The Very WORST Examples of Military Weapons.

Hello All!! Welcome!!

We have had a very nice look at what people believe to be the BEST....but....

Success IS over-rated.....
Not all inventions join the ranks of the useful....some, if not most, never get off the drawing board, and thereby save lives just by their very non-existence....
Other 'brainstorms' have better backing, and make it into a production run that costs lives, interrupts the successful operational flow, and can often provide excellent propaganda for the opposition...
The following is a quick list. which the wonderful and well-informed members of this site can add to at their leisure...I'll get things going with my picks.....For every successful weapon, there are about 5 that weren't...heres just a sample.......in no particular order...On with the Shew!


THE WORST WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR TWO....BY CHRISTOS.


BRITAIN- The 'STICKY BOMB'.
One of the principle British entrants is the No. 74 (ST) Hand Grenade.....Known as the 'sticky bomb". Basically, it was a glass sphere with a handle, and a removable cover that also acted as the 'pin'. The center of this sphere was filled with volatile GLYCERIN based explosive, and covered in a VERY sticky substance. When the cover was removed, the intention was to have the grenade 'stick' to the hull of a tank, where the explosive would ignite. Once the cover was removed, the user had a five second delay in which to use it...it generally got stuck to the poor soldier using it, and even if he succeeded in getting it off himself, only an Olympic shot-putter could have hoped to throw the thing far enough (it weighed 4and 1/2 pounds) far enough away to ensure his own safety. It was, without doubt, the most un-popular weapon ever issued to British armed forces, and I believe, Home Guard units. It was soon discontinued.

JAPAN- The 'LUNGE BOMB'.
The Japanese entry into the sorry field that this is, basically a long pole with a grenade and three spikes attached. The soldier ran up to a tank, rammed the spike through it's side, and retired to a 'safe' distance to observe it's effects...at least, that was the theory.
The saftey pin for this device had to be removed before the ramming proceedure could be enacted. However, the ramming action almost invarialbly caused the device to DETONATE before the soldier had time to run away! A unique example of a suicide weapon before suicide weapons became common or accepted as Japanese doctrine.

The UNITED STATES- The 'REISING' Model 56.
This fine example of US military craftsmanship was a submachine gun (weight: 6lb 4oz, 550rpm, 920 fps muzzle velocity.) Issued almost entirely to the USMC, this marvelous weapon was so prone to jamming, that the Marines on Guadalcanal dumped whole consignments into the Lunga River. Some were sent to Britain, who passed them on to the Russians, who, with their excellent and durable weapons, apparently did not use them, even at a time when a lot of Soviet soldiers went into battle picking up the weapons of those that fell!


:p BRITAIN- The 'GIANT PANJANDRUM'.
Anyone who has seen the BBC documentary series, "The Secret War", will recognize this wonderful example of British 'ingenuity' in amphibious invasion devices. The beginning of the program shows a large rocket pinwheel, set of from a barge and making it's way very noisely, quite uncontrollably, toward the foreshore of the English beach that the test was run on. After initial failure, and subsequent 'modification', the 'Panjandrum' was tested a second time, with a bigger fiasco occurring as any test could have. The Panjandrum, with no steering, carreened across the waters, and when it hit the beach, slewed on the suddenly solid beach and headed straight toward the observation party of officers, before falling on it's side to become a spluttering nuisance. A more ridiculous weapon, or concept for a weapon is really not to be found anywhere in World War Two.



GERMANY- The Me-163 'KOMET' and variants, ROCKET FIGHTER.
German technological proficiency was put to the test, when designers came up with a tail-less, stubby winged rocket machine, with a tricycle undercarriage that fell away from the aircraft, while it extended a 'skid' to land on. Propulsion fuel was an extremely VOLATILE mixture of two kinds of fuels; 'C-Stoff' (methanol, hydrazine hydrate, and water with traces of sodium cuprocyanide as a catalyst), and 'T-Stoff' (hydrogen peroxide). Mixing the two fuels produced an explosive result that gave the 'Komet' good speed but not much else. Even though it became operational, the accidents that occurred on landing this incredible design caused many pilot deaths from the unit, JG-400. Hanna Reitsch had personally tested this aircraft, and must have kept her doubts to herself, because she was one of the few pilots that could tame this beast. Two squadrons, at Brandis, were initially formed, with a further 2 by 12 November,'44. These groups, and others that had been formed for pilot training, were disolved in the last months of the war. Replacement for these unfortunate pilots with Me-262s was not now possible.



RUSSIA- The T-35 'LAND BATTLESHIP'.
This tank had not only a turret in the center as most tanks did, but one at each end too, and a little smaller. The underpowered engine and the immence wieght of all that metal made it an ungainly design, with units commited to action dropping like flies. The Germans studied this and other early war designs and came to the conclusion that Red Army tanks were markedly inferior to their own. The SHOCK that occurred when the T-34 was encountered for the first time was all the more acute due to the basic incorrect assumption. The Soviets liked the T-35 even less, finding that it's tracks were too narrow, crew space cramped and uncomfortable (this is saying something for Russian tanks, sparing as they were with crew comfort. The T-35 was withdrawn from service in late 1941, but the demand for tanks at the front meant that it soldiered on. Not a very good example of an otherwise very fine Soviet arsenal of armoured fighting vehicles.


BRITAIN- The Bolton Paul 'DEFIANT':
This ill-fated design was based on the two-seater 1918 fighter concept so successful in the Great War with designs like the 'Brisfit' (Bristol Fighter).
The single engine was no match for the extra weight carried by a four-gun Fraser-Nash turret, whose gunner had little chance of bailing out from. It also had no forward firing guns, so that any offensive action required the fighter to fly PAST an enemy. With a top speed of only 303mph, it wasn't going to overtake many aircraft. The 'Defiant' enjoyed a brief moment of glory over Dunkirk, when German pilots, who mistook it for a Hurricane (which it resembled from a distance) were punished accordingly as they approached from the rear. These victories were few, and the Defiant squadrons for the Battle of Britain were massacred, with other surviving persomel transfered to other RAF units. Another good idea lost in it's design and execution.

BUT- THE CHRISTO AWARD FOR THE MOST USELESS WEAPON OF WORLD WAR II GOES TO THE RUSSIANS, FOR....(wait for it...)



THE DOG MINE!!!! (music, applause)

This weapon is by far the winner in my view....IF you guys know of a more useless waste of military resources, I would sincerely like to know.

The PLAN was to train dogs to associate the underside of tanks with food....strapped to their backs was a mine. It was hoped that this weapon would be unleashed on invading panzers, and packs of these dogs would run hungrily under enemy tanks....It's fairly sure that no insurance company would have covered these animals!......High hopes were had for this remarkable project.....


UNFORTUNATELY.....these wonderful animals associated food only with RUSSIAN tanks, and forced an entire Soviet division into retreat. The plan was abandoned on the second day of Russian involvement in World War Two.....


If anyone knows of other, equally useless weapons...feel free to drop in and make a post, or if you'd just like to laugh along with me...for now, I bid you well, and wish you all a very Merry Christmas!!!

 

Oh yes...just one more thing......If anybody wishes to be critical in any way of that which I post....FEEL FREE to criticize....I may not like it at the time, but i will always recover and be grateful for your knowledgeable corrections. Please do not be afraid to be critical....It is what I come here for, to learn...and sometimes the only way you expand what it is you know is by talking with people, like the users of this site, that have access to wider fields and better expertise than I do....So, don't be afraid...I won't bite, but I will thank you all very much for your future input!

 

Remember Christos, that not all of the aircraft ended up as originally planned, The Typhoon did not do very well as a (high level) interceptor, but excelled in ground attack, & the Me262 was basically a failure! (as a bomber as originally planned!)

The British made good use of some obsolete aircraft, like the Hampdens for laying mines, the Whitley's in Coastal Command & also the Defiant.

The Defiant was useful as a night fighter, in 1942 a radar was developed that was small enough for the Defiant, the 4 x MG's could be used to fire upwards into the bombers

So I'm not sure it would be "worst invention", it was an idea that didn't work but it was useful for something else.

We Canadians feel left out, without an entry into this contest. So let me propose one of our very own Canadian inventions for "worst military weapon" - The "Hughes Shovel", designed by the WWI Canadian minister of defence.

Sam Hughes historical reputation in WWI was sullied by poor decisions on procurements for the force. For instance, perhaps his most controversial decision was the purchase of the MacAdam shield-shovel, a device which Hughes patented under his secretaries name, purported to act as both a shovel (for digging trenches) and a shield against bullets. In fact, the shield-shovel was too heavy for use as a shovel, and it was incapable of stopping bullets. All purchased units were quickly discarded upon arrival in Britain.

Hughes also insisted on equipping Canadian soldiers with the Canadian-made Ross rifle, the rifle Hughes preferred for target shooting. The Ross proved to be an unsuitable weapon in trench warfare conditions because when fired rapidly it was prone to malfunction. The rifle also became easily jammed with mud and its bayonet fell off easily. Canadian soldiers often took British Lee-Enfield rifles from fallen British soldiers. Hughes and Sir Charles Ross, the inventor of the rifle, remained loyal to their weapon, but Borden authorized its replacement by the Lee-Enfield rifle. 1,453 Canadian soldiers promptly disposed of the Ross Rifle.

 

I did actually think of including the Ross Rifle, but I was not so sure that it had in fact been issued to REGULAR units. The only references I have to the Ross are from British units like Spike Milligan's Signals unit on the South Coast. I had assumed they were using the 'Ross' as a sort of reserve weapon...The only other reference I could find for it was one from the 1915 1st Battle of Ypres, where the poor Canadians suffered very heavily from gas as well as their malfunctioning Ross Rifles......Sorry about that, but as I say, thats what threads like this are for, so that good people such as yourself can correct my basic assumptions and steer me to the 'TRUTH'....
I do value TRUTH in history, and cannot stand historians that feel they must 'embellish and improve' on the real story, rather in the manner of Hollywood movies 'dramatizing' real events....
A WORTHY inclusion, your post....many thanks...

By the way, I have always admired Canadian troops for their known courage, ferocity and SHEER TENACITY in action....I'm told that at VIMY RIDGE in 1917, when the Canadians turned up to take up their positions at the jumpoff points for this offensive, many British troops in the area all said the same thing..."Oh Christ..theres going to be A 'RUM DO' with these Canadians turning up."....

Canadian fighting reputation is very similar to our own Aussie 'Diggers'.....and the Canadians had a General in the Great War called CURRIE, a general who should be given far more attention for his tactical contributions to the great war than most....I'm told general Currie was requested to plan an operation involving Canadians in the Great War (cannot remember which one), and he did not like it one bit. He told the Allied General Staff officers that the operation was going to cost "just over 70,000 men.."....Canadian casualties for this operation werwe 72,000...It was the most accurate forecast by a General officer that I have ever read about in any war, and shows the quality of Currie as a General and staff planner....

May the Country of Canada last and last....marvellous people, (I have Canadian relatives, very distant cousins!)

 

Oh it wasn't the rifle!! I was nominating the crazy shovel!!! It was one of the most useless things, couldn't use it to dig, not much use as a shield, they sold the lot of them for scrap & melted them down!

 

Thanks mate!....

I do try to give you something interesting, thought provoking, and informative at the same time....I know I don't always succeed, but.....

Thanks so much for kind words...tonic for me....

I am really beginning to enjoy myself on this site......

 

JAPAN. The Type 94 pistol, cal. 8mm Nambu, ranks as one of the world's worst automatic pistols. Originally designed by Kijiro Nambu as a smaller and cheaper handgun, the ordnance dept. took over and began tinkering (design by committee). It could be fired before the breech is locked. The exposed sear (trigger) bar, when pressed, could fire the arm without the user touching the trigger.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA. The vz38 pistol, cal. .380 ACP, is another terrible design. It is clumsy to hold and point, and is double-action only. There was really no good reason for its existence given the vz24 and vz27 pistols.


Good topic for discussion, Christos.

JT

 

i will not have this,the typhoon did a grand job at low-medium altitues as a fighter.yours,lee.

 

i will not have this,the typhoon did a grand job at low-medium altitues as a fighter.yours,lee.
Yes but its place in history is assured a ground attack aircraft.

 

i will not have this,the typhoon did a grand job at low-medium altitues as a fighter.yours,lee.
Sorry Lee, I should have said didn't do well as "high level" interceptor, which was the original design. It was then used in the mid/low level as fighter & ground attack, where it was second to none! One of my favorite aircraft to be sure!

I think my point was that some projects didn't work out as planned (Defiant fighter) but were very useful in other roles (Defiant night fighter), so I don't think you can call something a complete failure unless it was not useful for anything

 

Lee's comment has merit......but von Poop also is correct......I love informed debate!....thanks to you both!

 

Sorry, that was FREEBIRD....but oyur post is a good un', Adam.......I have not heard of this particular recoiless weapon...I had thought that American airborne were the only ones to use a recoiless, but then i remembereed a 75mm counter we used to use in SQUAD LEADER......Once again, many thanks to all for the terrific inclusions of weapons I've not heard of.....

Adam. that evil Santa of yours is giving me nightmares! (laughing)

 

Always worth mentioning....and has been here before at least twice.

The FP-45 Liberator Pistol. A stellare feat of engineering design.

 

Ah yes....should have included that one too...I've actually got a copy of the instructions showing people how to load and fire this weapon....it's in a picture format so that anyone can read it.....Ill have to dig that one out and post it here....just can't quite remember WHERE I saw it....

Is that RALLY the Alabama State Flag?........I would have thought it would be something to do with the Stars and Bars flag...which. incidently, I understand was created by the Creole Confederate General Pierre Gustav Toutant BEAUREGARD......true or false?

 

anyone seen a Semple?
A new zealand "tank" design.....

 

OK Here we go.The worst weapons we possessed were the STEN and the PIAT. Both were disasters The sten could not hit a barn door, and the Piat? As well as being too heavy, the bomb was only placed in the tray, and could easily fall out while carrying it. If you hit anything with the Piat? it would be by sheer good luck.
If there is any question? I have used both in action....Dreadful !

I can also tell you that being out in front, on "Point" with a Piat on your own is the lonely place on earth.
Sapper

 

As well as being too heavy, the bomb was only placed in the tray, and could easily fall out while carrying it.

If it fell out, could it be detonated by the fall or did it have to activated (for lack of a better word) by discharging or firing it first?

 

Hey, Jeff, if you really think the Liberator was that bad, do you want to sell it to me? I've been looking for one. Doc