Far future warfare

>>33653430
Katanas

>>33653430
Just nuke them from orbit. Wait for the dust to settle. Wallah.

>>33653446
Well if nukes aren't an option since every powerful nation on Mars would have them, I'd assume ground combat would occur.

So for the sake of getting to argue other than space navy solutions like nukes, I'm going to put money on scatter gats. Holes in space suits ftw.

>>33653460
Then missile them from orbit.
>not going all in
That is how you lose a spess war.

>>33653430
Or, we could start going back to things like heat sync/sinks (can't remember the proper spelling) and ventilation ribs.

And >>33653446. Most Martian combat will either be this, or small squads of people fighting claim jumpers, thieves, pirates, whatever you want to call them.

Nukes aren't an option for a small corporation who's already spent a shitload to even get there and be able to bring shit back.
Defending a set area would most likely be the main problem.

>>33653430
>dust everywhere

Because a closed compartment gun would be hard to create?

By then it'll be caseless rounds and weapons that have heatsinks. It's just neither has a tactical benefit in the modern day due to air cooling being effective and no real use for a caseless round.

>>33653525
Oh, also, I would imagine that any weapon specifically made for use on mars would bring heavy barrels, steel (for the sake of holding up to heat better) cooling guns back.
And due to the absurdly cold nature of the planet, I would also imagine that thermal optics would be a big plus.

I do have to wonder what our space suits will become though.
Ballistic vests?
Most fighting will be pretty damn hard outside of actual living spaces due to the fairly cover free Natur of the surface coupled with the bulk of space suits and required provisions.

It might just end up going back to tank warfare for a long while until we have significant areas lacking anywhere for tanks to easily move.
Still, getting those to mars or building them there would present a significant problem.

Warfare would not consist of 'nuke them from orbit' any more than warfare consists of nuking things now, people who think this are children who play too mich vidya. Setting up infrastructure in these places would be incredibly difficult and expensive, and outright destroying it instead of capturing it would be the height of wasteful stupidity.

Warfare would likely consist mostly of vehicles and cyber warfare. Eliminate resistance from opposing humans and AI/robotic tools without destroying equipment you can use yourself.

>>33653740
99% of the war on Earth since 1945 is about nuking each other.

>>33653430
his flag is facing the wrong way reeee

>>33653430
>the biggest issue is the dust
Holy shit

File: 1292580114904.png (203KB, 400x366px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 400x366px

>>33655755

>>33655791
Deny it as much as you want but nukes as sole reason of no WWIII, WWIV, WWV and WWVI happening every 20 years.

>>33655819
That's not what you said.

But moving on to your point in that post, you are half right. However there have been periods in history just as long, if not nearly as long and sometimes even longer, of peace. Before nuclear weapons.

The presence of nukes has definitely helped us avoid conflict, however we had periods of peace before their development as well.

>>33655840
>world wars before 20th century

>>33653430
Hear me out but I actually think the nature of space combat could benefit from using simpler firearm actions like bolt or break action.

I mean in an environment where you need to survive within a suit any shot that makes contact with you is almost a guarantee death or at least puts you out of the fight.

Id imagine the sparse landscape of mars would incline us to return to volley fire tactics, instead of the high rate of fire assault rifle strategies we use in urban environments

>>33655875
If there is some point you believe I am not addressing you are going to have to be more clear and write it properly without using vague or poor English

You initially said that since 1945 99% of war was about nuking each other. You then went on to say, somewhat contradicting yourself, that nukes were the reason we have not had wars every 20 years.

I responded by telling you that we have actually had prolonged periods of peace before the advent of nuclear weapons, therefore they cannot be the only reason that we have had no wars between major powers recently. I did concede that there are other factors at play in preventing those wars as well.

I then went on to waste my time writing this post when really there was no point. I'm just talking to a guy shitposting and being a dick on the internet

>>33655949
>(((we))) have actually had prolonged periods of peace
We are who?

>>33653430
You're already carrying an environmental system in much lower gravity - water cool the barrel.

Also ridiculous precision rifles to exploit the fact that your time of flight is 3x longer, and you have no wind effects.

>>33653507
Space suits have micrometeroid protection. Scatter gat ain't gonna do shit.

>>33655940
With a modern suit you've got about 1min 30 to patch it. You are probably out of the fight though.

But wouldn't that be an argument for automatic weapons, not against them though? No worry about terminal effectiveness, so long as it can puncture the suit.

File: 2134124124214.png (1MB, 1500x844px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x844px

>>33653430
Just nuke the shit out of them, red heads are basically subhuman

>>33653446
>>33653460
>>33656663

Why are you even fighting if you're just nuking everything? What are you fighting over?

The cost to establish the colonies/factories/mines/whatever are why are you'd fight over Mars in the first place.

>>33657876
>sloppy seconds on a sabotaged space colony
Pass. Glass it then build on the ashes.

>>33653430
Implying there will be a far future for us

>>33655949
>>33655875
>>33655819
Something that must be considered, before the 1800s we has no fucking clue who Japan was.
It's hard to war who you don't know. Now that everyone knows everyone, nukes hold us together

>>33653430
Just gas them and send in a new wave of settlers.

>>33655819
And?
Vietnam, the gulf war, the Iraq war, the war on terrorism in general, the Korean War, and EVERY. FUCKING. CONFLICT. Since 1945 has been conventional because NOBODY wants to resort to nukes again.

The same will be said on mars.
Ergo, you are wrong. There will still be civilians on mars. There will be centers of population by the time that any form of armed conflict happens on mars.
The ONLY time you will see nuclear devices used in any capacity involving a foreign planet will be if it is being used solely for military purposes, or for ship to shit combat.
The sole exception would be insane motherfuckers, and I doubt that would happen.

>>33656574
>micrometeoroid protection
Isn't that a little different from bullets? Low mass + high velocity isn't necessarily the same as medium mass + medium velocity (and by medium I mean comparatively)

>>33653430
The issue of dust in machinery on Mars is overblown, based on experience from the Mars rovers. It turns out that it's not nearly as damaging and abrasive as we thought. It's probably no worse than a typical desert on Earth, maybe less so.

>>33653446
>wallah

>>33653430
Space Mosins

>>33653430
We're not going to space. Instead of that we chose to feed browns and pay for thier children to replace us. They will not be interested in space and will starve after killing each other in stupid little wars and burning everything that was left for them. Humanity will die on this rock.

Im gonna try and make sense of the armor. Since unlike today were if you get shot you can live you now so long as its not a major artery or organ or what not body armor is based on protecting the chest. On mars if you are hit anywhere or hell even a very near miss could rupture the suit could lead to decompression and death you need to make sure the suit is not ripped or if attacking try and rip the suit. For the attacker the obvious soultion is scatter guns try and create as many holes as possible. For the defender he would need his suit to not get ripped which would lead to emergency patches that can stop decompresses and heavy armor which could be more manageable due to the lower gravity. Of course who knows we will probably just shoot each other with machine guns like aways.

>>33653430
Literally the biggest issues would be having your suit ruptured

>>33660338
Lurk more.