view the rest of the comments
NonCredibleDefense
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do 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. Random twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Low Hanging Fruit thread.
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 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. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Low effort thread 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.
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
Aside from Lend-Lease materiel in Russia, which would have been provided in a more-friendly environment, the US was part of the Allied intervention in Russia during World War I. This was after the Russian government collapsed mid-war, and materiel that had been sent to the Russian government was at risk of being seized by the Bolsheviks. The aim was to secure that and to help evacuate the Czechoslovak Legion.
There were two small US military forces that entered Russia, one in the west and one in the east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia
It's also possible that some kind of military hardware might have been sold to Russia prior to World War I, though I'm not familiar with any particular item, and I'm not sure at what point American industry would have become competitive enough with Russian industry to make it worth it for Russia to obtain military hardware from the US; the early US would definitely have been behind Russia in military industry. Prior to the World War era, relations with Russia were generally warmer.
John Paul Jones wound up working for Russia, and I suppose perhaps some of his contemporaries might have as well, but I don't know if there was any kind of materiel moving.
Russia got a bunch of 1895 Winchester rifles for WW1. They're the only army ever to field lever action rifles to standard infantry.
I don't think Led Zeppelin ever worked for Russia
Fun Tank History Fact: the Russian tank program started from captured Allied tanks from this invasion.
The T-34 is a direct design descendant of the French Renault FT as a result.
That's wrong. T-34 was an evolution of the BT series tanks, which themselves evolved from designs of Walter J. Christie, whose licence Soviets bought in the beginning of 30's.
EDIT: And to be pedantic: Although it was directed from Moscow, the main tank plant was in todays Kharkiv, Ukraine - so it's more accurate to talk about Soviet tank program.
If you accuse Wikipedia of lying to me again there's going to be trouble, buddy
WDYM? English Wikipedia article on T-34 also mentions origin from Christie's designs.
I see the problem. I'm talking about the T-34's great grandpa and you're talking about its dad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-18_tank
You:
vs
The article you link:
You were simply wrong.
That same article:
Tl;Dr
Renault FT->T-18->T-24->BT-7->T-34
Tank design simply does not happen in a vacuum, they are very rarely designing a new tank from the ground up. They incorporate proven techniques and mechanics from preceding designs with new ideas (like the Christie suspension) until they come up with a (hopefully) working model.
By the time you're five generations deep the only thing they might still have in common is the rotating turret, but that doesn't mean it's not a design descendant.
Further, the Renault FT is considered the ancestor of all modern tank designs regardless of everything else. It's just interesting in the Soviet case that they got their start reverse engineering some captured examples.
So unable to accept being proven wrong you descended into elementary school level ad hominem attacks, pathetic.
Lol, that's not even an ad hominem.
Okay bro, enjoy going through life not understanding the design ancestry of the T-34, see how far that gets you 🤪
TIL!