It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World War 1: With Todays Firearms

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
What would WW1 be like if todays weapons were used?




posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Well, you start.
You obviously have more on your mind that that short sentence.

I assume it would be somewhat like the fortunately fictional NATO vs Warsaw Pact War we were awaiting in the 1970's and 80's.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
well, guess it would be over in about 4 hours, with 1000 times more dead, and no-one really left behind to claim victory...

but this reminds me of a quote by Einstein:

"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
An interesting question.

There would never be an outcome of the war. Neither side would actually win and it would be a war of attrition and detent.That sounds very familar. Does the "cold war" come to mind perhaps? The reason why we haven't had a world war as science has progressed is due to the fact we understand the destructive nature of our weapons today.

With the atomic bomb being used in world war 2 war fighters and politicans realized that there would never be another time in history where true lines of battle would ever be drawn again.

There's your answer.

Of course some people will disagree with me.

Arcticnull



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
If they had weapons like we have today there wouldn't be any trench warfare and would be much like WW2

[edit on 4-3-2007 by chinawhite]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Depends what scope of 'weapons' you mean..

bombs, missiles, tanks n so forth?

Or just upgrades from what they had then, ie machine guns, rifles and artillery?

I think it would of changed it dramatically...
watching thousands of men mowed down within 5 metres from 6 barreled gattling guns would of put the onus on the commanders.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
A reason WW1, and perhaps also the American Civil War, were so bloodthirsty was that warfare was going thru a transition at the time.

Weapons had gotten far more deadly and longer range, but transport was still largely by foot and horse. And also there was still the psychology of War being a Battle of Wills, rather than the cold boring facts about numbers and firepower and supplies.

Of course there is a very current Conflict that has bogged down as the nature of War has evolved.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Your title implies that you meant trench warfare with modern Assualt rifles right? No missles or nukes or anything like that, just firearms.

try googling for some videos from the "Knob Creek Shoot", and see if you can find the Knob Creek Night Shoot. That should give you a pretty good visual.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Depends what scope of 'weapons' you mean..

bombs, missiles, tanks n so forth?

Or just upgrades from what they had then, ie machine guns, rifles and artillery?

I think it would of changed it dramatically...
watching thousands of men mowed down within 5 metres from 6 barreled gattling guns would of put the onus on the commanders.


I think really we should keep this thread about upgrades of rifles, machine guns and artillery becouse things would get complicated if we start bringing in ICBM missiles, etc.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Originally posted by emjoi:
A reason WW1, and perhaps also the American Civil War, were so bloodthirsty was that warfare was going thru a transition at the time.

I do so agree, especially about the American Civil War. Considering that most men were armed with simple smoothbore or rifled muskets, the casualties rates towards the end, were simply staggering.

Of the 1,074,672 Union soldiers that entered the war, over 189,232 were killed whilst the Confederates who fielded just 627,188, lost over 161,721
killed. (The figures taken from official battlefield sources, do not include wounded or those missing in action)

It is really marvellous that we have come so far technologically, yet we still feel the need to explore and find new ways and methods with which we can kill one another.



[edit on 6-3-2007 by fritz]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think it would of changed it dramatically...
watching thousands of men mowed down within 5 metres from 6 barreled gattling guns would of put the onus on the commanders.


How was that different from what happened? Thousands were mowed down as soon as they left their trenches. 20,000 British dead on the first day of the battle of the Somme alone.

The generals reaction: "we need bigger attacks with even more men!"

There were a total of 5.5 million military deaths during the conflict, including 1.3 million French, 700k British and 1.7 million German.

www.answers.com...

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Wembley]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Hey, Browno.... still awaiting where you intended to take this thread....

So, long range, super accurate rifles. Even deadlier machineguns.
They would pin down troops, making it tougher to leave trenches, obviously.

But....
The common system of Offensive that developed was the heavy use of artillery.
You would blow the crap out of the enemy with an huge artillery barrage, then the infantry would start to move forwards before their opponents could recover.

This worked pretty well when done properly, but it was limited to how far a soldier could run in a day over broken muddy ground, and also how far the artillery could lob shells, and how many shells had been stocked up. Far too often the Theory gave way to Impatience and the attack would happen without artillery support, with the obvious consequences.

The common counter to this attack was to build second and third trench lines a bit further back. The attackers might gain up to a kilometer if they were lucky, while the defenders pulled back, but the line would hold and nothing really worthwhile was gained.

Then you'd have a month needed to move the artillery up thru the mud, restock shells, and get ready for another short pointless push.

So...
Better artillery.... longer range, better accuracy, more destructive.
Attackers might get to move further forwards, maybe even break thru.
Or, both attackers and defenders might be utterly obliterated in their trenches.... making static Trench warfare a bad idea, forcing them to keep mobile.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Cutaway - why would our Tommies be running around with M4 Carbines etc shooting Germans with H&Ks?

I fail to see your logic. After all, why would we ditch the 303 Lee Enfield (if Carlsberg made it, it would probably be the best rifle in the world!) and use the inferior M4?

Stupid Boy! Any more of that and I'll send you home!



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
If it was just brand new rifles it would be the same. Both sides would still be equal.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I can just imagine instead of one shot volleys, one magazine volleys.


Also it would have been cowardly to lauch a ICBM, in those days.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
What would world war 1 be like nowadays? - with niwadays weapons?

Got 2 awnswers, it dependes on weather back then they had realised the benifits of having a long protracted war, as in R+D and the fact that war = money. No war means maintainging your ever rusting kit.

Sit #1: Over very quickly - if it even started at all. Communications and suvailence are far sureriour today. Spot the dissisidant, remove him before he gets in the way of your big idea. Had it kicked off - strike, game over, whats collaterol damage? oh well, tell the population to make more babies.

Sit #2: War you say?? why not? Skip forward to today! War you say?? why not? (hang on has WW1 actually finished yet??) any who, war would be a marvelous way to devolop a few ideas i've got up me sleve. What should we go to war over then?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
If you take into account that England and France both have nukes, Germany has none....Well, there would be no reason for the USA to be involved.

WW2 would have never been fought, but then Europe would still have that healthy glow after all those years.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
What would WW1 be like if todays weapons were used?


Less gruesome.

Yes, it's true.

WW1 was far more gruesome for one simple reason: What people refer to (wrongly) today as WMD (weapons of mass destruction) were used. Chemical weapons were deployed on forces.

I'll never forget studying in college, English lit of all things, the poetry that eminated from WW1. The mustard gas used. And its effect on those who lived in it wake.

It gave me chills. And when I was in the Army, going off to Iraq for Desert Storm, the one thing I prayed to God for, was that we would not get gassed and that I would not have to jab that damn antropene injector into my leg to hopefully save me.

Today, thankfully, gentlement don't use chem/bio on others on the field of battle. At least, that we know of.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Well I suppose the Leopard 2 A6s would still have rolled through the Fulda Gap like a hot knife through butter, meeting little or no resistence.

The ex Russian Fulcrums and Flankers coupled with Tornados would wreek havoc with the French Air Force whilst the German artillery would be having a field day.

Would the WWI Allies come together to fight Germany and her Allies? Hard to say, given today's politics.

World War One with modern weaponry may (probably) not happen because the European Union would have deemed it to be too dangerous on Health & Safety grounds.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
"WW1 was far more gruesome for one simple reason: What people refer to (wrongly) today as WMD (weapons of mass destruction) were used. Chemical weapons were deployed on forces. "

- But they had very little effect on the conflict. And they caused very few of the over 5 million deaths.

As for the poster who talks about 'super long range rifles'....Compare the effective range of WW1 rifles with those used today - You might be surprised.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join