• @Blamemeta
    link
    English
    109
    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      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
        link
        English
        101 year ago

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

        • @Screwthehole
          link
          English
          161 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
            link
            fedilink
            7
            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.

          • @Dellyjonut
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            How is it poorly worded? You refer to guns by their bore size.

            • vortic
              link
              English
              4
              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
                link
                English
                31 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.

    • @Ilovethebomb
      link
      English
      91 year ago

      And in the context of naval guns, 5in isn’t even that big.

  • ReCursing
    link
    fedilink
    281 year ago

    The Daily Heil with their usual level of journalism here

  • pegzounet
    link
    fedilink
    261 year ago

    @gkanor
    How the fuck are we supposed to compete in non credibility with the daily mail around ?

  • southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    English
    191 year ago

    This is utter bullshit.

    No toothbrush is five inches.

    Only penises.

      • Zorque
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        Don’t worry, I’m sure they meant five centimeters… right?

  • @starman2112
    link
    English
    161 year ago

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

  • @ThePyroPython
    link
    English
    101 year ago

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

  • jrs100000
    link
    English
    31 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!

  • Destide
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    Gunz ain’t important it’z about the dakkah!

  • n0m4n
    link
    fedilink
    21 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.

  • @RakumAzuri
    link
    English
    11 year ago

    That’s some poor phrasing