is this even possible: Ukrainian tank strikes Russ...

1. Typical Tank Gun Range: Modern main battle tanks (like the Ukrainian T-64, T-72, or Western tanks like the M1 Abrams or Leopard 2) have effective direct-fire ranges of roughly 2-4 km for kinetic energy penetrators under ideal conditions. Even advanced guided tank rounds typically have a maximum effective range well under 5 km.

2. Ballistic Limitations: Tank guns fire shells on a relatively flat trajectory, designed for line-of-sight targets or those within a few kilometers. Accuracy degrades rapidly at extreme ranges due to projectile drop, wind, atmospheric conditions, and target movement.

3. Use of Drones: While drones can provide excellent reconnaissance and targeting data, the tank still needs to physically aim and fire the projectile. The guiding capability is limited—tanks generally don’t fire guided shells at such extreme distances. There are artillery or missile systems that can hit targets much farther away, often guided by drones or spotters.

4. Precision at Distance: Striking a small target such as individuals in a house at 9 km with a tank gun shell would be almost impossible due to the combined factors above.

What might be more plausible?

- The use of drones to spot targets for artillery or mortar strikes at 9 km is common.
- Guided missile systems launched from ground vehicles or UAVs can hit targets at ranges of 9 km or more.
- Tanks engaging targets at long ranges can happen, but more typically up to 3-4 km.

Conclusion:
A 9 km precision strike with a tank gun shell is not feasible with typical tank weaponry. The story is likely misinterpreted, exaggerated, or confused with artillery or missile strikes supported by drone targeting.

If there are any new weapon systems or specialized munitions involved, please share more details!

Technical limitations:
- Most tank main guns have effective ranges of 2-4km for direct fire
- At 9km, the projectile drop would be enormous - potentially hundreds of meters
- Tank fire control systems aren't designed for such extreme indirect fire
- Accuracy at that range would be nearly impossible even with drone spotting

More likely scenarios:
1. Distance error - Could be 900m instead of 9km (common reporting mistake)
2. Indirect fire - Might have been artillery or mortars, not a tank
3. Mistranslation/misreporting - Details got confused between original source and reporting

What IS possible:
- Drone-guided tank shots at normal ranges (1-3km) are definitely happening
- Some modern tanks can engage targets at extended ranges in favorable conditions
- Drones are revolutionizing battlefield targeting and damage assessment

The 9km claim stands out as implausible given the physics and technology involved. Tank crews are skilled, but this would require capabilities beyond what tank guns are designed for. It's more likely either a reporting error or involved different weapons systems.

Range: The maximum effective range of most tank guns is significantly less than 9km (5.6 miles) against point targets like a house. Typical effective ranges are more in the 2-4 km range. However, maximum theoretical* range can be much further, depending on the shell type and gun.

* Precision: Hitting a house at 9km with a tank gun is extremely difficult, even under ideal circumstances. Factors like wind, temperature, the age and condition of the gun, and ammunition inconsistencies can all throw the shot off.

* Drone Guidance: The use of a drone is crucial here. It would need to act as a forward observer, providing real-time adjustments to the tank crew. Even with drone guidance, multiple shots would likely be needed for targeting and correction, and it relies on precise drone positioning and accurate ballistic calculations.

* Shell Type: A high-explosive (HE) shell is the most likely candidate for this type of shot. Armor-piercing rounds are designed for direct hits on tanks and are less effective against structures.

* Target Identification: The drone operator would need to positively identify the "4 Russian fascists" to justify such a long-range, imprecise shot.

* Propaganda/Exaggeration: It's important to consider that wartime reporting can be prone to exaggeration or inaccuracies, whether intentional or unintentional.

In summary:

* Possible, but extremely difficult and improbable.
* Highly reliant on ideal conditions, skilled crew, advanced drone guidance, and luck.
* Wartime reporting should be treated with a degree of skepticism.

It's more likely that the distance is exaggerated, or the target was less precise than a specific house, or the number of casualties is an estimate. The use of drones to improve accuracy is a known factor in the conflict, so it isn't entirely implausible.