>What the fuck is the difference between that and shooting mosquitoes with a cannon?
What kind of idiot would come up with that tactic?
As soon as the drones fly over the head of the tanks, the tanks are useless and can only wait to die.

did you forget you memeflag again?

>>510417603
They think people will believe they are real Chinese, since they range banned the wumao back in '21 and most newfags have no experience with them.

>>510417327 (OP)
they've had the weapons to take down drones since the 50s but don't want the public knowing how easy it is

>just aim half a football field ahead of the drone's path
Easy shmeezy.

>>510418129
Exactly. Every red-blooded American knows how to throw a football at a drone with frightening accuracy. The touchdown depends on it.

Don't forget to get your binoculars out to check for innocent civilians and expensive cattle in the path of the bullets or you might get demoted or go to jail. Also, think fast.

>>510418225
Funny how the officers writing the rules of engagement never actually have to get shot at, isn't it?

Don’t they have giant shotgun shells for the tanks to shoot at the drones? Imagine a couple of pounds of #6 birdshot heading at one!

>>510417327 (OP)
they surely dont want to make you believe that this was actually what they do right ? i mean why would they release the way they counter hostilities to the public ? wouldn't that make them vulnerable to anyone doing what they dont anticipate ? not sure if that makes sense in a nwwt way ?

>>510419717
A drone costs $100 and one of those rounds costs thousands.
Economically it's easy to just deplete the limited number of rounds a tank can carry before you take out that million dollar tank with a cheap drone

>>510419717
Plus angle of elevation
A drone right over the tank cannot be shot down

>>510417327 (OP)
Well, it says "canister shot" in the text, so they have a better chance of hitting it, especially if multiple tanks can open fire. Also, the blast wave might be enough to knock the smaller ones out too at a closer range.
>>510419717
Yes, at least in NATO caliber. Russians don't, as far as I know.

We haveautomatic LIDAR mosquito traps, why is the military allergic to automated turrets? They're not even aiming at humans in this case.

>>510420187
>>510420236
Yeah, it's not a viable long term solution, but it's possible. Also, until something comes up that can be relied on to counter the drones, I think a canister shot or two will be a part of the loadout as a last resort, even if Russian meat waves are not to be expected.