this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
417 points (98.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6561 readers
1004 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works 85 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Ok, hear me out. The hull number is for the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which was deactivated in 2012. After that, instead of decommissioning, Elon Musk decides he needs a private military and hires Erik Prince to set it up. He buys the still-intact Enterprise, gets it modified the way he wants it, and sends it to Brazil to force X/Twitter back into service there. Full of Blackwater/Xe mercenaries, meth and coke are distributed to all personnel as daily rations. Fueled by the success of their first mission (and lots of drugs and alcohol), the bastard craft took to the high seas. It resembled a mobile party now, but a heavily-armed party. They looted, they raided, they held whole cities to ransom for fresh supplies of cheese, crackers, guacamole, spare ribs and wine and spirits that now get piped aboard from floating tankers.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 45 points 2 weeks ago

I would like to participate in any rpg campaign you dm.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And they would immediately be taken out by a single precision strike by an actual warship the second they got within 100 miles of any US territory or any US military ship out on patrol.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

project 2025 probably defunds the military along with NOAA.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Trump will just divert the entire military budget into his personal accounts.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This sounds a tiny bit like the plot of Snow Crash

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LazerFX@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm guessing Ford and Slartibartfast will try and get in to this floating party, and it'll hit Arthur in the small of the back somehow :D

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Zaphod, not Slartibartfast.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

I think this leads to the Snow Crash timeline.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 53 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would like to start with the chain of command that insisted a battleship turret be installed on the flight deck.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 17 points 2 weeks ago

Insert Bradley committee movie .mov

[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 44 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I have a strange fascination with non credible defense post. Military people are like academic nerds when it comes to hyper specific vocabulary and in-the-know references. So many post and comments are like half ciphers where its a puzzle to piece together what is being talked about ad what the joke is.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I can't get a bunch of 'em, wish that there was spoiler text with context, especially on current events, where often the first I see of the event is the NCD reference.

I usually try to hyperlink or provide some context when I comment myself.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 39 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

This is what you get, when you put the army in charge of a carrier, instead of the boat people.

[–] SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, give it to the Coat Guard where it belongs.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Littoral carrier groups when? Blue water is dead. Long live the shallows!

[–] CptEnder@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Basically the entire plot to the ExFor series. Buck Army Colonel finds himself in command of an alien starship somehow. The series is one extremely non credible event after another and aware of itself.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NewAgeOldPerson@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why do you want the army in charge of the boat people?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

Napoleon: The navy is just an army on boats

Cao Cao: agreed, how hard can it be?

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago

After reading that I'm convinced I would love a reaction video series where some military expert just eviscerates G.I Joe episodes.

I watched an episode just last night where the U.S.S. Flagg got it's shit slapped by a handful of Cobra aircraft. It basically looked like the picture above.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Note the 6th bubble: not only is this the first carrier with a deck mounted 16" turret, it's got a ro-ro ramp for the tank!

[–] tal@lemmy.today 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

not only is this the first carrier with a deck mounted 16" turret

The HMS Furious in 1917 had both a rear 18" turret and a flight deck at the same time, though it might be questionable as to whether-or-not it'd qualify as an aircraft carrier (though the concept of an "aircraft carrier" was pretty embryonic in 1917, so some allowance probably has to be made). And while the turret was on a deck, it wasn't on the flight deck.

[–] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I thought the "18" was a typo, but the Royal Navy really did put the heaviest gun they ever fielded on a carrier.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They had a 12" casemate gun on a class of submarines in the same war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M-class_submarine

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

that is furiously non credible, great find!

18"!?

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Not to be confused with its bigger, angrier American counterpart, USS Really Fucking Pissed Off.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

it’s got a ro-ro ramp for the tank!

I just laughing at the implications of this.

Sir, we have to abandon the mission. The enemy has closed their deep sea port - we cannot possibly launch an amphibious assault.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Now, now. It looks like the ramp is coming off the flight deck. Maybe it's for boarding actions.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Good point. Now the tank makes sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

a deranged lunatic has parked an Abrams on the flight deck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_17

On receiving the third order to scatter on 4 July 1942, Lieutenant Leo Gradwell RNVR, commanding the anti-submarine trawler HMS Ayrshire, did not want to head for Archangelsk and led his convoy of Ayrshire and Troubador, Ironclad and Silver Sword north. On reaching the Arctic ice, the convoy pushed into it, then stopped engines and banked their fires. The crews used white paint from Troubador, covered the decks with white linen and arranged the Sherman tanks on the merchant vessels decks into a defensive formation, with loaded main guns. After a period of waiting and having evaded Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft, finding themselves unstuck, they proceeded to the Matochkin Strait.

Now, you might say that the USS Enterprise isn't a merchant ship desperate for some kind of defensive armament, but on the other hand, it appears to be firing battleship guns at a MiG still flying low right above the ship, and I have to believe that a tank's main gun, to say nothing of the machine guns, are probably more-suitable as short-range antiaircraft weapons than a battleship gun for that.

Frankly, I think that given the scenario, pre-positioning a tank in that situation probably demonstrates a considerable amount of foresight.

[–] Fashtas@aussie.zone 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Frankly, I think that given the scenario, pre-positioning a tank in that situation probably demonstrates a considerable amount of foresight.

That sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like something a JAG defense lawyer might say

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The armored triple turret on the carrier that is apparently being fired at the MiG did not meet the bar to be included in the description.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's there so the ship is classified as a cruiser instead of an aircraft carrier and the Turks let it cross the Bosporus.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm pretty sure that CVN-65 won't meet the displacement bar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)

Displacement: 93,284-long-ton (94,781 t) full load[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention

The maximum aggregate tonnage of all foreign naval forces which may be in course of transit through the Straits shall not exceed 15,000 tons, except in the cases provided for in Article 11 and in Annex III to the present Convention.

Article 11.

Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers.

The US isn't a Black Sea power (though I guess maybe if the US transferred the Enterprise to Romania...). Russia can do it because it's a Black Sea power.

considers

I guess maybe if they got a whole lot of helium balloons and attached them to cables going down to the carrier, they could get the displacement below 15,000 tons.

EDIT: Actually, if they can get enough balloons to offset 80,000 tons, you'd think that they could just do the last 15,000 and convert the Enterprise into an airship and fly it into the Black Sea. The Montreaux Convention didn't think of that loophole!

Though...hmm. I think that the Enterprise relies on constant seawater cooling for the reactors, so maybe they can't do that. Maybe the turret does make sense in the context of the helium balloons after all.

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I imagine the conversation went like this

Turkey: how much doors your ship weigh?

Coked up admiral: how much should it weigh?

Turkey: well we can't let ships over 15000t through

CUA: it's 14,999t

Turkey: ....

CUA: (wipes nose)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Entire front end is useless for takeoff and landing. Also, LOTS of heads gonna roll for an entire carrier group failing to protect the fucking carrier.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well yeah its blocked off, thats where you park the tanks! Jeeze, it's like you've never heard of AFV flight deck deployments before.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 10 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, the MiG has his wingman flying at very low altitude directly through what appears to be a napalm strike that he's just conducted on the starboard side of the carrier, so there's some questionable behavior on both sides here.

[–] traches@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Also your F-117s are rocket powered or some shit because those flames are coming from the one place that isn’t exhaust

[–] tal@lemmy.today 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I assume that that's just the tailgunner firing his flamethrower.

[–] Damage@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 weeks ago

Makes sense, given the context

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, in fairness, at least the Mig-29 and F-117 are contemporaries, and deployed by enemies. I've seen playsets that include (iirc) an F-16 and a B-17 dogfighting against one another.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 weeks ago

While the F-16 has the stronger letter, the B-17 takes the lead on the number. It's still anybody's game.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I thought the F117a doesn't have a2a capabilities. It acts like a hole in the sky, drops a couple of bombs and then the distant AWACS plane laughs maniacally.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 weeks ago

a2a bombs, silly

you fly over them and drop your ordnance

[–] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

https://www.sandboxx.us/news/how-an-f-15e-shot-down-an-iraqi-gunship-with-a-bomb/

The full story of how an F-15E scored its only air-to-air kill… with a bomb

Because they were moving so fast through the sky to close with the team in trouble, the unpowered bomb actually had a greater range than the Sidewinder missile. Bennett released the bomb 4 miles out from the Hind-24, with Bakke carefully keeping his laser sighted on the helicopter.

All you need is a steady hand and a laser designator!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk

For this reason, it is equipped with integrated sophisticated digital navigation and attack systems, targeting being achieved via a thermal imaging infrared system and a laser rangefinder/laser designator.

It's got the designator, so...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Banichan@dormi.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago

This is gold, thank you.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds like a pretty normal day to me.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm assuming that the Abrams tank makes sense to protect the people on deck from the blast of the guns on that turret.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Hey don't make fun of Old Reliable - that tank is their deck gun.

load more comments
view more: next ›