Top ten greatest weapons in history

[Nickolai77]

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....

Well, yew wood is surprisingly heavy...no, i kid, i mean draw weight.

 

[Starke]

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.)

Based on his earlier posts, I doubt he's trolling. I really think he's just missing the point and dwelling on his experiences with a modern replica made out of poured steel.

...and the myth of the Katana continues downstream in a river of bullshit...

 

[Starke]

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....

Well, yew wood is surprisingly heavy...no, i kid, i mean draw weight.

To be fair, a yew longbow's going to weigh, what? 12 to 15 lbs with a 100-140lb pull?

 

[Geekosaurus]

In chronological order:

Long bow.
Gun powder.
Colt SAA.
Gattling gun.
WWII submachine guns.
AK-47.
Atom bomb.

 

[RazgrizInferno]

#2 - AN602 "Tsar Bomba"
Highest yield nuclear device detonated to date. It had a 2.3km blast radius. I don't mean the shockwave, fallout or anything else there, that's the size of the actual explosion. The total magnitude of destruction would be around 35km. That's just... D=

...pointless, I'm hoping you were going to finish.

Prohibitively expensive and difficult to make, especially compared to a number of smaller nuclear weapons that could accomplish the same thing much more cheaply. And especially since no target existed or exists that was large enough to warrant such force.

In all seriousness though, MIRVs are great and all, but... I mean, let's say you were given the choice between 3 big Christmas chocolates, or the biggest Christmas chocolate ever made by mankind. Even if there more in the former, the latter is still the biggest!

Besides, MIRVs are much more expensive. They need much more material and a hell of a lot bigger rocket. Never mind the advanced onboard systems for such a device.

(Of course, you're arguing from a "we don't need nukes!" standpoint. But let me tell you, when the Aliens come and enslave you, because you're an easy target, you'll be thinking different!)

The Tsar Bomba was a horribly inefficient waste of destructive power. The explosion was so huge that most of its energy was uselessly expelled into space.

The tested version of the bomb was reduced to 50 Megatons from a possible 100 Megatons. The Russians calculated that the 100 Megaton bomb would almost certainly kill the pilot deploying it, and it would release enough fallout to account for 25% of all fallout emitted since the fucking invention of nuclear weapons.

Aside from that, it is far too heavy to be compatible with ICBM's, making it even more impractical.

Sure, it's a mindbogglingly powerful weapon, and it broke windows in FINLAND, but it's impractical enough to make it totally worthless.

In the case of your metaphor, the Tsar Bomba is like choosing the "biggest Christmas chocolate ever made by mankind," and then finding out the damn thing is sugar-free.

 

[InsertEvilLaugh]

#2 - AN602 "Tsar Bomba"
Highest yield nuclear device detonated to date. It had a 2.3km blast radius. I don't mean the shockwave, fallout or anything else there, that's the size of the actual explosion. The total magnitude of destruction would be around 35km. That's just... D=

...pointless, I'm hoping you were going to finish.

Prohibitively expensive and difficult to make, especially compared to a number of smaller nuclear weapons that could accomplish the same thing much more cheaply. And especially since no target existed or exists that was large enough to warrant such force.

In all seriousness though, MIRVs are great and all, but... I mean, let's say you were given the choice between 3 big Christmas chocolates, or the biggest Christmas chocolate ever made by mankind. Even if there more in the former, the latter is still the biggest!

Besides, MIRVs are much more expensive. They need much more material and a hell of a lot bigger rocket. Never mind the advanced onboard systems for such a device.

(Of course, you're arguing from a "we don't need nukes!" standpoint. But let me tell you, when the Aliens come and enslave you, because you're an easy target, you'll be thinking different!)

The Tsar Bomba was a horribly inefficient waste of destructive power. The explosion was so huge that most of its energy was uselessly expelled into space.

The tested version of the bomb was reduced to 50 Megatons from a possible 100 Megatons. The Russians calculated that the 100 Megaton bomb would almost certainly kill the pilot deploying it, and it would release enough fallout to account for 25% of all fallout emitted since the fucking invention of nuclear weapons.

Aside from that, it is far too heavy to be compatible with ICBM's, making it even more impractical.

Sure, it's a mindbogglingly powerful weapon, and it broke windows in FINLAND, but it's impractical enough to make it totally worthless.

In the case of your metaphor, the Tsar Bomba is like choosing the "biggest Christmas chocolate ever made by mankind," and then finding out the damn thing is sugar-free.

It was primarily just a show of force move anyway during the cold war.

The Russian's knew it was a waste but it was pretty much just an animal like chest pounding showing, "Hey, look what we can do!"

 

[spartan1077]

...No nukes? You said needs to be manned by one man and that one man is anyone in charge of a country with nukes...You come at me with those weapons and I'll sit comfortably on my couch nuking you. Also, katana? It's a sword...guns are better at their jobs since you don't need to be in close range...and they can be silenced/shot at from long range...also nukes.

 

[xdom125x]

I have a honorable mention: A Rock

 

[superspartan004]

I would have included the gunblade, I mean c'mon it's a gun and a sword, what could be more awesome than that?

 

[Shadows Inc.]

The pen.

Saves lives and ends wars.

And can make a decent weapon when honed to a fine point and dipped in fast acting poison, then thrown from 10 feet away.

Or you could just walk up behind someone and stab them (in the skull for me because it's more fun), there's no need to get too technical. Humans are a very, very easy thing to kill.

Oh I know that. Not even my idea. I was quoting a comedian whose name escapes me at the moment. I was trying to be funny and (apparently) failing.
And why can't I be technical? What's the point of killing people if it can't be done in an elaborate and unnecessarily complicated manner?

Don't worry dude. Your atempt at being funny worked on me, but I find great humor in irony. Honestly you comment makes me think of a war where armies had to take state tests and whoever had the highest grade point average won, but then America would lose every war.

Not to say I didn't find it humorous... I just seem to take things quite literally most of the time. Sometimes it's a burden.

More to the point, I found Knifewounds joke to be more humorous, simply for the fact that it is true.

My humor will wear on people after a while. Its mostly ironic wit, and jokes constructed like this "(insert silliness here) and (insert realistic comparison to the silliness)"

Why not? It's a safe way to go about humor.

Well, I guess. Hell it's work for zero punctuation so far.

And he's funny as hell.

 

[tsb247]

#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.

I won't debate the accuracy of an M1 carbine, but I will debate how powerful they are. The .30 carbine round was, and is still quite underwhelming when it comes to stopping power. If I had to choose between an M1 carbine and an M1 Garand, I would rather lug the Garand around. If you hit something with a .30-06, it will NOT get back up, and on the slim chance that it DOES, then you have at most 7 more chances to knock it back down. The M1 carbine may be lighter and easier to manage, but it does not have any real power behind it.

On the other hand, the M2 carbine that came out after the war with the larger agazine and selective fire had a tremendous advantage over the Garand since it could pour out quite a bit of lead very accurately and very quickly.

 

[tsb247]

1) Shoulder Launched Tactical Nuclear Weapons:Too bad it aint real...
O.k.

My work is done...

Maybe not, but somethiner VERY close did exist!

 

[Vhite]

Spoiler: snip

Katan #1 hahahahaha you're funny.

#10 Flintlocks. Although these could kill someone no matter what they were wearing and thus got rid of the heavy armored soldier, they were highly inaccurate and took a long time to reload (about 20 seconds if you were good) the only reason I include it is because it paved the way for guns.

#9 The European sword. This sword is about as basic a sword as you can find. These swords were not meant for decoration, these were weapons of war. While simple, they were very versatile and had many different way to use them on the battlefield.

#8 The spear. This is a no brainer because it's a fucking spear, the only thing older that it is a fucking club. I won't get into the different types of spears but needless to say they were highly effective on the battlefield

#7 The club. This might seem silly to put this on my list however I do not believe one should write the club off. A club can come in many different forms all of which are capable of dealing death no matter what you're wearing.

#6 Damascus swords. These swords far outclassed any sword that the Europeans could create. the Woolz steel that was used in the creation of these swords had the prefect iron to carbon ratio as well as other types of metals which made it even stronger and able to hold an edge.

#5 The AK47. because this gun has only one moving part it is incredibly simple to manufacture and use. Also because of the lack of parts to get shit in this gun will run forever no matter the climate.

#4 The English longbow. These weapons were insanely powerful and could kill a man from something like 400 yards away. In addition to range it could also punch through armor without much problem.

#3 Pole Arms. This includes any weapon which is on a pole besides spears and lances. Take for example a bill (because everyone already talked about the Halberd). this is a relativity simple weapon, it's just a piece of sharpened metal with a hook on the end. However this weapon could play hell with a cavalry charge in a way that no spear could. The hook allowed foot soldier to haul a knight down from his horse thus taking away one of his greatest advantages.

#2 The canon. It shoots huge fucking balls of metal, need I say more?

#1 This one will likely get some people confused but I stand by my choice that the ax is the best weapon in human history. This weapon has been around almost since humans first discovered tools not only for doing work to survive, but also to wage war on other people. The ax is very versatile as it can be used as both a cutting weapon, a puncturing weapon (depending on the type of ax you are using), and a smashing weapon. If this weapon was not the best suited for the purpose, why did it not cease to be used as a killing tool until guns came around?

I didn't include the lance in here specifically, is because in order for it to be as effective as it was it required the horse.

The reason I didn't include guns is because I don't know a lot about them and don't want to come off a jackass who wants to look cool because he knows all about guns when he does.

I like your list because its almost same as mine. But I would also include human body in case you count it as a weapon.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. A Nuclear bomb is the single greatest weapon in history. The two nuclear bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan was such a devastating effect that it arguably ended Japans involvement in the second world war and now sixty five years later, all the nuclear bombs have been improved greatly so whenever they are launched again to attack hey will do so much damage it will be incomprehensible.

Merry Christmas everyone

 

[Starke]

Troll. That's all I have to say.

Then let's start with the basics:

1) Don't pretend to know a character from Swordfish in real life. It is funny, but in a sad kind of way.

2) Don't pretend you know a ninja. They're right behind you.

3) The Ninjato is not a Japanese weapon.

4) The Ninjato is not a real weapon. It's a 20th century Hollywood invention, with about as much weight in actual history as a lightsaber.

8) There are more ninjas in this country than the number you suggested.

 

[Shadows Inc.]

Troll. That's all I have to say.

Then let's start with the basics:

1) Don't pretend to know a character from Swordfish in real life. It is funny, but in a sad kind of way.

2) Don't pretend you know a ninja. They're right behind you.

3) The Ninjato is not a Japanese weapon.

4) The Ninjato is not a real weapon. It's a 20th century Hollywood invention, with about as much weight in actual history as a lightsaber.

8) There are more ninjas in this country than the number you suggested.

First off...

1) I don't know what that is.

2) I don't know him personally, he was my fathers teacher.

3) It sure as hell didn't come from Germany in 2052.

4) It was very much a real weapon, although it wasn't the favored and there were a variety of other tools that suited each situation differently. It wasn't the primary weapon by far, and there were easier ways to deal with an enemy. Ninjato were really only used if the Ninja were found. In which-case, they would size up the enemy(ies) and if the odds were unfavorable in either number or skill they would choose to either fight quick and get out, or retreat. There is more to it, but your incessant need to Troll makes me not want to exert the effort in explaining anything else any further.

5) Way to jump from 4 to 8, couldn't think of three more reasons? Anyway, no there are officially eight Ninja in the United States. Someone who claims to be a Ninja is most certainly not, and even if you study Ninjitsu/Ninjutsu you are not a Ninja. Even if you "Graduate" you are not a Ninja. It takes a member of a Ninjitsu/Ninjutsu "Grandmaster" (only about 6, if I remember correctly, of which are still alive in Japan) to give you the "Graduation Certificate" if you will.

You're Not going to win this drab lucidly pointless conversation, loosely described as an "argument", especially with your almost humorously ignorant demeanor.

 

[Starke]

1) I don't know what that is.

2) I don't know him personally, he was my fathers teacher.

3) It sure as hell didn't come from Germany in 2052.

4) It was very much a real weapon, although it wasn't the favored and there were a variety of other tools that suited each situation differently. It wasn't the primary weapon by far, and there were easier ways to deal with an enemy. Ninjato were really only used if the Ninja were found. In which-case, they would size up the enemy(ies) and if the odds were unfavorable in either number or skill they would choose to either fight quick and get out, or retreat. There is more to it, but your incessant need to Troll makes me not want to exert the effort in explaining anything else any further.

5) Way to jump from 4 to 8, couldn't think of three more reasons? Anyway, no there are officially eight Ninja in the United States. Someone who claims to be a Ninja is most certainly not, and even if you study Ninjitsu/Ninjutsu you are not a Ninja. Even if you "Graduate" you are not a Ninja. It takes a member of a Ninjitsu/Ninjutsu "Grandmaster" (only about 6, if I remember correctly, of which are still alive in Japan) to give you the "Graduation Certificate" if you will.

You're Not going to win this drab lucidly pointless conversation, loosely described as an "argument", especially with your almost humorously ignorant demeanor.

1) Aw, don't be coy, Gabriel is now offended. But, that's okay, because the first thing he ever told us was, "you know the problem with Hollywood, they make shit."

2) So your father is pretending to know a character from Swordfish in real life, and you're just being duped. Well, that's still kinda sad, and funny.

3) Because as we all know, early twentieth century Los Angeles was part of the Tokigawa Shogunate... no, wait.

4) Technically, you're correct, it is a real weapon, much like the basket hilt broadsword. It exists in the physical world and was created to appear on the silver screen. Other than that, pure bullshit. Now, if your alleged father is the one telling you all this than I have some very tragic news for you: People lie. In this case, people like your ninja dad and his Jewish special forces ninja teacher.

8) Yeah... no. There are more than eight ninjas in the country. Fuck, there's more than eight distinct schools of Ninjitsu taught in this country with varying states of recognition. Now, all of this "there are only six ninjas in the world and eight of them live in the united states" may sound very eastern mystical, it's not, and to people who know what the fuck they're talking about. You know, people who aren't you. It sounds hilariously stupid. Now, if you want to claim that there are only eight "real ninjas" in the country because they went and petitioned at the feet of the eight immortals in China, then, sure, whatever, but that doesn't make it sound any less psychotic.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No shotties? I am disappoint.

 

[Another]

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.

Agreed.

Pikes(so, yeah a long spear) used by a group of men in a square formation was what really ended the dominance of armored knights. And it makes me sad that the pike isn't at least in the top five. It ended a whole era.

As for the katana. It's a sword like any other, but designed to be used under certain conditions, these conditions being dictated by the style of fighting for its location and culture. The katana was great for fighting against other armed men in its own location and era, but it was never designed to fight armored opponents. No sword was really, they were meant to take out infantry, that's why knights had lances and hammers to take out other knights. But, if you look at designs of swords from the mediveal time period you can see they change form to be more pointed as time goes by. So in tl;dr: A sword is a sword, the person using it is what matters.

 

[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.

Agreed.

Pikes(so, yeah a long spear) used by a group of men in a square formation was what really ended the dominance of armored knights. And it makes me sad that the pike isn't at least in the top five. It ended a whole era.

As for the katana. It's a sword like any other, but designed to be used under certain conditions, these conditions being dictated by the style of fighting for its location and culture. The katana was great for fighting against other armed men in its own location and era, but it was never designed to fight armored opponents. No sword was really, they were meant to take out infantry, that's why knights had lances and hammers to take out other knights. But, if you look at designs of swords from the mediveal time period you can see they change form to be more pointed as time goes by. So in tl;dr: A sword is a sword, the person using it is what matters.

However, the reason why a zweihander, claymore, and bastard sword function better than a katana against an armored opponent is one single thing: weight. While a single katana may be sharp, the sharpness of the blade itself made little difference against most mail armor. A fully armored knight getting hit with a zweihander is going to feel that hit. Bones are going to break. He'll eventually die from the trauma. The katana, on the other hand, is almost useless against an armored knight specifically because of it's size.