this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
279 points (98.9% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6669 readers
778 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. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

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 ‘western’ 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. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat 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.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


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] 10 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (20 children)

Isn’t hydrogen even more flammable and explosive than petroleum. Just seems like a dumb idea to put that in a military vehicle.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 34 points 4 weeks ago (18 children)

Yes, obviously, putting explosives and projectile propellants in an armored vehicle is dangerous and should be avoided

/s

OSHA is not a credible military threat

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (17 children)

Right, but you are going to want to choose a fuel that has the least chance of flaming up if you’re making a military vehicle.

Hydrogen has (compared to petroleum) a Wider Flammability Range, Lower Ignition Energy (0.02 millijoules) which is really low and much smaller than petroleum, and a higher diffusion rate.

All of which make it more likely to go kaboom.

[–] Uranium_Green 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

Silly one, and but do tanks run on diesel?

Every other heavy machine I can think of typically uses diesel for their engines: tractors, lorries, boats.

Also diesel is less flammable then petrol or hydrogen in the event of a spill of leak...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The Abrams uses jet fuel mainly. But most tanks are diesel.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The Abrams can run on just about anything liquid and flammable. It's not gonna be happy about it, but it'll go.

I think it was designed by pakleds...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yup, that's why I put "mainly"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Wasn't trying to call you out for being wrong or only partially correct, just think it's neat all the stuff they considered when designing and testing it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago

Right, no worries. I was just being lazy and didn't wanna explain. You did and did it in less words than I would've needed.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem with diesel is that there has been a cap in their efficiency for quite some time. We've pretty much tweaked as much speed and efficiency out of what is possible with diesel tanks, which is why the Abrams has a turbine engine.

As tanks become heavier and heavier the only real solution is to migrate to electric motors, which are more efficient and vastly more reliable than diesel or turbine.

Just like with trains, the future of tanks are electric motors, and until we find a battery material more efficient and safe than lithium, hydrogen fuel cells are likely going to be the solution.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

The correct solution is for tanks to drag a power cable and a water cooling loop behind them. This will make them invisible to thermals.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

Diesel is a type of petroleum product.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)