this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
402 points (95.9% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6554 readers
888 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 week ago (11 children)

"The primary role of the relatively untrained pilot was to aim the aircraft at its target bomber and fire its armament of rockets. The pilot and the fuselage containing the rocket engine would then land using separate parachutes, while the nose section was disposable."

I was picturing something more like a Kamikaze.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (6 children)

You're thinking of the Reichenberg-Gerät, although the Nazis were crazy they weren't crazy enough to actually use it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There were a small number of kamikaze attacks against Oder bridges in conventional planes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Squadron#Oder_bridge_attack_missions,_April_1945

There also was a squadron of conventional fighters dedicated to fly ramming attacks against bombers, which was used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando_Elbe

Eventually, these tactics are not that crazy. In war, lives and machines are expended to reach a goal. If some tactics seem crazy, then only because that fundamental fact is harder to ignore.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think it is important to add, that, in contrast to japanese tactics, the german pilots were not necessarily expected to die. It was "just" extremely risky and a bunch of them did actually survive.

The pilots were expected to parachute out either just before or after they had collided with their target.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

The fighter pilots ramming bombers were expected to bail out. There were survivors.

The pilots of the Leonidas squadron were expected to "self-sacrifice" in their attacks on bridges. They faced rather less social pressure than Japanese pilots, though.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)