Future Warfighter
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
A military unit from the 1970s isn't that much more primitive than a modern U.S. military unit.
Would an operator from 2030 really be that untouchable compared to what we have now?
>>29466463
Ubiquitous use of FLIR perhaps but that's about it.
>>29466463
>untouchable
Probably. Units will most likely be drones, robots and other units that are autonomous or remote controlled. The operators will be on a different continent.
Continuous miniaturization means each unit will be loaded with sensors for FLIR, night vision, acoustics, radio and more and provide a flood of intelligence data back to the operators and thus push back the fog of war.
Units can be small and unobtrusive like birds, dogs, rodents that can get in everywhere and carry sensors or ordnance.
Western politicians have little appetite for large body counts and will embrace this development.
>>29466712
You're retarded. People in the sixties thought we'd be in flying cars by now. OP said 2030 that's only 14 years.
Would you be able to beat up yourself from 30 years ago? Or twenty, maybe ten years ago?
>>29466729
That's probably because in the 60s Chrysler built a car with a turbine engine and the cars built by major manufacturing companies looked like spaceships.
>>29466463
>Alright men, remember, if you get hit, be sure to throw your arms up in surprise like we're playing space paintball
>>29466463
>in the near space age future, no one needs cover or concealment
>except they really fucking do
>they just refuse it
>>29466463
I doubt it. We seem to have peaked in small arms development, and current armor has kept pace with that. Force multipliers like night vision are pretty mature too.
>>29466729
Dreamers without sufficient knowledge about aircraft technology might have thought so. Either way, your argument is kinda weak, but 2030 is probably too soon for this scenario.
>>29466463
>Would an operator from 2030
This really depends on what equipment they have.
A well funded country might have thermal and individual drones. Automated mortars are already being used in AF.
Countries that don't spend a lot on their military might be rocking thermals on their weapons and drones should be cheap.
Islamic/Tribal shitholes will still be rocking AK-47, M16s and maybe some tactical drones.
The exception being Iran and Sweden that have the G3.
>>29466729
>People in the sixties thought we'd be in flying cars by now.
No problems. It is just a question of putting in the work. Pic related.
> OP said 2030 that's only 14 years.
It took the US less time to get to the moon. Again it is about putting in the work. And it is about the body counts and the US aversion about new Vietnams and actually getting that in the Middle East.
>>29466463
Moonraker space battle GOAT
![by_a_thread%20Doc%20Padgett[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/WMbnsYk.gif "by_a_thread%20Doc%20Padgett[1].gif")
>>29466463
>Would an operator from 2030 really be that untouchable compared to what we have now?
If anything, operators have gotten softer over the years.
Compare Nam era high speed low drag units and their mentality to modern day GOTTA WRITE THIS BOOK SOF.
>>29466463
But a modern US army would steamroll a 1970s US army.
>>29466463
An infantry soldier from WW2 still isn't that different to an infantry soldier today. The only difference is small bits of kit like night vision equipment that give the modern soldier a slight edge in certain circumstances. But I fucking hate using HMNVS so I'd go without.
>>29467054
Would you say it takes about a 100 years for a proper military infantryman to fully outclass another era of infantryman?
There has to be a point where an adversary seems like a magical being because its so advanced.
An example would be a Continental Army regiment suddenly encountering you and your squad mates in the woods. You'd be literally magic.
>>29466463
Moonraker is so based
>>29467081
Hell, you saw that mismatch in the Civil War. The North had repeating rifles and proper railroad infrastructure and the South didn't. They were turbo fucked from day one.
>>29467054
Bulllshit. A WW2 infantry would get wrecked by a modern equivalent. Night vision is not merely a small edge. Body armor, assault rifles, optics, grenade launchers and a proper GMPG and SAW massively tilt the playing field in favor of the modern squad.
>>29466463
in terms of armour, our current mbt can shoot a PRACTICE sabot clean through our old tanks
>>29466463
LOL, Moonraker was so hokey.
>>29467249
Small, cheap flying camera drones are in the infantry now. Small cheap ground camera drones are a huge force multiplier. An infantry company with its own mortars can act as its own spotter and artillery, and call for fire from the big guns without leaving thier patrol base.
>>29467569
So were lots of old movies, that's kinda part of their charm.
I remember watching "It" and being scared shitless but when I rewatched it you could tell the monsters hands were bouncy rubber.
>>29467641
>charm
There is nothing charming about Hollywood, a regime who thinks they have complete control over the general public.
>>29467804
>think they have complete control
They do have complete control. The average faggot ITT remembers the names of at least 40 celebrities. The average faggot ITT formed their opinions of various issues and various communities based on something created by a Hollywood writing/director team.
>>29466813
>Implying the modern/prior US military hasn't done stupid shit like that all the time
Where are the gun shields to take cover behind today?
Where are the fortified bases? Oh wait people still live in fucking tents & shitty apartments.
>>29466463
>A military unit from the 1970s isn't that much more primitive than a modern U.S. military unit.
wut
>NODs are general issue
>hybrid night vision/FLIR monoculars are starting to be issued that offer the best of both worlds
>optics are general issue
>rifle plates are general issue
>radios for intrasquad communication are now a thing
>>29467623
At this point, you'd have to seriously wonder what you still need infantry for, or, conversely, what they're useful for if the enemy has somewhat similar technology.
