this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
192 points (99.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6589 readers
456 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

Hyundai?

Yes, Hyundai.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

Capable of the highest next-generation turret toss!

[–] Birch 19 points 14 hours ago

Can't wait to see what the N-Line will look like

[–] [email protected] 23 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Holy fuck that's a sexy tank

[–] [email protected] 1 points 25 minutes ago

This is what I wish the cyber truck was more like ... Not that I would ever buy a Tesla but this thing is perfect for futuristic... Now make it a car... But also fuck cars

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 hours ago

It looks like a miniature

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

it looks like a bastard kid of PL01 and Abrams-X

[–] [email protected] 118 points 23 hours ago (9 children)

Famously transporting large volumes of hydrogen has never gone wrong and hydrogen charging stations have proven very reliable and also hydrogen as an alternative to electric is definitely not a ploy by big oil to keep drilling for fossil fuels!

Good job hyundai 👍 Very credible 👍🏿

[–] AMillionNames 2 points 42 minutes ago* (last edited 40 minutes ago)

Military vehicles are purpose built. They didn't use hydrogen because it was green, they used it to fulfill their requirements for a silent stealth battle tank. But I'm sure your technical knowledge far outdoes that of the people involved in designing this tank 👍 Very credible 👍🏿

Fuel cell technology will also dramatically reduce the noise the tank generates when on the move.

Literally from the article you failed to open.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

My dude, the military transports more volatile materials than hydrogen every day. Just because something doesn't make sense for civilian use doesn't mean it's never going to be viable for military use.

If you're worried about the dangers of transporting something like hydrogen, you're going to lose it when you find out what bombs are made out of.

Electric motors are just more efficient in just about every way at scale, the current diesel motors being used in tanks aren't really able to be improved upon. They're at their technological peak, so the only way to move forward with mbt is by figuring out how to make electric motors work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

Also, the energy density of hydrogen is pretty poor, diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 72 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

No no, it’s credible because it decreases the ground weight, and if you fill it up enough, it can just float over AT mines 🤓

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago

Science man smart!

[–] eggymachus 15 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] gravitas_deficiency 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Heh yeah, though it’s also an Iain M. Banks reference

[–] eggymachus 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I kind of lost track of his books in the early 2000s, but they're still among my favorites. Gone too soon :/

[–] gravitas_deficiency 4 points 16 hours ago

Absolutely. I was heartbroken when he passed :(

[–] whyNotSquirrel 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] gravitas_deficiency 15 points 21 hours ago

Yes that is the sound that the compressor makes when it puts the hydrogen in

[–] Voroxpete 38 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

In the case of military vehicles, hydrogen is about the greenest option that we're gonna get. No one is going to make a battery powered AFV, because where the fuck would you charge it?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (9 children)

Who if not the Germans built an electric tank in 2020 https://efahrer.chip.de/news/geraeuschlose-einsaetze-weltweit-erster-elektro-panzer-kommt-aus-deutschland_103179

Sounds crazy at first but comes with some good advantages: it can cross rivers as it doesn’t need air for combustion, it’s silent, and you can load it anywhere at the battle field if you have solar panels, time and sun. Still you can rely on military logistics to carry a swap battery. But isn’t the military supply chain the first target to disrupt? My two cents, this is the next thing at battle fields.

Oh, and if all your equipment runs on electricity, you can load and reload power at your needs. Tank needs power but car not? Combat robot out if power and car is full? Transfer the power

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

And if your tank is electric, it can be modified later with a small nuclear or fusion reactor.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly if MILITARY applications are what kicks renewable energy and mass storage into high gear, I won't be surprised, but I will be disappointed.

But hey, improvement is still improvement and if a military organization sees renewable as the future, they're gonna try to make sure they get there first. As long as whoever gets there shares the progress with the rest of the world, I'm okay with it.

But who am I kidding, it's gonna be China or the US and the rest of the world won't see shit for decades due to suppression of research and technology that would allow for similar specs to be achieved privately...

... How credible is my aluminum foil hat guy?

I must admit though, it'd be cool to see an armored combat battery sliding across a field to quick charge a tank that died mid-battle. 10 seconds of charging to get it up and running, and the battery moves to the next low power thing. I'm imagining a semi-autonomous hot-swap of a battery compartment and eventually recharging like modern airplane mid-air refueling. Insert Rod A into Slot A and wait a little bit. The faster they want it to charge, the more they'll dump into R&D.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Just wait some years - they have solid state batteries close to industry ready. That means huge increase in capacity and no issues with temperature.

Next stage will be structural batteries where you take the structure as battery. For a tank that means all the armour will be charged and work as battery. Just a matter of years.

Loading time is solved already. It’s a matter of battery temperature while infusing power and solved by battery management software.

Any idea why the Boston Dynamics robots aren’t on a battle field? I mean the do incredible stunts. It‘s the battery. Lasts for around 2-3 hours. Today. Military is working on that, I‘m pretty sure.

[–] Tar_alcaran 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Carrying volatile chemical energy on the outside of your tank seems somewhat unwise.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There are other types of batteries that don't involve volatiles, like water batteries or metal-air batteries.

[–] Tar_alcaran 5 points 14 hours ago

Yes, but structural batteries won't make proper armor. The material demands are simply nowhere near compatible.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Any reasonably sized pv installation near a battlefield will definitely not look suspicious on reconnaissance images.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 17 hours ago

You think less suspicious than these huge petrol storages in a city?

PV can be dismantled, if needed. I bet it’s even cheaper to replace when destroyed compared to petrol storage. Anyway, future will tell

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 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 31 points 21 hours ago (16 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

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

It's beautiful and I want one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

Maybe Pepsi will do a new challenge

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

It looks like a piece of EGO brand lawn equipment (which I also like the look of).

[–] [email protected] 36 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Does noise really matter that much on a modern battlefield with one surveillance drone every 200 meters?

[–] JohnDClay 2 points 8 hours ago

Most NATO countries are assuming air dominance, which would make drones less survivable. They really thrive in a contested environment.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

the other feature is low to no heat, so these things are like tank drop bears

[–] JohnDClay 2 points 8 hours ago

Yeah, it would make them a lot harder to spot on infra red cameras.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

drop bears

Instance checks out

[–] [email protected] 12 points 17 hours ago

Pretty chill for the operators at least. Tanks are loud as fuck

[–] [email protected] 15 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

If in video standards the decision made by the porn industry is decisive, I believe that in the energies of the future the decision made by the military industry will be the one that prevails.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The navies of the world love nuclear power, the U.S. has a nuclear navy since the 50s and in that time our investment into civilian nuclear has been pathetic

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

For ships it may be fine, but I don't see ground vehicles or fighters operating with nuclear energy, it could be, but until I see it I will have a hard time believing it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'll eat my socks if hydrogen powered tanks are actually purchased by any military. Hydrogen will literally never be a viable transportation fuel

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›