Most radical Weapon?

[TheOneAndOnly]

What would you say was the most radical non-nuclear weapon to enter warfare? By radical I mean "changed how war is fought".
Some ideas: horseback riding, chariot, longbow, heavy armoured knights, rifles, cannons, phalanx, aircraft carrier (I know they can be nuclear powered but...), air vehicals, cruise missiles, UAVs, tanks, automatic weapons.

I'd probably go with aircraft carriers (carrier battle groups), especially the modern US ones. They allow unprecedented force projection abilities and the ability to partially wage an entire war from sea.

Any suggestions?

[anthrogirl]

I'd say horseback riding.

[Warcraft3]

Id say the invention of firearms.

[TheOneAndOnly]

I don't know much about the history of firearms. But those original guns seem really crap. Didn't they explode in the gunner's face half the time and mist their targets more often than not?

What about the invention of the "grooved bore" rifle (I think that's what they're called- they made the bullet rotate and gave it more accuracy)

[Warcraft3]

I don't know much about the history of firearms. But those original guns seem really crap. Didn't they explode in the gunner's face half the time and mist their targets more often than not?

What about the invention of the "grooved bore" rifle (I think that's what they're called- they made the bullet rotate and gave it more accuracy)


Well I not an expert or anything on the history of firearms either.....

But you are correct that the first firearms were crappy by todays standards, so they didnt immediately change the face of warfare.

But as they improved, metal armor became obsolete as did hand to hand weapons.

Things like the invention of the grooved bore (which you mentioned), the revolver (no longer a single shot weapon), guns that had reloading capabilities with a magazine, the machine gun, scopes, etc...ensured that things like swords, spears, bows and arrows, etc were no longer the weapon of choice for the average foot soldier.


Russ

[Ryokan]

trains, and later the internal cmbustion engine. Total warfare, the hall mark of modern war, was made possbile by these logistical weapons. The case could be made, I think, for the sub machine gun, which went along way towards making guerrilla warfare the preferred way of making war.

[Didaktylos]

The bayonet - it meant that foot soldiers no longer had to be divided into the heavily armed who fought at close quarters and the lightly armed who stood off and let fly from a distance with missiles.

[jason]

What would you say was the most radical non-nuclear weapon to enter warfare? By radical I mean "changed how war is fought".
That is tough.

A couple of contenders come to mind.

1. Paper Cartrigdes

2. Metallic Cartriges & Magazines

3. The machine Gun

I know they are all firearm related, but each one of these made a radical difference in the way battles were wages.

Perhaps cannons as well. They pretty much ended the utility of high castle walls.

To many to choose from.

The radio ? Does that count. That made a hugh difference as well. Perhaps I should make the radio my choice. For naval warfare it made probably the biggest difference in centuries.

Jason

[TheOneAndOnly]

That is tough.

A couple of contenders come to mind.

1. Paper Cartrigdes

2. Metallic Cartriges & Magazines

3. The machine Gun

I know they are all firearm related, but each one of these made a radical difference in the way battles were wages.

Perhaps cannons as well. They pretty much ended the utility of high castle walls.

To many to choose from.

The radio ? Does that count. That made a hugh difference as well. Perhaps I should make the radio my choice. For naval warfare it made probably the biggest difference in centuries.


Radio, thats a good one. How about radar?

[Warcraft3]

Radio, thats a good one. How about radar?

Im gonna stick to my guns on this one......HA!!! get it "guns" cause of my answer. :lol:

Anyway............radar is a good one also (and I dont say that just cause I work on radar in my civilian job :tongue:)




Russ

[aprophet]

the worlds most radical weapon is the Love of God when it passes form one person to another

[Warcraft3]

the worlds most radical weapon is the Love of God when it passes form one person to another

**Sigh** :ahem:

Yes, yes thank you.....we know.

Anyway back to the POINT OF THE THREAD which was non-religious in nature.........

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on what is the most radical earthly, non-religious, non-spiritual...etc weapon....



Russ

[kofh2u]

**Sigh** :ahem:

Yes, yes thank you.....we know.

Anyway back to the POINT OF THE THREAD which was non-religious in nature.........

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on what is the most radical earthly, non-religious, non-spiritual...etc weapon....



Russ


1) Tanks

Tanks replaced horses which could themselves be killed and whose presence among ground forces was beneficial to the side using them, but the tank could invincibly lead infantry into the enemy territory, a moving artillary piece.

2) Today, the weapon to change warfare as we know it has two parts.

A] Smart H-bombs... Self directed Human Suicide Operate Bombs.

B] Hidden and assumed Stateless enemy force of terrorist.

Here we see the ability to strike the enemy and at the same deny the enemy a target to strike back.

3) Popular opinion, the ultimate weapon. "Never underestimate the power of a mass audience."

The propaganda by which the enemy turns the civilian population against its own defenses has become the basis for terrorism and tyranny.

4) T ough religious in its nature, the weapon mentioned, "Love thy neighbor," must not be excluded out of hand because one assumes, in reality, it either hasn't been used and/or isn't a real weapon, merely in the realm of propaganda... but, that would classify it above in point 3.

This weapon was used in America by Martin Luther King, and hid death underlines the weapon issue, since shooting him decidely demonstrates the point in the oppositions response.

The martyrdoms which won the religious war against Rome cost thousands of casualties-deaths but, like 'nam, beat the enemy with his own success.

5) I believe the Israeli-PLO war, which is Terroristic Extortion vs Conventional Warefare can be won by massive Christian intervention in the form of tourism on a huge and economically beneficial scale. Don't discount it!

The terror against non-Jews by PLO forces is recognized as counter productive. TheAmericans killed a year ago in a convoy caused embarrassment and result in arrests by the PLO authorities. Calculated or not, the point is that terrorism is merely extreme propaganda used to chae civilian opinion concerning the continuation of resistence. This definition makes a non stop massive Holy Land civilian tour invasion counter-terroristic. It effectively changes the PLO public opinion against their own terroristic military.

[TheOneAndOnly]

2) Today, the weapon to change warfare as we know it has two parts.

A] Smart H-bombs... Self directed Human Suicide Operate Bombs.

B] Hidden and assumed Stateless enemy force of terrorist.

Here we see the ability to strike the enemy and at the same deny the enemy a target to strike back.

Regarding (A), I think Suicide bombings are not that significant, tactically or strategically. You can't win a war by blowing your self up along with civilians. Hamas has gained no military advantage in all its years of suicide bombings. The most suicide bombings do is scare the enemy population and cause economic damage.
Regarding (B), stateless terrorists, i.e. Al Qaeda, have and probably will continue to change the way wars are fought. I think I read somewhere that the US army was restructuring to give more emphasis on light-weight mobile units capable of effectively attacking terrorists. British forces have been doing that for years fighting IRA.
Al Qaeda does take a lot of hits from US forces. The problem is they have an endless supply of "cheap life" in the form of overzealous Muslims who will gladly accept "martyrdom" to kill US forces.

[Algesan]

Given that the morale is to the physical as three is to one (shamelessly steals from Napoleon), success in warfare stems from increasing the morale on your side. Virtually all battles (and wars) are won when one side 'breaks' or suffers a loss of will (morale) to fight on and only seeks an end. Although misapplication of this principle resulted in mass slaughter from time to time, with various pre-World War I colonial actions (Zulu wars, India, Boxer Rebellion, etc.), some actions in World War I (the Somme anyone?) and even into World War II (Polish and Russian campaigns) come to mind.

However, it seems you are looking for the physical side of things. I would say the introduction of the gun presents the most revolutionary change in warfare in history. Why? Simple answer comes from the medevial periods of both the East and the West when the military elites, whether they be knights or samurai, decried the fact that a peasant could pick up one of these and slay the most valiant of warriors. "God created all men and Col. Colt made them equal"
Melee weapons such as swords, spears, clubs, etc. require a certain amount of training to be used effectively. Although it may not need to be much, the requirement is still there, which helps explain the formation of the above mentioned military elites (although they existed long before guns).

Effective ranged weapons prior to gunpowder, such as the crossbow and longbow, require training also, especially for the longbow.

(Bah, was going to put a quote to the fact that it is still on the books that all English males over 14 were required two hours plus of daily longbow training, but for some reason Mozilla (finally decided to try at the request of TWeb, although I had other reasons) doesn't seem to support pasting or cutting, only copying. :( )

A gun, even a primitive one, requires relatively little training compared to all other weapons. Using a modern version, I could probably train a non shooter to be an average shooter in a week or less. It takes about two weeks for the US Army to do so dealing with few instructors, many students and bureaucratic methods of instruction.

Mounts and vehicles are some other candidates, but don't touch the gun. Horses give some more mobility and allow different tactics, but even the European knights at their peak with stirrups (allowing the heavy lance charge), good saddles, etc. fell before well trained infantry, although they were the terror of the mass peasant armies. Trucks can be considered an extention of the horse, as can IFVs/APCs (armored infantry vehicles) and AFVs (tanks). In all cases, they are vunerable to comparably armed infantry and/or artillery. Like the armored knight, there is a practical limit to the amount of armor and weaponry they can carry while still functioning effectively and the countermeasures are cheaper.

The plane is a good choice as the side without air superiority doesn't win battles except when they can negate their opponent's air supremacy by other factors, for example, the Nazis using bad weather during the early stages of the Ardennes campaign (Battle of the Bulge). However, no matter how much you blast, poison, irradiate or otherwise attack a piece of land by indirect means, it isn't owned by your side until you place troops on it.

The gun eventually forced dispersed tactical deployment on the battlefield. Better artillery, munitions (including nuclear and/or chemical ones) and aircraft only enhance that effect. It could also be argued that many of the competing weapons are simply developments off the gun: artillery, machine guns, bombs, missiles, etc. It is simply a refinement of the launcher and munitions technologies.

Relatively powerful, easy to use, cheap to manufacture and avoiding the requirements of physical strength (an old lady in her 90s could blow away the strongest man in the world with a steady hand a few ounces of trigger pull), the gun was a quantum leap forward.

[kofh2u]

Regarding (A), I think Suicide bombings are not that significant, tactically or strategically. You can't win a war by blowing your self up along with civilians. Hamas has gained no military advantage in all its years of suicide bombings. The most suicide bombings do is scare the enemy population and cause economic damage.
Regarding (B), stateless terrorists, i.e. Al Qaeda, have and probably will continue to change the way wars are fought. I think I read somewhere that the US army was restructuring to give more emphasis on light-weight mobile units capable of effectively attacking terrorists. British forces have been doing that for years fighting IRA.
Al Qaeda does take a lot of hits from US forces. The problem is they have an endless supply of "cheap life" in the form of overzealous Muslims who will gladly accept "martyrdom" to kill US forces.


Good thoughtful reply, and the latest innovations on our side is reassuring.

However,I see this Human-smart Bomb as a tactic in a stradegy of propaganda that hopes to snowball the number of Al Quida recruits, and forge a sense of superiotity, a sense of possible victory, a feeling of invincibility, in the larger Islamic populaion. Correspondingly, at one and the same time, such tactics will weaken the US economically, and will build the already large passive anti-war sentiment to heights which promise capitulations to the extortion.

In the final analysis, I believe the motive has been to sieze the oil wealth and replace the present governments in Arabia. Israel and the Western infidel are mere scapegoats for the purpose of building the military force needed.

Now, to up the ante, so to speak, to take this tactic to the next level, that place where the Arab street can see beyond your own observations, to that point beyond seeing terrorism is a gnat, a fly in the ointment, an inconvenience to be dealt with and tolerated until destroyed.

Dirty bombs.

That is the next step. Iran is already probably able to unlease a few Human-smart dirty Bombs right how. I believe if Israel moves forward and pre-empts Iran, as she did Saddam's nuclear factories, Iran will/is now explaining the consequences to Jerusalem.

I also forsee a series of dirty bombs starting with just three warning examples in three medium size American cities. I would guess Detroit, the Pentagon, again, and maybe a city like Acron Ohio, for instance. America has only @ 30 cities with populations over 500,000. They would increading be targets for the ever rising cost to the US for retaliation and/or stubbornance to this extortion.

Now, again, Murphy said "if," then certainly, at the worst moment possible.

[jason]

Radio, thats a good one. How about radar?
Well you wanted the most radical and I am not sure radar qualified as that.

After all, it is really just an extension of a guy with binoculars up the mast :wink: More specifically a couple of planes with radios is a similar level of usefulness.

Slightly more seriously though, radio meant that for the first time ever, ships at sea could communicate with home base and get orders and so on. That is an incredibly radical change from the nature of sea warfare from all the previous centuries.

Jason

[kofh2u]

Slightly more seriously though,


radio meant that for the first time ever, ships at sea could communicate with home base and get orders and so on. That is an incredibly radical change from the nature of sea warfare from all the previous centuries.

Jason

Zechariah 14 tells us of a time when Israel will be gathered together again....
...again,... because Zechariah himself was a member of the body of Jews who had just returned from Babylon, the first captivity of the Jews.

So, here, he seems to describe a wean not yet used... and he sayd it will be directed at enemies of Israel.

Zech. 14:12 And this shall be the (radio-active?) plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

What do you make of a weapon like this, one which affects even live stock?

Zech. 14:15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.

[Aardvark]

arent the unmanned machines supposed to be a big deal?

of course, if other countries end up having unmanned machines too
and theres a war, unmanned machines killing other unmanned machines
wont settle it.

has anyone thought about the the weapons we havent heard about?
i would like the u.s. to turn the moon into a 'death star'
.a huge laser, which can be transmitted to appropriate sattelites
and be precisely centered any point on earth.
has anyone looked at the moon with a telescope lately?

[Epoetker]

Kof, I really think you should read this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24221) before making unqualified assumptions on the effectiveness of suicide bombers and a decentralized terrorist cell structure. As it shows, it gets really ugly, really quick once such weapons are actually used against a civilian population with an ounce of sense.

[flipper]

I vote for the introduction of the gun (ineffectual though the first arquebuses were) because of its potential.

The next most radical innovation, I venture to suggest, would be the invention of the machine gun. After all, the machine gun became the great equalizer that obsoleted massed ranks of men and made cavalry effectively extinct. It effectively made defensive positions unassailable and spurred great innovation in attempts to solve this apparently intractable problem.

One might argue that most of the subsequent innovations during the first world war, ones that were capitalized on in the interwar period to shape modern fighting doctrines as we know them, were really just efforts to try and solve the breakthrough problem caused by machine guns in deep defensive positions.

Close on the heels of the machine gun, my third choice would be the invention of high explosive.

[dizzle]

Zechariah 14 tells us of a time when Israel will be gathered together again....
...again,... because Zechariah himself was a member of the body of Jews who had just returned from Babylon, the first captivity of the Jews.

So, here, he seems to describe a wean not yet used... and he sayd it will be directed at enemies of Israel.

Zech. 14:12 And this shall be the (radio-active?) plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

What do you make of a weapon like this, one which affects even live stock?

Zech. 14:15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.


Funny the NT seems to think this stuff was fulfilled in the first century, and it certaily seems to describe ancient life.

[anthrogirl]

Funny the NT seems to think this stuff was fulfilled in the first century, and it certaily seems to describe ancient life.
Interesting--could you please elaborate?

[kofh2u]

Funny the NT seems to think this stuff was fulfilled in the first century, and it certaily seems to describe ancient life.


Oh yeah!
I am sure. The bible reminds us again and again, like history, those people who do not heed the Word of the lord are doomed to repeat the evil they do, and to reap similar consequences, again and again. For sure.

Yes, DD, so many bible readers look for a singularity in their insights when so often things are to be repeated in many separate generations.

I try to make that point in many discussions. For instance, in the thread "mr 666." There, we see good arguments, for instance, accusing a number of different candidates.

Here, I am sure you can enlighten me about the perplexing source and cause of an ailment that acts just like radioactive exposure. I am sure there was something, but to be honest, I haven't thought about what else would cause these symptoms besides nuclear radiations:

Zech. 14:12 And this shall be the plague...
...their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet,
... their eyes shall consume away in their holes,
... their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

And also, it must have been communicable to the farm animals, too.

It would certainly serve as a warning to us today! What does the preterist theory hold this to be in the 1st century, because I haven't heard that idea yet.

Thank U for joining in here, too.

[dizzle]

Yes, DD, so many bible readers look for a singularity in their insights when so often things are to be repeated in many separate generations.

There is nothing in the text that indicates it will be so. This passage is filled with first century and onward fulfillments.



Here, I am sure you can enlighten me about the perplexing source and cause of an ailment that acts just like radioactive exposure. I am sure there was something, but to be honest, I haven't thought about what else would cause these symptoms besides nuclear radiations:

Zech. 14:12 And this shall be the plague...
...their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet,
... their eyes shall consume away in their holes,
... their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

And also, it must have been communicable to the farm animals, too.

It would certainly serve as a warning to us today! What does the preterist theory hold this to be in the 1st century, because I haven't heard that idea yet.

Thank U for joining in here, too.

You are assuming this must be literalallistically taken. I have not studied this in great depth (and my memory fails very easily - I have some preterist works on it to dig up), but it is likely prophetic hyperbole.

I was more posting to get a quick jab in - probably shouldn't have but it was late and my resolve was weak (I get compulsvie) - cause I don't have time for a Zech debate at this point, but that would be a good comphrehensive study for me to do and post sometime.

[zorathruster]

The greatest change to combat was the insight that a coordinated cooperative effort on the part of soldiers could defeat an opposing force of much greater size. Up until the recognition that cooperation proved highly leathal armies were just large groups of individual combatants. Today tempo which relies heavily on coordination between all assets on the battlefield keeps the enemy under constant assault and defense.

When Greek soldiers stood in phalanx protecting each other and supporting each other they had come upon an idea for war that would defeat most of the known world. Today that concept allows army troops engaged in operations to call on leathal support from artillary, air force, and navy assets. Cooperation is the best military idea to ever appear.

Interestingly, cooperation is a concept that has been beneficial to all other forms of social interaction. Politics, economics, and sociology all reflect a corresponding benefit of cooperation.

Now if we could just all get along, there wouldn't be anything we couldn't do.

[kofh2u]

The greatest change to combat was the insight that a coordinated cooperative effort on the part of soldiers could defeat an opposing force of much greater size. Up until the recognition that cooperation proved highly leathal armies were just large groups of individual combatants. Today tempo which relies heavily on coordination between all assets on the battlefield keeps the enemy under constant assault and defense.

When Greek soldiers stood in phalanx protecting each other and supporting each other they had come upon an idea for war that would defeat most of the known world. Today that concept allows army troops engaged in operations to call on leathal support from artillary, air force, and navy assets. Cooperation is the best military idea to ever appear.

Interestingly, cooperation is a concept that has been beneficial to all other forms of social interaction. Politics, economics, and sociology all reflect a corresponding benefit of cooperation.

Now if we could just all get along, there wouldn't be anything we couldn't do.


WOWIE...

Back to square one.
That was very nicely put. I had posted earlier that love of the enemy is the most potent weapon when used correctly.

WeMUST kill them with kindness, or else Zechariah 14

Isa. 60:8 Who are these that fly as a cloud (from the Americas), and as
the doves of peace to their (cathedral) windows?

Isa. 60:9 Surely the isles (of the New World) shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish, (first from North America), to bring thy sons (of Abraham) from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, (Christ), because he hath glorified thee (in Christianity).

Isa. 60:10 And the sons of strangers (from the Americas) shall build up thy walls, and their kings (of the Christian denominations) shall minister peace unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee (in Holocaust), but in my favour have I had mercy on thee (and brought thee into the Promised Land).

Isa. 60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the (Christian) Gentiles, and that their kings (of the Christian denominations) may be brought (to the Holy Lands).

[kglethean]

I don't know if I could say which one was most radical but here are some major turning points.

The gun is the most obvious choice because it has been a weapon used for centuries now to decide the outcome of countless battles. The grooves that were referred to at the beginning of the thread are known as "rifling" (hence rifles) and cause a bullet to spin making it more accurate (as was already mentioned). http://www.firearmsid.com/A_bulletIDrifling.htm This along with the a gas operated firing system are the two of the most important improvements to firearms allowing for accurate and automatic fire (respectively).

The first time someone shot at another reconnaisance plane during WWI was another turning point. The advent of aircraft being used as weapons, not just to report enemy positions, was a major turn in military tactics and made the battlefield truly three dimensional.

Another turning point related to this and the aircraft carrier was the Battle of Midway (If my memory serves correctly) which was the first battle fought across a horizon, in which neither side saw the other side's ships. The battle was fought completely by air. This, in part marked a turning point to the aircraft group naval strategy that is commonplace today in the world's navies.

I would say the invention of the Huey helicopter, made famous in Vietnam was another crucial invention as it helped develop our air-mobile infantry tactics. Maybe this isn't the best example, but the comparatively small and inexperienced force portrayed in We Were Soldiers was reinforced and resupplied by helicopters and was able to snatch victory from defeat because of the use of the Huey. Similar tactics are still used today and the replacement of marching ground forces through potentionally dangerous areas with dropping them into hotspots was a rather large leap forward.

Also as was previously mentioned the use of unmanned drones as weapons has been another large step forward and will definately see a lot more use in the future. Just as when a pilot fired his pistol at an enemy reconnaisance plane, the attachment of a Hellfire missle to a Predator drone was a logical and critical stepforward. It's the first step towards the machine versus man conflict that was centerstage in Hollywood in the form of Terminator and the more recent I, Robot.

-kg

[TheOneAndOnly]

It's the first step towards the machine versus man conflict that was centerstage in Hollywood in the form of Terminator and the more recent I, Robot.

Awesome! A Man-Machine War would be simply brill! As long as they don't shove us in The Matrix. But then again I could be Neo...

[Ben Franklin]

Tough one...　Either radio or radar: it`s tough to choose between superior communications or superior intelligence gathering. :thumb:

[Phatboy]

I say that the satellite guidance systems are making the U.S. the prime military power. Lasar guided bombs are not as accurate as sattelite guided.

[Mr. Tinkles]

Ooh, just discovered this thread....

The gun itself was not the turning point most posters so far would like to claim. The real turning point was engineering guns with standardised parts, so that they could be easily built and, more importantly, repaired. The amss production of guns this enabled was far, far more than the original 'barking dog' concept

In terms of ideas, I would put the deliberate targetting of civilians - the war of terror

As far as the dirty bomb goes, why bother with a bomb at all? Why not just dump a few kilos of radioactive waste into a resorvoir in north america

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Well I not an expert or anything on the history of firearms either.....

But you are correct that the first firearms were crappy by todays standards, so they didnt immediately change the face of warfare.

But as they improved, metal armor became obsolete as did hand to hand weapons.

Things like the invention of the grooved bore (which you mentioned), the revolver (no longer a single shot weapon), guns that had reloading capabilities with a magazine, the machine gun, scopes, etc...ensured that things like swords, spears, bows and arrows, etc were no longer the weapon of choice for the average foot soldier.


Russ

The 1851, 1853 enfield rifled musket (.577)---I just stayed up until midnight cleaning mine. It's deadly accurate for several hundred yards, and the introduction of this type of weapon, along with the minie' ball, revolutionized 19th century warfare....

[drhonk]

The 1851, 1853 enfield rifled musket (.577)---I just stayed up until midnight cleaning mine. It's deadly accurate for several hundred yards, and the introduction of this type of weapon, along with the minie' ball, revolutionized 19th century warfare....

There are several things that were used by the German during world war II that help the modern warfare that we know today.

- Missile - they use them to bomb London during the last few months of WWII.
- Dive bombers (stuka) - help them during the blitzkrieg war.
- Jet Fighters - A little to late to help the German because they didn't use them until the last few weeks on the war but it could've changed the course of the war.

[Nicholas]

Just a thought here, but couldn't you consider the Human mind the most radical weapon? All of these weapons are the result of our creativity.

But if we're just going to talk about weapons and such, there can't be just one, so I'll list some of those that I think were significant and a couple reasons why, though I'll inevitably miss some.

1. Horses, they allowed for much faster movement of troops. Look at the mongols for instance.

2. Guns, made metal armor outdated, while in the beginning inaccurate, could scare an enemy who hadn't seen them before, the Spanish Conquistadors against the Aztecs for instance.
And along with guns, developments such as like rifling, flint lock, breach loading, magazine loading, and machine guns increased things like range, accuracy, and rate of fire. This category also includes really big guns like cannons.

3. Armored vehicles, includes tanks and the like, broke the lines of trench warfare in WW1.

4. Airplanes, first used for spying in WW1, then someone took out a gun and shot at another plane, the rest is history.

[Cynic Sage]

What would you say was the most radical non-nuclear weapon to enter warfare? By radical I mean "changed how war is fought".
Some ideas: horseback riding, chariot, longbow, heavy armoured knights, rifles, cannons, phalanx, aircraft carrier (I know they can be nuclear powered but...), air vehicals, cruise missiles, UAVs, tanks, automatic weapons.

I'd probably go with aircraft carriers (carrier battle groups), especially the modern US ones. They allow unprecedented force projection abilities and the ability to partially wage an entire war from sea.

Any suggestions?

The Laser Guided "Smart" Pit Bull Terrier.

[attachment]

[Ryokan]

trains, and later the internal cmbustion engine. Total warfare, the hall mark of modern war, was made possbile by these logistical weapons. The case could be made, I think, for the sub machine gun, which went along way towards making guerrilla warfare the preferred way of making war.
I am looking at what I said last year, and I think it still holds, spelling aisdes. Modern Industry and logistics changed warfare forever.

[furay]

Machine Gun.

[flipper]

High explosives.

Changed the face of warfare - the vast majority of WW1's casualties were from shelling. High explosives also enabled the tank's main gun as well as aerial bombing.

[cozee]

What would you say was the most radical non-nuclear weapon to enter warfare?



That is an easy one! The answer is a Marine. They have been the most effective weapon this country has had since 1775!

Hardcore Marine Corps, OoooRaaah!!

Semper Fi!

[Stevo]

From my limited knowledge:

At close range a longbowman could take down a fully armoured knight, and even pierce a shield, I think a archer could shoot something like 10 arrows a minute now thats some serious power! The longbowman allowed the English to be a huge military power even although it did'nt have the wealth of the mainland countrys. I'm pretty sure the longbow dominated for a fair few years and the only reason the musket took over was because it was easy to train with. You needed to train from a very young age to use a longbow, in fact pulling a longbow back all the way was like lifting a full grown man with one hand!

Number two was the shieldwar:

The shield wall was basically just a tightly packed group of men with large sheilds. Each man protected the man on his right and the result was basically a batteringram. The romans perfected this tactic which was the evolution of the phalanx, by using short swords because in close combat you can't swing. By using spears as well the formation was also almost immune to mounted attack and the shields also gave the men protection from archers.

[Cynic Sage]

That is an easy one! The answer is a Marine. They have been the most effective weapon this country has had since 1775!


Correction:

Marines with Laser-Guided "Smart" Pit-bull Terriers.:teeth:

[Dienekes]

The most radical weapon as in "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING" was the Chinese bamboo tree. These soldiers would weild entire trees around and try to fight however it was a disaster since they were easily killed by the Chinese lancers and swordsman.

The most radical weapon of all time was the spear, it started it all from mob wars to Greek formations to the eventual idea of javelins and bows the spear was the most changing weapon and it has more uses than almost any other weapon (I think most uses of all weapons but dont want to eat my words) it can out reach a sword, can stop charging cavalry can nock away arrows and bolts can be thrown or shot through a ballistae one of the few weapons alexander had to take down an elephant, can crush a chariot if weilded right can stop fully armored knights in tight formation and when weilded by cavalry can run through anything. It is the all purpose weapon of early war.

The other "weapon" I can think of would be the shield which started armor and impenitrable soldiers and through this tactics and eventually strategy were created which drastically changed war, the shield also can be seen in todays army with the tank wall formations with the idea of shielded troops also the shield idea can be seen with the metal plate in the soldiers uniform whichcan be taken as armor.

[Dienekes]

sorry got some more to say Romans perfected Testudo formation (sounds Japanese dont it?) the Phalanx was greek perfected by Philip of Macedon (Alexander the great's father)

Also there is the note of archery, one of the most over-rated weapons invented in warfare. The longbow could take down FRENCH knights at close range who were lightly armored compared to others though faster. The one test it had against german knights during the second punic war it came up way to short and the longbowmen were overrun even when they outnumbered the germans and held the highground also the firing it is true a longbow can fire 10 shots a minute, however when you add in time to aim and the fact that the enemy was normally farther than 30 yards away the bow could only fire with a hope of a successful hit 3-4 shots a minute which I will admit is still not something to sneeze at however there was very few armor that the bow could work in at the distance needed for it to be useful and since at close range throwing axes worked faster and a ton stronger (the Frank throwing axes could not only destroy german styled knight armor but there are instnaces where it ran right through three men archery could never pass all the way through one unless he was within 10 feet, where the drawback of old longbows comes in at long ranges they are the most accurate projectile weapon however at close ranges it was far worse than the short bow due to the length the archer had to pull to fire the bow and the jittery feeling one gets when a fully armored knight is charging at you.

The best use of archer tactics was actually used by the french (surprised me too) where their archers had longbows for long and medium ranges and shortbows for medium to short ranges.

[Straylight]

Besides nuclear weapons....

Incendiary bombs.

After all, more people died in Dresden than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

[Dienekes]

It's a good weapon no doubt but is it the most radical and world changing? Personally Incendiary Bombs didn't change history that much or the way wars are fought.

[Straylight]

It's a good weapon no doubt but is it the most radical and world changing? Personally Incendiary Bombs didn't change history that much or the way wars are fought.

Most radical. "Radical" as in "most destructive" (Barring Nuclear weapons...And even then, it gives nuclear destruction a run for it's money). The reason why they didn't change history much is because weapons that utilize the full potential of fire have been largely banned.

As for world changing, then I might say: Radar. IF that can be classified as a weapon.

[Mr. Christopher]

What would you say was the most radical non-nuclear weapon to enter warfare? By radical I mean "changed how war is fought".
Some ideas: horseback riding, chariot, longbow, heavy armoured knights, rifles, cannons, phalanx, aircraft carrier (I know they can be nuclear powered but...), air vehicals, cruise missiles, UAVs, tanks, automatic weapons.

I'd probably go with aircraft carriers (carrier battle groups), especially the modern US ones. They allow unprecedented force projection abilities and the ability to partially wage an entire war from sea.

Any suggestions?


The most radical weapon is Iran's president. If you can call him president.

[3kixintehead]

The human body and mind are the most complex, elaborate, and deadliest weapons ever used in history.

[DoomRater]

Despite the lack of activity in this thread, I'm gonna jump in here and say unmanned machines. If you shrunk the tank down to the size of a midget and gave it infantry weapons, you'd have yourself an effective anti-whatever tool, far more survivable than the soldier, with the operator safely tucked away in a bunker. Customization would be the key to winning battles fought with these, and even if they're destroyed and you have to bring the soldier out you already have intel.

But the gun's improvements would be the second. They changed warfare faster than the general's ideas of warfare. "Come on, we need more soldiers to get em to run out of bullets!"

[Paintbucket]

The most radical non-nuke weapon in history for me is the iron spear. The iron spear allowed for large amounts of good-quality weapons to be made cheaply. This allowed militia-grade soldiers to have superior numbers and equipment to bear against other troops. Also with proper training, lots of these spearmen could form a very effective fighting force.

[jesusfreak]

there are many significant things. In the past I Think what changed war the most was the rocket engine. Without the rocket engine we wouldn't have jet fighters or pretty much any high speed aircraft we have today. Also we probably wouldn't of had the cold war with ICBM's or anything.