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

NonCredibleDefense

6590 readers
384 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
[–] horse_tranquilizers 9 points 3 hours ago

I am waiting for the non-destructible forever Toyota tank. Just make sure insurgents dont get their hands on one.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago

The next-generation tank will have stronger preemptive strike capabilities using an artificial intelligence-based fire control system

Well that's disturbing. I wonder what level of buzz word AI this is? Safe to assume computer vision is involved, target/threat identification... Does "preemptive strike" imply the fire control system is firing by itself? I know it's not the case but it's hilarious to imagine it's ChatGPT doing it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago

Hyundai?

Yes, Hyundai.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Capable of the highest next-generation turret toss!

[–] Birch 22 points 18 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 25 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Holy fuck that's a sexy tank

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] horse_tranquilizers 1 points 3 hours ago

What if it had hydrogen cells instead?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 13 hours ago

It looks like a miniature

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 125 points 1 day ago (10 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 👍🏿

[–] [email protected] 1 points 46 minutes ago

H2 tanks are safer than diesel. It would make a superior tank to diesel in most ways. Quiet, electronics power, portable solar charging in forward position, H2 production in solar rear stations. In war, having all of your large oil refineries and port handling blown up the first day is common, and decentralized and portable H2 production is an important asset.

ROK while leading on H2, is way behind on both solar transition projects/roadpath and have abandoned solar technology themselves. Government does serve its industrial champions but also serves US master. US wants to subjugate colonies to its NG. Industrial champion needs clean energy independence.

[–] AMillionNames 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I thought this was a shidposting community

I do actually agree with everything you and other people in this thread have said, I just don’t care :3

And yes my technical knowledge definitely outweighs the knowledge of hundreds of Hyundai engineers, thank you for noticing <3

I am Jia Tan and I approve this message :3

[–] [email protected] 31 points 20 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] 3 points 6 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 76 points 1 day ago (5 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 🤓

[–] horse_tranquilizers 2 points 3 hours ago

From Hyundai to Hindenburg very fast 👏 👏 👏

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

Science man smart!

[–] eggymachus 17 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] gravitas_deficiency 6 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Voroxpete 39 points 1 day ago (25 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] 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (13 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 18 minutes ago

Range of tanks is not super important other than blitzkrieg strategy where refueling infrastructure catches up. Even under blietzkrieg, tanks eventually get into a siege position and solar can be enough to sustain their position indefinitely. H2 is the best quick refueling method for electric heavy vehicles. A dispenser can be hidden 1 mile or so behind the front lines. Production facilities can be portable and moved forward

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

It's beautiful and I want one.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago

Maybe Pepsi will do a new challenge

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

[–] JohnDClay 2 points 12 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

drop bears

Instance checks out

[–] JohnDClay 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 52 minutes ago

I don't know that NATO's assumption of air dominance is actually applicable. You're not putting a F-35 on anti-drone swarm duties.

If anything you'd want to focus on anti-air.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 21 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (3 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] 4 points 7 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 5 hours 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›