• Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    5 months ago

    Unrelated but we should be putting googly eyes on all tanks from here on out.

  • herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can’t read any of the text, but the one on the left has the vibe of something that would get someone investigated for posting on the War Thunder forums to win an argument.

  • Mikufan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    deleted by creator

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Are we posting boomer memes here now?

    Those WWII tanks could get multiple direct hits on a modern tank and the modern tank would be fine. The modern tank would fire back once (while moving over rough terrain) and obliterate the WWII tank with a single hit. The modern tanks use more complex materials and technology because it makes them superior to older tanks in every way.

    Just how technology works, boomers. More sophisticated materials aren’t used for the hell of it. They’re used because after a lot of testing they proved to be better.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Don’t think it’s meant to be reformer-level “OLD TANK GOOD, NEW TANK BAD”

      Just a little silly, a funny little guy made of iron

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yeah… The US has a sound and practical military strategy of owning a military that would win quickly and dominate completely. War is brutal??? Is China in your mind soft and coquettish in their war strategies lmao. With oriental honor lol.

      I’ll tiptoe around the questions of how this made you think of a US China war, and what lengths you would go to insist that there would be little reason for China to ever be the “aggressor”.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s reasonable to assume the US would be the aggressor (the ratio of countries invaded since WW2)

      What

      and all their weapon components are refined and manufactured in or around China; rare earths, chips, etc.)

      There’s a reason we have the National Defense Stockpiles

      They would have to win quickly and dominate completely: read brutally.

      What