0.5 x m x v^2.
Velocity is a powerful thing. Literally!
Oh, and the density of those shells doesn't hurt either
.The Most Influential Weapons of History
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
0.5 x m x v^2.
Velocity is a powerful thing. Literally!
Oh, and the density of those shells doesn't hurt either
.
No need to apologise for owt darling
The Maxim is in the list - certainly one of the most influential weapons in modern times at least.
Darling?! I know we're talking about big weapons, but you're at least going to have to buy me dinner first
.Cruise Missiles. Had a huge impact during the 1st Iraq war, quite moral destroying despite the relatively low numbers used ( and very expensive ) ?
Fuel air bombs as used in Vietnam and the early stages of the Afghan War ( such as The Daisy Cutter ). In the age of the precision weapons such as the cruise missile, are they still considered the most devastating non nuclear ordinance ? A weapon probably mentioned more in leaflet drops than used in actual combat missions, but you wouldnt want to be anywhere near one.
Fuel air bombs as used in Vietnam and the early stages of the Afghan War ( such as The Daisy Cutter ). In the age of the precision weapons such as the cruise missile, are they still considered the most devastating non nuclear ordinance ? A weapon probably mentioned more in leaflet drops than used in actual combat missions, but you wouldnt want to be anywhere near one.
Last edited:
Are you going to revise your original list or leave as is?
Unsure of the final list yet - I've a deadline to stick to unfortunately I will never be able to come up with a top ten everyone could agree on. I'm sticking to handheld weaponry as opposed to missiles or tanks - but that would be a great topic for future.
So far I've written up:
M1 Garand
AK-47
Longbow
Maxim
Roman Gladius
I'll probably include the matchlock, the bayonet and the medieval crossbow but things could change depending upon research. Still leaves two slots.
L96A1 AW....the real thing.
What about napalm?
If we're talking in terms of influence, then it's something that had a profoundly negative influence towards the Americans that used it in the Vietnam War. A slightly different viewpoint from where you've been coming from, but maybe valid nevertheless?
If we're talking in terms of influence, then it's something that had a profoundly negative influence towards the Americans that used it in the Vietnam War. A slightly different viewpoint from where you've been coming from, but maybe valid nevertheless?
Do you not think the Hoplite Spear was more influential than the Gladius.
Possibly. I haven't fully researched that yet.
The gladius earns its inclusion as a perfect addition to the Roman military doctrines. It was also unlike most other swords at the time (which were usually long and slashy). The gladius was intentionally short and stabby and complemented the Roman cohesive, up-close-and-personal fighting style. No other weapon would have outperformed the Gladius Hispaniensis and the influence of Rome is still all around us today. So you could say it was the cutting edge of one of the most important and significant empires in history. It also barely changed for centuries.
I actually really fancy putting in the Hoplon - it could be used as a weapon; it's size influenced greatly the tactics of the phalanx and its shape helped the hoplite keep some air to breathe amid the closely packed ranks during battle. I just need to find out how much Alexander used the phalanx and how much he and the ancient Greeks influenced their time.
Alexander used the Phalanx extensively, with a spear called a Sarissa, which became obsolete due to the spread of the Roman Empire and the tactics employed by the use of Pila, followed by close combat techniques to circumvent the effectiveness of the Sarissa.
The Hoplite was armed with the hoplon (shield), Dory (spear) and a Xiphos (short sword) and the Roman Legionnaire with their Pilum, Gladius and Scutum where really just an evolution of the Hoplite Phalanx and thus in my opinion, the Hoplite with their attendant weaponry were more influential than the Legionnaire and theirs.
Last edited:
Politics.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
I've never been totally convinced by the 1911A1 as a military weapon. At least not after the P38.
No-one carries a 1911A1 with one up the spout, cocked and locked in a regular army issue holster, in battlefield scenarios. (Although with a civilian holster and hammer blocking strap there's no problem nor with pinning the grip safety in permanently for that matter.)
The big drawback with the 1911A1 on the battlefield is that you need two hands to draw it and bring it into action. It’s probably just as quick to slam a new mag into your rifle. So if for some reason you ever need to rely on a 1911A1 in combat, because you have no time to clear a stove-pipe or slam a new mag into your primary arm then things are already up close and dirty.
It that situation I think I'd rather have a double action, large capacity auto every time even if I had to sacrifice a little stopping power. I rather get a 9mm hit in first followed by a second to make sure rather than be too slow getting my first round off. And I'd feel a bit safer knowing I could do it easily with one hand if need be.
No-one carries a 1911A1 with one up the spout, cocked and locked in a regular army issue holster, in battlefield scenarios. (Although with a civilian holster and hammer blocking strap there's no problem nor with pinning the grip safety in permanently for that matter.)
The big drawback with the 1911A1 on the battlefield is that you need two hands to draw it and bring it into action. It’s probably just as quick to slam a new mag into your rifle. So if for some reason you ever need to rely on a 1911A1 in combat, because you have no time to clear a stove-pipe or slam a new mag into your primary arm then things are already up close and dirty.
It that situation I think I'd rather have a double action, large capacity auto every time even if I had to sacrifice a little stopping power. I rather get a 9mm hit in first followed by a second to make sure rather than be too slow getting my first round off. And I'd feel a bit safer knowing I could do it easily with one hand if need be.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,130
- Location
- London
Sure you didn't mean the machine gun? Cavalry was finished in WW1 well before the first unreliable tanks.
I meant as an offensive weapon.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
