Top ten greatest weapons in history
- Thread starter Knifewounds
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's more confusing because there were two separate 8mm french rounds with the same name. One was apparently a revolver round and the other was a rifle, and in case this wasn't confusing enough already they were not interchangeable.WolfThomas said:
Also, it seems someone did modify a C96 to use a detachable box mag in 1901.
list is forgetting:
the Maxim Machine Gun. changed War And Guns forever. no longer would armies stand opposed of each other several hundred yards apart and take pot shots at one another nor advance on a foe when one of these where deployed. And ontop of this all, it was THE FIRST Automatic weapon. every other weapon before the Maxim Machine gun was manually operated through some action the user had to do... Pump action shot guns, Lever Action Rifles, Single and Double Action pistols, Hand Cranked Gatling Guns... This was the first weapon that you simply had to hold the trigger down and provide ammo.
Every Single automatic and semi automatic gun in the world owes its existance to the Maxim Machine gun.
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). It was the first gun that gave Automatic Fire to the Rifleman and started the concept of 'Infantry Support' in the US armed forces. It is a rather intresting weapon as it is undoubtably the first 'Assault Rifle' that was widely deployed by a military force.
the concept of the BAR litterally was to be an Assault Automatic Rifle (An automatic rifle designed to assault trenches and enemy positions under the tactic of 'walking fire'.)
however, in combat the BAR quickly filled the role of a Light Machine Gun rather then an Automatic Assault Rifle and now adays is considered something more akin to LMGs then to ARs.
Bastard Sword/Broad Sword/Long Sword... European Designed swords.
In every way better then the Katana as a weapon. This was a weapon of war designed for killing, pure and simple. You could act defensively, parry and block, catch with the guard twist and disarm, Bludgen and smash with the hilt. You could act Offensively, Slash and Thrust, short strike with the base for a bludgen attack, or grab the blade proper and use the guard for peircing.
the Katana is a striking weapon. period. Any one that tells you that there is some sort of parry with a katana is straight lying to you. the blade is not designed to take blows to its cutting edge, and ontop of this, the tsuba guard itself is usually a stone or wood and is not intended to stop attacking blades but rather to prevent the users hands to push forward onto the cutting edge when using thrusting actions.
other weapons-
Winchester Repeating Rifle.
Colt .45 Revolver.
Axe (tool, close combat weapon, thrown weapon.)
the Maxim Machine Gun. changed War And Guns forever. no longer would armies stand opposed of each other several hundred yards apart and take pot shots at one another nor advance on a foe when one of these where deployed. And ontop of this all, it was THE FIRST Automatic weapon. every other weapon before the Maxim Machine gun was manually operated through some action the user had to do... Pump action shot guns, Lever Action Rifles, Single and Double Action pistols, Hand Cranked Gatling Guns... This was the first weapon that you simply had to hold the trigger down and provide ammo.
Every Single automatic and semi automatic gun in the world owes its existance to the Maxim Machine gun.
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). It was the first gun that gave Automatic Fire to the Rifleman and started the concept of 'Infantry Support' in the US armed forces. It is a rather intresting weapon as it is undoubtably the first 'Assault Rifle' that was widely deployed by a military force.
the concept of the BAR litterally was to be an Assault Automatic Rifle (An automatic rifle designed to assault trenches and enemy positions under the tactic of 'walking fire'.)
however, in combat the BAR quickly filled the role of a Light Machine Gun rather then an Automatic Assault Rifle and now adays is considered something more akin to LMGs then to ARs.
Bastard Sword/Broad Sword/Long Sword... European Designed swords.
In every way better then the Katana as a weapon. This was a weapon of war designed for killing, pure and simple. You could act defensively, parry and block, catch with the guard twist and disarm, Bludgen and smash with the hilt. You could act Offensively, Slash and Thrust, short strike with the base for a bludgen attack, or grab the blade proper and use the guard for peircing.
the Katana is a striking weapon. period. Any one that tells you that there is some sort of parry with a katana is straight lying to you. the blade is not designed to take blows to its cutting edge, and ontop of this, the tsuba guard itself is usually a stone or wood and is not intended to stop attacking blades but rather to prevent the users hands to push forward onto the cutting edge when using thrusting actions.
other weapons-
Winchester Repeating Rifle.
Colt .45 Revolver.
Axe (tool, close combat weapon, thrown weapon.)
I honestly don't think the Katana should be on this list, let alone first. To wield the Katana you require years of training and discipline, and in olden times, you needed a certain religious belief, one that stated your sword had a soul.
There are some Samurai who wield their Katana's with great skill and prowess, but I think a normal broad sword were more copious and easier to acquire, there fore being a far superior weapon, and if you trained with a normal sword, there is a good chance you could beat someone wielding a Katana.
Katana's aren't an awesome weapon, they are just a very expensive, hard to make and rare sword, that were only used by the rich and the Samurai.
In short Katana = Over rated because of too much television and Anime.
There are some Samurai who wield their Katana's with great skill and prowess, but I think a normal broad sword were more copious and easier to acquire, there fore being a far superior weapon, and if you trained with a normal sword, there is a good chance you could beat someone wielding a Katana.
Katana's aren't an awesome weapon, they are just a very expensive, hard to make and rare sword, that were only used by the rich and the Samurai.
In short Katana = Over rated because of too much television and Anime.
What? No gravity gun??
I'm joking, decent enough list, but I don't think the katana would be the most practical weapon nowadays...
I'm joking, decent enough list, but I don't think the katana would be the most practical weapon nowadays...
I think there is going to be a large debate between Anime/Japan/Samurai Nerds and people who can see the proper flaws with the Katana, not to sound like an ass but most of the people who have proven the flaws of the Katana, and Samurai fighting styles seem to know what there talking about a hell of a lot more than all the Anime/Japan/Samurai lovers.
P.S. Hands down the Atomic Bomb (or nuclear bomb, there the same thing) takes the gold medal, tell me another real weapon that could destroy almost an entire large town in one strike? Maybe today there are simlar weapons but the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki where over half a century ago, think of the killing power we have with our new and improved Atomic Bombs.
P.S. Hands down the Atomic Bomb (or nuclear bomb, there the same thing) takes the gold medal, tell me another real weapon that could destroy almost an entire large town in one strike? Maybe today there are simlar weapons but the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki where over half a century ago, think of the killing power we have with our new and improved Atomic Bombs.
The katana is an aesthetically pleasing piece of craftsmanship, and certainly an effective killing tool for its time and environment. The thing is, people go overboard with the hype. What is the katana? Here's what: a sword. Specifically, a one-and-a-half-handed, curved single-edged longsword. That's it. Its main feature is that it's an impressive feat to make something that good with the poor steel they had to work with, and even more impressive to make it that pretty, but while I don't necessarily think you can't put it on number one... I'd say you'd better say "1: longsword" then.
Personally, I feel the best way to rank weapons is by how much it would shorten the time it would take to train an average person of its time into an equally or more competent killer than a wielder of its predecessor. I'm not saying that the wielder of one weapon would necessarily defeat the wielder of another, but rather ask how long would it take him to be as effective at killing an archetypical opponent with this new weapon. In lesser terms, factors such as encumbrance, versatility and such would come into play, though they can be hugely important as well. As such, listing what place they should all be is fairly pointless to me, but these are the contenders, in my opinion, in roughly ascending order:
- honorable mentions go to: all kinds of modern and semi-modern military weaponry such as machine guns, artillery, bombs and such. These are not, in my opinion, "improvements" over older weapons, but rather answers to specific tactical challenges, a "custom tool", but you can't fully ignore them. Also combat vehicles, be they land, sea or air vehicles. These are usually not weapons, but rather weapons platforms. Halberds, because while there was little significantly new to them, they combined them marvellously in an impressive troop weapon. And miniguns, for being to firearms what katanas are to melee weapons - damn cool but not all that special.
- handguns (sadly replacing knives). I dislike having to put these here. The sad fact is, modern handguns are too easy to use and too readily available, taking nearly all the effort out of killing someone - a handgun is comparable in encumbrance to a knife, many are easily concealable, but it takes very little practice to be lethal in combat with one, and as you add slightly more practice you can probably stand up to any other entry on this list provided you are within the handgun's effective range. Sure, a knife is deadly, but a handgun beats it by so much it's not even funny.
- rifle (replacing leadball longarms). The jump in accuracy, power and effective range so vastly outstrips any previous technological jump that it easily punishes leadball longarms in this list - the leadball weapons, blunderbusses, and cannons that came before it were in many ways better than bows and crossbows, but by a far smaller margin than the one with which rifles beat them, in turn.
- bow (replacing a plethora of thrown implements and the like). Ranged combat before the bow was very limited in range, accuracy, or both. It's much easier to be accurate with a bow than it is with javelins, rocks, slings, and all manner of such projectiles.
- crossbow (partially replacing bow). A skilled longbowman may be more than a match for a skilled crossbowman, sure. But developing and maintaining a bow arm and aim is FAR more difficult and time consuming than learning to look down this length of wood and depressing this mechanism to kill whatever is in the axis that extends from it.
- sword (replacing axe where it's affordable). More manoeuvres that can easily kill, harder to miss outright, a soldier's favourite any day over the axe. The axe still has its uses of course, but hey, there are surprisingly few things an axe can do that a sword cannot.
- axe (replacing and complementing spear). A bit harder to make than both spear and club, it's nonetheless a much more effective killing tool, and any recruit would appreciate how much easier an axe kills your enemy than a club, and the very straightforward way of wielding it. Indeed, most recruits would have wielded one prior to enlisting, since they'd more than likely spent time working with one.
- spear/sharp stick of various designs (replacing club). Over its predecessor, a huge increase in ease of use allows you to wield it for far longer, carry it further, and while it requires some tools to make one it's not a terribly complicated or difficult process.
- club (replacing sharp rock). More reach and easier to wield than the sharp rock and, depending on design, equally or more effective.
- sharp rock (replacing unarmed body). You have any idea how much practice it takes to reliably kill someone with your body in combat? Picking up a sorta sharp rock will let you match the effectiveness of a hardened unarmed fighter in a far shorter time than said unarmed fighter spent on his craft.
- knife (special case). Knives are harder to make than sharp rocks, for sure, but still they have been fairly easy to get a hold of for a lot of cultures and in lots of time periods. What they would replace was in general being unarmed in a situation where due to social norms or surprise you were not armed, and the deadliness of the simple knife far surpasses most readily available replacements.
- unarmed body. It is a remarkable tool for creating things, sure, but a well-wielded human body is a deadly weapon for sure, capable of incredibly versatile styles and feats of combat. The best part, though, is the procurement cost - we each come equipped with one from the get-go. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, it's the true minimum requirement. If you don't have one, your combat effectiveness is non-existent.
Personally, I feel the best way to rank weapons is by how much it would shorten the time it would take to train an average person of its time into an equally or more competent killer than a wielder of its predecessor. I'm not saying that the wielder of one weapon would necessarily defeat the wielder of another, but rather ask how long would it take him to be as effective at killing an archetypical opponent with this new weapon. In lesser terms, factors such as encumbrance, versatility and such would come into play, though they can be hugely important as well. As such, listing what place they should all be is fairly pointless to me, but these are the contenders, in my opinion, in roughly ascending order:
- honorable mentions go to: all kinds of modern and semi-modern military weaponry such as machine guns, artillery, bombs and such. These are not, in my opinion, "improvements" over older weapons, but rather answers to specific tactical challenges, a "custom tool", but you can't fully ignore them. Also combat vehicles, be they land, sea or air vehicles. These are usually not weapons, but rather weapons platforms. Halberds, because while there was little significantly new to them, they combined them marvellously in an impressive troop weapon. And miniguns, for being to firearms what katanas are to melee weapons - damn cool but not all that special.
- handguns (sadly replacing knives). I dislike having to put these here. The sad fact is, modern handguns are too easy to use and too readily available, taking nearly all the effort out of killing someone - a handgun is comparable in encumbrance to a knife, many are easily concealable, but it takes very little practice to be lethal in combat with one, and as you add slightly more practice you can probably stand up to any other entry on this list provided you are within the handgun's effective range. Sure, a knife is deadly, but a handgun beats it by so much it's not even funny.
- rifle (replacing leadball longarms). The jump in accuracy, power and effective range so vastly outstrips any previous technological jump that it easily punishes leadball longarms in this list - the leadball weapons, blunderbusses, and cannons that came before it were in many ways better than bows and crossbows, but by a far smaller margin than the one with which rifles beat them, in turn.
- bow (replacing a plethora of thrown implements and the like). Ranged combat before the bow was very limited in range, accuracy, or both. It's much easier to be accurate with a bow than it is with javelins, rocks, slings, and all manner of such projectiles.
- crossbow (partially replacing bow). A skilled longbowman may be more than a match for a skilled crossbowman, sure. But developing and maintaining a bow arm and aim is FAR more difficult and time consuming than learning to look down this length of wood and depressing this mechanism to kill whatever is in the axis that extends from it.
- sword (replacing axe where it's affordable). More manoeuvres that can easily kill, harder to miss outright, a soldier's favourite any day over the axe. The axe still has its uses of course, but hey, there are surprisingly few things an axe can do that a sword cannot.
- axe (replacing and complementing spear). A bit harder to make than both spear and club, it's nonetheless a much more effective killing tool, and any recruit would appreciate how much easier an axe kills your enemy than a club, and the very straightforward way of wielding it. Indeed, most recruits would have wielded one prior to enlisting, since they'd more than likely spent time working with one.
- spear/sharp stick of various designs (replacing club). Over its predecessor, a huge increase in ease of use allows you to wield it for far longer, carry it further, and while it requires some tools to make one it's not a terribly complicated or difficult process.
- club (replacing sharp rock). More reach and easier to wield than the sharp rock and, depending on design, equally or more effective.
- sharp rock (replacing unarmed body). You have any idea how much practice it takes to reliably kill someone with your body in combat? Picking up a sorta sharp rock will let you match the effectiveness of a hardened unarmed fighter in a far shorter time than said unarmed fighter spent on his craft.
- knife (special case). Knives are harder to make than sharp rocks, for sure, but still they have been fairly easy to get a hold of for a lot of cultures and in lots of time periods. What they would replace was in general being unarmed in a situation where due to social norms or surprise you were not armed, and the deadliness of the simple knife far surpasses most readily available replacements.
- unarmed body. It is a remarkable tool for creating things, sure, but a well-wielded human body is a deadly weapon for sure, capable of incredibly versatile styles and feats of combat. The best part, though, is the procurement cost - we each come equipped with one from the get-go. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, it's the true minimum requirement. If you don't have one, your combat effectiveness is non-existent.
Gotta say, my favorite is hands down the Double sword. Granted it was somewhat bulky and difficult to use and master, but I feel there are few other weapons that could make combat as beautiful as it is deadly. However, if we could count two weapons adding up to one in the form of a combat style, I would have to favor duel-wielding swords, one short, one long. The tactical value this presented is amazing. You have a long sword for slower, but more powerful strikes and a shortsword for quicker and more precise strikes. And of course the two blades can be used to block trickier attacks.
See people, this is a list written by someone who knows what they were talking about.Aur0ra145 said:
However, i would argue that machine guns in general didn't really change the face of war (At least in Europe) until WW1 by which time the Maxim was obsolete. A lot of commanders saw the machine gun as an artillery piece and had it deployed way to far back to be of any use (which was just fine for the operators xD) Until WW1 there was too much confusion over what the role of the machine gun should be.
Here are some books (the top one is from an academic journal) that go into more detail about such things. If you have an interest i would definitely recommend Hew Strachan's book
Steven. D. Jackman Shoulder to Shoulder: Close Control and "Old Prussian Drill" in German Offensive Infantry Tactics, 1871-1914, society for Military History 2004, taken from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3397249?
Hew Strachan, European Armies and the Conduct of War
Brian Bond, War and Social Change in Europe, 1870-1970
David Gates, Warfare in the 19th Century
Maurice Pearton, Diplomacy, War and Technology Since 1930
I want to know why people say the longbow had more penetrating power. It doesn't, the heavier projectile fired by a crossbow would has more overall kenetic energy and penetrating power, but that added weight also cuts it's range, which is nowhere near longbow.SimuLord said:
#10: Commander Shepard's Other arm
#09: Commander Shepard's Other leg
#08: Commander Shepard's Kicking leg
#07: Commander Shepard's Head
#06: Commander Shepard's Punching arm
#05: Commander Shepard's Sniper rifle
#04: Commander Shepard's Shotgun
#03: Commander Shepard's Assault rifle
#02: Commander Shepard's pistol
#01: Commander Shepard's diplomacy
If we were to be completely unfair and count Commander Shepard as a single weapon, second place would probably cross the One ring with a Halo installation.
#09: Commander Shepard's Other leg
#08: Commander Shepard's Kicking leg
#07: Commander Shepard's Head
#06: Commander Shepard's Punching arm
#05: Commander Shepard's Sniper rifle
#04: Commander Shepard's Shotgun
#03: Commander Shepard's Assault rifle
#02: Commander Shepard's pistol
#01: Commander Shepard's diplomacy
If we were to be completely unfair and count Commander Shepard as a single weapon, second place would probably cross the One ring with a Halo installation.
Gotta say, I don't see the appeal of weilding one short and one long blade. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be more or less useless. Now, i've never studies fighting with weapons in any real sense, but i do know that trying to use two weapons with differing legnth on an opponent in combat would be almost impossible.Koganesaga said:
In order to be at the most effective range for the long weapon, you would be too far away to use the short weapon, meaning you would have to step in to use it, eliminating the speed advantage. Also, very few, if any people have the dexiterity necessary to use two swords to their full potential. I suspect that the most effective use of dual wielding for most, if not all, individuals is to use a short, thick sword in your offhand more like a lighter shield than as an actual sword.
anyway, that's my opinion, based entirely on common sense and conjecture. anyone got an opinion based on history or experience?
Its hard to believe nobody has made the honorable mention of: *drum roll*
Aircraft.
1 man operates it. The same man can maintain it (doesnt happen often mind you). And not much has done more to revolutionize how warfare is waged than the correct application of airpower. Its a titanic force-multiplier. The average man doesnt need to carry an anti-tank weapon when there's an Apache on the horizon. The average man doesn't need to painstakingly search every room of a 3 story house for baddies in a warzone when he can just call in a B-1 to drop a 5,000 lb gbu and level it. The average man doesnt need to eat bugs and survive in the wilderness scouting an area when a u-2 or uav can accomplish the same in 1/100th the time. And even when the average man is wounded, and needs medical attention, the average man can be loaded onto a cargo aircraft and airlifted away for medical attention.
Airpower can turn 20 men into a force to be reckoned with, provided the proper air support is applied.
The only thing thats done more to change the face of battle is the gun and the nuke imo.
Oh, and fyi, I live in Japan. I've seen katana's, they are nice. They are works of art. But when it comes down to it, its a sharp piece of metal. Thats it. Many, many, many other cultures have made the same. And some would even argue better.
Aircraft.
1 man operates it. The same man can maintain it (doesnt happen often mind you). And not much has done more to revolutionize how warfare is waged than the correct application of airpower. Its a titanic force-multiplier. The average man doesnt need to carry an anti-tank weapon when there's an Apache on the horizon. The average man doesn't need to painstakingly search every room of a 3 story house for baddies in a warzone when he can just call in a B-1 to drop a 5,000 lb gbu and level it. The average man doesnt need to eat bugs and survive in the wilderness scouting an area when a u-2 or uav can accomplish the same in 1/100th the time. And even when the average man is wounded, and needs medical attention, the average man can be loaded onto a cargo aircraft and airlifted away for medical attention.
Airpower can turn 20 men into a force to be reckoned with, provided the proper air support is applied.
The only thing thats done more to change the face of battle is the gun and the nuke imo.
Oh, and fyi, I live in Japan. I've seen katana's, they are nice. They are works of art. But when it comes down to it, its a sharp piece of metal. Thats it. Many, many, many other cultures have made the same. And some would even argue better.
Except, it was the Breech Loading Rifle that was the reason armies no longer stood opposite each other. Go read my post on page four and it explains why, then read my other post on page nine for a list of sources.Pyro Paul said:
Holy crap, why isn't lego selling those? As a man who owns real guns, even I fear that!BonsaiK said:
Nyeh. Not really. Those figures only come from the fact that wherever there was a gun, there was a bayonette, and the guns back then were pretty poor.trophykiller said:
You really want to wager that bayonettes killed more than guns in any more modern wars?
You know that's what the Germans said in WWI+II, right? Peace through victory. Siegfried sounds cool, but when you think about it it's really quite horrible.Malyc said:
I would have to agree. Though I'm no expert and I'm not going to put what I think the greatest weapon is (Long Bow) as it's all personnel preference. All weapons that are considered great are considered that way because of who used them. For example, the Katana. While I admit it's a great weapon (being able to slice through two and a half pigs [Deadliest Warrior]) I would have to say the Killig would be better (Not deserving as greatest weapon ever mind you. Just better than a Katana) The Killig had better cutting power and was curved to help make opponents unsure of how the attack would land. Once again. I don't think the Killig is the best weapon ever. I'm just mentioning it to say that another sword is better than the Katana.MakerOfRoads said:
16th century Espada Ropera ... The Spanish dress sword become a symbol of the military prowess of the world's first, true, Superpower.
The AICW: The world's most technologically advanced infantry portable weapon. Where the US' DoD OICW weapons project failed, Australian military engineers proved you could have an electronic infantry rifle with a revolutionary 3-round grenade launcher that can be fired prone under 10 kilos of weight.
The AICW: The world's most technologically advanced infantry portable weapon. Where the US' DoD OICW weapons project failed, Australian military engineers proved you could have an electronic infantry rifle with a revolutionary 3-round grenade launcher that can be fired prone under 10 kilos of weight.