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.
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.
Wow, a british news org fucking up the most basic fact checking? Who would have ever expected that?
Yeah I wouldn't trust the publication that sided with Oswold Fucking Mosley to have journalistic integrity.
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!
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.
