It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Worlds most stupid weapon...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Q. What's more stupid than trusting an infantier with a nuclear bomb?
A. Giving him a nuclear bomb that he can only lob 6.5km

That's why my vote goes to the US "Davy Crockett" nuclear armed bazooka. In service until the 1970s...




Is there a more stupid weapon ever operationally deployed?







[edit on 31-7-2006 by planeman]




posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
While I want to say no, and I can't think of any other weapon. I do have this to say: This wasn't to bad a weapon if you think about it.

It had massive destructive power, could be fired from just about anywhere you could fit people and set it up, and if you had a well enough trained team (one that wouldn't shoot it on themselves that is) you could fire this weapons without any danger of being exposed to lethal amounts of radiation.

That being said...never would have been usable in a battle. Battles were too close for a weapon like this. There would only be one use for this, and that would have been if US troops looking into the Soviet Union saw a massive army building up and coming at them. This would have thinned them out so that they would have a chance...maybe.

Stupid weapon...maybe not. Impractical, most definately.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
An elected Politician.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
There was something on the history channel one day about strange weapons that never really made it into battle during World War 2. Ive tried to find a link on the HC website but cant find it yet, some of these weapons definately made me laugh. If you ever have a chance to see this episode on at some point, youll think twice about your Davy Crockett being the worlds most stupid weapon. Seriously.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Is there a more stupid weapon ever operationally deployed?


Yes, there are many more, but I’m going with my favorite, the infamous French Chaucht rifle, man I can never get tired reading about this thing. For better or worse at least you could use the "Davy Crockett" which is more than I can say about this rifle.


bih

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
worst weapon would be president Bush



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Stupid for who? The guy using it, or the country telling the guy to use it?

A small unit with that weapon could wipe out a large part of the 'evil soviet army' as it advances on western europe, seeking to dirty up our democratic women with their lecherous socialist hands.




posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   
You can have someone launch that bad boy from air, like in a helicopter or something
... it's dumb only if you hand it to a dummy



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Is a "chicken-powered" nuclear weapon stupid enough?
The british always seem to have a queer sense of humor; especially when they are being serious.

en.wikipedia.org...

Jon



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
LOL! I read about that chicken powered bomb before, that's just sick and cruel, but most of all, funny as hell!

What was the Yield on the Davy Crockett anyway?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
What was the Yield on the Davy Crockett anyway?
More than I would fancy lobbing 6km from where I'm standing.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
What was the Yield on the Davy Crockett anyway?


The yield (according to the Wikipedia entry) was 10 or 20 tons. So basically you could fire this thing and it'd be like lobbing a 10-20 tons of TNT at your enemy. Not too bad...well...as long as you aren't on the recieving end anyway


Here's the link to the entry so you can read more about this weapon:Davy Crockett nuclear device



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Hmm... this part from the Wiki entry was quite interesting.


A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive any engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was greater than the range of the weapon. In fact, though the device could be fired to a dangerously short range by an inept crew, the maximum range of both versions is far longer than the distance at which dangerous direct radiation, thermal, shockwave/blast, or debris are likely to endanger the crew. At a range of as little as half of the maximum range for the 120mm version (1 kilometer) no ill effects are likely.


Seems to me they could have been quite useful, given that a massive ground force would let you line up a mile in front of them of course.


[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hmm... this part from the Wiki entry was quite interesting.


A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive any engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was greater than the range of the weapon. In fact, though the device could be fired to a dangerously short range by an inept crew, the maximum range of both versions is far longer than the distance at which dangerous direct radiation, thermal, shockwave/blast, or debris are likely to endanger the crew. At a range of as little as half of the maximum range for the 120mm version (1 kilometer) no ill effects are likely.


Seems to me they could have been quite useful, given that a massive ground force would let you line up a mile in front of them of course.


[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]
Yeah, starting a nuclear war with a 2kiloton device is a great way to die
It's no wonder the North koreans want nuclear bombs, they had a bunch of US grunts with nuclear bazookas hanging around the borderfor thirty years.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Well, consider the times; tactical nuclear weapons were a real possibility for both the Soviets and the US, especially in Europe.



[edit on 4-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The world's stupidest weapon has got to be the nuclear weapon itself. No other weapon is as unprogressive (meaning it does not allow one to achieve any objectives) as the nuclear weapon. Its usefulness ends when facing enemies that have nukes as well. Even then, its simply a matter of going down swinging.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I have the photo in an excellent book about the war in Burma. It shows a Japanese soldier in a hole in the road with an aircraft bomb and a hammer. Presumably he would have made it go BANG when a British tank trundled pased.

That was a stupid weapon and pretty sad and shocking too. I got the impression from the text that it was quite a common occurance and something that was dealt with by lobbing grenades into any hole in the road! I wonder how many tanks were destroyed on the road to Mandalay by this stupid weapon!

Regards



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   


I wonder how many tanks were destroyed on the road to Mandalay by this stupid weapon!


i wouldn't say thats a bad weapon, just not very well thought out.




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The world's stupidest weapon has got to be the nuclear weapon itself. No other weapon is as unprogressive (meaning it does not allow one to achieve any objectives) as the nuclear weapon.


I have to disagree with that. It is my opinion that if it wasn't for the US and USSR having nuclear weapons, there would have been a massive conventional war between them. Judging from the casualties of WWII there could have been tremendous loss of human life in this conflict. It is my belief that nuclear weapons in the long run may have saved millions of lives. It is only now with North Korea and Iran trying to obtain nuclear weapons that I fear a nuclear war.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have to disagree with that. It is my opinion that if it wasn't for the US and USSR having nuclear weapons, there would have been a massive conventional war between them. Judging from the casualties of WWII there could have been tremendous loss of human life in this conflict. It is my belief that nuclear weapons in the long run may have saved millions of lives. It is only now with North Korea and Iran trying to obtain nuclear weapons that I fear a nuclear war.


But if not for nuclear weapons, the above scenario would not exist. I know, you'll say that the nuclear weapon was necessary to secure victory in World War II. I don't dispute that for a moment, in fact, I agree with it. But just to be pragmatic here and answer planeman's question, the nuclear weapon has the least PRACTICAL use in a military situation. Of course you certainly have a point, but we're talking practical military use.



Judging from the casualties of WWII there could have been tremendous loss of human life in this conflict.


That, my friends, is the understatement of the day.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join