Worst Weapon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, no, you just need a few more plates, like this.

You guys already yell "exterminate", and mindlessly follow any order, so you're 99% of the way to perfection

Seriously, you have a good point about the slowing down of the squad. Maybe I should disqualify the York DIVAD since it was barely fielded (but if it had been, it would have slowed down the armor units... it was an overloaded M48 chassis).
Click to expand...

LOL Daleks :D

The part in full metal jacket where the narrative is "the marine corps does not want robots, the marine corps wants killers" is completely bass ackwards. The marine corps wants EZ interface programmable robots (insofar as grunts are concerned).

Now, I wouldn't say I lack the critical thought to obey every order with instant obedience. The marine corps hasn't taken my thought away yet, but If ever there becomes an official MOS for "military thought police", then that is the day I will indeed file a formal request to have a chat with my commanding officer.
 
The M-1873 Springfield Carbine, it jams, and three words: Custer's last stand.
Click to expand...

Need to bone up on your forensic history. Custer's boys didn't have to deal with jammed carbines,

The trapdoor only tended to jam after the barrel and chamber were over-heated, which generally takes 10 to 12 rounds if fired rapidly enough. Most evidence suggests they didn't last that long.

That's what happens when good troops are led by tactical idiots and political hacks.
 
the beretta that replaced the superior 1911, biggest mistake made by far
 
I dunno.... I'd put my vote in for the Mk19. The thing is too damn ammo sensetive, too heavy, useless on a tripod, and breaks too easy.
Click to expand...

Oh man we loved the Mk19. Nothing sweeter than watching a string of 25 grenades smack an unsuspecting target.

jw
 
"Oh man we loved the Mk19. Nothing sweeter than watching a string of 25 grenades smack an unsuspecting target.'
After 1/2 second NOBODY in a 1.5 mile radius would be unsuspecting after the 1 grenade went bang.
My Grandfather told me the soap bubbles stopped coming out of his ears after 10 years out, my Dad said it only took him 5. They both were lying, till the day the died they were both still USMC brainwashed.:evil:
 
My vote goes to the Osprey as well, even though it has not really a weapon, per se, and even though it has yet to make it out of testing.

As for the M249, my experience as a machinegunner was that the riflemen didn't get proper training on it (or didn't listen) and just flat didn't shoot the thing right. My experience was that you could roll 8 to 10 shot bursts out of the thing all day, if you knew how to gauge an 8 to 10 round burst, which, as a machinegunner, I did. If not, you essentially ended up shortstroking it, and troubles abounded.
 
I've gotta back up Default and stick up for the TBD. It was well-liked by those who flew it, and as long as they weren't caught away from their escorts it was a solid machine.

It had pretty good defensive armament for a light bomber; if I got caught flat-footed I would rather be in a TBD than a SBD, Aichi D3A or the Nakajima B5N, or the Ju-87.

Two rear dorsal .50 positions and a rear ventral .30 beats a single rear 7.7mm or .30. As Default pointed out, the Japanese 7.7mm weren't even belt-fed (97 round drums or 30 round strips)!
 
The 1899 revolver in .38 long Colt, didn't do too well against the Spaniards in Cuba, nor against the Moros in the Phillippines, nor during the Boxer rebellion in China........
 
Last edited:
Another vote for the Osprey. How many billions have been spent on a platform that never actually made it out of testing?
 
Why do you not like the V-22? True, it had a difficult development, but so did a lot of aircraft. The F-4 went through all sorts of teething pains before it became a "classic".

Besides, if it were easy to develop the enemy would have it...
 
Several suggestions and comments.

I believe the worst weapon the US ever deployed was the M4 Sherman Tank.
Our allies the Brits had a name for it. ZIPPO. They burned easily, why? Because when most everyone else was making diesel powered tanks, We were building medium tanks with weak armor, compared to our enemy, and fueled them with gas. Gas explodes with a spark near the fumes, diesel doesn't.

They thought we could make enough of the Sherman's to over whelm German Armor. IT worked, as long as you were not the recon tank used to draw fire.

One guy named the M14 on Full Auto. I don't believe the average rifle man needs full auto capability. We are not allowed by the OP to put the spot light on the Matty Mattel so I will stop this part.

The ONTOS was one of the few weapons that worked very well for us in HUE. In all other actions I saw the ONTOS used in was defensive perimeter situations where it was dug in and used as direct support.

As to the Dragon, That came in long after I was out of service. But remember it was a first generation type weapon. Poorly executed, but it led to good anti Armor weapons. I am glad no American troops had to deploy it Particularly against massed ComBloc Armor.

I think we should be still using the ole' 3.5 rocket launcher. We got the LAWS. Not bad for bunkers and such, but I sure did not want to HAVE to use it against Soviet Armor.

Great set of opinions.

Good Luck.

Fred
 
As to the Dragon, That came in long after I was out of service. But remember it was a first generation type weapon. Poorly executed, but it led to good anti Armor weapons. I am glad no American troops had to deploy it Particularly against massed ComBloc Armor.
Click to expand...
Actually it wasn't a first generation AAW. It was at least second generation. The first generation weapons required the missile to be flown like an RC plane, using a joystick. Examples include the Soviet Swatter, Snapper and Sagger. Compared to them, the Dragon was a real advance, albeit still a piece of crap.
 
Actually it wasn't a first generation AAW. It was at least second generation. The first generation weapons required the missile to be flown like an RC plane, using a joystick. Examples include the Soviet Swatter, Snapper and Sagger. Compared to them, the Dragon was a real advance, albeit still a piece of crap.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, a better piece of crap.

That is the nature of weapons developement of NEW weapons type, in this case "Guided Personal Anti Armor missle/rocket". They hopefully improve with each new generation. But as pointed out with the Dragon, a fundamentally flawed design, will always be fundamentally flawed. A totally new design is needed.

RE: fundamentally flawed designs. This is where I don't bring up the Matty Mattel per the OP's original instructions.

Good luck

Fred
 
1873 rifles and carbines were not bad weapons, at least for their time. It was the US government's insistence on using copper cases instead of brass for mass produced ammo. The copper often wouldn't "spring back" after firing like brass, for lack of a better phrase. The trapdoors extracter would tear the rim off the case, meaning the rifle was out of service until the offending case could be picked out with a knife or the cleaning rod (which were issued with broken case extracters), resulting in dead soldiers. The defeat at the Little Big Horn was not the fault of the rifle.

+1 for the M-4 Sherman, BTW
 
One of the worst concepts the army adopted was the use of tank destroyers during World War II. This impaired the development of true killer tanks, tanks specifically designed to combat other tanks. That idiotic doctrine resulted in too many Allied losses and, thank God, it did not survive the end of the war.


Timthinker
 
One of the worst concepts the army adopted was the use of tank destroyers during World War II. This impaired the development of true killer tanks, tanks specifically designed to combat other tanks. That idiotic doctrine resulted in too many Allied losses and, thank God, it did not survive the end of the war.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between a "Tank Destroyer" and a "Killer Tank"?
 
The Brewster Buffalo was the worst fighter aircraft fielded by the USN and Marines. The USS Macon was the worst weapon, a dirigible that carried a fighter wing.

Ash
 
Tank destroyers were lightly armoured tracked vehicles that carried a gun big enough to knock out a tank, but were a very vulnerable vehicle, it'a my understanding that they existed because they were cheaper to make (or lose in battle) and could be made quicker. the m-4 sherman's gun just wasn't much up to the job of killing other tanks, but it was a good infantry support vehicle. a "killer tank" would today be called a M.B.T. main battle tank, a tank that is up to about any task, from tank battles to infantry support on a strong point assault. but i was just an 03 so I may have my facts a bit skewed. I'm sure there are some old tanker in this forum, what's ya'll's take on it?
 
oh, I don't know the designation of it but my vote goes to the rocket launching pistol. That thing was a peice of crap, the ammo would corkscrew if you were lucky, it more than likely wouldn't detonate on impact, and you could stop the projectile but putting your thumb over the barrel (think muzzle velocity slower than a bottle rocket)
 
Strangelittleman, good summary. In World War II, the German Tiger and Panther tanks were killers because their main gun could meet and defeat their enemies. Sadly, the Shermans could not engage the frontal armor of their enemies at long range. One possible exception was the British Sherman Firefly with its 17 pounder cannon. Unfortunately, too few of these models were produced.


Timthinker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
The Army wants to draft R2-D2.....
Replies
23
Views
1K
WolfDog
W
D
  • Locked
Soldiers need 'precision-guided' pistols?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Farnham
F
P
  • Locked
Laser weapons are getting closer to reality
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
HankB
H
D
  • Locked
Toymakers Study Troops, And Vice Versa
Replies
2
Views
424
blades67
B
2
  • Locked
timeless military advice,,,
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
SMLE
S
Back
Top