project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Military Technology
19 Nov 2017, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Military Technology Discussion on military hardware.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2009, 11:28 PM   #1
Hellbrawler

Hellbrawler's Avatar
Default Modern Conventional Warfare

I grew up in a time of unconventional warfare where it's always the big guys hunting the little guys who run and hide. I've always wondered what "Modern Conventional Warfare" would look like. I know it won't look anything like Vietnam or WWII, unless I'm wrong.
Hellbrawler is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2009, 11:56 PM   #2
charliegrs

charliegrs's Avatar
Send a message via AIM to charliegrs Send a message via Yahoo to charliegrs
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

im pretty sure it would involve missiles flying absolutely everywhere.

id say the best examples of modern warfare where both sides were more of less evenly matched are the falklands war, the various israeli-arab wars {yom kippur, 6 day war, etc.} and maybe the iran-iraq war.

known in-game as BOOMSNAPP
'
charliegrs is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 12:26 AM   #3
waldo_ii
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

Here it is pretty much:

Shoot enough bullets to make them shit their pants and keep their heads down and not let them return fire long enough for you to call in an airstrike.


(suppression is most of it.)




But in all seriousness, "modern warfare" is a number of things. Modern tank warfare differs greatly from WWII tank warfare primarily because of technology. Because of heat detection, automatic enemy detection, tracking, prediction, computer-aided calculations, armor, ammunition, tank warfare is much more about getting the first shot off rather than firing tons of shells hoping to hit the enemy. Once the enemy is dead, then the tank moves in with the infantry (ntoe the singular tense: there is no need for a wolf pack of tanks much) to take out buildings or to look big and scary.

On the infantry side, suppression, lighter bullets, automatic weapons, and new weapons have changed the way soldiers fight. The old technique of waiting for the enemy to show their heads so you can shoot them doesn't work. Now you shoot and shoot to keep them from shooting back so you can advance and get in close.

Technology in small arms has brought infantry combat closer and closer. In WWII, everyone was either using SMGs or big, heavy semi-automatic or bolt-action rifles. Now everyone has automatic/semi-automatic carbines/lightweight rifles with large clips and easy reloading. Operating in urban areas has become more feasible because of these changes.


JDAMs have also changed the face of warfare (Cold-war era dumb-bombs with GPS units strapped to them.). Their small price tag, high power, and high precision have made airstrikes a million times easier to get. During the first gulf war, getting a bomb on a target could get days because it had to go through a dozen channels of bureaucracy. Now with more numerous cheaper munitions and better communication equipment, getting that 500-pounder on that insurgent stronghold takes less than an hour.


But overall, "modern warfare" is the perfect ballet between infantry, armor, and air support using technology and the tactics that derived from that technology.

|TGXV| Waldo_II

waldo_ii is offline
Last edited by waldo_ii; 04-17-2009 at 01:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:03 AM   #4
charliegrs

charliegrs's Avatar
Send a message via AIM to charliegrs Send a message via Yahoo to charliegrs
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

also, i think modern dogfighting probably means fire off a missile at a blip on your radar, which is the enemy jet about 40 miles away.

that is if the enemy can even get a jet off the ground seeing as how we probably have cruise missiled all of them.

known in-game as BOOMSNAPP
'
charliegrs is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:24 AM   #5
[uBp]Irish

[uBp]Irish's Avatar
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

I would think modern conventional warfare would start off 1 of four ways.

a) Missile Attacks on one nation, with that nation having missile launch warnings in which case that country mobilizes it's forces, after launching it's own salvo of missiles back.

b) Air Campaign would take over ala Desert Storm, in which case whoever controls the air has a good chance of winning. We went in, destoryed the CnC, infrastructure, main terminals of water/electricity/communications/POL, and destroyed their air power before they could get off the ground. SEAD operations made it easy to go in and control the rest of the air war. Heavy Interdiction to make ground work easier.

c) Large ground forces covered by air assets, coming in behind a heavy missile barrage that softened up the front line/secondary lines of defense.

d) Special Operations units already working weeks/days in advance of main force cut CnC/Infrastructure/Vital Systems/POL.

either way, a "conventional" war is probably going to mean a lot of people dead on both sides. this is also hypothetical assumptions from someone with no military experience.

[uBp]Irish is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 07:53 AM   #6
fludblud

fludblud's Avatar
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

Quote:
Originally Posted by charliegrs View Post
also, i think modern dogfighting probably means fire off a missile at a blip on your radar, which is the enemy jet about 40 miles away.

that is if the enemy can even get a jet off the ground seeing as how we probably have cruise missiled all of them.
not neccessarily, electronic countermeasures and jamming could offset first shot advantages and possible future proliferation of stealth technologies could mean that opposing planes could end up pretty close before they even notice each other.

they made the mistake of omitting the cannon from the phantom only to see them get shot down by agile mig 17s up close

fludblud is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 12:01 PM   #7
Anderson29
Supporting Member

Anderson29's Avatar
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

irish is right....it'll be who ever wins the air to air will dominate. and once that is over little SF teams will just laser target everything in sight and then role in the conventional armor and infantry with little resistance.....

in-game name : Anderson2981
steam : Anderson2981
Anderson29 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 12:23 PM   #8
Bob_Marley
Retired PR Developer

Bob_Marley's Avatar
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

War starts

Someone gets the upper hand

Everyone gets nuked.

The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.

Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
Bob_Marley is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:05 PM   #9
masterceo

masterceo's Avatar
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

Quote:
Originally Posted by charliegrs View Post
im pretty sure it would involve missiles flying absolutely everywhere.

id say the best examples of modern warfare where both sides were more of less evenly matched are the falklands war, the various israeli-arab wars {yom kippur, 6 day war, etc.} and maybe the iran-iraq war.
yom kippur and 6 day war aren't good examples of what a modern conventional warfare might look like. sure, these wars were quite recent but you have to keep in mind that both sides used even WW2 equipment (shermans for israelis and t34 for egyptians, and lots of artillery). these wars were closer to WW2 imo, because there was no use of missles and intelligent bombs.
i'd go with the nuke scenario

Priby:Why cant i be norwegian?
H.sta:becouse we are a specially selected bunch of people created by god to show how awsome mankind can be
masterceo is offline Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:07 PM   #10
Michael_Denmark

Michael_Denmark's Avatar
Default Re: Modern Conventional Warfare

Modern warfare to me, is first and foremost represented by the use of technology.

In odds of technology-balance for the involved in a war, its anything between 1:1 or 20:1.

And the technology is beside of the battle-field technology, very much rapid use, of the internet and other communicational platforms.

I wouldn't wonder, if we within the next 5-10 years, see that primarily x high-tech nations in war, upload specific homepages, where civilians caught in the fire, can file in complaints when x of their home have been destroyed. After that the low-tech nations/organisations, will step by step follow. Simply because it creates sympathy, or at least down any non-sympathy.

Urban warfare is modern warfare today, and will stay as such, for at least 1 or 2 decades ahead.

Seriously speaking, should we offend each other, much more than we already do?

We who play these kinds of games are the first generation of war robot pilots.
Today we pilot a camera in 3D heaven,
Tomorrow...
Michael_Denmark is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
conventional, modern, warfare
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2015, Project Reality.