DarkJediKnight
Member
Siege weapons like catapaults and ladders are completely useless.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What weapons/vehicles are useless in modern era?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
MistakenMobius
Member
And if you have the energy/engine to make a useful walking tank, you can make a better rolling tank.
There is no useful use of Big size mech unless the setting make them for whatever reason important (like staircase world)
Thelonelykoopa
Member
LordKasual
Banned
Fighter Jets are probably going to become obsolete thanks to drones at some point.
They are extremely expensive / difficult to build and maintain, while comparatively far easier to destroy.
Soon we'll just have Drone Swarms for a fraction of the cost and no danger of risking our own.
They are extremely expensive / difficult to build and maintain, while comparatively far easier to destroy.
Soon we'll just have Drone Swarms for a fraction of the cost and no danger of risking our own.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Plus, no need to train someone to resist the strain of increased G-Force if they can be sat comfortably at your base. So unless we get Gundam style jamming technology that makes remote weapons in general useless, that progression is only gonna increase.
ExtremePopcorn
Member
Not really, the U-2 is still in-service.
The problem with satellites is that it is possible to track their orbits and know their "windows" over your territory so you can avoid detection.
This isn't too bad during peacetime but in a conflict you need reconnaissance or spy planes to do a lot of the work.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
There is a current push in the US Military to replace the 5.56 and M4 again. This push is primarily due to Russian body armor being able to effectively block a 5.56 round. I believe the two competing calibers are the 6.5 Creedmore and the old 7.62x51 nato. New guns have been commissioned to be built and a winner will likely be chosen in the next decade.
For example, the LSAT uses a fancy 6.5 Creedmore round that is supposed to be around the same weight as the 5.56 but offer much better ballistics (I believe it uses plastic jackets?). I can't imagine us using 7.62x51 again unless we go caseless or something. It just weighs way too much. Currently only snipers and special forces carrying SCAR mk17s carry 7.62x51.
I hope the 6.5 Creedmore wins. It is a GREAT round that I would love see become more affordable due to mass production. You can get 6.5 Creedmore uppers for AR15s that preform way better then 5.56 but the bullets themselves are super expensive.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Lmao, what.
This is what a tank looks like:
Pretty confident that police aren't driving around in these.
ClosingADoor
Member
Sure, but the issue is: can you rely on that all the time? And do you have a base everywhere? Aircraft carriers give you a certain amount of freedom to move your troops and airforce around the world even if you don't have a land base. Something that for the US is pretty important, since anyone they could go to war with has an ocean between them. So forward power projection through carriers keeps your home safe and gives you the ability to park your airforce at the other sides doorstep to some extend.
MikeOfAllTrades
Member
In the context of warfare they are slow and outdated, but for personal use, revolvers are rock solid and more reliable than any semi-auto I've ever fired. I'd be inclined to blame any misfires on ammo quality.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Kinda sad honestly, battleships are such a thing of beauty compared to modern ship design.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
I'm still holding hope for railgun Battleships
Chasm Skulker
Banned
Wait what?
I thought the attraction of a revolver was that the simplicity of the mechanism makes them far less likely to misfire.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
Seeing as how almost all conflict has shifted to insurgency/counter-insurgency and guerilla warfare...most of it?
Wyndstryker
Member
Reminds me of the cover for Use Of Weapons, which is one of the GOAT sci cover arts
Edit - But yeah, they have been essentially obsolete since about 1942, and modern torpedoes and guided missiles just make them more so. The only role they could possibly fill nowadays would be shore bombardment, and that is done more accurately and efficiently by air bombing or cruise missile.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
MsKrisp
Member
Lmao, what.
This is what a tank looks like:
Pretty confident that police aren't driving around in these.
Oh thank you I've never seen a tank before in my life I'm just discussing them here because I'm in the dark. smh
There are different kinds of tanks folks
Oh thank you I've never seen a tank before in my life I'm just discussing them here because I'm in the dark. smh
While it is ridiculous that US police forces have things like those, those are Armoured personnel carriers. Even their full military versions are far less armoured, and carry very light weaponry in comparison to a main battle tank.
Prinz Eugn
Member
Oh thank you I've never seen a tank before in my life I'm just discussing them here because I'm in the dark. smh
There are different kinds of tanks folks
The generic term you are looking for is armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), of which tanks are a specific type. Those are armored personnel carriers, which are still somewhat crazy for random police departments to have, but less crazy than something with a gun that can shoot through half a meter of steel.
UnluckyKate
Member
From here, Nevada with their 127mm refit?
Musashi, yamato class
Missouri, Iowa class but far after 1945 lol
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Oh thank you I've never seen a tank before in my life I'm just discussing them here because I'm in the dark. smh
There are different kinds of tanks folks
Thats an APC, and while it does seem a bit crazy for police to have it is likely far better and cheaper than a modern swat van for example.
They are Vietnam era
Top is Pennsylvania class followed by Colorado.
MsKrisp
Member
Forgive me, but I find tanks to be the generic term for an armored fighting vehicle on tracks. A quick search shows that it's confusing in general to a lot of people. So yeah, AFVs, APCs, etc., if it's on tracks and has weaponry, my brain thinks of it as a tank. If it's an MRAP type of vehicle, I don't think of it as a tank.
Imperfected
Member
The weird part about police having APCs is they don't really accomplish anything.
The point of an APC is to transport troops through a dangerous warzone to a point where they will disembark and take infantry action. They don't really do much in and of themselves.
Police don't really have issues with having to traverse dangerous terrain to get to the place where they do dangerous work. Their danger is very much isolated to the destination point.
The point of an APC is to transport troops through a dangerous warzone to a point where they will disembark and take infantry action. They don't really do much in and of themselves.
Police don't really have issues with having to traverse dangerous terrain to get to the place where they do dangerous work. Their danger is very much isolated to the destination point.
Forerunner
Member
Oh thank you I've never seen a tank before in my life I'm just discussing them here because I'm in the dark. smh
There are different kinds of tanks folks
Those aren't tanks. The majority of police use vehicles such as Bearcats now. They are also generally used just for SWAT and other specialized teams.
Think back to after 9/11 when the US were forced to use former Soviet bases in central Asia from which to launch airstrikes, with destroyers in the Indian Ocean launching cruise missile strikes on Taliban positions. Carriers can only get you so far and are increasingly being seen by military chiefs around the world as a burden due to their cost and limitations.
Oh thank you I've never seen a tank before in my life I'm just discussing them here because I'm in the dark. smh
There are different kinds of tanks folks
Those aren't tanks, at all. Small countries sometimes like to utilise them in a tank role but that's not their role. An APC, like in your images, are for moving personnel to and from the battlefield and often travel with a heavy tank escort for protection.
Though I accept what you're referring to with the increasing militarisation of civil police forces in the States. Police shouldn't be using APC's with 60mm autocannons.
Rex Griswold
Member
Any issues with any semi autos you've had are likely also due to bad ammo. Unless you've exclusively shot garbage guns (like Taurus or ring of fire manufacturer guns), the "revolvers are 10000000 times more reliable than any of those fandangled youropeein' auto loaders!" gat fact is extremely high on the bullshit rating. That's the kind of Fudd lore that needs to hurry up and die already, 1900, when it was not a total nonsense statement, was a century ago.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
I would say Prop planes, but it turns out the US military still uses them and there is a contest right now between 4 companies to design a new one. I was so confused when I found that out, but they do have their benefits.
NekoFever
Member
No they didn't. Spy planes can be anywhere at any time, while you have to wait for a satellite to be in position. And as someone else said, you can track satellites and know when they're overhead, timing your actions accordingly.
Honestly I'd say like 75% of the Metal Gears in the MGS series are just not feasible in today's era of warfare. Which is surprising. You'd think a giant mecha-nuke robot tank would be something that fits all battlefields, but logically it doesn't.
Just throw 15 RPGs at it and they're done. sm
Just throw 15 RPGs at it and they're done. sm
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Haha no. Carries are a major factor in navel and air domination.
To be fair they were never particularly useful. They were, however, awesome
Here is a Schwerer Gustav shell:
Note that that doesn't include the propellant charge, which is nearly as large as the shell itself.
Agreed. Missiles and subs pose a threat to carriers, but there have been numerous threats to carriers for over 70 years and carrier groups have found ways to counter those threats. Long range missiles require very good intelligence, which is tough in the middle of the ocean while carriers move fairly quickly.
If a few modern carriers are sunk then it might be time to think that they're "obsolete", but right now carriers are the most significant tools to project power from the sea.
They don't jam and I've never heard them being described as more prone to mis-firing than a semi automatic; if they do misfire it's usually an issue with the rounds being used, and the benefit of a revolver is that you can just keep clicking to the next round instead of having to stop and clear the jam or misfired cartridge.
That said the reload time is quite slow, combined with generally small number of rounds per load.
Shadic7700
Member
But could Snake take down Jehutey or Anubis? If Japan gets to Z.O.E. levels of mecha they win right?
One Eyed Willy
Member
Revolvers were always the most reliable handgun for decades, until the wonder 9s came around in the mid 80s. Today, revolvers are still fine guns but reliability can be had with magazine fed rounds, aplenty.
Thug Waffle
Member
idk gundams are pretty mobile, which is completely antithetical to how traditional tanks work
MistakenMobius
Member
If you have the engine to move like in the shows then you can make tanks/ spaceship that will just zip around them.
It's kind of funny that Sigint in MGS3 laid out pretty well why bipedal mechs would be a bad idea in reality (I am on mobile at work and can't pull it up, but this codec call should be on YouTube).
Otherwise, the only mechs I could see feasibly working in reality are the Wanzers from Front Mission (they mostly only supplement infantry, tanks, etc instead of outright replacing them, are designed for very specific urban warfare, and can actually get taken out by tanks and even infantry with enough coordination), or Labors from Patlabor (mostly meant for construction or very niche police situations).
TheRedSnifit
Member
Oh thank you I've never seen a tank before in my life I'm just discussing them here because I'm in the dark. smh
There are different kinds of tanks folks
???
Fair enough.
But I've got to ask, was your original argument that tracked vehicles in general are useless? Because I'm pretty sure that as long as sand and mud and stuff exists you're going to want to have tracks. There are tracked recon vehicles that can cross territory you can't even walk through.
https://web.archive.org/web/2015112...irefighters-respond-active-shooter-at-planned
http://abcnews.go.com/US/hours-body...nightclub-shooting-released/story?id=47753356
Lol, was just thinking the same thing. I thought it was curious to see Kojima allow some real world military facts seep into that game when SIGINT essentially shot down the whole concept of bipedal tanks. It made sense in this world but more or less rendered pointless the development of Metal Gear later in the series. Those seriously suggesting that a walking Gundam/MG type weapons system could be feasible honestly have no clue. The maxim of "the bigger they are, they harder they fall" is especially true of walking battle tanks. Some well placed trip wires could be enough to take down such a "walker".
WWII proved without a doubt that bigger didn't mean better. The massive Battleships of the great powers were largely sidelined as small ans nimble aircraft decided many battles. The huge Yamoto was sunk by carrier-borne aircraft. In Europe larger German tanks failed to win the war against the smaller, but more numerous, tanks of the Allied forces. Hitler had an obsession with BIG but that ended up being his downfall. Sometimes quantity beats quality.
We're seeing this come full circle now as many naval powers focus more on frigates and destroyers, armed with highly accurate cruise missiles while also moving to secure a network of overseas bases for power projection. The major powers of the US, UK, France, Japan and China have established air and naval bases in the Middle East region to project power and protect their interests.
If the US was to get into a shooting war with Iran it would likely be from Qatari, Kuwaiti and Bahraini bases where fighters would launch from.