Dumbest military weapons

CCIP · 09-09-10, 01:37 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...

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

razark · 09-09-10, 02:15 PM

Quote:

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.

TLAM Strike · 09-09-10, 02:13 PM

Quote:

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...

Bilge_Rat · 09-09-10, 02:18 PM

Quote:

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 · 09-09-10, 02:22 PM

Quote:

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.

Tchocky · 09-09-10, 02:24 PM

Or the favourite "done shot off my own tail, bugger it!"

CCIP · 09-09-10, 02:27 PM

Oh, now the T-35 definitely deserves a vote there. As do most multi-turreted tanks

TLAM Strike · 09-09-10, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Oh, now the T-35 definitely deserves a vote there. As do most multi-turreted tanks

I like that you added the MOST there because...

Hay we got a tank with three weapon turrets... it only took 70 years to get right!

Jimbuna · 09-09-10, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What you are saying essencially is research and development was non-existent?

Well erm, yeah....something like that

CaptainHaplo · 09-09-10, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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

z

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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).

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead Nuke

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.

Oberon · 09-09-10, 04:54 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

09-09-10, 01:37 PM	#1
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	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... __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

09-09-10, 02:24 PM	#7
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Or the favourite "done shot off my own tail, bugger it!" __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

09-09-10, 02:27 PM	#8
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Oh, now the T-35 definitely deserves a vote there. As do most multi-turreted tanks __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

09-09-10, 02:06 PM	#2
Penguin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Rheinische Republik Posts: 3,322 Downloads: 92 Uploads: 0	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

09-09-10, 10:27 PM	#13
Bubblehead Nuke XO Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 435 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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.