this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
324 points (96.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6598 readers
887 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
 
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 34 points 11 months ago

This meme is innaccurate. The soldier on the right is crying because he no longer has legs.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'll always wonder what the gradbears make of this but I'll never know 'coz they banned me for bringing it up

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Interesting, because Stalin himself said they'd have lost without lend lease. It's just not debatable.

Fun Fact: most trucks in the Red Army during the war were American made. While the Allies were a bit leery of making tanks and planes for Stalin, cars and trucks were something we were, at the time, the best in the world at mass manufacturing, so America basically made all the trucks for the Soviets, which let them pour related production into their own tanks (which were better anyways tbh)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Zhukov and Khrushchev also agreed that Lend Lease was crucial, along with many more members of Stalin's inner circle.

(which were better anyways tbh)

Why do you consider Soviet tanks to be better than their American counterparts?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The T-34 are usually considered the best all around tank of WW2, especially if you are accounting for things like production ease.

On paper their performance was relatively similar when accounting for mobility, armour, and fire power. The only real advantage of the T34 was that it had a lower profile and did better in the snow.

The real magic behind the T34 was the rate at which they could be pumped out and still go toe to toe with most anything on the field. They could slap together a T34 in 9000 man hours of work, compared to the 48,000 hours needed to make a Sherman.

[–] Tar_alcaran 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.

As a result, they usually lost 3 to 1 if they were lucky or 6 to 1 if they weren't. Though crappy training and early ammo shortages didn't help either.

The T34 was cheap and plentiful, but you get what you pay for. You can build more, but you're also going to lose more. Of course, that did fit pretty well with Soviet strategy at the time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

The T34 had several huge issues though. Not the least that 1 guy had to load, aim and fire the gun, with a single periscope and optics not even worthy of a boyscout. While commanding his tank without a cupola, and all other tanks in his platoon, without a radio.

Depends on what year you're talking about.... By 44 they had pretty much all of those problems worked out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

The extra hours weren't much of an issue given American industrial capacity. So I'd say the Sherman was better in most areas, especially in terms of build quality, ergonomics and escape hatches for the crew.

[–] verity_kindle 6 points 11 months ago

TIL, I thought we just shipped them enough food in the early 1930s during their famines, enough to feed millions of people for a year, until they got successful crops in the silos. They thanked us, we said "no problem, mayn" and trudged back to our Great Depression. There must be 90 year old people in the Russian Federation who remember eating our bread and butter. Can the revisionists take five and let the oldsters speak? I needed to get that off my chest. I'm having a "....Yeah, America's full of dicks. BUT YOU GOTTA HAVE DICKS, because yeah, dicks fuck pussies, but they also fuck assholes! If there were no dicks any more,then the assholes just shit all over and turn everything to shit!!!!" .....kind of moment.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys 4 points 11 months ago

(which were better anyways tbh)

I hope you're deliberately trying to be as non-credible as possible here, because you achieved it.

T-34's were only good on paper. They were cramped, had poor visibility, and had severe issues with armor spalling that often killed the crew. Plus the transmission was virtually impossible to shift into top gear, so the top speed was purely theoretical.

The only way you could consider a T-34 superior to an American tank during the war is if you compared it to an M3 Lee, and even that's a stretch

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

if mass rape was a competition, they definitely would have won it in WW2

[–] [email protected] 37 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Imperial Japan: Now wait a minute

[–] [email protected] 22 points 11 months ago

You know it's fucked up when even the Nazis told Japan that the Rape of Nanking was too extreme. They also told the Croatian Ustasha to dial it down a bit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

The Nazis: Yeah this is bullshit.

The Italianos: We tried our best but we can't even find our dicks

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How long did Ukraine hold out for until we got involved? Oh no wait, the same day....how the fuck did we respond that fucking fast?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The US military is the best shipping company in the world. What can blue do for you?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.

~~Federal Express~~

The US Military

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

One of our aircraft carriers would be the world’s 3rd largest air force- and we have 11 of them

[–] mnemonicmonkeys 4 points 11 months ago

The US has 11 carriers

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, we really need to put some of that money into our economy. I bet you less than 25% of that money could fix our countries problems.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

That's not how it works. The US spends per capita a lot more than pretty much every other country on healthcare, and yet it has huge issues with providing decent care to all its people. Why? Because it's by design. There are enough money in the system, right now, to remove completely health insurance, put everyone under public health insurance, provide world leading care to everyone and have money left over. We are talking $6,000 per capita yearly spent by Canada vs $13,000 by the US, in 2021.

But then do you have any idea how much value would be lost for shareholders? The proposal is just insane

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

How would the EU be able to supply Ukraine within 3 days?

The logistics just aren't possible.