NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone else got pictures of useless weapons of war? YOu can doctor the pictures, but they've go to be funny.

The new grenades were less effective than the Germans hoped. (http://img159.exs.cx/img159/9297/useless11df.jpg)

The prototype bombs didn't work quite as expected. (http://img159.exs.cx/img159/8365/useless20fc.jpg)

somethingawful has a collection of the worst weapons in history.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2621

no pics but a movie quote... from the Mysterions...

"One step closer and I'll throw this Nuclear hand grenade."

somethingawful has a collection of the worst weapons in history.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2621

Fabulous site. Best pic? Has to be this one.
http://images.somethingawful.com/mjolnir/images/cg01182005/fork-banger.jpg

Haha the SA one was jokes!

I don't have any though.... :(

Not so much a useless weapon as a misguided one. The Russians during WW2 had trained dogs with mines on their backs to run under tanks and drop the mine infront of the tanks. This worked well and eventually it was taken to the field. However Russian tanks used desiel and German ones petrol so when they were used in the field they ran to the Russian tanks.

At some point in the 1800s someone designed a gun that was mounted on a helmet and fired by biting down on a bit...unfortunately the recoil was powerful enough to snap the user's neck.

Another failed gun was the boomerang bullet - it was meant to shoot around corners, but if it didn't hit anything it came full circle and shot whoever fired it.

Sorry no references for these - they come from The Factastic Book of 1001 Lists.

The Chauchat was useless. It was French, and designed by a committee.

Probably regarded as the most stupid, most poorly designed firearm ever to make it to production.

Most soldiers ended up discarding them.

no pics but a movie quote... from the Mysterions...

"One step closer and I'll throw this Nuclear hand grenade."


I hate to break it to you, but the US, in all their "technical glory" designed and built one.
Then a few of their allies reminded them that no one was strong enough to throw it to a safe distance, so they scrapped it.

I hate to break it to you, but the US, in all their "technical glory" designed and built one.
Then a few of their allies reminded them that no one was strong enough to throw it to a safe distance, so they scrapped it.
Please provide a link. I'd love to see what a nuclear hand grenade looks like. Actually, I doubt such a thing could be built. I would think even the smallest nuclear weapon would have to be significantly bigger than a hand grenade.

Please provide a link. I'd love to see what a nuclear hand grenade looks like. Actually, I doubt such a thing could be built. I would think even the smallest nuclear weapon would have to be significantly bigger than a hand grenade.


Unfortunatly, I don't have a link on me, and I'm quite too lazy to look one up.
But it was the size of a football.. actually slightly bigger. I read it in an "Atomic Energy" book a year or two back.
Based on the same idea as the nuclear artillery shells or recoilless rifle rounds.
It wasn't thought up to be practical, or for that matter powerful, the US was just nuclear happy in the 1950's.

Ok, I'll buy football sized. I was thinking it would have to be about as big as a bowling ball. Not much size difference there, just a different shape. The thing had to be heavy as hell for a thrown projectile.

Ok, I'll buy football sized. I was thinking it would have to be about as big as a bowling ball. Not much size difference there, just a different shape. The thing had to be heavy as hell for a thrown projectile.

Hence why they couldn't find anyone strong enough to throw it to a safe distance, even if it was only a 0.3kt weapon, which I think it was.

Hence why they couldn't find anyone strong enough to throw it to a safe distance, even if it was only a 0.3kt weapon, which I think it was.
That's still equvalent to 300 tons of TNT. What retard dreamed that up?

That's still equvalent to 300 tons of TNT. What retard dreamed that up?

I dunno. But as I said, the US went "nuclear crazy" in the 1950's.
Bombs, airplanes, missiles, artillery shells. grenades, mines, demolition charges, strip-mining devices, ship engine systems.. just to name a few.
Some of them became reality, many did not.

I hate to break it to you, but the US, in all their "technical glory" designed and built one.
Then a few of their allies reminded them that no one was strong enough to throw it to a safe distance, so they scrapped it.

Moron, what you are talking about was not a hand grenade, but a sort of rifle grenade. It would fly about 300 meters then detonate on impact. It was a sort of hefty anti-tank weapon. The blast would have been small enough where if fired from a man in a fire hole, he'd be covered from the initial blast. Plus it would be strong enough to kill 3 or 4 tanks (typical Russian tank movements).

Moron, what you are talking about was not a hand grenade, but a sort of rifle grenade. It would fly about 300 meters then detonate on impact. It was a sort of hefty anti-tank weapon. The blast would have been small enough where if fired from a man in a fire hole, he'd be covered from the initial blast. Plus it would be strong enough to kill 3 or 4 tanks (typical Russian tank movements).


No, moron, they devloped a hand grenade too. Never went past prototype stage.
Besides, you can't make a nuclear weapon with a deatonation smaller then 0.3kt, that's the destructive force you get with the minimum ammount of material for critical mass.
And incase you didn't notice, 0.3kt = 300 tons of TNT, which is more then enough to kill a guy in a trench at 300m.