Worst Weapon?

I believe the proper disparagement was "Ronson" lighter.

Click to expand...

From their ads:

"Lights the first time, everytime." IIRC it was the Germans that referred to them as Ronson's.....

The Brewster Buffalo was the worst fighter aircraft fielded by the USN and Marines.

Click to expand...

Yet it was used by both sides. How's that for irony?

I have wondered how the V-22 will do when the 5,000 psi hydraulics take a hit. My understanding is that the kind of violent maneuvers required for an airborne strike were avoided during testing. I could be wrong of course.

Chieftain, The problem with the M4 Sherman "brewing up" was addressed and solved in 1943. It was NOT the fuel, it was the main gun ammo load.

By the Summer of 1943, the list of required modifications for the Shermans, resulting from battle experience as well as from development and test programs, had greatly increased. Among the improvements the wet stowage for ammunition was adopted for reducing the risk of fire in case the tank was hit on the less armored sides (ammo was normally dry stowed in the tank sponsons).

On the 75mm and 76mm tanks the ammunition was relocatd from the sponsons to water protected racks below the turret. Ten boxes on the hull floor held 100 75mm round and required 37.1 gallons of water. An additional gallon protected the 4 round ready stack on the turret floor. In the 76mm gun tanks, the ammunition also was located on the hull floor with 30 rounds on one side of the drive shaft and 35 on the other. These containers held a total of 34.5 gallons of water. The 6 ready rounds were carried in a box on the turret floor filled with another 2.1 gallons. To prevent freezing during cold weather, water solutions of ethylene glycol were frequently used in wet stowage racks, while corrosion inibitors (e.g: Ammudamp) were added to water to avoid problems with rust.

The Marines did have diesel powered Shermans. It was easier to get diesel from the Navy than gasoline!
ALL German tanks were gasoline powered, mostly by Maybach V8 or V12. The Russian tanks were diesel powered, as it was easier to refine diesel than gasoline.

The Sherman was NEVER designed to fight other tanks. It was devoloped as a breakthru weapon. It was fast, highly manuverable and carried enough weapons to raised havoc BEHIND enemy lines. It was also extremly reliable.It could be built rapidly, using existing assembly lines.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Well, we didn't issue it, but the Matilda 1 was the worst tank ever built. Armed with a machine gun and barely faster than running infantry, the British were blessed by having them virtually knocked out at Dunkirk. Alas, the crews of that abysmal tank were not blessed.

Ash

M10 Tank Destroyer. It was the size of a Sherman with an open-topped turret and less armor. One grenadier with a good arm could take one out with a regular "potato-masher," yet it was supposed to be a "tank destroyer."

I also agree that the Dragon was a POS, because our infantry folks would rather have one of my tanks handle another tank than use one even on maneuvers.

The Brewster Buffalo and the Douglas TBD Devastator were not bad aircraft; they were obsolescent. There is a big difference.

The MV-22 is too new to make a determination.

ECS

OK I just checked, True the 1873 did not cause the failure at bighorn (that was all Custer there) but the guns did jam under fire and they jammed there at bighorn, the vets knew this and held back but they younger guys opened up and they started jamming out, IMO it was a stupid idea of they army (well it was the cheap route) to take some of the muskets and mod them out for the trap door design.

As far as worst aircraft ever - it's right there with the Air Cobra I think

Click to expand...

You might want to read up on how the Ruskkis used the P-39 for ground attack. They seemed to like it a lot.
Though, granted as a fighter it was basicly a failure.

NukemJim

The P39's (or P400's) had such a poor rate of climb, that the Japanese could attack and be on their way out by the time the Airacobra's were at altitude.

Ash

The problem with the 1873 Trapdoor was not the rifle, it was the design of the ammo. The "folded head" cases were made of soft copper, and when the chamber fouled with black powder residue the case stuck. The Trapdoor has a very strong extractor and would rip the rim off of the case! Military manuals of the day recomended the trooper carry a folding knife, to be used to pry the casing out of the chamber!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

PS: Custer was an example of someone who carried more rank than he could handle!

I have wondered how the V-22 will do when the 5,000 psi hydraulics take a hit. My understanding is that the kind of violent maneuvers required for an airborne strike were avoided during testing. I could be wrong of course.

Click to expand...

The V-22 is no worse off than a H-60 if the HYD goes out.. You lose HYD in a 60, you die. Period. Same for -53, -47, and -46s.

And I have seen V-22s do some wicked stuff.

You guys jump on the V-22, but it is villified by the media. Half the reason it has taken so damn long is that its funding kept on getting cut to pay for F-22, F-35, etc for the last 20 years.

The V-22 is probably 8 years of R&D stretched over 25 years due to budgeting.

I am an ex Navy H-60 pilot who knows quite a few V-22 pilots. I am still active duty, but retraining to fly E-2 and C-2..

You lose HYD in most any aircraft bigger than a OH-58, and you are screwed. Fixed wing, helo or tiltrotor.

Prof. A. Wickwire--I'm with you on the 'Davey Crocket'--an atomic cannon mounted on the M38a1 (progenitor of the CJ-5).

Good article with a survior in private hands here;
http://www.m38a1.com/Models/models_nuclear.htm

(No disrespect intended to the m38a1---we have one in our garage--no atomic cannon however).

Who knows how the Bell P-39 would have performed with a Merlin in place of the Allison that limited it's rate of climb and ceiling, or perhaps with a turbocharged Allison that would have allowed it to carry horsepower similar to the P-38 engines to high altitudes? The P-322 Lighting I (P-38 exported to Great Britain without turbochargers or counter-rotating propellers) was pitiful, too. The P-51A with Allison engine was NOT the aircraft that the later marks with the Merlin were, however, as the A-36 (a P-51A with dive brakes), armed with 20mm cannon in the wings, it, too, was a hell of a ground attack aircraft.

ECS

Oneshooter you are right sorry I didn't get the gist of it, If we go international the UK had a weapon worse than the original SA80, allow me if you will to tell the tale of "invasion pikes", during WW2 these pikes made out of shaped steel were just that pikes.....for the home guard.... the idea was you guessed it take on the enemy with these I see why it was home guard who had them, that group there spawned several other bad weapons like:

The Molotov cocktail launcher (explodes on firing)

The Sticky grenade for tanks (stuck to more users than tanks, ouch)

Long story short people who came up with these were high on ideas but poor with workmanship, or in the case of invasion pikes didn't realize it was the
20th century.

I would think that the 1.65" artillery piece would rank right up there. I hate questions that have exceptions...in this case the M-16. On another forum the five best semi auto pistols (excluding the 1911 style pistol). Having exceptions is like saying: I already know the answer, what do you think might also be appropriate. Why not ask what is second best or worst?

"Who knows how the Bell P-39 would have performed with a Merlin in place of the Allison"

We do know, it was called the P-63 King Cobra and it had the Packard-built Merlin in it. The Army Air Force determined it to be inferior to the P-51, and so the P-63's went to the Soviet Union. That does not make it a bad design, and had it been so designed at the start, it may have eclipsed other designs. By the time the Mustang came out, the King Cobra was just not quite as good. But short range remained a problem with the design.

The Brewster was not a good plane and was surplussed almost immediately after the Navy took possession of it. That the Finns made such good use of it is due as much to their own ingenuity as to the fact that they stripped it of all the Naval equipment and lightened it considerably. In its Navy guise, it was an under-powered woefully armed fighter. Even in Finnish stripped-down guise, it was not as good as the P-40, the Brewster's contemporary, and was woefully inferior to the naval fighters of Japan. It was undoubtably the worst US fighter of the war, and wasn't a good fighter when it was introduced.

Of course, the one caveat is that the Brewster did perform well for the Finns when modified. That Brewsters were credited with downing Soviet Hurricanes demonstrates only the tenacity and skills of the Finnish pilots and not any kind of positive comparison against he Hurricane. All the same, the record of the Brewster must, begrudgingly, be positive when viewed in its entire service.

BUT, in US service with the Naval equipment necessary for carrier operations, it was a terrible plane the day it was introduced.

Of course, this brings me to another terrible weapon introduced, and that was the F7U Cutlass, which was so terribly underpowered that the pilots called it the "Gutless" and complained that Westinghouse built toasters which generated more heat than their jets at the time.

Ash

And I have seen V-22s do some wicked stuff.

You guys jump on the V-22, but it is villified by the media. Half the reason it has taken so damn long is that its funding kept on getting cut to pay for F-22, F-35, etc for the last 20 years.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected... my apologies.

The V-22 is no worse off than a H-60 if the HYD goes out.. You lose HYD in a 60, you die. Period. Same for -53, -47, and -46s.

And I have seen V-22s do some wicked stuff.

You guys jump on the V-22, but it is villified by the media. Half the reason it has taken so damn long is that its funding kept on getting cut to pay for F-22, F-35, etc for the last 20 years.

The V-22 is probably 8 years of R&D stretched over 25 years due to budgeting.

I am an ex Navy H-60 pilot who knows quite a few V-22 pilots. I am still active duty, but retraining to fly E-2 and C-2..

You lose HYD in most any aircraft bigger than a OH-58, and you are screwed. Fixed wing, helo or tiltrotor.

Click to expand...

Once again, informed opinion is at odds with what we're seeing in the media. Thank you for the information.

Of course, the one caveat is that the Brewster did perform well for the Finns when modified. That Brewsters were credited with downing Soviet Hurricanes demonstrates only the tenacity and skills of the Finnish pilots and not any kind of positive comparison against he Hurricane. All the same, the record of the Brewster must, begrudgingly, be positive when viewed in its entire service.

Click to expand...

It also demonstrates the destruction wrought upon the Soviet armed forces by their own commander in chief.

Stalin took a flawed, but highly innovative and motivated military establishment and turned it into a quivering mass of terrorized yes-men. The Soviet military is credited with the first combat airborne operation. They had the first operational retractible landing gear monoplane fighter. They pioneered modern armored operations. They were one of the first to issue large numbers of semi-automatic rifles. Then they were decapitated. The Soviet armed forces took tens of thousands of casualties without a single gunshot from a foreign enemy.

The result was the humiliation in Finland and the catastrophe of 1941. Even the victory at Nomonhan was somewhat muted by the inexperience and ineptitude of lower echelon leaders promoted WAY beyond their experience and training.

If Roosevelt had treated the US military the way Stalin treated its Soviet counterpart, I might be typing this in kanji.

I'm gonna go with the Davy Crockett.

A "smaller" tactical Nuke two guys launch from the back of a Jeep and hope to heaven the wind doesn't shift or the jeep doesn't stall or get a flat tire after you pull the trigger.

The scariest part, it was deployed and left in the hands of field commanders with the only checks in the system at the time that they had to receive Pentagon authorization to fire the weapon. No codes or interlock devices, just a verbal OK.

"General Bull Turgidson" comes to mind every time I think about it.

I'm gonna go with the Davy Crockett.

A "smaller" tactical Nuke two guys launch from the back of a Jeep and hope to heaven the wind doesn't shift or the jeep doesn't stall or get a flat tire after you pull the trigger.

Click to expand...

When I was at IOBC in '80, our class went to the Infantry Museum. They had a display of a couple of Davy Crocketts. A couple of the older prior service guys had been Davy Crockett crewmen. They said that they were trained to dig a firing position and launch the weapon by lanyard. Oddly, they had little confidence in the system, referring to it as the first "fire and forget" weapon's system... fire it and forget the CREW.

My only problem with the SAW was the magazine feed function. In theory it is a cool idea but the springs are not strong enough to make this reliable I never used a magazine in it out of basic training so I guess it really wasn't a problem. I have a couple friends that are going to Iraq in Jan, one had already been there and does not like the saw, not the greatest weapon for entering buildings and such.

The US Army Colt 38 long. It was enemic!!! Steve48