279
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
279 points (98.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6623 readers
146 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
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
Silly one, and but do tanks run on diesel?
Every other heavy machine I can think of typically uses diesel for their engines: tractors, lorries, boats.
Also diesel is less flammable then petrol or hydrogen in the event of a spill of leak...
The Abrams uses jet fuel mainly. But most tanks are diesel.
The Abrams can run on just about anything liquid and flammable. It's not gonna be happy about it, but it'll go.
I think it was designed by pakleds...
Yup, that's why I put "mainly"
Wasn't trying to call you out for being wrong or only partially correct, just think it's neat all the stuff they considered when designing and testing it.
Right, no worries. I was just being lazy and didn't wanna explain. You did and did it in less words than I would've needed.
The problem with diesel is that there has been a cap in their efficiency for quite some time. We've pretty much tweaked as much speed and efficiency out of what is possible with diesel tanks, which is why the Abrams has a turbine engine.
As tanks become heavier and heavier the only real solution is to migrate to electric motors, which are more efficient and vastly more reliable than diesel or turbine.
Just like with trains, the future of tanks are electric motors, and until we find a battery material more efficient and safe than lithium, hydrogen fuel cells are likely going to be the solution.
The correct solution is for tanks to drag a power cable and a water cooling loop behind them. This will make them invisible to thermals.
Diesel is a type of petroleum product.
Sir this is NCD. That comment is far too credible.
Shit I never saw I was in a meme sub lmao. To be fair the comments above mine seemed mostly serious.
Some of the best serious conversations get started by meme posts.
Would you say that we (wiggles eyebrows) subverted your expectations?
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.
Well if the fuel is compromised there’s a larger chance it’ll ignite and reach the shells if it’s hydrogen as opposed to petroleum.
My point is that if your tank's armour is compromised by modern antitank weapons, it doesn't really matter where it hits you. You're going to be turned into chunky marinara, or your shells are going to cook off.
A pressurized fuel cell is already more protected than any fuel tank, and is smaller and lighter and more efficient than any ice engine. Which means you can add and divert even more armour to protect the cell and the occupants of the tank. Basically any danger associated with hydrogen is vastly overshadowed by the fact that tanks already carry high explosives. And that's not so dangerous that we're trying to replace them with non combustible weapon systems.
It's not like Rotem is new at making tanks, the K2 is one of the best tanks currently in production. If the engineers thought fuel cells increased the likelihood of catastrophic failure, I highly doubt they would have tried it with the K3.
Personally, I think most people are just buying into the propaganda that shut down hydrogen power in the first place. To my knowledge there hasn't ever been a death associated because of an explosion or fire involving a vehicle with h2.
H2 is much safer than gasoline. Gasoline with explode as a bomb. A leak will make everything around it super flamable. An H2 tank that both is ruptured and on fire will shoot a flare into the air, instead of blowing up and killing everyone in the vehicle.