[Steiner]

In this poll (like I said it would be a military related one as usual) I want to know which weapon of war you think had the greatest impact in history. Me personally? I would go with aircraft since it opened up mobility and long-range fighting. Tell me what you think.

[Shao_Long]

actually,nukes had greatest impact on warfare.Actually,they made large scale wars impossible.I think you all know why.

[Wik]

[Shao_Long]

[Dionae]

I finally chose aircraft, but it was between that, automatic weapons, or mechanized warfare.

[Shao_Long]

well,now,think yourself :
Automatic weaponry actually didnt changed wars too much.
Aircrafts brought some change,but also not that much.
Mechanized warfare..It changed tactics,but not war itself.
While nukes..Well,Wars between large countries now are simply impossible.
Who would want a war if you cant win it ? and I bet most commanders instead of accepting defeat,would simply have had blown everything apart.
War between east and west is impossible now.Old style war,to say.
I would say most powerful weaponry is money.Every war is now fought with economics..Sanctions,embargoes,fees, these are new weapons,weapons of XXI century..

[elfdude]

Sniper and gurilla warfare because you can't nuke what you can't see now can you?

[Grey]

Actually, I appreciate katanas and polearms.

[Shao_Long]

[Seth]

The greatest changes in warfare aren't the weapons itself, but the tactics used and the experience of commanders, officers and individual soldiers.

For example, take WW1 with it's trenchwars. Long horrible battle that often lasted months while exchanging trenches. 23 years later, Nazi Germany starts the second world war which is such a HUGE success for the Nazis because of this new way of war, the blitzkrieg. Nazi forces either ran over defenders as they stood ground or commited atrocities to otherwise force them in a quick surrender. Not to mention the experience Nazi commanders had aqquired during WW1. Why do you think Erwin Rommel managed to put up such a succesful defense at Northern Africa, while his supply lines were stretched and reinforcements couldn't be expected at all? Great strategist, too bad he was on the wrong side of the front lines...

[Koryon]

I vote for tactics too..

Specifically Nelson and his tactics at Trafalgar, "One can't go wrong by pulling up next to the enemy and putting a cannon-ball in him". Pretty much revoutionized ship of the line combat.

[Kyandra]

Overall, I find myself agreeing with Seth (*shiver*). It is how the US "won" the revolutionary war and "lost" in Vietman.

My first choice was simple though -- the introduction of gunpowder to medieval europe and the resultant developing of firearms. This made heavy medieval armor obsolete.

Each major change throughout time has brought with it a timepoint where the pathway warfare takes has changed.

[Shao_Long]

[Seth]

Nuclear weapons and most biological, chemical or biochemical weapons shouldn't be really classified as weapons, but more like political means of pushing smaller countries around. Why? Because every weapon has a general or specific purpose in a theatre of war, unlike nuclear/biological/chemical/biochemical weapons. which only serve to scare other countries poopless.

[Steiner]

Im not too sure about just the "scare" of nuclear and biological weaponry. I think the thousands of Japanese in Nagasaki and Hiroshima felt the nuclear bomb was a little more than just a "threat" when it killed their families and leveled their towns.

[kvirk]