this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
351 points (99.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
8237 readers
63 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
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I doesn't seem like catching up to me because catching up implies speed was increased to intercept, not distances were different followed by intercept.
If I fire a gun nearly perfectly straight up, run forward 10 feet and catch the bullet in my shoulder it wouldn't feel right to say that I fired, ran fast enough to catch up to my bullet and shot myself.
You fire a bullet and it accelerates downward at 9.8m/s2 until it gets to some terminal velocity. It moves forward at some velocity with a braking acceleration that's non-linear and gross. Result is a downward motion in a basically parabolic arc.
The plane, however, is accelerating downward faster than the bullet because of thrust, and also accelerating forward.
By the time drag has essentially stopped the bullet the plane is underneath it.
When phrased as "caught up" it makes it sound like the plane went as fast as the bullet, when the plane had a top speed of mach 1 and the bullet ~mach 3. They just took different paths.
Your entire line of logic is broken with how this happened, and how bullets work. Also, bullets start getting slower the moment they leave the barrel. A bullets terminal velocity is MUCH, MUCH, slower than when it leaves the barrel.
The plane shot bullets as it was arching down, so the plane was traveling under the bullets previously fired trajectory, and those bullets dropped down to where the plane wound up at because the bullets slowed enough to get there at the same time.
The f-11s weren't crazy fast or anything. It was doing around 800mph when it happened.
There's literally no other scenario to shoot yourself with a bullet shot towards the horizon (not straight up). A bullet has to be going much faster than a plane when it exits the barrel. A bullet has to start slowing down from drag the moment it leaves the barrel, so there's no scenario that can exist where a plane can shoot itself in a way that isn't catching up to a bullet that was getting slower.
I not sure how my logic is wrong when you then described exactly what I said.
We both understand how objects move. It's a semantics question, not kinematics.
"Caught up" implies moving fast enough to close the distance in a persuit like fashion, to me at least.
It's not catching up with someone if you take a shortcut and wait for them to arrive.
Well he did pursue them and catch up, sooo....