• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What would conventional warfare be like today...

D

darkxshade

Lifer
Inspired by the Tiger vs Abrams tank thread. I had not known that armor has improved so vastly in the course of decades. This got me thinking, gunpowder has been the staple of warfare for centuries. Sure guns have gotten more accurate, stronger and deadlier but they still rely on bullets/ammunition. If black powder did not exist in this world, how would our battles be fought? It is now that we're finally breaking the barrier into newer technologies such as lasers and railguns but those are meant to be equipped on ships, tanks and planes. If we were to fight a conventional war, I do not see bows & arrows complimenting these technologies. So what would our soldiers battle with?
 
So you're assuming that current armoring techniques still exist, but that gunpowder was never invented? People would use some new high tech catapult perhaps? High powered crossbows?
 
You don't need gunpowder for guns. Even highly compressed gases would work, albeit with less efficacy.

"Today's modern air guns are typically low-powered because of safety concerns and legal restrictions; however, high-powered designs are still used for hunting. These air rifles can propel a pellet beyond 1100 ft/s (330 m/s), approximately the speed of sound, and produce a noise similar to a .22 caliber rimfire rifle. Using lead pellets, some current spring powered .177 pellet guns can break the sound barrier." - Wikipedia
 
Originally posted by: Azraele
So you're assuming that current armoring techniques still exist, but that gunpowder was never invented? People would use some new high tech catapult perhaps? High powered crossbows?
Click to expand...

I was thinking how a simple thing such as armor has changed over time from wood to steel to composites yet we're still using guns to fight our wars. If steel didn't exist, we could still find plenty of ways to make armor out of other materials. But without gunpowder, what alternative would our soldiers have to fight our wars?
 
Originally posted by: Crono
You don't need gunpowder for guns. Even highly compressed gases would work, albeit with less efficacy.
Click to expand...

This was also the best I can come up with but with body armor, there would not be enough penetrating power.
 
Originally posted by: darkxshade
Originally posted by: Crono
You don't need gunpowder for guns. Even highly compressed gases would work, albeit with less efficacy.
Click to expand...

This was also the best I can come up with but with body armor, there would not be enough penetrating power.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that depend on the design of the projectile fired, and not just the amount of force? Even then, I think air guns can be designed with enough power to fire armor piercing projectiles. I'm no expert, though.
 
There's also the possibility of chemical or biological warfare. Lacking sufficient armor penetration, it's entirely possible people would just focus on not needing to penetrate at all.
 
Originally posted by: Crono
Doesn't that depend on the design of the projectile fired, and not just the amount of force? Even then, I think air guns can be designed with enough power to fire armor piercing projectiles. I'm no expert, though.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert either but I'm guessing the projectile would have to be dense to have any sort of penetrating power, else it'll bounce off. But if it's dense, you need a lot more pressure to fire it with effectiveness. In any case, the weapon & ammo would be inefficient and heavy. I imagine it would be a pain to carry & reload. Additionally, snipers would not exist with this.
 
Originally posted by: Crono
You don't need gunpowder for guns. Even highly compressed gases would work, albeit with less efficacy.

"Today's modern air guns are typically low-powered because of safety concerns and legal restrictions; however, high-powered designs are still used for hunting. These air rifles can propel a pellet beyond 1100 ft/s (330 m/s), approximately the speed of sound, and produce a noise similar to a .22 caliber rimfire rifle. Using lead pellets, some current spring powered .177 pellet guns can break the sound barrier." - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

yeap. i used to have a .22 pellet single shot pellet gun that was great. i got it for small game hunting.
 
Give me a jeep and an iron pipe. Drive into crowd. Have lots of backup. Didn't they do that in a movie somewhere?
 
Originally posted by: darkxshade
Originally posted by: Azraele
So you're assuming that current armoring techniques still exist, but that gunpowder was never invented? People would use some new high tech catapult perhaps? High powered crossbows?
Click to expand...

I was thinking how a simple thing such as armor has changed over time from wood to steel to composites yet we're still using guns to fight our wars. If steel didn't exist, we could still find plenty of ways to make armor out of other materials. But without gunpowder, what alternative would our soldiers have to fight our wars?
Click to expand...

Without gun powder we would still be using swords, spears, and bow and arrows.
 
Without gun powder we would still be using swords, spears, and bow and arrows.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but OP was using a scenario where current armor technologies still existed, so for the sake of their argument, we have to assume that this is the case.
 
Originally posted by: Azraele
Without gun powder we would still be using swords, spears, and bow and arrows.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but OP was using a scenario where current armor technologies still existed, so for the sake of their argument, we have to assume that this is the case.
Click to expand...

Yes, this discussion is under the assumption that everything remains the same... we still have nukes, napalm, tasers, c4, armor you name it... anything you can think of that has been invented in the name of war but with the exception that gun powder does not exist and so with this... what would our soldiers, the backbone of all military conflicts fight with?

The purpose of all modern weapons we have besides guns are used for surgical strikes such as bombing of high value targets and the like. In Iraq for example, once all of that is done and the US start moving marines into the region, what would combat be like? It seems ridiculous(maybe not so much since we're talking about the marines) to see soldiers duking it out in a warzone with bows n arrows & swords n shields after the zone has been bombarded with cruise missiles.
 
as gunpowder is typically not used except for a few large guns, it wouldn't change too much. it has not been used for a long time, both in small arms and in explosives. look up smokeless powder, which itself was a major advance in military technology
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top