Poll: The most important unit in modern warfare
- Thread starter Raptorf22
- Start date
GeneralHotRod
Chieftain
EMP if it could be pure. You could totally imobilize a modern army without the political BS of other bombs.
Too bad the thing doesn't exist.
Too bad the thing doesn't exist.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
IMHO (and i better say this humble) i think it's a fanatic.
Nothing beat's a low cost unit with a high potential of effectivene's.It can be builded in with ease in mass ,it has a high morale and it can potentionaly operate behind enemy lines.
Nothing beat's a low cost unit with a high potential of effectivene's.It can be builded in with ease in mass ,it has a high morale and it can potentionaly operate behind enemy lines.
Cyberia
Chieftain
I would say, None of the above. maybe with the exception of the EMP bomb, but thats non-existant. No one is dumb enough to use any of these things, with the exception of terrorists, but thats not war, thats terrorism. I'd have to say Bombers or Cruise missles are the most important. we use those constantly.
Morgasshk
Warlord
The Super-Fusion bomb baby!!!!
Anyone read Dracula unbound???
Now that's a bomb!
Morgasshk.
Anyone read Dracula unbound???
Now that's a bomb!
Morgasshk.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Why isn't the conventional bomb on here?
If "modern" means WWII and later, then it is definitely multidelivery (for lack of a better word) nuclear weapons (particularly SLBMs), due to their effect on global politics. In terms of operationally useful units, it is the aircraft carrier...force multiplication to the extreme.
(A did you know: No matter where they are in the world, an American aircraft carrier is considered sovereign US territory.)
If "modern" means post-Cold War technology, then it has to be the precision guided munition. It allows for maximum sortie efficiency, coordinated strikes, bombing in civilian areas with minimum civilian casualties, and combined operation with allied local forces that have smaller risk of miscommunication fire.
Thinking further into the future...satellite based weapons platforms. There are so many potential applications, and surveillance and missile defense are just the starting points. (That can be either comforting or frightening...)
(A did you know: No matter where they are in the world, an American aircraft carrier is considered sovereign US territory.)
If "modern" means post-Cold War technology, then it has to be the precision guided munition. It allows for maximum sortie efficiency, coordinated strikes, bombing in civilian areas with minimum civilian casualties, and combined operation with allied local forces that have smaller risk of miscommunication fire.
Thinking further into the future...satellite based weapons platforms. There are so many potential applications, and surveillance and missile defense are just the starting points. (That can be either comforting or frightening...)
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
It's not a unit as such, but the most effective force in modern warfare has to be the propaganda machine. Low morale can be as crippling to your armed forces as any number of clever missiles and so you have to keep feeding them your version of the "truth". "We're winning this war, and easily too. Come and join us in our battle for this, the most just of causes" - this is not supposed to refer to any actual conflict, current or otherwise, so please don't make the assumption that it does.
The most important weapon in modern warfar is the intimidation.
When you have intimidating army, no one will mess with you.
What's more intimidating than nuclear weapon?
Since the nuclear bomb there were no world wars, and there will be none because the next world war if it happens will just wipe the world.
No one wants a global thermo-nuclear war, no one wants to mess with a country with a nuke
When you have intimidating army, no one will mess with you.
What's more intimidating than nuclear weapon?
Since the nuclear bomb there were no world wars, and there will be none because the next world war if it happens will just wipe the world.
No one wants a global thermo-nuclear war, no one wants to mess with a country with a nuke
Flatlander Fox
Armed Cultural Consultant
As far as warfare goes, it is still the infantryman...
Whether mounted or not, the infantryman holds ground that planes can't, provides a morale booster or downer when seen operating, and exerts REAL political control over an area.
You can hide from bombs (except the nuclear type) and planes, but you can't hide from the Queen of Battle.
Remember Kosovo? After the vaunted bombing that "reduced the Serb Army to tatters" we came in and discovered that those clowns had quite a bit of firepower left (not that it posed a danger
).
The infantryman will ALWAYS be the most important unit on the battlefield.
Whether mounted or not, the infantryman holds ground that planes can't, provides a morale booster or downer when seen operating, and exerts REAL political control over an area.
You can hide from bombs (except the nuclear type) and planes, but you can't hide from the Queen of Battle.
Remember Kosovo? After the vaunted bombing that "reduced the Serb Army to tatters" we came in and discovered that those clowns had quite a bit of firepower left (not that it posed a danger
). The infantryman will ALWAYS be the most important unit on the battlefield.
Yeah, bit of a naff poll. 3 of those on the list are simply different types of the same weapon (H, A and N bombs).
It has to be the H-bomb for Deterrence.
I'll be whacky and say something like "kinetic energy weapons" or DEW's.
It has to be the H-bomb for Deterrence.
I'll be whacky and say something like "kinetic energy weapons" or DEW's.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
I would concur with Flatlander on the importance of the footsoldier, as we are yet to see a campaign where they are completely superceded.
The aircraft carrier has been extremely influential in terms of power projection, but for an overall package, give me an Iowa Class Battleship, quite possibly the best "weapon" of the century.
The aircraft carrier has been extremely influential in terms of power projection, but for an overall package, give me an Iowa Class Battleship, quite possibly the best "weapon" of the century.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
"Gruntboy's (comparatively ridiculously cheap) Harpoon ASM sinks Darkshade's Iowa. "
Maybe if they were equipped to WWII standard, but provided with modern missiles, to a greater extent than they were in their Tomahawk days of the 1980s, they can take on quite a bit. Also when they operate in conjunction with missile cruisers and destroyers, it is unlikely.
Anyway, a battleship can take a lot of damage.
There is currently quite a bit of a growing movement to reactivate at least two Iowa Classes, BB-61(Iowa) and BB62(Wisconsin), as they would provide big gun support for landing operations, or many other purposes. It makes quite a bit of sense to me, as there seems to be a bit of a dearth of naval gunfire support, continuing until the introduction of the DD-21.
A battleship can replace the necessity for a specific flagship, provide naval firepower for marines and ground troops, and even provide TBMD (theatre ballistic missile defence)
Here are some useful links on the matter:
http://www.battleships.org
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6747/21centbattleships.htm (just part of a really, really good site)
http://www.usnfsa.com/index1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/battleships.htm
Maybe if they were equipped to WWII standard, but provided with modern missiles, to a greater extent than they were in their Tomahawk days of the 1980s, they can take on quite a bit. Also when they operate in conjunction with missile cruisers and destroyers, it is unlikely.
Anyway, a battleship can take a lot of damage.
There is currently quite a bit of a growing movement to reactivate at least two Iowa Classes, BB-61(Iowa) and BB62(Wisconsin), as they would provide big gun support for landing operations, or many other purposes. It makes quite a bit of sense to me, as there seems to be a bit of a dearth of naval gunfire support, continuing until the introduction of the DD-21.
A battleship can replace the necessity for a specific flagship, provide naval firepower for marines and ground troops, and even provide TBMD (theatre ballistic missile defence)
Here are some useful links on the matter:
http://www.battleships.org
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6747/21centbattleships.htm (just part of a really, really good site)
http://www.usnfsa.com/index1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/battleships.htm
Not disputing your points.
My point was a $10,000 missile or torpedo *can* scrap a battleship.
Perhaps weapons that preclude war, or make the point in fighting worthless are "war winners". Because no one really wins in war.
My point was a $10,000 missile or torpedo *can* scrap a battleship.
Perhaps weapons that preclude war, or make the point in fighting worthless are "war winners". Because no one really wins in war.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
"My point was a $10,000 missile or torpedo *can* scrap a battleship"
True, but never been tested. No matter.
War preventing weapons, of the strategic variety are very useful in their own sense.
However, war occurs. And when it does, good warfighting weapons, like the M1A1, MLRS, Bradleys, the F15E, the F14 and even the sorely missed battleships are more valuable than weapons that will not or cannot be used. But each conflict brings its own definition of what is the best weapon for the situation at hand.
True, but never been tested. No matter.
War preventing weapons, of the strategic variety are very useful in their own sense.
However, war occurs. And when it does, good warfighting weapons, like the M1A1, MLRS, Bradleys, the F15E, the F14 and even the sorely missed battleships are more valuable than weapons that will not or cannot be used. But each conflict brings its own definition of what is the best weapon for the situation at hand.
Lets say that this poll is neutral.
It does not talk about any specific army right?
And it also doesnt talk about any specific war.
So it doesn't talk about any specific size of the army, now in big armies the missiles and infantry might have some influence, but for small armies even a country with far more inferior weapons and a way big infantry class can crash it because of its small size.
Now, when you are on the verge of being distructed, you can do anything, you dont care anymore, global-thermo-nuclear war, who gives a sh**, im almost destructed, let me destruct the entire other world.
Who wants to put a country with a nuke on the verge of destruction? thats my point
A nuke much lessens your chances to get into war with another strong country, and with the weak countries you can handle without infantry (e.g: USA Against the Taliban, no infantry used almost).
When it comes to a weak country: Who wants to put a weak country on the verge of destruction, that way it will surely use then nuke. For example, with all of Israels 'Sophisticated' weapons today, if it wasnt for the nuke we would go through a mass war some time, and im surely not sure a country in our size can survive a total war, with all of the arab countries against us.
The nuke is the best intimidation weapon avaliable IMHO - Not like the biological or chimical, you already know its effects, it has an immediate and devestating effect and it doesnt seperate between soldiers and citizens - what scares most countries in the world not to mess with it.
As said in Civ: OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLER WEAPONS
Now, can sid meier be any wrong? lol
It does not talk about any specific army right?
And it also doesnt talk about any specific war.
So it doesn't talk about any specific size of the army, now in big armies the missiles and infantry might have some influence, but for small armies even a country with far more inferior weapons and a way big infantry class can crash it because of its small size.
Now, when you are on the verge of being distructed, you can do anything, you dont care anymore, global-thermo-nuclear war, who gives a sh**, im almost destructed, let me destruct the entire other world.
Who wants to put a country with a nuke on the verge of destruction? thats my point
A nuke much lessens your chances to get into war with another strong country, and with the weak countries you can handle without infantry (e.g: USA Against the Taliban, no infantry used almost).
When it comes to a weak country: Who wants to put a weak country on the verge of destruction, that way it will surely use then nuke. For example, with all of Israels 'Sophisticated' weapons today, if it wasnt for the nuke we would go through a mass war some time, and im surely not sure a country in our size can survive a total war, with all of the arab countries against us.
The nuke is the best intimidation weapon avaliable IMHO - Not like the biological or chimical, you already know its effects, it has an immediate and devestating effect and it doesnt seperate between soldiers and citizens - what scares most countries in the world not to mess with it.
As said in Civ: OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLER WEAPONS
Now, can sid meier be any wrong? lol
atawa
Mastered by puppets
Best weapon? Imho it is 3 religious fanatics with the knives you get when you eat you onflight meals......
Unstoppeble by the biggest security agencies in the world and pretty cheap, you wont even have to pay for the plane
Plus this kind of attack will earn you money playing the stockmarkets.
Unstoppeble by the biggest security agencies in the world and pretty cheap, you wont even have to pay for the plane
Plus this kind of attack will earn you money playing the stockmarkets.
