Most Stupid Weapon of WWII

I agree on the Maginot line. The Germans attacked through that area in 1870, so the French always thought they would attack there again. They didn't in ww1 so the French where stupid to think that they would do it again. And besides, if you had two choices;
-attack through a heavily defended area, all according to the enemy's plan
OR
-walk through a neutral country to attack they lightly defended bit.
If the French had extended the Maginot line on ALL of France's borders, the war might of been different. The would have to fortify the beaches as well in case Germany wanted to do an amphibious landing.

Of course, the French could of not built it and made their army bigger and better.

 

Joe, if the Germans in 1870 attacked through the Maginot line general area, and in WW1 attacked elsewhere, and if per what you say it would be stupid to attack again thorough the same place, where would it be logical to attack again? Again through the Maginot area, after all they hadn't attacked through there for the last 70 years.

Besides, look at a map. One of the historically most fortified areas in Western Europe at the time was the Flanders-North-Northeast of France region, since Louis XIV. France WAS fortified on all it's borders, only it did not have an Hadrian's Wall everywhere.

 

But I think we can all agree they should have concentrated on building better weapons and changing their tactics. Most French tanks where better than their German counterparts, but the French system of using them was outdated by the Blitzkrieg.

 

If they only had had strategic reserves....

 

Yes, I agree that doctrine and command methods were completely outdated by generations.

 

Without straying too far off topic, I should say that the French and British used their tanks as they did in WW1.

 

I hate it when people say grenade instead of shell.

 

Speaking of the Campaign of France context, sometimes they did, other times not. The French did some nice tank counter-attacks, the Battle of Stonne comes to mind.

 

The manned flying bomb, Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka.
Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka - manned flying bomb

 

That flying bomb is a nice model! It's the first time I see one of those.

 

Well, I just picked up a copy of the World's Worse Weapons. I thought about this place and thought why not. ONe WWII example was the Bachem Natter. A rocket powered interceptor with 24 rockets in the nose. The Northrop XP-56 was another example, as was the Blackburn Roc.

 

hey what about that machine gun mounted on the bike....remember or was that just a prototype

Here is some interesting info about the Maginot Line concerning Fort de Fremont. The Germans used 305mm guns and 210mm Howitzers to assault but the French kept the 75 mm embrasures closed and were then spared the devastation. When the soldaten attacked the 75mm embrasures opened and fired effectively crushing the assault. The Germans basically laid siege to the fort to starve out the garrison due to its impregnability from attack. It didn't fall until days after France's capitulation. So the fort's did work, It was just that they didn't cover the whole front and the mobile reserves deployed behind them as well as aircover were poorly deployed. In case you were to present the Fallschirjaeger argument. Given that the leadership in France lead to her downfall the extra tanks and aircraft wouldn't have changed a thing.

 

I may be off base here, but the Italian Villar Perosa gun was mounted on bicycles during World War One. It was a strange weapon that had a 1200-1400 rpm and was twin barreled. It fired the under-powered 9mm Glisenti round and was fed by 25 round magazines. Needless to say this required constant reloading because of it's high rate of fire.

I'm not sure of bicycle guns in World War Two. (?)




as a side note, I found a pretty interesting article on armed and armored Bicycles and motorcycles here.. Welcome to Landships! - A site for WW1 Military Hardware & WW1 Military Modelling

 

A guy I know reproduced one of these based on an original, it isn't difficult to move and isn't as thick as one might expect. Keep in mind that (like the steel helmet) it isn't designed to resist direct hits from high powered rifles etc but to resist shrapnel and such like, at the very least reducing the velocity of flying metal and so increasing the chances of the soldier surviving. In that respect it isn't a bad idea, to offer some protection to sappers whilst cutting wire etc much like the soviet body armour of the same era.

 

I can see it being used with the "Proverbial" ten foot pole to detonate mines and be relatively safe, but what irks me is the fact you can't see.
Tough to evade/return fire with no visibility.
I see where it might have a use, but the picture I have, show a soldier's rifle sticking out the front (of the shell (thingy)), and legs out the back, crawling forward. He would literally have to open (rise)-up to fire/see.
Protection from grenades is almost assured, but a well placed rifle round, and you're history. I know, that could be said for most things.
It seems too restrictive/protective to be functional. To me.

 

First time I've heard of this...



No. 74 Grenade

 

Ah, the Sticky Bomb. Great idea. If you look up the Internet you'll see reports of it sticking to the user's clothes and having to throw your jacket as far as you can as well, etc

 

Although Technically It wasn't a grenade, If you threw it the bomb would come loose, drop off, and more than likely stick to your feet. I think there was a Dad's Army episode where Corporal Jones throws one and it happened. Fortunately it was a Dud. You where supposed to creep up on the tank and slap it on the back.

 

The No 74 grenade was never used by the British army in combat, its only known use was as a demolition device by partisans

 

While it looks pretty "stupid," the Japanese Type 3, once examined Japanese Type 3 H.E.A.T. Grenade - Inert-Ord.Net, appears like an almost ingenious development for the Japanese...



Or is this weapon at home in "this" thread?