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

[laststandman]

I think that war would have very limited ammo.

 

[FernandoV]

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.

He didn't say Bigger > Smaller, he said Bigger force > Smaller force.

 

[Terminate421]

We'd lose more men than skin flakes

 

[LostFable]

If governments of this world got their hands of some of the most powerful video game weapons and were actually able to produce them efficiently, no matter who the government was, they would eventually try to take over the world.

That's how it works, you give a country something that gives them power, they'll eventually use it to get more.

So it wouldn't exactly cause war to become 'easier', it would cause World War 3.

 

[gigastar]

Snip

Double Snip

He didn't say Bigger > Smaller, he said Bigger force > Smaller force.

If you re-read that originally quoted paragraph youl see he states 'why would you have two smaller guns instead of one big gun' or something along that lines. Main point was that smaller projectiles can transfer more force into whatever they hit compared to larger ones. thats actually the secret of most Armor Piercing rounds, they arent more powerful, theyre just smaller as to put more force in over a smaller area.

This is at least mid-level physics. I wouldnt blame you for not understanding. Allow me to add a dumbed down version.

If you were to hit a plank of wood with a normal metal hammer the wood would be dented slightly because the hammers force is transferred over a large area and thats not enough to break it. Now if you were to hit it with an axe the plank would have a much deeper dent because the force is transferred over a relatively small area.

It works the same way with bullets but with much higher forces and probably much stronger materials. Physics like that have been in wars scince the stone ages.

 

[Mass B]

Depends, would it be just our army or everybody's army?

Good guys always get the best stuff anyways, though. so i guess so

 

[FernandoV]

Depends, would it be just our army or everybody's army?

Good guys always get the best stuff anyways, though. so i guess so

How do you figure that? Germany had more than advanced technology when fighting the allies in WW2.

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

U.S. get's a hold of VATs technology, has agility of 10, and gets it's hands on a supply of Tesla-Beaton Prototypes and soon enough all of America's wars would be over in minutes.

 

[Mcupobob]

When you think about laser rifles are extremely impractical. They fire a bright beam of light that doesn't move that face and gives away your position, not to mention lugging around charging units that suck up power instead of metal and gun-powder.

Oh and mammoth tanks would be a huge waste to get making so you could only deploy a few on the battlefield at a time, not to mention slow so it wouldn't be hard to get another tank behind it away from the barrels. Oh and it would make a very easy target to hit from the air. Also you can dig a good trench a mile or two ahead of the tank, which wouldn't be hard considering how slow it would be, it gets stuck and becomes a billion dollar pile of scrap, you could try and pull it out of the ditch but it would take special moving teams.

I'm going cut this rant short and just say it all fantasy weapons are nothing but fancy glamorized tools of impracticality. Though it doesn't mean its not fun to see them on the sliver screen or our favorite video games.

 

[toastmaster2k8]

Nano Rifle......