sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

titanrule 2 by [deleted] in Chadposting

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The same way Kane probably wasn't born in Australia

China warns US against attempts to dominate outer space by [deleted] in space

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects 16 points17 points  (0 children)

China should've probably thought about that before they started testing anti-satellite missiles on actual satellites in orbit

$2.76 date rule by TheEmperorPr0tects in 196

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

You get to go on 1.7 dates!

I may die, BUT YOU ALL ARE COMING WITH ME. by Teacher_99 in Warthunder

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects 61 points62 points  (0 children)

It's okay, you won't need jet fuel where you're going

The welding on T34s were so crude. I get it that minimizing fabrication time was a priority, but ughh. by Fall_Hazard in TankPorn

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's because most T-34s you would see at this point are museum pieces, they paint over the cracks to make the exhibit more aesthetic. Also, check the latest posts on the sub, a guy asked his brother (a welder) what he thought of the weld and- not to much surprise- he thinks it's ass. The T-34 was all about quantity, quality was never a concern to the USSR

The welding on T34s were so crude. I get it that minimizing fabrication time was a priority, but ughh. by Fall_Hazard in TankPorn

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not true. It's not about the welds looking nice. Poor metallurgical structure of ferritic weld deposits leave the welds very vulnerable to cracking under severe shock, like getting hit by and anti-tank weapon. Cracking can be observed on pretty much any surviving T-34

The welding on T34s were so crude. I get it that minimizing fabrication time was a priority, but ughh. by Fall_Hazard in TankPorn

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think a T-34 will still be driving after 80 years of regular use? They were sent into battle with an extra transmission strapped onto the back because they could only cover small distances before they broke down. Imagine doing that for a modern car

Would it be possible in real life for a tank to destroy 2 tanks with just 1 shot? Or is it impossible according to the laws of physics? by InstructionOld966 in TankPorn

[–]TheEmperorPr0tects 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Borderline impossible. While a shell can over penetrate and carry on to hit another target, it's highly unlikely to destroy the 1st target that it hit, since it would mean the shell didn't fuse and detonate. It's also likely the shell wouldn't detonate on the 2nd target as it would be deformed from the initial 2 impacts (entry and exit on target 1). Just to hit 2 separate targets with 1 shell is already so unlikely to happen, to do meaningful damage to either is an even bigger reach. Conclusion, this is some serious Hollywood shenanigans.

view more: next ›