• NoFuckingWaynado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    6 months ago

    Use gasoline instead of water. Then you can eliminate the fuel tank. Side bonus would be protection from microbes for the crew. The government should also expect a reduction in pension and social security costs.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ask the crew of the CSS Hunley what water and shockwaves does to human bodies.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, I would rather not ask either.

        Don’t ask what all that weight does to the running surfaces either. Some things it’s better to just not know.

        • Mikufan@ani.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          A modern tank is already about 70 metric tons, 3 or 4 more wont matter that much.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      There (shouldn’t) be any blast from the gun firing released inside the tank itself. So, you’ve got vibration that’ll pass through the water. It might increase that, but that’s not direct exposure to the blast.

      There’s still air around the muzzle. Maybe water makes up some of the distance, but there is still a buffer of compressable air in there.

      I’m not sure that it wouldn’t cause problems, but I’m not sure that it wouldn’t, either. I don’t think that it’d just be the “depth charge near people in the water” issue.

      EDIT: Though some artillery has that recoil-compensating mechanism where the breach moves back when the gun fires. I dunno whether that’s true of the main gun on an MBT, but if so, that might cause issues.

      googles

      Yeah, here’s an Abrams doing it. That might suck.

      https://youtube.com/watch?v=sC2ePKRvo9k

  • Kedly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    6 months ago

    I know this is non credible defense, but I would absolutely LOVE a breakdown of all the ways this is a terrible idea

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It might unironically be a good idea except for the increased weight. Also shockwaves from impacts.

        • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah I thought so too. Besides that, Oxygen running out would be a problem, and perhaps reliability of diving equipment.

          And every operator would need a full one diving suit too, increasing production and maintenance cost.

          Perhaps the tank would rust?

          More fuel needed.

          Electronics would need to be waterproof, otherwise they short circuit, breaking and perhaps harmin the crew.

    • Hylactor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      The first issue that comes to mind is the noncompressible nature of water. If you’ve ever played in a pool and marveled at how clearly you can hear a digital watch beep all the way from the other end, you can scale this up for any pressure wave. With very unpleasant results.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oooh, I see what you’re saying! Yeah, that makes total sense.

        … But couldn’t they just adjust the volume of the heavy metal music all tanks are required to play be the Geneva convention so that full blast isn’t loud enough to cause hearing damage?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          IDK, does the Geneva convention cover the adjustment to pitch so the heavy metal can be faithful to the original while distorted? Source: Harry Potter and that Goblet of Fire.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            I don’t think they accounted for any of the consequences of filling a tank with water. It’s a really outdated set of rules. Like it doesn’t even have special allowances for civilian casualties when Hamas is suspected of hiding in their clothing, which is clearly anti-Semitic. It doesn’t even say it’s ok to kill some civilians if their side embarrassed you by sinking your flagship when they have no navy.

    • recklessengagement@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Any shockwave from firing a shell/active armor/taking a hit would reverberate through the cabin and crush the occupants, not dissimilar to what a grenade does to anyone nearby in a body of water

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, I remember when Myth Busters tested “shooting fish in a barrel” they found that even if your bullet doesn’t hit a fish that the shockwave will kill them all lol.

    • supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Let me introduce you to Mr Newton. Specifically:

      F = m*a

      To accelerate on a flat terrain (nevermind a slope) you need to apply tractive force proportional to your mass. Water does add a lot of mass.

  • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Explosions will fuck you up harder underwater though won’t they? Or is that when the explosion happens underwater? I feel like there was a MythBusters episode on this

  • halvar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    should have written “can piss while operating tank” at the end

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago
    • Probably eliminates a lot of the problems with making a tank amphibious.
      • dvoraqs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        I bet it’s because there would be a lot of heat, especially when the tank’s engines need to be more powerful to move all of the added weight.

        • Mikufan@ani.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          1m³ of water is 1 metric ton, a normal tank would fit 3m³ to 5m³ given the fact that a normal modern tank is about 70 metric tons by itself i doubt it would greatly effect the engine. And water can be cooled as well.

          • dvoraqs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think you’re discounting the heat already being generated even without the water. Water is a good conductor of heat, so if there are any hotspots the crew normally just stays away from, that would spread everywhere, including to the crew. The heat would also accumulate since the rest of the tank would be acting as an insulator except on the outside surfaces.

                • Mikufan@ani.socialOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Wich is why the motor wastes a lot of energy on cooling itself… Why do you think there is water cooling for electronic?

                  Air bein a isolator is a bad thing.

      • yokonzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Typically when you hit things with shells, Even if the they don’t explode, the kinetic energy would transfer into the hull, then the water. Now imagine getting fired on 4 or 5 times, or by a bunch of small arms fire, or a land mine, all in the baking desert sun. That would be a soup pot

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Idk enough about physics to argue in good faith but I feel like that’s not right…

        I thought it was because water was good at cooling because it dissipates the excess energy ridiculously quickly.

        Maybe that’s the same thing idk I just fuckin woke up 🤷‍♂️

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Heat sink heats the water which then moves to the fans

          The cool water takes it’s place to absorb more heat

          In air cooling you’re hoping for passing air to cool off the heatsink

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        cookoffs are quite a good one, but i’m trying to figure out how the armor is supposed to cookoff.

        Unless it’s ERA or something? In which case, that wouldn’t be changed with the water being inside of the tank now.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    If we were playing War Thunder, this would be “CREW KNOCKED OUT” just waiting to happen.