You trying to turn homeboy into a claymore or something?

Unfortunately fusion centers are a thing, they shouldn’t be but they are.

Neat.

Again, you’ve agreed with me multiple times at this point, your just upset. It’s cool dude, move on.

Ya huh then you should know you’re taking faff but more likely your just lying.

I understand your argument, I’m saying you’re being obtuse and egomaniacal.

You agree go away already.

Because hitting a wall at 50 kph in a armored can is a stupid* fucking idea unless you’re currently being shot at, what any force would do is cross once carefully and push entering in and then they can just drive across.

I’m not sure where or why you have these cartoonish visions of how tanks go about things but it’s absurd and you’ve provided exactly nothing to say that anyone would do this or that it’s at all standard practice to just hurl yourselves barrel first into walls.

and is only a minor one to the lowest-profile and longest-snooted MBT I know of (

You agree! Stop arguing to argue guy.

It’s literally the point.

Would a tank have to stop? We both agree no.

Would it slow down a tank? We both agree yes unless you’re implying they not only would throw themselves at max speed across a scarp counter scarp and embankment and that somehow would not slow down the tank.

We just don’t agree on your looney toons tactics which your own evidentiary video doesn’t even support.

So we’re done, you admit you’re wrong and also that you’re just being tedious. Neat.

But I don’t really care enough, so have the win about the turret. It’s my little gift to you.

Ego much? Also that ignores the fact that was the entire argument but sure get snippy about it bud.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you’ve just admitted you were wrong.

No when people say tank they mean MBT, if you drive a Bradley and call it a tank Abraham’s crews will straight up laugh at you. The phrase you used doesn’t matter, the question is will that actually stop a tank. My response was no but it will slow them, your answer was “Nuh uh!”. Now you’ve proved visually by yourself that you are wrong and probably shouldn’t have “uhm actually” your way into the conversation.

https://crust.piefed.social/comment/151494

It’s specifically a question about a tank.

No you don’t, you might fast and turn the turret around like the video shows but you’re not going to plow into a dirt wall and foul your barrel if you don’t have to.

I really shouldn’t have to draw a picture to show you if your front end goes 35° hull down just to stay level with level terrain you’d need 55° up elevation. In this case there’s another ridge that’s probably 40° so add 40 to 55 and you get? Anyone? Anyone ? 95°! And we just agreed no MBT has 90° up elevation so the only possible thing you could be proposing would be that tank crews are going to en masse heave themselves into a wall they know their barrel will impact and likely foul in rather then turn the turret and cross to the other side where you can then use your tracks to move the dirt in the hill back into the pit so it’s whole again.

I’d say that’s absurd but maybe in this administration bugs bunny operates a no holds barred tank division but I dunno I guess I don’t keep up with the news enough.

Except that’s again not how physics works, they’re not anti air guns bud. Hull go down = barrel go down and no MBT has 90° of elevation so you turn your turret round just like your own video shows.

Again nothing is going to stop a tank group who wants to get through history has taught us this again and again, all you do is slow them down.

IFVs aren’t tanks btw, if you’re gonna be weirdly tedious about strange stuff you might want to be correct.

Maybe I’m bad at texting or something but who talks like this?

Yes you do physics exists and gun barrels aren’t super into impacts or being filled with mud.

You’re article supports me not you. It never says it is or isn’t a anti tank ditch, it does imply it’s anti vehicle though with tanks being a vehicle.

Ps your proof being a tank crossing a smaller equally sided trench backwards with the turret facing… away from the berm is really terrible evidence that you wouldn’t need to slow or turn the turret away.

There is no stopping a tank force that’s determined by obstacle alone, countries in WW2 spent millions and lots of resources into complex anti tank setups and the lesson learned is nothing stops them. You just invest the least to be the most annoying and by that I mean time consuming.

At the very least you have to slow and turn your turret away from the place you want to go which is problematic if there’s people on the other side who don’t have to turn their guns away.

It’s deterrence but yeah it would slow down tanks and choke point them which is useful but it’s not like totally impassable.

33" x 46" or 841 mm × 1189 mm. Think two standard sized posters laid horizontal and stacked two high, fairly large.

Russia is still a bigger military, Europe didn’t pick a fight with them. Russia is definitely fucking up as usual and just throwing men and equipment at it with no particular logic involved.

They’re already involved in a way they just haven’t accepted it. No country wants to get involved but I’m sorry eventually they have to.

Yeah that’s their only smart choice. Russia may be fucking up big but in a war of attrition Ukraine will lose sooner or later.

That’s an optimistic view yeah, another is that they’re going to let private ventures take over exploration and reap the profit land rights.

You didn’t but that also means you aren’t following the conversation.

https://lemmy.ca/comment/18901984

Large bore naval rifles are not generally cased. Iowas for instance do not use cases, you write stuff directly on the shell like a bomb. They just use a shell and bags of powder.