Most cost effective weapon

Germans have the Wiesel 120mm mortarsystem, mightiest "tank" of the world, you can also have a Wiesel with 20mm auto or TOW missile lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qln3hVoe8qA

Other cold war SP mortars of Bundeswehr: HS30 / 81mm, M113 / 120mm. I believe the little Hotchkiss was also used with 81mm for a while. The HS30 was more or less a disaster, and quickly replaced by Marder and M113. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS_30

 

Can be hacked, eg. Chinese are working on this already.... even ACARS from civil airliners can be hacked

 

Most western militaries train to fight at "degraded" capabilities as well as at full capability. It wasn't for nothing that NATO prepared nuclear war with the Soviets when EMP from nukes are expected to fry many electronic devices.

 

i wouldn't put torpedoes, hand-held rocket weapons, and flame throwers as cost-effective. the problem of bringing the weapon up close to bear, and the risk of being neutralized before that, are too great. i'll go with the mortar.

 

didn't the torpedo strangle Japan?? cut if off?? cut off it's ability to sustain not only Japan, but also it's bases, pilot training, food imports, etc...maybe this is for another thread, but didn't the torpedo hurt Japan much more than the bombers?? let's include the submarine transporting it, and it still did much more damage to Japan than a mortar?
the mortar was tactical, where the sub plus torpedo is strategic..can they be compared?

 

I don't by his logic, i.e. the risk of bringing a weapon to bear renders in non cost effective. Mines and aircraft played roles that were likely more important than the torpedo abut again it's one of those things where one system can increase the impact of another. The torpedo is tactical too but for naval combat. Somethings are very difficult to compare, in some cases so difficult that I'm not sure it makes sense trying to do so.

 

Maybe Japan was its' own worst enemy.
They didn't have many (modern) ships to begin with, and they certainly couldn't replace the attrition (maybe due to the US sub threat).
Rivalry between Imperial Army and Navy resulted in secrets that harmed Japans efforts.
Japan gambled on a short war, scheduled step by step.

 

you can only say the torpedo sank a whole lot of shipping tonnage in japan, but you can't say it won the pacific war. in two world wars, the germans used the same weapon against britain with spectacular results but in both times it did not secure a victory for them. and the effectiveness of torpedos you mentioned was for merchant shipping; basically vulnerable to any kind of weapon you hit it with.

so the qualification i had in mind was for battle weapons only; those you bring to bear against a target that's either tough to take out, or capable of shooting back. 8-knot submarines against warships? torpedo planes against surface ships bristling with automatic guns? you engaging a tank with a bazooka on your lonesome? that's what i mean.

 

Mortars were effective, easy to produce and deadly. But only in the hands of a well trained mortar crew.
A Panzerfaust could be used by every 14year old Hitlerjunge after 10 min of instruction.

The Panzerwurfmine was even simpler, it was just thrown against the tank and was designed to hit the tank from above, where the armour was thin. But it needed a lot of training and courage to use it successfully.