• jve@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Sorry for Reddit watermark… couldn’t quickly find it elsewhere.

  • Randelung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    2 days ago

    That train will just keep coming. Once such a freight train is going you better get out of the way. The amount of kinetic energy that’s coming towards you is dwarfing compared to a measly tank.

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It seems to be a lot, how does it compare to an artillery shell? The tank doesn’t look like it fared too badly.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Artillery shell with 1 kg of TNT has explosion energy of about 1 kg of TNT

          • realitista@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Do they actually use TNT as the explosive though? I thought TNT was just the igniter for something more powerful like C4 or something.

            • warbond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I don’t think TNT is used at all, I’m pretty sure it’s some explosive compound, as you said. However, explosives are still measured in terms of TNT, called Net Explosive Weight (NEW).

              For example, one pound of C4 has a NEW of about 1.25 pounds.

      • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I don’t think your units make sense — kinetic energy has units of energy, but “kg TNT per second” is power (about 4MW). (I think just remove the “every second” and it’s correct?)

        Edit: parent edited comment.

        • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re right, but “every second” was meant more as a display of the energy in the train, like a large explosion “every second”. Is that very wrong?

          • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Hmmm, I’m not sure I understand…

            A large explosion every second has units of power, not energy. So to me this is suggesting that the train is putting out power equal to its kinetic energy per second. That’s certainly not the case — it implies that the train is powerful enough to accelerate to the speed in 1s, which is definitely not true.

            But that’s just my interpretation.

    • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      2 days ago

      Be the change you want to see in the world! Don’t let your dreams be dreams!

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, but if you’re gonna create it, you have to post to it like once a week or it’ll just sit there dead, forever.

        And who wants to find something to post once a week? Can’t I just have Facebook feed it to me. Picture Zuck saying “here comes the plane!”

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I think less and less damage to either side as armor and structural integrity increase is probably the norm with trains. For example non armor vehicles are turned into fun metal tangles. This 30 ton “lightly” armored vehicle looks pretty intact. A 70 ton tank might just remain more intact as the train shunts it to the side. The train might take more superstructure damage but there’s a lot of just solid metal pushing in one direction. So I don’t think any impact like that is ever going to actually just destroy the train.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          The armor is light, the vehicle isn’t.

          On the other hand, a pair of locomotives can easily be over 400 tons, and that’s not counting the rest of the train. Those doublestacked shipping containers on a well car can add 100 tons each.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Well that’s an M109 Paladin. It weighs about half as much as an actual tank. But if it was fully loaded there’s a pretty good chance nobody wins because it’s an artillery system and it carries a lot of stuff that goes boom.

    I don’t care to speculate on who wins between a 70 ton tank and a train. It probably depends on what the train is pulling.

    Edit to add - also we need pictures from different angles. From this angle it looks like the Paladin might have simply been de-tracked. But I’m pretty sure there’s more damage as it’s armor is actually comparatively light, rated for small arms and shrapnel.

      • _bcron@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Technically yeah, colloquially no sane person would judge another for calling such a thing a tank

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’s only a tank if it comes from the Tankeshire region of England, otherwise it’s just sparkling armoured vehicle.

        • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Nah, I don’t judge people for being wrong or inaccurate, particularly when the colloquial use of a term is as firmly established. Ideally, people would still know the distinction, and I’d prefer to have journalists be accurate at least, but mostly I care about knowing what’s technically correct myself. I don’t need to be a pedant, I just don’t want to be ignorant.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      And the train I am currently on was transported by truck.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, it’s pretty small. That’s why we have to put new trains on trucks instead of just driving them from the factory. They don’t fit normal railways.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just skirts and detracted, the hull is probably intact but likely cracked enough it will need refurb at the factory. Also it probably fell off the train rather than ran into it.