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.

 

Which weapons and style of War??

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by alien

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.





Those Maoris were/are
blood thirsty people...WW2 was where its at Tank and Infantry Fighting was the best though....BLITZKREIG!!!!




posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
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?


Samurai have used long bows - some of them were 2.3 m long, but they have also used smaller bows for horse archers. But the best bow in the history (not considering current modern sport bows) was the mongolian short bow for horse archers. It has a maximum range of 350 meters!!!(longow only 250), and armour piercing capability.
I also like the ancient warfare (Greeks, Helenistic, Roman) because it was the time when almost everything in the strategy has been discovered. Also the best generals lived in ancient times (Alexander, Hanibal, Scipio, Caesar).
But the most efective army was in my opinion mongolian 13th century army. They have been extremly meobile and no one was able to defeat them. The combination of light and heavy cavalery, good siege weaponry and discipline made them probably most feared army in the history.



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Pitched battles, with skirmishers, archers, infantry and calvary are my favorite. That showed real courage, having to look your enemy in the eye while fighting, instead of shooting him from a mile away. I love the battle formations and tactics they used, especially the Romans.










These were battles!







posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I like fighting with swords as well.
By inventing guns men have made soldiers' job much easier which may not be a good thing.
I think fighting with swords is very very sophisticated, apparently men have lost one of the good part of their tradition.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
i love all the big bangs of hollywood(yes i know its not really like this) but its cool !



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I think people have less feeling when you gun someone down at 500 yards opposed to a close combat hand to hand fight. Where are the feelings? It makes it much easier I believe thats why close combat with conventional weapons if one must is the way to fight.

[edit on 10-6-2004 by I See You]



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien

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.

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.


Also, swords, spears etc are recyclable and resource efficient. HOw many battleaxes could you make from the materials which produce one tank/cruise missile. And one warrior dies, you take his weapon, and give to to someone else. A bit tricksier with tanks etc.
If we must wage war, lets try and keep it cheap.
I'd also say, lets go with horses/forced march for troop movements. OUght to minimise oil consumption (unless the volume used in producing food exceeds that demanded by tank detachments).



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
swords own everything. i like the datunaku that is the sword ogami itto has. but when you enter the mechanical relm all fight skills go into hyper drive in a mach 3 fighter. sparatic explosions. being vaporized must be a little more scary. of course wat do i know im not in iraq.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I like blades. I can kill you with any blade. all i need is for you to have a blade too. NO GUNS
i will take you out. you would die and i am the nastiest of the nasty. I would win if it was an all out bladed war against the world.
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
WWII weapons and WWII style tactics.

On a side note, saber drill is still used as a form of training by the British Army's Household Cavalry (formerly the Life Guards and the Blues & Royals/Royal Horse Guards).



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
No no no...

You guys got it all wrong!

The *BEST* style of warfare, is ECONOMIC warfare.


Cur your enemy off from their resources, win without raising a sword, marshaling a fleet, or raising an army.

Take your opponents resources, and add them to your own by financial manipulation.

IT is much more efficient.

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Im guessing this a bit off topic..but i think this is cool..



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I'd use a 16 inch long stick or baton. Or a 4 inch knife with a 2 inch serrated portion. I've been a student of combat martial arts all my life....It's kinda my thing.

But as far as warfare is concerned in this day and age my AR-15 would go everywhere with me as well as my S & W 459 pistol. I would keep my group small-2 or 3 people, highly mobile, and as stealthy as possible. I would engage primarily soft-targets while attempting not to engage patrols or entire companies of soldiers. I would only fight when it was a winnable battle. I would never engage any enemy for longer that 4 minutes at a time and all exits would be well researched in advance.

I would use explosives as distractions not as the means to defeat the enemy. And I would NEVER use civilians as pawns.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
There is no such thing as honorable war. lol

I like the mares leg. Lever action pistol.

But I always wanted an FG42. *drool*



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I watched this programme on More 4 (a UK TV station) Friday or Saturday where this British computer scientist had written a programme that could determin the outcome of single combat between protagonists.

The programme shown was single combat between a Ninja warrior and a Spartan Hoplite.

To generate the computer graphics, laser cameras were used to record the fighting skills of two Ninja warriors - each man a Master of Ninjutsu and three American ex military types who lived and breathed everything to do with Spartan Hoplites.

Each style of fighting was reduced to computer language, the Ninja being fast and furious with lots of cunning moves such as 'Black Eggs', darts dipped in tetrodotoxin (puffer fish toxin), the Shinobi Ninja-to and the short scythe complete with lead ball and chain.

The Spartan was armed with a 3 foot throwing spear, a broad bladed short sword, the 20 foot long spear which, as the American said, was more than just a pole with a 'pointy bit on the end!'

Then of course there was the Spartan shield, itself the backbone of the Phalanx and, in it's own right, an awesome weapon! (Something I had not known about)

In the practice sessions, the Ninja weapons like the Shurikan, poison darts and Shinobi Ninja-to came out tops against the ballistic jelly covered human skeleton and a pig's hind quarters.

Remember, these are close quarter weapons.

For extra reach, the Spartan spear obviously came up trumps, as did the shield. The shield was an offensive weapon, something I had never considered before and it delivered two fatal blows to the skull and chest of the dummy.

Once all the data was in, it took almost an entire day to programme the computer and then the system generated two CGI combatants.

At this point my money was on the Ninja, fancying as I did, Chiaki Kuriyama from Kill Bill, Volume 1.

So it came as something of a surprise to discover that in over 1,000 simulated close combat fight simulations, the Spartan won 76% of the fights whilst the Ninja won just 23% with 1% undecided.

The reason?

For all his cunning, the Ninja warrior could not penetrate the Spartan's Bronze Age armour with his steel weapons.

True his 'Black Eggs' caused some considerable pain and suffering when they exploded against the eyelets in the Spartan helmet, but Spartans were brought up on a diet of pain and suffering from the age of 5.

In the combat simulations the CGI Spartan did what Clint Eastwood told his Recon Marines to do, 'Simplify, Adapt and Overcome and he despatched his adversary with efficient yet bloodthirsty simplicity!



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Concerning the Generals, I prefer to think of objective free thought communicating with an imagination capable of transitioning through visualizations of graphs, probabilities, mental maps based on google and all those violent video games... The ability to visualize the components of the battle field as an abstration, and to zoom into it. The ability to see the movements of the enemy before they happen.

These kinds of skills may require meditation and mnemonics to develop.

As to the Troops: Adaptation. The ability to follow orders, but also the ability to objectively assess whether or not the generals can be trusted, so as to avoid accidentally committing war crimes.

& concerning all forms of warfare, of violence which exists outside the sports arena, The ability to love one's enemy as one's self without being paralysed, without being slowed down, without being conquered by one's Ego. And to ascertain when nonviolence is more effective than combat.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I think that any one who is willing to declare war should be the ones fighting, Gladiator style. Have it aired on TV and who ever wins gets the spoils!! G.W Vs Bin ladin Gladiator style, now thats an entertaining war!!



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


Dude, that show is called "Deadliest Warrior" and it's an original show from Spike TV. Best episode was Spetsnaz vs Green Beret and Spetsnaz cleaned house, nothing like a ballistic knife to save your ass when you need it


My favorite warfare strategy is probably quick deployment and recon assault; rip right through the enemy encampment and split them up with mobile forces (mechanized/airbourne special ops) with airstrikes and missiles striking major defensive positions.

Or there's the Buratino tactic... would your enemy really want to fight back when you're raining hundreds of thermobaric rockets on them?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join