End date 2030, 100 years...

[IronDuke99]

The reason I say that is that that would have SG WWII - MBT covering 100 years or, to put it another way, roughly the difference in time between the battle of Waterloo in 1815 and the Somme in 1916, or from the Somme to today.

Food for thought on many different levels...

Have things changed more or less? Has weapons and technology advanced more quickly or more slowly? What do you think?

[Oche]

Good one, as an armchair colonel i've always ask myself this question from time to time. But as much as technology dazzles and sparks, with flying tanks, hovering laser turreted drones, cheetah, aracnid or humanoid like terminator robots, infantry will always prevail even though the meat grinder and cannon fodder days are hopefully forever far gone.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Oche

...infantry will always prevail even though the meat grinder and cannon fodder days are hopefully forever far gone.

I think it depends on what you're willing to die (sacrifice) for. Unlike the beaches of Normandy or the carnage at Iwo Jima, with volunteer armies we're not willing to die as that generation of WW2.

This war on terror has not solicited the same willingness to prevail as once was to defeat the Axis powers.

In the US, the days immediately following Pearl Harbor, the recruiting lines culminated in blocks. After, 9/11 we were told to go shopping whilst recruiters offered sign up bonuses.

Maybe in a future war, that generation will display the same willingness as a society to sacrifice as those did in WW2.

=====

[Suhiir]

It's a multifaceted problem these days.

With the global internet most of us, heck look at these forums, have far more contact with people outside our own nation/ethnic group then they had in the past, we KNOW the "common man" isn't all that different anyplace in the world. So it's harder to see people as "inhuman foes" as they were often portrayed in the past.

Also we actually do have a pretty much of global economy, so national leaders have to carefully weigh the cost of a war vs the benefits.

With the "War on Terror" we have a "worthy foe", but unlike the past we can't attack their nation/infrastructure because they don't have one.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

The reason I say that is that that would have SG WWII - MBT covering 100 years or, to put it another way, roughly the difference in time between the battle of Waterloo in 1815 and the Somme in 1916, or from the Somme to today.

Food for thought on many different levels...

Have things changed more or less? Has weapons and technology advanced more quickly or more slowly? What do you think?

Looking through the OOB's gives you a pretty good idea of how things advanced & who came up with what.
Progress is sometimes slow, & sometimes leaps quickly..
Armor advances, ammo advances armor takes a big leap or its discovered you have been badly uderestimating your opponent, bigger gun & improve the ammo.
Same with everrything from RPGs to SAMs you can see who is good at what split it down further, who is good at giros firecontrol vision devices etc & normally has an edge in that area.
The original M1 was a huge jump forward for the US fast well armored superb accuracy for the day & the ability in the right conditions to detect the enemy long before they can see you.
Unfortunatly those last 2 huge advantages were negated by the firepower. Russia would have realised pretty quickly let the T-64s deal with the standard stuff & send the T-80s against them possibly along with any cannon fodder they could get mobile.
So it still would not have dominated the battlefield vs Russia like the Tiger or even the Matilda in some theatres.
When your talking armor in WWll you were fairy unlucky if you didnt at least have something that could pose a threat even if not a significant one, you could at least cause a bump in the road. Modern armor vs old tech is plain & simply a Turkey shoot. Technology gap is so vast now from drones, battlefield awarness to firecontrol & protection between a Main Player & 3rd rate country standard warfare would be pretty much suicide.
Its also good fun exploring some of the African or South American countries OOBs for some strange mixes of Tech & definetly diffrent types of tactics you need.
You might have fairly high end SAMs & Manpads but still be using upgraded Shermans, be very carefull with them the othersides RPG or RCL could destroy something with 3 x the armor.
Israel is an intresting OOB to some countries that seem on a constant war footing dont seem to advance much but Israel is constantly upgrading & looking at new ways to gain an advantage.
Heck US funding is worth every cent I would say, Merkerva & Abrahms have been evaluated in side by side tests. US has studied how they fight especially in urban areas & modified tactics & vehicles accordingly.

[Suhiir]

Something else you really need to keep in mind is how common various systems are. While folks like SEALS, SAS, and Spetsnaz have lots of nice toys they're really only used by those specialized units.

A common problem with the Soviets and in particular their Pact allies is people, and the AI, tend to buy the best current to the date of the battle units. Yet in reality only a very limited number of these systems are available, perhaps even years after they are introduced.

[Firestorm]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

The reason I say that is that that would have SG WWII - MBT covering 100 years or, to put it another way, roughly the difference in time between the battle of Waterloo in 1815 and the Somme in 1916, or from the Somme to today.

Food for thought on many different levels...

Have things changed more or less? Has weapons and technology advanced more quickly or more slowly? What do you think?

In 2030, there will probably still be people using Mosin-Nagants or Lee-Enfields in places like Donbass and Syria. Did anyone have a Brown Bess in World War I?

(some of TE Lawrence's people probably had muskets, but I think even those were generally rifled)

[jivemi]

[quote=Firestorm;836401]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

(some of TE Lawrence's people probably had muskets, but I think even those were generally rifled)

Sorry to get finicky, but isn't "rifled musket" an oxymoron? The term has been used to describe muzzle-loading rifles during the US civil war, but technically if the firearm's barrel is spirally grooved and it fires a pointed cylindrical bullet isn't it a species of rifle?

Anyway Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or just plain Happy Holidays folks!

[Firestorm]

[quote=jivemi;836402]

Originally Posted by Firestorm

Sorry to get finicky, but isn't "rifled musket" an oxymoron? The term has been used to describe muzzle-loading rifles during the US civil war, but technically if the firearm's barrel is spirally grooved and it fires a pointed cylindrical bullet isn't it a species of rifle?

Anyway Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or just plain Happy Holidays folks!

Depends. Before the 1840's, there was a definite dichotomy between a "musket" and a rifle because they both had their strengths and weaknesses. Rifles were more accurate but slow loading; you can just drop a musketball down the barrel and fire it, where an early rifle-ball had to fit so tightly for the rifling to actually work that you had to take your time to hammer it down the barrel. R. Lee Ermy explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ2JdkG2Yi4

The invention of the minie ball changed that, it removed almost all of a muzzle-loading rifle's disadvantages. By 1865 almost everyone had a "rifled musket" of some kind—and some of these were literally smooothbore muskets that had grooves cut in the barrels to turn them into rifles— so they just started calling anything muzzleloaded a "musket" to differentiate them from the next wave of technology: breech-loading and lever-action guns that were becoming more and more common.

Interestingly enough, I've seen sources from World War I refer to old guns that were still in limited military use (lever-action Winchesters, breach-loading Martini-Henrys) as "muskets". Might have once been a fairly generic term for obsolete service weapons, though I don't know for sure.

[jivemi]

[quote=Firestorm;836404]

Originally Posted by jivemi

Depends. Before the 1840's, there was a definite dichotomy between a "musket" and a rifle because they both had their strengths and weaknesses. Rifles were more accurate but slow loading; you can just drop a musketball down the barrel and fire it, where an early rifle-ball had to fit so tightly for the rifling to actually work that you had to take your time to hammer it down the barrel. R. Lee Ermy explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ2JdkG2Yi4

The invention of the minie ball changed that, it removed almost all of a muzzle-loading rifle's disadvantages. By 1865 almost everyone had a "rifled musket" of some kind—and some of these were literally smooothbore muskets that had grooves cut in the barrels to turn them into rifles— so they just started calling anything muzzleloaded a "musket" to differentiate them from the next wave of technology: breech-loading and lever-action guns that were becoming more and more common.

Interestingly enough, I've seen sources from World War I refer to old guns that were still in limited military use (lever-action Winchesters, breach-loading Martini-Henrys) as "muskets". Might have once been a fairly generic term for obsolete service weapons, though I don't know for sure.

Thanks for the video and explication. So now I know that early rifles (Kentucky Long and British Baker of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's Rifles fame) fired ball instead of conical bullets. Learn something new here all the time. Cheers!