if the army copied video game weapons would war be easier?

[bfgmetalhead]

I play a lot of RTS'S and I thought, I wonder what war would be like if army's copied game weapons ect(the british army using a mammoth tank from c and c). Like what countries would copy what weapons?

So disscus!

Also I would like to state that I do not condone act's of war or violence, and all things posted are entirely fictional aka just for funz

 

[emeraldrafael]

I wouldnt say easier, but it would be over a lot quicker.

Easier is the the comparison to whether an army of 1770s redcoats could take 100 modern day highly trained Navy Seals or however that goes. When armies are on the same level technologically, then war doesnt get easier, cause everyone has the same weapons. SO its still just as difficult.

 

[benderinTime]

It would be the exact same as it is today, with newer guns and better tanks.
It is the exact same as it was 300 years ago, but with older guns and cannons.
That's a very basic way to put it, but I highly doubt that only 1 country would be advancing centuries ahead in terms of technology, so we'd still be on a pretty even playing field.

 

[baddude1337]

Most weapons and vehicles in game would not translate well into real life, at all..

Take the armored mech walker, Japan tried to build one and it was basically crap, kept falling over and everything.

Modern weapons are pretty lethal as it is anyway. Try playing Combat Mission shock force, all the weapons are modern and pretty lethal. I took out an entire Syrian armored division with two well supplied Javelin teams from a good 2000 meters away. Not even Doom's BFG could do shit like that. I'd take a javelin over Fallout's Nuke launcher any day.

 

[Chibz]

It'd be easier if they had some of the weapons. You have to remember that 90% of wars the US fights are against "armies" with technologically PRIMITIVE weapons. Something like the laptop gun (one of the coolest weapons ever designed) would make it almost embaressingly easy to kill muslim extremists.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

What you have to understand is that weapons and arms are simply a force multiplier, and the base value for force is simply the numerical strength of one's military. A man with a musket made 300 years ago is fundamentally similar to a man with a modern combat rifle today, the only difference is a modern soldier can deliver as great a volume of fire as more than a dozen soldiers armed with antiques and at a dramatically further range.

You already see the effects of a badly mismatched force in the modern world. In the Gulf War for example, the Coalition was badly outnumbered by the Iraqi army (they had the third largest standing army in the world at the time) and yet the war was a route that resulted in the utter slaughter of the Iraqi army. The butchery was only stopped when the Arab members of the coalition pointed out that they weren't entirely comfortable butchering their own when the war was already won.

War thus only gets "easier" when one side possesses a distinct advantage over the other. The First World War was a stale mate until tactics and technology evolved to the point that trench warfare could be overcome. The Second World War saw both sides on relatively even footing in terms of technology and thus the war was largely won on the basis of strategy and sheer weight in numbers.

If one side then had Mammoth Tanks, it is safe to assume the other side has the Allied equivalent. And, what's more, the Mammoth tank is actually a terrible idea. Why you would opt for a pair of smaller caliber guns when you could simply use one larger and more powerful gun given that a shot against a tank is either only somewhat effective (it damages armor and perhaps disables some fancy electronic doodad on the outside) or it destroys the tank entirely by piercing the armor. Being able to sling a shell capable of destroying another tank at a longer distance is generally a better option than having the ability to fire a greater quantity of less effective fire at closer range.

 

[wax88]

Most weapons and vehicles in game would not translate well into real life, at all..

Take the armored mech walker, Japan tried to build one and it was basically crap, kept falling over and everything.

Modern weapons are pretty lethal as it is anyway. Try playing Combat Mission shock force, all the weapons are modern and pretty lethal. I took out an entire Syrian armored division with two well supplied Javelin teams from a good 2000 meters away. Not even Doom's BFG could do shit like that. I'd take a javelin over Fallout's Nuke launcher any day.

yup exactly. take the mammoth tank for example, there used to be a class of tanks called the super heavy tanks, probably comarable in idea to the mammoth tank. but they were found to be too huge and heavy, being very slow, hard to conceal and therefore extremely vulnerable to airstrikes. later the invention of the ATGM even made the heavy tank obsolete, much less the superheavies/mammoth.

 

[Super Six One]

But war is "easy" no?
Someone always wins and someone always loses?

So its easy for the winner no? (cost both human and financial aside)

 

[SimuLord]

Give the military the Tesla-Beaton Prototype or the YCS/186 Gauss Rifle and shit's goin' down.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

It would be the exact same as it is today, with newer guns and better tanks.
It is the exact same as it was 300 years ago, but with older guns and cannons.
That's a very basic way to put it, but I highly doubt that only 1 country would be advancing centuries ahead in terms of technology, so we'd still be on a pretty even playing field.

So what you're saying is war never changes?

Yes I went there and you can all live with it.

NOT IF SNAKE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS!

 

[Canid117]

The mammoth tank would be horrifically impractical.

 

[gigastar]

War would be a whole lot more bloody but seeing as there are certain techy and costly obstacles to overcome its probably not happening in our lifetime. That and to get to this stage we need people in charge who dont think life is precious.

 

[Jarcin]

I see many gun blades in the future (if we go with Japanese style)

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

awesome idea, let's give every soldier in the world a Fat Man from Fallout

 

[moretimethansense]

Easier? No, more awesome? definitely.

 

[Souplex]

Judging from the name the Mammoth Tank is a big tank yes? The nazis tried making a giant tank. It being so big meant it guzzled gas, and couldn't move over a majority of terrain types.

 

[gigastar]

If one side then had Mammoth Tanks, it is safe to assume the other side has the Allied equivalent. And, what's more, the Mammoth tank is actually a terrible idea. Why you would opt for a pair of smaller caliber guns when you could simply use one larger and more powerful gun given that a shot against a tank is either only somewhat effective (it damages armor and perhaps disables some fancy electronic doodad on the outside) or it destroys the tank entirely by piercing the armor. Being able to sling a shell capable of destroying another tank at a longer distance is generally a better option than having the ability to fire a greater quantity of less effective fire at closer range.

Contradicted yourself there slightly.
Some guns in development today can launch projectiles small enough to fit your skull but can have the destructive force needed to skewer an aircraft carrier. Theoretically of course.

Greatest example of this i can think of is the Electro-magnetic Railgun (yes, a real one, its really quite simple once you understand electromagnetic induction) I saw on Future Weapons. It can be miniturised enough to dual wield on a tank and probably have lesser rapid firing verions for assault rifles. And bigger isnt always better when you have the ability to shoot twice as fast but with equal force. Its also predicted somewhere that 2 centurys from now, all weapons will not use gunpower projectiles.

I could go on, so i am. During WW2 Hiter had a panchant for the Rule of Cool and as a result ended up commissoning several ineffective Almost-Super-Weapons. One of theese is the V2 ballistic missile and more people were killed by them exploding on takeoff than were in Britan.

Another example is a giant cannon (cannot remember its full name) that had to run of specially constructed railroads and takes 3 Days to assemble, that got taken and destroyed by the Russians after they came at it from behind.

Finally theres is the Maus tank (maus is German for mouse) it, today, remains the heaviest tank ever biult and could go at a dazzling top speed of 6km/h. The war ended before Germany even got it fully operational. Did i mention it also had the largest caliber weapon fitted to a tank? now i have.

I realise i went overkill ont his, sorry.

 

[Rednog]

Err..we already have obscenely powerful weapons today, much more powerful than most videogame weapons. The problem is the morality behind using them. There is a small handful of armies on this planet that could easily blow their enemies to kingdom come and that would be the end of it...the problem is that it isn't exactly moral.