![138698[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zeiWyC8.jpg "138698[1].jpg")
Do you ever feel sad over the fact that modern firearms were invented? That we are past the time when a fight between two men was decided by who was the strongest and smartest and most agile. In the old days two armys could stand and look at each other from 200 meters away. Today that is impossible without everyone dying from the power of modern weapons. It's even got to the point where war is no longer plausible, because of the power of our weaponry a war between nations would mean total annihilation of civilisation. We can never un-invent firearms and the implications on societal development are massive. The only wars we have today are of low intensity, or between ill-equipped groups. What weaponry will we posess 500 years from now? How will it shape our society? My theory is that we will have to abandon war entirely.
>>260350
No because they fucking level the playing field.
Besides war is all about objectives anyway.
But war in the past was dominated by arrows and long pole arms. Range was always a huge advantage, if you can attack from a position where the enemy could not retaliate from it was very effective.
>>260350
>Do you ever feel sad over the fact that modern firearms were invented?
No?
>In the old days two armys could stand and look at each other from 200 meters away. Today that is impossible without everyone dying from the power of modern weapons.
Why are you romanticizing this? It's just a killing field.
For thousands of years, the individuals soldiers power to maim and kill has lied in his stamina and a stick (i'm simplifying melee weapons a bit) between 50 and 250 centimeters long. Today he weilds an assault rifle capable of killing hundreds of meters away. He might carry 300 cartridges with him, to theoretically kill 300 people before they can even reach him. We've only had assault rifles for about 60 years, I'd like to know what the implications of this enormous change in the potential of a soldier are.
>>260350
It's not that big of a difference. We have seen phalanxes replaced with platoons but it still ultimately comes down to a measurement of skill, opportunity and ability to act.
In the future if wars are fought by robots then the new warriors will be the programmers,hardware engineers and tacticians that determine where to deploy.
Really the only difference is that we have been transitioning through the years into an age where most wars are won before the battles are fought. That doesn't necessarily make the battles unimportant.
>>260350
Ah yes, the good old days when anyone with a strong arm could barge into your house, rape your wife and steal your life livings and walk away unharmed.
Gee we sure all miss those days.
>>260458
Actually that's exactly what the warrior class were doing to the peasants in medieval Europe. And it continues to this day, except now you don't need a strong arm, a modern firearm is much better.
>>260482
>And it continues to this day
Please give some evidence
>>260486
Try googling "Home invasions".
>>260482
So far, I havent seen professional modern armies sack a city.
So far its the "peasant militias" of the modern days who have been doing the raping.
>>260495
>>/k/
>>260350
>implying smarts had anything to do with the pure brute force required with melee weapons
>>260350
your glorification of war back in the "old days" is boring and futile. war is and has always been horrible, but sometimes a necessary evil. that is all.
>>260350
More powerful weapons have decentivised fighting because they've made it significantly less trouble to cooperate than to fight most people. In 500 years things will be even better because we will be too afraid to get into light scuffles over the overwhelming destructive capacity of our species. Well become more responsible and more able to build bigger and better things through cooperation and effective resource management rather than war and conquest. There's literally nothing wrong with weaponry.
>>260422
>We've only had assault rifles for about 60 years
And we've only had firearms for 600+ years.
>>260350
I have often thought about this. Guns are for cowards t b h
>>261032
You're fucking dumb. That's like saying that weightlifting is for cowards.
Or actually a better analogy is the kid wh gets mad at move spam or a technique they can't get around when playing video games that says "no fair! You're cheating!" Its a part of the game. Learn the rules fag.
>>261055
That's a horrible analogy
you can close your eyes and pull a trigger but it takes mental and physical strength to drive a knife into someone's body and watch/feel them die
>>261055
A barely trained, 16 year old punk can be hiding behind a wall and pop out and kill a navy seal who was been training for years based purely on the fact that he saw the other guy first. A coward can kill the bravest man on the planet in the same manner. Prowess and skill dont matter so much as whoever gets the shot off first. Compare that to swords or axes or whatever, where you're fighting hand to hand and sticking a piece of steel into another man, and where the more skilled warrior will always come out on top, todays war is shit in comparison
>>260945
>in 500 years
>>261061
I think blowing someones head off comes with the same mental strain as stabbing someone.
>>261077
I think war being much more fair for the weaker side is a good thing. God made man, Sam Colt made them equal, or something like that.
>>261061
Thats a good way to get killed.
>>260350
Why? Your AR looks a lot like mine (except I have a less gay grip, and fewer gay engravings all over my lower receiver). I got a bayonet for mine, you can for yours too.
>>261061
>KILLING SOMEBODY WITH A RANGED TOOL IS NOT THE SAME AS KILLING SOMEONE WITH A MELEE TOOL
you're so full of shit killing somebody is mentally taxing no matter how you do it
there are people who direct drones that get PTSD because they can't handle the fact that they're sitting around bombing the everloving shit out of people, even though they're nowhere near a combat zone.
>>261099
Not at all, one is a discrete act, another is a continuous process and you are right on the person as they die, you get their flesh on you
>>261097
Just because they are both hard doesn't make them the same level of difficulty you sith
>>261117
see prior comment
Why the fuck does everything have to be 1:1? No, picking someone off from a distance isn't as hard as cleaving them to death with a machete, not at all. The fuck are you on.
>>260371
In antiquity, only the archers and slingers could get away with being poltroons
Today everyone involved in a war has that luxury
>>261097
>comparing bows and crossbows to modern assault rifles
Are you fucking serious? Just in case you arent
1. Depends what time period and what battle, but archers rarely ever comprised a very large part of an army, whereas ALL modern soldiers use guns
2. Arrows were way less powerful/accurate/fast than modern bullets obviously
3. Archers would be the first to get btfo if an army were being defeated
4. Most archery only lasted the initial charge, when the sides met in combat, there obviously wouldnt be any arrows being fired in fear of hitting their own men
5. Every archer carried a sword or other secondary weapon which he switched to for hand to hand combat
>>261134
Have you actually shot someone before?
>>261134
because you're talking about the act of killing a human being, no matter how you do it, its still taxing on somebody who isn't trained to do so.
you implied you weren't just talking about skill involved through these comments:
>you can close your eyes and pull a trigger but it takes mental and physical strength to drive a knife into someone's body and watch/feel them die
see: MENTAL
I can tell that you have never had to kill somebody because you don't understand the consequences of such an action.
>>261136
Signing up to go kill men for your country and possibly die in the process does not make you a coward
>>261163
edgy teenager detected
I don't know why I bother trying to talk to the likes of you
>>261158
>signing up to stand around sweating in the desert for 6 months and then having the american taxpayer pick up the tab for your education healthcare and job does not make you a coward
which is true. but it does make you something else
>>261168
So you haven't.
>>261174
Be thankful that my taxes pay for your worthless ass. If it weren't for that, you welfare queens would all be sitting on the street with a dunkin donuts cup begging for change
>>261187
Would be entirely irrelevant to the discussion if you haven't done both
As I have said several times, I'm not saying it doesn't take any bit of mental taxation to shoot someone, just less
don't know how you could argue the contrary
>>261203
I have used a gun before. It is nothing special and literal brain-dead morons can operate one.
please leave /k/
>>261214
paper or steel doesn't count as a human being, anon.
>>260350
So you would prefer a society where the force of arms was virtually monopolized by the social elite and mercenaries on their payroll?
Cause that's always worked out great
>>261203
I find it amusing that you have no actual argument other than calling me a teenager or saying that ive never fired a gun when neither of those are true. But hey, what was i expecting when talking to one of you retarded self righteous cunts?
>>261214
Shooting at steel isn't shooting at enemy soldiers. Combat takes more strategy and expertise than ever before because its much easier to die than ever before. Pleas shut the hell up.
>>261220
Follow the post chain and the exact words you said and you won't make such idiotic statements as this.
Then again, veteran welfare queens have never been known to be intelligent.
>>260350
No. It was a world wear the strong ruled over the weak.
A firearm puts a middle-aged house wife on a plane above an ex con in his prime.
>>261231
This is the definition of moving goalposts. I never made any reference to modern strategy you idiotic fuckwad.
Just as the game of war has evolved over the years to become more and more silent, so too will it evolve to overcome violence and weaponry altogether. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
>>260350
The beauty of a gun is that a bear mode rapist can get pwned by a 12 year old would be victim, because she was trained and carrying.
Anyone who has read accounts of close quarters gun fights knows that they are just as traumatic as fighting with swords and spears
>>261223
You're talking to multiple people, anon. And MY specific argument is that you don't know what you're talking about. You're arguing the merits of sword based warfare over modern warfare by virtue of a higher barrier to entry and skill ceiling. But that's wrong. The fact that its so easy to kill now has made tactics much more important. Advances in technology have hopelessly raised the barrier for entry into world power status. Using knives to kill is more physically difficult than using a gun buy being successful in a firefight requires much more intelligence and preparation than in a sword fight. Please only speak about things that you actually understand. Your opinions and feelings are not facts.
>>261205
Thank you for your service I'm so sorry you have to protect fags who reap the benefits for your bravery and look down on you for it
>>261223
You don't have an argument.
>>261255
they're still easier to use and kill people with
why do you keep playing with words
>>261205
I didnt even know what that was before googling it. Why are you idiots so obsessed over your little subculture? You think its an achievement to literally be cannon fodder?
>the sum of my lifes ambition is to join the army, get sent to iraq, then get blown up by a roadside bomb, wew!
Oh yeah, and that leads me to another thing about modern combat, most of you CUcks get killed without even seeing the enemy, you just get blown up on the side of some road. literal definition of CUck
>>260350
archery, artillery, trench warfare, aerial warfare, etc., were all considered cowardice at some point.
>>261251
>The beauty of a gun is that a bear mode rapist can get pwned by a 12 year old would be victim, because she was trained and carrying.
>train hard for 5 years
>diet properly for that time
>finally zombie apocalypse comes
>grab sword and run outside
>shot by 12 yo girl that's just confused and shooting everything
>>261259
1) No thanks are necessary. I had a job, that's all.
2) If he can't say that, then my time in the military was for nothing.
>>261264
>they're still easier to use and kill people with
I fail to see your point, the democratization of force was one of the best things to ever happen in western history
>>261264
well duh
we're talking about the mental toll here.
>tfw 6'3, 212 pounds, strong as fuck, bench 380, lean, fairly handsome
>would have been a strong, top-tier Germanic tribe warrior with harems of pussy in another life
fuck this gay earth
>>261287
It is harder to sit there and cut someone to death than to point and shoot them, that's just a fact
even if both are hard to do
there are armies of 10 year old children running around Africa raiding villages because a gun renders everyone a video game killer
>>261287
is it still possible to get a good moist nugget?
>>261288
you wouldn't have the nutrition necessary to reach that height or weight
>>261298
yes
they just don't sell for 50$ anymore.
>>261258
>has made tactics much more importan
As i said, doesnt matter how good your training is, dozens of special ops have been killed in the past just because they didnt see some 16 year old kid hiding behind a wall who shot at them before they could turn around. That isn't skill, it isn't tactics, it isnt anything, it just shows that having a good hiding place and squeezing a trigger before someone else does will win a fight.
>Please only speak about things that you actually understand. Your opinions and feelings are not facts.
You might as well just say "I am a retard that thinks i know everything." . You fucks are so insufferable
Sorta. M.A.D. IS RAD tho, and mad applies to conventional war now
>>261137
1. So?
2. Not relevant, you're still sticking a sword into someone else.
3. Unlike modern war where nothing happens if you get defeated?
4. and 5. Why do you think soldiers carry a bayonet, knife? Seequesee happens. Happened a lot during WW2 despite the rifles.
>>261301
I know it wouldn't have been quite as good but I would have been taller and stronger relative to my peers, which is all that matters given the context
I put on muscle easily
shit would have been cash, minus everyone smelling like dogshit
>>261318
Nothing you said disproved any of my points. You were trying to equate guns with bows and crossbows which is complete utter shit
>>261264
Because it's all of the things that happen between the action. Movement to contact, setting in place support by fire. This put tremendous exertion on the body when you have to carry everything necessary to operate at full capacity for days on end in adverse environments. Additionally, when you get shot at, you are having a significant emotional event, full stop.
Shooting at paper is easy. It doesn't seek cover or shoot back. Shooting at someone who wants to live as much as you do when you have an elevated heart rate, sore muscles from carrying heavy things up mountains while still maintaining the presence of mind to breathe properly, maintain a stable body position and correctly pull a seven pound trigger is challenging on your best day.
>>261333
>Nothing you said disproved any of my points.
Try reading then.
>You were trying to equate guns with bows and crossbows which is complete utter shit
You understand that pointing irrelevant differences doesn't disqualify a comparison, right?
The utter shit is thinking you can just close your eyes and shoot. Firefights are scary.
>>261312
and in ye olden days some kid could walk up to a warrior while he's occupied with something like eating or taking a crap and shank him, or lie in wait in a concealed position with some buddies and jump him.
i really don't see the point your trying to make here.
>>261312
Hiding and waiting for the right time to strike is a form of tactical planning. The spec ops were negligent for not checking corners and blind spots which should have been part of their training. The hypothetical 16 year old outsmarted the soldiers. Her earned his victory through tactical planning and smart use of resources. You're basically saying that it doesn't count because he isn't a 7ft tall musclebound Chad. And if your argument is instead that he was lucky, the you're somehow implying that there's no such thing as luck in a sword fight. Your argument doesn't really make sense unless you're only asserting that bladed weapons are more physically demanding and nothing else, in which case you'd be correct but your argument becomes so shallow that it makes me question why you're still pressing on this point as though it affects the overall landscape of warfare and battle, making them somehow much easier. In a sword fight MORE of your battle is actually decided by luck since genetics will determine your sex, height, and to some extent physical ability. You dont have an argument. I'm not even military and I can see this.
>>261385
Hard to render a killing blow with a shank if you're untrained, would likely end up just wounding him and then little buster is fucked.
It looks like the point is, as has been stated several times, that melee weapons are harder to use and master, which is irrefutable.
>>260350
No, not really.
>>261397
>then little buster is fucked.
Unless of course, little buster has a mace.
>>261092
Fuckin Morlocks
>>261410
Gotta be strong to pick it, swing, and hit a good spot, not to mention tactical to make sure this "trained warrior" doesn't hear some dumb kid get within 5 feet of him
>>260350
>Do you ever feel sad over the fact that modern firearms were invented? That we are past the time when a fight between two men was decided by who was the strongest and smartest and most agile. In the old days two armys could stand and look at each other from 200 meters away.
No I'm pretty fucking glad.
> For Telamonian Ajax charged at him through the throng, and once at close quarters struck at Hippothous’ helm with its bronze cheek-pieces, and horsehair crest. The point of the great spear in his massive hand split it wide open, and blood and brains from the wound spurted up the blade to its socket.
I'm glad I don't have to see this shit.
>>261397
And you could land a kill shot without ever using a gun? What are you even on about. I'm not even that guy but wtf!
>>261432
>pick it, swing, and hit a good spot
Gravity is really gonna do most of the work, and you don't really need to be picky where you hit with a mace.
>STR fag mad that DEX is the better stat since the last patch
Oh I am laffin'
>>261205
thank you for your service, dont listen to that guy, prob didnt make it into airforce lol
>>261360
>Firefights are scary.
Of course combat is scary. We arent arguing whether its scary, we're arguing that guns are cowardly compared to hand to hand combat.
Since you are too retarded to read and formulate a proper response i will explain for you
>So?
Modern combat, everybody has a gun and everybody can shoot you. In medieval and pre medieval times, only a few people comparatively could shoot you.
>Not relevant, you're still sticking a sword into someone else.
Of course its relevant you fucking dolt. An arrow is made of wood and a steel point. It couldve been deflected by a shield or in many cases by armor, especially later armor. meaning that arrows were a lot less likely to kill someone back then than bullets are nowadays. Meaning that you had a way better chance of fighting and dying against someone wielding a sword than you did getting shot. So your point that arrows = guns in those days is yet again moot.
>Unlike modern war where nothing happens if you get defeated?
Archers were the most lightly armored troops and bows and arrows are quite less useful in close quarters, whereas guns are useful in any situation from any distance within a few hundred metres. To simplify, if you only had a bow and you fought a guy with a sword in close quarters, you'd be fucked. Thats obviously not the case with guns.
>Why do you think soldiers carry a bayonet, knife? Seequesee happens. Happened a lot during WW2 des
My point was that most of medieval battles, people weren't in danger of being shot by arrows whereas in modern warfare you're ALWAYS in danger of being shot.
Thus, your point that guns = archers is complete shit and its wrong. The vast majority of fighting was man to man, sword to sword combat, and that depended a lot more on skill and courage than modern war, where a coward can kill the bravest man in the world
>>261438
>Gravity is going to do most of the work
Ah, so you don't know anything about physics and the fact that you have to, you know, actually get it up and swing it correctly
Maces are pretty heavy, I don't think a child is going to have an easy time with it
this is just petulant deflection
>>261435
Yes you could. Especially in proximity. This argument is really fucking dumb, once again, the only statement is that it takes more mental/physical skill to effectively wield a melee weapon than a gun, that's literally it. Not that you can't train to become great with a gun, or that it doesn't take any mental/physical skill, just that the baseline is different.
No need for muh veterans to get their camo knickers in a bunch.
>>260350
No, my only regret is that I won't live to see Power Armor and Plasma Swords being used in war.
>>261454
>your point that arrows = guns
That was never the point. You're just pointing every difference you can think of between bows and guns without an idea of how to advance your argument.
You can't argue, you just want to expose your two bits of knowledge that everybody fucking knows. Fucking idiot.
>>261454
>Modern combat, everybody has a gun and everybody can shoot you. In medieval and pre medieval times, only a few people comparatively could shoot you.
That's an argument against modern combat being cowardly you petulant child.
>>261455
But it only takes more physical skill to survive a knife fight. It takes way more mental skill to survive a firefight.
>>261454
Your entire argument is basically a romantisization of ancient warfare. You even go as far as to say that the use of guns is cowardly, which is an opinionated, subjective statement, revealing the underline flaw in your logic and argument. Its not cowardly to use the most effective tool to achieve your goals. Its only logical. Bravery and cowardice dont even factor into it. It would be stupid to bring a knife to the proverbial gunfight. Your point that knives are more physically taxing is very true. But nothing else that you've said is even an argument because it's all been used in an attempt to prove an opinion as fact, which I'm not sure if you know this, is not up for debate. You may say that guns are easer to become functional with, which might be true, I'm not sure. I dont own a sword or a gun. But as an earlier anon said, you're essentially "that kid" who complains that a game doesn't work they way they think it should. Really the fact that this has gone on so long is very stupid because you never even had anything to refute in the first place other than saying that blades and meele weapons are more physically demanding than firearms which is true. But everything else that you've said has been opinionated and childish rubbish that ranges from unfalsifiable nonsense to assumptions about things that you've clearly never studied in-depth. That's all I really have to say on the matter. I'm not the guy you were responding to btw. Just look at how many posters there are in this thread.
>>261510
You didnt finish reading, illiterate
>>261527
>s basically a romantisization of ancient warfare.
This is a projection. I didnt bother reading the rest of your blog post. Fuck off back to /k/
>>261013
Srsly, plebs in this thread all over.
Modern warfare has industrialization, not gunpowder, to blame for its change in character.
Look at the Napoleonic wars, WW1, and WW2 for details.
>>261521
>Somebody (you?) said this.
Yes.
>You were clearly equating bows and crossbows to guns.
No, the fact that I said bows and crossbows existed doesn't imply that bows and crossbows have the same lethality as guns or whatever other dumb shit you want to have me say. I didn't specify that because I didn't think it would be necessary to explain such a thing.
All the points you make against guns are equally applicable to bows and have nothing to do with lethality.
>>261531
>My point was that most of medieval battles, people weren't in danger of being shot by arrows whereas in modern warfare you're ALWAYS in danger of being shot.
That is ALSO a point against the idea that "hurr modern combat is for cowards".
>>261117
Wrong-o matey
>>261536
>fuck off back to /k/
>mfw we are the new boogie men.
>>261527
You just made an autist rage quit. I like you.
10/10 troll op.
>>261552
>That is ALSO a point against the idea that "hurr modern combat is for cowards".
And? The possibility of being shot being higher means that modern combat is less cowardly? Where did you draw this assumption? I'd rather take a bullet to the head than get my arms chopped off and bleeding to death personally
>>261527
No it doesn't retard. The basis of martial skill lies in melee warfare. You can't dodge bullets, you can only sit behind cover.
Do you parry bullets? Jesus, this argument is asinine.
>>261555
>kek
The rest of the post becomes moot when a projection is made
>>261571
Actually you can if you move from cover to cover faster than your opponent can lead you.
>implying that the effective use of cover isn't the modern version of parrying.
>>261567
>The possibility of being shot being higher means that modern combat is less cowardly?
It means that "DUDE JUST CLOSE YOUR EYES AND SHOOT LMAO" isn't a valid opinion about what you do in a firefight.
Yes you can kill people more easily from afar. Other people can also kill you more easily from afar. Shit sux just as much.
>I'd rather take a bullet to the head than get my arms chopped off and bleeding to death personally
You can also get your leg torn off by a mortar shell if you're into that. Or just get shot somewhere else than the head and bleed to death too.
>>261571
Taking aim when bullet fly around is actually pretty hard, mechanically hard too.
Say what you will about firearms; they allowed a means for the oppressed to rebel.
After all, peasants couldn't do anything with farm equipment when it came to facing armies with swords, spears, bows, crossbows, pikes, etc. Military technology pretty much kept peasants in check. However, firearms gave civilians a strong advantage. This, paired with the dawn of Western guerrilla warfare tactics, ensured hope for citizenry rebellions.
>>261571
Your inability to physically deflect bullets makes creative problem solving on how to escape the enemy's field of vision and prevent being flanked the most important skill. The "martial skills" are physical ones, stored in muscle memory rather than conscious perception. If you have to think before a parry then you haven't trained enough. I know this because I'm a black belt in ju-jitsu. You are very obviously a child who doesn't understand the things that he's decided to debate or at the very least someone with the mentality of a child. In any case I'm enjoying reading the ridiculous things that you post, so keep it coming.
>>261588
>>261596
awesome
>mfw 98% of the fat, uncoordinated retards in the American armed services wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of joining a respectable military outfit from the ancient and medieval ages
>>261589
Except shooting takes no skill compared to melee fighting. Anybody can shoot a gun
>>261597
Yup.
Fun fact: after the French revolution, the revolutionaries (and by that I mean the unlanded rich bourgeoisie who headed the revolution) bought back the firearms they had distributed to the Parisian populace during the insurrection.
Wouldn't want the masses to rebel against their new masters, wouldn't we?
>>261603
>I'm a black belt in jiu-jitsu
You're validating what I'm saying. It takes considerable time to train to become skilled with a weapon.
The mode of logic necessary to strategize in a firefight, in contrast, is largely abstract and apparent to any human being with a functioning brain.
Good God you are retarded
This is literally the western version of JAPANESE STEEL FOLDED OVER 1000 TIMES!
Why hasn't our defensive capabilities caught up to our offensive capacity?
Seems like we reached the pinnacle of defense with metal armor and never saw it quite level out after that.
>>261611
Since I wasn't arguing about skill, I accept your concession that modern combat isn't more cowardly than ancient warfare.
>>261621
What about Kevlar?
>>261614
>The mode of logic necessary to strategize in a firefight, in contrast, is largely abstract and apparent to any human being with a functioning brain.
But that's where you're wrong and this is something that you really can't say because you've never had training to be in a firefight. Its literally like those guys who come to the dojo to watch and think they can take every guy in the building because they don't have a proper understanding of what goes into a fist fight.
>>261649
Being a master of killing efficiency with a melee weapon takes more training and skill than with a gun. That's just the way it is. That's all I've said. Nothing with regards to macro field strategy or unit organization.
>>260350
>Do you ever feel sad over the fact that modern firearms were invented?
Not really, if anything modern warfare is far more civilized than it was before modern fire arms. Sure there was ritual and formality to it, but a gunshot is a cleaner wound than getting hit with an axe.
Also in you're scenario you pretty much ensure that might makes right, and that chads will rule the earth.
>>261664
>>261630
Only protects from small arms, not even intermediate cartages like those you'd find in an ak47.
>>261621
To answer your question, entropy is the answer. Its alot harder to destroy things than make preserve them is the simplest way to put it. Basically it's very easy to destroy the order of systems and take them out of equilibrium because that's one specific state as opposed to the millions of other ways that it could be, most of which are more sustainable than a living human. For instance its much easier to knock over a house of cards than it is to prevent it from falling over. Its the same principle that can be found in any system. We CAN protect against more or less anything that exists right now but for anything above a rifle round it quickly becomes impractical as it'll hinder other things like mobility and energy usage may skyrocket and in most cases its both safer and more efficient to just avoid getting hit and avoid being seen.
>>261674
>Hey! I can use HTML editor! :^)
>>261683
but i can't
>>261603
Modern Combat still relies heavily on muscle memory. One of the fundamentals of marksmanship from the days of the caveman on through the modern day is stable body position. We would sometimes do nothing but practice shooting while standing or walking or just do magazine change drills all day for this sole purpose so that we could reliably do it under stress.
>>261663
I believe this is called backpedalling.
>>261710
You forward pedaled and I played along with your dumb ass. Learn the distinction between strategy and skill. You're all deflecting because the base point remains immutable.
>>261288
212 ain't lean
>>261717
Yeah, I'm not that guy... And what the fuck is forward pedaling?
>>261737
I'm talking about one thing and you move on to something else under the pretense of it being related
sounds like you're trying to introduce complexity to make the issue more contentious than it is one a simple level
>>261732
lean mass senpai
I'm like 13-14% bf
>>261752
It's called moving the goalposts, anon.
>>261758
You right
>>260350
Yeah I'd much rather be fighting with 3 foot long blades in a group of 300 people packed into 1000 square feet
>>261621
There are some things like ESAPI plates that can protect against small arms.
>>261301
this to be honest familia
>>261454
>We arent arguing whether its scary, we're arguing that guns are cowardly compared to hand to hand combat.
I'd rather be a living coward than a dead hero.
>>261621
Mobility and stealth are more important than armor in modern warfare, because it's not about clashes between tightly packed combatants anymore.
Also, killing your enemy before he kills you protects you better than armor does.
>>261621
Because guns arent really that advances when it comes down to it. If you wanted something the defend against a rifle round while still keeping you mobile, its going to be far more high tech than a rifle.
>>261621
Speed is both attack and defense.
Swords are pretty shit at killing people.
>>260350
on an semirelated note it saddens me the days ofaerial dogfights and huge squadrons of bombers with turrets all over them only lasted 40 so years.
>>260350
I often feel sad about this, guns took away some of the honour of war
>>261136
>LE RANGED WEAPINS IS FOR COWARDS.
Fag. Some of history's specialized troopers were missile troops. Those cunts were a fucking asset in the battlefield and they're not merely "LE PEASANT WITH A HUNTING BOW/SLING."
Furthermore from China to Rome missile weapons are the first cunts to fight. Skirmishers basically. There's nothing cowardly AT ALL about advancing ahead of the main army and plinking at the enemy's main formation, forever worrying about enemy plinkers in turn or if cavalry will run you down.
>>260350
>We can never un-invent firearms
why not? ~1500 years ago lots of things were "un-invented." including military technology.
>>263304
m8, in America, we have shitloads of people who make homemade firearms. Its not absolutely rocket science.
Hell, in the Philippines, they have people who haven't even finished high school able to make homemade firearms of meh-decent reliability.
>>263328
so? those DIY-guns are still completely dependent on industrially made ammunition or atleast gunpowder and bullets. if every technologically advanced civilization collapses, so do their weapon factories. nobody bothers to make guns if you don't get your hands on something you could shoot from it, so people eventually go back to bow and arrow and forget how to make even the most primitive firearms.
>>263376
/k/ here:
powder is easy as fuck to make. the hardest part (and literally, just labour intense and time consuming) would be leaching the potash out of buckets of decaying plant matter.
I could see double barreled matchlock blunderbusses being a thing real easily.
>>260451
>most wars are won before the battles are fought
in what sense
>>263495
but why would you bother? they're absolutely useless compared to bows and only reason they became "the thing" 500 years ago was that their ammo is easy and cheap to make only in industrial scale and relatively good in large-scale field battle, and that of course would't matter if the whole world goes back to tribal society from one reason or another.
>>263519
they are also much easier to use and train for properly than a bow and arrow
>>260350
>>263524
i know that, but if we get to a point where hunting and tribal warfare are important part of life you dont need to worry about that, you get enough experiense just by living your life. primitive musket is economical and really effective option only when deployed en masse.
>>263519
>They're absolutely useless compared to bows
Easier to use than a bow
>only reason they became "the thing" 500 years ago was that their ammo is easy and cheap to make only in industrial scale
Yes, prior the existence of factories.
>and that of course would't matter if the whole world goes back to tribal society from one reason or another.
Tribes in Southeast Asia were so into the use of matchlock muskets actually.
>>261137
How thick are you? He didn't say that bows = modern firearms, but that both were regarded as 'unfair' by traditionalist armchair generals throughout history. The Iliad stresses how the bow was a cowards weapon because it could kill a hero at a distance. The Pope tried to ban crossbows in the Middle Ages because they allowed the simplest peasant to snuff out a noble's life.
tl;dr delusional autists who oppose military innovation have always existed and warfare wasn't anymore glorious in the past
>>263566
>The Pope tried to ban crossbows in the Middle Ages because they allowed the simplest peasant to snuff out a noble's life.
I thought we finally stopped the memeing
>>260350
How are your "feelings" history?
>>263578
But that's exactly what it says, except it's for bows and crossbows.
>>261264
Not when you're fighting other people who have guns and who are shooting back.
In modern warfare you need to have an advantage of firepower and well-adapted tactics and cohesion if you want to 'win' a fight without losing half your men.
Maneuver has always been vital, but in the modern era a single insurgent could wipeout dozens of soldiers with a well placed MG or IED. Because every single man has a high-powered ranged killing machine, tactics have to be more decentralised and more individually taxing.
Don't forget that the majority of casualties in premodern battles (even into the Napoleonic Era) were sustained when the huge blocks of men lost their cool and routed because they were outmaneuvered. Most peoole weren't killed in 1-1 equal combat, nor would any sensible commander want to do that.
>>263554
Explain why Native Americans literally sold their daughters for muskets when they had perfectly effective bows?
Incidentally only culture to degenerate military tehcnology is probably the Japanese who firstrly forgot hwo to make crossbows in thrchinese design and secondly forgot how to make matchlocks after the sengoku jidai.
>>263578
I don't see the point of the argument in this image.
>>261397
What planet are you from.
Read up on the Guldensporenslag, peasant militias from Flemish cities completely wrecked a cavalry charge by the cream of the French nobility, using little more than spiked clubs.
>>263598
they were exotic imported status symbols, completely different concept than some crappy matchlock that you put together from scrap. we are talking about hypotethical situation where there is nowhere to import them from.
>>261536
Fuck off back to Reddit retard. Why even start a discussion if you refuse to contemplate the most basic arguments against your opinion.
>>263611
And Crossbow and pikes and IIRC stakes plus terrain which was absolutely terrible for cavalry.
>>263616
>they were exotic imported status symbols,
The average musket ball has like 0.50 to 0.75 in (13 to 19 mm) in Caliber.
You get hit by that, you're deader than getting hit by an arrow or a sling.
And tribes loved that.
>>261443
DEX and AGL have always been prevailing factors over STR. WIS too.
>>263578
Again, are you literally retarded? I'm not saying that crossbows were the exact same as machineguns. But they were regarded in the same way by many Medieval folk as OP seems to view guns: an immoral and relatively easy way to slaughter your 'betters' at a distance.
Jesus Christ, I had higher hooes for /his/ than debating against children who unirobically think the katana was the modt honourable weapon.
>>261397
>melee weapons are harder to use and master, which is irrefutable
You can't even compare the two, they're completely different.
>>260350
Yeah, because it's that much more fun to BR impaled or getting slashed into pieces than being shot at which kills you faster in certainly Situations or can get you injured but still not crippled. Iam not taking arty or explosives into account but if i had to choose, i would rather die from a bullet than being threatend like meat in a plate...
>>260350
Don't worry bruh, WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.
>>263624
>crossbows
The French actually had more, who had more ammo as well. Hence why they opened fire first. Ranged weapons played a negligble role in the conflict.
>pikemen
This is of course hard to verify for medieval militia armies, but I'm fairly sure that goedendagen were the 'default' weapons. Because:
>1. They're easier to make and train with
>2. The Flemish nobles who dismounted to defend on foot (most of them) chose to use a goedendag instead of pikes.
>3. The French launched a full frontal assault, both with inf and cav. It's unlikely that they would've done that against a pikewall
>terrain
Yes, but only slightly. Keep in mind that western Flanders looks like a biliard table and that the French felt confident enough to launch 2 frontal assaults, meaning that the territorial advantage wasn't immediately obvious until it was too late. The Flemish outmaneuvered and outsmarted them, making full use of their foes' overconfidence.
And that's what OP doesn't seem to get. Combat is about morale, tactics and cohesion foremost.
>>263656
>are you literally retarded?
No I was cured a week ago
>But they were regarded in the same way by many Medieval folk as OP seems to view guns: an immoral and relatively easy way to slaughter at a distance.
Yes?
So?
Did I say anything contrary to that? I was just pointing out you forgot to mention bows were banned in the same sentence. That was my first reply in this thread. I want to help the world get rid of a misconception.
>>263669
Combat wounds involving guns aren't a laughing matter. What makes wounds more survivable these days is that we actually know how most of our body works and the shit ton of medical personnel that is available to the average soldier.
>>263694
Except I already said that bows were regarded as cowardly by European nobility for millenia
>>263692
>The French actually had more, who had more ammo as well. Hence why they opened fire first. Ranged weapons played a negligble role in the conflict.
The French were trying to pull a Falkirk style tactic but overestimated how effective their crossbow fire was, then they charged in with men-at-arms like the English did at falkirk but instead of finding good ground they had to cover broken ground (I believe the Flemish dug a few holes too) and a ditch/brook plus a load of angry Flemish who weren't yet beaten to shit by crossbow fire.
Gotta remember the infantry and dismounted cavalry had polearms and spears, not something you wanna go up against with a club.
>>263712
I didn't see that I just read the sentence of the pope banning crossbows.
>>263718
Ah I never noticed the chest actually showed pikes in the front row but there you go.
>>260350
/k/ here, fuck off.
>>260350
>That we are past the time when a fight between two men was decided by who was the strongest and smartest and most agile.
That was almost never the case in warfare outside of one-on-one duels such as what arabs used to engage in or challenges between sword carrying nobility in controlled situations.
You may as well decry the crossbow, the bow and arrow, or the slingshot (David vs Goliath) to see how idiotically romanticised and false your views are.
>>263718
Vlaandern de Leeuw!
>>263753
Schild ende Vriend!
>>263738
>yfw /k/ fights for equality
>>260350
You ever read Dune? Technology got so advanced they made some sort of force field shield around a wielder that limits speed making guns obsolete leaving melee combat preferred for warfare.
>>263738
That makes a good argument against firearms, via nationalism.
Prior to firearms, your safety depended on your warrior class. Your warrior caste depended on the non-warrior caste. To be fed by farmers, and outfitted by artisans.
Everyone had to be the best to keep your nation the best.
Firearms seem to be very egalitarian.
>>260350
>Do you ever feel sad over the fact that modern firearms were invented?
Nope.
I have a reasonable chance to defend myself against the onslaught of those who wish to behead me with a 5" tactical blade, and do god knows what to my daughter.
The only way to "abandon war" is to dope us up on so many chems (in progress) that we don't care.
>>263755
we moeten echt beginnen na denken aan een leuze die onze nieuwe mede mens en eurocraat niet kan zeggen
wat denk je van Vlaanderen Vlaams?
>>263410
>Never understood that. Assuming you chaps are American, what service have they provided?
American propaganda plays into the whole Freedom ideology a lot when it comes to our military. Since the continental army liberated us from the British empire, and the WWII army slapped the shit out of Nazism, in America we get a lot of media telling us that our military is the reason we have our freedoms.
I mean it's true to a certain extent but we haven't fought a defensive war against an existential threat (very arguably) the Pacific war. And ironically we seem to enjoy selling our liberties during wars because we get terrified.
Anyway, part of the soldier worship also comes from how horribly the hippies treated the returning Vietnam veterans. Spitting on them, calling them baby killers, etc.
>>261231
>Combat takes more strategy and expertise than ever before because its much easier to die than ever before.
Yeah back in the day you had to fear dying outside combat all the time. God bless scientific efficiency.
>>263984
>Anyway, part of the soldier worship also comes from how horribly the hippies treated the returning Vietnam veterans.
Fair enough. I just think it's an odd overcompensation. Like, treat them well, but they're essentially performing an unnecessary task which the vast majority of people would never actually ask for. Yet they believe they should be eternally grateful to them because they figured they'd do it anyway.
Propaganda is a helluva drug.
>>260371
E D G Y
D
G
Y
Why don't you go enroll at a fencing school? I'd bet you'd forget this meme alltogether desu
>>261732
/fit/ pls
>>263738
If the strong don't rule anymore, who rules?
>>264294
The strong and smart ruled before, rule now and will rule in the future.
/k/ are imbecilic fetishists. Don't trust them
>>260350
As already stated, you're romanticizing people getting killed. War shouldn't be used as a political tool and if it somehow goes away in the future, that's for the best. If you want my opinion on war 500 years from now, well I would expect Mars to be an independent nation by then, I can imagine some kind of resource dispute over asteroids turning into a war in space, which would inevitably be incredibly devastating to interplanetary infrastructure and not even "cool" because likely no two combatants would meet face to face.
>>264294
jews
>>264294
Those with money and power. Firearms forces the centralization of the state and the growth of industry.
>>260350
No I don't. That being said, its not firearms that end the personal killing of war. Bayonet charges occured right through the Civil War.
Although bloody, they could successfully turn the tide of battle.
What ended hand to hand fighting and made war impersonal was the increased effectiveness of artillery. Artillery is the most casualty producing weapon on the battlefield.
To go into more depth, mortars more specifically are the most casualty producing weapon. They are the ones you have to really watch out for.
Firearms are good, heavy artillery is better.
t. former mortarman
>>264304
/k/ generally have good ideas even if they are an insular community. Don't get buttmad because you can't own guns and kill babies too.
>>264304
A large proportion of /k/ are people who have made their living with a gun. Trust us when we say that you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>263604
He did issue a proclamation banning crossbows. It's just that no one cared.
>>260495
Try googling "Self defense".
>>261032
Not having the tool to defend yourself and those you love implies that you do not truly love yourself and those you love, how can a lover of life not enjoy cleaning his cute firing mechanism, modern pieces of art made to have the power of a small explosion at a fingertip?
>>263519
>only on an industrial scale
>before the industrial revolution
>>261214
Call of duty doesn't count.
Retard pls leave
>>261214
War isn't the same as a firing range. There's a minimal height, strength, stamina, and speed requirements to even begin soldiering. Than there is a great deal of courage needed aspect to even be able to play the game...and we haven't even gotten to the technique and strategy!
itt: Fat NEET LARPers with sword fetishes fantasize about combat their lard asses could never partake in.
>G-guns a-a-are c-cowardly...
Great. Gunfags can be live cowards, you can be dead retards.
ctrl+f mongol
0 results
If we hadn't developed guns, the Mongol tactics of horse archery would still be the most powerful weapon/tactic combo to date, and hordes of Asiatic nasties "with tunics stitched from the skins of field mice" would have overrun Merovingia to the Atlantic.
>>268653
>tfw Ogedai will never lead civilization into its golden age
Feels bad
![infantryman-carries-a-full-combat-load-everett[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GJlveOj.jpg "infantryman-carries-a-full-combat-load-everett[1].jpg")
Something I find funny is that properly executed sword techniques weren't very dependent on physical strength, and medieval armor wasn't actually all that heavy. A knight needed to be in decent shape, but they didn't need to be terribly strong.
Modern soldiers struggle under extremely heavy combat loads. Physical strength is probably more important to warfare today than at any time after the invention of the axe.
>>267727
>Are you defending that /k/ cap which goes a long way to arguing guns cause civil society and helped to transition us from an honor culture to a dignity culture?
ftfy
I'm more pissed about the invention of fighter jets and nukes. If we were in a state of technology that was forever early 1940s with battleships cruisers light and heavy tanks and large bomber and fighter formations I would be in strategic bliss
i just want a girlfriend.
>>268766
Well said.
>>268880
This.
Airpower ruined war
>>264224
You don't ask for it because it's the most basic function of government and the one that legitimizes it in the first place.
Here, I'll help you out. Here is an incomplete list of the services provided in time of peace by a standing military.
1) Maritime Security: This is a big one. Commerce on the ocean doesn't just happen. It's no coincidence that places with failed states are also havens of piracy. Think of the horn of Africa. As such, modern navies make sea shipping possible by patrolling those lanes.
2)Deterrence: It's not just for nukes anymore! A funtioning, competent standing army makes anyone hesitant for non-nuclear nations. As such, they can only attack you if they think that they might win. Nobody but nobody starts a fight that they think that they can lose.
3) Disaster relief: The regular military abroad and the reserves here at home with some exceptions. The paratroopers and armored cav hauling people out of the water and evacuating the superdome during Katrina. Self-explanatory.
>>268846
Lol sure thing fag.
>>269083
Whatever.
>>268986
Don't get me wrong, I understand all that. It's just the hero worship like each modern soldier is expected to be treated like Hector going out to fight Achilles.
Even with the things you listed, that's still as practical a service as the post office or police force for the average citizen.
Plus, disaster relief is entirely a secondary function, not limited to the military. Same with maritime security, since they tend to be limited to to national waters.
Basically, they're just civil servants who have a cushy paycheck just to be yelled at while they exercise. Then if they choose to be deployed, even more cash, but that's still not at this stage offering a service to the taxpayers who fund them.
>>269127
No one is forcing you to go "danks fo duh cervix" at every serviceman or woman you meet.
A lot of military people find it uncomfortable as well.
>>269094
Sorry for offending your equaliser, comrade.
>>269127
That comes from being obligated to die if need be and volunteering to put yourself in a position to do it.
As for maritime security, Coast Guards typically handle national waters. It's the navies of the world that patrol international waters.
>>269165
Not my point. I'm not begrudging those who do it. I just think it's odd that they're doing it without considering why, or what they're actually thanking them for. Especially when there are so many others who get treated like shite but provide more of a service.
>>269174
Uh-huh
>>269174
sorry for upsetting your pathetic DnD wankfest nerd boy.
>>269185
>DnD wankfest nerd boy.
Wut.
>>269180
>That comes from being obligated to die if need be and volunteering to put yourself in a position to do it.
Again, I understand that, and it would justify it entirely if one were signing up in the defense of their nation. But that's just not the case. For America, the last time that would be so was probably the Mexican-American war.
Commonwealth nations WW2. France, Vietnam.
Anything else has just been for offensive gain, so soldiers aren't signing up to help defend their country, but because it's a job which they are being employed to do, like a bartender or salesperson.
Being potentially dangerous shouldn't affect it, otherwise we'd be worshiping uranium miners.
>>269191
>guns r bad because muh honoraburu sword fighting isn't relevant anymore
>>269225
>I'll pretend he said something he didn't so that i look better
>>>/antifa/
>>269243
lefties hate guns
if your gonna meme do it correctly.
>>269218
>so soldiers aren't signing up to help defend their country
They are signing up to do it if need be. Not every nation on the planet is like Fortress America or Britain which is the unsinkable aircraft carrier located off of the coast of France. The fact that it is difficult at best to reach the United States with an invasion does not invalidate this function.
Untrue. You're defining defense in terms that are entirely too strict. Afghanistan is the most recent example that I can think of. The deadliest day in American history was plotted from Afghanistan. Attacking the country can itself be considered a defensive act even though this would fall under your definition of offense.
>>269250
They like equality. Or rather, they like everyone brought down to the same level.
>>269243
Oh, 'sup methnigger. I was wondering when you were gonna peak your head up again.
/his/ I would like to introduce you to the single stupidest human being on 4chan, late of /pol/
>>269263
What are you on about?
>>269258
no they don't.
they loathe guns because now their precious government can't go and enforce things without some nut shooting them, or at least threatening to do so.
you'll notice a lot more liberals support gun control than conservatives.
>>269255
>They are signing up to do it if need be.
Totally, but until they do it, they haven't really done so.
>The deadliest day in American history was plotted from Afghanistan.
Allegedly. But that the resulting invasion, and those around it hardly matched up with the supposed aims.
>>261465
Dude you're just a fucking idiot, accept it, you have no argument and I don't see your problem with 16 year Olds, if they are smart enough to shoot a navy seal in a combat situation then they're the better, more intelligent fighter than him, easy as that, now you can get into semantics and act like your petty little strawman proves anything but it doesn't, you're just an idiot. Even if there only were swords, it would be easy to kill someone with one stroke to the head and yes, you fucking retarded ass blasted cunt, a 16 year old could've done that, just because you are able to fire a weapon does not mean that it's easy to outsmart a guy in combat, you surely wouldn't be able to do it.
>>269274
Of course. But it's two sides of the same ruble. They just don't realise it.
>>263738
This image really makes an argument against guns more than for it. Leveling the playing field in war is pretty much an endorsement for chaos.
>>269286
The mental acrobatics that you are capable of are astounding.
>>269300
They aren't talking about war.
>>269300
>Leveling the playing field in war is pretty much an endorsement for chaos.
war is usually pretty chaotic.
>>269319
Well first of all, they don't loathe guns. They loathe people they don't like having power which they don't agree with.
Secondly: like >>269300 says, guns level the field. Every nigger is equal to the most aryan /pol/ fantasy when they both have a gun.
Intelligence, agility, strength, and even training a lot of the time don't really matter because of them.
Nigga
>>269277
And how does any of this change that obligation?
Soldiers may be chattel but they have always been honored chattel.
>>269415
Because basically they're gambling on peace for a six figure paycheck, rather than actually providing a necessary or asked for service.
