Dumbest military weapons

[TarJak]

Somebody thought these were a good idea at the time. Good thing someone else didn't:
http://him.uk.msn.com/in-the-know/ar...ntid=154615827

[TLAM Strike]

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.

[Oberon]

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]

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.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

I like the Davey Crockett...

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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I like the Davey Crockett...

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...

[CCIP]

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]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Somebody thought these were a good idea at the time. Good thing someone else didn't:
http://him.uk.msn.com/in-the-know/ar...ntid=154615827

This sounds like something off the history channel.

I'll just add: Hitler's top 10 extreme dumb weapons that he never used.

[Penguin]

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]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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. I'm all for nuclear power but come on guys!

The SMK Tank and T-35 come a close second.

Oh and the flying tank... no NOT the Hind...

[razark]

Originally Posted by Penguin

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]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.