Most cost effective weapon

Really? Look at the number of casualties inflicted by various weapons. I wouldn't be surprised on a cost vs causualy basis if lmg's and mortars didn't come out looking a lot better.

 

How many times can you re-use a mortar shell?

 

How many times can your reuse the bullet from a rifle?

 

What if you put a bayonet on an LMG?
Or a bayonet on a mortar tube?

 

IIRC, it did not work out that well for the Japanese with their Type 96 & Type 99 LMGs.

But, hey, the Japanese but bayonets on near about every one of their guns...even the Type 100 submachine gun could be fitted with a standard bayonet.

 

Don't dis the bayonet the Americans put them on the front of their tanks and it worked.




Looking through the thread I find I have to revise my selections to mines, mortars, and grenades. Possibly one of the stamped smg's as well.

 

You don't have to, although it is always a good thing to have plenty extra rounds on hand. But that luxury isn't always guaranteed as we all know. The rifle (without ammunition) fitted with the bayonet is still a very effective weapon system. That's the beauty of it.

 

I saw a picture of a Marine Corsair with a bayonet mounted on it once. Not sure if it was a prototype or if it was actually used in combat or not, but it looked cool!

 

You don't have to reuse a mortar round either. Bayonetts have inflicted an insignificant number of casualties in recent combat. The current US bayonet was designed more as a multipurpose tool for instance that could be used as a bayonet rather than as primarily a bayonet.

 

I still stand by my position of the cost-effectiveness of the rifle fitted w/bayonet regardless of how you spread sheet it out. It's simple, inexpensive and really has a attention getting fear factor. It also has many other uses in the field as you pointed out, so that can be factored into the cost effectiveness of the system. Now be it known that I have nothing against your fondness for your weapon system of choice, the mortar, but to tell you the truth it's really heavy to carry in the field, especially the base plate. Then you have the extra rounds, bi-pod and accessories to lug around as well. Sure it goes boom and makes a big hole in the ground you betcha, but I'd still rather have a bayonet with me and my rifle, especially when the bullets are long gone. A trusty e-tool is a good alternative weapon system as well, but that's another thread. I was always partial to direct fire weapon systems actually. In-direct fire is an inaccurate science.

 

That sounds awesome! Where would you be able to find this picture? I had no luck :unsure:

 

It's been years since I've seen it so I don't know where to direct you to in your quest. If you do find it, post it here for us if you please!

 

The problem I have with this is it really cost effective. Certainly if your measure of effectiveness is casualties then I think it unlikely. The rifle and bayonet on an individual basis may be inexpensive but they aren't doing much damage on an individual basis either. Since we are talking WW2 some of the other uses don't really come into play either (for instance WW2 baynetts weren't designed to be wire cutters). Then there is the quantity of rifles and amunition necessary so for instance if you look at outfitting a division are you paying more for all the rifles in the division than you are for the mortars? If so and the mortars are inflciting more damage as others here are saying then rifles aren't the most cost effective. Baynetts are going to add more to the cost than they are to the effectiveness end of things by the way. That doesn't mean they aren't useful or worth the money or even cost effective in and of themselves it just means that they don't qualify as most cost effective.

 

We are at an impasse here. So give me a rifle and a bayonet please. You can take the mortars. I'll call you when I need them, if the radio still works that is.

 

We might better be able to evaluate that if we had detailed breakdowns of the causes of casualties. They are out there somewhere. Artillery was a great killer in almost every theater, mines were deadly in Europe. Machineguns killed a lot of men in WWI and provided the bulk if infantry fire in WWII. But you obviously cannot have a whole unit armed with nothing but MGs--your manuever element has to come from somewhere, so you need riflemen and lots of them. Riflemen are also grenadiers, don't forget, and grenades are both cheap and effective.

 

I like the way you think friend.

 

One of the problems is that it's difficult to tell whether it was artillery or mortars that caused the casualties. In WWII from what I've read artillery and mgs caused a lot more casualties than rifles and mortars were a significant contributer to the artillery count. If you start looking at the cost effectivness of infantry then you are going to need to include the cost of training them and supporting them at the very least. Almost every weapon system was (or at least was viewed as) cost effective. The question on this thread though is what was the most cost effective. From all the numbers I've read if you look at casualties inflicted vs cost of the weapon system rifles aren't going to make the cut as the most cost effective. In some ways even addressing this question can give one a rather skewed view point. For instance was the Garand more cost effective than the Springfield? I suspect in the terms I've given above it wasn't. However the edge it gave our infantry was judged and legitimately so as being worth it. Saying mortars, for instance (it could be rifles or grenades or anything else) was the most cost effective doesn't mean that they are the only weapon you need either. Indeed the US didn't really have a squad level lmg yet they were argueably one of the more cost effective weapons. Between the artillery, Garand, and BAR it probably didn't hurt the US too much. Likewise we could likely have done without mortars given the above. I doubt we could have done without rifles though.

 

how about the incendiary bombs that destroyed German and Japanese cities?[ mentioned yet? ] here I go with the fire weapon, but, it starts, and then spreads, by itself [ like a growing, unstoppable hell monster<>the BLOB, only faster and hotter ]...some even created 'super heated tornadoes/winds''!!! talk about hell<>you see a few fire trucks at a building or 2 on fire, nowadays...but just imagine BLOCKS AND BLOCKS, of buildings, on fire!! whole cities..of course you have the planes that transport it, but the weapon itself is super destructive...
I thought I once read where, if they used incendiaries at Schweinfurt, instead of explosives, more, lasting damage would've been done....

 

Well what effectiveness critieria are you using? If it is opposing miitary killed then they aren't going to rate very high. Likewise if it's damage to military targets. Now if it's damage to military and industrial targets you might be getting somewhere, include the infrastructure the numbers will get even "better". But how do you then compare it to say a rifle which is aimed primarily at killing members of the opposing military?

Can you really consider them without considering the cost of the delivery systems (planes and crews) as well? If so you how do you aportion these costs compared to regular bombs? By numbers or tonnage or cost or ...?

 

the incendiary itself, kills and destroys!! as a weapon [ kills/destroys people and whole cities] , I'd say it is super powerful-no one could stop it...what other weapon- besides the Abomb, can destroy a city, killing thousands!?? and the cost was mucho less than the Abomb..whole cities, unstoppable! ..I'd say that was an effective weapon...