Poll: Would you join the army if there weren't guns?

[Booze Zombie]

What? Never heard that one before, late plate armour was pretty much arrow proof and well padded, had to be fired from very close range (20m or less) to have a chance of penetrating, other than pure luck of hitting a joint they were a harrasing weapon at best against that sort of thing. Even early stuff was well padded...maybe if it hit them in the side of the head and broke their neck or something.

Warhammer, yeah you have some meaty dude on the end of it, little old arrow notsomuch.

The arrow didn't penetrate the armour at all, it killed the guys inside by impacting the armour and crushing their insides. As far as I know.

 

[Ixnay1111]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

Obviously you've never seen 300 lol

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

No I wouldn't have joined the Army. I, however, wouldv'e still joined the Marine Corps. A warrior spirit is just that, a warrior's spirit. I am a sheepdog, it wouldn't matter the weapons being used. I would still fight.

 

[WolfThomas]

The arrow didn't penetrate the armour at all, it killed the guys inside by impacting the armour and crushing their insides. As far as I know.

That's close but not exactly true. In battles like Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt. The French armour could deflect most arrows head on, but with enough of them they'd hit weak spots like the armpit or groin. But the key advantage was it would kill the horse they rode, violently dismounting their or in the case of Agincourt, the soldiers were so tightly packed that if an arrow hit you straight on you might not die from that, but the force might knock you to the ground where you ran the risk of being trampled by the guys in front of you or drowning in the mud. Even if you got up you might get knocked down again which when, no if, you made it to their infantry, you were completely exhausted.

Also only Knights and well paid men-at-arms would have quality armour, arrows still butchered most footsoldiers and archers.

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

The arrow didn't penetrate the armour at all, it killed the guys inside by impacting the armour and crushing their insides. As far as I know.

No.Plate armor would defeat and arrow every time, and the arrow doesn't have enough mass to do any real damage to your body through it. You would barely feel it in all honesty.

 

[WolfThomas]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

Except the part where China would actually have to provide food and transport for all of those soldiers. Logistics is a *****.

 

[00slash00]

i mean no disrespect to anyone in the military, but murdering someone is never acceptable to me. however, swords and axes certainly does make it look a lot more badass

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

why are all these people saying guns dont require strength? Its like theyve never heard of recoil.

 

[the_green_dragon]

So the question is: Would you join a medieval army?

Fuck no

 

[RivFader86]

yes


why?

Spoiler

 

[Macgyvercas]

So basically, Medieval weaponry and siege engines, but modern technology for everything else? Is there plate armor as well? Cause if there is, sign me the fuck up.

 

[SaunaKalja]

yes i would,guns suck. my personal arsenal would be 2 swords (duel wield) and a shortbow with arrows. bow for ranged combat and swords for close combat P:

my whole deal would be based around agility.

Let me venture a guess: Your two swords would be katanas, and your fighting style would be jumping and dancing gracefully in the midst of the enemy army as they charge at you, one at a time, not caring about their own defence with their arms raised in an overhead swing. The enemies would either be virtually unarmored or your swords sharp enough to penetrate the armor and kill a man with one stab or a gentle swing across the torso, throat or head.

 

[oktalist]

I'd only join the army if the politicians giving the orders weren't massively evil corporate shills. So no.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Seeing as im joining the Air Force.....im gonna say no.

 

[Moromillas]

Probably. Melee combat is my speciality. That and programming!

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

shot to death or stabbed/blugeoned.

no i wouldnt be more inclined to join.

 

[funguy2121]

Ok so in this hypothetical situation all modern technology is still with us (computers and what not) but weapon technology for whatever reason doesn't work and never did no nukes, no guns, no explosives just swords, shields, bows etc.

basically would you be more inclined to join the army if there weren't any massively long ranged weapons (ballistas ((ballisticas??) and stuff are pretty long range too)).

Bottom Line:
The question isn't WOULD you but do you see yourself more likely to join the army since guns don't exist?

Personally I wouldn't join but the idea of no advanced weaponry does help push me towards joining.

EDIT: To be clear NOBODY has adavanced weaponry you'll be fighting other guys with swords and shields and other such weaponry
Sorry the poll appears to have messed up (at least it has for me) :S

!


Ha! I thought this was going to be a thread about gun nuts joining the army just to use firearms.

"I'm going into army, mother!"

Also: I'll send you a check after my t-shirt factory starts production on the "never did no nukes" line

 

[Wolf-AUS]

Not a chance, while battle today is still incredibly savage it's nowhere near as brutal as the middle ages, I would not be signing up to a military if both of them were going to have at it with swords and shields/

Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers.

That would be a horrible fight for the 5. No matter how badly equipped or trained the enemy is, being outnumbered means more rounds coming down range towards, means you're digging in with your eyelids, most modern day countries have an engagement ratio which is almost always when you have more friendlies than enemies (save for SF, but that's a whole 'nother beast) I know for a fact that a certain countries' army uses an engagement ratio of 3:1

 

[Superior Mind]

I did join the army and I didn't join the army because of the weaponry so yes, I would join the army if there were no guns.

(Although I should clarify, the NZ Army uses pointy sticks anyway.)

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'd scrap the whole war thing, while keeping the 'no guns' idea, and just have the world leaders deal with all conflicts 'one on one deathmatch' style.

Want to invade the Middle east for cheap oi- I mean spreading freedom? Then go for it, this way thousands of people don't have to die

It however would mean Arnie would shoot up the rungs of power, I imagine, but then in a world with televised fights to the death on the news, would he really still be able to make a stand against videogame violence even as he was shattering Gaddafi's pelvis.

Just as an aside, how come, as clearly mental as he is, is Gaddaffi only a Colonel? As the Bugle podcast said, I believe, in America, all you have to do is fry some chicken to get the rank, why not Dark Lord and King of all things Gaddaffi? Why stop at colonel?