The Value of training with odd-ball weapons

[Deleted member 39746]

Weird weapons are my favorite kind.

This thing is bizarre, but still devastatingly effective, like the name suggests.

Shock and awe works, so the odder the weapon, the more confounding to the enemy. Like knocking someone out with a wet towel. I've seen it happen.

See those arent that odd to me, they are just big bolos. Or what ever they are called the name eludes me currently. Now days a lot of non odd weapons are considered odd down to them becoming obsolete pretty much, like most primitve weapons.

 

[Oily Dragon]

See those arent that odd to me, they are just big bolos. Or what ever they are called the name eludes me currently. Now days a lot of non odd weapons are considered odd down to them becoming obsolete pretty much, like most primitve weapons.

They're never obsolete. This thing could spill your brains a thousand years ago, or today.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

They're never obsolete. This thing could spill your brains a thousand years ago, or today.

Term obsolete doesnt mean it doesnt work anymore, its just surpassed in ability and use. Try fighting a modern army with a musket for example, they are obsolete. (if you only have that you will use it, but you still wont have a fun game)

 

[jobo]

Term obsolete doesnt mean it doesnt work anymore, its just surpassed in ability and use. Try fighting a modern army with a musket for example, they are obsolete. (if you only have that you will use it, but you still wont have a fun game)

well yes muskets are obsolete in the concept of warfare, but then armies are becoming obsolete, you could argue that they have been so since the invention of the Abomb, but its becoming increasingly so. tanks are obsolete, fighter jets are obsolete, you can just shoot them out of the air, helicopters are no use at all

mean while the AK 47 is holding up quite well and 50 mil guns on the back of pick up trucks are all the rage

 

[Deleted member 39746]

well yes muskets are obsolete in the concept of warfare, but then armies are becoming obsolete, you could argue that they have been so since the invention of the Abomb, but its becoming increasingly so. tanks are obsolete, fighter jets are obsolete, you can just shoot them out of the air, helicopters are no use at all

mean while the AK 47 is holding up quite well

That premise is dubious. Until such things are obsolete it is speculation when they will or if they will ever become obsolete. The AK is a modern generation of rifle, thats why its not obsolete, it is directly comprable to its contemporaries and sits in the same role. Battle rifles also arent obsolete, all though their days of being a service rifle to most countries are over so they are delegated to DMR duty pretty much.(technically making them DMMR's not BR's, accuracy demand is diffrent for the two though) How ever bolt actions would be obsolete and anything before them. (this is as a service rifle, they(bolt actions) still have some use outside of being a infantrymans rifle)

 

[jobo]

That premise is dubious. Until such things are obsolete it is speculation when they will or if they will ever become obsolete. The AK is a modern generation of rifle, thats why its not obsolete, it is directly comprable to its contemporaries and sits in the same role. Battle rifles also arent obsolete, all though their days of being a service rifle to most countries are over so they are delegated to DMR duty pretty much.(technically making them DMMR's not BR's, accuracy demand is diffrent for the two though) How ever bolt actions would be obsolete and anything before them. (this is as a service rifle, they(bolt actions) still have some use outside of being a infantrymans rifle)

the AK 47 is very old and outdated technology, its about as incubate as its possible to be, its popularity is on its robustness and ease of repair in bicycle shops and that the fall of the soviet union meant millions of them appeared on the black market

any battle between super powers will be fought with high technology not big armies or tanks, Tank battles are very 1940s, they wont happen again, why would they when you can take out a tank division with ground to ground missiles

fighter jets are only any use if the other side has fighter jets otherwise they are useless, and very easy to shoot down with high tech, any body with a rocket launcher can take a helicopter or a tank out

and battles with miner nations are generally l lost through attrition, the combined might of the British and american military and formerly the Russian militarily lost to a few goat hurdlers with AK 47 in Afghanistan . thats the very definition of obsolete and im not even citing Vietnam

 

[Deleted member 39746]

the AK 47 is very old and outdated technology, its about as incubate as its possible to be, its popularity is on its robustness and ease of repair in bicycle shops and that the fall of the soviet union meant millions of them appeared on the black market

any battle between super powers will be fought with high technology not big armies or tanks, Tank battles are very 1940s, they wont happen again

fighter jets are only any use if the other side has fighter jets otherwise they are useless, any body with a rocket laucher can take a helicopter out

and battles with miner nations are generally l lost through attrition, the combined might of the British and american military and formerly the Russian militarily lost to a few goat hurdlers with AK 47 in Afghanistan . thats the very definition of obsolete

Firstly, the AK47 was pretty much a russian clone of the STG (more to that, this is just gross summary). The design itself as the name implied was 40's technology and has since been updated, namely to the 74 which rechmbed it to 5.54x39. The basis for its inaccuracy comes down to bad ammo and worn out rifles. It is acceptable as a service rifle though, it can hit relible to the ranges expected of a service rifle.

The U.S contemporary (M16) started off as the AR10 which was made in the 50's, then adapted into the AR 15 and then adopted by the U.S around 67 (if i recall) the M16 its self has gone through many design changes and has been updated and largely improved, or at least updated to fit in with military doctrine and complaints.

So with that out of the way, they are equally as old and firearms technology doesnt usually change that often, now and then a revolutionary design crops up which changes the game, but until then its usually based on the previous revolutionary concept. For example, there is only so much you can do to make a musket better, thus when rifling cropped up that introduced a new concept that revolutionized the system. The usage of outdated implies there is something that can replace it as well.


As for superpowers, there is currently only one superpower, and what they did was what was done in the cold war, largely proxy wars down to the fact if the U.S was inavded by the USSR they would have more than likely nuked them edventually, and vice versa. (story for any country with nuclear weapons, status of super power or not) And then there were still convetional wars during the cold war. ie Vietnam, Yugolavian war, Falklands war, Iraq Iran war and the invasion of Iraq. (the latter one was after the cold war though) More than that, just the ones i know off by heart, as well as a big african war between pretty much all the countries on the contintent.


Modern Air superiorty aeroplanes are not obsolete, they work to maintain sir superiorty, granted they are closer to muilti roles with a focus on air superiorty now days, outside of warfare they can be used to shoot down hijacked aircraft and smugglers and for SAR. Modern aircraft for military use are fitted with devices to counter act any smart munitions in addition to pilots learning evasive action, now and then somone does shoot down a helicopter without a smart weapon but its usually while its landing or taking off from a lack of better words "hot LZ".

So fundementally, a military is built to fight another military in a conventional war. But also fundementally a army is prepared for the last war it fought. NATO for example is still (granted less so now, and pending country) adjusting from focusing everything to fight the soviets and counter act the soviets and that being the main threat, to something else now that they no longer exist and arent a major threat anymore.

I have effectively answered the last point with the other points made here.

 

[jobo]

Firstly, the AK47 was pretty much a russian clone of the STG (more to that, this is just gross summary). The design itself as the name implied was 40's technology and has since been updated, namely to the 74 which rechmbed it to 5.54x39. The basis for its inaccuracy comes down to bad ammo and worn out rifles. It is acceptable as a service rifle though, it can hit relible to the ranges expected of a service rifle.

The U.S contemporary (M16) started off as the AR10 which was made in the 50's, then adapted into the AR 15 and then adopted by the U.S around 67 (if i recall) the M16 its self has gone through many design changes and has been updated and largely improved, or at least updated to fit in with military doctrine and complaints.

So with that out of the way, they are equally as old and firearms technology doesnt usually change that often, now and then a revolutionary design crops up which changes the game, but until then its usually based on the previous revolutionary concept. For example, there is only so much you can do to make a musket better, thus when rifling cropped up that introduced a new concept that revolutionized the system. The usage of outdated implies there is something that can replace it as well.


As for superpowers, there is currently only one superpower, and what they did was what was done in the cold war, largely proxy wars down to the fact if the U.S was inavded by the USSR they would have more than likely nuked them edventually, and vice versa. (story for any country with nuclear weapons, status of super power or not) And then there were still convetional wars during the cold war. ie Vietnam, Yugolavian war, Falklands war, Iraq Iran war and the invasion of Iraq. (the latter one was after the cold war though) More than that, just the ones i know off by heart, as well as a big african war between pretty much all the countries on the contintent.


Modern Air superiorty aeroplanes are not obsolete, they work to maintain sir superiorty, granted they are closer to muilti roles with a focus on air superiorty now days, outside of warfare they can be used to shoot down hijacked aircraft and smugglers and for SAR. Modern aircraft for military use are fitted with devices to counter act any smart munitions in addition to pilots learning evasive action, now and then somone does shoot down a helicopter without a smart weapon but its usually while its landing or taking off from a lack of better words "hot LZ".

So fundementally, a military is built to fight another military in a conventional war. But also fundementally a army is prepared for the last war it fought. NATO for example is still (granted less so now, and pending country) adjusting from focusing everything to fight the soviets and counter act the soviets and that being the main threat, to something else now that they no longer exist and arent a major threat anymore.

I have effectively answered the last point with the other points made here.

well just reproducing wikipedia doesn't alter the point that the AK 47 is 40s technology ?????? or thats its been massively outdated by rifle technology of the last 70 yeas

you also dont seem to think china has a high tech army and isnt a supper power, the Russian can still make an impressive dent in china's or Americas militarily, they still have lots and lots of nuclear bombs.and high tec devices


the fact that one of the few uses you can find for 200 million dollar fighter jets is to catch smugglers,is telling.why would you need a plane that can double the speed of sounds for that. you could do it in a twin prop.

the main and really only use for fighter jets is to fight other fighter jets. you need air superiority to bomb or stop you being bombed by planes other than fighter jets, if the fighter jets are hard to shoot down the bomber arnt and who needs bombers, when when you can target specific building with missiles, just take the airstrips or carriers out, lets see you land one of them in a field


''conventional wars'' , if by that you mean anything vaguely resembling the second world war, wont happen, its a simple as that,

they could have recaptured the Falklands with half a dozen drones and a few patriot missiles if happened now,

wars in Africa etal are fought with ak47s and pick up trucks and machetes,, not a lot of tank battles

and as ive already suggested, wars between super/ major powers and others tend to go towards Guerrilla warfare , for which tanks and fighter jets etc are useless

 

[Oily Dragon]

Term obsolete doesnt mean it doesnt work anymore, its just surpassed in ability and use. Try fighting a modern army with a musket for example, they are obsolete. (if you only have that you will use it, but you still wont have a fun game)

Obsolete is contextual. You, me, a dark room, and my meteor hammer means I have the state of the art, and you're probably gonna die.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Any weapon capable of effectively taking out the enemy is not obsolete. In a hand weapon, that means rate of fire, accuracy and range, low maintenance and high durability. Regarding tanks, the same criteria apply, with the addition of survivability. US tanks in Desert Storm and Shield won the day. They may still have a role vs Russia and N. Korea. Perhaps even China in the future. Air superiority trumps all. Whether manned or drone. Again, this was proven in Desert Storm. Tech war is a tennis match of new weapons versus new defenses. Computers are not obsolete because they can be hacked. The answer is better firewalls and such. However, the occupation of territory, the true measure of dominance, depends on ground troops.

Conventional versus guerrilla warfare can perhaps be likened to long range striking versus close up grappling. The former of each relying on clean ranged shots and the other being more down and dirty. Obviously, not an exact comparison, but close enough. The point is one needs both skill sets and capabilities as the theaters of battle and enemies change. Politics are as fluid as a fight is.

A real scarry weapon is the lone wolf or small cell terrorist group with a black market A bomb. And Bio/Chemical warfare makes any power one to reckon with. Evil is seemingly never obsolete, but then, neither is justice. The fight goes on.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Any weapon capable of effectively taking out the enemy is not obsolete. In a hand weapon, that means rate of fire, accuracy and range, low maintenance and high durability. Regarding tanks, the same criteria apply, with the addition of survivability. US tanks in Desert Storm and Shield won the day. They may still have a role vs Russia and N. Korea. Perhaps even China in the future. Air superiority trumps all. Whether manned or drone. Again, this was proven in Desert Storm. Tech war is a tennis match of new weapons versus new defenses. Computers are not obsolete because they can be hacked. The answer is better firewalls and such. However, the occupation of territory, the true measure of dominance, depends on ground troops.

Conventional versus guerrilla warfare can perhaps be likened to long range striking versus close up grappling. The former of each relying on clean ranged shots and the other being more down and dirty. Obviously, not an exact comparison, but close enough. The point is one needs both skill sets and capabilities as the theaters of battle and enemies change. Politics are as fluid as a fight is.

A real scarry weapon is the lone wolf or small cell terrorist group with a black market A bomb. And Bio/Chemical warfare makes any power one to reckon with. Evil is seemingly never obsolete, but then, neither is justice. The fight goes on.

Obsolete is again not strictly a measure of if it works or not. It refers to outdated things and by merit of being out dated less effective than their replacements. There is a reason why no military worth anything has isseud out bolt action rifles or (especially) muskets in the modern day.

The invasion of iraq was a convetional war that saw combined arms used on both sides, yes. That doesnt mean a WW2 tank with no upgrades to modernise it, is not obsolete because it might still be able to destroy buildings and works. (case and point all the WW2 tanks used and done by a actual military were last gens of it and/or got upgraded to modernity. Or were delegated to being a Mobile gun for infantry rather than a true tank) The other key thing about the iraq war is the Soviets/Russians dont export their top of the line vehicles its usually last gen and alterted versions of it, that and the countries they export to might not have good doctrine, training ammuntion etc or have a contary doctrine to the russians to which the tank is designed to serve.

Irregular forces pretty much use what they can get, most countries arent built for irregular warfare on its start, so its generally a long learning curve, lots of variables here though. At one extreme they can be a modern high tech force at the other they can just be armed with sticks and crude firearms that have no place on the modern battlefield.

Obsolete is contextual. You, me, a dark room, and my meteor hammer means I have the state of the art, and you're probably gonna die.

Its not that contextual. Automatic firearms are objectively superior to non automatic firearms in fighting. Bolt actions are only a hold over down to tradtion/mistrust of some places and for sniping, and specfically stalking in that. But that doesnt not make them obsolete as no one is going to use one as a infanty rifle and DMR's are largely automatics. (automatic is to mean self repeating) Just because its the only thing you have, doesnt not make it obsolete.

If we want to use that example, in the modern day if you did that, what stops a grenade just being thrown in, or artillery removing the room you are in?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

well just reproducing wikipedia doesn't alter the point that the AK 47 is 40s technology ?????? or thats its been massively outdated by rifle technology of the last 70 yeas

The number in the name "AK47" denotes its adoption date in the soviet military. That is 1947, given it was designed post WW2 based on the STG and finished in 1947, means its "40's technology". I double checked this before writing this.

Age does not define its usefulness, to replace something you need a valid replacement, and as i told you firearms generally work on a system of, there is a plateau, you get to the best you can in said plateau, then a breakthrough technology is made and forms the next one, rinse and repeat. The browning pistol design is 100 years old or close to it, it hasnt died out because there isnt a superior replacement to it yet.

Your statement also implied these designs arent improved throughout their lives to be the best of said desgn they can be. (which they are)

you also dont seem to think china has a high tech army and isnt a supper power, the Russian can still make an impressive dent in china's or Americas militarily, they still have lots and lots of nuclear bombs.and high tec devices

Who told you the PRC is a superpower? The term is, who can express itself military in any continent in the world, the U.S is the only one that can do that currently, the last 2/3 were the USSR, U.K/France. China does indeed have a modern military, it has no bearing on anything however, nor does anything stated here, i just needed to correct that incorrect piece of information.

the fact that one of the few uses you can find for 200 million dollar fighter jets is to catch smugglers,is telling.why would you need a plane that can double the speed of sounds for that. you could do it in a twin prop.

the main and really only use for fighter jets is to fight other fighter jets. you need air superiority to bomb or stop you being bombed by planes other than fighter jets, if the fighter jets are hard to shoot down the bomber arnt and who needs bombers, when when you can target specific building with missiles, just take the airstrips or carriers out, lets see you land one of them in a field

Doesnt have a bearing on if they are obsolete or not. Like i wrote the military generally exists to fight another military, if the countries military has a more law enforcement focus then their spending and intrests are diffrent, they would focus on more things like that. (all through jets are still used in the role as they can generally outrun prop aicraft that most civilians tend to use)

Modern air superiorty aicraft are usually muilti role and capable of ground attack missions, they have indeed been designed as fighter bombers for some time now. Now bombers as in what you think of when you use the word (medium and heavy) are basically obsolete now days, strike aicraft have replaced them alognside muilti roles. The last few in service exist as delivery systems for nuclear weapons if maintained (only like 2 countries maintain a air bourne nuclear system, maybe france still does i dont recall) The term bomber applied to strike aicraft isnt incorrect but its pretty much synonomous/slight diffrences that dont matter between the two.

I would hands down state for air superiorty and strike aicraft roles, props are obsolete. But then there are several diffrent designs what comes to my head when you use the term pro" is a cessna or king air. Rather than a C130 or Airbus A380. (the C130 is turboprop)

''conventional wars'' , if by that you mean anything vaguely resembling the second world war, wont happen, its a simple as that,

Iraq-Iran war, Falklans war, Invasion of Iraq, the huge war in africa in the cold war, The yugoslavian war. These are all convetional and i listed off several convetional ones for you all ready, largely the same ones. That is pitched battled and combined arms usage as oppoed to gurillia warfare.

they could have recaptured the Falklands with half a dozen drones and a few patriot missiles if happened now,

Baseless speculation, and no they couldnt. Its pointless to speculate on this matter as it cant happen now as the Argentinian military is not able enough and wont for the foreseeable future unless a miltiaristic party takes over.

wars in Africa etal are fought with ak47s and pick up trucks and machetes,, not a lot of tank battles

Sudanese Armed Forces - Wikipedia
Chadian ground forces - Wikipedia
Nigerian Army - Wikipedia
Nigerian Army - Wikipedia
List of equipment of the Angolan Army - Wikipedia

Its also like most african countries either had their own arms program, or brought/were supplied equipment from the other powers or a mixture of. Curious that. (some of them are really badly equipped, but the statement brought tanks into question, that is suffcient evidence of combined arms being in africa)

and as ive already suggested, wars between super/ major powers and others tend to go towards Guerrilla warfare , for which tanks and fighter jets etc are useless

I dont dispute they go to proxy wars, but its any country with nuclear weapons. Butproxy war and gurillia war are two seperate things, proxy wars are wars fought through third parties without the country proxing being at risk. ie indo china, korea,malayan emergency. The Cold war is pretty much defined by being proxy war heaven, but there have been some pretty open wars between great powers, just not over their territory.

Most of this doesnt have anything to do with if X is oboslete or not or arguing about obscelence. I just couldnt let some of the military overlookings go.

 

[jobo]

The number in the name "AK47" denotes its adoption date in the soviet military. That is 1947, given it was designed post WW2 based on the STG and finished in 1947, means its "40's technology". I double checked this before writing this.

Age does not define its usefulness, to replace something you need a valid replacement, and as i told you firearms generally work on a system of, there is a plateau, you get to the best you can in said plateau, then a breakthrough technology is made and forms the next one, rinse and repeat. The browning pistol design is 100 years old or close to it, it hasnt died out because there isnt a superior replacement to it yet.

Your statement also implied these designs arent improved throughout their lives to be the best of said desgn they can be. (which they are)


Who told you the PRC is a superpower? The term is, who can express itself military in any continent in the world, the U.S is the only one that can do that currently, the last 2/3 were the USSR, U.K/France. China does indeed have a modern military, it has no bearing on anything however, nor does anything stated here, i just needed to correct that incorrect piece of information.





Doesnt have a bearing on if they are obsolete or not. Like i wrote the military generally exists to fight another military, if the countries military has a more law enforcement focus then their spending and intrests are diffrent, they would focus on more things like that. (all through jets are still used in the role as they can generally outrun prop aicraft that most civilians tend to use)

Modern air superiorty aicraft are usually muilti role and capable of ground attack missions, they have indeed been designed as fighter bombers for some time now. Now bombers as in what you think of when you use the word (medium and heavy) are basically obsolete now days, strike aicraft have replaced them alognside muilti roles. The last few in service exist as delivery systems for nuclear weapons if maintained (only like 2 countries maintain a air bourne nuclear system, maybe france still does i dont recall) The term bomber applied to strike aicraft isnt incorrect but its pretty much synonomous/slight diffrences that dont matter between the two.

I would hands down state for air superiorty and strike aicraft roles, props are obsolete. But then there are several diffrent designs what comes to my head when you use the term pro" is a cessna or king air. Rather than a C130 or Airbus A380. (the C130 is turboprop)



Iraq-Iran war, Falklans war, Invasion of Iraq, the huge war in africa in the cold war, The yugoslavian war. These are all convetional and i listed off several convetional ones for you all ready, largely the same ones. That is pitched battled and combined arms usage as oppoed to gurillia warfare.


Baseless speculation, and no they couldnt. Its pointless to speculate on this matter as it cant happen now as the Argentinian military is not able enough and wont for the foreseeable future unless a miltiaristic party takes over.



Sudanese Armed Forces - Wikipedia
Chadian ground forces - Wikipedia
Nigerian Army - Wikipedia
Nigerian Army - Wikipedia
List of equipment of the Angolan Army - Wikipedia

Its also like most african countries either had their own arms program, or brought/were supplied equipment from the other powers or a mixture of. Curious that. (some of them are really badly equipped, but the statement brought tanks into question, that is suffcient evidence of combined arms being in africa)



I dont dispute they go to proxy wars, but its any country with nuclear weapons. Butproxy war and gurillia war are two seperate things, proxy wars are wars fought through third parties without the country proxing being at risk. ie indo china, korea,malayan emergency. The Cold war is pretty much defined by being proxy war heaven, but there have been some pretty open wars between great powers, just not over their territory.

Most of this doesnt have anything to do with if X is oboslete or not or arguing about obscelence. I just couldnt let some of the military overlookings go.

the last tank battle in Africa was us and the Germans, having tanks and no tank battles means the equipment is obsolete

the UK government has mothballed the tanks because they are obsolete, if they ever get them out of mothballs come back to me

 

[Deleted member 39746]

the last tank battle in Africa was us and the Germans, having tanks and no tank battles means the equipment is obsolete

the UK government has mothballed the tanks because they are obsolete, if they ever get them out of mothballs come back to me

No idea what the point is for the first one as it makes no sense. There have been tank battles since WW2, that is undisputable fact. If you use what you have issued or not does not reflect on its obseleance. That statement is just astonsighly illogical.

Second: Any mothball if it exists is not down to obselence, its down to the last armoured usage being in Iraq and the U.K* underoing reforms in the military and changing its focus to be about supporting operations. This is a discussion on politics.

Third: You are now attemping to strawman me and you will not be getting another reply to this.

Operation Granby - Wikipedia
Battle of Norfolk - Wikipedia

*In regards to a (convetional)war, tanks have been deployed on operations though. This is the most recent Baltics

 

[jobo]

No idea what the point is for the first one as it makes no sense. There have been tank battles since WW2, that is undisputable fact. If you use what you have issued or not does not reflect on its obseleance. That statement is just astonsighly illogical.

Second: Any mothball if it exists is not down to obselence, its down to the last armoured usage being in Iraq and the U.K* underoing reforms in the military and changing its focus to be about supporting operations. This is a discussion on politics.

Third: You are now attemping to strawman me and you will not be getting another reply to this.

Operation Granby - Wikipedia
Battle of Norfolk - Wikipedia

*In regards to a (convetional)war, tanks have been deployed on operations though. This is the most recent Baltics

so when was the last tank battle, you know a division of tanks on either side having a battle ? im betting the 1960s, but you tell me,

if it was the Baltic thats near 25 years ago, so not exactly recent, but im pretty certain there were no tank battles, just tanks not being used, so obsolete

 

[Oily Dragon]

Its not that contextual.

Everything is contextual.

You don't have a gun, a grenade, a tank, let alone an army in this scenario. \

Good luck, you're going to need it.

 

[Hanshi]

I did train fairly extensively with most traditional Japanese and Okinawan weapons. One thing - I was a LEO for years - that has to be understood is that most of the traditional weapons cannot be carried out in public. Some of them are simply illegal and others make one look as though they are searching for trouble. One must be reasonable about weapons.

Knives, cane and what my sensei called "enviornmental" weapons were a great part of my training. Basically every and any thing can be used as a weapon. The average individual carries several of these weapons on their person virtually every day. Sensei also taught "weapons first" before empty hands. He also taught "fight the man, not the weapon". I need to use a cane whenever I go out due to being disabled. I also always have on me at least one knife and usually two. But even with these "everyday" items as weapons, restraint in some degree must be observed.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

so when was the last tank battle, you know a division of tanks on either side having a battle ? im betting the 1960s, but you tell me,

if it was the Baltic thats near 25 years ago, so not exactly recent, but im pretty certain there were no tank battles, just tanks not being used, so obsolete

Strawman, but 2014 with the civil war in ukraine was the last war i recall with armoured vehicles. The one before that 2003 with the invasion of Iraq.

The baltic operation i cited was done in 2016. EFP is its name

This is a fundementally flawed point as usage doesnt soley define obseclence. You wouldnt argue a military force is obsolete because it hasnt been used in 10 years, its doing one of its jobs as a detterent for invasion by existing.

For everyone else here, i belive there has been a great misunderstanding of what obsolete means and denotes and my examples have failed to bring it into context for some people. If you only have for example a sword, that does not make the sword not obsolete in the modern world. Would you honestly equip a military force with a swords in the modern day and deem it effective at all? (nobody cite Taiwan, we dont talk about Taiwan,plus that wasnt in the modern day and that was auxiliaries that everyone knew would be massacred) You can still use outdated weapons and if you only have outdated weapons learn to use them the best you can, but they are still outdated. (hopefully the change to outdated clears up the point)

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I did train fairly extensively with most traditional Japanese and Okinawan weapons. One thing - I was a LEO for years - that has to be understood is that most of the traditional weapons cannot be carried out in public. Some of them are simply illegal and others make one look as though they are searching for trouble. One must be reasonable about weapons.

Knives, cane and what my sensei called "enviornmental" weapons were a great part of my training. Basically every and any thing can be used as a weapon. The average individual carries several of these weapons on their person virtually every day. Sensei also taught "weapons first" before empty hands. He also taught "fight the man, not the weapon". I need to use a cane whenever I go out due to being disabled. I also always have on me at least one knife and usually two. But even with these "everyday" items as weapons, restraint in some degree must be observed.

Civlian usage is just wacky, but good luck with specfically Japanese weapons, they are usually the focus of bans etc. (the bulk of weapons on the list in the U.K are Japanese, or were done because of japanese weapons) At least for some western countries.

The great thing about some of the laws etc civilians get, is the fact there are usually loopholes, so all sorts of wacky creations or reasons crop up to exploit the loopholes. eg Wrist braces being used as stocks so its not technically a SBR. Its just intresting what people can come up with, same with improvised firearms and weapons in general.

 

[jobo]

Strawman, but 2014 with the civil war in ukraine was the last war i recall with armoured vehicles. The one before that 2003 with the invasion of Iraq.

The baltic operation i cited was done in 2016. EFP is its name

This is a fundementally flawed point as usage doesnt soley define obseclence. You wouldnt argue a military force is obsolete because it hasnt been used in 10 years, its doing one of its jobs as a detterent for invasion by existing.

For everyone else here, i belive there has been a great misunderstanding of what obsolete means and denotes and my examples have failed to bring it into context for some people. If you only have for example a sword, that does not make the sword not obsolete in the modern world. Would you honestly equip a military force with a swords in the modern day and deem it effective at all? (nobody cite Taiwan, we dont talk about Taiwan,plus that wasnt in the modern day and that was auxiliaries that everyone knew would be massacred) You can still use outdated weapons and if you only have outdated weapons learn to use them the best you can, but they are still outdated. (hopefully the change to outdated clears up the point)

a military force is obsolete if there no one to fight, as there isnt currently, thats why its been down scaled from the cold ware level, apart from america that keep finding people to fight for something to do, with this big army they have. but even that has much more to do with economics than actually ever needing that many people at one time

that you need some troops is a fact of life unfortunately unless your swiss who seem to get on with out them just fine, you just dont need very many with the high tech weapons we have now, your never again going to get a million a side battle again or even 50,000 aside. probably not 5000

nor are tank battles a thing, turning up with a 100 tanks will just see them destroyed with missiles, you dont need a 101 tanks to fight them, one or two might come in useful, as mobile artillery or bulldozers