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

NonCredibleDefense

6659 readers
445 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 150 points 3 weeks ago (6 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] 87 points 3 weeks ago (4 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] 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks 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 :/

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Absolutely. I was heartbroken when he passed :(

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Science man smart!

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

From Hyundai to Hindenburg very fast 👏 👏 👏

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 weeks ago (9 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] 46 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 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] 23 points 3 weeks 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] 4 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks 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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 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?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That, and expense. Tanks cost millions, while a $5k drone with an RPG strapped to it can take it out and exploit the weak spots.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Ultimately these small drones are still pretty vulnerable. I’d imagine the next/current generation of automatically targeting point defense weapons will be the solution.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 3 weeks 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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Abrams uses jet fuel mainly. But most tanks are diesel.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yup, that's why I put "mainly"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

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

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sir this is NCD. That comment is far too credible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Shit I never saw I was in a meme sub lmao. To be fair the comments above mine seemed mostly serious.

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

Some of the best serious conversations get started by meme posts.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Would you say that we (wiggles eyebrows) subverted your expectations?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 weeks ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

hydrogen as an alternative to electric is definitely not a ploy by big oil to keep drilling for fossil fuels!

What are you talking about?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Basically all of hydrogen production is sourced from fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)