Top ten greatest weapons in history

[PeePantz]

#5. M1 Garand: ........ The Garand could essentially do everything an infantryman needed during the time of WWII.

Not 100% true. While the Garand was a great weapon, the M1 Carbine essentially replaced the Garand in terms of importance and became the most produced small arms weapon in American history. The Garand was too heavy for most troops that weren't on the front lines, and these "second-line" infantrymen were left with pistols. Winchester used Carbine Williams suggestions and placed a short-stroke piston system in place. The guns weighed under 6 pounds, were semi-automatic, and had great power and accuracy. MacArthur even accredited the guns for being a huge factor in the win in the Pacific.

Not so. The M1 Carbine was less accurate than the Garand, mainly because of its light weight. The weight wasn't really too much, seeing as how it was the standard service rifle, so it obviously wasn't phased out by a lighter weapon. Plus, the .30 Carbine is considerably less powerful than the full .30-06, though the Carbine did have some use for the Pacific War, where more compact guns were helpful, as well as in the hands of airborne troops.

While I wouldn't argue that the Garand isn't better for stopping power and accuracy, I really just wanted to point out the huge impact the Carbine had and how it related to OP's guidelines. The Carbine due to it being less cumbersome, helped win the war in the Pacific and held off the Germans from a rear attack, letting the Garand take care of the front-line. Nothing that size and weight was a better rifle. Under the guidelines OP has, I feel the Carbine should get some love.

I also didn't means to mislead people thinking that the M1 Carbine replaced the Garand. We all know that the *shiver* M14 did that. I just meant as far as importance.

 

[spartan231490]

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

Like what armies? Cuz I'm pretty sure the only ones who used recurve bows were armies that relied predominantly on cavalry where you can't use longbows, and it was the combination more than the recurve bow itself that lead to that efficiency. Kinda like the roman legion post a while back, it was the combination of cavalry, recurve bows to get the same power out of a shorter bow, and tactics that made it so effective, still, it definitely deserves an honorable mention at least.I believe the army that is most well known for light cavaly and recurve bows was either the mongols or the ottomon empire. Can't remember, world history was a long time ago, I just remember they would ride thier horses or whatever around you while you sank in the sand cuz of your armor and shot the hell out of you with arrows. Then again, that came from a history book, so it's prolly only 50/50 that it's accurate.

 

[Spookimitsu]

If we are going with historical, then I challenge:

10. - the fists
9. - the blade (short single handed edged weaponry, can be thrown I suppose)
8. - the sling
7. - the cudgel (the shillelagh, maces, maul, bats, other bashing implements found here)
6. - the Flail (oh that nice morning star, I would estimate pike-like implements would be comparable at this ranking)
5. - the short sword
4. - the axe
3. - the long sword (katana, if you like here, i like them too)
2. - The bow and arrow
1. - The polearm (spear or lance, call it what you like)

I realize this list may end up being situational, but I also tried to keep it simple

 

[Raesvelg]

For those looking to expand their knowledge of the sword as a weapon, I'd recommend "The Book of Swords" by Hank Reinhardt. Not overly in-depth, but a good read for the casual enthusiast. It puts a lot of the sword mythology, of all varieties, under scrutiny, and Hank did his own testing as often as not.

 

[zehydra]

Where is the atomic bomb?

 

[Private Custard]

OK, I'll try to create my list here and now, with no pre-planning......and in no particualer order.

The A-10

Spoiler

Seriously, it's basically a 20ft long, 7 barrelled, 30 cal. machine gun, firing at a rate of 4200 rounds per minute, with an exceptionally hardy airframe built around it.

A gun that requires an aircrafts engines to have a self combustion system to keep running during firing deserves to be on this list. If you're on the wrong end of this, your shit's ruined, and you won't have even heard the rounds coming.

Longbows

Turned the usually front-line targets into game-changing military powerhouses, stopping a sizeable portion of enemies before they ever got close. Massive range and serious power.

The Barrett M107

Hiding behind walls is no longer a safe choice!

Predators

Firing a hellfire straight into the enemies stronghold, while a pilot thousands of miles away sits at a computer...awesome!

Purely here for the techie-fan in me.

The catapult

Bored of the siege? Fancy getting even without having to suffer downward firing arrows and boiling oil? Use a catapult to wreak havok.

Also, catapults were the first weapon used for biological warfare. Diseased and rotting animal carcasses were flung into the enemies strongholds during sieges!

The V2

Yes I'm English. Yes, I think WWII was shitty. But there's no denying the chaos and fear caused by the V2. Up until that point there was ample warning as air raid sirens sounded and the cumbersome (but still deadly) bombers approached, or the tell-tale sound of the V1 (doodlebug) was heard.

Then the V2s started landing. No sirens, no warning. The worlds first long range combat-ballistic missile.



That's only six, I need to keep thinking!

 

[Terrik]

#1

Or not...

Sorry, I had to. Hate that fvcking thing...

 

[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.

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.

That's not exactly what I'm trying to say. I was saying that assuming someone did have the "two hands" ability and could wield them each separately that it would overall be a more efficient style. Also it's not unheard of for a swordsman to have a smaller blade (sometimes not even a blade, just a piece of metal) for the purposes of parrying an attack. This is different than what I've been trying to say however it does give some ground to my argument. The smaller blade was usually strictly for parrying an opponents attacks, however if the chance presented itself they have used it to strike, though usually it was just to create an opening for their longer, stronger blades to strike. The point is; it is a difficult thing, however it's not as impossible as you seem to be making it. For there are few things that a human cannot master given enough time. As grounds for that argument, there are people who break stone with their bare hands, and people who can preform immense and complicated calculations with little effort. With enough training, I'm fairly certain the 'two hands" concept is quite attainable, there just haven't been enough people who truly committed to the development of it's style, so most people would deffer to a more tried and true style, like the traditional sword and shield.

 

[MGlBlaze]

#1. The Katana: There is no such greater weapon than that which can feel as an extension of the person who's using it. In that light the katana as a sword, and a weapon is perfection. 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. Honestly I believe it is impossible to create a sword as perfect as the katana.

LindyBeige says it best;
The Katana is not that great. It's a decent sword, but there are many better examples I can think of. It was heavy for it's length, had a disproportionately long handle for it's length (which is the only reason it is agile) and it does NOT have a very good thrusting point.

 

[oppp7]

Why isn't the bow and arrow at #1? Seriously ok, that's it, I've used that word way too much lately. I'm cutting myself off.

Anyways, the bow has not only been a huge help to warfare, but it is one of the top hunting weapons of all time. And this was back when hunting mattered for a society to exist. Not to mention its legacy amoung nerds, which is even better than the katana.

Plus the a-bomb changed warfare, as someone else said.

 

[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.

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

Sure you can. Here's one of the simplest.

Step 1: Lay siege.
Step 2: Wait.

Rivers of military ink have been spilled on how to use time effectively. One of the first lessons military history teaches is that all of the world-wreaking armies became world-wreckers in part by improving the ability to command and control soldiers over distance, thus allowing them to break their opponents' ability to respond. For example, the Great Khan's most formidable weapon was his ability to command soldiers across his empire far faster than even local forces could respond. One of Napoleon's most important advantages was his creation of a small corps which was light, mobile, responsive, and most importantly able to act and respond to commands long before the more ponderous armies of Napoleon's time were able to respond. In modern militaries, you might refer to breaking an opponent's OODA loop, or basically acting and changing so fast he has no time to react and is functionally powerless. This is a principle of maneuver warfare.

On the flip side, waiting for an opponent to lose a key figure due to age or retirement, waiting for supplies to be consumed or expended, waiting for the home front to lose interest in an operation and demand withdrawal, waiting for complacency or low morale to settle in troops, waiting for a ruler to suffer a coup, and waiting for wind, weather, hunger, or disease to make your job easier (or do it for you) are all equally valid ways of claiming victory.

 

[sulld1]

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/Gau8a_a.jpg
4200 rpm
simple maths says thats 70 rounds a second
and a muzzle velocity of 3,500 ft/s
its so powerful that the kickback actually slows down the plane that uses it.

its scary pretty
Bear in mind their bullets bigger than your head. This will plough through tanks ^^

Funny thing is they made it burst fire because they were tired of picking the pilots teeth out of the planes dashboard whenever they pulled the trigger... or so i heard... it's one big gun


i would put the pike up there.... horseman beats footman.... give the footman a 10 metre pole with a metal spike on the end and HOLY **** he win every time.... arguably led the Macedons into forming the empire of alexander the great... and was the mainstay of the greek forces for a few years

 

[TerribleAssassin]

You have some good points, but a few factual errors that could use some attention.

This is my list anyway.

10. L85A2. Accurate, reliable and easy to function.
9. M1919 Browning. Not easily portable, but not to hard to port and adaptable for all needs.
8. Bow and Arrow. Very old, but used in the hands of a master, a deadly and efficient weapon.
7. Longsword. Simple but killer.
6. M16. A pinnacle in Assualt Rifles, both in design and damage.
5. Dagger. Once again, old, pre-historic, but useful for all situations.
4. Frag Grenade. Effective at removing threats non-lethelly.
3. Peacemaker. Had the best accuarcy, range and damage for it's time and still a base for most revolvers today.
2. M32 MGL. It's just so bad-ass.
1. Nuke. Fuck Special Op squads, a Fat Man does the trick.

 

[Souplex]

#1 The katana

Really?
Really.
Swords were historically among the least effective weapons. Stabbing is more effective than slashing. The katana is only good for slashing.
If you want "An extension of the body" go for the rapier.
Besides, of all melee weapons the Halberd was the most effective historically.
I blame bad Japanimes for the katana's popularity.

 

[Danny Ocean]

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.

I understand the fallaciousness of my argument; however, obvious logic doesn't apply to predictably to real life. Any kind of logical argument as to the nature of anything is inherently fallacious because we can't possible account for every person or occurrence that ever has been or ever will be. Does this mean all arguments are pointless? Of course not. That would be boring.

Practically speaking it's quite possible to deduce from a limited set of instances what the results of further occurrence of those variables will be. That's what the entirety of science is based on.

In this case, I am deducing from my knowledge of the usage of that particular phrase, that the usage of that particular phrase is indicative of societal problems or problems with the national conciousness. I do this because of all the times I've heard it bandied around, it's been during difficult cultural/socio-economic times, and didn't end well.

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."

Nah, this doesn't fly. If one country has weapons, it has to be willing to use them to crush its opposition, or else there is no threat. It requires activity to function as a threat.

Say a country has a number of super-high tech fighter jets, but no pilots who can fly them. What then? They have superior weapons, but can't deploy them. There is no threat there. All those planes are for nothing.

Think of all those scrawny kids who talk big at you, who say they're gonna fuck you up, but you just laugh it off, because you know that they're not going to do anything.

A threat is only a threat if people know you're going to follow through with it, so, once again:

Peace through superior firepower= Peace through victory.

Because a threat requires you to follow through.

But the point I'm trying to make, which you're deftly avoiding with walls of logic, is that saying stuff like that indicates there is something iffy with your point of view, based on what I know.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

#5. M1 Garand: ........ The Garand could essentially do everything an infantryman needed during the time of WWII.

Not 100% true. While the Garand was a great weapon, the M1 Carbine essentially replaced the Garand in terms of importance and became the most produced small arms weapon in American history. The Garand was too heavy for most troops that weren't on the front lines, and these "second-line" infantrymen were left with pistols. Winchester used Carbine Williams suggestions and placed a short-stroke piston system in place. The guns weighed under 6 pounds, were semi-automatic, and had great power and accuracy. MacArthur even accredited the guns for being a huge factor in the win in the Pacific.

Not so. The M1 Carbine was less accurate than the Garand, mainly because of its light weight. The weight wasn't really too much, seeing as how it was the standard service rifle, so it obviously wasn't phased out by a lighter weapon. Plus, the .30 Carbine is considerably less powerful than the full .30-06, though the Carbine did have some use for the Pacific War, where more compact guns were helpful, as well as in the hands of airborne troops.

While I wouldn't argue that the Garand isn't better for stopping power and accuracy, I really just wanted to point out the huge impact the Carbine had and how it related to OP's guidelines. The Carbine due to it being less cumbersome, helped win the war in the Pacific and held off the Germans from a rear attack, letting the Garand take care of the front-line. Nothing that size and weight was a better rifle. Under the guidelines OP has, I feel the Carbine should get some love.

I also didn't means to mislead people thinking that the M1 Carbine replaced the Garand. We all know that the *shiver* M14 did that. I just meant as far as importance.

Fair enough, though I think the M-14 deserves more love than you give it. **Wags finger**

 

[BoogieManFL]

Machine guns, tanks, planes, and missiles/rockets changed warfare forever. And cannons, catapults and trebuchets helped make the mighty castle obsolete.

But if you're thinking just something one person wields then surely things like the sling, club, and spear should be great as they were among the earliest weapons devised by humans and gave us the ability to hunt more dangerous prey, expand our numbers, and of course kill each other..

 

[Starke]

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.

And the Romans did. During sieges they'd lob corpses into towns. Making them, to my recollection, the first to use biological weapons.

 

[DaemonicShadow]

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.

And the Romans did. During sieges they'd lob corpses into towns. Making them, to my recollection, the first to use biological weapons.

Good ol' Romans, always one step ahead.
Personally I believe that as a weapon the Luger PO8 should be high up on the list, as it is one of the most iconic weapons of WW2 and was also a pretty good pistol to boot.