustion that  is happening with their shit tanks?
Has anyone told them that its due to enemie weapons that work? >

Isn’t that the assumed goal of the opposing forces in any war?  
They not going to stop in the middle of a battle and say “sorry, I just realized those tanks were on loan” >


“They are using this country as a tool to achieve their anti-Russian goals,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

That's funny.  Russia seems to be doing the same thing. >

“…copious amounts of fuel as they steamroll Russian forces” >

Sorry , we don't smoke near such equipment. >

will burn... with anticipation! >

They’ll burn….. diesel! >

I agree, those challenger tanks will burn holes in Russian armor at range >

If they will burn then why does Russia care >

Breaking news: British challenger tanks fall from window >

Maybe they are assuming the rest of the world have the same 'smoking incident' problem that keeps blowing up ammo depots and sinking ships. Russian stuff seems very volatile and flammable. >

Russian edgelords currently piloting their PR team. >

Blah blah blah
Wags weenie at the camera. >

Pretty sure for each Challenger tank that burns, fifty Russian WW2 era tanks will burn as well. >

75 tons with composite armor, ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) and bar armor.  Almost 2X as heavy as a T-72, and the T72 does not have composite armor and the ERA is sporadically applied and is often defective.     
It will be hard to hurt from the front.  And Russia effectively has very little top-attack capability.         
The main difficulty will be mines and mud. >

Yeah? You and what army? >

Russia needs to have more sex! >

With what? The bodies of their soldiers? Russia can't handle the new air defenses or artillery strikes. Their soldiers can't stay warm and they are the invading country. This is more posturing from a loser nation. >

Russia/Putin needs to be shut down once and for all.. they're a danger to the whole effin planet and have been for the last 1000 years >

They will burn alright........a shit load of diesel, the mpg on those things is terrible >

…so what’d yall have for lunch? >

I guess I was being naïve because it took me a couple of minutes to realize it’s Russian war propaganda. >

turns on megaphone
COOL STORY Братан. BUT YOU BARELY EVEN HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION OF YOUR OWN. >

Russia knows a thing or two about burning tanks, just look at theirs... >

Not sure this classifies as world news, but more like a child losing a game and throwing a tantrum >

The only thing gonna burn is Putin in hell. Russia ain't even worried about military targets, their too busy hitting residential buildings and committing other war crimes. It's like they long stopped trying to win and just wanna see how many war crimes it takes to draw NATO in. It honestly would not surprise me in the least if they have concentration camps set up inside Russia. Just hope someone can get to Putin sooner rather than later and they blame it all on him and back out of this atrocity. >

Oooooh. Is Russia threatening something again? >

ruZZia reports it has destroyed at least 200 Challengers already 🤣🤣🤣🤣👍 >

Guys tanks are made from metal, they aren't easy to burn. >

Russia warns……. 
They do a lot of that. >

They aren't being sent to Ukraine to live out their lives, happily ever after.  I have no doubt that at some point they will be destroyed.  It IS a war, after all. >

Like to see them try... Challenger 2's were designed from the ground up as MBT killers, battlefield apex predators.  Whereas the Russian tanks are getting towed away by Ukrainian tractors... >

"Violent language and driving forward as if to attack are signs that he will retreat" - Sun Tzu. >

I wonder if the tanks will come with the tea kettles. >

Of course! Gotta keep up strength and alertness to kill more enemies! >

Don't forget about the biscuit barrel, need to keep morale up with some hob-nobs. >

"Tea time".  "C'mon man - just 3 more rus tanks then we'll stop."  "No need to stop - Brits thought of everything.  Just hit that button for the kettle, and keep firing!" "Do we by chance have some food? Feeling peckish".  "Yep! Press that button for some hot biscuits!" "Damn right! These tanks are awesome!" >

😏 that's cute >

Oh no! Russia's threatening violence after illegally invading a sovereign nation as part of a land grab? I guess we probably shouldn't send the tanks after all, right guys? /s >

Feel like the article should be "Britain warns Challenger tank sent to Ukraine will bath in the burning wrecks of Russian tanks". >

Just because the russian tanks burn that doesn't mean all tanks will >

…okay Russia. Okay. 
Anyway. >

…they will burn a lot of russians >

Well they sure know a whole lot about burning tanks >

Russia has lost 3000 Main Battle Tanks, 6000 APCs, 500MLRS, and 5000 Supply Trucks, 250 Jets, 250 Helicopters, many of their best trained pilots.                                          
Except for the indescriminate city leveling with artillery, the raping, civilian murdering, kidnapping and torturing, they aren't shit. They excell at War Crimes Only. And they will pay. Russia is going down. >

Will burn............russian infantry >

Burn the tea because they’re too busy lighting up old T-72s maybe, but I doubt the English would be that careless. >

Challenger 2>t34 >

Fossil fuels >

Dino squeezings of doooooom! >

It's called a cooker and it's used for making tea, I believe all UK tanks have a cooker for that purpose.  I do agree, the tanks will likely burn plenty of petrol driving over lines though. >

Called a 'Boiling Vehicle Electric' or more commonly 'BV' introduced at the end of WW2 for tank crews, now in the majority of armoured British vehicles, for hot drinks and heating rations - can't stop the war when you have tea to brew!! >

Hope they'll add some Tetleys and scones, to keep 5 o'clock tradition in Ukraine too! >

Errrr, Yorkshire tea lad, and it's scones, not scones btw >

Perhaps this is a very symbolic moment in history, because nowadays tanks are gradually losing their role in armed conflicts, and now we are witnessing maybe one of the last great tank battles in history. As ATs become more compact and powerful, tanks will lose their role in future battles. Drones are the future. >

Laughs in my British accent. >

step by step. They didn't mention nukes... >

To be fair, they have destroyed 2000 HIMARS. >

It's ok for Russia to get equipment from Iran but don't let Ukraine get equipment from someone >

Well, to be fair, the equipment from Iran seems to burn quite well as well. >

Embarrassing that the UK is sending tanks while the US is only sending lighter armored vehicles to avoid possible escalation with Russia. Why not send a few M1 Abrams tanks as well? >

The M1 Abrams is significantly different from pretty much any other MBT out there. Unlike most tanks it doesn't use diesel (it can but thats not the primary fuel intended for it) and the propulsion is completely different then pretty much anything out there. It would take months for Ukrain to be able to effectively use it since you'd not only have to train the crews, but mechanics as well. Ukrain can make far better use of the more conventionally designed Challenger 2 and Leopards >

I think maintenance could be solved with contractors. Either placed in Poland near the border, or give em hazard pay ludicrous money near front lines while also teaching the ukrainians. 
No matter the issue, I think it's not if... but when Abrams will be sent. Just my opinion. >

Not before they clap your army’s cheeks, Russian fuckboys. >

They'll probably destroy all 50 of them, and that's even before they arrive! >

All 7 million of them >

I know, the Russian tanks burn way way Brighter! They're next 2 levels up. >

No threats of nuking them yet? >

Will burn some nasty diesel fuel? You bet they will - with 26 l engines powering them, they sure will. >

Sure Jan >

I think the UK knows the capabilities of the Russian tank and its challenger 2 tanks. Time will tell. Could test for the challenger 2 tank though😉. >

Russian tanks are no problem the the Challenger 2's. The only unknown is the new Iranian weapons, which, I believe is the reason the UK are sending them. >

Oh, yeah, for sure, Russia. Obviously that’s what will happen. Thanks for being so straightforward… >

Oh no! The tanks we're sending to war might get destroyed!? Better not, then. >

...Russian soldiers." >

Yes, that’s kinda part of the deal. The problem is that they’ll take several of your scrap metal “tank” heaps with them >

I think they're just pissed Ukraine is about to get Tanks that will fuck their shit so hard they'll never recover from it. >

Oh ya, you and what army? >

Yeah, probably the barrels of the Challengers will burn from so much use-Slava Ukraine! >

Ah yes, like the bradley's they already burned that haven't even arrived yet. >

Fighting against soldiers is different than civilian! 
The defenders will defend and the russians do what ever only russians are able to do!
Russia will still pay a high price! >

Is that a promise? Just fuq off Russia. >

… Russia’s ass. >

Not likely, but keep posturing, it lets us see your fear, and we do love that don't we >

He’s right. They’ll burn with the fury of Ukrainian solidarity. And the best thing? No windows. >

Like yours's have been for the last 10 months? >

Everything burns, fuckuts >

Tank or Britain? >

Burn fuel as they are wiping Russia off the map? >

Russian tanks already burnt: "How are we gonna do that?" >

Lol if this is their answer, open the ffing floodgates. Make next Rammstein so big people will name their children after it. Send it. >

Only if they are sent to Ukraine via Russia. >

Oh we've seen what russian tanks can't do and it's impressive >

Will burn Russian invaders to the ground. >

They’re so bad, that Russia’s already destroyed 3 of them. 
Just like they’ve destroyed Bradley’s that aren’t even there yet and more HIMARS than anyone gave Ukraine. >

Well, yes, they do tend to get a little hot when firing on targets >

will burn the Tincan-72's >

They "will burn"...
...hundreds of Russians conscripts >

Someone needs to block War Thunder on Putin's PC.
Unfortunately, reality does not have a Russian bias... >

So they are threatening to have their sailors maintain the new tanks? >

Will Burn Ammo and Fuel I assume? >

Challenger tanks will burn!!!!!! ... fuel as they drive around the battlefield wiping out ill-equipped, untrained Russian slave soldiers by the hundreds. >

Sure >

Bah.  Double the order. >

'will burn', more Russian hardware. >

Wait until they break through.  I can't wait.  Once the lines are breached there will be nothing protecting the bosses in the back.  That's when we will separate the men from the boys. >

Thanks for the heads up >

I'm guessing they had to use pictures of burnt out Russian tanks in the article. >

Lol no no no no. What he meant to say, was any challenger tanks spotted must have already set fire to the Russian equipment, which is why they’re still moving around”….. I’m sorry what is the word burn supposed to be in there? The only way I can put the word burn in any kind of sentence regarding this joke would be a reference to most of the Russian armor that’s already over there lol already burning. >

They got cut off before they could finish, "will burn our prison conscripts up like chaff." >

I don't think Russia finished their sentence. I think they meant to say "will burn through our equipment" >

Nothing burns like T90. >

Their threats weren’t a time out in the corner. >

Burn lots of gas during Ukraines hard push to kick you fuckers out maybe. 
If your military wasn't essentially a shell corporation for corrupt generals you could have known 20 years ago when the U.S mopped the floor with Iraq that you needed to step up your shit because your tanks were a speedbump at best, but you didn't, now not only is that big massive military the world was still relatively scared of, is being destroyed with ease, what little world power you had is gone & you're North Korea 2.0 where all you got is rocket man with nukes >

Russia is afraid to sleep in the bed because they pooped in it. >

Can't be any worse than Russian Ronson's that light every time >

Will burn fuel. They forgot the rest of it. >

Maybe so, but it's good to test your equipment against poorly equipped troops like the Russians before going against someone with an actual army. >

Why, r they going to smoke near them? >

Hahaha their PR is just the best shit to laugh at. >

Lost interest at "Russia warns" >

The only challenger destroyed in combat was hit by friendly fire while the hatch was open. >

I mean.  Probably.  It’s war.  Things get destroyed.  But I’d bet those tanks are going to kill a whole lot of Russians first. >

At least they will be pointing the front and not showing their arses running away....
They will have travelled the length of Europe, while the Russian tanks can barely get over the border....... >

No bodies scared of Russia anymore, just annoyed by their leadership >

well historically, they've never burned, so good luck with that >

And the England says, good luck Vlad.