What if World War 1 was fought with modern weapons?

>>34596510
it wasnt

>>34596516
>What IF

>>34596510
Iran-Iraq War.
Look it up, it's fucking neato.

>>34596510
this is a very not specific question but it would surely be more mobile. back when people knew that ww1 is inevitable thy actually thought it's going to be mobile but the machine guns made it what it was.

File: boom.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34596510
I'd be shorter.

Modern weapons = Berlin is nuked

>>34596578
This. Even without nukes the improvements and proliferation of vehicles and communications means offensives would be created and resolved alot quicker and probably be more decisive. Entente would win way quicker.

>>34596510
It wouldn't have been nearly as interesting/Probably wouldn't have even happened

>>34596562
>modern weaponry
>trench warfare

Sounds operator as fuck.

>1914-1918
I think non-weapons technology would play a bigger role in determining how things played out. Having a satellite image of an enemy's entire front line would change things up. The small arms and artillery wouldn't change much (most of it basically still is modern) but the tanks, airplanes, rockets, and plastic explosives would make things progress pretty quickly instead of having two sides just slinging lead from opposite sides of a field for months between shellings. If we add in biological/chemical weapons then shit gets nasty fast. A shell of mustanrd gas did very little actual damage beyond psychological warfare but releasing aerosolized smallpox or sarin into a trench barracks would be a serious problem. Also nukes, if those came up then France would still be an exclusion zone and the Russian Empire might not have ended.

>>34596510
>What if World War 1 was fought with modern weapons?
Then it wouldn't be WW1. One of the main reasons WW1 was as long and miserable as it was was due to the trench warfare and stalemates.
Modern weapons are big on mobility.