Top ten greatest weapons in history

[Starke]

you had me agreeing up until the point you mentioned the katana, and the M1 garand

it also saddens me how the harrier was not mentioned once (the only successful mass production jet aircraft with the ability to take off vertically, practically won the falklands for the british)

The M1 did do it's job very admirably, it's been superseded technologically, but it's still a very solid piece of hardware. EDIT: The harrier would have been disqualified for requiring multiple personnel, not just the pilot, but a ground crew, to keep it in service.

 

[RobCoxxy]

You forget Tsar Bomba.

BANG! And your country is gone!

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

you had me agreeing up until the point you mentioned the katana, and the M1 garand

it also saddens me how the harrier was not mentioned once (the only successful mass production jet aircraft with the ability to take off vertically, practically won the falklands for the british)

The M1 did do it's job very admirably, it's been superseded technologically, but it's still a very solid piece of hardware.

i have no argument with that, that isn't my dispute, my issue is with their abilities being grossly exaggerated while other equally good designs go about unnoticed, case in point: the SMLE (which was made earlier than the M1). and the Browning HP, which took the basic idea of the colt pistol and improved upon it, and i don't know of any other pistols that can claim to be used by both sides of world war II

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Spoiler: This is too powerfull, it has to take up spaces 1 through to 10 :D

i'd say it's Hammer Time !

 

[loc978]

I wasn't going to say anything, but as a student of metallurgy, this irks me every time it gets mentioned.

To anyone who has posted about damascus or other folded steel... no, it's not intrinsically better than monosteel. Strength of a blade is generally determined by the purity of the ore and the content of carbon used in forging... and the quality of the temper. Folded steel was a way for ancient swordmakers to ensure the purity of the ore. We have no such problems in modern times. You can actually acquire a monosteel sword that is equivalent or superior to any sword made in ancient times for well under a thousand dollars US. My katana cost me $330, is made of high-speed tool steel (the stuff machinists used to cut other steel before carbide bits became common), traditionally tempered, and is easily a match for anything from ancient times.
Also, there's no such thing as modern damascus steel... it's just pattern-welded. By a machine.

 

[hittite]

The only problem I have here is that in all three pages of this thread, the Ma Deuce has only been mentioned twice. Come on, how is that even possible?

It's pretty much the best there is at what it's designed for.

 

[NeutralDrow]

#1. The Katana: ... Honestly I believe it is impossible to create a sword as perfect as the katana.

You know, I was following you until this point. I had some disagreements beforehand, perhaps, but this just made my jaw drop. Not just that you're putting a sword of any kind ahead of fantastically more versatile knives and guns. Most swords were conveniently effective status weapons before anything, and the rest were specifically designed for only one or two purposes (rapiers for unarmored street combat, claymores for fighting pikes, hook swords for fighting shields, etc.).

No, it's the utterly nonsensical favoritism of a particular type of sword. I mean, seriously...

There is no such greater weapon than that which can feel as an extension of the person who's using it. It has perfect balance, precise control, its has great strength while still being flexible, and its shape, and sharpness combine create a powerful edge. It is every bit a slashing sword as it is a stabbing, and thrusting one.

You know what else that could be describing?

Spoiler: This.

"Extension of the person using it" is the ultimate goal of any sword, as are balance and strength, and they're achieved in pretty much any sword. European longswords were also "every bit a slashing sword as a thrusting" (in fact, you have that reversed for katanas; they were slashing swords, the thrusting was a convenient accident of design). They were also double-edged, opening more methods of attack, and were often designed with partial edges to allow half-swording. They actively competed against many types of sword and armor, resulting in more economy of design and purpose (katana were matched solely against other Japanese swords). Hell, throughout history, they were even a primary weapon of their wielders (samurai favored bows and spears over swords). Katanas were good weapons, and metallurgical marvels, mainly because they already tended to chip easily (edge-blocking is murder on a sword), but considering Japan's low amount of generally horrible quality iron, anything less than great was doomed.

I'd bring up armor, but really, swords of any kind only deal with armor when absolutely necessary. The typical katana and longsword wielder would pull out <url=http://armysurplus1.net/catalog/images/bdk622.jpg>this or <url=http://www.whitewellarms.com/USERIMAGES/6%20flanged%20mace%20ff.png>this to deal with armored opponents.

So yeah...calling a sword a better weapon than the giant number of alternatives was odd, but calling it better than a decent match for <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsGU5KI1qJA>other sword types was something else entirely.

Or you can just <url=http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm>read this.

the Katana is a Fantastic weapon, but its not made to be a thrusting weapon, so you can only slash with it, so if it went up against a shield or plated armor it wouldnt do shit.

1) They were actually okay thrusting weapons.

2) Any sword has a disadvantage against shields (except hook swords) and plate armor. Katana certainly can be used against plate armor (though, as above, you'd want to use a knife or a blunt weapon), but only in the same way as longswords: thrust at the joints, preferably after downing the guy in the armor.

#1 This one will likely get some people confused but I stand by my choice that the ax is the best weapon in human history. This weapon has been around almost since humans first discovered tools not only for doing work to survive, but also to wage war on other people. The ax is very versatile as it can be used as both a cutting weapon, a puncturing weapon (depending on the type of ax you are using), and a smashing weapon.

Honestly, I'd actually put the spear ahead of the ax. They have similar levels of survival utility, but they're even easier to make ("sharp thing on a stick" construction; unless you're counting "edged rock held in hand" as an ax, of course), easier to train people to use, easier to use in massed combat, greater range, and probably even have more methods of attack. This includes several methods of stabbing, obviously, but also swinging (with the right spearhead), bashing (it's basically a staff, after all), and throwing (barring the francisca and tomahawk, not something most axes have). Hell, spears are technically still used today, if you count bayonet combat.

Still, though...

If this weapon was not the best suited for the purpose, why did it not cease to be used as a killing tool until guns came around?

What about weapons that didn't cease being used when guns came around?

Spoiler: ^_^

 

[IWCAS]

10. Fist
9. Pistol
8. Rocket Propelled Grenades/Launchers
7. Sword (Because of it's history and extensive use.)
6. Warships
5. Tanks
4. Artillery
3. Automatic Rifles
2. Fighter Jets
1. Devastating bomb

I'd say this is pretty fair. I think maybe Artillery should be lower on the list but when you think about innovation I'd say the 3 above it are more advanced. This is a tough one to accurately answer. I don't think that the Katana should be #1 at all.

 

[IWCAS]

Military aircraft add a third dimension to any battlefield and allow for incredably devestating attacks against ground forces, forever changing tactics on the battlefield

I'd say this is why I had such a hard time deciding between a Bomb and the aircraft. I guess I could change my 1 to aircraft for the reason that aircraft usually DROP the bomb. But the bomb itself is devastating, not the plane.

 

[Starke]

you had me agreeing up until the point you mentioned the katana, and the M1 garand

it also saddens me how the harrier was not mentioned once (the only successful mass production jet aircraft with the ability to take off vertically, practically won the falklands for the british)

The M1 did do it's job very admirably, it's been superseded technologically, but it's still a very solid piece of hardware.

i have no argument with that, that isn't my dispute, my issue is with their abilities being grossly exaggerated while other equally good designs go about unnoticed, case in point: the SMLE (which was made earlier than the M1). and the Browning HP, which took the basic idea of the colt pistol and improved upon it, and i don't know of any other pistols that can claim to be used by both sides of world war II

The C96 comes to mind, and I believe the Japanese actually fielded a knockoff of the M1.

 

[Riddle78]

I'll see your Katana and raise you one of these.

I'm sorry,but the pike would take #1.
It's so simple,a modern rugby player can pick it up and use it effectively.

I hope you are not trying to imply that Ruggers are dumb in any way.

I'm not. I'm saying that a rugby player,being the closest modern thing to a medieval pikeman,is able to pick up a pike,and with minimal training,kebab any hostile within it's considerable reach.

 

[GrimTuesday]

#1 This one will likely get some people confused but I stand by my choice that the ax is the best weapon in human history. This weapon has been around almost since humans first discovered tools not only for doing work to survive, but also to wage war on other people. The ax is very versatile as it can be used as both a cutting weapon, a puncturing weapon (depending on the type of ax you are using), and a smashing weapon.

Honestly, I'd actually put the spear ahead of the ax. They have similar levels of survival utility, but they're even easier to make ("sharp thing on a stick" construction; unless you're counting "edged rock held in hand" as an ax, of course), easier to train people to use, easier to use in massed combat, greater range, and probably even have more methods of attack. This includes several methods of stabbing, obviously, but also swinging (with the right spearhead), bashing (it's basically a staff, after all), and throwing (barring the francisca and tomahawk, not something most axes have). Hell, spears are technically still used today, if you count bayonet combat.

But spears are so boring and no fun unless one is on horseback. Axes on the other hand are fun all the time.

Still, though...

If this weapon was not the best suited for the purpose, why did it not cease to be used as a killing tool until guns came around?

What about weapons that didn't cease being used when guns came around?

Spoiler: ^_^

I've always been bothered when people say that all they would bring into a melee fight is a knife. If you ask me all you're going to get out of that is my warhammer turning your face into goo while your knife is stuck in my shield. (I like heavy weapons that make people go splat)

 

[Webb5432]

The Katana is a good weapon and it deserves a place on the list, but number one? In my opinion, probably not. I only touched on katana work in my Bujinkan Ninjitsu classes, but here are a few issues:

1. The Tip: the difference between a katana and ninjato is the tip. Almost all strikes focus on this particular section of the blade. Ninjatos are actually katanas that have been broken and thrown away by samurai.

2. The Side: English rapiers and smallswords, sabers and cutlassess all use the flat of the blade to block and parry incoming attacks. Try that with a katana, and it will break.

3. Cost: Not a big thing, but when you think about it, the money and work put into a good katana makes them quality weapons, rare to find and difficult to get a hold of without connections. And while one sword is always nice, a bloody army is always a welcome addition.

4. Training: To make the katana an effective weapon, years of training are required to grasp even just the basics. And techniques are constantly being modified and evolved.


So, I would, in my opinion, put katana at number two. And possibly put COMBAT TRAINING as number one. Heck, in my training, we were taught how to stop a swordsman while unarmed. (Haven't mastered it yet. got hit with the bloody bokken repeatedly.) And counter knife and gun work can be fun.


Oh! A suggestion: a stick/staff. You don't wanna know the crazy crap Japanese martial Artists can pull with a hanbo (3-foot staff)

 

[Anacortian]

Wait! A gun that shoots shuriken and lightning!
Maybe give it tits and have it be on fire.

 

[twistedmic]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I think that the flame thrower (either American, German or Greek design) is a pretty awesome and fear inspiring weapon, despite the inherent risks and failings involved.
And I'm going to say the whole gamut of atomic/hydrogen/nuclear (if there's any major difference between them) bombs. Anything that can obliterate an city with a single usage has got to be great.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Pengun, Mac 10...Paprika.

 

[AcrylicHero]

1) Tied for first place, I suggest the shield and military aircraft. The shield led to the advent of phalanx fighting, which led to highly advanced tactics. Phalanx fighting allowed alaxander the great to conquer a huge amount of territory and ironically allowed the greeks, most notably the spartans, to defeat the invasion of persia.

I've gotta say in my view the phalanx didn't involve much tactics.
The whole point of the phalanx warfare was it's simplicity- each and every male citizen with a spear and shield could partake without knowing much about warfare at all. Greek on greek land warfare during this era involved two huge masses of men colliding with each other. There wasn't much tactical flexbility at all and formations were too rigid imo. It's strength lay in the fact that any able male citizen, though by himself pretty useless, became a fearsome force to be reckoned with in a phalanx with other citizens.
Plus though the phalanx played a huge role in the persian wars, so did the greek xenophobia, propaganda and the athenian navy. Also I don't see the irony in the greek victory over the persians during the invasion.
Even in the Pelopponesian wars the phalanx warfare wasn't very tactically versatile or complex; the more experienced and stronger mass of hoplites won the battle pretty much every time. Even in Alexander's time and the hellenistic to roman age the phalanx' job was to engage the main enemy bulk and hold the line, whilst the cavalry went for the throat which was pretty much how Alexander won all his battles against the persians.

I'm gonna say the following deserves a mention for the greatest weapons in history.
Propaganda. From ancient times to modern day, propaganda proved itself to be a great tool and weapon in wars. Though it can't kill enemies, it can sure demoralize them and strengthen the resolve of your military and citizens.
The roman legion. I don't think you can really point out just a single weapon or component of the legion and claim it was great, as it relied on the others to function to its fullest potential. The gladius without the discipline and shield would be nothing more than a short sword, and the pilum would be nothing more than a javelin. However, together it made one of the greatest war machines of the ancient times and truly revolutionized warfare. The first professional army, amazing array of tactics at its disposal and the genius use of engineering in warfare.
Actual physical weapon wise, I'm gonna say the musket. The likes of a longbow, crossbow and swords generally required experienced and skilled hands to be truly deadly. The musket completely levelled the playing field.

 

[Webb5432]

#1 This one will likely get some people confused but I stand by my choice that the ax is the best weapon in human history. This weapon has been around almost since humans first discovered tools not only for doing work to survive, but also to wage war on other people. The ax is very versatile as it can be used as both a cutting weapon, a puncturing weapon (depending on the type of ax you are using), and a smashing weapon.

Honestly, I'd actually put the spear ahead of the ax. They have similar levels of survival utility, but they're even easier to make ("sharp thing on a stick" construction; unless you're counting "edged rock held in hand" as an ax, of course), easier to train people to use, easier to use in massed combat, greater range, and probably even have more methods of attack. This includes several methods of stabbing, obviously, but also swinging (with the right spearhead), bashing (it's basically a staff, after all), and throwing (barring the francisca and tomahawk, not something most axes have). Hell, spears are technically still used today, if you count bayonet combat.

But spears are so boring and no fun unless one is on horseback. Axes on the other hand are fun all the time.

Still, though...

If this weapon was not the best suited for the purpose, why did it not cease to be used as a killing tool until guns came around?

What about weapons that didn't cease being used when guns came around?

Spoiler: ^_^

I've always been bothered when people say that all they would bring into a melee fight is a knife. If you ask me all you're going to get out of that is my warhammer turning your face into goo while your knife is stuck in my shield. (I like heavy weapons that make people go splat)

Dude, axes rock! Big axe, little axe. Battle axe, throwing axe. Killing tool, carptenting tool. An ax is the old fashioned equivalent of duct tape (metaphorically, of course.)!