Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Will The Army Get Electric Tanks?" video.

A burning battery on an A-10 is the fate that aircraft deserves at this point.
2
How do you start a diesel when your glow plug can't work?
2
@kevlarandchrome I said GLOW plug not spark plug. I know diesels run off compression, but trying to start in the cold means that the engine block acts as a heat sink and robs the energy from the compression stroke.
2
@andrasbiro3007 Except that they worry a lot about protecting the ammunition from hits, and when it does get hit design the tank for crew safety by making the fire and pressure vent outwards. They worry very much about the ammo, having huge batteries would make the design a nightmare.
2
Implying the military wouldn't pay 25 dollars per gallon for biodiesel made from algae. Oil is finite? Hold my 700 billion dollar yearly budget.
1
@Argentvs The development of stealth aircraft have greatly mitigated this problem. The F-35 has directional datalink that allows them to penetrate enemy airspace and feed information to friendlies without the communications being noticed by receivers nearby.
1
@n-steam You can't just "break" the encryption. The timeline to break modern encryption is much longer than completing a mission.
1
@Argentvs It's hard, but they've done it. GPS can be cut and the aircraft run off INS.
1
Hold on, aren't hybrids worse for the environment?
1
@somethingsomeone5440 But the footprint is the big issue, because it takes years to "pay it off". I'm not sure off the top of my head, Engineering Explained made a video where he estimated that an EV "pays" for its footprint in 4 years. I'd rather just bite the bullet and go full EV with a bigger battery and accept that I'll have to dedicate an extra day to plan a road trip, than essentially buy a normal car with also electric motor and battery pack to add to the cost of production.
1
@kevlarandchrome There wasn't a military invasion in this Februrary or anything.
1
@darkstorminc I am certain this would be a problem in a tank. All well designed military equipment had unforeseen troubles that required an upgraded variant to fix them.
1
@toasty4000000 Fuel isn't flammable. The fumes from gasoline are flammable. Diesel needs to be much warmer to reach ignition point.
1
@toasty4000000 A battery is more dangerous. Yes, we have fire suppression because we recognize that things can and will go wrong. But that's because fire suppression can mitigate fuel or oil fires. If the whole thing becomes an inferno due to battery fire, that's worse.
1
@andrasbiro3007 That doesn't make any sense. There's footage of Russian tanks getting hit, flames breathing out the hatches, and you still see the three crewmen getting out alive. So the "they're already dead" logic doesn't make sense. Things are never that linear. No, the mass doesn't provide protection. No, battery isn't armor. Solid steel isn't good armor anymore. A steel casing is soft as butter for the purposes of armor.
1
@andrasbiro3007 1. Battery on the floor means huge volume that forces the tank to be raised off the ground. This makes tanks easier to hit. It also prevents the use of an escape hatch under the tank. 2. Danger is always present. A hit not near the battery can still cause a fire in the battery. A hit not near the crew can still cause a fire or secondary that is dangerous for the crew. 3. How's that important? 4. Yes, armor on the bottom is not strong. How's that gonna make batteries any better? 5. I can layer wood laminate and glue. That's a composite. It's not going to stop a tank round. Just because something is made out of several materials it doesn't mean it can't be shot through by a tank or missile like a hot knife through butter. Composite armor in tanks usually mixes extremely high performance ceramics, steel, even some alloys based on tungsten and depleted uranium in some cases. A battery isn't armor.
1
@andrasbiro3007 A couple of inches? You're gonna be moving several tons of steel and composite armor. Not a Tesla model S. Having fuel and ammo is precisely why fires are bad. When tanks are hit, you don't want fires to happen. Hit the battery, and the vehicle will be engulfed in flames. Which will then spread to the fuel and ammo. That's bad. Batteries are not harder than steel, and steel alone isn't able to defeat modern anti tank rounds. The bottom doesn't "require" the least protection. Everything requires all the protection it can get. But you have a weight budget and you have to spend it wisely. If we could, we'd armor the bottom, the top and the back. But pesky physics won't let us. Putting a huge fire hazard in the place we can't protect will probably cause the increased development of weapons that dive under the tank instead of attacking the top. "Hard stuff inside" isn't armor. Look up actual tests. APFSDS and HEAT rounds eat steel for breakfast. There's a reason ERA and composite armor is used. Instead of putting "hard stuff" in the way of projectiles made to penetrate "hard stuff" like a hot knife through butter, we defeat (or at least mitigate) incoming projectiles by presenting them with armor which either disperses the HEAT jet or forces shear stresses to break the penetrator.
1
It's not the conservatives, it's Catholic hero Biden!
1
I think this misses how deadly drone-corrected artillery and drone-dropped grenades have been. Getting close enough to a tank to fire a RPG at it is a dreadful proposal. To get a good hit probability you have to get within 200 meters of a tank. Artillery can be fired from 10km away. Not to mention that RPGs cannot penetrate the tank armor except from the vulnerable angles.
1