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

NonCredibleDefense

6596 readers
454 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
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 20 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It's beautiful and I want one.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 17 points 5 days ago (3 children)

powered by hydrogen fuel cells

I don't think the logistics for hydrogen fuel cells will help in actual combat situations, though it's expected to enter operation in 2040 anyway.

autonomous driving and slave drones

Hopefully one that actually works. As for the drones, I guess for reconnaissance?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Foni@lemm.ee 18 points 6 days 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.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 days 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

[–] Foni@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't have enough knowledge to argue with your words. A couple of years ago Germany introduced an electric tank. When the armies make requests for one option or another we will have the real answer

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

Electric tank, sure. Hydrogen tank, never.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 144 points 6 days ago (13 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 👍🏿

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 38 points 6 days 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.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

And yet you don't think they could produce the same safety features for less volatile materials?

diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

Yeah, you just have to add a diesel engine, electric engine, and a giant battery.....The whole point of moving to electric is to increase efficiency and decreasing the weight of primary motive components.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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.

[–] jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 83 points 6 days ago (6 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 🤓

[–] eggymachus@sh.itjust.works 22 points 6 days ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 40 points 6 days ago (4 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?

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Just put solar panels on top, easy.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 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@sh.itjust.works 34 points 6 days ago (1 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

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (15 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.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago (2 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.

Why? If something has gotten through the armour, your fuel is the least of your worries. I mean you are sitting next to a stack of shells filled with high explosives.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 8 points 6 days ago

You'd probably want a quick swap battery and charging far from the front lines.

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 46 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 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

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 7 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Tanks are going the way of the battle ship though. Drones are doing a lot of the stuff they can do, and a lot of things they can't.

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago

I can imagine a unmanned autonomous tank though.

[–] xavier_berthiaume@jlai.lu 9 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I'm not super familiar with the matter, but what do you mean by "going the way of the battle ship"? Do you mean they're becoming more obsolete because of their size/utility compared to drones?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago

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

[–] aard@kyu.de 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Still you can rely on military logistics to carry a swap battery. But isn’t the military supply chain the first target to disrupt?

That's true as well for hydrogen, though. And I guess there's a higher chance of getting access to "power" somewhere in the field than finding a hydrogen tank. Also, energy density of lithium batteries is higher than for hydrogen storage.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

energy density of lithium batteries is higher than for hydrogen storage.

opposite is true by a large margin. You'd still want a hybrid power train, and a charging from solar or BEV option never hurts, but H2's advantage is quick refueling with battery charging on the go.

[–] aard@kyu.de 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That applies if you're looking at density per weight - but for most stuff driving around the interesting metric is density per volume, and hydrogen sucks there, even if we're looking at liquid nitrogen, which is completely impractical for storage here.

To make matters worse, you're limited to specific shapes for your pressurized tank if you want to optimize pressure it can take (and with that storage volume), while batteries you can stick in individual chunks pretty much wherever you find a bit of space.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SARGE@startrek.website 22 points 6 days 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 (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Hubi@feddit.org 43 points 6 days ago (4 children)

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

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 69 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

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

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 41 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

drop bears

Instance checks out

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 36 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 36 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Holy fuck that's a sexy tank

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Birch@sh.itjust.works 30 points 6 days ago

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

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

load more comments
view more: next ›