this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
160 points (94.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
4221 readers
25 users here now
Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For those who don't know, A 5 inch gun refers to the bore. Its shoots a projectile 5 inches in diameter. Its fucking massive.
Yeah a shell the width of a *toothbrush-stood-on-end will make some big holes.
Edit: for the people.
Still poorly worded lol. When you say the width of a toothbrush, I think the width of it, not the length
It's extremely poorly worded, as the word weapon is not the same as the word shell or ammunition. In fact, that's why we have separate words for both. I'd have thought people with English degrees (journalists still need education right?) would know these things.
But I'm not a journalist, so I guess they know best right? 😅
I mean, certainly that can't be an intentional choice. That would violate the entire oath of journalism. The people rely on them.
How is it poorly worded? You refer to guns by their bore size.
If it confused a bunch of people, I'd say it's poorly worded. "A gun the length of a toothbrush" made me think of a small pistol not a cannon.
That's because british journalists are incredibly stupid. Industry standard is to refer to weapons by their bore–you don't call a Glock 19 a 185mm handgun, after all.
Well that's not length then is it. That's poor journalism
And in the context of naval guns, 5in isn't even that big.