irishcrusader95

is it not at all possible so for some kind of technology to be able to pick up whats been said and then give the translation on the soldiers HUD
well look at the land warrior system, if they can work with that i'm sure they can work with anything else
once they manage to reduce its size and increase its ease of use i can easily see a similar system being in common use in all modern armies

Big Stick

Drones and robots. Drones the size of horseflys looking for targets. Larger drones flying above with missles. Rovers on wheels or maybe bipeds flying in destroying targets and either self destructing or flying out. That will be within the next 30 years.

Belloc

What interests me most is the socio-political nature of future conflicts, far more than the mere technology involved(whose impact is often overblown in my view). In that sense, small-scale and irregular wars will probably be the norm for the foreseeable future. Large-scale warfare is largely a byproduct of the modern state in the 18th-20th centuries.

Qymaen

It would seem that the invention of automatic small arms has made conventional battle a thing of the past. Ever since the 1960s guerrilla warfare has increasingly become the standard form of battle. There have been exceptions, the Persian Gulf War, but for the most part guerrilla warfare is the main form of battle.

Belloc

Indeed so - and I would also argue that nuclear weapons has helped to render most forms of large-scale wars as the kind seen since the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars down to WWII rather improbable as well.

sylla1

As long as nations will have both armies and differences, it is just a matter of time before any two national armies may face each other in open combat (or "coventional" if you like, not a terribly useful term here if you ask me)

Guerrilla warfare and related irregular ("unconventional") tactics had always been common, and they become particularly notorious when the forces in combat are so exponentially unbalanced like let say Afghanistan (either against the SU or the US) or Iraq.

Admittedly, the incredibly exponential increase of the cost of war makes less likely that equivalent armed forces may face each other in the future.

irishcrusader95

that is true yet most of that was by countries who were too weak to fight conventionally. the south ossetia war seems to have had some relatively heavy fighting between Russian and Georgian ground forces so that stands as the latest example of a conventional war. there hasn't been a major war between any superpowers since WW2 and the legacy of that war has ensured the peace till now. there have also been the many wars with Israel and her neighbours and they have put a lot of effort into keep a modernised army and are taking a great leap in many new technologies. future war is likely to involve a lot of urban warfare say many people as the number of people living in cities is increasing each few years.

Belloc

Very much so. To apply this in a WWII context, future battles and wars will look more like Stalingrad or Berlin than say France 1940 or D-Day.

irishcrusader95

some countries are putting a lot of thought into this such as america and israel who have fought many urban battles in the last few years. its becoming a standard thing in the US army to know train soldiers in CQC so they can turn to there fists or a knife when in the close areas of a city. bullpup assault rifles are also a lot better as it makes them more maneuverable in a tight environment as they are shorter. the Israeli Tavor was designed with this in mind.

Dr Realism

More naval battles in East Asia.
Vietnam and China could clash again.
Lots more fighting in Africa.
Lots more fighting in the Middle East
Fighting in the subcontinent
Turkey vs Iran is always possible because it has happened so many times in History.