Most Inhumane Weapon

Bizarre topic... surely anyway to go is bad enough! Whatever the cause! By definition any weapon is inhumane as it is designed to kill or maim another living being?

I would have voted for dum-dums...

 

I would think that flamethrowers were the worst. Havig to burn to death doesn't sound all that inviting. The british led quite well in this field with the wasp and crocodile.

 

Homo Homini Lupus

 

But the Germans first came up with the flamethrower... As for vehicle mounted flamethrowers, was the PnzII Flamingo and FlammPanzer III around first???

 

True but i dont think they were ever as effective as the british vehicles.

 

I don't think it's so much the "most inhumane weapon", but how inhumanely a weapon is used. Whether it's firebombing a city with napalm or sticking a bayonette into a child..

I may be biased of course but I think the most inhumane *usage* of a weapon was Churchill's desire to incinerate the German people. Sure the Nazi's tried to do the same but they were self-proclaimed "evil" people. Churchill & Co. were supposed to represent democracy and human rights, so why was he so keen on mass murder? Not to mention his (failed) attempt to drop poisons and chemicals on Germany.. thankfully the RAF convinced him incindiary bombs did more damage.

 

Can we please include the US desire to incinerate Tokyo with mass B-29 raids and to eradicate Hiroshima and Nagasaki...or do different moral standards apply in that theatre of war ?

 

my personal opinion is that the russian habit of forced marching noble and sometimes not so noble soldiery to thier death must be one of the worst weapons.

 

If we are speaking of homefront weapons I have to voice the weapon of Germany against the Jews: the concentration camps. In this war, there was no fighting, just genocide, only one weapon, death. Pulling people out of marching lines and shooting them because someone feels like it, inhumane does not describe those actions.

 

This comes from Parada's site:

"During African campaign, small number of Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf As was converted in the field by Africa Korps (5th Light Division) during Battle of Tobruk in 1941 into Flammenwerfer auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf A (a similar conversion was done to Ausf Bs during Spanish Civil War). It was armed with light portable infantry Flammenwerfer (flamethrower model) 40 and MG (in place of right hand machine gun). Some 10 to 12 bursts could be fired with a range of 25m." http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz11.htm#panzer1

"On February 21,1939 German Army HQ ordered the development of Flammpanzer (flame-thrower tank)."
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/flam.htm


However, it seems the Russians were a bit earlier in their testing:
"OT-26 (HT-26) - flame-thrower (chemical) tank 1933-1934. Armament: flame-thrower and one machine-gun. A few tanks were produced."
http://www.battlefield.ru/t26.html


Cheers,
Sami

P.S. didn't check whats the history in other Allied forces.
However, flame tanks seem to have appeared in real numbers in the Red Army only in 1938.

 

I don't see the flamethrower as being that bad a weapon. It might be inhumane to roast someone alive but the flamethrower can do things no other weapon of the time could. It's best use was probably by Allied forces in Europe fighting against the Germans' many fortifications and in the Pacific, burning out Jap foxholes.

Also wasn't there (or isn't there) a ban on automatic weapons larger than 15mm during the war, because it was "inhumane" or something of the sort? Seems to me I'd rather be blown apart and instantly die than slowly bleed to death with gunshot wounds to the stomach in the mud like an animal.

All weapons are inhumane by design; they're made to kill other humans.

 

Mine quess is flamethrower, either. No wonder germans had a habit sumarily shoot all crocodile tank crew member. I would do the same. However I know none soldier picks up its allocation.

 

The most inhumane weapon ever built is the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb does not belong in the hands of anyone.

 

Most inhumane weapon ever was school, it traumautises our brains. Makes us senseless, and worst of all, it's happening EVERYWHERE.

 

Obviously someone who believes as Mark Twain did: "Soap and education aren't as sudden as a massacre but they are more deadly in the long run."

 

Most inhumane weapon? An officer with a map.

 

I must say, Im new to this forum and this particuliar thread bothers me. To ask which is the most inhumane weapon is an oxymoron. Nobody even mentioned the weapon that killed the most people in WWII. Starvation, and the diseases associated with it. And since I can guarantee that nobody on this thread has been shot, grenaded, napalmed, or atomic bombed, all at once in thier lifetime, how can you pick which one would be the most inhumane? Since nobody has been exposed to all of them. Cant the smallest bullet lodged in the belly of its victim be just as painful as peeling flesh from your own skin due to white phosphorous, flamethrower or a-bomb? Once again nobody knows, so this is a null and void question.

 

That's certainly a valid point, Bert!

Welcome to the forums. Hope you enjoy yourself here. Swear the rest of the threads aren't as silly as this one.

 

I had a pint glass smashed in my face once... DOes that count BigBert?

So, by definition of experience, as that is the only weapon that has been used on me, I will go for that...


Most Inhumane Weapon - The Pint Glass


I do however see Bigberts point, how do we know! And personally, I dont wanna find out!

Surely, by being designed to kill, all weapons are inhumane by nature? How can you have a humane weapon?

 

Monty Python's deadly joke....it killed, but at least they died laughing...