Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Warfare without gunpowder Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next 
Author Message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 656

PostPosted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 10:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean.

Yes, this is interesting stuff and fun but it is also a bit too much like debating how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

Hmmm, you like Alternate History, eh!


Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 11:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ken Speed wrote:
Jean.

Yes, this is interesting stuff and fun but it is also a bit too much like debating how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

Hmmm, you like Alternate History, eh!


Ken Speed


Yes but debating " how many angels etc .... " is one of my favourite things. Razz Laughing Out Loud Or, splitting HARE or rather hairs since splitting HARES is being mean to bunnies. Laughing Out Loud ( was looking for an excuse to use this really bad pun ...... thanks ).

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 11:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Concerning the Incas and Aztecs, other European technological advantages were way more important than gunpowder. Better group tactics, metal armour, horses, steel swords and lances, steel-bowed crossbows (which the natives coldn't possibly imitate- they require metalworking technology as advanced as Europe in 1400 CE), literacy which let the conquistators learn from each other's successes and failures, ... Not to mention European diseases, which did most of the killing and much of the demoralization. And, of course, both empires were unlucky.

For Indian fighting on the East Coast, I doubt the absence of gunpowder would change much. Skirmishing looks much the same whether the combatants are armed with muskets or with bows. IIRC, the settlers' biggest advantages in the long run, other than disease, were a bigger population and a greater willingness to cooperate and risk their lives for the group. Amerind leaders were often horrified by the idea of standing up in front of the enemy in packed ranks to shoot him, but in the right circumstances it worked better than anything else. On the other hand, one reason the Iroquois, etc,. adopted skirmishing tactics was because armour was no longer useful. And that isn't true without gunpowder ...

I'm not much interested in a modern or futuristic society without explosives because its so implausible! With scientific chemistry, you have access to many different things which will explode, some of them useful as propellants.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 11:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sean Manning wrote:
On the other hand, one reason the Iroquois, etc,. adopted skirmishing tactics was because armour was no longer useful. And that isn't true without gunpowder ...



All very good points and maybe the lack of firearms but the continued use of armour would actually have been a greater advantage form what you are saying.

Also, some of the advantages where technological but a lot was the types of social organization that made resistance to Europeans more piecemeal: The Europeans could deal with each small group or not so small groups in detail and not have to face an entire continent of hostile natives all at once.

At the time it probably was not obvious to the natives what the long term consequences of early colonization would end up being. In many cases the relationships between the Europeans and the locals was mutually advantageous, at least it seemed that way to those involved for a time.

I don't want to over generalize but the French made treaties that they actually respected and intermarried a lot with the local tribes that they were allied with: Being about 10% in size compared to the British colonies may have been a factor in being less " arrogant " or high handed with the Amerindians. For whatever reason there seemed to be a lot more friendship and mutual respect involved and a lot less, but not zero, exploitation.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!


Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Sat 29 Mar, 2008 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 12:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Oh, I think we sort of drifted to the specifics of what might have happened in the Americas without gunpowder but maybe the original question about what kinds of evolution in projectile weapons could have been invented using other means to provide the energy to propell the missiles.

We have so far: Steam, gravity, flyewheels, better springs, compressed air as energy sources.
The other aspect is type of weapons ? Fast repeating or large numbers of small projectiles shot in a bunch ?

So, are there other technical evolutions we have missed ?

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 656

PostPosted: Sat 29 Mar, 2008 4:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Guys,


We talked about crossbows but we didn't talk about better bows. My understanding is that the Indians used the pinch technique to hold their arrows and thus their bows were pretty weak but on a more global scale what about compound bows?
Bows and crossbows are both ways to store energy and a compound bow is just a more efficient way to do that, right?

Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message
Helge B.





Joined: 06 Mar 2008

Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sun 30 Mar, 2008 1:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There is something else I wonder about in this context.

Almost all innovations concerning gunpowder technology came from Europeans. Gunpowder was nevertheless known in other cultures like Araby, China and Japan. Im am no specialist with these cultures, but from what I know they only accomplished minor improvements.

What made Europeans so inventive? Could it be that with another cultural philosophy we would still be using matchlocks/flintlocks today?
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 656

PostPosted: Sun 30 Mar, 2008 8:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello Helge,

You wrote,

"Almost all innovations concerning gunpowder technology came from Europeans. Gunpowder was nevertheless known in other cultures like Araby, China and Japan. Im am no specialist with these cultures, but from what I know they only accomplished minor improvements.

What made Europeans so inventive? Could it be that with another cultural philosophy we would still be using matchlocks/flintlocks today?"


Those are really interesting questions, I can't speak too much about the Arabic world or China but I do happen to know a little about the early Japanese and their use of firearms. My knowledge is drawn from a book which was entitled GIVING UP THE GUN; I' don't know if it is still in print.

The Japanese learned about guns from the Portuguese traders that were allowed to do business in Japan. In fairly short order they were making and using their own matchlocks but they didn't like them. It isn't that they found them immoral, they thought they were ugly and they felt that the positions a gunner had to take were ugly so they used them but didn't really accept them. I think that guns were outlawed and confiscated during the Tokugawa Shogunate and they essentially disappeared from Japan until the time of Admiral Perry.

Interestingly, not all the confiscated matchlocks were destroyed and, believe it or not, during WWII the Japanese government had those remaining matchlocks rebuilt and rebored to take cartridges and gave them to their militias. These guns that were made for black powder in the 1500 & 1600's were strong enough to be used with WWII era ammunition.
If that isn't a testament to craftsmanship, I don't know what is.


Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Manning




Location: Austria
Joined: 23 Mar 2008

Posts: 853

PostPosted: Sun 30 Mar, 2008 9:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Oh, I think we sort of drifted to the specifics of what might have happened in the Americas without gunpowder but maybe the original question about what kinds of evolution in projectile weapons could have been invented using other means to provide the energy to propell the missiles.

We have so far: Steam, gravity, flyewheels, better springs, compressed air as energy sources.
The other aspect is type of weapons ? Fast repeating or large numbers of small projectiles shot in a bunch ?

So, are there other technical evolutions we have missed ?
That sounds about it, if you add in torsion like in Greek and Roman catapults. Repeating bolt-throwers were known to the Romans, and repeating crossbows were used by the Chinese, so both are possible. The big limit will be the rate at which humans can store energy by cranking or pulling.

Edit: What about primitive flame-throwers like they used in the Middle East?

I guess that repeating weapons would be more popular than ones which shot many projectiles, since there would be no way to get multiple-projectile loads to spread.

IIRC compound bows require machined pulleys to work well, and I have trouble believing in an industrialized society without explosives. I think hand craftsmanship was the Achilles' heel of early air guns as well. But no doubt both would have been tried if firearms hadn't worked out.

Your points about the colonists of New France is a good one. And, even in our world, the 'Five Civlized Tribes' might have kept their holdings in Georgia if a different US President had been in office.
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 656

PostPosted: Sun 30 Mar, 2008 11:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Jean,


You wrote, "I don't want to over generalize but the French made treaties that they actually respected and intermarried a lot with the local tribes that they were allied with: Being about 10% in size compared to the British colonies may have been a factor in being less " arrogant " or high handed with the Amerindians. For whatever reason there seemed to be a lot more friendship and mutual respect involved and a lot less, but not zero, exploitation."

I think there were a couple of things at work actually. The French and English had very different goals for their colonies. The English were looking for land to settle so conflict with the natives was inevitable. The French had much less interest in settling and far more interest in exploiting the land; they wanted resources, furs, wood , fishing and minerals and they wanted the Northwest Passage. The great explorers of the continent at that time were French, Nicolette and LaSalle come to my mind first. I definitely agree that they were less arrogant with the native people than the British were and they were much less racist.

Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sun 30 Mar, 2008 10:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Oh, we could go in the opposite direction: What if the Greeks or Romans had discovered gunpowder and invented handgonnes and canon ? It's just sort of random that gun powder was discovered around the 13th or 14th Centuries rather than around the time of Alexander or Caesar.

The Romans and Greeks could also have invented steam power and discovered electricity: The critical factor is that the Greeks had some good philosopher/scientists but hadn't the mindset or just didn't luck into the scientific mindset.

The Roman industrial base could have put these discoveries into practical application if history had been just a little different.

If we look at our modern progress curve we have the beginnings of the industrial revolution around 1750.
First use of steam power early 19th Century.
Trains, steamships, telegraph around 1850.
By 1900 we have battleships and general use of electricity for lighting and early motorcars
1906 first heavier than air flight.
1945 nuclear weapons.
Jump to 1950, we have T.V. and early computers.
1969 moon landings.
Today, too much tech to mention ......

So applied to the Roman we could have the beginnings of the industrial revolution at the time of Caesar and 250 years later Romans on the Moon !

Anyway, small little changes in history could mean an industrial revolution 2000 years ago or we could still be swinging swords for real for the next 10,000 years: Without some sort of scientific mindset a society could remain at the pre-industrial level forever, this including the discovery of gunpowder.

In a way I wonder if the discovery of gunpowder didn't " spark " or be the catalyst to all the rest ? Once one use of chemistry is shown to have value it would stimulate curiosity about chemistry in general and once the IDEA of scientific progress happens in a society it becomes almost inevitable unless some very conservative/traditional/religious ideology decides to kill all the " thinkers " Eek! Laughing Out Loud

Maybe not so much off Topic than just looking at the widest implication of early or late discovery of gunpowder or other tech.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!


Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Sun 30 Mar, 2008 10:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
M. Eversberg II




Location: California, Maryland, USA
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Reading list: 3 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,435

PostPosted: Sun 30 Mar, 2008 10:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It surprises me that the Romans DIDN'T discover gunpowder, while on the other hand, it surprises me that it was even discovered at all. What drives someone to mix three totally unrelated chemicals together? Must have been one interesting process.

M.

This space for rent or lease.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Helge B.





Joined: 06 Mar 2008

Posts: 73

PostPosted: Mon 31 Mar, 2008 2:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There is a myth which says that blackpowder was invented by accident while trying to convert lead to gold.

I am not sure but this goal seems to be the major motivation of medieval alchemy.

Is it true that the first record in Europe concerning blackpowder dates from the early 13th century?
View user's profile Send private message
Helge B.





Joined: 06 Mar 2008

Posts: 73

PostPosted: Mon 31 Mar, 2008 3:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I am very surprised to read the wikipedia text on gundpowder.

It seems that the chinese were the first to use blackpowder as a propellant to shoot projectiles. I always thought they only used it for fireworks to frighten enemies.

Very interesting thought that they never improved beyond that level and finally were overthrown by european gunpowder technology. Even with their china-centric worldview there have been enough wars and conflicts which should have encouraged them to develope better technology.
View user's profile Send private message
Werner Stiegler





Joined: 27 Feb 2007

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon 31 Mar, 2008 5:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

M. Eversberg II wrote:
It surprises me that the Romans DIDN'T discover gunpowder, while on the other hand, it surprises me that it was even discovered at all. What drives someone to mix three totally unrelated chemicals together? Must have been one interesting process.
Religion. Early chemical experiments in china were driven by taoist faith and Ideas concerning the five elements and their interrelation. Yellow Sulphur happened to become an important part of their theories, probably because of the associations connected with its colour. The chinese lucked out, having both the theories encouraging research into chemistry and the natural deposits of Sulphur to work with.

Quote:
Very interesting thought that they never improved beyond that level and finally were overthrown by european gunpowder technology. Even with their china-centric worldview there have been enough wars and conflicts which should have encouraged them to develope better technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_ship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He#Size_of_the_ships

I don't think Europe would have stood much of a chance, had they ventured into asia too soon.
View user's profile Send private message
Helge B.





Joined: 06 Mar 2008

Posts: 73

PostPosted: Mon 31 Mar, 2008 7:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think the biggest problem for an invading european army are the huge numbers of soldiers the chinese Empire would be able to put against them. With a greater importance of hand-to-hand combat this would be the decisive factor even with a poor chinese leadership. From what I know it was mainly the naval power of the Europeans which broke the resistance of the Chinese.

Still I think from the technology part the Europeans would have the advantage throughout most of the time (from the late middle-ages onwards).

The idea of a renaissance european expedition force invading the chinese empire is still very interesting though. I wonder what they could have accomplished in comparison to Cortez and Pizarro, which faced quite similar odds.
View user's profile Send private message
Werner Stiegler





Joined: 27 Feb 2007

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon 31 Mar, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Helge B. wrote:
I think the biggest problem for an invading european army are the huge numbers of soldiers the chinese Empire would be able to put against them. With a greater importance of hand-to-hand combat this would be the decisive factor even with a poor chinese leadership. From what I know it was mainly the naval power of the Europeans which broke the resistance of the Chinese.
You're mixing the 19th with the 16th century it seems. During the 16th century european armies could hardly make a dent into any of the greater nations of Eurasia. The age of european guns was the 19th century.

Quote:
Still I think from the technology part the Europeans would have the advantage throughout most of the time (from the late middle-ages onwards).

The idea of a renaissance european expedition force invading the chinese empire is still very interesting though. I wonder what they could have accomplished in comparison to Cortez and Pizarro, which faced quite similar odds.
What leads you to that conclusion?
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sun 06 Apr, 2008 12:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ken Speed wrote:
Why not steam powered tanks and cars and for that matter, believe it or not, airplanes! Yeah, look it up on the web, a guy in the thirties made steam powered planes. They were so quiet he could talk to people on the ground as he flew by!


Could it be developed any further, though? As I recall, the problem with steam propulsion--even to this day--is power-to-weight ratio. Even the most advanced steam engines couldn't produce as much power as a run-of-the-mill internal-combustion engine of the same weight once the latter had become sufficiently developed to be a reliable means of powering heavier vehicles, and internal-combustion engines still had a great deal more development potential beyond that point.

Not to mention that, if people could make parts with enough precision to make steam engines work, why wouldn't they be able to do so with internal-combustion engines given enough time and the usual dose of human ingenuity?

Quote:
steam powered cars were clocked at over 100 miles per hour when internal combustion powered cars couldn't even come close to that speed and they also regularly beat IC cars at hill climbs.


Same as above. 19th- and early 20th-century designers came up with numerous ideas for steam-powered tractors and armored vehicles, but in the end they all turned out to have unsatisfactory power-to-weight ratio. I think, at most, a steam-powered vehicle would have made a usable armored artillery tractor, but it wouldn't have been able to power a vehicle sufficiently fast and well-protected to be a tank.

Quote:
No one has mentioned air rifles. I understand that European armies had air rifle snipers. They had tanks that held air drawn from a central horse powered compressor. The air rifles were used by snipers and I believe that they were so feared, because they were so quiet, that an enemy soldier found with one was summarily killed. The only other item I'm aware of that was treated this way was bayonets with saw teeth on the top edge.


Hmm...do you have any information about the effective ranges of these rifles? I suspect they'd be much shorter than gunpowder or later weapons, and thus they might not really be powerful enough to ever have given the ordinary soldier enough firepower and range to force the development of WWI-style trench warfare. Moreover, would compressed air work at larger scales--say, for artillery? If not, then that's another reason why it wouldn't have led to trench warfare and all the associated attempts to break the deadlock. (Note that I'm talking specifically about the extensive trench warfare of World War I, not the trench-based siege tactics of the 16th through 19th centuries.)


Quote:
If they used steam and compressed air warfare wouldn't look much different than it did in WWI or the early days of WWII.


I don't think so--and have explained my points above. Warfare would have probably been executed at a much slower pace, with no heavily-armored fast tanks capable of taking the offensive against the enemy and no weapons strong enough to lob huge explosive shells towards the enemy.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sun 06 Apr, 2008 4:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Lafayette C Curtis"]
Ken Speed wrote:

Quote:
If they used steam and compressed air warfare wouldn't look much different than it did in WWI or the early days of WWII.


I don't think so--and have explained my points above. Warfare would have probably been executed at a much slower pace, with no heavily armoured fast tanks capable of taking the offensive against the enemy and no weapons strong enough to lob huge explosive shells towards the enemy.


I think that steam powered tanks might have looked like very big but very slow WWI types and at most been able to sustain a walking pace, maybe ? On the other hand a train sized tank might be able to get up to some decent speed.

The negatives about a steam powered tanks in our real world is that they would be really big targets for artillery, but since the premise of this Topic is about gunpowder being unknown the power of artillery, by other means, could also be low enough that massive sized tanks would be hard to stop: No effective anti-tank guns, no effective land mines, this doesn't leave many things that could kill such a huge tank ? Now, large steam powered artillery might have limitations like equally huge machines needed to have the power to shoot at a decent velocity or at a large enough mass. Again, an unfavourable power to mass ratio meaning that everything steam powered would be heavy and not very good for field artillery if one wants something big.

So the steam solution might work for heavy siege weapons but might be too heavy for even the steam tanks to mount as weapons: The steam weapons on the tanks being mostly light antipersonnel kinds or alternately compresses air weapons using steam to compress the air.

Just guessing but my gut feeling is that heavy steam artillery would be more like enhances trebuchets throwing very heavy masses at only slightly higher velocities.

Finally, without explosives the terminal effect would have to be kinetic only or maybe incendiary if heated red hot or filled with a combustible. ( Well, not explosive if we want to stay within the rules of the topic. Wink Laughing Out Loud )

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 656

PostPosted: Sun 06 Apr, 2008 11:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[Lafayette wrote, "Could it ( a steam powered airplane) be developed any further, though? As I recall, the problem with steam propulsion--even to this day--is power-to-weight ratio. Even the most advanced steam engines couldn't produce as much power as a run-of-the-mill internal-combustion engine of the same weight once the latter had become sufficiently developed to be a reliable means of powering heavier vehicles, and internal-combustion engines still had a great deal more development potential beyond that point."

Yes, you're right, the steam powered airplane couldn't be made big enough to be a passenger plane but we were being asked to imagine warfare in a world that had no gunpowder and by extension no internal combustion engine so the next mechanical source of power is steam. As a military airplane it would seem to me that a steam powered plane would be a superb weapon, just imagine the advantages of a silent airplane for reconnaissance, raids, and bombing runs. Especially if the choice was steam powered planes or no planes at all.

"Not to mention that, if people could make parts with enough precision to make steam engines work, why wouldn't they be able to do so with internal-combustion engines given enough time and the usual dose of human ingenuity?"

See above response.

I said, "steam powered cars were clocked at over 100 miles per hour when internal combustion powered cars couldn't even come close to that speed and they also regularly beat IC cars at hill climbs."

You responded, "Same as above. 19th- and early 20th-century designers came up with numerous ideas for steam-powered tractors and armored vehicles, but in the end they all turned out to have unsatisfactory power-to-weight ratio. I think, at most, a steam-powered vehicle would have made a usable armored artillery tractor, but it wouldn't have been able to power a vehicle sufficiently fast and well-protected to be a tank.

Actually, I think you're selling steam power short. Steam power is one thing and technologic level is another. Yes, steam has limitations, so does any energy source. There are no free rides. I think steam gets some degree of disrespect because it was the first and the technology at the time was crude. Do you know what they used for a brake for the first steam train engine? They stretched a raw cow hide across the tracks, thinking that the engine would run into the hide and stop. Guess how well that worked! It is also my understanding that the tolerances on the very earliest steam engines were laughable. In both cases they didn't know what they were dealing with. I don't think it was always power to weight that mitigated against steam power, it was convenience. Face it, who would want to have to go out and build a fire in their car and wait for the steam pressure to build before driving to work. IC engines were just more convenient. I'm not involved enough in steam power to quote chapter and verse but I think you'll discover that the Stanley Steamer and other steam powered automobiles were anything but heavy clanking behemoths. As I'm writing this I can't help but wonder what steam power would look like if it had had the research and technological "push" that the IC engine has had for the last hundred years.


"Hmm...do you have any information about the effective ranges of these rifles? I suspect they'd be much shorter than gunpowder or later weapons, and thus they might not really be powerful enough to ever have given the ordinary soldier enough firepower and range to force the development of WWI-style trench warfare. Moreover, would compressed air work at larger scales--say, for artillery? If not, then that's another reason why it wouldn't have led to trench warfare and all the associated attempts to break the deadlock. (Note that I'm talking specifically about the extensive trench warfare of World War I, not the trench-based siege tactics of the 16th through 19th centuries.)"

No, I don't suppose an air rifle could have the same muzzle velocity or accuracy as a gunpowder firing weapon but they used them and they were pretty silent and had no smoke to give away the shooters location. Apparently, according to someone else who wrote here, an air rifle repeater was supposed to go along with Lewis and Clark. The black powder guns of the time weren't repeaters.

I said, "If they used steam and compressed air warfare wouldn't look much different than it did in WWI or the early days of WWII."

You responded, "I don't think so--and have explained my points above. Warfare would have probably been executed at a much slower pace, with no heavily-armored fast tanks capable of taking the offensive against the enemy and no weapons strong enough to lob huge explosive shells towards the enemy."

I didn't say "Identical" I said not much different. Airplanes, tanks(WWI tanks weren't all that fast) repeating guns, steam powered machine guns (maybe?) "Steam Throwers" instead of flame throwers?

We humans seem to be at our most creative when it come to ways to destroy our fellow man so who knows what would have been invented if gunpowder hadn't.


Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Warfare without gunpowder
Page 2 of 5 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum