this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
411 points (96.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6620 readers
123 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
[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Tank destroyers with rotating turrets.

[–] Lupus@feddit.org 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But also topless, because what are mortars and hand grenades?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Cue !MilitaryMoe NSFW in 3...2...1...

[–] tal 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There were really two different groups of tank destroyers in WW2.

The US and UK wanted something that would prevent a situation akin to what came up in the Battle of France, where fast-moving German armor penetrated French lines at Sedan and performed a successful massive exploitation through that breach.

They had fast vehicles that were intended to fight from concealed, defensive positions. But those vehicles had to be able to get out in front of an armored breakthrough in time to parry the thrust. What was critical was speed.

Germany and the Soviet Union, out on the Eastern Front, needed heavily-armored vehicles with big guns to slug it out over open fields with long fields of fire.

While, yes, both were aimed at fighting armor, they weren't really aimed at the same role, and I kind of wish that the two groups of vehicles had gotten different names, rather than "tank destroyer" being applied to both.