View Full Version : Dumbest military weapons
Somebody thought these were a good idea at the time. Good thing someone else didn't:
http://him.uk.msn.com/in-the-know/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154615827
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 09:34 AM
I would disagree with some of those...
The Fu-Go balloon was unsuccessful because the US didn't let anyone know that they were landing on US soil so the Japanese abandoned the idea. The balloons did succeed in providing a cheap method of delivering ordnance in to the continental US- I hate to think what could have happened if the Japanese decided to put some of the chemical or biological weapons they used in China on one.
M-388... this one always comes up doesn't it? Personally its one of my favorite weapons ever! They get it wrong when they say it would render vast areas uninhabitable, the yield of the bomb was quite small: .10-.20 kilotons. The weapon would only generate a fatal amount of radiation about a 1/4 mile from the blast. The warhead was latter used in the Ginnie Air to Air missile.
Chauchat Submachine Gun? Submachine Gun? I assume they meant the Chauchat Light Machine Gun. The Chauchat SMG was for tank crews to fire out of ports in their vehicles it was unsuccessful because of its overpowered cartridge. not exactly a huge failure.
Yeah, the Davy Crockett is a favourite isn't it...common misconception that. Still, by the time that the Crocketts were flying around most common sense would have gone out the window anyway and there would be mushrooms everywhere.
It's hard to think what is the dumbest military weapon...certainly the animal based ones qualify. They missed the Pigeon guided missile on that list too.
I think Torpedo Rams, despite being cool looking, were a rather dismal failure in terms of what the Admiralty thought they would be able to do...but I wouldn't call it dumb.
The Maus, well protected and armed, but as fast as a dying snail and forced to become a submarine whenever it found a river because it would destroy the bridge if it tried to use it. Dumb? Maybe, but through no real fault of German designers who were stuck with a backseat fuhrer. Thank god.
Kamikaze could be considered dumb, after all, it's a one use weapon and you deplete your reserves of pilots, but it was rather effective at first and used by a country on the back foot. I think when one gets to that stage in war, then even dumb ideas are used in the vague hope that they will have some use. After all, the submarine was considered a dumb idea by some at one point, as was the aeroplane.
Jimbuna
09-09-10, 10:26 AM
My favourite was the Northover projector with No 76 SIP glass bottle 'sticky' grenade issued to the Home Guard.
There were two versions of this grenade, the first designed for hand-throwing and the second, which had a green cap and slightly thicker glass was designed for firing from the Northover Projector.
If not handled correctly, this was an extremely dangerous grenade. It was not unknown for the grenade to burst either in or as it left the Northover Projector barrel.
After all, the submarine was considered a dumb idea by some at one point, as was the aeroplane.
Well, I think initial efforts in the military employment of ANYTHING generally end in failure. That's just how technology tends to work. Geez, I'm thinking back to the Hunley - it sank three times by the time it finally sank another ship. If you only looked at its employment, submarines would definitely look like the worst weapon ever. But look where subs are today!
Bilge_Rat
09-09-10, 12:47 PM
I like the Davey Crockett...:up:
my vote for dumb weapon would be the Boulton Defiant fighter. Leave it to the Brits to design a fighter that has no weapons that can fire forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
I like the Davey Crockett...:up:
my vote for dumb weapon would be the Boulton Defiant fighter. Leave it to the Brits to design a fighter that has no weapons that can fire forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
In the defence of the Defiant, that rear gun did manage to get a few Messerschmitts that mistook it for the Hurricane and tried to attack it from the rear...but yes, it wasn't the most successful fighter in the war... :damn:
It did fine as a night fighter. Again, I think it's not really a case of bad design, more just a case of designing it for a situation that didn't exist in daytime fighting where it was used. The Defiant was designed with unescorted bombers in mind, so it wasn't a "fighter" in the dogfighting sense to begin with...
AVGWarhawk
09-09-10, 01:49 PM
My favourite was the Northover projector with No 76 SIP glass bottle 'sticky' grenade issued to the Home Guard.
There were two versions of this grenade, the first designed for hand-throwing and the second, which had a green cap and slightly thicker glass was designed for firing from the Northover Projector.
If not handled correctly, this was an extremely dangerous grenade. It was not unknown for the grenade to burst either in or as it left the Northover Projector barrel.
What you are saying essencially is research and development was non-existent?
nikimcbee
09-09-10, 01:52 PM
Somebody thought these were a good idea at the time. Good thing someone else didn't:
http://him.uk.msn.com/in-the-know/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=154615827
This sounds like something off the history channel:woot:.
I'll just add: Hitler's top 10 extreme dumb weapons that he never used.:yeah:
Penguin
09-09-10, 02:06 PM
As nobody wants to defend the Liberator pistol, I step forward for it's defence:
The weapon was never meant to be used in an open battle, but only as a last resort. I would rank it the same like a shooting pen. Many people would have been glad to have a Liberator, just better than having no firearm at all. At least you can try to take one of the bastards with you - the 2nd one has to hold on for 10 secs ;)
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 02:13 PM
The Defiant was designed with unescorted bombers in mind, so it wasn't a "fighter" in the dogfighting sense to begin with...
Yea she was what we would consider today an Interceptor, just a different kind of interceptor than say a P-38.
For the stupidest weapon I would have to nominate Project Pluto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto). I'm all for nuclear power but come on guys!
The SMK Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMK_tank) and T-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35) come a close second.
Oh and the flying tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40)... no NOT the Hind...
As nobody wants to defend the Liberator pistol, I step forward for it's defence:
The weapon was never meant to be used in an open battle, but only as a last resort.
I remember reading that it wasn't a last resort, so much as a first resort. You use the Liberator pistol to take down an enemy soldier, and liberate his weapon for your own use.
Bilge_Rat
09-09-10, 02:18 PM
It did fine as a night fighter. Again, I think it's not really a case of bad design, more just a case of designing it for a situation that didn't exist in daytime fighting where it was used. The Defiant was designed with unescorted bombers in mind, so it wasn't a "fighter" in the dogfighting sense to begin with...
my issue with the Defiant is not so much the turret as the fact that it had no forward firing guns, so could only engage bombers from its sides and was useless against fighters.
Almost every plane designed at that time, even light bombers like the SBD, VAL or IL-2 had forward firing guns.
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 02:22 PM
my issue with the Defiant is not so much the turret as the fact that it had no forward firing guns, so could only engage bombers from its sides and was useless against fighters.
The Germans put a upwards firing gun on a twin engine fighter that proved effective against allied bombers (RAF in particular since they lacked a bottom gun turret IIRC). I'm not sure about the maximum elevation of the guns on the Defiant but an attack from an unusual angle could be a nasty surprise.
Tchocky
09-09-10, 02:24 PM
Or the favourite "done shot off my own tail, bugger it!"
Oh, now the T-35 definitely deserves a vote there. As do most multi-turreted tanks :D
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 02:31 PM
Oh, now the T-35 definitely deserves a vote there. As do most multi-turreted tanks :D
I like that you added the MOST there because...
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9876/landm1a2tusklg.jpg
Hay we got a tank with three weapon turrets... it only took 70 years to get right!
Jimbuna
09-09-10, 03:02 PM
What you are saying essencially is research and development was non-existent?
Well erm, yeah....something like that :DL
Takeda Shingen
09-09-10, 03:31 PM
Ah, the Davey Crockett. If Fallout 3 has taught me anything, it is that shoulder-launched nuclear weaopns are awesome.
Bilge_Rat
09-09-10, 03:41 PM
Ah, the Davey Crockett. If Fallout 3 has taught me anything, it is that shoulder-launched nuclear weaopns are awesome.
no self respecting home owner should be without one ... :D
Bilge_Rat
09-09-10, 03:52 PM
another example of poor design was the F-4 Phantom, not the plane itself, which was used by USAF and USN and featured a great design, but the fact that it was designed with no internal gun since designers were convinced that air-to-air missiles had rendered guns obsolete.
That sounded great until Vietnam came along and it turned out the AIM-7 and AIM-9 missiles the F-4 carried had been designed to track big, slow moving bombers and were almost useless against fast turning north vietnamese fighters..:damn:
needless to say, every US fighter since then carries an internal gun.
of course, it was'nt just the US, the Russians and the French made the same mistake. It was just the Israelis who insisted on having a gun and had the french instal a 30mm cannon in the Mirages they bought. They were put to good use in the six-day war...:yep:
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 04:11 PM
another example of poor design was the F-4 Phantom, not the plane itself, which was used by USAF and USN and featured a great design, but the fact that it was designed with no internal gun since designers were convinced that air-to-air missiles had rendered guns obsolete.
That sounded great until Vietnam came along and it turned out the AIM-7 and AIM-9 missiles the F-4 carried had been designed to track big, slow moving bombers and were almost useless against fast turning north vietnamese fighters..:damn:
needless to say, every US fighter since then carries an internal gun.
of course, it was'nt just the US, the Russians and the French made the same mistake. It was just the Israelis who insisted on having a gun and had the french instal a 30mm cannon in the Mirages they bought. They were put to good use in the six-day war...:yep:
Interestingly the F-8 Crusader (AKA the "Last of the Gunfighters") only scored three kills (some say four) with cannons. The F-8 had the best kill ratio of the Vietnam war (19 to 3)
BTW the F-35B and F-35C will not have an internal gun. ;)
The Erdnagel could possibly take its place up there...but it's hard to tell whether it was more the public perception over the aircraft as opposed to the actual design. :hmmm:
my issue with the Defiant is not so much the turret as the fact that it had no forward firing guns, so could only engage bombers from its sides and was useless against fighters.
Almost every plane designed at that time, even light bombers like the SBD, VAL or IL-2 had forward firing guns.
It was a carry over from the Bristol fighters from the First World War...yeah, we did a lot of carry overs from the First World War, some worked and some didn't. The Defiant did work initially, she had a reasonable kill ratio in the Battle of France, knocking down six 109s for three Defiants in one battle and then some nineteen Stukas, nine 110s, eight 109s and a Ju-88 over two sortees with the loss of one Defiant gunner after he bailed out but the aircraft itself made it back to base.
However, then the Luftwaffe recognised the Defiants weaknesses and stopped engaging it from the rear, and the new Defiant pilots refused to follow the strategy adapted by 264 Squadron of flying a tight Lufberry circle (like the 110s did when they were attacked by our fighters) they would sacrifice speed and height but gain a 360 degree coverage on the turret guns, thus combining the firepower of the aircraft in the Lufberry to bring down an aircraft which tried to approach from behind or got into the arc of fire.
Of course, ultimately she wasn't right for the job, like the Ju-87 and Me-110 as the Luftwaffe would find out during the course of the battle, and she was transferred to Night fighter duties and used as an experimental aircraft for ECMs and jamming against the German radar network until the Beaufighters took over the role in '43, and she did quite a good job as a night fighter but technology overtook her and that was that.
I wouldn't have said the Defiant was dumb...just tactically outdated, like a great deal of British equipment at the beginning of World War Two.
Bilge_Rat
09-09-10, 05:13 PM
BTW the F-35B and F-35C will not have an internal gun. ;)
that is surprising. One of the reasons pilots like guns on their planes, now that missiles are more reliable, is to be able to protect a downed pilot on the ground from enemy forces while waiting for rescue. Can't do that with AAM missiles.
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 05:19 PM
The Erdnagel could possibly take its place up there...but it's hard to tell whether it was more the public perception over the aircraft as opposed to the actual design. :hmmm: Erdnagle? Is that the Starfighter Obie?
that is surprising. One of the reasons pilots like guns on their planes, now that missiles are more reliable, is to be able to protect a downed pilot on the ground from enemy forces while waiting for rescue. Can't do that with AAM missiles.
Won't have to worry about pilots very long...
They can still carry a gun in an external pod but I heard they are thinking about sticking a laser in the space normally reserved for the lift fan- unneeded on the USAF and USN JSFs. Speaking of lasers if they put more funds in to the ABM laser on the 747 I could see that dooming the manned fighter quite quick- think AWACS with a thousand mile ranged death ray...
Erdnagle? Is that the Starfighter Obie?
The tent peg, aye. :yep:
Like all aircraft though, I guess it was a case of knowing how to handle it, and some are more forgiving than others...the Tent peg was not very forgiving... :doh:
CaptainHaplo
09-09-10, 07:32 PM
The Germans put a upwards firing gun on a twin engine fighter that proved effective against allied bombers (RAF in particular since they lacked a bottom gun turret IIRC). I'm not sure about the maximum elevation of the guns on the Defiant but an attack from an unusual angle could be a nasty surprise.
This was done with specific fighter groups - known as the "Boar" groups. There were two sets - the "Tame Boars" who answered to ground controllers for vectoring, and a smaller "Wild Boar" group that was given free range.
The weapon was known in English as "Jazz Music" - though properly translated was actually "Slanted Music". If memory serves me - it was a 37mm cannon - but it may have been a 20mm instead.
I am curious TLAM - where did you hear of this? I have only seen it in one source - The Air War in Europe (Time Life Books).
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 08:05 PM
zThis was done with specific fighter groups - known as the "Boar" groups. There were two sets - the "Tame Boars" who answered to ground controllers for vectoring, and a smaller "Wild Boar" group that was given free range.
The weapon was known in English as "Jazz Music" - though properly translated was actually "Slanted Music". If memory serves me - it was a 37mm cannon - but it may have been a 20mm instead.
I am curious TLAM - where did you hear of this? I have only seen it in one source - The Air War in Europe (Time Life Books).
Read about it in a book I have called "The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare. According to the book the Junkers Ju 88G-6b had "Schrage Musik" upwards 20mm MG151 cannons. They mention this one guy: Maj. Heinz-Wolfgang Schnauffer shot down seven Lancasters in 17 minutes with a Schrage Musik equipped Heinkel He 219.
Bubblehead Nuke
09-09-10, 10:27 PM
With this being a subsim board, I am suprised that nobody has made a comment of the effective range of a Subroc vs the Lethal radius of said weapon.
Nothing like a 2 for 1 weapon.
TLAM Strike
09-09-10, 10:54 PM
With this being a subsim board, I am suprised that nobody has made a comment of the effective range of a Subroc vs the Lethal radius of said weapon.
Nothing like a 2 for 1 weapon.
The SUBROC had a range of 30 miles, the effect of the 5 kt warhead would only be dangrous out to about a mile from ground zero. The 11 kt warhead of the ASTOR torpedo (8 mile range) would be dangerous about a mile and a half from the blast. The ASTOR would shake the launching sub up a bit but not sink her, plus she could clear datum and get away from the blast.
http://imgur.com/DAxRY.jpg
JAS 39 Gripen aircraft (two seater) Length: 14.1 m (14.8 m) Height: 4.5 m Span: 8.4 m Wheelbase: 5.2 m (5.9 m) Track width: 2.4 m Empty weight : 6500 kg (7000 kg) Starting weight: ~ 8700 kg (8500 kg) Max takeoff weight: ~ 12 500 kg (12 800 kg) Engine: RM 12 Thrust: 54 kN thrust with EBK: 81 kN (equiv. ~ 40 000 hp) Engine: Volvo Aero RM 12 (a development of the F404-400 from General Electric) Max speed: Mach 2 (about 2 500km / h) Armament: Rb74, Rb99, Rb75, Rb15, Bomb Capsule 90 and 27 mm Akan (only Version A and C) Range:> 3 000 km off distance: 400 m Landing distance: 500 m Number of FM: 204st (of which 28 pc two seater) in service since: June 9, 1996 Acceleration: Mach 0.5 to 1.15 in 30's . Turn Force: Up to 9G Radar: Ericsson PS-05 / A. Detects fighter at 120 km distance.
Manufacturer: Industrial Group JAS
What's so bad about the Gripen?:06:
And on the topic of subs, I'm pretty sure the dumbest submarine designs yet were those which attempted to use the subs as a big gun platform, including the British M class and the French Surcouf. Had the Germans actually built the Type XI cruisers, I'm pretty sure they would've ended up in the same category. Not to be bloodthirsty, but I kind of wish one of those subs had actually participated in actual combat - it would've shown exactly what a terrible idea the whole concept was (by inevitably failing horribly and being sunk), and would end for good all the myths and misconceptions about surface-gunning supersubs.
It is a good plan for sure :DL
Oh, and another batch of candidates for this would definitely have to be the three "battlecruisers" built for Jackie Fisher's Baltic project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Project) (Glorious, Furious, Corageous). Had they actually been used as intended, they would've not only failed spectacularly, but the plan involving them would probably be a massive fiasco as well. And not to mention they were structurally unfit to even use their main weapons without damaging themselves. Forget about being able to survive any sort of battle damage. Luckily they were quickly converted into carriers...
during WWI, so the ships,carrier was clearly a lift :yep:
Bubblehead Nuke
09-10-10, 11:52 AM
The SUBROC had a range of 30 miles, the effect of the 5 kt warhead would only be dangerous out to about a mile from ground zero. The 11 kt warhead of the ASTOR torpedo (8 mile range) would be dangerous about a mile and a half from the blast. The ASTOR would shake the launching sub up a bit but not sink her, plus she could clear datum and get away from the blast.
Thank you.. I forgot about the ASTOR. Yet ANOTHER great design in the use of atomic weapontry. You had to hold position, maintain positive control of the weapon, and had to signal detonate the warhead. Like the other guy was not going to shoot at you in the meantime. The only thing I liked about it was that it was electric so it was not quite as noisy.
About the lethal radius, in a typical air burst you are correct, however, in a subsurface burst, the shock wave would have resulted in an overpressure wave that would have crushed a submarine. That was one of the design criteria of the thing. You did not have to land on the bad guy, you only had to get close. You get it in the general area, detonate it deep, and let the water hammer do the rest for you.
I remember reading about the SUBROC on the boat. They said that a 688 MIGHT be able to survive a max range attack if they did a 180, STOOD on the power and had a minimal cross section while at the same time going shallow rapidly just prior to detonation. Going shallow was to minimize the effect of the shock wave by decreasing the intial pressure on the hull. The variables involved were many and they did not give more than a 50/50 chance.
The older sailors who served on the 594/637 class boats said that they knew it was a suicide shot. They KNEW they could not go fast enough to get out of the danger zone. But, they were willing to take it if it would prevent the other guy from launching his missles.
TLAM Strike
09-10-10, 03:11 PM
Thank you.. I forgot about the ASTOR. Yet ANOTHER great design in the use of atomic weapontry. You had to hold position, maintain positive control of the weapon, and had to signal detonate the warhead. Like the other guy was not going to shoot at you in the meantime. The only thing I liked about it was that it was electric so it was not quite as noisy.
About the lethal radius, in a typical air burst you are correct, however, in a subsurface burst, the shock wave would have resulted in an overpressure wave that would have crushed a submarine. That was one of the design criteria of the thing. You did not have to land on the bad guy, you only had to get close. You get it in the general area, detonate it deep, and let the water hammer do the rest for you.
I remember reading about the SUBROC on the boat. They said that a 688 MIGHT be able to survive a max range attack if they did a 180, STOOD on the power and had a minimal cross section while at the same time going shallow rapidly just prior to detonation. Going shallow was to minimize the effect of the shock wave by decreasing the intial pressure on the hull. The variables involved were many and they did not give more than a 50/50 chance.
The older sailors who served on the 594/637 class boats said that they knew it was a suicide shot. They KNEW they could not go fast enough to get out of the danger zone. But, they were willing to take it if it would prevent the other guy from launching his missles.
Interesting factoid:
The USS Dentuda SS-335 survived a ~20 kt subsurface nuclear blast while dived at a range of about 1250 yards. This is Test Baker during Operation Crossroads.
Following the test she was returned to service for a while before being scrapped.
Bilge_Rat
10-01-10, 11:38 AM
BTW the F-35B and F-35C will not have an internal gun. ;)
this should probably merit a new thread, but found this cool powerpoint on the new F-35. Canada is planning to buy 60 or so to replace our 30-35 years old CF-18s.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHayward.pdf
all variants of the F-35 will/can carry a 25 mm gatling gun. The conventional take off and landing AC has an internal one, while the carrier and the STOL versions can have one added as a pod as the mission requires.
TLAM Strike
10-01-10, 11:55 AM
all variants of the F-35 will/can carry a 25 mm gatling gun. The conventional take off and landing AC has an internal one, while the carrier and the STOL versions can have one added as a pod as the mission requires.
Note I said internal gun. A gun pod is not internal. ;)
A gun pod degrades stealth and performance.
Note I said internal gun. A gun pod is not internal. ;)
A gun pod degrades stealth and performance.
So does that make it a dumb weapon?:DL
SteamWake
10-01-10, 03:40 PM
Anyone mention the Petard yet??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
Task Force
10-01-10, 03:55 PM
heh, got a laugh out of the AT dog idea... and the fact they used russian tanks as pratice targets. Guess they didnt think the russian dog could just use its sence of smell, and not see its a russian tank
Spyguy101
10-01-10, 05:49 PM
Nuclear depth charges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_charge
TLAM Strike
10-01-10, 06:50 PM
Nuclear depth charges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_charge
Again, not stupid. Before the 1980s targeting submarines was very difficult. An area effect weapon simply means the solution on the target doesn't need to be perfect. NDCs were delivered mostly by Aircraft (incl unmanned DASH drones) or by rocket meaning the launching platform was safely away from the blast.
Anyone mention the Petard yet??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard Not sure why this is stupid. Sounds like a early Bangalore torpedo.
So does that make it a dumb weapon?:DL Well the F-35 is an aircraft that relies on Stealth for defense so any weapon that degrades that isn't very smart.
bookworm_020
10-01-10, 07:29 PM
How can you go past the K Class sub! Steam powered and a maximum depth less that the length of the sub.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K_class_submarine
The fact they sank each other is somewhat unique!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_May_Island
antikristuseke
10-03-10, 12:05 AM
The K class were almost hillariously bad, they were flawed in every way imaginable and crewed by a combination of Dinsdales and Bernards, or so it would appear from their service records. The things were fitted with depth charge launchers for pittys sake.
SteamWake
10-03-10, 08:20 AM
Not sure why this is stupid. Sounds like a early Bangalore torpedo. .
Not the weapon the implentation theres a reason for the phrase "Hoisted on his own petard". :03:
TLAM Strike
10-03-10, 08:29 AM
The K class were almost hillariously bad, they were flawed in every way imaginable and crewed by a combination of Dinsdales and Bernards, or so it would appear from their service records. The things were fitted with depth charge launchers for pittys sake. The (US) S-Boats at one time had Depth Charge launchers IIRC.
Not the weapon the implentation theres a reason for the phrase "Hoisted on his own petard". :03: Stupid use dosn't make the weapon dumb. Look at how many people shoot themselves with semi-automatic hand guns.
SteamWake
10-03-10, 08:46 AM
The (US) S-Boats at one time had Depth Charge launchers IIRC.
Stupid use dosn't make the weapon dumb. Look at how many people shoot themselves with semi-automatic hand guns.
Well you dident have to be stupid to blow yourself up with the petard. They had 'issues' with the 'slow' fuse. Sometimes it wasent so slow.
No you had to be ingnorant, brave, or suicidal to use one.
antikristuseke
10-03-10, 08:49 AM
it should be and/or between all those.
gimpy117
10-03-10, 05:34 PM
Stupid use dosn't make the weapon dumb. Look at how many people shoot themselves with semi-automatic hand guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaxico_Burress
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.