The Most Influential Weapons of History

Castiel said:
A particular weapon, for example the Hoplite Spear can and will alter the tactics available to any given commander and can influence the outcome of a battle and thus the overall outcome of a war quite significantly.

Thinkg like the changes in Cavalry and Armour, going from Bronze to Steel, the discovery of Carbon Steel, Star Fortification, the advent of the Machine Gun, Battleships, RADAR, Wireless Communication, Aircraft Carriers and many other materiel factors can influence warfare.

This is what the point is, what weapons influenced the most, whether it be directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...


First of all, you just quotes a list of things that either aren't weapons, or are generic ones. Yes, the invention of the spear changed warfare (but probably not as much as the arrow) but there's no one spear which is influential. There were many reason for the effectiveness of (say) the Hoplites, but their weaponry is low down the list, given that it was little different to their enemy's gear.

Second, you seem to be agreeing with me: that the individual weapon is only a small factor in warfare, compared to the various other things. The secret of cavalry for instance, was not the spear, or the sabre, or the arrow. It was the stirrup. Followed by the successful training, the co-ordination, the tactics etc.


M
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Indeed. A superb pice of engineering and my rifle of choice when on the range.

battlehill001a.jpg
Click to expand...

Is that yours?

I've been thinking that I'm ready to take up recreational range shooting. It's what I miss most. Where is the best place, I live on Salisbury Plain.
 
Meridian said:
First of all, you just quotes a list of things that either aren't weapons, or are generic ones. Yes, the invention of the spear changed warfare (but probably not as much as the arrow) but there's no one spear which is influential. There were many reason for the effectiveness of (say) the Hoplites, but their weaponry is low down the list, given that it was little different to their enemy's gear.

Second, you seem to be agreeing with me: that the individual weapon is only a small factor in warfare, compared to the various other things. The secret of cavalry for instance, was not the spear, or the sabre, or the arrow. It was the stirrup. Followed by the successful training, the co-ordination, the tactics etc.


M
Click to expand...

But that doesn't fit the OP's request however. As I said you have either missed the point, or are being deliberately disingenuous. Certain spears were hugely influential in certain periods, for example the Macedonian Sarissa gave their phalanx's a tactical advantage against the standard Hoplite Doru, the Gladius and Pilum allowed Roman Legions to then supersede the Macedonian phalanx etc....they did not do this alone but they were influential nonetheless.

This is true of many different weapons, either generic or specific.

Lets not forget that weapons are not just offensive, the stirrup was just as much a weapon as the advent of the sabre, or light cavalry tactics.
 
Last edited:
Longbow said:
How has the AK changed the world? Other than being used by a bunch of poor farmers with little effect who would otherwise use another weapon if no AK existed.
Click to expand...

Because it's one of the most mass produced guns in the world, like a number of Russian arms it was made basic, cheap and in large numbers.
 
VFM Addict said:
That depends how you look at it. The gladius was designed for stabbing thrusts which are typically more lethal than slashing or chopping. There is some historical evidence that Roman soldiers literally laughed and thought of enemies who slashed or chopped as being fools. So in that the gladius's usage was somewhat different to other swords in the main, it is hard to compare. Certainly it was ideal for its intended use. oh BTW forgot to mention one of the other rationales for the thrusting tactic was also that slashing or chopping typically causes you to leave more of yourself open to counter thrusts.
Click to expand...

The Gladius was so effective because of the tactics it was used in by the Roman legions, shoulder to shoulder with short stabbing thrusts. It only takes a couple of inches of steel to mortaly wound another human.
If the Romans had used longer swords with their tactics it just wouldn't have worked as well as it did, they kept themselves protected while still delivering short lethal thrusts of a short sword in a compact area..
 
Castiel said:
the Roman Legionnaire with their Pilum, Gladius and Scutum
Click to expand...

Can't believe that we got so far into the thread before anyone mentioned the pilum! That was a game changer in breaking the domination of phalanxes.

Sling?

Fire?

Illusion? I'm thinking Scipio with his troops 'walking on water'.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Indeed. A superb pice of engineering and my rifle of choice when on the range.

http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad166/VonSmallhausen/battlehill001a.jpg
Click to expand...

Mmmmm, nice. the AI AE and AW series of rifles truly are superlative examples of perfection in the field of ballistics and precision.

VFM Addict said:
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.
Click to expand...

the act of drawing and cocking a 1911 can be performed extremely quickly with just a little practice. with regards to ammunition capacity, i'd definitely agree that 1911 type pistols are completely outclassed by more modern double-action doublestackers, but the 1911 pistol is legendary for not only its stopping power but also it's reliability and accuracy.

Also, it's just damn cool! :D

the issues you highlighted are certainly true with regard to traditional 1911s, but modern 1911-type pistols such as the Cold Mk.80 Govt. have modern features such as firing-pin-blocks while the safety is applied, meaning that they can definitely be safely carried in Condition Two (round in the chamber, not cocked), but even a traditional 1911 is safe to carry Condition One (cocked and locked) because the hammer would sooner break off than bypass the sear and strike the firing pin.

modern moulded holsters are now available that securely retain the pistol while not having any sort of bar/strap/clip that must be manually removed prior to drawing the weapon, most nowadays have a spring-loaded catch that hooks into the triggerguard which is disengaged by pressing down the release catch which is usually located in the trigger-fingers rest-position meaning that the pistol is drawn with the hand in the exactly correct position.

I myself can draw, unsafe and put two rounds on target in less than three seconds, and many people are even faster.

Simply put, despite it's inadequacies there's something about the 1911 pistol that makes it irresistible to some, myself definitely included :D
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
But that doesn't fit the OP's request however.
Click to expand...



The point I'm trying to make is that the OPs request is impossible because it's not weapons that win wars, but men. The shift in who won various wars was down to a lot of factors, and the weapon was only a minor one. As you've already agreed, a change in weapons produces a change in tactics. So why is it so hard to understand that it's the tactics that count, not the weapon? The only time the weapon is master is when there's a vast discrepancy in technology (Battle of Omdurman (sp?) for instance). If weapons were king, why did the Zulus win at Isandlwana? The Martini-Henry is a better weapon than an assegai. Alexander conquered because he was a great general with a great army, not because his spears were a bit better. The trouble is that that's a bit complicated, and nowhere near as much fun as a load of boys arguing about weapons (fnah fnah).


M
 
Meridian said:
The point I'm trying to make is that the OPs request is impossible because it's not weapons that win wars, but men. The shift in who won various wars was down to a lot of factors, and the weapon was only a minor one. As you've already agreed, a change in weapons produces a change in tactics. So why is it so hard to understand that it's the tactics that count, not the weapon? The only time the weapon is master is when there's a vast discrepancy in technology (Battle of Omdurman (sp?) for instance). If weapons were king, why did the Zulus win at Isandlwana? The Martini-Henry is a better weapon than an assegai. Alexander conquered because he was a great general with a great army, not because his spears were a bit better. The trouble is that that's a bit complicated, and nowhere near as much fun as a load of boys arguing about weapons (fnah fnah).


M
Click to expand...

It's not "The BEST Weapons in History" it's "The Most INFLUENTIAL Weapons in History". There are many varied factors as to what makes a weapon influential and those factors do not have to include wars or battles. This keeps being pointed out to you :rolleyes:




Oh, and nice hardware Kwerk :D
 
Castiel said:
Is that yours?

I've been thinking that I'm ready to take up recreational range shooting. It's what I miss most. Where is the best place, I live on Salisbury Plain.
Click to expand...

This L96 I'm using there is a club gun. We have a sports and social club within the force which has a shooting club and it is an ex-police precision rifle that was retired and donated to the club. While it is old and had numerous rounds through it, it still puts .308 exactly where you point them.

Another donated rifle we have is a Steyr M69 which is also an ex tac rifle and another superb piece of engineering. They both have the heavy free floating barrel for better accuracy.

I hope to have my own L96 but at around 4 grand, I would seriously have to bribe my OH with something to avoid being clattered with a rolling pin. ;)

When shooting .223, I usually use a Becker rifle. It is a middle of the road type of weapon with good accuracy and is loosley based on the M16 series.

battlehill002a.jpg
 
I would suggest you try to watch weaponology (the tv series think its from the military or history channel) I have seen both series now.

Its quite amazing how some weapons come and go, its usually a technological development that retires a weapon, but then how it suddenly reappears again to counter a new threat or because a design issue is suddenly overcome and allows a new use for the weapon.

To me a shaped charge is a great evolvement, a relatively small charge could make armour useless, and did this to some extent for quite a few years until armour developers realised ways to counter them.
If you wondered why armoured vehicles have those bars around them 6-12" away from the armour is because of shaped charges. If they can be triggered to detonate away from the actual armour they are rendered almost useless.

Rifling was also significant. Pre rifling guns were point and hope weapons with effective ranges below 100m, rifling took that to about 300m or more, suddenly sniping and targetted rounds became possible, pre rifling it was a wall of lead approach hence when everyone fired at the same time.
 
As an antique firearms collector these are my selection. in one word gunpowder is the only thing that truly changed the world of weapons forever

For 'world changing' the you can only really select the first time gunpowder artillery was ever used in the 12/13th century and no castle became safe from repeated bombardment.

The second should be the first time a powder hand held weapon had a mechanism to ignite the touch hole , previously there was only a burning match or taper, basically a piece of string that smoldered and frequently went out leaving you defenceless whilst you tried to relight it.
This first mechanism -complicated and expensive - was called a wheelock and it meant for the first time a pistol could be carried in a holster ,loaded and ready to fire. later on it evolved into the simple flintlock.

And finally I would select the first time a gun was able to fire more than one bullet, a problem that wasn't easily solved for centuries and countless soldiers must have died whilst endlessly refilling muzzle loaders and even then only the invention of cartridges truly made the gun multi shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom