DarkJediKnight
Member
Siege weapons like catapaults and ladders are completely useless.
And if you have the energy/engine to make a useful walking tank, you can make a better rolling tank.Bipedal walking tanks will never become a feasible option in a military role due to their high centre of gravity and sheer complexity. A BVR missile would take one out with ease.
The makers of Gundam understood this perfectly, hence why they had to invent some whole new branch of physics (Minovsky Particles) in order to justify their existence. Modern warfare rejects the notion of a killer app in the battlespace. Instead you have a whole host of weapons platforms (tanks, APC's, assault helis, naval vessels, satellites and ground troops) all working in unison as part of a single, cohesive war fighting machine linked through a military communications network (the network-centric force).
Mounted police are incredibly intimidating in a way that a policeman in a car isn't.
Its why they are used for crowd control
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.
Satellites made spy planes obsolete.
Things that are currently pretty useless:
Basically every form of mine (including the still somewhat actively used claymore anti-personnel mines). The political will to use these and deal with the consequences of using them simply is not there. They are no longer a significant strategic consideration in an anti-tank role, and basically only of interests to insurgent forces who of course also seem to be the ones to stumble across the stockpiles of them non-insurgent forces keep around for not particularly good reasons.
Anti-materiel rifles, despite being super rad, have honestly entered a sort of twilight zone where their portability and reliability is not significantly greater than modern artillery, and we can probably go ahead and phase them out. As above, they actually tend to be significantly more attractive to insurgents than modern military forces, having been replaced in virtually every role they once served.
Tactical nuclear weapons are practically useless. Politically and morally no one actually recognizes any meaningful difference between using a tactical and strategic nuclear weapon, and conventional bombs and fuel-air explosives have mostly consumed their functional niche. There's basically no call for using these things outside of all-out nuclear war (because no one's going to tolerate #CasualNukes), and if you're going to set the world on fire you might as well do the job right.
I'm honestly consistently amazed at the non-obsolescence of some standard NATO rounds and weapon systems, particularly the 5.56 ball and standard 9mm pistol cartridges. They should be at the point where their penetration against body armor is insufficient to task, but since we keep getting into dust-ups with people who can't afford ballistic-rated vests, they continue to be surprisingly useful.
As long as we're still waging war in the middle east, tanks are useless. They're too large and heavy and can't get dropped in with a helicopter so vehicles like MRAPs are preferable. I might be remembering this wrong, but the uselessness of tanks to the military right now is why a lot of local police departments were able to snatch up tanks at low low prices to terrorize people at home with.
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.Why do you think the US and other major NATO countries have military bases all over the globe? Airstrikes against Serb forces in the 90's were undertaken from NATO bases in the UK and Germany.
Do revolvers fit into this discussion at all? Their load method and propensity to misfire way more often than self-loaded weapons makes them sound obsolete.
Kinda sad honestly, battleships are such a thing of beauty compared to modern ship design.The day of the battleship is over.
The day of the battleship is over.
Navies now use smaller ships to act as screens for carriers. The carriers do the heavy lifting.
Do revolvers fit into this discussion at all? Their load method and propensity to misfire way more often than self-loaded weapons makes them sound obsolete.
I don't think any navy even has battleships commissioned anymore
Kinda sad honestly, battleships are such a thing of beauty compared to modern ship design.
I don't think any navy even has battleships commissioned anymore
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
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
Kinda sad honestly, battleships are such a thing of beauty compared to modern ship design.
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
Top is Pennsylvania class followed by Colorado.From here, Nevada with their 127mm refit?
Musashi, yamato class
Missouri, Iowa class but far after 1945 lol
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Satellites made spy planes obsolete.
Haha no. Carries are a major factor in navel and air domination.I'm willing to say carriers are outdated for large scale conflicts, they are easy targets for missiles and subs, and war games have shown this weakness again and again.
Railway cannons.
Haha no. Carries are a major factor in navel and air domination.
Do revolvers fit into this discussion at all? Their load method and propensity to misfire way more often than self-loaded weapons makes them sound obsolete.
But could Snake take down Jehutey or Anubis? If Japan gets to Z.O.E. levels of mecha they win right?If we humans
ever can create ones like from Metal Gear Solid they sure will be usefull...
Altho one man was able to take em down in those games lol. But i think a fully realised walkin/flyin mech can be pretty usefull but we won't see one in our lifetime tho. And it would be fucking expensive to even just build a very usefull single one.
Do revolvers fit into this discussion at all? Their load method and propensity to misfire way more often than self-loaded weapons makes them sound obsolete.
Japan keeps building Gundams, when, if we're being honest, a bipedal tank has more weaknesses than advantages.
If you have the engine to move like in the shows then you can make tanks/ spaceship that will just zip around them.idk gundams are pretty mobile, which is completely antithetical to how traditional tanks work
If we humans
ever can create ones like from Metal Gear Solid they sure will be usefull...
Altho one man was able to take em down in those games lol. But i think a fully realised walkin/flyin mech can be pretty usefull but we won't see one in our lifetime tho. And it would be fucking expensive to even just build a very usefull single one.
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
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.
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.
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).
.