Top ten greatest weapons in history

[Vryyk]

I also use good ammunition, none of that Wolf crap.

Heh. I bought 100 rounds of Wolf 7.62 x 54 for my Mosin-Nagant. After one practice run at the range the remaining 90 rounds are now sitting at the bottom of my trash can. It hardly even feeds.

 

[cluzapnabber]

10. flamethrower (no one has said that untill me)
9.fusion gun man portable 15( find the referince )
8.a rolled up magazine (vs bugs at least)
7.being stoned to death with grenades(see critical miss comic)
6.the ppsh-41
5.tactial nuclier catapult
4.something
3.profit
2.a zombie army (only if you are a zombie lord)
1.fluridation(refreince)
0.joke warfare

 

[spartan231490]

Seriously, guns are already the best weapons on earth, but now with the bayonet, it's also one of the best melee weapons on earth, along with how great it already was. Truly magnificent as a weapon.

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.

You really want to wager that bayonettes killed more than guns in any more modern wars?

GAU-8. So cool the plane is the accessory to the gun (a10-a warthog)

Peace through superior firepower.

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.

I'm sure many nazis were also christians, that doesn't invalidate the religion. Just because a "bad" person said something, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. and peace through victory is also noticeably different than peace through superior firepower because the latter can be achieved through deterance, whereas the former can only be accomplished by conquest.

 

[spartandude]

propoganda

 

[Danny Ocean]

I'm sure many nazis were also christians, that doesn't invalidate the religion. Just because a "bad" person said something, it doesn't mean that it is wrong.

True; but when virtually the entire population advocate it, and that population was responsible for the deaths of millions, it certainly does mean that its wrong.

and peace through victory is also noticeably different than peace through superior firepower because the latter can be achieved through deterance, whereas the former can only be accomplished by conquest.

This is a much better point.

Peace through victory.
Peace through superior firepower.

You're distinguishing by saying that the former is active and the latter is passive. This is clearly false, because merely having superior firepower is of no use unless you are willing to actively use it in a conflict, and achieve victory. Hence:

Peace through Firepower= Peace through Victory

 

[cp2u]

I'd saw the recurve bow should replace the crossbow. It was the greatest weapon of it's time, and armies who had it would dominate armies who didn't

 

[spartan231490]

I'm sure many nazis were also christians, that doesn't invalidate the religion. Just because a "bad" person said something, it doesn't mean that it is wrong.

True; but when virtually the entire population advocate it, and that population was responsible for the deaths of millions, it certainly does mean that its wrong.

No it doesn't. Just because one person, or group, believed something that was cruel, or incorrect, does not invalidate everything else that they believed. There is no corelation between the fact that the man was part of the genocide of the jews and his believe that victory would bring peace.

and peace through victory is also noticeably different than peace through superior firepower because the latter can be achieved through deterance, whereas the former can only be accomplished by conquest.

This is a much better point.

Peace through victory.
Peace through superior firepower.

You're distinguishing by saying that the former is active and the latter is passive. This is clearly false, because merely having superior firepower is of no use unless you are willing to actively use it in a conflict, and achieve victory. Hence:

Peace through Firepower= Peace through Victory

No, I'm distinguishing by saything that the former has to be active while the latter can be passive or active. Just because I am willing to punch a man in the face, doesn't mean that I am going to. I am perfectly willing to punch someone who attacks me first, but I've never done it, because I've never been assaulted.
The former is like saying: "If I kick his ass, he'll leave me alone." The latter is simply saying "He'll leave me alone because I'm the size of an offensive lineman."

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

Kilij anyone?

Spoiler: Kilij!

 

[Koganesaga]

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.

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.
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?

I never at any point said it would be easy to do, let alone master. The idea is to have a wide array of attack and defense methods at you disposal. Bear in mind everything I'm saying is to assume the person wielding these blades can do so proficiently. By using both weapons at the same time you compensate for the others weakness. For example, if one were to use only a long sword, if their opponent closed the gap to a shorter distance with a smaller weapon being a short sword or even a dagger, the long sword would not be able to strike effectively due to its size and weight. This is were the short sword can shine and do as it needs to. Also seeing you would only need to block, the long sword could still act as a barrier while the short sword strikes. This is the same the other way around, at longer ranges the short sword would parry while the long strikes. To the same end, you could just use a shield in place of one of the blades, however with that you lack the diversity of both weapons and would be limited to what you have and wait for an opponent to present a chance, were as with both blades it's much easier to create one. Again assuming someone is proficient with this style, it is very difficult to defeat if you opponent is using any standard weapon intended for single handed use. That being said if they were to fight someone with a much heavier weapon, say a board sword or a war mace, they would be at a disadvantage if they were forced into a defensive stance as the heavier blows would decimate their guard. They would have to rely on pure evasiveness to attempt to strike which would be dangerous. In this respect the shield has an edge as it still might cave under the attack of a heavier weapon, but it's not nearly as likely and could present an opportunity much faster.

 

[dragonslayer32]

I'd say that bacteria is the one of the greatest weapons ever made. It has killed a hell of a lot more people than a nuke...

 

[Steambroom]

How about the flame thrower?

A gruesome weapon which would burn people alive and eradicate bunkers within seconds.
Also it has a huge impact on the psyhological warfare. Humans burning aren't the best thing to see
to raise moral.

 

[thedoclc]

*snip*

I will expand the ICBM to include all state-sponsored means of employing strategic or tactical nuclear weapons.

A perfectly valid argument exists that the ICBM and nuclear weapons (whether delivered by submarine, bomber, or missile) are being used all the time - by creating such fear of an attack that conventional warfare between nations which have such weapons has all but disappeared. Ideally, no weapon should be used.

The ability to deliver a nuclear counterattack renders warfare between two states virtually impossible. If the weapon is judged on the merits of "can this weapon fulfill its role?" and the role is, "scare anyone with sense into refraining from conventional warfare," then the answer is yes. These weapons have caused the biggest changes in strategic thinking in history. Nothing, nothing, ever, has changed how strategists have thought of war as dramatically as nuclear arms.

Oh god your absolutely right 0_0 I really cant argue that point.

Though they do fail your original criterion of "single user." Actually, depending on how you define it, so would quite a few other game-changers, such as the Maxim machine gun and the M2, both which may have just one man on the trigger but are served by a crew.

If we allow crew served weapons, then the Maxim and the cannon belong on the list.

And then there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
Yes, a crew-served tactical nuclear weapon. Insanity.

 

[thedoclc]

I'd say that bacteria is the one of the greatest weapons ever made. It has killed a hell of a lot more people than a nuke...

By that logic, you may as well just say "time." It gets us all.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

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.
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?

I never at any point said it would be easy to do, let alone master. The idea is to have a wide array of attack and defense methods at you disposal. Bear in mind everything I'm saying is to assume the person wielding these blades can do so proficiently. By using both weapons at the same time you compensate for the others weakness. For example, if one were to use only a long sword, if their opponent closed the gap to a shorter distance with a smaller weapon being a short sword or even a dagger, the long sword would not be able to strike effectively due to its size and weight. This is were the short sword can shine and do as it needs to. Also seeing you would only need to block, the long sword could still act as a barrier while the short sword strikes. This is the same the other way around, at longer ranges the short sword would parry while the long strikes. To the same end, you could just use a shield in place of one of the blades, however with that you lack the diversity of both weapons and would be limited to what you have and wait for an opponent to present a chance, were as with both blades it's much easier to create one. Again assuming someone is proficient with this style, it is very difficult to defeat if you opponent is using any standard weapon intended for single handed use. That being said if they were to fight someone with a much heavier weapon, say a board sword or a war mace, they would be at a disadvantage if they were forced into a defensive stance as the heavier blows would decimate their guard. They would have to rely on pure evasiveness to attempt to strike which would be dangerous. In this respect the shield has an edge as it still might cave under the attack of a heavier weapon, but it's not nearly as likely and could present an opportunity much faster.

I'm saying that I find it unlikely to impossible that any person can use two swords in a truely proficient manner. By this I mean the "Two Hands" ability that Drizzt Do'Urden has. The abilty to use both swords simultaneously as seperate swords, as if each sword is being wielded by a different person. Most two-weapon forms you see in martial arts, in my experience, use the two weapons more like one weapon that two seperate weapons. you have a point about the using the weapon with the wrong reach only to block, it would work, but in that case a shield would work just as well, because you can't strike with a weapon that is outside of it's reach. Not without overextending yourself.
I guess that I'm saying i don't believe a human can use dual swords to thier full potential because we can't split our minds to interperate the environment fast enough to determine the best course of action for each blade.
I'm also saying that I think two equal length swords is better because they both have the same striking range which allows you to employ both as offensive and defensive tools instead of relagating one to purely defense because it can't strike the opponant properly. Something like dual short-swords or like Drizzt uses, dual scimitars. That's just my opinion.

 

[dragonslayer32]

I'd say that bacteria is the one of the greatest weapons ever made. It has killed a hell of a lot more people than a nuke...

By that logic, you may as well just say "time." It gets us all.

But man can not harnass and use time as a weapon, bateria he can.

 

[Aulleas123]

I'm a big fan of pre-industrial warfare.

10.) The atomic bomb/nuclear weapons in general - Possessed by most developed countries today
9.) The pike - Used from the Ancient Macedonians up into the eighteenth century
8.) The English/Welsh Longbow - Used by England from about 1200 to about 1500
7.) The bombard cannon - Used by the Turks from about 1350 to the nineteenth century
6.) The Roman Gladius - Used by the Romans
5.) The Saxe - Symbolic weapon used by the Saxons until about 1000
4.) The Franchesca (throwing axe, I probably have the name wrong) - Used by the early Frankish tribes
3.) The horse - From the era of the stirrup until the twentieth century
2.) The composite horse bow - Used by nomadic tribes of horsemen (such as the Huns or Mongols)
1.) The human body/mind - Durr

Wait... not only are atomic bombs pre-industrial, they aren't as powerful as composite bows? And what's the deal with the Gladius hate? I mean, the Romans only conquered most of Europe, their main sword can't be that great.

Yep, I did make a booboo with the nuclear weapons, I suppose what I meant was that with the exception of nuclear weapons, I like pre-industrial weapons.

As for the gladius, I enjoy the weapon and I believe that it is a great weapon, just not the greatest. After all, the composite bow was the main weapon of the Mongols, who had a larger land empire than the Romans. I stick by my standings, but I don't feel any dislike for the gladius.

 

[thedoclc]

I'm sure many nazis were also christians, that doesn't invalidate the religion. Just because a "bad" person said something, it doesn't mean that it is wrong.

True; but when virtually the entire population advocate it, and that population was responsible for the deaths of millions, it certainly does mean that its wrong.

By said argument, atheism must be false as great war crimes were committed by the Stalinists and the Maoists, Buddhism must be wrong due to the wrongs committed by Imperial Japan, and so on ad nauseum. The argument that "evil was done by people professing X, therefore X is wrong," is demonstrably false and is a form of the genetic fallacy.

"England and the US both espouse free speech. However, England was responsible for the deaths of millions and terrible cultural imperialism throughout the world while the US was responsible for the genocide of much of North America's indigenous people and slavery. Therefore..."

The truth or falsity of a statement is (generally) independent of what those who believe it do, unless the statement describes the population which believes or doesn't believe in it. (For example, "the majority of us support increased funding for cancer research," can change from true to false and vice versa if people's minds change.) Insert Religion Here is true or false independent of how many believe in it or what they do.

 

[sheogoraththemad]

what katana? I prefer a good Zweihander

Spoiler

and where the hell is the atom bomb, that thing has destroyed 2 entire cities.