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

[Bobbovski]

If they only had swords, bows and other similar weapons I would be much less inclined to join the army. The guns are one of the few things in the army life that seems kinda cool (as long as you don't have to use them against other people or have them used on you).

 

[TobiasMP]

Referring to the "our superior weaponry gives us more chance against an enemy when guns are involved"-argument: I would rather face an enemy armed with a sword and shield, while myself being protected by armor and a bigger shield while being well trained in the art of combat.

As superior weaponry made also a huge difference in wars, when guns of any kind weren't available; I think being superior (trained and better armed) works better without guns, since the equivalent of a rusty sword would be an AK-47 and a slingshot would be a RPG

yes, I would more easily join the army, but probably wouldn't anyways

 

[Superior Mind]

No, but I'd be far more inclined to fight if the combat was based mostly om fighting skill rather than luck, like it is with guns.

Learn how to properly operate an assault rifle or light machine gun in a military scenario. Learn how to hit a target at 500m with a 1.5x scope or open sight and learn how to clear any stoppage in a LMG in ten seconds or less. Learn fire control orders and how to operate effectively in a section. Finally, learn how to assault in a section or platoon including how to reload on the run, find cover, maintain your weapon, keep up communication and keep up effective fire. Then come back to me and see if you can say that fighting with firearms is based on luck.

And that's just the bare outlines of basic weapon training.

Anyone can wave a bit of pointy metal around. Show up on a battlefield with a gun an no clue - well count how many times you've died in any first person shooter game. That's you. Except you don't get to respawn.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

The army is just a stupid thing to join anyways. Why fight for the ideals of your leaders (who most likely are assholes) when you should be fighting for the ideals of yourself.

You fight for your own reasons which influence your choice of leader in a democracy.

please dont reply to this i kinda got a hang up with military issues in that im a little stubborn when i talk about it

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

Ouch! But probably true, yeah.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Are you perhaps referring to the 300 Scenario? Yeah, that didn't bloody happen. Sure, three hundred spartans showed up to fight off something around ten thousand or more Persians... But they also had several THOUSAND prisoners they forced to fight with them.

Run a few Total War scenarios. You will never see a situation where five can defeat a hundred. You'll never see a situation where a hundred can defeat a thousand, or even five hundred (unless you have a castle and siege weaponry).

Ontop of that, you are talking about leveling the playing field. Almost everyone on the planet will have access to the same technology. Nearly everyone will be just as well armed as you unless they are a poorer nation.

I agree with you on the 5 better trained modern soldier front and the unwinnable 5 vs. 100 thing but there have been times when 1 man terrified an entire army by himself, do me a favor and google Simo Häyhä, a Finnish sniper who killed over 700 russians during the winter war but then again he did survive being shot in the head so he could just have been Batman.

 

[Denamic]

It's already a waste of time.
As it is, our army is just sitting around, wasting money, but at least they could be of some use if we were attacked.
Without any kind of weaponry, they'd be just as useless in war-time as they are now.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Yeah, guess what? I can give random ten people bills and tell them to stand in a line and point the pointy end forward and thrust it at anyone who comes near them. Then you can go dress up in full plate armor and try to kill them. I don't care if you studied the sword your entire life. Its NOT going to happen.

Yes but I could also give one modernday heavy machine gun (minigun?) to 1 random person, dig a trench for him and set the gun up then tell him to push that small stick towards him/her self and aim at anyone who gets in their side. Then you can go dress up in full modern day armor get all your buddies and equipment together and try to kill him/her. I don't care if you've been trained your entire live or how many fellow trained soldiers you bring. Its NOT going to happen.
It would still be all about tactics whatever kind of weapon you're using.
By the way a spear isn't such an easy weapon you can use it effectivly without any training what so ever. In the situation you described on with a decent shield and good armor most certainly does have a chance, granted not that much of a chance but a chance never the less.

Modern Armor you say?

Modern-ized-armor?

Bring in the tanks boys. Puny machineguns wont stand a chance.

Ordinance taught us " To kill a monster take his legs ". No treads no movement no threat, provided you stay out of line of fire.

 

[Maclennan]

I would defiantly be fodder if it was swords and shields, so no at least with a gun its a somewhat level playing field

 

[Saltyk]

Uh, no. I like swords, but I'd rather not enter a medieval style army. Then again, I'd rather not enter the army anyway.

Are you perhaps referring to the 300 Scenario? Yeah, that didn't bloody happen. Sure, three hundred spartans showed up to fight off something around ten thousand or more Persians... But they also had several THOUSAND prisoners they forced to fight with them.

Run a few Total War scenarios. You will never see a situation where five can defeat a hundred. You'll never see a situation where a hundred can defeat a thousand, or even five hundred (unless you have a castle and siege weaponry).

Ontop of that, you are talking about leveling the playing field. Almost everyone on the planet will have access to the same technology. Nearly everyone will be just as well armed as you unless they are a poorer nation.

I agree with you on the 5 better trained modern soldier front and the unwinnable 5 vs. 100 thing but there have been times when 1 man terrified an entire army by himself, do me a favor and google Simo Häyhä, a Finnish sniper who killed over 700 russians during the winter war but then again he did survive being shot in the head so he could just have been Batman.

I'm pretty sure the number was 500 Russians. And I believe he used a combination of sniping (using a standard issue bolt action rifle with iron sights) and ambush tactics with a machine gun. That's still impressive, and no small feat. If memory serves, the Russian army had a pretty large bounty on his head, too. And I think he was shot in the head by an enemy sniper (he killed the enemy sniper) and lost his eye. Did I mention that this all happened in a period of three months? Yeah, he was easily one of the most insanely successful snipers in the history of war.

 

[rutger5000]

Yeah, guess what? I can give random ten people bills and tell them to stand in a line and point the pointy end forward and thrust it at anyone who comes near them. Then you can go dress up in full plate armor and try to kill them. I don't care if you studied the sword your entire life. Its NOT going to happen.

Yes but I could also give one modernday heavy machine gun (minigun?) to 1 random person, dig a trench for him and set the gun up then tell him to push that small stick towards him/her self and aim at anyone who gets in their side. Then you can go dress up in full modern day armor get all your buddies and equipment together and try to kill him/her. I don't care if you've been trained your entire live or how many fellow trained soldiers you bring. Its NOT going to happen.
It would still be all about tactics whatever kind of weapon you're using.
By the way a spear isn't such an easy weapon you can use it effectivly without any training what so ever. In the situation you described on with a decent shield and good armor most certainly does have a chance, granted not that much of a chance but a chance never the less.

Modern Armor you say?

Modern-ized-armor?

Bring in the tanks boys. Puny machineguns wont stand a chance.

I'm 99.999% sure that US soldiers wear full body armour, that's what I meant with modern day armor. Besides that now you're just being a wiseguy and you're using bad examples to top it of. If a fully amoroud mounted knight would fight 100 untrained man with spear he would win without receiving any serious injury. Unless you're really well trained in the use of the spear and the spear is of very high quality it would snap the moment it makes contact with the armor charging towards the spear holder.
So right back at you. Bring in the armored horses boys. Puny man with spears won't stand a chance.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I'm pretty sure the number was 500 Russians. And I believe he used a combination of sniping (using a standard issue bolt action rifle with iron sights) and ambush tactics with a machine gun. That's still impressive, and no small feat. If memory serves, the Russian army had a pretty large bounty on his head, too. And I think he was shot in the head by an enemy sniper (he killed the enemy sniper) and lost his eye. Did I mention that this all happened in a period of three months? Yeah, he was easily one of the most insanely successful snipers in the history of war.

Actually it was 505 confirmed sniper kills. Some sources say as much as 300 additional unconfirmed. 200 or so confirmed with the machinegun. And the war lasted, I think 104 or so days. That's almost 7 confirmed kills every day. And they didn't just put a bounty on him, they actually diverted Artillery fire at one point to an area they thought he was in.

 

[ultimateownage]

No. Worse weapons makes a painful death even more likely. Also, no upside of fucking around with rifles. Either way I would never join the army, even if I was able to.

 

[Jimmybobjr]

No.

The Army would expect me to do stuff, like... Run...

Or walk..

Or move. At at all.

Army life isnt suited for me, Guns be damned.

 

[Dogstile]

Run a few Total War scenarios. You will never see a situation where five can defeat a hundred. You'll never see a situation where a hundred can defeat a thousand, or even five hundred (unless you have a castle and siege weaponry).

The post got a little big, but my reasoning against total war is below.

Spoiler

Bad example to use. I've used an army of experienced ashigaru (playing as shimazu, so they're basic ones) to hold off an enemy force simply because i had more archers firing into the melee, mainly into their side as my spear wall was holding.

This enemy force was three times as big as my ashigaru force and was composed mainly of yari and katana samurai. Superior tactics won over the day and I didn't lose a single unit (i did however, have all of my units damaged to the point where it took about 6 turns to repair).

Total war is silly, I should have been destroyed.

OP: You know, I don't think I would. Give me a knights armour and a horse and possibly, but aside from that I don't see myself fighting up close in any situation other than getting mugged again.

 

[Saltyk]

I'm pretty sure the number was 500 Russians. And I believe he used a combination of sniping (using a standard issue bolt action rifle with iron sights) and ambush tactics with a machine gun. That's still impressive, and no small feat. If memory serves, the Russian army had a pretty large bounty on his head, too. And I think he was shot in the head by an enemy sniper (he killed the enemy sniper) and lost his eye. Did I mention that this all happened in a period of three months? Yeah, he was easily one of the most insanely successful snipers in the history of war.

Actually it was 505 confirmed sniper kills. Some sources say as much as 300 additional unconfirmed. 200 or so confirmed with the machinegun. And the war lasted, I think 104 or so days. That's almost 7 confirmed kills every day. And they didn't just put a bounty on him, they actually diverted Artillery fire at one point to an area they thought he was in.

Well, you won't hear me arguing that he was anything but a one man army. I think most military experts list him as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, snipers in history. I don't even think he had formal training. He was just a hunter. But I might be making that much up.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I'm pretty sure the number was 500 Russians. And I believe he used a combination of sniping (using a standard issue bolt action rifle with iron sights) and ambush tactics with a machine gun. That's still impressive, and no small feat. If memory serves, the Russian army had a pretty large bounty on his head, too. And I think he was shot in the head by an enemy sniper (he killed the enemy sniper) and lost his eye. Did I mention that this all happened in a period of three months? Yeah, he was easily one of the most insanely successful snipers in the history of war.

Actually it was 505 confirmed sniper kills. Some sources say as much as 300 additional unconfirmed. 200 or so confirmed with the machinegun. And the war lasted, I think 104 or so days. That's almost 7 confirmed kills every day. And they didn't just put a bounty on him, they actually diverted Artillery fire at one point to an area they thought he was in.

Well, you won't hear me arguing that he was anything but a one man army. I think most military experts list him as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, snipers in history. I don't even think he had formal training. He was just a hunter. But I might be making that much up.

Finland has compulsory military service, so he'd spent one year in the army. I'm also pretty sure he was a member of the White Guard, a Finish militia group, which is part of the reason we got the nickname White Death. But yeah, very few historians will claim there's been a better sniper. He does have the highest number of confirmed kills in history after all.

Seriously Captcha? Fuck you.