NationStates Jolt Archive

what is the best military weapon ever developed. Based mainly on length of use, and efficeiency I would say the Gladius, followed by the Kukhri, and finally the Sykes-Fairbairn dagger, with the colt 1911 including the IAI Desert Eagle .50AE in fourth place

I would have to say the trained soldier. Been around almost since the birth of civilization and still the basic platform for every other weapons system ever developed.

The good-ol'fashioned club.

The blunt object.

The good ol' pointy stick

The sharp object.

It may not have been used as long as the blunt object, but it is far more efficient and has been used more.

I would have to say the trained soldier. Been around almost since the birth of civilization and still the basic platform for every other weapons system ever developed.
"A Warrior is meat on the table for a Soldier with Dicipline" File Closer Claudius Afer, Roman Legionaire

Tell that to Quinctilius Varus.

None

I'm going to have to disagree.

The gladius worked fine for its day, but it lacks range, power and damage.

I'm going to go a bit horizontal and then cork-screwey here and say:

The cartridge-fed firearm. Specifically auto-loading, magazine-fed cartridge long arms with rifled barrels. Early guns failed due to moisture fouling powders and primers. They were slow to reload, fired only a few shots and often suffered from malfunctions. The weapons had short ranges and poor accuracy, but every generation improved this. Then came Eugene Stoner and Mikhail Kalishnikov.

A very few units, upon being issued modern battle rifles, could have easily turned the tide in any great historical battle prior to the advent of cartridge-fed firearms. These devices, while cheap for a nation to design and produce, turn even poorly-trained conscript soldiers into a deadly fighting force. Even women and older children can effectively employ them, equalizing the playing field. This is the USA's defense in an invasion during wartime when our soldiers are away- "A rifle behind every blade of grass."

The same turning of the tide in a historical battle would never be accomplished by throwing a bunch of gladiuses or even the wonderful Fairburn/Sykes blade into the mix.

If you go far enough back in history, even the venerable Colt M1911A1 could be the difference, but in general pistols lack the stopping power, capacity and accuracy of long arms...

My personal favorite battle rifle is the FN-FAL in .308 Winchester (7.62X51mm NATO) with a paratrooper folding stock, 30-round magazines, select-fire (full/semi/ safe), EOTech holographic sight, carbine barrel (18" with flash hider) and black synthetic forestock.

A thermonuclear weapon.

As far as length of use and effectiveness, the F-14/F-15 is probably up there as far as military weapons go.

Two, totally different aircraft labelled as one?

The Boeing B52 or the Sukhoi Su-27 are better examples really.

A single Trident nuclear submarine with its full complement of missiles and warheads is capable of decimating any nation on earth, and it could do it alone.

It's also next to impossible to locate and destroy.

A thermonuclear weapon.

The only weapon you can avoid killing by threatening to use it.

Agreed.

The atom bomb. Look at charts for war-related deaths over the course of history - in general, they rise exponentially up until the atom bombs were dropped. Then death tolls plummet and level out at a comparatively low number.

I agree tis the trained soldier

the AK47

Not necessarily the trained soldier, but the warrior spirit. An answer that ranges from the Allfather

"Better is heart than a mighty blade
For him who shall fiercely fight;
The brave man well shall fight and win,
Though dull his blade may be."

to Uncle Sam:

[R Lee Ermey] "Your rifle is only a tool. It is the hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong, you will hesitate at the moment of truth."

1. (Thermo)nuclear weapons
2. The machine gun
3. Stick with sharp rock tied on the end
4. The pike
5. The tank

The A-10. It can shred a tank with its main gun.

The A-10. It can shred a tank with its main gun.
and those guys are almost 40 years old too, and nearly impossible to shoot down; they can return to base with like half a wing.

If you are talking PERSONAL weapons - rather than weapons platforms or delivery systems then for my money it has to be the SMLE Mk IVT. (SMLE = Short Magazine Lee Enfield).
Fitted with optical sights you can sit out of range of assault weapon's such as the AK's and still put a round centrally between the eyes of the AK user whilst at closer range it has the ability to put down a good rate of fire unlike modern sniper rifles such as the Dragonoff which have a very slow rate of fire due to the bolt mechanisms.

The Laser guided missle, since they started using them there have been less civilan deaths.

As far as length of use and effectiveness, the F-14/F-15 is probably up there as far as military weapons go.
You're definitely on the right track with aircraft. F-14s and F-15s aren't comparable. The extra seat in the Tomcat gives it so much more capability that the single seat Eagle. I think the current _best_ has to be the F-117, though it will be surpassed by the Raptor when L&M gets all the bugs worked out.

Either the Long Bow or the Crossbow.

Fire-strengthened wood. If it weren't for that, we'd still only be halfway up the African food chain. Just under Hyenas, I reckon.

If you are talking PERSONAL weapons - rather than weapons platforms or delivery systems then for my money it has to be the SMLE Mk IVT. (SMLE = Short Magazine Lee Enfield). Is that a bolt-action rifle?

what is the best military weapon ever developed.

The Nuclear Weapon.

I would have to say the trained soldier. Been around almost since the birth of civilization and still the basic platform for every other weapons system ever developed.
I would have to agree with this. Regardless of whether we're talking swords and knives, or remotely operated Global Hawks, it's the soldier behind the weapon who makes the difference.

The A-10. It can shred a tank with its main gun.
Yayyy close air support! :D

Explosives

I concur with a few on here that atomic/thermonuclear weapons are probably the most effective weapon ever invented, mainly for their diversionary properties. As a subset, the neutron bomb is particularly nasty.

I'm a big fan of the MOAB fuel-air bomb. It's like a mini-nuke without all the messy radiation and fallout.

Hand to hand: the Kukri. Also, the Spetznaz combat trowel is an amazingly versatile weapon.

Aircraft: I love the A-10 Warthog and the AH-64 Apache.

Future weapons: Hypervelocity rod weapons...hands down.

I would have to agree with this. Regardless of whether we're talking swords and knives, or remotely operated Global Hawks, it's the soldier behind the weapon who makes the difference.I call bullshit. Give the best soldier in the world a pointy stick and put him up against a poorly trained conscript with a bad attitude and an AK-47 and see who survives.

The sharp object.

It may not have been used as long as the blunt object, but it is far more efficient

http://graphics.samsclub.com/images/products/0007681280024_LG.jpg

I call bullshit. Give the best soldier in the world a pointy stick and put him up against a poorly trained conscript with a bad attitude and an AK-47 and see who survives.
(in normal conditions) I would take the army with AK-47s...

http://graphics.samsclub.com/images/products/0007681280024_LG.jpg
You are penalized 2.7 internets for tastelessness and not adhering to the topic of MILITARY weapons. :headbang:

Ok. -Boring answer first. Thermonuclear weapons.

Then comes the trained man "A group of disorderly men is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house." -Confucius

Then we have the answer. I would say the Sarissa... despite its tactical inflexibility, the phalangite blocks of Macedon were able to spread across the known world in record time, they were surprisingly effective when held up at deflecting arrow fire, and the ability to hit with the front five ranks of your men is invaluable at wearing down the enemy who only has a sword which cannot even get close to the block. Of course, if you split it up, or flank it, then it is basically dead, but it's a strong core of an old-type army otherwise.

Well, I think your basis for judging is flawed, but based on that the only possible answer is the atomic bomb. It's efficency is unmatchable by anything ever used in history. Nukes have never been used and aircraft are a delivery system, not a weapon by definition. You need a bit more defined criteria for a broader spectrum of possibilities.

i'd have to say the

Automa Kalishnekov 1947


then again theres the mp5 and m50

....and not adhering to the topic of MILITARY weapons. :headbang:I would say it is a sharp object and can be used to kill.

I call bullshit. Give the best soldier in the world a pointy stick and put him up against a poorly trained conscript with a bad attitude and an AK-47 and see who survives.
Yeah, so the poorly trained conscript wanderes around maybe shooting off some ammo randomly, while the best soldier in the world is high up in a tree somewhere watching, falls noislessly behind the conscript and slits his throat. An AK-47 is a very inaccurate weapon anyway, but that's just a scenario.

I would say it is a sharp object and can be used to kill.
Sharp objects have been used (and still are) in a military capacity. I'm with OceanDrive.

(in normal conditions) I would take the army with AK-47s...
Ocean, it's not just training. You have to be as hard as woodpecker lips to win. Arabs just can't get it together in combat on a regular basis, even against people with knives and bayonets.

I guess we can see that Arabs with AK-47s can't get their bead on men with bayonets...

British soldiers killed 35 Iraqi attackers in the Army’s first bayonet charge since the Falklands War 22 years ago. The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down. Despite being outnumbered five to one, they suffered only three minor wounds in the hand-to-hand fighting near the city of Amara. The battle erupted after Land Rovers carrying 20 Argylls came under attack on a highway.

After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills.

When the fighting ended bodies lay all over the highway — and more were floating in a nearby river. Nine rebels were captured. An Army spokesman said: “This was an intense engagement.”

The last bayonet charge was by the Scots Guards and the Paras against Argentinian positions.


And they can't get their bead on a single man with a knife...

NAJAF, Iraq - One of his friends was dead, 12 others lay wounded and the four soldiers still left standing were surrounded and out of ammunition. So Salvadoran Cpl. Samuel Toloza said a prayer, whipped out his switchblade knife and charged the Iraqi gunmen.

In one of the only known instances of hand-to-hand combat in the Iraq (news - web sites) conflict, Toloza stabbed several attackers who were swarming around a comrade. The stunned assailants backed away momentarily, just as a relief column came to their rescue.

"We never considered surrender. I was trained to fight until the end," said the 25-year-old Toloza, one of 380 El Salvador (news - web sites) soldiers whose heroism is being cited just as criticism is leveled against other members of the multinational force in Iraq.

:sniper: The best military weapon is by far the Death Star. All you have to watch the exhaust vent and you are fine. I would like to see the A-10 blast through that, oh wait it can't because it is in space and not real.

Here, Ocean...
Best part is the photo:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rawheadrex/images/Toloza_knife.jpg

Here, Ocean...
Best part is the photo:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rawheadrex/images/Toloza_knife.jpg

Official Mexican Army knife?

...I still would bet on the Army armed with the AKs...defeating your Army of over-trained knife totting Soldiers.

Official Mexican Army knife?

...I still would bet on the Army armed with the AKs...defeating your Army of over-trained knife totting Soldiers.

Notice that I have two incidents where the Arabs got their spleens handed to them - once by Scotsmen with bayonets, and another time by a SINGLE Salvadoran.

In each case the Arabs had AKs, were firing, and outnumbered the people with knives and bayonets.

They were also at close range.

Tells you how much they suck at being soldiers.

what is the best military weapon ever developed. Based mainly on length of use, and efficeiency I would say the Gladius, followed by the Kukhri, and finally the Sykes-Fairbairn dagger, with the colt 1911 including the IAI Desert Eagle .50AE in fourth place


The bayonet...a personal favorite of mine.
Followed by the Lee Enfeild SMLE and the m1a1 carbine or the vickers gun

My point is, Ocean, that Arab armies have, historically, performed very poorly against any Western trained army, even if they have modern weaponry.

The only exception was the 1973 October War - when the Egyptians actually stopped taking Soviet Army advice and thought of an innovative plan.

It never ceases to amaze me to see parades of Arab soldiers and Arab jihadis on Arabic television. They are selling the idea that somehow, a man who looks cool in a hooded wrap and can yell and wave an AK in the air and stomp around in formation is going to win.

That somehow, we'll be impressed, and give up. That somehow, Allah will grant them victory.

And we keep handing them the same lesson we handed the Mahdi at Omdurman. It's the men behind the weapons who win battles.

Official Mexican Army knife?
Ummm... Salvadoran. He's not "Mexican" just because he's brown. :rolleyes:

Ummm... Salvadoran. He's not "Mexican" just because he's brown. :rolleyes:

It's ok for a leftist to be a racist. It's in the rule book.

what is the best military weapon ever developed. Based mainly on length of use, and efficeiency I would say the Gladius, followed by the Kukhri, and finally the Sykes-Fairbairn dagger, with the colt 1911 including the IAI Desert Eagle .50AE in fourth place

Discipline is a weapon. It's not a physical tool, it's a mindset, and it's deadlier than any blade, stronger than any armour, and you can't take it away from its possessor-he must surrender it.
A small force of disciplined men armed with ad-hoc tools can take apart a larger force of well-armed but undisciplined enemies. We've seen this time after time throughout history.

The Mind is the most powerful weapon of all.

My point is, Ocean, that Arab armies have, historically, performed very poorly against any Western trained army, even if they have modern weaponry.


Not disputing that, but if you go back to the middle ages, then the Arabic armies were pretty damn good.

My point is, Ocean, that Arab armies have, historically, performed very poorly against any Western trained army, even if they have modern weaponry.

The only exception was the 1973 October War - when the Egyptians actually stopped taking Soviet Army advice and thought of an innovative plan.

It never ceases to amaze me to see parades of Arab soldiers and Arab jihadis on Arabic television. They are selling the idea that somehow, a man who looks cool in a hooded wrap and can yell and wave an AK in the air and stomp around in formation is going to win.

That somehow, we'll be impressed, and give up. That somehow, Allah will grant them victory.

And we keep handing them the same lesson we handed the Mahdi at Omdurman. It's the men behind the weapons who win battles.


Beg to differ...um of course we have given them a bloody good thrashing of late...but saladin was quite good in his time..

It's ok for a leftist to be a racist. It's in the rule book.
The Al-Qaeda Training Manual? http://www.dasmusik.net/forums/images/smilies/look.gif


:p

PS: Telegram me the link to your blog. I want to check it out.

Discipline is a weapon. It's not a physical tool, it's a mindset, and it's deadlier than any blade, stronger than any armour, and you can't take it away from its possessor-he must surrender it.
A small force of disciplined men armed with ad-hoc tools can take apart a larger force of well-armed but undisciplined enemies. We've seen this time after time throughout history.

The Mind is the most powerful weapon of all.


"the less you have the harder you fight for it"

Beg to differ...um of course we have given them a bloody good thrashing of late...but saladin was quite good in his time..

I'm talking about modern armies.

Baybars and Saladin are also aberrations. The rest of Islamic military history is a litany of having their asses handed to them.

From Ian Frazier, writing for The New Yorker

A couple of years ago Osama bin Laden said (in one of his intermittent recorded messages to the world) that during the previous Gulf War Colin Powell and Dick Cheney had destroyed Baghdad worse than Hulagu of the Mongols. Bin Laden provided no further identification of Hulagu, probably assuming that none was needed. Of course, almost no one in America had any idea what he was talking about, so news stories helpfully added that Hulagu, a grandson of Genghis Khan, was a Mongol general who sacked Baghdad in the year 1258. Beyond that footnote, the press as a whole shrugged at bin Laden’s out-of-left-field comparison and moved on.

Someone should note that he has a great appreciation for history, and considers enemies of the past to be enemies of the present. He is also dismayed at the poor showing in military history - and seeks redress - permanently.

By 1257, Hulagu had reached western Persia. From there he sent emissaries to the caliph telling him to raze the walls of Baghdad and fill in the moat and come in person to make obeisance to Hulagu. The caliph replied that with all of Islam ready to defend him, he did not fear. He advised Hulagu to go back where he came from. The Mongol army had recently received reinforcements from other Mongol hordes, and a contingent of Christian cavalry from Georgia. Perhaps the Mongols had eight hundred and fifty thousand soldiers; certainly they had more than a hundred thousand. In November of 1257, they marched on toward Baghdad, dividing as they approached so that their forces would surround the city. The caliph sent an army to stop those approaching from the west, and repulsed them in an early battle. In the next encounter, the Mongols broke some dikes and flooded the ground behind the caliph’s army, and slaughtered or drowned them all.

Mustasim, the caliph, was not of a character equal to such large problems. He is described as a weak, vacillating layabout who liked to drink sherbet and keep company with musicians and clowns. Worse, from a strategic point of view, Mustasim had recently angered the Shiites by various insults and offenses, such as throwing the poem of a famous Shiite poet in the river. Now vengeful Shiites volunteered help to the Mongols in Mosul and other places along their march. The caliph’s vizier, or chief minister, was himself a Shiite of uncertain loyalty. Islamic opinion afterward held that the vizier, al-Alkamzi, vilely betrayed the caliph and conspired with the Mongols; an exhortation in Muslim school books used to say, “Let him be cursed of God who curses not al-Alkamzi.” As fighting began, Hulagu, acknowledging the importance of Shiite support, prudently posted guard detachments of a hundred Mongol horsemen at the most sacred Shiite shrines in Najef and Karbala.

On January 29, 1258, Hulagu’s forces took up a position on the eastern outskirts of Baghdad and began a bombardment. Soon they had breached the outer wall. The caliph, who had been advised against escaping by his vizier, offered to negotiate. Hulagu, with the city practically in his hands, refused. The upshot was that the caliph and his retinue came out of the city, the remainder of his army followed, they laid down their arms, and the Mongols killed almost everybody. Hulagu told Baghdad’s Christians to stay in a church, which he put off-limits to his soldiers. Then, for a period of seven days, the Mongols sacked the city, killing (depending on the source) two hundred thousand, or eight hundred thousand, or more than a million. The Mongols’ Georgian Christian allies were said to have particularly distinguished themselves in slaughter. Plunderers threw away their swords and filled their scabbards with gold. Silver and jewels and gold piled up in great heaps around Hulagu’s tent. Fire consumed the caliph’s palace, and the smoke from its beams of aloe wood, sandalwood, and ebony filled the air with fragrance for a distance of a hundred li. (A li equalled five hundred bow lengths—a hundred li was maybe thirty miles.) So many books from Baghdad’s libraries were flung into the Tigris that a horse could walk across on them. The river ran black with scholars’ ink and red with the blood of martyrs.

The stories of what Hulagu did to the caliph vary. One says that Hulagu toyed with him a while, dining with him and discussing theology and pretending to be his guest. A famous account describes how Hulagu imprisoned the caliph in a roomful of treasure and brought him gold on a tray instead of food. The caliph protested that he could not eat gold, and Hulagu asked him why he hadn’t used his money to strengthen his army and defend against the Mongols. The caliph said, “That was the will of God.” Hulagu replied, “What will happen to you is the will of God, also,” leaving him among the treasure to starve.

Many sources agree that there was fear of an earthquake or other shock to nature occurring if the caliph’s sacred blood was spilled. Learned Shiites advised Hulagu that no catastrophes had followed the bloody deaths of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, or the Shiite saint Hosein, so he should go ahead. To be safe, Hulagu had the caliph wrapped in a carpet and then trodden to death by horses. He also killed all the caliph’s family, except for his youngest son and a daughter. The daughter was shipped off to Mongolia to be a slave in the harem of Mongke Khan.

Tells you how much they suck at being soldiers.

To be fair, they are not actually soldiers, which is probably the reason.

I am sure if you took 10,000 arabs, and placed them under decent officers and NCOs, after a year or so, you would have a fairly credible force. Not Ghurka rifles or Highlanders - that takes centuries, but certainly effective enough to deal with a bayonet charge.

..he still re-took jerusalem.....anyway...um..that was my only point really......of course they are rubbish now...i mean ha..look at the iranian embassy seige

To be fair, they are not actually soldiers, which is probably the reason.


My point exactly. But Ocean, and a lot of Arabs, think that by buying AKs and rockets and marching in loud parades shouting slogans, that they're going to magically become effective soldiers.

To be fair, they are not actually soldiers, which is probably the reason.

I am sure if you took 10,000 arabs, and placed them under decent officers and NCOs, after a year or so, you would have a fairly credible force. Not Ghurka rifles or Highlanders - that takes centuries, but certainly effective enough to deal with a bayonet charge.

Yes i agree...many of our modern regiments (both U.S and European) were formed from civilians to fight in a matter of months....got a funny tory about gurkhas to...

Uh, if someone tells me that some tribal warrior or hunter from New Guinea or something is coming after me, but it's okay because he's only got a knife and here, have an AK-47, I would not be inclined to do much beyond run the hell away. Worse, if I for whatever reason had to go and get him in his own environment or with him having the knowledge that I were coming...

Hm. How does intelligence/communications equipment come into this? Does it count? If the guy has his bare hands and a good idea of where I am and what I'm going, and I have an assault rifle and no clue where he is, how incredibly well trained he is, or that he knows what I'm up to, it may not end well for me when I walk past that door/around that corner/between those trees.

Otherwise, I'm inclined to lean towards things like the gladius (though I rather feel the celts didn't call it that when they invented it), the English longbow (though I rather feel... well, yeah, you know) though probably out of affection for a romantic myth, the SMLE, or generally the bayonet for providing something of a combined arms/flexibility to low and high-tech forces east and west over hundreds of years. Doing away with blades following the invention of guns would be like doing away with guns following the invention of guided rockets (which really didn't work for the... Phantom? over Vietnam).

Uh, if someone tells me that some tribal warrior or hunter from New Guinea or something is coming after me, but it's okay because he's only got a knife and here, have an AK-47, I would not be inclined to do much beyond run the hell away. Worse, if I for whatever reason had to go and get him in his own environment or with him having the knowledge that I were coming...

Hm. How does intelligence/communications equipment come into this? Does it count? If the guy has his bare hands and a good idea of where I am and what I'm going, and I have an assault rifle and no clue where he is, how incredibly well trained he is, or that he knows what I'm up to, it may not end well for me when I walk past that door/around that corner/between those trees.

Otherwise, I'm inclined to lean towards things like the gladius (though I rather feel the celts didn't call it that when they invented it), the English longbow (though I rather feel... well, yeah, you know) though probably out of affection for a romantic myth, the SMLE, or generally the bayonet for providing something of a combined arms/flexibility to low and high-tech forces east and west over hundreds of years. Doing away with blades following the invention of guns would be like doing away with guns following the invention of guided rockets (which really didn't work for the... Phantom? over Vietnam).



the celtic short sword looks nothing like a roman gladius (which looks more like a pabassa)

My point exactly. But Ocean, and a lot of Arabs, think that by buying AKs and rockets and marching in loud parades shouting slogans, that they're going to magically become effective soldiers.

Yah, a small professional disciplined force would do them a lot more good than just arming anyone who showed up to fight for the insurgency.

I suspect they completely lack the institutional knowledge to form one though. I don't see where they would get their NCO corp from. (China maybe, be I doubt it would be very good).

Anyway, it's only going to be a matter of time before the Iraqis the US is training start to beat the shit out of them without our help.

My point is, Ocean, that Arab armies have, historically, performed very poorly against any Western trained army, even if they have modern weaponry.

The only exception was the 1973 October War - when the Egyptians actually stopped taking Soviet Army advice and thought of an innovative plan.

It never ceases to amaze me to see parades of Arab soldiers and Arab jihadis on Arabic television. They are selling the idea that somehow, a man who looks cool in a hooded wrap and can yell and wave an AK in the air and stomp around in formation is going to win.

That somehow, we'll be impressed, and give up. That somehow, Allah will grant them victory.

And we keep handing them the same lesson we handed the Mahdi at Omdurman. It's the men behind the weapons who win battles.

I remember the Battle against the Al Mahdi's to have been won by 20 Maxims and a lot of ten round magazine rifles.

The Arabs never took Soviet advice, had they done so they would have won more battles. Saad El Shazly just combined the Soviet Idea's with a weapon that could beat the Israeli Airforce : the SA-2.
The Syrians never really understood tactics and just rushed their tanks at the enemy(losing more than a thousand against 166 Israeli tanks).
The Arab failures are a combination of a) the lack of a good and well-organized airforce and b)the idea that their morale and the idea that numbers would do the trick.

Although they are not really Arabs (only a certain part) the Afghans have proven themselves to be good fighters. Capable of taking on any enemy that went to battle with them, And they never had superior equipment.
Just ask Lord Elphinstone who lost 16000 men in less than two weeks in january 1842, their enemy: a bunch of Jezail armed Ghilzai tribesmen.

The Ghilzai are an Afghan tribe, They no longer exist though. Abdur 'assassin' Rahman broke them
A Jezail is a slender arab musket with lots of decoration. Its a very inacurate weapon that was only usefull when fired in large numbers.

Yah, a small professional disciplined force would do them a lot more good than just arming anyone who showed up to fight for the insurgency.

I suspect they completely lack the institutional knowledge to form one though. I don't see where they would get their NCO corp from. (China maybe, be I doubt it would be very good).

Anyway, it's only going to be a matter of time before the Iraqis the US is training start to beat the shit out of them without our help.

The chinese make good NCO..never shy to give a little disciplein..their officers however are sub standard....

It has to be the aircraft carrier. Range, power, defense, good looks...It just doesn't get any better. :cool:

I remember the Battle against the Al Mahdi's to have been won by 20 Maxims and a lot of ten round magazine rifles.

The Arabs never took Soviet advice, had they done so they would have won more battles. Saad El Shazly just combined the Soviet Idea's with a weapon that could beat the Israeli Airforce : the SA-2.
The Syrians never really understood tactics and just rushed their tanks at the enemy(losing more than a thousand against 166 Israeli tanks).
The Arab failures are a combination of a) the lack of a good and well-organized airforce and b)the idea that their morale and the idea that numbers would do the trick.

Although they are not really Arabs (only a certain part) the Afghans have proven themselves to be good fighters. Capable of taking on any enemy that went to battle with them, And they never had superior equipment.
Just ask Lord Elphinstone who lost 16000 men in less than two weeks in january 1842, their enemy: a bunch of Jezail armed Ghilzai tribesmen.

The Ghilzai are an Afghan tribe, They no longer exist though. Abdur 'assassin' Rahman broke them
A Jezail is a slender arab musket with lots of decoration. Its a very inacurate weapon that was only usefull when fired in large numbers.


...A highly acurate weapon when fired in large numbers?....well you are bound to hit the target if you "yank the job"*. no i jest. those eastern riflemen were not bad marksmen either..and their rifles they favoured over the offered collonial equivalants in ww1.

* To spray a lot of bullets and hope you hit the target

AKM ak-74 SKS-45 ppsh

To be fair, they are not actually soldiers, which is probably the reason.

I am sure if you took 10,000 arabs, and placed them under decent officers and NCOs, after a year or so, you would have a fairly credible force. Not Ghurka rifles or Highlanders - that takes centuries, but certainly effective enough to deal with a bayonet charge.

I'd give the Communist Afghan army as an example of an excellent force. Especially their Commando brigades were to be feared. They were infact the only units the Soviets trusted enough to let them operate withour Soviet supervision.
Funny thing about them is: they never never defeated, when President Najibullah fled to the UN building in march 1992, they simply defected to Massouds Mujahideen. Too bad the Mujahideen couldnt form a proper government.

...A highly acurate weapon when fired in large numbers?correction: Only acurate in large numbers :)
....well you are bound to hit the target if you "yank the job"*. no i jest. those eastern riflemen were not bad marksmen either..and their rifles they favoured over the offered collonial equivalants in ww1.

* To spray a lot of bullets and hope you hit the target

Well when they got the first Snider rifles in the Second Anglo-Afghan war of which about 7000 were issued to Afghanistans army. And they went to battle with that rifle in 1919 and a lot of other older rifles.
And it was that war that brought the .303 Enfield rifle to the nation which they retained and used until the mid eighties.

Back in 1987 a US officer visited a Pakistani Stinger School, he said US soldiers had a 60-65 percent hit rate in a non hostile situation. The Mujahideens hit rate in actual operations was 70-75 percent.

Of all middle Eastern forces the Afghans are the ones I respect most(infact the only ones that i see as a decent armed force)

:sniper: A strong military industrial complex, it brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. :mp5:

I've found that leaders and/or politicians to be deadly weapons. Any weapon in any well trained army does nothing without the order to do it, and the orders are based off the leaders feelings at the time for the most part. Also, leaders and politicians have the power to create death or completly bypass it with talks and such. I find no scarier weapon than the one who controls all the power.

Now if we are talking actual weapons, I would have to say the nuclear bomb yet again, for reasons like the others.

Of course, it you want grunt weapons, I'd say silenced weapons, blades, and sniper rifles. Just stealth in general I'd say, although I know some sniper rifles arn't exactly stealth. If they do not hear you or know where you are, that much more deadlier you become..

How about the English Longbow?

Cheap and moved the game on quite a bit.

Funny thing about the english longbow is that all the best archers that used it were welsh.. :p :p

The Nuke because it shows how silly wars. And if start a really big nuclear war it really finish the job so there no people left to come up with stupid ideas like war.

Is that a bolt-action rifle?


yes, and i think most people would agree its one of the best bolt action rifles ever.

in response to the question, the aircraft.

a member of SAS 22 squadren, or a ppsh, 6 million were produced within 3 years during WW2.

yes, and i think most people would agree its one of the best bolt action rifles ever.

in response to the question, the aircraft.


Which rifle is that?

in response to the question, the aircraft.
An aircraft is not a military weapon.

The only winning move is not to play.

Five pages in and the number one answer is still a mystery? The Stirrup.

My point exactly. But Ocean, and a lot of Arabs, .......I am not Arab.
I do not think a particular race is genetically superior or inferior in any particular field...including warfare.

yes years of training helps...but having guns helps even more.

I still say AK-47men will defeat knife-men any given sunday.

The only winning move is not to play. +3 internet bucks for WarGames reference.

It has to be the aircraft carrier. Range, power, defense, good looks...It just doesn't get any better. :cool:

Until a bomb blows a hole in the flight deck and now you don't have the ability to fly planes off of it or land planes on it. Not to mention, if you have bombs on the flight deck, odds are it'll sink if a bomb falls into the middle of it.

Just ask the Japanese about their 4 carriers they lost at Midway Island.

in response to the question, the aircraft.

Good Answer Taverham.

An aircraft is not a military weapon. Unless you're a terrorist...

Sorry, bad taste. If someone is offended, say so and I'll delete.

F-22, F-16, F-14, F-18, F-117, JSF and not to mention all the other aircraft that were used in dogfights.

And yes, it was in bad taste. :rolleyes:

:sniper: A strong military industrial complex, it brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. :mp5:

Money.

you need money build and keep "A strong military industrial complex".
you need money build and keep "a supersizeme super carrier"
you need money build and keep "space weapons"
you need money "select, recruit and super-train the soldiers"

Money defeated the Soviet Union.

Money is the nerve of War.

you cant win wars without Money.

Money is the more important factor...more than all the weapons mentioned here.

Until a bomb blows a hole in the flight deck and now you don't have the ability to fly planes off of it or land planes on it. Not to mention, if you have bombs on the flight deck, odds are it'll sink if a bomb falls into the middle of it.

Just ask the Japanese about their 4 carriers they lost at Midway Island.


:eek: Corneliu *bows*

In terms of ocean or river going craft i say i go with PT boats...small and manoverable but still have weaknesses

F-22, F-16, F-14, F-18, F-117, JSF and not to mention all the other aircraft that were used in dogfights.

And yes, it was in bad taste. :rolleyes:
Now, pray tell, was it the aircraft that was the weapon or was it the machine gun, rocket, missile, etc.?

:eek: Corneliu *bows*

In terms of ocean or river going craft i say i go with PT boats...small and manoverable but still have weaknesses

For river I agree but I'd go with the Battleship at sea. At least they are defended from air attacks.

I also go with the Submarine for sea too. :D

Now, pray tell, was it the aircraft that was the weapon or was it the machine gun, rocket, missile, etc.?

I don't know! Why don't you ask the US Army, the Brits, the French, and the Germans! Since it was the invention of the Airplane that revolutionized warfare.

I don't know! Why don't you ask the US Army, the Brits, the French, and the Germans! Since it was the invention of the Airplane that revolutionized warfare.
Still, do you consider the computer that launch the missile a weapon?

An aircrat caries weapons. The question was the best weapon. I'd say that an aircraft is not a weapon, just a mode of transporting said weapon to it's target.

I don't know! Why don't you ask the US Army, the Brits, the French, and the Germans! Since it was the invention of the Airplane that revolutionized warfare.

it was..um..the french i think who actuall started to use the airplain as reconicence...then the jerries used it for ground attack..and then our pilots used to pot shot jerry with a pistol as the two flew passed each other...thus airborne combat was born..or so i gather

it was..um..the french i think who actuall started to use the airplain as reconicence...then the jerries used it for ground attack..and then our pilots used to pot shot jerry with a pistol as the two flew passed each other...thus airborne combat was born..or so i gather

Europe recognized the aircraft as a military weapon before the US! Now the US has the best air force in the world.

*Breaks into a rendition of "The Air Force Song"

Still, do you consider the computer that launch the missile a weapon?

An aircrat caries weapons. The question was the best weapon. I'd say that an aircraft is not a weapon, just a mode of transporting said weapon to it's target.

I say aircraft is a weapon. If not, then the Pilot who has the fly the damn thing. Don't ever tell a pilot that their aircraft isn't a weapon.

Europe recognized the aircraft as a military weapon before the US! Now the US has the best air force in the world.

*Breaks into a rendition of "The Air Force Song"


well thats just the plane...the Hot air balloon was used by napoleon for reconisance....

*sings boisterously to the theme "the luftwaffe march from the movie "the battle of britain"

In all seriousness, I think the WOPR is the best military weapon ever developed.

In all seriousness, I think the WOPR is the best military weapon ever developed.

care to elusidate?...inless it was made over 60 years ago or is in a tom clancy novel..i just dont understand..

The WOPR has already played WWIII as a game. It detects Soviet responses to our responses to their responses to our responses, and so on. Calculates damage... counts the dead... then it looks for ways to-

But the point is general, that all of the pr-

I'm getting so carried away here.

The answer IS a fully equipped Trident submarine.

All the simulations in the world can't save you from 24 hydrogen bombs being dropped on every industrial and cultural center in your nation. To add to that, the US is the only nation on earth than can successfully detect them often enough to reasonibly stop an attack.

Hell, one of those things could revert any continent (with the possible exception of Asia) back to the Stone-Age.

I would say money, but money is not, by definition, a military weapon.

The trained soldier is a very good answer, however.

An aircraft is not a military weapon.
What the heck is it then?

Europe recognized the aircraft as a military weapon before the US! Now the US has the best air force in the world.

*Breaks into a rendition of "The Air Force Song"
Yeah, they call it Marine Corps Aviation.
*Drowns Corny out with an out of key rendition of The Marine Corps Hymn*

Still, do you consider the computer that launch the missile a weapon?
I find your excess of pendantry disturbing.

So a tank isn't a weapon, it's an armored car that carries munitions and a large cannon to deliver them at high velocity. A gun isn't a weapon it's a mechanism enabling the accurate and timely foreward deployment of bullets into the bodies of opposing forces. A bomb isn't a weapon, it's simply a vessel enabling the safe delivery of the blast, heat, incendiary and shrapnel to the enemy?

I like your style, Kibolonia.

what is the best military weapon ever developed. Based mainly on length of use, and efficeiency I would say the Gladius, followed by the Kukhri, and finally the Sykes-Fairbairn dagger, with the colt 1911 including the IAI Desert Eagle .50AE in fourth place

a pitch fork is the only way to go

The Human Brain.

All other weapons derive from that.

The Human Brain.

All other weapons derive from that.
How about government funding?

How about government funding?

I'm pretty sure the bow and arrow wasn't a gov't funded project, and neither were most weapons.

A single Trident nuclear submarine with its full complement of missiles and warheads is capable of decimating any nation on earth, and it could do it alone.

It's also next to impossible to locate and destroy.

I agree. Why send thousands of troops when you could have done the same job with ten nukes? Hell, we should have just nuked the crap out of Iraq instead of starting an, although completely just and right, ill-executed war.

I agree. Why send thousands of troops when you could have done the same job with ten nukes? Hell, we should have just nuked the crap out of Iraq instead of starting an, although completely just and right, ill-executed war.

You're silly.

What would be the point of that? You'd just be down ten nukes.

I agree. Why send thousands of troops when you could have done the same job with ten nukes? Hell, we should have just nuked the crap out of Iraq instead of starting an, although completely just and right, ill-executed war.

See what I mean by the Human Brain?

The spear and all it's varients, one of mankind's oldest weapons and still in use, just look at a bayonet on a gun.

Napalm. And for some reason I like "ride of the valkyries" too. :rolleyes:

I'ma have to say the AK-47 for this one. The AK-47 rarely jams, it is cheap to mass produce, easy to become proficient with, and has spawned dozens of sub-types. It's not pretty, but it's powerful, accurate, and efficient. Also it was one of the first assault weapons to have a 30-round magazine (until then, they had 20). It's been around since WWII, and each new design has improved it immensely.

A close second has to be the Glock 17 sidearm, simply because it is the most reliable weapon in existence. It simply does not missfire. It can even fire under water and while full of sand. It is also cheap to mass produce and simple to use. And it carries a larger clip than the majority of other sidearms.

http://tailwheels.free.fr/Duxford%2004/Images/SPIT1.jpg

The Spitfire Mk. XIVe. Words are simply not necessary.

Napalm.It may smell like victory, but it feels like hell with a side of torture.

The gladius certainly carved out the most influential empire of all times. Ergo, my vote goes to it.

The LeClerc.

The gladius certainly carved out the most influential empire of all times. Ergo, my vote goes to it.

Nah, the Spanish used the gladius before the Romans, and the Falx tore through them quite easily. it wasn't the gladius, but the man behind it, and the sociopolitical system behind him.

I'ma have to say the AK-47 for this one. The AK-47 rarely jams, it is cheap to mass produce, easy to become proficient with, and has spawned dozens of sub-types. It's not pretty, but it's powerful, accurate, and efficient. Also it was one of the first assault weapons to have a 30-round magazine (until then, they had 20). It's been around since WWII, and each new design has improved it immensely.

A close second has to be the Glock 17 sidearm, simply because it is the most reliable weapon in existence. It simply does not missfire. It can even fire under water and while full of sand. It is also cheap to mass produce and simple to use. And it carries a larger clip than the majority of other sidearms.

There were no assault weapons before ak-47 with 20 rounders. Stg-44 was a 30 rounder, M1 Carbine was 15/30.

The M1 carbine was semi-automatic. M3 carbine (produced during the Korean conflict) was full-auto, but due to poor performance we dropped it.

And where, pray tell, would any human brain be without its body?

Big Bertha. A howitzer capable of launching 420mm shells from distances unimagineable at the time. The 14 famed Belgian fortresses never stood a chance.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbertha.jpg

There were no assault weapons before ak-47 with 20 rounders. Stg-44 was a 30 rounder, M1 Carbine was 15/30.
Didn't the BAR have a 20 round magazine?

There were no assault weapons before ak-47 with 20 rounders. Stg-44 was a 30 rounder, M1 Carbine was 15/30.

Don't forget the Browning Assault Rifle (BAR).

Didn't the BAR have a 20 round magazine?

I think it was a 16-rounder... Never mind the fact that it was a support gun.

Don't forget the Browning Assault Rifle (BAR).

*slaps forehead*

That's Browning Automatic Rifle...

*slaps forehead*

That's Browning Automatic Rifle...

My bad. ;)

My bad. ;)

You're damn right it is.

:p

Yes, the BAR had a 20 round magazine. It wasn't an assult rifle though. Too long and too heavy.

Yes, the BAR had a 20 round magazine. It wasn't an assult rifle though. Too long and too heavy.

Ah. 20 rounds. Got it.

I thought it was 16... I wonder where I got that number. Hmm.

I would have to say fire. It serves as both a defensive and offensive emplacement, makes metals, sharpens sticks, heats shot and can help dry out leather for shields. Plus, it destroys wood, which makes it good for naval combat. You can also use it for heat and cooking. It's like the original Swiss Army Knife.

I would say rhe M-4 epquiped with a landwarrior system. IT allows you to shoot around corners, with a 203 i believe you can program it to explode at a certain distance instead of on impact, and it gives a HUD for troop communication.

BAR was not selective fire, hence it being a machine gun.

M2 was assault rifle, I didnt mean M1.

US troops in vietnam shot around corners. The Landwarrior system just lets you see if you're hitting anything when you do it.
It only enhances the trained soldier using the system.

I would say rhe M-4 epquiped with a landwarrior system. IT allows you to shoot around corners, with a 203 i believe you can program it to explode at a certain distance instead of on impact, and it gives a HUD for troop communication.

FELIN Famas is much more advanced.

Logistics. All of these weapons would fail if it were not for logistics. You would run out of ammo, or men to use them soon, unless you were having a highly sucessful ground war that gave you lots of territory.

Logistics. All of these weapons would fail if it were not for logistics. You would run out of ammo, or men to use them soon, unless you were having a highly sucessful ground war that gave you lots of territory.

Rednecks always beat logistics.

BAR was not selective fire, hence it being a machine gun.
Not true. While originally built as a light machine gun a selective fire version was built, still prior to 1920 I think.

What the heck is it then?
It's a mode of transportation, like a car, a train or a boat.

FELIN Famas is much more advanced.

I've had problems using a FAMAS before. You've got to love a weapon that has a major problem with premature unlocking.

Nothing like having a hot cartridge disintegrate under the pressure because the bolt opens too soon - on a regular basis.

I had the same problem with the AAT machinegun.

I think that French weapon designers put the idea of safety on the low priority list.

The M4 SOPMOD is rather hard to beat. And none of the FAMAS I've seen have any ability to attach accessories.

I say the sniper.
:sniper:

I would have to say the trained soldier. Been around almost since the birth of civilization and still the basic platform for every other weapons system ever developed.
Damn you!

I was going to say

The New Zealand Soldier!

Damn you!

I was going to say

The New Zealand Soldier!

Well, speaking as an American, I would have to say that you forgot the Australian soldier! :D

IAI Desert Eagle .50AE in fourth place

Yes, hand cannons for all. :rolleyes:

Well, speaking as an American, I would have to say that you forgot the Australian soldier! :D
Nah they wanted to have guard duty after Alamien-A real waste!

Funny thing about the english longbow is that all the best archers that used it were welsh.. :p :p

Well the welsh and the Cheshire regiments who were just as renowned.

Well the welsh and the Cheshire regiments who were just as renowned.

It was developments like the longbow that signalled the end of the age of knights. And firearms came along and swept away the landed aristocracy and the idea of divine right.

All these neat ideas about democracy and socialism would be IMPOSSIBLE without firearms. We would all still be living in a feudal society.

It was developments like the longbow that signalled the end of the age of knights. And firearms came along and swept away the landed aristocracy and the idea of divine right.

All these neat ideas about democracy and socialism would be IMPOSSIBLE without firearms. We would all still be living in a feudal society.
Burns Simon De Montefort and his Thinking space!

All these neat ideas about democracy and socialism would be IMPOSSIBLE without firearms. We would all still be living in a feudal society.
Which is a bad thing?

It was developments like the longbow that signalled the end of the age of knights. And firearms came along and swept away the landed aristocracy and the idea of divine right.

All these neat ideas about democracy and socialism would be IMPOSSIBLE without firearms. We would all still be living in a feudal society.

Well longbows had been around since the early to mid 1100s but the era (if it could be called that) of the Knight lasted until the late 15th early 16th Century.

They were dangerous, but only kingdoms of the british isles (mainly the english) had enough trained archers to use them effectively.

The end of the knights also came about with better trained infantry who fought with pole arms (pikes, spears, halberds etc), such as the german and swiss Landesknechte.

In other words it wasn't just firearms. They were one a huge variety of reasons.

Well longbows had been around since the early to mid 1100s but the era (if it could be called that) of the Knight lasted until the late 15th early 16th Century.

They were dangerous, but only kingdoms of the british isles (mainly the english) had enough trained archers to use them effectively.

The end of the knights also came about with better trained infantry who fought with pole arms (pikes, spears, halberds etc), such as the german and swiss Landesknechte.

In other words it wasn't just firearms. They were one a huge variety of reasons.

Ok, the longbow made it possible (when organized into large bodies of competent archers) to change the social order. And the firearm, along with that tradition of organized commoners, made the social changes we see today possible.

Oddly, the weapons (including the pike, etc) made it possible for us to escape feudalism. Without a change in weapons technology, you would be riding around on a horse waving your favorite sword, Kellarly.

Ok, the longbow made it possible (when organized into large bodies of competent archers) to change the social order. And the firearm, along with that tradition of organized commoners, made the social changes we see today possible.

Oddly, the weapons (including the pike, etc) made it possible for us to escape feudalism. Without a change in weapons technology, you would be riding around on a horse waving your favorite sword, Kellarly.

Yeah you're right, but the social order was in place for a few reasons too.

Don't forget the vast majority of commoners were armed too. There are a great many journals and diaries left over from the late 16th century onwards telling of how farmers working in the fields used to carry their swords with them and also describing how most men of 16 and over were armed with at least a dagger. If there was to have been an uprising it would have happened. Its because there was no real alternative to feudalism until the mid to late 18th Century that nothing happened.

But, just as an fyi, my first weapon of choice would not be a sword, but a quarter staff. Far more effective than pretty much any other medieval close combat weapon.

A plank of wood.







...with a big nail in it.

Rincewinds weapon of choice....


...half brick in a sock :D

Yeah you're right, but the social order was in place for a few reasons too.

Don't forget the vast majority of commoners were armed too. There are a great many journals and diaries left over from the late 16th century onwards telling of how farmers working in the fields used to carry their swords with them and also describing how most men of 16 and over were armed with at least a dagger. If there was to have been an uprising it would have happened. Its because there was no real alternative to feudalism until the mid to late 18th Century that nothing happened.

But, just as an fyi, my first weapon of choice would not be a sword, but a quarter staff. Far more effective than pretty much any other medieval close combat weapon.
Maybe the real advancement was the development of stand-off weapons. The evolution from spears to bows to firearms has probably done the most to help the guy on the ground. Add the development of supporting arms like arty and CAS, and you have a pretty powerful set of tools for the commander on the ground.

Maybe we could say the best weapon ever developed is the Marine Corps philosophy of integrated support for the ground combat element.

Maybe the real advancement was the development of stand-off weapons. The evolution from spears to bows to firearms has probably done the most to help the guy on the ground. Add the development of supporting arms like arty and CAS, and you have a pretty powerful set of tools for the commander on the ground.

Maybe we could say the best weapon ever developed is the Marine Corps philosophy of integrated support for the ground combat element.

I'd agree with that, if you can hit your enemy and they can't hit you, the battles almost won.

The last part of the jigsaw is as you say, working together to combine all your various offensive capabilities into one offensive unit.

Which rifle is that?

the lee enfield.

the aircraft is not a military weapon

i meant an aircraft being used in a military role. it revolutionised warfare.

Yeah you're right, but the social order was in place for a few reasons too.
If there was to have been an uprising it would have happened. Its because there was no real alternative to feudalism until the mid to late 18th Century that nothing happened.


But uprisings happened, many times. It's just that untrained undiscplined farmers, no matter how pissed off, cannot beat proper heavy cavalry. What made the social change possible was not just an advance in tactics or weapons (remeber, many infrantry tactics were used well in ancient rome or greece and then forgotten for centuries), but rather the change of army composition, laid down by the absolute rulers themselves. Before, there used to be a small core of professional soldiers often from the lower classes of nobility, and a huge levy of untrained badly equipped troops. Then monarchs started training their militias, think for example the law that every english farmer in certain areas had to train shooting with a longbow for an hour after church every sunday. This vastly increased army potential, as soldiers that had actually trained before battle were many times more effective than the usual spear-and-pichfork toting levy, but it also laid groundworks for change as when there was a rebellion next time the nobles were not facing a bunch of nobodys who can be broken with a single cavalry charge, but a well discplined and a well trained military force, for example what happened in switzerland.


But, just as an fyi, my first weapon of choice would not be a sword, but a quarter staff. Far more effective than pretty much any other medieval close combat weapon.

True, perhaps, if you are facing someone one-on-one. But, do you really think that a 1000 man regiment armed with quaterstaffs would have the slightest chance against one armed with, for example, swords or halberds?

True, perhaps, if you are facing someone one-on-one. But, do you really think that a 1000 man regiment armed with quaterstaffs would have the slightest chance against one armed with, for example, swords or halberds?

Yup, against swords they would have a reach advantage, against halberds though I would give that one to the halberd regiment.

Yup, against swords they would have a reach advantage, against halberds though I would give that one to the halberd regiment.

How would a regiment of quarterstaff wielding peeps beat an army such as say... The Romans, who were armoured? I can understand how they'd easily brain anyone else, but the Lorica Segmenta, and their big shield seem to me like they'd easily prevent said quarterstaff wielder landing a serious enough blow to really brain the Roman.

Not really a weapons system but it can be used to inspire the use of weapons....an idea or belief that people are willing and eager to die for.

Personal weapon- Samurai blade-One samurai could probably kill several soldiers easy (also looks really cool in Killbill)
Aircraft- Lockheed Blackbird -Fast as hell, can go in space, and can carry thermonuclear weapons from america to china in 20 minutes
Ground Based weapon-Briefcase nuke - Three feet long,20 times the power of fat boy and can scare a small country to death
Vehicle- Churchill tank - One of the most variable tanks ever - one version had a flamethrower!
Ship -
A single Trident nuclear submarine with its full complement of missiles and warheads is capable of decimating any nation on earth, and it could do it alone.

It's also next to impossible to locate and destroy.

Trident Submarine prevented the cold war from going hot because it was stationed in the seas around the USSR. And big as hell!

Firearm - Possibly the the sten gun - allowed the french resistance to fight the nazis when supplied by the british and could be taken apart and put together again really quickly. Also was the first silenced submachine gun.

a member of SAS 22 squadren,

22 is a REGIMENT - not a Squadron. It is made up from squadrons - each of which have a differing role. Sme applies for the two reserve regiments, 21 and 23.
And, uniquely, the reserve regiment - 21 (Artists Rifles) - is the senior regiment.

22 is a REGIMENT - not a Squadron. It is made up from squadrons - each of which have a differing role. Sme applies for the two reserve regiments, 21 and 23.
And, uniquely, the reserve regiment - 21 (Artists Rifles) - is the senior regiment.

Oh, now we're going to get down to the questions about the color of the boathouse at Hereford...

a brillo pad

Yup, against swords they would have a reach advantage, against halberds though I would give that one to the halberd regiment.

Though they might have a reach advantage (depending on the type of sword being wielded against them), this would be negated by the swordsman's ability to block the staff with his sword (which would probably hurt the staff more than the sword.

Also, what would prevent our sword-wielder from closing to a distance where his weapon would be more effective? I think that _any_ sword would be far more effective as a thrusting weapon than a quarter-staff.

When I hear 'Great Military Weapons,' the T-34, RPG, AK, M-16, 1911, F-14, A-26, U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65), Ohio-class missile subs, Browning Hi-Power, M1 Carbine, and Jeep all come to mind.

It's ok for a leftist to be a racist. It's in the rule book.hey WL, cry me a river :D


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050523.gif
http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/nominees/brown.html

Detente ;)

Best military weapon ever developed is the SAS. In particular, the Australian SAS.

How would a regiment of quarterstaff wielding peeps beat an army such as say... The Romans, who were armoured? I can understand how they'd easily brain anyone else, but the Lorica Segmenta, and their big shield seem to me like they'd easily prevent said quarterstaff wielder landing a serious enough blow to really brain the Roman.

Though they might have a reach advantage (depending on the type of sword being wielded against them), this would be negated by the swordsman's ability to block the staff with his sword (which would probably hurt the staff more than the sword.

Also, what would prevent our sword-wielder from closing to a distance where his weapon would be more effective? I think that _any_ sword would be far more effective as a thrusting weapon than a quarter-staff.

I'm gonna suggest you find a copy of a treatise written mid 16th century by a English sword master named George Silver. Despite training a vast amount of students, as well as being extremely proficient in backsword, rapier, case of rapiers, longsword amongst other things, he always said as a personal defence weapon the quarter staff was unparralelled. Indeed it wasn't just him, treatise by Wylde, Swetnam, Winn and McCarthy, all of them recognised martial arts masters, advocated their use.

A military long staff was usually upwards of 8-9 ft long and was freqently tipped with iron, allowing for effectiveness to some extent against armour. Allowing it to have reach advantage over a sword, this is very important, as a swordsman cannot get in range to give a thrust or a stroke, as a quarter staff was not often held across the body but pointing out forward, and even if he does he can be blocked very easily. Don't tell me a sword is going to cut through a 2 inch thick hardened piece of moving oak. Its not going to happen. Using it in a half staff motion or a quarter staff motion the swordsman one on one will invariably get a pounding.

A great story of this concerned an Engliash sailor called Robert Peeke, who managed to defeat 3 rapier armed spanish soliders in Cadiz in 1625.

If you want to find out more read English Martial Arts by Terry Brown. Good stuff.

As for taking on a Roman one on one, I would think the roman would have the advantage maybe, in that case, i would say it was the training that would make the difference, as a staff would still give the roman problems when it came to giving effective blows within range. Still against an armoured opponent I would rather take a halberd. But there we go. :)

But uprisings happened, many times. It's just that untrained undiscplined farmers, no matter how pissed off, cannot beat proper heavy cavalry. What made the social change possible was not just an advance in tactics or weapons (remeber, many infrantry tactics were used well in ancient rome or greece and then forgotten for centuries), but rather the change of army composition, laid down by the absolute rulers themselves. Before, there used to be a small core of professional soldiers often from the lower classes of nobility, and a huge levy of untrained badly equipped troops. Then monarchs started training their militias, think for example the law that every english farmer in certain areas had to train shooting with a longbow for an hour after church every sunday. This vastly increased army potential, as soldiers that had actually trained before battle were many times more effective than the usual spear-and-pichfork toting levy, but it also laid groundworks for change as when there was a rebellion next time the nobles were not facing a bunch of nobodys who can be broken with a single cavalry charge, but a well discplined and a well trained military force, for example what happened in switzerland.

They were not in anyway untrained. Civilians almost always carried weapons of various sorts and were definitely trained to use them. Records in the British library show of a great many masters teaching in London and in various towns around England. These type of schools existed all over europe too. Also, training in personal combat was often handed down throught the generations. You really think that peasents or others who lived in that time carried weapons but did not know how to use them!?!?

Also you will find that in germany, especially in the state of Wuerttemburg, peasents were frequently trained in military movements from the beginning of the 1350's (recorded) onwards, so its not beyond the realms of possibility that it had happened before.

Therefore i partially agree with what you said, but not all of it by a long shot.

The cannon, particularly in its use to raze fortifications.

They were not in anyway untrained. Civilians almost always carried weapons of various sorts and were definitely trained to use them. You really think that peasents or others who lived in that time carried weapons but did not know how to use them!?!?

Oh, I most definately did not mean they were not proficient to use the weapons of their choice. What I meant was that they had not trained using them as an army, next to another soldier, learning manouvers and commands under the men who would lead them to battle. A mob of skilled swordsmen is never going to defeat an army of average swordsmen.


Also you will find that in germany, especially in the state of Wuerttemburg, peasents were frequently trained in military movements from the beginning of the 1350's (recorded) onwards, so its not beyond the realms of possibility that it had happened before.


Only mid 14th century is well within the period I descibed as the liege lords training their peasants as armies. The swiss cities had signed first oaths to defend each other as early as 1291, turning words to reality first time in the battle of Morgarten in 1315. Hundred years war had already being waged for decades, and stories of the efficiency of trained armies were being put to practise everywhere in europe.

the gay bomb.


obviously.

A military long staff was usually upwards of 8-9 ft long and was freqently tipped with iron, allowing for effectiveness to some extent against armour. Allowing it to have reach advantage over a sword, this is very important, as a swordsman cannot get in range to give a thrust or a stroke, as a quarter staff was not often held across the body but pointing out forward, and even if he does he can be blocked very easily. Don't tell me a sword is going to cut through a 2 inch thick hardened piece of moving oak. Its not going to happen. Using it in a half staff motion or a quarter staff motion the swordsman one on one will invariably get a pounding.

I never suggested that the sword would be able to cut through the staff, just that the staff would be damaged more than the sword.

I still don't see what exactly is preventing the swordsman from closing with the man with the staff. Even though he doesn't have the same reach, there is nothing preventing him from advancing and parrying the staff while he does so. (Lets assume that the swordman is armed with a sword that could be classafied as Oakeshott XVa)

If you want to find out more read English Martial Arts by Terry Brown. Good stuff.


I'll check it out, thanks.

When I hear 'Great Military Weapons,' the T-34, RPG, AK, M-16, 1911, F-14, A-26, U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65), Ohio-class missile subs, Browning Hi-Power, M1 Carbine, and Jeep all come to mind.
The T-34 Mentor? Maybe it's the greatest weapon for protecting the Gulf Coast against civilian aviation. The T-28 airframe was much more distinguished and a lot more fun to fly. The T-6 Texan certainly trained many more combat aviators than either of the first two.

I never suggested that the sword would be able to cut through the staff, just that the staff would be damaged more than the sword.
I still don't see what exactly is preventing the swordsman from closing with the man with the staff. Even though he doesn't have the same reach, there is nothing preventing him from advancing and parrying the staff while he does so. (Lets assume that the swordman is armed with a sword that could be classafied as Oakeshott XVa)

Simply that a staff wielder could either step back out side the thrusts length, step side ways, or simply set aside and block and launch a counter. As soon as the swords man closes with the staff wielder, he is open to a great many attacks, thus risking a great deal. If the swordsman advances with the sword in contact with the staff, the staff could set aside the sword or attempt a leg sweep or various other moves.

Admittedly, with the sword type you describe, it would maybe be easier to set aside the staff, but I'm sticking with the opinion of genuine masters who fought with the weapons :)

Oh, I most definately did not mean they were not proficient to use the weapons of their choice. What I meant was that they had not trained using them as an army, next to another soldier, learning manouvers and commands under the men who would lead them to battle. A mob of skilled swordsmen is never going to defeat an army of average swordsmen.

Sorry, that was my misunderstanding :)

Only mid 14th century is well within the period I descibed as the liege lords training their peasants as armies. The swiss cities had signed first oaths to defend each other as early as 1291, turning words to reality first time in the battle of Morgarten in 1315. Hundred years war had already being waged for decades, and stories of the efficiency of trained armies were being put to practise everywhere in europe.

Bingo, this is what I was meaning. You see, the training of peasents and the lower classes would have enabled an uprising (by this i mean an over turning of the traditional monarchies and the establishment of another non feudal system), but those that took place, to my knowledge (please correct me if i am wrong), usually ended up with a very similar system as before (English Civil War being a prime example, the parliment stood up to monarchy, but despite winning, a king in all but name ruled England) mainly because there was no real alternative at the time. Of course the swiss cities were an exception to this as the social structure was different (can you tell me where i can get some reading on this, i know only very little about the swiss cities, thanks :) ), but the landed aristocracy survived.

In other words, what I am trying to say is, a trained army of peasents could, but not definitely, over power a trained, but small professional army. The thing is, given the almost caste like social structure, the strict religious culture and no other social structure being available (that the peasents knew about), no such huge uprising ever occured until 1792. Granted the Italien cities and the swiss cities you mentioned were exceptions to this, but no major monarchy, such as england, france, spain etc fell to an duprising not led by a non aristocratic leadership to be replaced by another social system until 1792, and even that turned into a dictatorship.

I kinda feel we're arguing the same point, but i'm probably not clarifying myself well...

The T-34 Mentor? Maybe it's the greatest weapon for protecting the Gulf Coast against civilian aviation. The T-28 airframe was much more distinguished and a lot more fun to fly. The T-6 Texan certainly trained many more combat aviators than either of the first two.

Perhaps, just perhaps, he was talking about the best tank of ww2.

Perhaps, just perhaps, he was talking about the best tank of ww2.
Oh, that's very different ... Never mind.

Admittedly, with the sword type you describe, it would maybe be easier to set aside the staff, but I'm sticking with the opinion of genuine masters who fought with the weapons :)

Good idea.