Which weapons and style of War??

Granted we have some freakin awesome technology in our day which makes our weapons pretty damn sophisticated. But from the beginning of war ....the cavemen I would expect ..which style fighting of war do you like the most? I find fighting hand to hand is the most intriguing. Weaponry that must be used in close combat situations. No guns or bows just knives, swords, glaves, shurikans, maces, etc. Ii believe honor was kept in these circumstances of fighting.

You?

hand to hand combat is the most honourable way to fight

but special forces and black operations style of warfare i belive are the most dificult and intriguing way to fight

Yes to not be seen and to take out your enemy in silence. In resemblance to a ninja. The art of assasination.

Well, after + - 4000 years of known civilization you'd think we'd be able to solve disputes without resorting to warfare.

However since its obvious thats not going to happen any time soon, I'd say the concept of "preventive strikes". Stop a war before it happens.

Originally posted by OpusDei
However since its obvious thats not going to happen any time soon, I'd say the concept of "preventive strikes". Stop a war before it happens.

Doesn't that just mean changes places and becoming the attacker?

well preemtive strikes are preformed every day/month
by intel servaces and or regular forces the meaning is good but its all about delivery

I'm a big fan of tank warfare... theres just something about a bunch of tanks blowing each other to bits that gives me this warm fuzzy feeling in my tummy

Well, I'm not a believer of the ends justify the means, but if preserving peace(and saving human life) means attacking first - then so be it.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I'm a big fan of tank warfare... theres just something about a bunch of tanks blowing each other to bits that gives me this warm fuzzy feeling in my tummy

lol. Tank warfae is pretty cool i like it too

I'd have to go with fighting with swords and other hand to hand weapons. Samurai style. I think the samurai are some of the baddest azz warriors ever. Their code of honor, the way they fought, their whole persona and aura is just so cool.

A 16" gun salute off the broadside of a battleship is great for improving coastline attitude. Too bad them old ironsides are all moth balled.



As for personal level disputes, I like the gunfight at high noon scenario.
No reason to work up a sweat over an enemy...pow.

ANything with big explosions and guns. I love tanks, how they can smash into things and blow away buildings. Stuff like Heavy machine guns are nice too. Oh and nuclear Explosions... well they rule!

Sorry if i sounded like a typical Texan Nut case.

Yet another awesome topic!

My style would be... EVERY SINGLE DAMN FIGHTING STYLE EVER INVENTED!!

You got it. We start out with high-tech vs. low-tech, wiith missiles, tanks, ships, aircraft, artillery, the down to guns, then hand-to-hand combat. Anything goes! Covert/special operations, then all sorts of brutal fighting using insanely brutal ways.

Same for civilians... everyone fights!

That's what I say. Win war. To win, be as nasty as nasty gets!

There are a number of time periods where the style of fighting has piqued my interest or earned my scorn from the beginning.
Greek Warfare with hoplites, companion cavalry and sarrissas is a big favorite of mine, on the sea as well I like how the greeks more diciplined approach managed to win the day. Also the various firsts that were made during this period are impressive.
Medieval warfare....... bleh, seems too chaotic, pointless and small scale. Siege warfare just seems boring.
Samauri warfare, this I like because this was the pinnacle of warfare before firearmes, because they developped some of the most effective weapons of that type ever known. Katana, Naginata...... did they ever use longbows or was that a strictly Brit thing?
WWI warfare just sucked, it was siege warfare brought onto a grand scale, no battles but sorties where one side or the other would try to breach the defences dug into the mud, least favorite by far.
WWII, now we're talking we're moving, tanks and naval warfare are the most fun for me, though air isn't bad either.
Modern, lukewarm responce really, I don't really like the "smart" weaponry approch to things especially when it comes to bombs. The cliche of the smart bomb down the chimney is quite sad when you consider that the house and most likly all the equipment therein cost less then the bomb. Also just the fact that there are no real conflicts these days that test the limits of the weaponry, always too one-sided.

I believe that warfare was at itz nobleist Between 250b.c-1300Ad at these times most of the combat was done hand-to hand!

It's far to chaotic nowadays. Before the most valiant (or the ones forced to) would be in the front lines because that is where the most action was. Now you can get shot and shoot from anywhere, and the duels aren't quite as epic. (Bang, headshot, you're dead... gee, that was qui "BAM"... *Drops dead*) See what I mean? It's so lame.

I say all country disputes be handled by the strongest man in each country, and they should have a hand to hand battle. Winner take all.

Maybe we don't have hand to hand combat much anymore because we are more civilized now days.

I actually think though the times of the muskets is when gun warfare was in a way honorable, since you needed lots of guts to just stand in a line and pray that you won't cop a bullet or cannon ball.

My favorite would have to be like the Greek style of warfare.

Originally posted by I See You
I find fighting hand to hand is the most intriguing. Weaponry that must be used in close combat situations. No guns or bows just knives, swords, glaves, shurikans, maces, etc. I believe honor was kept in these circumstances of fighting.

Agreed.

I'm more partial to the basics of combat...one on one, hand to hand...delivering the attack with your very body (hands/feet etc etc).

Little honour is had with the pull of a trigger or push of a button...but to defeat your opponent, or even to fall to your opponent...up close and personal, physical skill matched against physical skill...that to me resounds with a greater purity.

Hand to hand combat...to me...is more 'spiritual' in nature. To see, to feel, hear and smell your opponent in my eyes is to gain a deeper understanding for their own essence/being, and thus generally fosters a greater respect...even though ultimately the aim is to defeat them...this should be done without disrespect for your opponent. Firearms to me have less 'honouring' of your opponent.

I do possess somewhat of a 'passing knowledge' of, and usage of, various firearms in defensive/offensive situations...and own a few firearms...but I have also been trained in *from a young age*, continue to train in *and train others in* the usage of some Traditional weapons of my people (New Zealand Maori)...and these I find more 'spirit' contained within, and feel more 'natural' and 'connected' using them as opposed to welding a firearm in anger:


The Taiaha...Maori Fighting 'Spear', approx 6ft+ in length and ultimately a striking weapon, though also used for stabbing, parrying, even 'cutting' if the edged body is bladed enough.


The Tewhatewha...Maori Fighting Weapon...used for striking, 'cutting', stabbing...approx 4ft in length and can be used in pairs similar to the Balintawak style.


The Patu...and the Mere...Maori Fighting Clubs. Approx 2 feet in length and can be used for striking, cutting, dislocating of limbs...even severing of limbs if struck with enough force at the joints...and also principally for the 'lifting/dislodging' of the skull-cap.

If you're so keen to fight in hand to hand, use a Bayonet!