Weapons that changed war..

fly

fly

omg
Oct 1, 2004
79,216
27,249
1,323
Marklar
₥84,848
Steam
mattressfish
So I was watching this show this afternoon. Yep.

They allowed people to vote on their website a couple of weeks/months/years ago about which weapons changed war the most since WWII. How is it that the Kalishnikov was #7 and the F-117A was #2. I'm no weapons guru, but thats crazy.

btw, the Nimitz class aircraft carrier was #1.

Gun Krew, am I wrong?
 
fly said:
So I was watching this show this afternoon. Yep.

They allowed people to vote on their website a couple of weeks/months/years ago about which weapons changed war the most since WWII. How is it that the Kalishnikov was #7 and the F-117A was #2. I'm no weapons guru, but thats crazy.

btw, the Nimitz class aircraft carrier was #1.

Gun Krew, am I wrong?
Click to expand...

The implication is what changed war (as in strategically) since WW2. The Nimitz class carrier has allowed the mobility of massive amounts of firepower equal to historic armies.

While the Kalishnikov was the best military rifle ever designed (fire while caked in mud), it did not change how a war could be prosecuted.
 
We arent fighting a whole lot different than in WW2, when it comes to weapons. The difference is in how they are employed etc.

Information gathering and distribution would be the big difference. Computers, radar, the internet, and communication equip is the only HUGE change. It's why we are so much better now than before.

Air superiority is also a difference. Though not as big if we were fighting against someone with an equivalent AF.
 
April23 said:
Radars != weapons
Click to expand...
F117As are just airplanes. They happen to carry bombs. They arent dangerous without 100 little other technologies they use.

weapon: 1 : something used to injure, defeat, or destroy

I think radar falls in the 'used to' part.
 
The Nimitz does deserve to be at the top, imho. It puts 90% of the Earth's surface within the attack range of the US Navy at any given moment. The AK is a damn fine weapon and probably the most prolific firearm to ever exist; I guess it should have been higher but I don't know what else was on the list.

I wouldn't have put the Nighthawk as high as number two. I think the Tomcat and Eagle were more crucial in establishing America's air superiority. The F15 was designed nearly half a century ago yet few countries in the world with decent fighter programs have anything that can hang toe-to-toe (especially considering we also train the best pilots on the planet save for maybe the IDF).

what was the rest of the list?
 
I think a weapon that has somewhat changed wars is the PAC-3 missle (when it works corretly and does not take out the british). it was somewhat used and successful in the current iraq war. its tested capabilites are amazing.
 
FlamingGlory said:
F117As are just airplanes. They happen to carry bombs. They arent dangerous without 100 little other technologies they use.

weapon: 1 : something used to injure, defeat, or destroy

I think radar falls in the 'used to' part.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a far fetch.
 
I think autonomous acquisition vehicles as well as UAV’s will also play a big roll in the coming future. The autonomous acquisition vehicles can identify and takeout enemies as well as communicate between each other to strategize all without human intervention.
 
AbbyNormal said:
I think autonomous acquisition vehicles as well as UAV’s will also play a big roll in the coming future. The autonomous acquisition vehicles can identify and takeout enemies as well as communicate between each other to strategize all without human intervention.
Click to expand...

actually I think that's a really bad idea

We certainly don't need to be taking humans out of the decision making and even still we shouldn't be taking human beings out of the battlefield. War is meant to be gruesome and horrible and frightening and all those other things that keep us from getting too fond of it.
 
FlyNavy said:
actually I think that's a really bad idea

We certainly don't need to be taking humans out of the decision making and even still we shouldn't be taking human beings out of the battlefield. War is meant to be gruesome and horrible and frightening and all those other things that keep us from getting too fond of it.
Click to expand...

Just because it's a horrible idea doesn't mean that's not the way things are going.
 
FlyNavy said:
The Nimitz does deserve to be at the top, imho. It puts 90% of the Earth's surface within the attack range of the US Navy at any given moment. The AK is a damn fine weapon and probably the most prolific firearm to ever exist; I guess it should have been higher but I don't know what else was on the list.

I wouldn't have put the Nighthawk as high as number two. I think the Tomcat and Eagle were more crucial in establishing America's air superiority. The F15 was designed nearly half a century ago yet few countries in the world with decent fighter programs have anything that can hang toe-to-toe (especially considering we also train the best pilots on the planet save for maybe the IDF).

what was the rest of the list?
Click to expand...

10. RPG
9. Tomahawk
8. JDAM
7. AK-47
6. Apache
5. R7 ICBM
4. B-52
3. BMP-1
2. F117A
1. Nimitz
 
Last edited:
fly said:
Yeah, but it makes war more palletable and that isn't a good thing...
Click to expand...
Not as much as youd think. There are studies on the effect of flying a drone and then going home every night. I cant find it now, was in one of the Armed Service magazines. It was apparently way more stressful than going anywhere to fight.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Not as much as youd think. There are studies on the effect of flying a drone and then going home every night. I cant find it now, was in one of the Armed Service magazines. It was apparently way more stressful than going anywhere to fight.
Click to expand...

That sounds ridiculous and says that studies can say anything you want. That's like saying MY job is more stressful.
 
fly said:
That sounds ridiculous and says that studies can say anything you want. That's like saying MY job is more stressful.
Click to expand...

Actually it rather continues 50 years of doctrine. Same reason they figured that sending people home directly out of combat zones was bad, you need time to decompress. Killing people at work all day and going back to your family is off kiltering to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back