Out of curiosity what would modern warfare look like if firearms

>>34399765
tactical electro-motor loaded crossbows with rails laser pointers and holo sights.

File: ec67713d787bebe0b145be5ca0cd3dc5.jpg (92KB, 1398x806px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1398x806px

There are other ways to propel bullets like that.

>>34399840
I don't see the rare earth metals necessary for motor technology being mined without explosives. Not in any reasonable quantities, at least.

>>34399765
Probably still be in armor and formations.
HEMA and SCA.
Dies the Fire?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emberverse_series

lasers, armoured tanks and trucks that smash through everything, lots of explosives if you didn't include them not being invented, flamethrowers, attack dogs, chemical/bio weapons, chainsaws, maybe high powered crossbows, rockets

Without gunpowder, armoured vehicles would be insanely powerful.

>>34401198
>Tanks that instead of having a turret just have several port holes with spear men
Basically the ultimate form of a testudo?

>>34399765
Does dynamite still get invented?

File: 1487944616286.jpg (238KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1000x666px

>>34401245
And maybe a ballista in place of the cannon.

>>34399873
I'm jelly stopit

File: French riot police charge football fans in Lille.jpg (168KB, 962x630px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 962x630px

See Riot Police.

>>34399954
there are no rare earth metals required by electric motors. (they make them more efficient tho)
electric motors were a thing before anyone knew about them.

File: Wega_Beamter_mit_Öffnungswerkzeug.jpg (117KB, 373x812px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 373x812px

>>34404343
Nice and """"non-lethal""""

>>34399765

How do you call those rifles that don't use gunpowder? If think they're German or something.

File: Image 006.jpg (10KB, 78x103px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 78x103px

>>34404343

>>34401198
>>34401245
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utre_tgfAm0

File: 1295677928853.jpg (66KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x480px

>>34404712
>Real-size battlebots
You have my interest.

File: Catapult_Tank.png (175KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 300x300px

>>34399765
Lots of ramming. The automobile is the most lethal weapon devised by man after all, not the firearm. Tanks would basically be battering rams on threads armed with flamethrowers, and wars would be fought with bulldozers trying to shove other bulldozers like a professional football team and the side that breaks through the other sides' line will either plow the enemy positions into rubble or burn them. Siege engines would evolve into air cannons and centrifugal catapults powered by engines to launch solid metal balls farther and farther. Air-powered infantry weapons would probably be designed, but you would have hell of a time to design an aircannon able to punch through armored vehicles. Anti-tank weapons would be larger armored vehicles literally crushing them to death and incendiary weapons like the Molotov cocktail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_cezSJ9iqI

Aircraft would be limited to bombers throwing fuck-huge metal darts, concrete blocks, and fire bombs on targetsn at first. Or maybe some ballsy fuckers would design airborne rams with their propellers and use their blades to chop enemy aircraft out of the sky. Eventually, someone will get the bright idea that rockets and jets can be used to propel projectiles and make missiles, allowing fighters and more conventional aircraft types to take shape. Assuming gunpowder never happens, these would eventually be made into gyrojets for infantry and maybe become a standard for AFVs and naval ships to use.

Come to think of it, the biggest question out of all of this is what would it do to warship development? What role would the submarine have without the torpedo, and how big of a change would iron-cladding and then missiles have on ship construction? I assume incendiaries would again be in heavy use.

You will be carrying those guns for a week, then they will spend the rest of their lives in one of your drawers.

>>34404639

>caseless ammunition
never mind, my brain kicked in and I've remembered

>>34399765
You'd still want whatever ranged weapons you could get a hold of.
Air-rifles and pneumatic cannons firing whatever chemical weapons we can think of
Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons dropped from aircraft
Coil guns
Lasers
Microwave weapons
If nukes are still allowed then they'd be much more common.
Rods from god if nukes don't exist.

WW1 would have bloody interesting without machine guns though. Catapults or pneumatic cannons firing chemical weapons, cavalry charges supported by highspeed spiked tanks, flamethrowers if allowed, even more brutal trench combat ... if trenches even appeared.

>>34404810
>Come to think of it, the biggest question out of all of this is what would it do to warship development?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU99U6rCfk0

>>34404810
>Or maybe some ballsy fuckers would design airborne rams with their propellers and use their blades to chop enemy aircraft out of the sky
The Russians already got there in WW2 iirc. There were a number of models designed with strengthened wings for flying through the Luftwaffe.

Chemical wrappings would be their big weaping against ground forces though

>>34404440
That's just a breaching ram...