'[BC Tex Arcana']I concur: It has no real objective in the "long-run" anyway... We find so many ridiculous ways to "Do" each other. Thats the real point isn't it?
ill do you QT <3 lmao sorry i had to:naughty: :lol:
Light arms such as hand weapons rarely deliver many kills. In war only approx. 14% of shots are actually aimed. The rest are simply used to push the enemy down.
The Bombs on the Citys and the Firestorms.
Collateral Damage maybe?
deadliest weapon by definition, would be a weapon that has the highest % of numbers killed per use. so a weapon that kills without fail would technically be the deadliest. and of those that fall into that catagory you would then count numbers killed. so something that killed the most people in ww2, doesnt mean it was the deadliest. just the most used. using this formula, atom bombs are by far the deadliest, as only 2 bombs caused so much death and destruction, per use.
Ok, as an example. The casulites in WW1 were 65% arty for the British, 60% arty for the German, and 70% arty for the French. ON Average, 65% of all casulties in WW1 were caused by artillery, another 20% by machine guns, 8% by rifles, and all others took up the final 8%, such as gas, trench clubs, airplanes, bombs, etc.... So, rifles caused 8% of the casulites in in a war where most of the armies, cept the Germans and Austrians, just stood up and either walked or charged straight at you, the perfect rifle target. WW2, where no one did that, would surely have about the same percentage for rifles, taking into account the semi-auto revoulution and such.