Top ten greatest weapons in history

[New Vegas Samurai]

I'd like to point out that if the world had access to completely fictional weapons then I'd have to go with a gun that shoots shurikens and lightning and had tits and was on fire...

as for a real weapon in the real world

.44 magnum

completely inefficient, unwieldly, large, counfounding and overall too impractical...

But scares the living shit out of anything cognitive and has a full understanding at just how powerful this menacing machine is and always will be...

though dirty harry was wielding a .357 at the time, I'd think the line sticks...

"now tell me... was it 5 or 6?"

 

[NeutralDrow]

No mention of the humble spear?

It's easy to make and has defensive and offensive applications...I would honestly put it in the top 3 in my list.

Some of us are also enlightened.

Honestly, I'd actually put the spear ahead of the ax. They have similar levels of survival utility, but they're even easier to make ("sharp thing on a stick" construction; unless you're counting "edged rock held in hand" as an ax, of course), easier to train people to use, easier to use in massed combat, greater range, and probably even have more methods of attack. This includes several methods of stabbing, obviously, but also swinging (with the right spearhead), bashing (it's basically a staff, after all), and throwing (barring the francisca and tomahawk, not something most axes have). Hell, spears are technically still used today, if you count bayonet combat.

 

[Raesvelg]

GAU-8 Armor penetration:

* 69 mm at 500 meters
* 38 mm at 1000 meters

Frontal armor of a T-90 is something like 600mm.

Yes... Which is why you don't shoot at the front of the tank. You're above it, in a shallow dive, and you shoot at the top of the tank with a couple hundred high velocity shards of fiery armor-piercing death.

The gun kills tanks quite effectively. Tanks, by necessity, cannot armor the entirety of the hull and turret with the same level of protection as the front of the tank. They'd be basically immobile if they tried. So they make sacrifices, mostly to top and rear armor, on the justification that if you're getting shot from behind you're already pretty screwed, and that other things (like fighters) can be covering you from the top.

Of course, in the age of smart munitions, it's getting harder to protect the top of the tank than it used to be.

 

[maturin]

Yes... Which is why you don't shoot at the front of the tank. You're above it, in a shallow dive, and you shoot at the top of the tank with a couple hundred high velocity shards of fiery armor-piercing death.

The gun kills tanks quite effectively. Tanks, by necessity, cannot armor the entirety of the hull and turret with the same level of protection as the front of the tank. They'd be basically immobile if they tried. So they make sacrifices, mostly to top and rear armor, on the justification that if you're getting shot from behind you're already pretty screwed, and that other things (like fighters) can be covering you from the top.

Of course, in the age of smart munitions, it's getting harder to protect the top of the tank than it used to be.

Even rear armor on an old T-72 is going to be equivalent to 40mm RHA, and portions of the top turret will be thicker than this. And the penetration values are not only very short range, they are at 90 degree angle of incidence. If the A-10 is in a shallow dive, as you put it, then most of the AP rounds are going to end up glancing off the surface of the the armor, and will have greater thickness to chew through if they do pierce the surface.

That's why the A-10 is only considered (by an Air Force review panel, by the way) effective against modern MBTs if it has sufficiently safe skies to perform high angle dives. This risky behavior requires air superiority and a battlefield without much in the way of AA. For this reason, the A-10 was slated to be retired because of the inefficiency of its gun as an anti-tank weapon. They kept it for general close air support purposes because the gun is still murder on APCs, infantry and everything else on the planet. But they slapped those Maverick ATGMs on the wings for a reason, you know.

The GAU-8 can take out tanks, but that's not likely to mean catastrophic kills or even much in the way of armor penetration. The A-10 is more likely to destroy the treads, optics, periscopes, exterior weapons and communications systems, put holes in the engine and knock out the turret. Probably give the crew a royal headache as well, assuming they don't end up with 30mm rounds through the hatch.

But you could do it all faster, safer and more reliably with any good old missile system (Maverick, Hellfire, Tow, Javelin), and without depleted uranium contamination to boot.

 

[Private Custard]

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

In reality, the recoil force is only (can't believe I said only!) slightly more powerful than the output of just one of the A-10s engines. The speed loss isn't too great.

But, gunsmoke is oxygen-free, and the GAU-8 produces a shitload of it. This is where the problems started. Problems that were fixed by developing a self-combustion system for the A-10s engines so they can keep going when drowned in the output of this, among the most awesome of machine guns!

 

[Dyp100]

You're just trolling us, aren't you?

Putting the Katana as 1# is a good 8/10 on the rage meter.

The Katana is a pretty crappy weapon made from poor materials, like most slashing weapon only good at killing unarmoured opponents.

Really, put it as 1# for it's cultural significance, not because it's a good weapon. (Because it's not.)

 

[Raesvelg]

The GAU-8 can take out tanks, but that's not likely to mean catastrophic kills or even much in the way of armor penetration. The A-10 is more likely to destroy the treads, optics, periscopes, exterior weapons and communications systems, put holes in the engine and knock out the turret. Probably give the crew a royal headache as well, assuming they don't end up with 30mm rounds through the hatch.

The entire existence of the A-10 on the modern battlefield is predicated on the idea of total air superiority; that much should be taken as a given. And yes, the missile is a longer-ranged, arguably more effective (depending on the target and what kind of anti-missile defenses they have, of course) weapon.

But the gun kills tanks. Even reasonably modern tanks. And ironically, given the nature of the system itself, is almost ideal for taking out the tanks we'd be most likely to field them against; Soviet-designed vehicles, heavily reliant on reactive armor for defense. A mission kill is good enough for government work.

 

[thedoclc]

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.

...except for, you know, India and Pakistan.

You realize that only nine or ten states have nuclear capability, right? And that the ones who have been in a position to engage in warfare have had no problems finding non-nuclear forces willing to fight against them? The US and Russia never really stopped fighting through the second half of the 20th century, Britain and France sat on their asses (barring NATO), China was too busy destroying itself from the inside-out (during Mao) and encouraging economic growth (post-Mao), and North Korea doesn't know what the hell its doing, anyway.

My statement, that conventional warfare between nuclear armed nations has never happened, is correct. India and Pakistan have engaged in conventional warfare three times since their independence and tragic division (nice job, Britain), but they have not engaged in it since becoming nuclear powers. I never said nuclear nations had not been to war.

That is where nuclear arms have changed warfare. Throughout the history of the West, warfare between the dominant powers has been a generational event. This trend ended in the Cold War. Post WWII Europe was an entirely unstable equilibrium when only conventional weapons were considered. The position of the USSR's forces and their dominance in power over the NATO defense was nearly complete. The response - deploying tactical and strategic arms with orders to use them should the Soviets invade - kept a very tense and very dangerous equilibrium. However, this was a complete departure from the norm of the last few centuries of Europe, where invasions happened with almost clockwork regularity. The scene shifted from endless wars of attrition of the dominant powers to a stand-off and lots of proxy fighting, of which Afghanistan in the 70's and Vietnam just before were only the most famous. That was an immense strategic shift.

MAD may have worked during the Cold War, but the main reason stockpiles kept developing post-Cuban Missile Crisis was due to paranoia and industries with vested interests in their construction. Nukes are a security liability today.

Nuclear arms beyond the point of having definitive second strike capacity make no sense in the doctrine of MAD, but that does not at all alter the points I made. Yes, wasted money. Agreed. The reasoning still stands. Whether the reasons can be so quickly brushed aside as paranoia and vested interests I'd rather not comment on, since that seems to be dismissive of the complexities. After all, neither power really knew precisely what the other had or could do.

I do agree that nuclear nations are a threat to stability, but mostly due to the ability for the situation to turn cataclysmic and for the lack of restraint on these nations. As Soviet and US stockpiles grew, the US and USSR began to establish norms in the game and better checks on each other. This is unlikely to happen as the speed of proliferation and the number of actors with such weapons increases.

Not to mention, say what you will, the US, NATO, and USSR seem much more rational than some of the extremist elements in Pyongyang, Tehran, and Islamabad.

 

[NeutralDrow]

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.

...except for, you know, India and Pakistan.

You realize that only nine or ten states have nuclear capability, right? And that the ones who have been in a position to engage in warfare have had no problems finding non-nuclear forces willing to fight against them? The US and Russia never really stopped fighting through the second half of the 20th century, Britain and France sat on their asses (barring NATO), China was too busy destroying itself from the inside-out (during Mao) and encouraging economic growth (post-Mao), and North Korea doesn't know what the hell its doing, anyway.

My statement, that conventional warfare between nuclear armed nations has never happened, is correct. India and Pakistan have engaged in conventional warfare three times since their independence and tragic division (nice job, Britain), but they have not engaged in it since becoming nuclear powers.

Hehehe...<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor>no, not really.

That is where nuclear arms have changed warfare.

snip

I'm starting to see what you were talking about ("greatest" in the sense that they changed quite a bit, however briefly, not that they're actually useful today).

Although it's interesting to ponder what may have happened if the US and USSR had confronted each other directly, rather than engage in destabilizing shadow and proxy wars for fifty years.

I do agree that nuclear nations are a threat to stability, but mostly due to the ability for the situation to turn cataclysmic and for the lack of restraint on these nations. As Soviet and US stockpiles grew, the US and USSR began to establish norms in the game and better checks on each other. This is unlikely to happen as the speed of proliferation and the number of actors with such weapons increases.

If you're worried about nuclear states increasing, your concern is misplaced. As many states have given up nuclear weapons and nuke programs as there are actual nuclear states, and half the world is currently comprised of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (with another one in discussion in the Middle East, <url=http://library.gcc-sg.org/English/Books/sessions/cs027.html>pushed by the GCC).

Also, your concern about states being irresponsible with nuclear weapons is misplaced. They're not the problem. Kim Jongun knows better than to use nukes for anything (even if he's lying about being less militaristic than his father), India and Pakistan don't have any targets other than each other, Israel's enemies are too close for safe use even if they did want to commit political suicide, Iran's most likely not developing nukes at all, and the big five aren't enemies of each other militarily. They're not the problem; non-state actors are.

In fact, considering the deathgrip those less "rational" nations keep on their stockpiles, the bigger danger is that someone will steal something from Russia.

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

sticks and stones

first to kill a man

last to kill a man

 

[maturin]

The entire existence of the A-10 on the modern battlefield is predicated on the idea of total air superiority; that much should be taken as a given.

Which is why the plane was almost retired when the brass realized how silly that was for a Cold War weapon.

And yes, the missile is a longer-ranged, arguably more effective (depending on the target and what kind of anti-missile defenses they have, of course) weapon.

If the tank has something that will shoot down supersonic missiles, for heaven's sake don't send a plane in there, especially one that flies marginally faster than a WWII fighter.

 

[thedoclc]

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.

...except for, you know, India and Pakistan.

You realize that only nine or ten states have nuclear capability, right? And that the ones who have been in a position to engage in warfare have had no problems finding non-nuclear forces willing to fight against them? The US and Russia never really stopped fighting through the second half of the 20th century, Britain and France sat on their asses (barring NATO), China was too busy destroying itself from the inside-out (during Mao) and encouraging economic growth (post-Mao), and North Korea doesn't know what the hell its doing, anyway.

My statement, that conventional warfare between nuclear armed nations has never happened, is correct. India and Pakistan have engaged in conventional warfare three times since their independence and tragic division (nice job, Britain), but they have not engaged in it since becoming nuclear powers.

Hehehe...<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor>no, not really.

I stand corrected, but one exception does not prove a rule. Thank you for pointing this instance out; I was under the impression that it had been almost entirely fought with proxy militants on the part of the Pakistanis. However after some reading, this war still looks far, far different from industrialized, early 20th century warfare with full mobilization.

That is where nuclear arms have changed warfare.

snip

I'm starting to see what you were talking about ("greatest" in the sense that they changed quite a bit, however briefly, not that they're actually useful today).

Today's world of regional, low-intensity conflicts exists in part because large scale, third-generation warfare between great powers had become too destructive to be endured, in no small part because of nuclear arms. In other words, these weapons in part defined conflict in the late 20th century by preventing the types of punch-ups that occured from the birth of the modern nation-state until about 1945.

The original point was that the OP said the ICBM was disqualified for having never been used. I'd argued it could be powerfully argued that having them sit in their silos, scaring the crap out of everyone, is exactly the preferred method of use of any nuclear arm. Deterrence is a form of use.

Although it's interesting to ponder what may have happened if the US and USSR had confronted each other directly, rather than engage in destabilizing shadow and proxy wars for fifty years.

I'd replace "interesting" with "horrific." As bad as these conflicts were, direct confrontation would have been far, far worse. It's a nice thought exercise for the morbid.

The OP's criteria were what had the biggest impact in their time and place as well as were crewed by a single person. Relaxing that third restriction makes nuclear arms, the airplane, armor units, artillery, and the aircraft carrier serious contenders for top spots.

I do agree that nuclear nations are a threat to stability, but mostly due to the ability for the situation to turn cataclysmic and for the lack of restraint on these nations. As Soviet and US stockpiles grew, the US and USSR began to establish norms in the game and better checks on each other. This is unlikely to happen as the speed of proliferation and the number of actors with such weapons increases.

If you're worried about nuclear states increasing, your concern is misplaced. As many states have given up nuclear weapons and nuke programs as there are actual nuclear states, and half the world is currently comprised of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (with another one in discussion in the Middle East, <url=http://library.gcc-sg.org/English/Books/sessions/cs027.html>pushed by the GCC).

This is quite a straw man of what I said, especially since Iran is an obvious exception. Please don't edit something down into a straw man.

Someone most certainly believes Iran is intending to develop nuclear arms. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_iran1228_12_10.asp Whether or not Iran is blaming the correct parties is obviously not something we can answer here.

Also, your concern about states being irresponsible with nuclear weapons is misplaced. They're not the problem. Kim Jongun knows better than to use nukes for anything (even if he's lying about being less militaristic than his father), India and Pakistan don't have any targets other than each other, Israel's enemies are too close for safe use even if they did want to commit political suicide, Iran's most likely not developing nukes at all, and the big five aren't enemies of each other militarily. They're not the problem; non-state actors are.

In fact, considering the deathgrip those less "rational" nations keep on their stockpiles, the bigger danger is that someone will steal something from Russia.

Non-state actors are a threat due to the possibility of nuclear terrorism, and India's other big rival - militarily, economically, and politically - is China. Israel's enemies include quite a few nations which are well outside of the range they need to use smaller, 1 megaton arms, most notably Iran. State actors are one threat, of course. Furthermore, these states have not quite the deathgrip you think. http://www.hvk.org/articles/0305/63.html

Ironically, we mostly agree. The potential for non-state actors to acquire arms from Russia is like a meteor strike; low probability, devastating pay-off. However, this further argues for inclusion at or near the top of the list for "changed everything." If these weapons could be acquired by non-state groups, it opens up the possibility of very real strategic attacks on the part of non-state actors beyond assassinations. And that's a scary change.

While I'd like to continue the discussion, my original point, "Nukes made large scale 3rd Generation warfare between the great powers extremely rare," still stands. We may disagree on particulars.

 

[KissofKetchup]

Greek Fire. It's how the Byzantine Empire lasted so long

 

[NeutralDrow]

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.

...except for, you know, India and Pakistan.

You realize that only nine or ten states have nuclear capability, right? And that the ones who have been in a position to engage in warfare have had no problems finding non-nuclear forces willing to fight against them? The US and Russia never really stopped fighting through the second half of the 20th century, Britain and France sat on their asses (barring NATO), China was too busy destroying itself from the inside-out (during Mao) and encouraging economic growth (post-Mao), and North Korea doesn't know what the hell its doing, anyway.

My statement, that conventional warfare between nuclear armed nations has never happened, is correct. India and Pakistan have engaged in conventional warfare three times since their independence and tragic division (nice job, Britain), but they have not engaged in it since becoming nuclear powers.

Hehehe...<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor>no, not really.

I stand corrected, but one exception does not prove a rule. Thank you for pointing this instance out; I was under the impression that it had been almost entirely fought with proxy militants on the part of the Pakistanis. However after some reading, this war still looks far, far different from industrialized, early 20th century warfare with full mobilization.

That might be because there's been almost a century of military development between then and now. Quite a lot has happened, even discounting nukes.

That is where nuclear arms have changed warfare.

snip

I'm starting to see what you were talking about ("greatest" in the sense that they changed quite a bit, however briefly, not that they're actually useful today).

Today's world of regional, low-intensity conflicts exists in part because large scale, third-generation warfare between great powers had become too destructive to be endured, in no small part because of nuclear arms. In other words, these weapons in part defined conflict in the late 20th century by preventing the types of punch-ups that occured from the birth of the modern nation-state until about 1945.

The original point was that the OP said the ICBM was disqualified for having never been used. I'd argued it could be powerfully argued that having them sit in their silos, scaring the crap out of everyone, is exactly the preferred method of use of any nuclear arm. Deterrence is a form of use.

But they're no longer effective deterrence. That's my point.

It's why I'm conceding your point that they're a "greatest weapon in history" because of the effect they had, while pointing out that it's no longer the case. There is nothing nukes accomplish any more that conventional deterrence does not, throwing their liabilities into sharper relief.

Although it's interesting to ponder what may have happened if the US and USSR had confronted each other directly, rather than engage in destabilizing shadow and proxy wars for fifty years.

I'd replace "interesting" with "horrific." As bad as these conflicts were, direct confrontation would have been far, far worse. It's a nice thought exercise for the morbid.

The morbidity between a hypothetical large-scale war and the reality of a half-century of Cold War politics is about equal, really. Especially when you ponder just how significant and terrible an impact those politics had on the postcolonial world. US anti-communist paranoia in particular shaped the history, politics, and economies of much of South America, Africa, the Middle East, and southeast Asia.

I do agree that nuclear nations are a threat to stability, but mostly due to the ability for the situation to turn cataclysmic and for the lack of restraint on these nations. As Soviet and US stockpiles grew, the US and USSR began to establish norms in the game and better checks on each other. This is unlikely to happen as the speed of proliferation and the number of actors with such weapons increases.

If you're worried about nuclear states increasing, your concern is misplaced. As many states have given up nuclear weapons and nuke programs as there are actual nuclear states, and half the world is currently comprised of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (with another one in discussion in the Middle East, <url=http://library.gcc-sg.org/English/Books/sessions/cs027.html>pushed by the GCC).

This is quite a straw man of what I said, especially since Iran is an obvious exception. Please don't edit something down into a straw man.

What straw man? You brought up your worry that the speed of horizontal proliferation and the number of nuclear actors was increasing, and I responded to that.

Someone most certainly believes Iran is intending to develop nuclear arms. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_iran1228_12_10.asp Whether or not Iran is blaming the correct parties is obviously not something we can answer here.

Of course Israel believes it. <url=http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/a-major-shift-999>And others don't. I don't think I trust Israel to be objective on the matter.

Also, your concern about states being irresponsible with nuclear weapons is misplaced. They're not the problem. Kim Jongun knows better than to use nukes for anything (even if he's lying about being less militaristic than his father), India and Pakistan don't have any targets other than each other, Israel's enemies are too close for safe use even if they did want to commit political suicide, Iran's most likely not developing nukes at all, and the big five aren't enemies of each other militarily. They're not the problem; non-state actors are.

In fact, considering the deathgrip those less "rational" nations keep on their stockpiles, the bigger danger is that someone will steal something from Russia.

Non-state actors are a threat due to the possibility of nuclear terrorism, and India's other big rival - militarily, economically, and politically - is China. Israel's enemies include quite a few nations which are well outside of the range they need to use smaller, 1 megaton arms, most notably Iran. State actors are one threat, of course. Furthermore, these states have not quite the deathgrip you think. http://www.hvk.org/articles/0305/63.html

The AQ Khan network? What about it? The guy who developed Pakistan's bomb was selling secrets on the side. It says nothing about Pakistan's hold on its own stockpile, and only serves to heighten the awareness that non-state actors can try to acquire bombs of their own, and that unlike states, they can actually use those bombs.

And the idea of India considering China a nuclear target for anything but deterrence is absurd. Even if they found some insane reason to do so and received no retaliatory nuclear attack, they would still be kissing their asses goodbye thanks to the sudden drop of world opinion and the inevitable conventional response of several militaries. Exactly the case if Israel gave in to its own paranoia and tried using its bombs.

Ironically, we mostly agree. The potential for non-state actors to acquire arms from Russia is like a meteor strike; low probability, devastating pay-off. However, this further argues for inclusion at or near the top of the list for "changed everything." If these weapons could be acquired by non-state groups, it opens up the possibility of very real strategic attacks on the part of non-state actors beyond assassinations. And that's a scary change.

While I'd like to continue the discussion, my original point, "Nukes made large scale 3rd Generation warfare between the great powers extremely rare," still stands. We may disagree on particulars.

I'll concede, that, yes.

 

[Naheal]

Two things:

1: The halberd was less than useful unless you were fighting someone on horseback. A longspear would do a better job.

2: Compared to the katana, a bastard sword, a zweihander, and a claymore would perform better for blade-to-blade combat.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Does fire count as a weapon? Because if you ask me that shit is the most terrifying thing that could hit me, ask if id rather be shot or have a molotov thrown at me, and everytime i will ask to be shot

 

[s0m3th1ng]

There may well be only a few people who can shoot the actual kind of longbows used at Agincourt or Crecy (which had a draw weight of 120 pounds.) There are however plenty of people (a few of which i do archery with) with longbows weighing about 60 pounds, and are rough equivalents of longbows which would have been used for hunting in medieval England and Wales.

When you bear in mind that most recurved bows today weigh something between 25-35 pounds, and medieval longbows at 120, you can a sense of how insanely heavy longbows are.

Are you saying a 6-foot section of 2-inch thick wood weighs 120 pounds? PLEASE tell me you are referring to the draw-force and not the actual weight of the weapon....

 

[soperg]

erm, yaaaaaaa, imma gonna say this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFliTyydSs