Ax: WW 2 With Modern Weapons

29 posts

Flag Post

I Was just thinking about How t would have turned out in terms of causualities, Global Impact and such if it was fought with modern weapons sans nukes.
What is You POV on that?

 
Flag Post

My view is that if modern assault rifles were used, the kill rates would be slightly higher but everything else would be same. If you have more powerful anti-tank mines, the enemy possesses more powerful tank armor. If you have epic radar, the enemy jukes you with a camouflage suit. Essentially, every military technology will have a counter developed, much as in WW2, so the end result would be the same.

Remember, America won not because of the atomic bomb. It won because it could outproduce the Germans. Imagine playing a game of Starcraft with 5x more resources and 2x unit training and structure building speeds and you’ll know what I mean.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Helltank:

My view is that if modern assault rifles were used, the kill rates would be slightly higher but everything else would be same. If you have more powerful anti-tank mines, the enemy possesses more powerful tank armor. If you have epic radar, the enemy jukes you with a camouflage suit. Essentially, every military technology will have a counter developed, much as in WW2, so the end result would be the same.

Remember, America won not because of the atomic bomb. It won because it could outproduce the Germans. Imagine playing a game of Starcraft with 5x more resources and 2x unit training and structure building speeds and you’ll know what I mean.

Same opinion as your’s but one more thing,
Both sides would not care much about collateral damage and it will drastically increase the collateral damage as todays weapons are far more destructive.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Both sides would not care much about collateral damage and it will drastically increase the collateral damage as todays weapons are far more destructive.

Under that scenario, chemical and biological weapons would be widely used.

You might well get your fondest wish Punisher, and see every man, woman and child of your country dead through a crude man-made plague.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Both sides would not care much about collateral damage and it will drastically increase the collateral damage as todays weapons are far more destructive.

Under that scenario, chemical and biological weapons would be widely used.

You might well get your fondest wish Punisher, and see every man, woman and child of your country dead through a crude man-made plague.

May be you are mirrorring your wishes in me Vika

 
Flag Post

Nope. You’re the one who has the fetish about death and destruction. I figured that’s why you made this topic in the first place. You are obsessed with war and killing.

 
Flag Post

To just start off, the first assault rifle that was made, was made in WW2. But Hitler and his crazy pants constantly rejected the idea until he found out the power of the rifle when it helped German forces punch out of an encirclement. The kill rate was high when put against the Russian PPSH-1 submachine guns as the range was further and had a higher rate of fire. But the late production did not allow it to turn the tide of the war.

Also to add on, the first jet planes were invented once again by the German forces. The fast jet plane took out many targets and out-maneuver Allied planes. But once again, the lack of air supremacy and late production did not allow it to be a turning effect.

So I brought up this two points was to show that the if the use of modern day weapons would have prolong the war and would have led to higher casualties and civilian deaths. Nuclear weapons that can wipe out major cities in less than seconds would have resulted in more disaster and a very dead world.

 
Flag Post

The big problem is nuclear are not the only WMDs in a modern arsenal. A chemical warhead in a missile, which airbursts over a city, will quickly result in horiffic casualty rates. A biological weapon released in a similar manner, a modified version of Yersinia pestis (bubonic plague) could easily spread out of control in a target country, spreading to supply lines and troops. As you’re at war with them, your own vectors for infection are minimised.

Whoever has their satellites in the best position (weather permitting) has the advantage for tracking traditional troop movements, and we have a wide range of non-nuclear payloads with a wide destruction radius.

You would realistically also see the weaker nukes used as well. A neutron bomb has a very low yield, and correspondingly a tiny blast crater. However its effects on living tissue in the same city is disasterous. If you are particularly evil, its even better if such weapons have a low immediate mortality rate, as they’ll have a very high critical injury rate, bogging the healthcare services and infrastructure of the target down far more and for far longer than a high body count would.

 
Flag Post

Oh, for fuck’s sake, punisher…..as ppl will be telling you (at least vika & ninja), few here on SD is going to share YOUR “penchant” for such topics. They are indeed the fodder either the interests of a sadistic person or of the likes of 12 y.o.’s when they are waxing pre-pubescent machismo.

All of your point is utterly & grossly SUBJECTIVE.
However, I well imagine that today’s greater technology would have caused much, MUCH more bloodshed. Hopefully not civilian and for only a short duration of time. And, maybe the technology (mostly drones) would be able to limit attacks to hard targets that were manned by a very limited personel.

The purpose of a response to aggression is not to kill a lot of ppl.
Rather, it is to stop the aggressor from being able to do so by elimination of its resources to conduct war. Yes, killing ppl is effective. But, stopping the supplies to that personnel is much more effective….no bullets, no bombs, no tank, no planes, no ships….just guys throwing rocks—not much aggression going on there.

NOW, punisher….it is my sincere hope that ya might take to heart that your “interest” in warfare just simply isn’t shared by most posters on SD. I’ve been in war…it is indeed HELL. That is why a lot of soldiers suffer serious emotional afflictions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Oh, for fuck’s sake, punisher…..as ppl will be telling you (at least vika & ninja), few here on SD is going to share YOUR “penchant” for such topics. They are indeed the fodder either the interests of a sadistic person or of the likes of 12 y.o.’s when they are waxing pre-pubescent machismo.

All of your point is utterly & grossly SUBJECTIVE.
However, I well imagine that today’s greater technology would have caused much, MUCH more bloodshed. Hopefully not civilian and for only a short duration of time. And, maybe the technology (mostly drones) would be able to limit attacks to hard targets that were manned by a very limited personel.

The purpose of a response to aggression is not to kill a lot of ppl.
Rather, it is to stop the aggressor from being able to do so by elimination of its resources to conduct war. Yes, killing ppl is effective. But, stopping the supplies to that personnel is much more effective….no bullets, no bombs, no tank, no planes, no ships….just guys throwing rocks—not much aggression going on there.

NOW, punisher….it is my sincere hope that ya might take to heart that your “interest” in warfare just simply isn’t shared by most posters on SD. I’ve been in war…it is indeed HELL. That is why a lot of soldiers suffer serious emotional afflictions.

I Just Had Enough With You Patronising, Condescending, Hipster Attitude that you have, Jhco’s arguments may be flawed but he is way better than you on this count.
You say only 12 y o or sadists have such interests? What about historians or those interested in history.
Also every ones opinion is subjective that is the point of opinion,
People train for Years to form an unbiased opinion.
Yes war is hell, but does it stop men from waging it?
I will not say that most share my interest in warfare but I well just ask you this,
Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do ? (snipped for profanity)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Oh, for fuck’s sake, punisher…..as ppl will be telling you (at least vika & ninja), few here on SD is going to share YOUR “penchant” for such topics. They are indeed the fodder either the interests of a sadistic person or of the likes of 12 y.o.’s when they are waxing pre-pubescent machismo.

All of your point is utterly & grossly SUBJECTIVE.
However, I well imagine that today’s greater technology would have caused much, MUCH more bloodshed. Hopefully not civilian and for only a short duration of time. And, maybe the technology (mostly drones) would be able to limit attacks to hard targets that were manned by a very limited personel.

The purpose of a response to aggression is not to kill a lot of ppl.
Rather, it is to stop the aggressor from being able to do so by elimination of its resources to conduct war. Yes, killing ppl is effective. But, stopping the supplies to that personnel is much more effective….no bullets, no bombs, no tank, no planes, no ships….just guys throwing rocks—not much aggression going on there.

NOW, punisher….it is my sincere hope that ya might take to heart that your “interest” in warfare just simply isn’t shared by most posters on SD. I’ve been in war…it is indeed HELL. That is why a lot of soldiers suffer serious emotional afflictions.

I Just Had Enough With You Patronising, Condescending, Hipster Attitude that you have,….

but…but…but,,
I have so much more I want to impart.
Shucks.
I guess I’ll have to obey your wishes,,,
esp. since ya put it this way: “Jhco’s arguments may be flawed but he is way better than you on this count.”
.

You say only 12 y o or sadists have such interests? What about historians or those interested in history.
Historians aren’t know for such speculations.
Such is typically the domain of those you mention first.
.
Also every ones opinion is subjective that is the point of opinion,..
It is my subjective opinion that if you leap from a very tall building that you very likely will subjectively go: OUCH ! ! ! !
And, I didn’t have to “train for Years to form an unbiased opinion.”
.
Yes war is hell, but does it stop men from waging it?
Your point?
Other than your typical weird manner of trying to justify your “salacious” interest in mayhem?
.
I will not say that most share my interest in warfare…
THEN, just my subjective opinion here, I suggest that ya DON"T….eh?
.
…but I well just ask you this,…
Oh goody…he gave me a warning.
.

Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do ?
Just dome guy on a forum on a gaming site who has a subjective opinion.
AND, just a tidbit of a FYI, I wasn’t TELLING you what to do.
However, I have a slew of suggestions.
Want a few?
.
(snipped for profanity)
Hmmmmmm….my suggestion here is probably going to be [snipped] by don.
But, what the hell….I’m now knee-deep in in punishing thepunisher.

I suggest (for obvious reasons…at least to some ppl) ya instead do some snipping in your epididymis region.

And, I haven’t a fucking clue why ya snipped your profanity…
after all, it is me ya’re addressing….ol’ gutter mouth.
OR, maybe ya’re just acknowledging how inadequate yours would be in comparison to mine. 0¿~

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Well maybe you don’t buy it butt I cum from Armor Games Rules there are Strict Ass it is, you can’t even write word damn or rape,
If we were having this exchange on AG, Both of us would have been perma banned, infact the very reason I came on Kong was because I was banned for a week on AG.

Has that week yet expired?
 
Flag Post

Has that week yet expired?

Good question.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Well maybe you don’t buy it butt I cum from Armor Games Rules there are Strict Ass it is, you can’t even write word damn or rape,
If we were having this exchange on AG, Both of us would have been perma banned, infact the very reason I came on Kong was because I was banned for a week on AG.

Has that week yet expired?
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Has that week yet expired?

Good question.

It was like two years ago, since then activity has been reduced on their forums so I don’t go there often

 
Flag Post

Can we get back to the thread? I think we can all agree punisher is acting in a very violence-loving and immature manner but really, let’s come back to the topic of what would WW2 be like with modern weapons instead of bitching about his love affair with violence and killing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Helltank:

Can we get back to the thread? I think we can all agree punisher is acting in a very violence-loving and immature manner but really, let’s come back to the topic of what would WW2 be like with modern weapons instead of bitching about his love affair with violence and killing.

Good point,
Here is my assessment,
Military causalities will be far lower because of improved armor and first aid.

Provided that classical bombing campaigns do happen (or are substituted with missiles rockets etc), civilian causalities will sky rocket as today’s explosives are far more advanced than of past and clinics will not be as readily available for civilians as for military.
Insurgencies will be far more lethal and effective but this point will be based on how much the pre war govrn. was controlling, as in fingerprint databases, cctv networks etc, if the occupied country has such things pre war, it will complicate the insurgencies a hell of a lot more.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Helltank:

Can we get back to the thread? I think we can all agree punisher is acting in a very violence-loving and immature manner but really, let’s come back to the topic of what would WW2 be like with modern weapons instead of bitching about his love affair with violence and killing.

Be my guest.
However, it appears that it will likely be only the two of ya “warmongers” (maybe crossbower) at the dance.
I know I’ve had a belly-full of war.
I’ll let the Pentagon handle all of the “what ifs” about the finer nuances of bloody..bloody..bloody..bloody.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I’ll let the Pentagon handle all of the “what ifs” about the finer nuances of bloody..bloody..bloody..bloody.

Agreed. They pull the troops apart, we put them back together again afterwards.

I for one will be glad when the bloodshed of war is an optional part of it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Helltank:

My view is that if modern assault rifles were used, the kill rates would be slightly higher but everything else would be same. If you have more powerful anti-tank mines, the enemy possesses more powerful tank armor. If you have epic radar, the enemy jukes you with a camouflage suit. Essentially, every military technology will have a counter developed, much as in WW2, so the end result would be the same.

Remember, America won not because of the atomic bomb. It won because it could outproduce the Germans. Imagine playing a game of Starcraft with 5x more resources and 2x unit training and structure building speeds and you’ll know what I mean.

i thought the Russians where the major country that kicked Germany’s ass
i heard that 80% of German soldiers killed where by Russian forces
plus the eastern front was much much bigger than the western one where probably many more battles where being fought

Even if we pretend they don’t have nukes
they have much more powerful chemical and biological weapons
and if we pretend they wouldn’t have those…. it would pretty much be ww1 only much worse for everyone in almost every way, IMO. You would probably just see more ironmen and predator missiles.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I’ll let the Pentagon handle all of the “what ifs” about the finer nuances of bloody..bloody..bloody..bloody.

Agreed. They pull the troops apart, we put them back together again afterwards.

I for one will be glad when the bloodshed of war is an optional part of it.

War is about destroying the other person. I find it hard to imagine that war could be accomplished without bloodshed or similar destruction.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I’ll let the Pentagon handle all of the “what ifs” about the finer nuances of bloody..bloody..bloody..bloody.

Agreed. They pull the troops apart, we put them back together again afterwards.

I for one will be glad when the bloodshed of war is an optional part of it.

War is what feeds your kids atleast you should not criticise it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I’ll let the Pentagon handle all of the “what ifs” about the finer nuances of bloody..bloody..bloody..bloody.

Agreed. They pull the troops apart, we put them back together again afterwards.

I for one will be glad when the bloodshed of war is an optional part of it.

War is what feeds your kids atleast you should not criticise it.

Now there is some “logic” I can embrace.
WAIT….I already do “embrace” such things…..from my mouth right down to my anus for the length of time it takes to “digest” its merit….which a lot of it starts out as “junk food” to begin with…which appears to be the case w/ the above.

OH, btw….in case ya haven’t noticed, there are many, MANY other ways to feed your kids.