What is Your Favorite WWII Weapon?
- Thread starter cojo965
- Start date
I assume we're talking guns mainly here, so I'll go with StG-44. Father of all assault rifles, beautiful and elegant in design, much like the AK-47, which borrowed heavily from it. Runners up would be M1 Garand and Colt M1991.
If you mean weapons in general, then nothing beats the atom bomb. As Oppenheimer quoted from old Indian texts that I cannot recall the exact name of, I am become death, destroyer of worlds. It was the first time humankind actually wielded power that could potentially destroy our planet, and to my knowledge, it remains the third biggest destructive force until today(behind anti-matter and thermonuclear reactions).
If you mean weapons in general, then nothing beats the atom bomb. As Oppenheimer quoted from old Indian texts that I cannot recall the exact name of, I am become death, destroyer of worlds. It was the first time humankind actually wielded power that could potentially destroy our planet, and to my knowledge, it remains the third biggest destructive force until today(behind anti-matter and thermonuclear reactions).
i'd pick the broomhandle http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Mauser_C96_M1916_Red_9_7.JPG because it'd still be a useful firearm today due to it's common amunation on the red 9 varation (that's a real thing) and it's stoping power. only downside is it takes up a bit of room and getting used to the clip feeding, but if zombies ever attack i'd be the side arm i'd want.
second would be the tommy gun because it also uses common ammo and has stopping power but it isn't really my style to be honest.
second would be the tommy gun because it also uses common ammo and has stopping power but it isn't really my style to be honest.
IIRC, proper katanas weren't really used, there were lots of inferior mass produced swords.yaz1410 said:Do Katanas count?cojo965 said:
Erm...not quite. Cannot potentially destroy the planet...as for destructive force, do you mean by weight of device? Cause a lot more power has been released by conventional bombings than atomic ones. Also, fusion bombs incorporate fission bombs, and there's all sorts of extras you can stick on either to increase the yield, they've come a long wayV3rtig0 said:
Dora and Schwerer Gustav, 800mm siege guns designed by Krupp. The most powerful cannons ever to see service.Pinkamena said:
For me, the Tiger tank. A near 60 ton beast that nearly broke the backs of the allies. If this tank was in service enmass at the start of the war the British and French would of probably been destroyed at Dunkirk and the Soviet union might of been broken.
No it does not. Why do people keep bring up this idea? The Geneva Conventions (all four of them and the three protocols) have nothing to do with the weapons of war.albino boo said:
First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1864
Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1906
Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949
Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.
Now the Hague Conventions on the other hand, you might have more of a case but they don't ban weapons (like shotguns) either, just types of ammunition, specifically those which expand or flatten easily in the human body. Since shotguns can be loaded with all kinds of ammunition, there not banned.
OT: The Thompson submachine gun or the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle
Indeed you are. Do you have the sword bayonet?Tanner The Monotone said:
One day, I will go to America, and I will shoot everything. And I mean everything. Every gun I can get my hands on I will fire. This would probably involve renting an interesting rifle, going to a range, then asking people if they'd like to fire that one while I put a few rounds through theirs.
Can you rent rifles/guns?
Maybe I didn't express myself correctly. I meant destroy life on the planet, not the planet itself physically. And by destructive force I meant the power of the explosion. So far the biggest artificial explosion was generated by the Tsar bomb, and no conventional explosive has gone even close to it in terms of tons of TNT equivalent. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by asking about power relative to device weight.thaluikhain said:
Also, I'm aware that fusion reactions involve fission reactions, but I consider fusion and fission bombs separate types of weapons.
Say what you want about the Spitfire or the Mustang - it was the rugged, humble SBD Dauntless dive bomber that turned the tide of an entire front. A few squads of them sank four Japanese carriers in one day, three of them within a space of six minutes.
Sure, those bombers got incredibly lucky - two squads accidentally converged over enemy carriers that were covered in fuel and had their fighters down low to deal with torpedo bombers - but it takes a hell of a plane to turn a stroke of good fortune into a war-changing rampage.
Sure, those bombers got incredibly lucky - two squads accidentally converged over enemy carriers that were covered in fuel and had their fighters down low to deal with torpedo bombers - but it takes a hell of a plane to turn a stroke of good fortune into a war-changing rampage.
