544
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
544 points (98.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6675 readers
1341 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The B-52 is designed to fly high-altitude at high subsonic speed. And they're not very maneuverable. They're meant to fly straight to a target, drop a payload, and GTFO.
Gunships fly low and slow, banking in a circle to keep their guns on target. For a B-52 to do the same maneuver, it'd have to be higher and much further away.
This is like saying we should make a Chinook bomber because it could carry a lot of bombs. Like yeah, it could, but there's better options.
Fuck yeah. Do that too!
Chinook bomber variant you say?
It depends on what kind of gunship you want, lots of guns can fit on a b52 that can't on an ac130. A series of 155s or bofors 40mk4s, mk38 bushmasters or stripped down 5" guns all of which fire rapidly, automatically and at ranges the ac130 could not touch with significant increases of time on target.
It doesn't need to be maneuverable, gunboats don't go in without air superiority anyway. That said they're way more maneuverable and controllable then you'd imagine. It wouldn't need to be one or the other, you could have both running counter pylon turns covering up for the gaps in each other's capabilities.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-usaf-b-52-strategic-bomber-did-a-fly-by-below-the-flight-deck-of-uss-ranger-aircraft-carrier/amp/
Notably many people said the ac130 was not a useful idea.