First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Gunslingers or Swordsmen
17875 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


uncletim wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


uncletim wrote:

I good sniper can pick off a swordsman at a 1000 yards and he will never even hear the shot. There is a reason swords aren't used in combat anymore


Assuming you can kill him fast and penetrated the armor. And if somebody jump in a group of soldiers. The dude with the sword will kill a lot of them before they get the chance to shoot. This is why no matter how strong a tank is, once people get up and personal, they lose utmost always.


Just watch Gate and see how well a army armed with swords and spears does against a modern military force armed with tanks arty and attack helicopters. plus 7.62 rifles. Here is a hint Not very well



Those are normal men. And you are putting an army fighting another who using weapon they never have to deal with. Also those are range weapon. But if somebody is standing next to you with a sword and uses guerrilla statics. Your gun mean nothing. Just ask the Viet Cong and the USA what happen when you think guns make you invincible. No to mention during world war 2 Japanese soldiers kill dozens of USA soldiers with a KATANA. Their guns amounted to nothing. Your gun is only effective if you know where the enemy is. Otherwise you are fuck.


so having a sword makes you invisible? I would agree killing dozens of soldiers with a katana is impressive. But I would ask you how many thousand were slaughtered before they could get close enough to use them?

Your logic assumes two things
1. the person with the gun is blind or utterly incompetent
2. the swordsman is some kind of bullet proof super hero

27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:

Those are normal men. And you are putting an army fighting another who using weapon they never have to deal with. Also those are range weapon. But if somebody is standing next to you with a sword and uses guerrilla statics. Your gun mean nothing. Just ask the Viet Cong and the USA what happen when you think guns make you invincible. No to mention during world war 2 Japanese soldiers kill dozens of USA soldiers with a KATANA. Their guns amounted to nothing. Your gun is only effective if you know where the enemy is. Otherwise you are fuck.


Guns are undoubtedly more versatile and effective than swords due to the situations in which enemies are normally encountered nowadays. Unless the combat is very close-quarters, the sword loses. It gets no chance to do anything since the gun gets the first strike in most circumstances.

A close-range gunshot is just as deadly as one from 50 feet away. Guns are still very dangerous up close, whereas swords, unless thrown, are useless beyond the reach of your swing. If anything, a gunshot is slightly more powerful up close. A fast person can easily cover 10 feet in one second but that still gives a gunman a chance to respond. The bullet also moves faster than a blade. At close range, the bullet will reach you instantly.

Unlike in movies, people often don't die instantly when wounded. When you're up close, this can give them a chance to take a final strike at you, which is dangerous. With a gun, you don't have to put yourself at risk up close.

People nowadays will most likely carry a gun rather than a sword, so trying to fight in situations where your attacker has a large range advantage (which is going to be more likely than just bumping into someone around a corner and starting the fight with 3 feet between you) is not a good idea.

In WW2, Japanese lost way more men than the US during the banzai charges. They saw it as a dishonor to surrender so they just drew swords and rushed forward. Thousands of fanatical Japanese soldiers died this way. Even if they killed a few dozen enemies, losing thousands to slay a few dozen is not efficient.

Guns don't make anyone invincible and have their own drawbacks, but that doesn't mean they are less effective or only as effective as swords. Swords are cool and all, but they also require more training and strength than guns to use. Regardless of the weapon you use, you should not feel as though you are invincible and you need to know the limitations of what you should/can do. Your weapon only improves your ability to kill, it does not make your body of flesh and bone more resilient.
Posted 10/18/15

You are missing a key word. Guerrilla statics.The Japanese were able to do it by sneaking during the night and killing USA soldiers before they even notice. They did this repeatably. Meaning were more than just a dozen.

You are putting words in my mouth.

1 Guerrilla statics. USA and their Allies keep losing soldiers in today wars by this tactics. Attack from were you can't be seen. Attack were your enemy is a his weakest. By manly using explosive and melee weapons that any army of any time is capable of making. I don't know about you but I seen war wounds images. Isn't pretty even when you are the most advance armies.

2 NO. You just need to know your weakness and be smart. Just because you have armies with guns, doesn't mean you have to fight them in the open or were they have the advantage. This is why most advance armies will lose in a urban fight. Because it become a melee and straps fights.

Obviously most armies with only melee weapons will lose to a gun army. But only if they are unaware of their opponent advantage. Otherwise all they need to do to win is, switch it to a environment that is a urban area. This is more than enough to turn a winnable situation for your opponents to a hell on earth one.
Posted 10/18/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

Those are normal men. And you are putting an army fighting another who using weapon they never have to deal with. Also those are range weapon. But if somebody is standing next to you with a sword and uses guerrilla statics. Your gun mean nothing. Just ask the Viet Cong and the USA what happen when you think guns make you invincible. No to mention during world war 2 Japanese soldiers kill dozens of USA soldiers with a KATANA. Their guns amounted to nothing. Your gun is only effective if you know where the enemy is. Otherwise you are fuck.


Guns are undoubtedly more versatile and effective than swords due to the situations in which enemies are normally encountered nowadays. Unless the combat is very close-quarters, the sword loses. It gets no chance to do anything since the gun gets the first strike in most circumstances.

A close-range gunshot is just as deadly as one from 50 feet away. Guns are still very dangerous up close, whereas swords, unless thrown, are useless beyond the reach of your swing. If anything, a gunshot is slightly more powerful up close. A fast person can easily cover 10 feet in one second but that still gives a gunman a chance to respond. The bullet also moves faster than a blade. At close range, the bullet will reach you instantly.

Unlike in movies, people often don't die instantly when wounded. When you're up close, this can give them a chance to take a final strike at you, which is dangerous. With a gun, you don't have to put yourself at risk up close.

People nowadays will most likely carry a gun rather than a sword, so trying to fight in situations where your attacker has a large range advantage (which is going to be more likely than just bumping into someone around a corner and starting the fight with 3 feet between you) is not a good idea.

In WW2, Japanese lost way more men than the US during the banzai charges. They saw it as a dishonor to surrender so they just drew swords and rushed forward. Thousands of fanatical Japanese soldiers died this way. Even if they killed a few dozen enemies, losing thousands to slay a few dozen is not efficient.

Guns don't make anyone invincible and have their own drawbacks, but that doesn't mean they are less effective or only as effective as swords. Swords are cool and all, but they also require more training and strength than guns to use. Regardless of the weapon you use, you should not feel as though you are invincible and you need to know the limitations of what you should/can do. Your weapon only improves your ability to kill, it does not make your body of flesh and bone more resilient.


I give you the same response has the other guy, plus this extract answer to something you mention.
I not talking about this. I talking about the sneaking missions Japanese were send to kill USA soldiers were when they were a sleep. About the charges. Since when all else fail, this the only thing any army can do. Hence why some USA soldier have made charges on enemies they could not best with bullets. I no saying he wrong nor you are nether. I saying do not get a head of yourself with thinking you are better because of a gun. Because better armies had lose to worse equipped armies.

banzai charges



You are missing a key word. Guerrilla statics.The Japanese were able to do it by sneaking during the night and killing USA soldiers before they even notice. They did this repeatably. Meaning were more than just a dozen.

You are putting words in my mouth.

1 Guerrilla statics. USA and their Allies keep losing soldiers in today wars by this tactics. Attack from were you can't be seen. Attack were your enemy is a his weakest. By manly using explosive and melee weapons that any army of any time is capable of making. I don't know about you but I seen war wounds images. Isn't pretty even when you are the most advance armies.

2 NO. You just need to know your weakness and be smart. Just because you have armies with guns, doesn't mean you have to fight them in the open or were they have the advantage. This is why most advance armies will lose in a urban fight. Because it become a melee and straps fights.

Obviously most armies with only melee weapons will lose to a gun army. But only if they are unaware of their opponent advantage. Otherwise all they need to do to win is, switch it to a environment that is a urban area. This is more than enough to turn a winnable situation for your opponents to a hell on earth one.
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:

I give you the same response has the other guy, plus this extract answer to something you mention.
I not talking about this. I talking about the sneaking missions Japanese were send to kill USA soldiers were when they were a sleep. About the charges. Since when all else fail, this the only thing any army can do. Hence why some USA soldier have made charges on enemies they could not best with bullets. I no saying he wrong nor you are nether. I saying do not get a head of yourself with thinking you are better because of a gun. Because better armies had lose to worse equipped armies.


ANY weapon can kill a person in their sleep. It could have been a baseball bat and it would have worked in that scenario. Why not even a silenced pistol shot straight into the cranium? I like swords and all but they have no place on the modern battlefield. Even WW2 was a long time ago.

Rifles can be equipped with bayonets, and soldiers are trained to use combat knives, machetes, and other close-ranged weapons in case they have to get close. They're not that disadvantaged against sword-wielding enemies up close.

It was probably better to just surrender. It's better to not lose soldiers that could potentially fight in future battles. It's a waste to send them to their deaths and it has a negative impact on the country after the war ends.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:Obviously most armies with only melee weapons will lose to a gun army. But only if they are unaware of their opponent advantage. Otherwise all they need to do to win is, switch it to a environment that is a urban area. This is more than enough to turn a winnable situation for your opponents to a hell on earth one.


No. Just no.

As someone who was trained in urban combat, (actually was a B.U.S.T. instructor, though that is not quite as impressive as it sounds)... that's just not true.

Sure, you'll have a slight terrain advantage, but unless you are bulletproof, guns maintain superiority.

Gun on gun in urban terrain... yeah, I can see the home-side advantage. You just hope you've made up for it in training and gear.

15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 10/18/15 , edited 10/18/15
in rare cases melee can win but thats... rare, if you are skilled and have some luck to get close then maybe..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkFZn4oPMqE
17875 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Online
Posted 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


You are missing a key word. Guerrilla statics.The Japanese were able to do it by sneaking during the night and killing USA soldiers before they even notice. They did this repeatably. Meaning were more than just a dozen.

You are putting words in my mouth.

1 Guerrilla statics. USA and their Allies keep losing soldiers in today wars by this tactics. Attack from were you can't be seen. Attack were your enemy is a his weakest. By manly using explosive and melee weapons that any army of any time is capable of making. I don't know about you but I seen war wounds images. Isn't pretty even when you are the most advance armies.

2 NO. You just need to know your weakness and be smart. Just because you have armies with guns, doesn't mean you have to fight them in the open or were they have the advantage. This is why most advance armies will lose in a urban fight. Because it become a melee and straps fights.

Obviously most armies with only melee weapons will lose to a gun army. But only if they are unaware of their opponent advantage. Otherwise all they need to do to win is, switch it to a environment that is a urban area. This is more than enough to turn a winnable situation for your opponents to a hell on earth one.


One name one Guerrilla unit that uses swords? 99.9% use guns the closest thing to a sword a guerrilla fighter is going to use is a mechete and those are used to slaughter unarmed civilians.not against well trained and armed soldiers

Sure you can site maybe a dozen cases were the Japanese used that tactic with some success mostly against green and unprepared troops. When facing well trained and well prepared Maries they were wiped out to the last man

two. NO THEY DON'T name one battle urban or otherwise in the last 20 years were a force armed with mostly swords and knives beat a well trained and equipped. army

Posted 10/18/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:Obviously most armies with only melee weapons will lose to a gun army. But only if they are unaware of their opponent advantage. Otherwise all they need to do to win is, switch it to a environment that is a urban area. This is more than enough to turn a winnable situation for your opponents to a hell on earth one.


No. Just no.

As someone who was trained in urban combat, (actually was a B.U.S.T. instructor, though that is not quite as impressive as it sounds)... that's just not true.

Sure, you'll have a slight terrain advantage, but unless you are bulletproof, guns maintain superiority.

Gun on gun in urban terrain... yeah, I can see the home-side advantage. You just hope you've made up for it in training and gear.



I am peaking another language ? I saying you can make your enemy pay dearly in urban even if you lose the war eventually. But regardless it does give you advantage. That alone can let you win a war or improve your chances. Also I have a family member who a soldier. So I am aware of what you are saying.
Posted 10/18/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

I give you the same response has the other guy, plus this extract answer to something you mention.
I not talking about this. I talking about the sneaking missions Japanese were send to kill USA soldiers were when they were a sleep. About the charges. Since when all else fail, this the only thing any army can do. Hence why some USA soldier have made charges on enemies they could not best with bullets. I no saying he wrong nor you are nether. I saying do not get a head of yourself with thinking you are better because of a gun. Because better armies had lose to worse equipped armies.


ANY weapon can kill a person in their sleep. It could have been a baseball bat and it would have worked in that scenario. Why not even a silenced pistol shot straight into the cranium? I like swords and all but they have no place on the modern battlefield. Even WW2 was a long time ago.

Rifles can be equipped with bayonets, and soldiers are trained to use combat knives, machetes, and other close-ranged weapons in case they have to get close. They're not that disadvantaged against sword-wielding enemies up close.

It was probably better to just surrender. It's better to not lose soldiers that could potentially fight in future battles. It's a waste to send them to their deaths and it has a negative impact on the country after the war ends.


I no making a case for their use. But if that what you have, you have to make do with what you have.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


I am peaking another language ? I saying you can make your enemy pay dearly in urban even if you lose the war eventually. But regardless it does give you advantage. That alone can let you win a war or improve your chances. Also I have a family member who a soldier. So I am aware of what you are saying.


And I'm saying no you can't. Not with melee weapons.

And I'm saying that based on experience and training. Yes, you can with guns and explosives.... but with melee weapons, the side with the guns will still have VERY few casualties.
25139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 10/18/15
Since im not a fedora wearing neckbeard, im just going to go with guns
Posted 10/18/15

uncletim wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


You are missing a key word. Guerrilla statics.The Japanese were able to do it by sneaking during the night and killing USA soldiers before they even notice. They did this repeatably. Meaning were more than just a dozen.

You are putting words in my mouth.

1 Guerrilla statics. USA and their Allies keep losing soldiers in today wars by this tactics. Attack from were you can't be seen. Attack were your enemy is a his weakest. By manly using explosive and melee weapons that any army of any time is capable of making. I don't know about you but I seen war wounds images. Isn't pretty even when you are the most advance armies.

2 NO. You just need to know your weakness and be smart. Just because you have armies with guns, doesn't mean you have to fight them in the open or were they have the advantage. This is why most advance armies will lose in a urban fight. Because it become a melee and straps fights.

Obviously most armies with only melee weapons will lose to a gun army. But only if they are unaware of their opponent advantage. Otherwise all they need to do to win is, switch it to a environment that is a urban area. This is more than enough to turn a winnable situation for your opponents to a hell on earth one.


One name one Guerrilla unit that uses swords? 99.9% use guns the closest thing to a sword a guerrilla fighter is going to use is a mechete and those are used to slaughter unarmed civilians.not against well trained and armed soldiers

Sure you can site maybe a dozen cases were the Japanese used that tactic with some success mostly against green and unprepared troops. When facing well trained and well prepared Maries they were wiped out to the last man

two. NO THEY DON'T name one battle urban or otherwise in the last 20 years were a force armed with mostly swords and knives beat a well trained and equipped. army



I no sure if I say beat but that no what I was getting to. I say or try to say. You have to make do with what you have. You may no beat them but you can make hell for them.
542 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 10/18/15
What about people who shoot swords?

10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/15

KarenAraragi wrote:

I no sure if I say beat but that no what I was getting to. I say or try to say. You have to make do with what you have. You may no beat them but you can make hell for them.


haha.... no you can't.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you gave 100 well-trained men armed with melee weapons the homefield advantage, allowing them to hide and set up in a city before being attacked.

And then you sent in a fire-team (4 people) of well-trained US Marines with M-4s.

I'd put all my money on the Marines coming out as the victors.

I wouldn't exactly call that "making hell" for them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.