Most Stupid Weapon of WWII

If the enemy tanks managed to insert themselves underneath it's tracks, coz the damned wouldn't move by itself

Instead of might have beens why don't we stick to weapons that did perform service?

 

Hitler found that out his own way...

 

My bad I should've thrown some smilies in the fray...

Actual weapons???
What about the Tiger?? Pricey and slow and well, it couldn't replace the 6 PzIV that could be built instead of it (let's see what kind of answers this brings).



Cheers...

 

This role of Dora at Sebastopol is overrated, it only fired 48 rounds before running out of ammo and nearly all were well over 100 meters off target, too much for even it's monster shells. On most days of the siege it did not even fire once. Compare this with the nearly 5000 rounds fired by the Skoda 305s and the number of tonns dropped by the luftwaffe and you will find who actually did the battering. Both it's main targets (Forts Gorky and Stalin) were not knocked out by Dora.

The germans had nothing like a Lanc but you don't need a Lanc to hit a fort just behind the front lines, as you will only need to fly a a couple of hundred miles you can save on take off weight by limiting fuel. The Condor was probably too fragile to carry a six tonner and the Ju 90 was underpowered but a Ju 90 with BMW 323s (without waiting for the Bmw 801 powered Ju 290) could have done the job. We are not talking about dozens of squadrons here, a couple would be more than enough.

Still I must admit that, if built, the ratte would have made even less sense than dora/gustav. BTW the triple turrets landed from Gneisenau were installed in Norway (I think one still exists), and weighted 750 tonns so no way they could be mounted in even a 1000 tonn vehicle. But the germans had a number of other 280mm guns, including possibly the spare barrels for the Sharnhost class.

 

Fi-103R "Reichenberg" (Manned V-1).

 

Sounds like good advice

 

Ok. I see your point Still, Germany still needed to develop a tallboy of their own.
After reading your post, having planes drop a Dora shell might be of better use.




Cheers...

 

i still think it's the bent barrel extension on a sub-gun that allows one to shoot round a corner.

 

as i think......P-1000 Ratte was the most stupidest weapon of World War II
bcoz if it entered service......it was no more than a lumbering moster and a very easy target for allied bombers........

if u closely observe.....none of the German weapons of WWII was userfriendly........

1. Luger P38 and P08
poor handling and terrible looks......+low powered 9mm rounds.....

2. MP40
Low powered 9mm rounds+u cannot fire 3 rd after second magzine......got too hot that ur hands got burned......

3.Stg44
High recoil and low accuracy

4.FG-42 Paratroop Rifle
Low magzine and slow fire rate

5. Mouser Kar 98K
was outdated by M1 Garand

6. Tanks
All of them were prone to technical probs and could be rarely serviced in fields...

 

1. Compared to what existed on the majority of other countries they were quite the handy weapon. Plus how can you vilify the 9mm round?? It's the most used round in the world. If it is so bad why do the US troops for instance use it in lieu of the .45??

2. no

3. Actually, the accuracy of the Stg was the study of maximum practical accuracy the developers found needed. Why do you need a rifle with a much higher recoil with accuracy up to 2000 meters if most engagements occur at an avergae distance of 400m??

4. It was intended to be that way. Plus the 600rds/min in model 2 were what was handable. If you decide to pick on the FG because it was hard to build and too complex for field maintenance (if something breaks you can fix it on the spot) then I'd agree with you.

5. It was reliable and compared to what most of the other countries had, it was comparable.

6. Actually the PzIII and PzIV were quite reliable.



Cheers...

 

the Nambu or the Bat bomb

 

The Churchill tank: 40 ton tank with a 40mm gun.

The Maginot line was a well made defensive line, it fulfilled its purpose well.

What was its purpose? The purpose of the Maginot line was to reduce the number of men needed in the frontage (i.e.: to release men to fight in other places).

It was not useless and was not stupid. In fact, defensive lines like these were used to freed manpower in ww2 in various occasions. The Germans tried to do that in the eastern front. And the Russians did that in 1944 when their manpower reserves ran low.

 

The "Maus" is dumber.

 

At least it didn't pass prototype stage.

The British made 7 thousand of these crappy tanks for 4 years.

Only the V-2 project was dumber.

 

75mm and one of these 'crappy' tanks knocked out one of the first Tigers in Tunisia.

 

Why's it stupid? It's an infantry support tank with more armour than a tiger. It also had excellent suspension. It's not a good tank killer, but as long as you don't pretend that it is, what's the problem? The gun got upgraded over the course of the war. For use against Panther and Tigers, you bring along your 17pdrs. The same concept would be reused in the Sherman Jumbo.

 

Everything from the Davy Crockett to the bent barrel MP40 for shooting into tanks.[/QUOTE]

It was designed for PC crew,not tanks crew. The PC crew could not depress their weapon low enough to cover area around fighting vehicle..
But it was also used for urban fighting

 

Ever talked to a Churchill crew member?
Seems to inspire more loyalty among those that actually served in it than just about any other AFV. Maybe due to it's fine crew survival rates when hit...
Off-road mobility alone caused the Axis many headaches in the right territory, it's not often referred to as 'The Mountain Goat' for nothing. One German Colonel's despatch of February '43 from Steamroller Farm regarding Churchills certainly makes no mention of 'dumb':

The Mountain Goat Page 2
(Read Gerry's site for some of the best stuff you'll find on Churchills in general, perhaps alongside David Fletcher's sensible appraisal in 'Mr Churchill's Tank')

As to the '40mm gun', I'm guessing you haven't really looked into the subject mate. Only the I, II, & IICS carried the 2pdr, and each of those also carried a 3" gun.
6pdr & 75mm for the rest, not to mention it's useful service in AVRE form.

I'd be the first to agree that the Churchill had an exceptionally difficult and drawn out birth, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be in a 'stupid weapons' thread alongside the sticky bomb & nuclear mortar.

~A

 

OMG age?
1:Ok your maybe right but blaming the 9mm...
2:LoL nobody fires 3 magazines after each other.
3:STG was very effective...
4:The FG the magazine was ok bad thing was it was at the side and the fire rate of 600 is good...
5:Can't even spell it right.
6:Tanks the panzer IV and older models were very reliable and they used many more reliable vehicles.
And 1 thing are you French?

 

Seriously, though, attacking the Luger for terrible handling? The Luger was famed at the time for being one of the best balanced pistols around. There's a quote somewhere comparing it to the Colt - something like: you could close your eyes and still line up your target correctly and shoot with the Luger. With the Colt, you'll just end up shooting yourself in the foot.