Most Stupid Weapon of WWII

I nominate the Yamato class battleship. Did the Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano ( converted to a carrier ) acomplish any thing in their combined service life that could not have been done by a single light cruiser?

 

I think it served reasonably well under the circumstances, time and time again it made the Americans drop everything else and just focus on it, it was a good bullet magnet.

 

The same can be applied to most of the Kriegsmarine's capital ships.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before (and I will remove it if it has) but there's the Ki-115 Tsurugi, a prop driven fighter which was to perform a role much like the Ohka rocket plane, and other kamikaze-style weapons.

 

I'll give the Japanese credit though. At least their suicide weapons actually worked on occasion. Kamikaze aircraft scored roughly three times the hits conventional attacks would have albeit with the loss of the attacking aircraft.

The German niger human torpedoes scored zero successes for 100% losses. The Fi 107 manned V-1 never saw operational service. The Me 163, which comes close to suicidal, likewise was horribly ineffective however spectacular its flights might have been. The Bachem Natter likewise a suicidial weapon never saw service although it is likely it would have had a high rate of losses to pilots.
Even more mundane tactics like Wilde Sau nightfighter operations bordered on suicidial. Pilot losses approached 100% on many operational uses for few, if any, enemy casualties.

 

Im very interested in Italian WW2 stuff, but I must say that - Breda 37 was stupid (ironically one of best Italian MG's), who saw other WW2 heavy machine gun with only 20 rounds in magazine (strip) ?!

 

I don't know what it was called but the Japanese sent over balloons that were supposed to ignite our forests, spread fire and burn our towns. It was deployed and a few people found some and recovered items from them that actually reached areas within the U.S. but were not as successful as planned. That could be a candidate for "the weapon" you seek. It seems campers with matches do that more successfully today however.

 

There are a number of machineguns that use striped ammunition or magazines. Some of the more widely used include:

Hotchkiss light and medium machineguns. These used 24 or 30 round strips with paper mache belting.

French automatic rifles / machineguns. These like the Bren used a box magazine of 25 to 30 rounds. In static positions like the Maginot Line they were fitted with 150 round drums

Italian Breda M 30 20 round strips on a loading tray

Japanese 6.5mm Type 11. An oddity. It uses a hopper into which standard clipped rifle ammunition is dropped.

6.5mm Type 3 30 round strips w/ metal clipping

6.5mm Type 96 30 round box magazine

7.7mm Type 92 30 round strips

British Bren 30 round box magazine

Russian DP 47 round flat drum

DT 60 round drum

In fact, the vast majority of WW 2 era machineguns did not use continious belt ammunition but instead various strips and magazines of 30 to 50 rounds instead.

 

Doktor, you neglected to show the Davy Crocket escape vehicle. Wasn't Crocket mounted on a Jeep? Surely the mach speed generated by the Willy would allow safe egress? That tripod mount must have been for dying soldiers willing to hold off the advancing hoards.

 

But Bren, Breda 30, Type 11, Wz. 38 are light machineguns, for one person. Less in magazine = light. Hotchkiss was old weapon. Every WW2 nations had lmg's (20-47 rounds in magazine) and hmg's (ammunition belt), only Germans had universal machine guns (light with belt). Italians started production of Breda 37 in 1937. In same time they had Breda 30 lmg and Fiat 35 hmg. I understand Breda 38 with box magazine (on top of weapon) for vehicles. But Breda 37 is weird weapon - small number of ammunition like in Breda 30 connected with low mobility from Fiat 35 (it need tripod), any advantage? It was'nt good as light or heavy mg.

 

From portion of an Article from World War II Magazine, June 18th 2006 posted by Bendirt1 regarging the 555th Parachute Infantry (Black Paratroops) in the thread "Aficran American Combat Troops":

"Even though they were never deployed to the front, they did serve in the Pacific Northwest as the first "massive deployment" style of smokejumpers. There had been individual smokejumpers previously, but only a few men for small deployments. The 555th were deployed to the forests to combat any of the Fugo incendiary balloon bombs that might start fires in the Pacific Northwest, the equipment they pioneered, and their tactics are still used today."

If not for them the Japanese incendiary bomb attacks would have had greater success. News of these attacks was kept from the public.

 

I've always thought the Davy Crockett was meant to be fired from a position next to a trench or bunker (remember, it was a defensive weapon intended to stop the Russian hordes). The crew would launch it, then run inside before it landed.

Or even better, a high tech approach using the M87951 String, Piece of, Long - to remotely trigger it from inside a deep hole.

 

Thanks Highway 70, I did not know the device name and I did not know that the 555th were deployed for that reason. I always admire how much good came out of our efforts as a people to combat our enemies in this war. Certainly the smoke jumpers have played a crucial role in many states to preserve our forests.

 

Most stupid weapon? Easy...

Jagdtiger. Hands down. Similar weight problems to Maus, needed huge quantities of fuel, had a slow rate of fire due to 2 piece ammunition that actually REDUCED the weight of shot it could deliver in a given time over a standard Konigstiger and the barrel was so ill balanced the trunions it was mounted on would wear out very quickly whilst driving around. This meant that the weapon could go from being brand new to effectively worn out without firing a shot.

As the ultimate proof that it was dreadful, Otto Carius said it was completely hopeless and only a madman would produce a weapon such as that DURING a war (and one that was going badly at that). If he couldn't make it work, it didn't.

As a possible contender, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that some idiot tried developing a flame throwing defence system for German bombers in the Battle of Britain. Only discernable impact being an unusual level of interest from the RAF and the loss of the aircraft.

 

One of the most stupid weapons was developed at the Russians. It was the Tank Dog. They trained dogs to place themself with an explosive load under Tanks to destroy them. They did it in an easy way, they gave thier dogs the fodder under an tank. Only problem was that an dog program himself not only by the place where to get meal, they were programmed by smelling too. So the dogs were running under the Russian tanks for the reason that they knew their smell and destroyed a lot of Russian tanks. After that the programm ended. Really stupid!

Regards

Ulrich

 

I can't remember it's designation, but late in the war the Germans created a tank with a crane on the back to detach the turret and place it in a fixed position, isn't that contrary to the general doctrines of armor use?

 

Hi Vest,

do you have more details on that tank?, The only tank (fighting tank) with an crane that i know, was the Sturm-Tiger. And he used the crane to store his 38cm Shells in the turret.

Regards

Ulrich

 

Here you go.
Achtung Panzer! - Prototypes !

 

Thank you vathra,

interesting but senseless tank, really stupid!

Regards

Ulrich

 

I'm not so sure the Heuschrecke type 'removable turret' concepts qualify as 'most stupid'.
When looked at in the context they were intended there was a certain logic going on that I don't think is often fully appreciated beyond the initial 'Blimey, that's odd' impression.

We recently had quite a nice rambly little thread about 'em in another place (with an interesting 'new' picture or two), if I might make so bold as to insert it here.

~A

 

Hi Von Poop,

maybe that the idea behind it was good meant but why to build a tank with a removable turret? If you want to make a fortification dig an hole or build a concrete bunker to drive in. The tank is nearly worthless witout an turret and the same with the turret. Ok, not the most stupid weapon but a really strange one.

Regards

Ulrich