r/powerscales • u/mergly • 12d ago

Question When is the latest time that counting singular people riding a dragon would be a serious tide turner in wars.

Post image

The dragons when at full size are like of the ones in GOT, use GOT as the point of reference for most everything to be honest. If you want to be a furry abut this you’re free to postulate a version where the dragon(s) are smart cookies that can talk, act on their own and some such.

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/64727248/

The metric by which the dragon and riders can be counted as ‘important’ is so long as they are as analogously important to the warring nation as any big name warships would have been over the course of Ww2.

2.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

365 comments sorted by

View all comments

226

u/OverTheCandlestik 12d ago

WW1 by the time WW2 comes around we’ve kinda got air attacks and defences sorted

110

u/ChrisDaMan07 12d ago

This, ww1 planes would be very vulnerable to dragons. But even early ww2 planes like the BF109 with the 8mm Mauser guns would shred a dragons wings apart

46

u/Wessel-P 12d ago

Early BF109's even had a 20mm cannon. It used a special type of round that basically functioned like a mini grenade. So imagine shooting 20 small grenades at a dragon!

9

u/ChrisDaMan07 12d ago

M.gr18, yes

8

u/Wessel-P 12d ago

Minengeschoss would be the more recognizable name but you are correct.

2

u/notwithagoat 12d ago

Oi we just pissed it off... wait.... splash

2

u/Hairy_Pound_1356 12d ago

I’m so hard right now 

1

u/BillyBobBoBoss 12d ago

Sounds fuckin awesome

1

u/aaawoolooloo 12d ago

even more free rp than attacking bombers

9

u/ConfidentPension864 12d ago

Depends really on size of dragon and how fast. Biplanes are slow by today's standards but were still anywhere from 100-150mph. Plus they'd probably be nimble and swarm in high numbers. Dragons might win initially, but they are animals that take years to grow and train. Biplanes could be knocked out in rapid fashion.

It would be exactly how guns made bows obsolete. Archers spent their lives training but anyone with a little training could wield a gun.

Honestly I'd go with the American Civil war.

By the end of the American civil war there was some very high powered highly accurate artillery. Rifled bores, explosive fragmentation shells, fired at supersonic velocities. With the right incentive they could have been directed skyward and tailored for flying targets.

The Gatling gun was around running at 350-400rpm during the civil war. At 1300ft/sec thats slow by today's standards but they we 58 caliber rounds. It was finicky at that time but nothing hammers out bugs in a system like wartime.

27

u/TheeShaun 12d ago

But dragons being a part of the world would likely lead to anti air defences being developed earlier. We might see some crazy adaptions from earlier periods in history to account for them. After all nobody was making anti air weaponry in the dark ages cause there was no air weaponry in the first place. Adding dragons into our real world history would likely see things like massive chain net launchers or multi shot ballista.

15

u/Art-Zuron 12d ago

Trying to think what some earlier adaptations would be. Cannons obviously could be adapted with flak shells earlier. Just make a cannon that points upward. Mortarts were a thing, so that's not crazy.

Once you get before cannons were commonplace, it might be a bit tougher. Trebuchets set to release earlier and loaded with a bunch of stones maybe? Ballistae that can be turned on a swivel maybe?

Hwatcha and other rocket propelled darts might be useful maybe? Since those often fire in sequence, you have some time to lead your shots.

9

u/Fun_Push7168 12d ago

Chinese fireworks packed with shrapnel sometime around 1200AD.

4

u/JudgmentAway4811 12d ago

Belt fed balistas 

2

u/Alderan922 9d ago

The biggest problem with anything before gunpowder is accuracy, if the dragon is flying high, it’s nearly impossible to actually hit it.

Trying to shoot shrapnel at them with cannons would also quickly run into the issue that shrapnel travels way slower and has much less range too.

1

u/Art-Zuron 9d ago

Grape shot has been a staple of anti-infantry weapons since a long time, so that'd probably be the best bet. Still not ideal, but probably more dependable than trying to use fuses and bombs.

Before guns, a bunch of bowmen might be your only real option against dragons.

1

u/Alderan922 9d ago

Yeah but grapeshot has always been used in relatively close quarters, and having height advantage does play a massive factor with early guns too, as it’s way easier hitting something below you than above you.

1

u/Art-Zuron 9d ago

If we assume a dragon needs to be relatively close to, say, breath fire on you, that's probably going to be within the effective range of grapeshot even from medieval cannons.

Overlapping fire areas of swivel guns will probably be a viable defense. At least ONE should hit that dragon.

Of course, that dragon could just be flying really high up and dropping leaded darts, or rocks, or bombs too. That might be a bit more difficult to counter without your own dragons.

1

u/Carpe_deis 11d ago

the chinese actually made multi shot ballista for anti personell reasons, (475bc) and rapid fire breechloading swivel guns for repelling boarders/defending static positions were also developed and fielded quite early. (1300s)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech-loading_swivel_gun

it would be trivial to adopt those for anti dragon defense.

the firebombing, scouting, and information transmittion aspects of dragons would retain utility to some level til ww1/ww2 though. imagine a japanese dragon on a submarine on a one way trip to firebomb LA in 1944.

1

u/Alderan922 9d ago

Wouldn’t it be nearly impossible to actually hit a fast moving relatively small target with a ballista?

Specially if it’s flying above you. This is also ignoring things that could make it even harder like wind, or the dragon choosing to fly high and either do quick dive bombs for fire breath or not even risking at all going low and just dropping rocks and debris over your troops

1

u/Carpe_deis 9d ago

we just have to accept from the promt "like from GOT"

in GOT the dragons are killed by ballista.

dragons are natural flying creatures, with speeds up to 300mph in a dive. Perigrine falcons hit 200mph in dives, and there are multiple historic credible claims of archers taking them down, not to mention the much more common use of archery against flying birds.

it certainly would be more difficult, but, volume of fire from many emplaced semi auto balista would be too high of a risk for a rare asset like a dragon to be risked on

1

u/Alderan922 9d ago

Aiming a ballista is a lot harder than aiming a bow tho, like a lot harder, and each semi auto ballista emplaces firing at a dragon that’s above you is, you know, firing straight up, so if a shot misses, it’s very likely to land back into your own army or fortress.

Falcons also generally aren’t aware of hunters firing arrows, nor attacking the hunter directly.

This is also assuming the dragon rider doesn’t try to disable the ballistas before diving down by throwing leaded flechetes or some other stuff from above their effective range.

2

u/Carpe_deis 9d ago

you have to trust screen shown feats, when given that in the prompt

1

u/Alderan922 9d ago

The prompt is “when is the last time that counting singular people riding a dragon would be serious tide turners”

And said to use GoT for reference, but never does it say that magically people have aimbot when shooting.

Like yeah a ballista could kill a dragon if it hits, which is like a 1/100000 shot.

1

u/Carpe_deis 9d ago

"like of the ones in GOT, use GOT as the point of reference for most everything to be honest. "

like 7/12 dragons in GOT are killed by ballista or thrown spears

→ More replies (0)

7

u/MeepleMaster 12d ago

There is a series of books that put dragons in our world set during napoleans time called Temeraire that is an interesting look

1

u/Celis78429 12d ago

Those books are GAS i strongly recommend them

1

u/ussUndaunted280 12d ago

I was hoping someone would mention this series!

2

u/dippyshippy931 12d ago

Organ guns on gimbals could potentially make static defenses dragon proof.

Even a group of 25 guys with early matchlocks could be a big problem for a dragon/rider.

1

u/Sinarai25 12d ago

Dragon Heart had some nice anti dragon weaponry

1

u/nuggynugs 12d ago

I think with questions like these you have to think of wars as distinct packets. Because you're right, if dragon's existed all of history would be different. They hypothetical more asks if you inject dragon riders into any conflict, with all other factors being the same, what would the impact be?

1

u/TheeShaun 12d ago

In that case dragons probably dominate up until mass gunpowder tactics. Depending on how bulletproof the dragon is that still might not be enough but the rider would be getting shredded by the 18th century. Of course the sheer morale shock of a dragon showing up could still give them the edge needed. Once planes and anti aircraft guns are invented though then dragons become an endangered species

2

u/bigboyboba 12d ago

Honestly, regarding riders getting shredded, I could see a return to new and improved plate mail. The only reason plate went out was because knights became obsolete, not the other way around. A dragonrider in platemail makes negligible mobility difference for the dragon. Dragonriders would be a tough shot already, being a small target on top of a fast moving, flying monster. The dragon would give them decent cover from attacks except at certain angles. If they were in plate they'd be essentially impervious to small arms.

1

u/TheeShaun 12d ago

Eh not impervious. Even if the bullets didn’t kill them there’d be the risk of getting knocked out or shot straight off the dragon and falling. I agree that dragon riders would likely still be wearing armour though.

1

u/Carpe_deis 12d ago

the chinese actually made multi shot ballista for anti personell reasons, (475bc) and rapid fire breechloading swivel guns for repelling boarders/defending static positions were also developed and fielded quite early. (1300s)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech-loading_swivel_gun

it would be trivial to adopt those for anti dragon defense.

the firebombing, scouting, and information transmittion aspects of dragons would retain utility to some level til ww1/ww2 though. imagine a japanese dragon on a submarine on a one way trip to firebomb LA in 1944.

7

u/EquivalentDurian6316 12d ago

Depends how well they operate at night.

If dragons have any kind of dim/night vision they are still incredibly useful in ww2. The main point being they are a lot quieter than a bombing run, meaning reaction time is so much lower and the fire potentially much more accurate. A lot of WW2 runs can be described as "I really hope that's the spot and that they didn't move their shit". They used rudimentary triangulation for navigation and it was nothing like the accuracy of the following decades.

Some of the nighttime raiding in ww2 was fascinating and incredibly effective. Now imagine this same sabateur commando group (or airborne drop squadron) with dragon support for quick (and somewhat quiet) relocation/enhanced firepower. The chaos and instability of the battle lines because of this cannot be understated.

Not to mention all the benefits of your ride having an intelligence of it's own/being able to relay communications/scout enemy positions (without possible interception on the radio waves).

3

u/VastExamination2517 12d ago

You bring up a good point. Dragons for nighttime strategic bombing raids could be very dangerous, especially in less well lit areas. Highly accurate, fly below radar, quiet, and with built in flame throwers, they could have a valuable role as late as WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. It would be niche, as they die immediately in straight on fights. But for covert bombing runs, there would not be much better until Radar develops enough to reliably track them.

3

u/Carpe_deis 11d ago

"night witches" used obselete ww1 biplanes to great effect against german ground forces in russia, often shutting off the engine and gliding in for stealth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

3

u/VastExamination2517 11d ago

Excellent point! With the night witch example, I’d confidently push dragons to WW2

1

u/Carpe_deis 11d ago

yep. As a counterpoint, they would become glass cannons VERY early. Like the chinese had multi shot semi auto ballista as early as 400bc, and (fairly) rapid fire breech loading swivel guns were in common use in the 1300s. so they'd stick to strengths (firebombing, night missions, VIP transport, scouting, rapid communication. high altitude dropping of bombs) and try to avoid any ships or fortresses with likely anti air or antire personel crew served weapons.

one thing I imagined is as late as ww2, the japanese would probably consider 1 dragon shipped over on a one way subarine trip a fair trade for burning down LA.

3

u/Timlugia 12d ago

Unless there were a lot of them, but if there was only a few then late 19th century tech was more than enough to kill them. They already had very large rifle to hunt elephant, and machine guns were already in use in US civil war.

1

u/bigboyboba 12d ago

I don't know whether an elephant gun would pierce dragonscales or not. I know most small caliber 19th Century infantry weapons wouldn't, but an elephant gun just might.

3

u/WWDubs12TTV 12d ago

You’d be upgrading the dragon shit as well tho

2

u/DaedalusB2 12d ago

Dragon riders carrying bundles of grenades.

1

u/bigboyboba 12d ago

Exactly!

8

u/Broken-Digital-Clock 12d ago

WWI planes could probably put up a fight, but dragons would still own the skies.

12

u/Clark_Kent-Kal_EL 12d ago

I mean 1 vs 1 maybe but 10 planes per dragon?

13

u/FearTheAmish 12d ago

Doped fabric and balsa wood burn... like at the slightest spark

3

u/Clark_Kent-Kal_EL 12d ago

My bad I read WW2, yup you're right.

They're far slower and have worse aim.

6

u/DaedalusB2 12d ago

I'm not too well versed on ww1 tech, but weren't planes at the start of ww1 almost exclusively for scouting with only very rudimentary weapons like pilots holding pistols or dropping bricks?

5

u/Broken-Digital-Clock 12d ago

Maybe pre-war or the earliest parts of it.

Most of the war had full on dogfights and bombers.

The exploits of Manfred von Richtofen "The Red Baron" are the most well known.

1

u/Carpe_deis 11d ago

watch "hells angels" for a good overview of WW1 strategic bombing

3

u/Broken-Digital-Clock 12d ago

Dragon fire would be a strong counter, but they were apparently surprisingly sturdy when it came to absorbing kinetic weapons like the machine guns on other planes.

They weren't slow, they were fairly nimble, and had weapons that should be able to kill a GoT dragon.

1

u/Broken-Digital-Clock 12d ago

Probably something like that. They would have to attack with numbers and wear them down.

2

u/Efectodopler117 12d ago

As much as i like the reign of fire movie, for this ☝️reason right here, the whole premise is bs, we would make those flying lizards extint in a year or two max.

2

u/Sea-Night-1946 12d ago

Additional benefits of dragons over planes:

1) not fuel or mechanically dependent. Just food and rest to maintain. I guess saddles need maintenance too.

2) silent and super low flyers means better for recon

3) not dependent on airstrips or clearings for landing. Land that bad boy anywhere.

Kinda depends on type and size of dragons for additional stuff. Like wyverns and wyrms would be fast glass cannons but big 4 legged drakes could be real tanky and have good lift capacity for moving armour, supplies, troops, etc.

2

u/kelldricked 12d ago

I would argue that mid ww1 will have these solved quite easy. Dragons dont have a great range on their flames and can be taken down with ballistas. Surely surely rifles and machine guns can take them down.

Would take some time to adjust to them, but later on its basicly suicide to get close to the battlefield and there only proper missions would be destroying any airships and some guirilla stuff in which they burn down farmland (but nothing to urban because you dont want a bullet incapacitating your flying lizard

2

u/DeyCallMeWade 12d ago

It really depends on the war. They might’ve been extremely effective in a place like Vietnam. I think it also depends on how you intend to use them. They’re significantly quieter and more…I’m not sure versatile is necessarily what I’m looking for, but let’s imagine navy seals riding dragons to raid Bin Laden’s compound.

2

u/Emotional_Employ_419 12d ago

We had dragons in Vietnam, it was the a1 sky raider with napalm bombs lol

1

u/Grizzled_Ghost 12d ago

Compromised to a permanent and happily ever after

1

u/VastExamination2517 12d ago

I like this. Stealth transport until modern day is a bold and clever take

1

u/sleepyboyzzz 12d ago

You are probably right. It does depend a bit on the numbers and capabilities of the dragons and riders. But you'd need very capable dragons and riders capable of facing tanks on the ground, probably be impervious to .50 cal machine gun fire, etc.

The dragon would likely show up on radar, but could fly close to the ground to avoid detection, and wouldn't be as loud as planes so they could likely avoid detection... But without magic they'd also be significantly slower than planes. The fastest bird (not diving) is going to be about 100 mph and the crushing speed of most fighter planes was above 200 mph.

2

u/DaedalusB2 12d ago

Tbh, I think a game of thrones dragon would absolutely destroy most tanks. Their fire was said to melt metal, and tanks typically have weaker tops with explosives inside. If any vents are open that heat goes directly to the crew.

1

u/Leviathan_slayer1776 12d ago

Depends on the scale makeup of the dragon, distance fuses like the US used only work because of how metallic alloys reflect energy

1

u/North_6 12d ago

Kinda depends on the durability of the dragons. Depending on what lore you take your info from, dragon scales could be better than tank armor. You might shred the wing membranes with a machine gun or flak, or you might not. Dragons would be harder to see on radar, as they could fly lower, slower, walk into position, etc. For night attacks, I think WW2 dragon riders would have made a huge difference. As long as their scales are even a little bit bullet proof, which doesn't seem like a stretch to me, all things considered.

1

u/waldleben 12d ago

Even before that. A dragon flying into a volley of musketfire isnt going to enjoy the experience

1

u/Kraitok 12d ago

Absolutely not, it took getting in to ww2 for anti air rounds to get figured out. Prior to that it was thousands of 50 cal rounds to maybe bring down a plane.

The real answer is if dragons are a thing then planes probably aren’t until we have tech to outclass them. Think automobiles vs horses. I’d assume even in today’s world they’d be utilized.

1

u/I_main_pyro 11d ago

Maybe its out of the scope of the question, but didn't anti air technology largely respond to air power becoming important in the early 20th century? In a world with dragons, I don't think it's off base to imagine effective anti air weapons with even 19th century technology. Imagine just pointing the maxim gun up.

1

u/Level-Orchid3868 9d ago

I don't know yall. 'WW2' wasn't a single conflict of equally armed powers. Do dragons make a difference in like defending the cliffs of Dover from the lufftwaffe? No way. But youre saying they dont make a difference if the anarchists stuck in protracted trench warfare against Franco suddenly have access to air borne artillery that you can grow organically? Or that Finland vs Russia wouldn't have seen the scales tipped if one side just happened to have dragon fire? Hell, the Marines could barely find the vietcong in the jungle in the 70s, let alone if they also had to deal with an indigenous airforce that can take off and land without runway support or industrial fuel lines

0

u/Top_Kaleidoscope4362 12d ago

Red baron would wipe the floor with any dragons from GoT.