Shittiest weapon ever

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-08-17 02:27pm

NecronLord wrote:The Bayonet is pretty impractical, but AV's right, the Shitty-80 is pretty damm awful AFAIK.

The bayonet is impractical if you're going against machine gun emplacements, in history it has been very useful for finishing off foes melee style.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-08-17 02:33pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
NecronLord wrote:The Bayonet is pretty impractical, but AV's right, the Shitty-80 is pretty damm awful AFAIK.
The bayonet is impractical if you're going against machine gun emplacements, in history it has been very useful for finishing off foes melee style.

Or urban combat. It's not as flexible as an ordinary combat knife IMO. Though it is more intimidating.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-17 02:46pm

NecronLord wrote:The Bayonet is pretty impractical, but AV's right, the Shitty-80 is pretty damm awful AFAIK.

Bayonets are always useful for non-combat tasks, and the Soviets had the great idea to let you attach one to the sheath to make a wire cutters. As for the L85, SA-80 refers to both the L85 and L86 though they both suck shit. It's was likely worse then the original M16. In one wonderful incident a solider accidentally dropped one from a landing helicopter, the safety was on yet the rifle emptied its magazine on full auto on impact.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-08-17 02:51pm

Heard the the Osprey sucked bad.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-17 02:51pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
The bayonet is impractical if you're going against machine gun emplacements, in history it has been very useful for finishing off foes melee style.

What you mean attacking with the bayonet fixed and rifles unloaded isn't the end all of combat tactics? *Several turn of the last century generals drop dead of heart attacks*

Bayonets aren't all that useful in melee either because many soldiers simply can't bring them selves to stab another man and [2] you run the risk of getting it caught in the rips, though a quick rifle shot will extract it nicely. Generally the rifle butt and the upper stock get more use.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-17 02:55pm

Faram wrote:Heard the the Osprey sucked bad.

Osprey has overcome its problems which in reality where little worse then what other helicopters have gone through, the Blackhawk crashed nine times and killed 45 men in a couple years when it was introduced. If it wasn't for the stupid decision to run early training flights will full loads of Marines, which resulted in high body counts in a couple crashes, the aircraft would be far less hated.

Anyway when it comes to rotary wing aircraft the AH-56 Cheyenne is likely the king of shitdom. It was designed for high speed diving attacks, right around the same time as the ZSU-23 showed up. It was also extremely expensive and incredibly unreliable. The warload was pretty huge though.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-08-17 02:56pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:As for the L85, SA-80 refers to both the L85 and L86 though they both suck shit. It's was likely worse then the original M16. In one wonderful incident a solider accidentally dropped one from a landing helicopter, the safety was on yet the rifle emptied its magazine on full auto on impact.

EEYIPE!!!

Why the hell didn't they go with the EM-2?!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-17 03:03pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Why the hell didn't they go with the EM-2?!

Because it dated to the 1950's and did not fire the then new NATO standard ammunition 7.62mm ammunition, E-2 fired 7mm rounds. It was abandon in favor of the Self Loading Rifle, which fired 7.62mm rounds because of that. Around the same time the British also switched from 87 to 105mm field guns and made a few other changes to standardize there military with the newly agreed NATO standards. For a time the British intended go ahead with the E-2 despite the new standard ammo but then their government changed and the new powers that be ordered the switch because they considered it important politically. When it came time to repalce the SLR, 5.56mm was the new standard for infantry rifles in NATO and they deisgned a weapon to fire that.

Its a real shame, since the optimum infantry rifle cartridge is 6-7mm yet despite several prototype weapons and rounds no ones adapted anything in that range for an assault rifle. The US came close in the 80's to buying a 6mm light machine gun but then went and bought the M249.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-08-17 03:28pm

Knife wrote:If they go ahead with the XM-25(?), I believe that the gernadier position will be once again a billet in the squad. If so, I doubt that he will get a rifle along with the gernade launcher. He'll more than likely get a M9.

The military might go so far as to give the grenadier a MP5K, MP7, or something else along those lines for self defense.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-08-17 03:32pm

I seem to recall reading something about an idea during WWII, when the Russians trained dogs with mines strapped to their backs to blow up German tanks, but apparently, because they trained with Russian tanks, the dogs associated with the Russian tanks and left the German ones alone.

No idea if it's true, but at least the dogs got some payback.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-08-17 04:18pm

I know some squadies who are stationed in here in Belfast. They reckon the British Rifle is the shittiest thing ever. One of them even went as far as to say that if they had been arround during the Falklands the Argies would have taken us to the cleaners. Apparently that have a tendancy to dissassemble if the wind changes and are shit in any kind of desert.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-17 04:29pm

The_Lumberjack wrote:I seem to recall reading something about an idea during WWII, when the Russians trained dogs with mines strapped to their backs to blow up German tanks, but apparently, because they trained with Russian tanks, the dogs associated with the Russian tanks and left the German ones alone.

No idea if it's true, but at least the dogs got some payback.

Yes its true, the Russians formed a unit with about 150 dogs in 1941. However the bit about them attacking Russian tanks is a myth. The dogs where trained by being only fed under running tractors for some time. They where then starved before employment. They carried a heavy satchel charge, which was detonated by a lever on there back which was pushed down as they crawled under the tank. They where deployed once in action in which three tanks where destroyed before the Germans caught on and gunned down several more. The unit was disbanded in 1942.

Lord Pounder wrote:I know some squadies who are stationed in here in Belfast. They reckon the British Rifle is the shittiest thing ever. One of them even went as far as to say that if they had been arround during the Falklands the Argies would have taken us to the cleaners. Apparently that have a tendancy to dissassemble if the wind changes and are shit in any kind of desert.

The whole rifle was held together with a pair of tiny pins in the original L85, and they had a habit of getting knocked lose. That basically caused the weapon to strip itself and fall apart. That fault at least got corrected by the L82A2

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2003-08-17 06:24pm

I've heard that even the Army Cadets regard their SA-80 variant to be inadequate and not up to scratch for the task in hand (the range, mostly).

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-08-17 07:47pm

SA-80's are great on a target range.

They're just too broken to be used everywhere else.

Unfortunately, like most of the other broken things foisted upon our armed forces, they're going to keep spending money in lame attempts to unfuck them, rather than getting something that worked in the first place.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-17 07:56pm

Alyeska wrote:
Knife wrote:If they go ahead with the XM-25(?), I believe that the gernadier position will be once again a billet in the squad. If so, I doubt that he will get a rifle along with the gernade launcher. He'll more than likely get a M9.
The military might go so far as to give the grenadier a MP5K, MP7, or something else along those lines for self defense.

Your missing the point. With three other people in the team armed with either M16's or M249's, the grenidier doesn't need a dedicated SMG or assult rifle. Besides, having a SMG in open ranged combat is dumb. Volume of fire only gets you so far. When the eneny figures out your inability to deliever rounds on target, you're done.

A side arm is sufficent for the limited situations that require it. I had a 9mm for years when I was a gunner on a M-60. Really, I did not feel the urge to have another rifle or SMG availibale for my defense. I had a teamleader with a 16 and an ammo man with a 16. If some one got up close and personal, the M9 is more than sufficent, though I'd perfer the 1911.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-17 08:10pm

What was that POS Japanese pistol in WWII that you could fire by SLAPPING it? That has to rate!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-17 08:24pm

No mention of the Chauchat?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-08-17 08:30pm

Frank Hipper wrote:What was that POS Japanese pistol in WWII that you could fire by SLAPPING it? That has to rate!

"Surrender or i`ll slap my gun"

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-08-17 09:19pm

Knife wrote:Your missing the point. With three other people in the team armed with either M16's or M249's, the grenidier doesn't need a dedicated SMG or assult rifle. Besides, having a SMG in open ranged combat is dumb. Volume of fire only gets you so far. When the eneny figures out your inability to deliever rounds on target, you're done.

A side arm is sufficent for the limited situations that require it. I had a 9mm for years when I was a gunner on a M-60. Really, I did not feel the urge to have another rifle or SMG availibale for my defense. I had a teamleader with a 16 and an ammo man with a 16. If some one got up close and personal, the M9 is more than sufficent, though I'd perfer the 1911.

I understand that. I am just pointing out that it would be possible to arm a grenadier with a useful sidearm that can fire at range. Infact I would suggest the MP7 over the MP5K. Its smaller yet can fire at longer ranges.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-08-17 09:29pm

Alyeska wrote:
Knife wrote:Your missing the point. With three other people in the team armed with either M16's or M249's, the grenidier doesn't need a dedicated SMG or assult rifle. Besides, having a SMG in open ranged combat is dumb. Volume of fire only gets you so far. When the eneny figures out your inability to deliever rounds on target, you're done.

A side arm is sufficent for the limited situations that require it. I had a 9mm for years when I was a gunner on a M-60. Really, I did not feel the urge to have another rifle or SMG availibale for my defense. I had a teamleader with a 16 and an ammo man with a 16. If some one got up close and personal, the M9 is more than sufficent, though I'd perfer the 1911.
I understand that. I am just pointing out that it would be possible to arm a grenadier with a useful sidearm that can fire at range. Infact I would suggest the MP7 over the MP5K. Its smaller yet can fire at longer ranges.

Just a nitpick. The MP-5K is smaller than the MP7.

MP-5K length: 325 mm
MP7 lenght: 340 mm (540 mm with stock fully extended)

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-17 10:22pm

Montcalm wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:What was that POS Japanese pistol in WWII that you could fire by SLAPPING it? That has to rate!
"Surrender or i`ll slap my gun"

IIRC, you could slap the side of it with the safety on, and it would still go off. How you can even describe a mechanism like that as being a "safety" is beyond me.....

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-08-17 11:07pm

He's asking for modern weapons in the topic post. So the WWII and the WWI entries don't qualify in this thread. Nitpick over.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-17 11:18pm

What exactly is a SMG suppose to do for you in a battlefield? Volume of fire with a 9mm in open terrain is laughable. A SMG in close quarters makes sense but not in an open area. Besides spray and pray, what would be accomplished with one? Besides wasting a large amount of ammo and having to lug said ammo around.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-17 11:20pm

MKSheppard wrote:No mention of the Chauchat?

[img]http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/photo ... 83.jpg[img]

I thought about mentioning it, but despite its incredible shittyness when it did work it was very valuable. And unlike many other very shitty weapons at the time there was no alternative.

What was that POS Japanese pistol in WWII that you could fire by SLAPPING it? That has to rate!

I think that was the Taisho 04, it was incredibly bad. Every holster had a pocket for an extra spring because the one in the gun was very weak. Defect with it and a few other parts allowed for the slap firing.

Japan also produced the Meiji 26 revolver starting in 1893, which probably fire the least effective bullet ever, adapted by a military.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-17 11:23pm

RogueIce wrote:He's asking for modern weapons in the topic post. So the WWII and the WWI entries don't qualify in this thread. Nitpick over.

When you consider the history of all purpose built weapons WW1 is very modern.