• Blamemeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • RocksForBrains@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah a shell the width of a *toothbrush-stood-on-end will make some big holes.

      Edit: for the people.

      • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Still poorly worded lol. When you say the width of a toothbrush, I think the width of it, not the length

        • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          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? 😅

          • Nepenthe@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I mean, certainly that can’t be an intentional choice. That would violate the entire oath of journalism. The people rely on them.

            • vortic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • starman2112@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

    • CraizzUK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well that’s not length then is it. That’s poor journalism

  • starman2112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, a british news org fucking up the most basic fact checking? Who would have ever expected that?

  • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah I wouldn’t trust the publication that sided with Oswold Fucking Mosley to have journalistic integrity.

  • jrs100000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just measured it on my screen with a ruler and it turns out its only 5mm long, not 5 inches. This sort of blatant military industrial fraud is why only freedom units are suitable for weapon design!

  • n0m4n@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you apply physics/math knowledge, you can understand why these 5-inch guns are more deadly. Higher velocity, longer range and more accurate are what makes these a better fit for modern warfare. Relatively speaking, these smaller ships can be produced and deployed faster. Although the costs seem high, they are comparatively cheap.

    As for inches, it’s not a d*** contest.