Michael Ramirez for August 07, 2023

What utter Horse Feces!

Because petrofueled vehicles can’t run dry.

Mike, you do realize the M1 has an unrivalled thirst for fuel?

I guess that Mr. Ramirez thinks that non EV tanks can just pull up to a gas station.

How did the Mfg. Overcome the Weight to Power ratio problem ?

I guess Ramirez wants to defund the military industrial complex.

I’ve not heard one sound about the US military switching to EV. I don’t even think AB EV could move a track vehicle. Anyone got a bead on this?

Is Ramirez mental?

Electric Vehicle Junkyard Reality

Your fear of anything new is just sad.

And what does the inexpensive drone that can destroy the tank run on?

The push is for consumer EVs which work well for many but not all situations.

One of the dumbest cartoons Mikey has ever produced.

And what shall you say when the world runs out of oil and only China has EV tanks because America never bothered to develop the technology?

Tanks are incredibly heavy vehicles because of the armor. Batteries are also incredibly heavy. Marry the two together and we’re going to run into logistical and operational issues that most people can’t even imagine.

China is building aircraft carriers, long-range aircraft and refueling support, nuclear subs and expanding its global military footprint. The US military is suffering low recruitment targets, but spends its time mandating all non-combat military owned vehicles be EVs by 2035.

China continues to laugh at us.

Clearly Mike has never worked a tactical mission requiring resupply. No doubt the entire US military relies heavily upon various means of solar power generation.

Since Mike never has served perhaps he should watch “Battle Cry” the story of the 101st Airborne in the Bastogne. That woukd give him some idea how important solar COULD be.

And should be. That’s fer shure, that’s fer DANG shure.

How’s your horse, Michael?

There was one situation where the Germans ran out of gas and had to abandon operational tanks and walk home. A large part of the reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor is that the US had cut off their supply of petrol to their forces in China and they couldn’t keep going without it. Gasoline is a very difficult to obtain fuel and it can be blown up easily, so it isn’t an ideal energy source in any situation, and certainly not in a war. If something more reliable could be developed it would have to be an improvement.

A little too much truth here:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/11/09/electric-military-vehicles-are-part-of-biden-climate-agenda-pentagon-says.html

Yes, the program calls for hybrids first but I just don’t see it working, you can’t charge a tank for hours and expect results.

So when did Mattel get into making tanks?

Apparently Ramirez doesn’t think anybody at the Pentagon can think. I guess he believes in the inferior intellect of the military.

Seriously, just because they’re looking at one of the possibilities doesn’t mean they’re automatically going with it.

Just when I think he’s starting to see things rationally, he comes up with something as stupid as this.

One way to put a dent in wars.

Last year they asked if anyone had a gallon of gas.

I would like to see the electric motor that would power the current Abrams tanks! We would need to have a real powerful generation plant that can be flown in theater to power this tank. I suppose rubber band contraption would be more likely to work than “STARS” unquestioned loyalty to the woke, electric demi-god!!!!

Perfectly encompasses the whole EV debacle.

Those folks wouldn’t have tank fuel either so…

They can’t even put together an electric vehicle presidential motorcade.

All I want someone to tell me is, 1. when we have an electric grid that can’t keep up with current usage under heavy conditions and 2. we are arguably warming as a planet and will require more A/C, how are we going to meet demand when all cars are electric? And please don’t tell me well, we’ll just improve the infrastructure. HA! If we coulda we woulda.

And of course, their current amoured vehicles don’t need to be refueled at all.

True, great art work, though.

This is a false argument. Tanks weigh a lot as it is. Batteries would significantly increase that weight, so no, the military will not go electric for big vehicles. And while an electric motor might make for a quieter tank, the racket from the tank treads will still be there.

Because even electric motors are not 100% efficient, you’ll still have a heat signature from the engine when you are on the move. You might not have a signature from fumes of burnt jjet fuel (M-1) or diesel (older tanks), but most weapons look for heat.

If your tank isn’t moving around, then the electric engine and batteries mean that you do not have to fire up the turbine or diesel, which greatly reduces your infrared and acoustic signatures. (You can probably run an Abrams for a while on its batteries, but all the electronics, etc is going to use power and eventually you need to start the engine.) But this mode, which is fine for ambushes, is not how US tanks are used. The US military believes in taking the fight to the enemy, not in waiting in ambush. The Germans got good at that, but they still lost the war because they could not re-supply or replace fast enough.

The enemy cannot ever cut off your supply of green energy, unless you have not properly prepared your infrastructure for the future. Don’t worry, petrol will figure into a successful military strategy for years to come