Worst Weapon?

I'd have to say no, there are bad soldiers in every military there are those that are delinquents and or just can't hack it.

I mean just look at the Mexican Army for the period of 1836-1847...whew talk about an army that sucked....

Don't even think of quoting the Alamo, because even though the Mexican Army captured it; they still had a loss rate of 9-10 soldiers per ever man that defended the Alamo. So not a good ratio for the Mexican Army.

Thats my worst weapon...the Mexican Army....

Regards,
MARNE

 

LOL, marne thats probably a pretty good answer however the Mexican army didnt fight in WW2 lol

 

Their Air Force did!

Marne, of course there will be rotten apples everywhere, including here (me! ) but if an army systematically underperforms it will be somewhat strange if we blame it all on the privates!

First we should look at officers, training methods, logistics, high command (the "Lions led by donkeys" syndrome), etc etc. Of course there may also be civilian social reasons underpinning the whole, see France '40 although I loath saying this as it all was damned complex.

What I mean is if a poor civvie is conscripted and spills his blood, we can't blame him for spilling it too much!

 

Frankly, Slava, on an army like this http://www.worldwar2.ro/ from a country as poor as church mice* and with lousy leaders could you expect it's army to have any means to do anything at all, much less against the biggest of them all, the USSR? Totally wrong people in the wrong war against the wrong guy, of course they got skewered!


*never mind the oil, I'm sure Standard Oil (now Exxon) took more than the lion share!

 

How about the German Niger human torpedos? Of the several dozen acutally launched operationally (most against the D-Day fleet) none hit a target while all but one was lost with its one man crew. Nothing like 100% casualties for no successes to put a weapon on this list!

 

The Japanese Kamikaze. These planes were suicide planes which flied into navy ships of the US Navy during the pacific war. They will crush into ships. And the ship will explode with the suicide plane. The pilot will even die, because these planes are suicide planes. They are the worst. Because alot of them didn't do good. Most of them were shot down by guns from U.S Ships.

 

I would have to say the 88's behind Rommel's hands. As everyone knows used by the Germans, it was a clearly distingushiable death to any tank or fortified position for the Allies.

 

Er..., OTF, how does that make the 88s the worst weapon?

 

The Japanese Anti tank weapon.

You know, the guy in the hole with a 250lb bomb between his legs and a rock.......

 

They managed to sink 66 USN ships and damage many more.

Probably their best chance at that time.

 

yea, you should probrably look more into that P5, i would almost translate the kamakazi into a terrorist ordeal, because they brought religion into it, and believed they die for there religion....this is merely my opinon...i would like to hear from others...

 

Going back a few days I have already said why I don't agree with this statement.

However if you were going to say the Italian or Romanian general, well, then I might agree with you

 

Going back a few days I have already said why I don't agree with this statement.

However if you were going to say the Italian or Romanian general, well, then I might agree with you </font>[/QUOTE]Za

Yes the mexican airforce fought in WW2 not their army.

And yes Za the leadership of the Romanian and Italian Armies was more then incompitant, to say the least

 

Sorry but I couldnt disagree more....kamikaze pilots were one of the most terrifying if not the most terrifying weapons unleashed on the U.S. forces in the pacific. 2,800 kamikaze's lost their lives in so taking over 4,900 U.S. sailors and in some accounts over 70 U.S. vessels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze


How is this one of the worst weapons?

 

What about the Japanese tanks
are they any better than the Italian ones?

 

Read my posts again, especially when I say 'only bad officers'.

Would the average 'fanterista' have the same amount of training and indoctrination as a Bad Tolz cadet? No? So what do you expect?

These guys seemed gutsy enough for me... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS

 

So the Italian anti-tank gunners of the Ariete Division at Alamein, who Von Luck referred to as fighting with 'death defying' courage and are mentioned specifically in many other reports... didn't?
Cheers,
Adam.

 

I am talking about their performance in general.
If the Italians can handle the English, then why was Rommel there?

[ 19. October 2006, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Ironcross ]

 

Ah the good old " there are no bad soldiers only bad officers " debate. I believe me and Za already went this route before