• lemonmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    Non-credible. Purpose-built mine flails are on the borderline of credibility already. In this configuration, you’d need at least a class IV hitch to handle the tongue weight, probably a class V when you factor in the force imparted by the motion of the flail. That’s not even taking into account how much power is needed to properly swing the chains with enough impact to detonate a significant portion of the mines.

    And if there happens to be an AT mine or two in the mix, the whole ill-advised experiment becomes an unappealing art installation.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Good analysis, but you failed to point out that the truck will be towing the whole assembly. Pushing this contraption in reverse could be a hair problematic.

      If he is actually towing it, there is probably an 80% chance the actual truck would detonate the AT mine first, depending on how touchy the trigger was and if it’s ran over directly. (The rig would probably deflect more of the blast back through the truck.)

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        Mine flails typically reverse over minefields by design for that very reason, so I interpreted this one as doing the same. If not, then yes, driving across the field with the contraption behind the truck would be a short, joyless trip.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 months ago

    A single Hilux (Tacoma?) could remove every unexploded ordinance in the world war 2 theatre, without the flail.

    • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I know this truck. Ain’t no stranger. I know that truck. That’s a Ford. Fucking Ranger. Fucking Ranger. Ford Ranger. Damn.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      Kick start it for the first one, then use the energy of the blast to keep it going. Not only is the minefield cleared, we have infinite energy.

      • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        The trailer hookup wouldn’t be sufficient to handle that amp draw.

        You can add a PTO to most trucks, super easy if the platform is also used for tow trucks.

        I am concerned about the amperage draw on wires from the battery with that length of run, I guess an auxiliary battery in parallel could mitigate the risks.

  • DannyBoy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Rangers are tough but I think you’d need a Toyota for this one.

  • atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Are those mines for people or vehicles? I imagine rolling around something heavy that pokes the ground with ~90kg of force per point could be sufficient to trigger an anti-personnel mine, maybe even slapping it with 90kg of force per point would work. However, for anti-vehicle mines, would that slapper really be able to generate over 500kg per slapped point? What about mines triggered by greater weights?

    I’m doubtful, but it looks cool!