The Wikipedia page for the Switchblade seems to indicate that the warhead isn’t specifically designed for anti-armor, so I suspect in that video they were going for the dismount crew or whomever the unprotected personnel were.
(Assuming that was a Switchblade 300. 600s can have an anti-armor warhead, apparently.)
If it was a 300 (anti-personnel) this would be a good use of the munition, as a grenade exploding in that close of proximity to the tank crewmen would almost certainly be a kill or incapacitation. Either way, the loss of two skilled Russian tank crewmen is a loss they can’t quickly replace.
Ukraine Weapons Tracker, which is good at this sort of thing, identifies it as a Switchblade 300.
I’m not sure whether the anti-armor Swichblade 600 is in Ukraine yet.
This seems like a good example of what loitering munitions could do. They are able to fly around, or loiter, at the target area for a while until a target opportunity presents itself, such as a tank crew standing exposed on the top of a tank.
It’s difficult to tell, but there could be up to four people on the tank (although T-72 has crew of only three due to the autoloader).
It is a dangerous time in the eastern Donbas. The Russian offensive there, spearheaded by elite units, is making some slow progress. Ukrainian forces in the Sievierodonetsk area face the risk of encirclement.
Map: Liveuamap
Whoops. 
Originally posted on Forbes
A retired officer? Are they accepting volunteers because of a lack of experienced pilots? And he was forced to retire because he crashed a fighter! There’s some really strange crap in this war.
This (early May) links to Oryx totals:
The Ukrainians have destroyed at least 26 Russian combat aircraft and 39 helicopters since the beginning of the invasion, according to Oryx, an intelligence blog that tracks Russia’s military losses using open source analysis.
The same source also says this:
Russian air sorties are up over 150%, to about 300 a day, since the shift to the east, according to Sam Cranny-Evans, a military analyst at Britain’s Royal United Services Institute think tank.
This surprises me because I had got the idea from reports that the Russians were barely using their aircraft. Three hundred sorties is a lot for this war, especially since they are all in the eastern zone. And apparently it’s almost all low flights and dumb bombs. Low flying bombers are harder to hit with shoulder fired weapons because of the difficulty in getting a lock on them in the short time you can see them.
To say nothing of morale.
“What’s that red splotch?”
“Nothing that concerns you. Get in and drive.”
I know experience counts for something, but a 63-year-old fighter pilot? What in blazes?
I mean, that’s even older than Tom Cruise!
Get off my lawn… ‘fires missle’
There was talk on Twitter that he had joined the Wagner group after being fired from the Airforce after ‘borrowing’ a plane and crashing it doing acrobatics.
So either the Wagner Group now has an air force, or it’s more closely integrated with the military.
I thought leaving your job and then coming back the following week working for a contractor was a purely Western idea.
Severodonetsk appears to be on the brink of becoming encircled by Russian forces.
Severodonetsk: Battle for key road as fighting reaches Ukraine city - BBC News
I’m very confused. A couple weeks ago I saw reports the Tanks and artillery from Britain,US, Germany etc.were donated to Ukraine. The biggest tank battles since WWII were predicted.
It seems Ukraine is still fighting a hit and run war. They knock out a few tanks or shoot down a helicopter. That’s impressive but it’s not enough when Russia is focusing nearly all their fire power in a small area.
I’m concerned we’re propping them up just enough to encourage them to fight and die.
I reluctantly agree with the quoted statements. Unless NATO sends advisors to give Ukraine a wqual chance in this war.
Putin is bringing in experienced Syrian vets and the Wagner group. NATO has to respond before theres a critical food shortage.
Guardian blog
What was the point of Biden signing Lend-Lease, and Congress passing it, if the U.S. wasn’t going to give Ukraine a whole boatload more weapons? It’s been weeks and the U.S. has only given 18 more howitzers and that was all.
Is it true defenders usually have the advantage?
Letting Russia take Sievierodonetsk could be permanent. It would be difficult for Ukraine to take it back.
Now is when NATO needs to act. The world is watching. Weakness isn’t acceptable.
Ukraine are hoping to mobilize up to a million people to fight the Russian invaders. The Ukrainian military has shifted in recent years from a Soviet mindset to a NATO mindset, so I expect they are doing things properly and spending some time training these recruits to make them a viable fighting force, unlike what the Russians are doing with the people they’ve conscripted in occupied areas of the Donbas, who are sent into battle like lambs to the slaughter. I expect we are weeks or months away from the Ukrainians being able to unleash their full potential on the battlefield. When that happens, the possibilities for wider-scale Ukrainian counterattacks will increase.
It’s not within NATO’s remit to get involved in this. NATO is about member states defending each other if one of them is attacked, and Ukraine is not a member state.
Therefore it’s down to individual countries and other entities, like the EU, to get involved.
Yes.
Though, if an attacker does successfully attack a position and is now the defender, there is a chance that the position will be easier to retake if 1) the defenses that were in place have been destroyed as part of the successful attack, 2) the attackers have lost a lot of their own ability during the attack, and 3) the new attackers are fully supplied and fresh.
I’m not saying that any of those factors would be at play here - Russia could quickly fix up the fortifications and swap out guys with fresh troops - just that, in theory, it may be easier to retake a position than it was to have taken it in the first case. And if so, that’s going to be at the soonest possible moment after the taking.
They might be flubbing it - I can’t say - but, in theory, they could be doing this on purpose, for strategic reasons. E.g.:
The “We can’t provide rocket artillery or that to Ukraine because it would provoke Russia” argument seems like the weirdest hair-splitting. As someone else pointed out, the frog has already been heated in the pan up to 50 degrees Celsius, are we really thinking that one more degree Celsius is going to be the decisive difference?