The Most Influential Weapons of History

A program was on today of an old gun used in the wild west era, actually was mentioned in some films too, like a trigger leaver and another leaver to reload. Single shot.

They said it was a legendary weapon and changed the way guns were made.

Name of it? I cannot remember! :p
 
AmTechFox said:
A program was on today of an old gun used in the wild west era, actually was mentioned in some films too, like a trigger leaver and another leaver to reload. Single shot.

They said it was a legendary weapon and changed the way guns were made.

Name of it? I cannot remember! :p
Click to expand...

Winchester Rifle.
 
colt peacemaker
ak 47
cross bow
longbow
roman gladius
Pike
Matchlock musket
thompson
Maxim(spelling?) machine gun
little boy and Fat man.

in no order
 
EvilDreams said:
The [AK] Was really just a Russian knockoff of an Stg44 which removed the usual German overengineering.
Click to expand...

Twaddle. the STG44 and the AK share only two common elements of design:
  1. They both fire an intermediary Cartridge
  2. they both look similar

that's it. trust me on this, i've stripped & reassembled both of them.
 
Agree with Aod that the AK47 is mechanically not a knockoff but on the other hand I agree also with Evildreams that conceptually it is a knockoff.
 
VFM Addict said:
Agree with Aod that the AK47 is mechanically not a knockoff but on the other hand I agree also with Evildreams that conceptually it is a knockoff.
Click to expand...

yes, it is definitely a conceptual knock-off, but is that really such a bad thing?
 
AmTechFox said:
A program was on today of an old gun used in the wild west era, actually was mentioned in some films too, like a trigger leaver and another leaver to reload. Single shot.

They said it was a legendary weapon and changed the way guns were made.

Name of it? I cannot remember! :p
Click to expand...

Sounds like a Sharps rifle, a single shot as you say, the classic Buffalo slaughterer. Wasn't really revolutionary. Did look a little like the Spencer, the first really effective repeating rifle.
 
EvilDreams said:
I don't think it was the longbow itself that was important (Mongol bows were much more advanced, and could be shot from horseback too) as much as the law that was in force at the time in England that required a certain number of hours training it per week.
Click to expand...

The law came into force after the longbow was already established as the weapon of mass destruction for England, amid fears that the quality and quantity of archers was dropping.

I think that there were three interlinked aspects;

i) Quality and quantity of archers. English armies could field thousands of expert archers and thus maintain a hail of arrows. Tens of thousands of arrows per minute is a problem for any army on the receiving end.

ii) Quantity of ammunition and its supply to the archers. These crucial aspects of the use of the bow as a weapon of mass destruction were handled very efficiently.

iii) The longbow itself, because with a properly trained and strengthened archer it had a range signficantly greater than the ranged weapons used by any enemies. It wouldn't have been so effective against Mongolian mounted archers, but they weren't fighting Mongolian mounted archers.

It wasn't really the weapon itself that was important or particularly responsible for Rome's success. It didn't work out that well for the Iberians the Romans took the idea from, after all.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The key strength of Rome was organisation, in the military as well as outside it. The Roman army was a a very important part of Rome's success, but the specific type of sword they used wasn't. The gladius itself wasn't significantly better than other swords.
 
EvilDreams said:
Along with the 7.62 going right through its target, wasting most of its energy.
Click to expand...

That's the exact opposite to how it is and how physics works. A larger calibre round has LESS penetration for a given amount of kinetic energy because the larger calibre causes greater tissue deflection and more hydrostatic-shock. a 7.62x51 FMJ round is SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to simply "pass through" a target than a 5.56x45 FMJ.

Thesaff said:
The 7.62 killed more people the 5.56 injures more, more injured soldiers saps any armies resources were as dead soldiers dont to such an extent. I believe iirc one of the reasons why NATO forces changed to this calibre.
Click to expand...
America forced NATO to adopt the 5.56x45 round as the new standard riflemans round because it is cheaper to produce, weighs less so the individual soldier can carry more ammunition and other materiel and most importantly, because the round delivers a lower-recoil impulse making it more accurate in all modes of fire, as well as less demanding on the individual soldier and most importantly, allowing the weapon to be less heavily built, making the weapons themselves lighter and cheaper.

the 5.56x45 round has perfectly acceptable lethality at average combat distance when the targets are not wearing level III armour or greater.

Tefal said:
You sure? cause i thought all the conventions we'd signed up to stated that bullets should not fragment nor deform significantly in the body.
Click to expand...

the Hague convention which disallows the use of expanding ammunition only covers conflicts between nations which are both signatories of the convention as well as only covering conflicts where both forces are uniformed national armies, as well as where the conflict has been officially declared by both belligerents. which means that it doesn't cover ANY conflicts currently taking place on earth at this time.

at Any rate, expanding ammunition is not designed to do so because it's more "evil" or because it's more likely to injure rather than kill. a round that expands has more surface area and drag in the tissue which causes the expenditure of more energy and more gross tissue damage increasing the likelyhood of lethality many times.

in actual fact, solid lead or AP rounds are far more likely to wound rather than kill because they cause much less substantial injuries in comparison.

which is worse? a nigh-instantaneous death due to massive physical trauma, or dying slowly from sepsis or exsanguination on the battlefield, forcing your comrades to attempt to rescue you? seems pretty clear cut to me...
 
But wasn't the gladius (purposefully short and stabby) designed to compliment the Roman army's much-vaunted meatgrinder battle tactics? Did it's design change much throughout the empire's history?




Edit: Aod I love your posts on guns! What's your credentials if you don't mind me asking? You sound like you know this stuff like the back of your hand. :D
 
Last edited:
If you are talking about none guided/ point and shoot style weapons it has to be the Maschinengewehr08 from WW1.

When war began in August 1914 approximately 12,000 MG08s were available to battlefield units; production, at numerous factories, was however markedly ramped up during wartime. In 1914 some 200 fresh MG08s were produced each month; by 1916 - once the device had established itself as the pre-eminent defensive battlefield weapon - the number had increased to 3,000; and a year later to a remarkable 14,400 per month.
Click to expand...

This weapon personfies the industialisation of war. It is a varient on the Maxim, but the scale of production and innovations such as the water jacket should let it stand on its own.

mg08.jpg
 
Last edited:
Forde said:
Edit: Aod I love your posts on guns! What's your credentials if you don't mind me asking? You sound like you know this stuff like the back of your hand. :D
Click to expand...

Mostly personal experience combined with the fact that i've read most of the definitive works on firearms and ballistics, both whitepaper-type reports as well as testimonials from other firearm experts and catalogue-type weapon books such as "Jane's Guns Recognition Guide" and "Assault Rifle" by Maxim R. Popenker.

something you might appreciate; the device shown in my signature is actually the bolt and bolt carrier exploded diagram for an AR-15 type rifle :D
 
Trying to be chronological -

Flint Tips for cavemen (better than sharpened wood)

Bow & Arrow (doen't matter which type it's the concept of a long range weapon)

Gunpowder (cannon/firearms)

Cannon armed Ships

Encased bullets (leads to magazine feed, greater ROF, better reliability)

Aircraft

Maxim machine gun

Chemical weapons

Aircraft Carrier

Nuclear weapons

Guided weapons

I think that'll do for me
 
Last edited:
Chariots because they were the first vehicle used for warfare and therefore influenced all after it I guess. Also chariots made use of horses in battle for the first time.
 
Aod said:
the Hague convention which disallows the use of expanding ammunition only covers conflicts between nations which are both signatories of the convention as well as only covering conflicts where both forces are uniformed national armies, as well as where the conflict has been officially declared by both belligerents. which means that it doesn't cover ANY conflicts currently taking place on earth at this time.
Click to expand...

yes but all our ammunition is built with that convention in mind as it would be a ball ache having to resupply every solider with "legal" ammunition when we have a "proper" war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom