• @CptEnder
    link
    English
    21 hour ago

    Holy fuck that’s a sexy tank

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    175 hours ago

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

    • @Evotech
      link
      English
      21 hour ago

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

    • ikt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    787 hours ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 minutes ago

      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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      316 hours ago

      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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      267 hours ago

      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?

        • @EtherWhack
          link
          English
          -154 minutes ago

          If you ignore the fragility (creates a weak point to disable the tank) and the slow charging rate, dust and debris from firefights would be a pretty big issue.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        30
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        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

        • Miles O'Brien
          link
          fedilink
          English
          104 hours ago

          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]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 hour ago

            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]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 hours ago

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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 hour 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

        • Track_Shovel
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 hours ago

          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]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 hours ago

            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?

            • Track_Shovel
              link
              fedilink
              English
              83 hours ago

              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.

        • aard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          45 hours ago

          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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        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]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          266 hours ago

          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]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            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]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 minutes ago

              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.

            • Uranium 🟩
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              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…

              • @P00ptart
                link
                English
                105 hours ago

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

                • Miles O'Brien
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  54 hours ago

                  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]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                5 hours ago

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

      • Kalkaline
        link
        fedilink
        English
        66 hours ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 hours ago

      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]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    136 hours ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      105 hours ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 hour ago

        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