this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
223 points (95.1% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6450 readers
393 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I think you're underselling the state of gas and diesel off-road vehicles and overselling evs in the very rough, very logistically detached space.

I obviously am not present in this conflict, and can only relate from a VERY distantly similar occupation: Wildland firefighting. I've not seen an ev that could live up to the way we used and abused trucks, side by sides and ATVs.

Edit Again, I'm not claiming I'm a combat veteran, or claiming firefighting is as demanding. Only that they're is some obvious overlap in how equipment is used, and detachment from logistics.

Often there would simply be a pallet of 5 gallon jugs we would stop by, to fill up. Sometimes 55 gallon drums with a hand pump. No charging infra possible.

With good glowplugs we got diesel trucks started in the early morning, in freezing temps.

As long as you don't flood the intake, ice vehicles are fine in the water. I've read they many evs have vents on the battery packs that don't agree with immersion, though this one especially I'm sure they are ruggadizing.

But we are probably both a bit off and it is in the middle.

I know this is changing, I just haven't seen an ev do it yet.

I legit look forward to seeing evs in such a role, but I'm not aware of big contacts for them yet

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Most of that is because ICE vehicles have been the default for a very long time, so there's a lot of niche applications that don't have an EV developed for them yet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Acknowledged, my reservation was only focused on what is currently rolling around, not the entire span of human technological progress ahead of us

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nothing really competes with the energy density of liquid fuel, to be fair, so it will always be around in military applications to some extent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Say you love me

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I only know of a single ev prototype being looked at by the US military, so it's not like they're going full steam ahead, I'm just saying that for some missions they seem viable. Maybe even preferable ("single use" short range drones perhaps...)