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

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

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.

He killed 505 with hes his rifle and 200 more with his sub machine gun, like i said, Batman.

 

[Superior Mind]

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.

Alas, his mighty rampage was cut short when he was shot in the head with an exploding bullet, blowing off half his head. A talented young man's life cut short...

Or that would have been the case hadn't he woken up a few days later and continued living a full life until dying at the age of 96. Like. A. Boss.

 

[Last Hugh Alive]

No i wouldn't join.

If I was going to kill a man, or if I was to be killed, I would want it to be done quickly with a gun. No brutality.

 

[dyre]

uh, no, I wouldn't join the army either way, regardless of whether a claymore is a two-handed sword or a landmine

 

[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.

Did you know that the crossbow was actually banned for a long time because it could kill somebody in full plate armour. Besides that you clearly underestimate the amount of power that is behind an arrow.

I wasn't speaking on crossbows. I was commenting on English longbows. Sorry that I did not clarify. That being said I am a avid hunter and marksmen. I know full well the power behind a long bow, a recurve bow, a compound bow, and a crossbow. I have shot and hunted deer with all of them. Besides that, the plate armor was made back in the day to stop early firearms as well. They were more than thick enough to defeat the bows and arrows of the era with what broad heads they used.

 

[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.

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.

See? I had a feeling I was wrong. It was a few years back that I actually read an article on him. Looks like I forgot a few details.

Yeah, I've never seen him ranked lower than honestly history's second best sniper. Though, I disagree with that.

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

I wasn't speaking on crossbows. I was commenting on English longbows. Sorry that I did not clarify. That being said I am a avid hunter and marksmen. I know full well the power behind a long bow, a recurve bow, a compound bow, and a crossbow. I have shot and hunted deer with all of them. Besides that, the plate armor was made back in the day to stop early firearms as well. They were more than thick enough to defeat the bows and arrows of the era with what broad heads they used.

Except that history disagrees with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

 

[Woodsey]

I imagine being shot or blown up would be more "pleasant" then feeling a sword hack away at you.

 

[Instinct Blues]

It doesn't matter to me what weapons will be used by the army, but what the army is fighting for that makes the difference to me. I'd run into battle armed with just a sword and shield against an army with more advanced weapons if I felt that what I was fighting for was extremely important to me.

 

[idodo35]

well i live in israel that means ill be forced to serve in the millitary even if well have sticks and stones as our only wepons...

 

[Zykon TheLich]

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.

I guessed that was what you were saying, not going to happen, it's an arrow, not a hammer.

Here's a video of a BBC doc from a few years back firing some early plate armour, note the state of the clay behind the arrow and padding, not a mark on it besides the penetrating strike from the 3rd shot, it'll bruise, yeah it'll be kinda annoying, maybe give the guy a bit of a niggling pain that might distract him a little, but "crushing their insides"? No. Do you think they are made of glass or something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXwk4Kdbic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

hahaha! I was going to post that, thanks for saving me the trouble.

Edit 3: Just found the whole series online...bonus! Really interesting watch.

http://bestonlinedocumentaries.com/tag/weapons-that-made-britain/

 

[demoman_chaos]

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.

I can stab them with a spear while staying out of their range with a spear. If they break formation, I can pick them off individually. If they have the weapons long enough to match my spear, I just need to get in close with my sword and victory is assured. As the Macedonians found out a Cynoscephylae when the Romans with their short swords got close, their 20 ft pikes were useless.
Billhooks are more effective against armor than some weapons, but are not instant pierce anythings. They have about the same range as a long sword. An untrained fool won't know how to use the hook on it to get around a shield effectively.

Put 10 idiots with AK-47s and a Navy SEAL into a room. Odds are the SEAL will get slaughtered without a single kill.