this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
133 points (98.5% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6623 readers
104 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] 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Non-credible. Purpose-built mine flails are on the borderline of credibility already. In this configuration, you'd need at least a class IV hitch to handle the tongue weight, probably a class V when you factor in the force imparted by the motion of the flail. That's not even taking into account how much power is needed to properly swing the chains with enough impact to detonate a significant portion of the mines.

And if there happens to be an AT mine or two in the mix, the whole ill-advised experiment becomes an unappealing art installation.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good analysis, but you failed to point out that the truck will be towing the whole assembly. Pushing this contraption in reverse could be a hair problematic.

If he is actually towing it, there is probably an 80% chance the actual truck would detonate the AT mine first, depending on how touchy the trigger was and if it's ran over directly. (The rig would probably deflect more of the blast back through the truck.)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

Mine flails typically reverse over minefields by design for that very reason, so I interpreted this one as doing the same. If not, then yes, driving across the field with the contraption behind the truck would be a short, joyless trip.