Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Most useless weapon of the 20th Century

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by Ebar, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. liang

    liang New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Bayonet on a machine gun, that is just silly. The only use I can think of is when the gunner runs out of ammo, he can use that sword to kill himself in honor of the ancient Samurai spirit.
    I am surprise they don't attach bayonets to the artillery pieces, or on the nose of the Zero fighters.
     
  2. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Yep. The Japanese, of all the participants in WW2, were the ones most devoted to the cult of cold steel, despite the fact that it generally served to increase their casualties and lessen their combat effectiveness.
     
  3. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    an e.m.p. is just as dangeous as a nuke
     
  4. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Bayonets are not fitted all the time and can be removed, the weapon I used to use was an SMG which also had a bayonet attachment, although I never needed it if it came down to no bullets and a bayonet I would have been grateful for it.
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes of course, but an SMG is a hand weapon while a light machine gun isn't used in the same role at all. It is supposed to be held slightly back and provide cover for attacking infantry, then quickly move up to the nearest safe spot and repeat. If you stick to this use of the LMG like the Japanese did you're not likely to need a bayonet.
     
  6. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Not likely but probably, and it is this time when you want it, not as an after thought.
     
  7. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I was taught by the US Navy that it's better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it.
     
  8. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    My words exactly.
     
  9. johann phpbb3

    johann phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    via TanksinWW2
    Only problem with that line of argument is, eventually you will end up putting 35 foot snorkel devices on tanks. Because you never know, you may want to cross a very deep river. That argument is useful sometimes, but not with swords on the end of maching guns. Why not just carry one?
     
  10. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Depending on the limits yes you are right. the lenght can be important, however, bearing in mind it is possible the if ou are attacked the bayonet can be fitted and the machinegun fired at the same time, so that should you run out of ammo the bayonet is there ready to be used, whereas a sword is sheathed and cannot be readily drawn. the machinegun is used mainly lying down prone so in this case you have to get up draw your sword and fight. with the bayonet fitted you get up and fight. maybe the lenght is a bit much and shouldn't be permanently fitted but I am all for a machine gun with a bayonet.
     
  11. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2
    why not just have a sword lying next to you then
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Because if you move position, you'll have to pick the sword up and take it with you. You might need both hands free to carry (and use!) your gun.

    At least I assume so.
    GP?
     
  13. johann phpbb3

    johann phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    via TanksinWW2
    I think we should stop arguing over how to correctly use a sword attached to a machine gun. Honestly!
     
  14. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes a bayonet is the last resort and not a main fighting weapon. In the heat of battle a sword lying next ot you can be easily left, so it wwill be no use at all.
     
  15. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    That's why armies of today don't use swords anymore! Please, I'm with johann, skip to something that makes sense here.

    Can we come to any kind of agreement about the most useles weapon of the 20th century?
     
  16. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    I would say the A bomb bllons and billions and billions to build it and only used 2 times
     
  17. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I would say cavalry.
    Still in use in WW1 by both sides, even used for attempts to break the line after the advent of tanks!
    A blatant & stupid waste of men & horses.
     
  18. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
  19. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    One thing I'm surprised hasn't come up is the British K Class submarine. Steam powered vessels that were to be able to keep pace with the surface fleet (meaning a top speed of at least 21kts). They racked up an impressive number of fatal accidents without ever doing any damage to the enemy.

    Depending on your point of view they were technically over ambious or conceptually flawed.
     
  20. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    How about the M103 Heavy tank (and even the Conquerer)?
    Both HUGE tanks designed to oppose the IS-3/T-10.
    The M103 had the same engine/transmission as the M47, which was 10 tons lighter.
    Cronically underpowered, frequent breakdowns...
    They each cost more than an M60 cost (years later - count in inflation that is not good!).

    Obviously they required their own dedicated recovery/repair vehicles.

    I understand that there was felt to be a need for these beasts, but they were a bit of a waste of resources...

    (I'm waiting for a comparison to the Tige 2!)
     

Share This Page