Username checks out
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
86 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6684 readers
521 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What was the purpose of this, someone challenged the tank to a cannon ball challenge?
I wish I had a solid source on this. The best I can find is a 6-year-old Reddit comment:
This particular jump with the BT-7 cavalry tank was performed by a tank test pilot Evgeniy Kulchitsky, he mentions in his memoirs that it was a very challenging test to perform (15m height, 42m length of the jump), requiring challenging practice and long preparation. You had to adjust the rotational speed of the tracks mid-air to not outright lose them, assume a (relatively) safe position and then continue to pilot the tank after landing to get it to the shore.
The reason for this testing was to make sure that similar jumps were a viable tactical option (fording rivers at speed, for example) and that both the crew and the tank could manage it and remain effective.
Would an average tank driver be able to manage that though? Test pilots are typically the cream of the crop, with balls of steel.
Holy crap there was someone inside that thing? How was their spine not destroyed on impact?
I choose to believe this was an execution that was fun for the audience.
They did stuff just for fun all the time in the 80's. I remember being at a local football game once when a dude in a jet pack came soaring into the stadium, flew all around, landed, bowed, and walked off the field. Then they went back to football. We sure have a lot less dudes flying jetpacks these days!
Would it be unsurvivable? The force of the impact on the water would be great, but on the other hand tanks are heavy, and the only thing that matters for the driver (pilot?) is acceleration. Doing absolutely no math the main thing I'd be worried about is the impact with the lake bed afterwards breaking the treads. If all goes well and the engine has some kind of supply of air, you just drive it out again.
It depends on how watertight the tank is and depth of water I suppose, but given the cramped area for drivers, even with a helmet there's probably a concussion and possibly broken bones. You are going to hit the top and front
Bring some padding and brace for impact, I guess? Clearly someone did it (unless this is doctored).
It's my impression that modern tanks are built to operate under an appreciable depth of water, which makes sense since airtightness is also watertightness. I have no idea when and where this was taken, and what the case was then. It would suck if the bruised and shaken driver had to swim out.
Tank of the lake, what is your wisdom?
Look at the hang time on that bad boy!
Even my dog doesn't fling himself out of the bath tub with such reckless abandon.