Top 10 weapons that changed the world

[Kyle Holgate]

The Military channel has a show on called futureweapons. Last night I watched part of it, and they were counting down the top 10 weapons that changed the world (I believe that's the title, or very close). Anyway I had to go so couldn't watch all of it, but from what I saw the top runnners were: Tomohawk missile, AK-47, Apache helecopter and JDAM (GPS guided bomb). I wish I'd seen the top ones, and am not sure I agree with the ones listed - but what do YOU think?

Machine gun? Bomb (in general)? Gunpowder (is it a weapon by itself?)? Flintlock? Bow and arrow? A bomb? H bomb? Submarine? Airplane (is it a weapon?)?

They were apparently choosing specific models - if so then P-51 or B-29 or T-34 and such may be fair game.

Fire away...

[paladin5]

Kyle are we talking about a specific model of weapon (M-16, F-4, etc) or or just a general type of weapon (Gun, tank, etc)?

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Military channel has a show on called futureweapons. Last night I watched part of it, and they were counting down the top 10 weapons that changed the world (I believe that's the title, or very close). Anyway I had to go so couldn't watch all of it, but from what I saw the top runnners were: Tomohawk missile, AK-47, Apache helecopter and JDAM (GPS guided bomb). I wish I'd seen the top ones, and am not sure I agree with the ones listed - but what do YOU think?

Machine gun? Bomb (in general)? Gunpowder (is it a weapon by itself?)? Flintlock? Bow and arrow? A bomb? H bomb? Submarine? Airplane (is it a weapon?)?

They were apparently choosing specific models - if so then P-51 or B-29 or T-34 and such may be fair game.

Fire away...

Kyle:

I saw that episode on the Discovery Channel several months back and I agree, some of their choices were less than inspired. One could make an argument for the T-34 since it set the pattern for most tanks that followed. The Apache while a great attack chopper is merely an evolutionary weapon. The Cobra gunship was more ground breaking (and still in service).

[Ed Rotondaro]

The Military channel has a show on called futureweapons. Last night I watched part of it, and they were counting down the top 10 weapons that changed the world (I believe that's the title, or very close). Anyway I had to go so couldn't watch all of it, but from what I saw the top runnners were: Tomohawk missile, AK-47, Apache helecopter and JDAM (GPS guided bomb). I wish I'd seen the top ones, and am not sure I agree with the ones listed - but what do YOU think?

Machine gun? Bomb (in general)? Gunpowder (is it a weapon by itself?)? Flintlock? Bow and arrow? A bomb? H bomb? Submarine? Airplane (is it a weapon?)?

They were apparently choosing specific models - if so then P-51 or B-29 or T-34 and such may be fair game.

Fire away...

Kyle:

Some of my choices for top ten weapons are:

1. Colt revolver (personal repeating firepower)
2. The stirrup (actually made cavalry practical)
3. Ironclad steam powered warships
4. Aircraft
5. AK-47
6. T-54 (set the pattern for all main battle tanks)
7. Longbow (helped defeat the mounted knight)
8. Browning .50 cal MG (the best heavy MG ever)
9. The aircraft carrier (increased the range at which navies could fight)
10. Submarine (makes all other warships into targets)

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle are we talking abotu a specific model of weapon (M-16, F-4, etc) or or just a general type of weapon (Gun, tank, etc)?

I didn't watch enough of the show to see exctly how they did it, but what I saw of it was giving actual models/types of missiles, guns, aircraft and bombs - not generic "aircraft" for example. Go for whatever way you like. In my view for example the machine gun in general qualifies, though in other cases specific types of weapons may be more appropriate - Hind Helicopter for example instead of Helecopter in general.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

Some of my choices for top ten weapons are:

1. Colt revolver (personal repeating firepower)
2. The stirrup (actually made cavalry practical)
3. Ironclad steam powered warships
4. Aircraft
5. AK-47
6. T-54 (set the pattern for all main battle tanks)
7. Longbow (helped defeat the mounted knight)
8. Browning .50 cal MG (the best heavy MG ever)
9. The aircraft carrier (increased the range at which navies could fight)
10. Submarine (makes all other warships into targets)


I find it very hard to put anything in any particular order, but I'd agree with the colt, the stirrup... not sure that's a weapon! Ironclad OK, aircraft in general (along with the invention of the bomb and machine gun) OK, AK-47 certainly, though the German Sturmgewehr 44 may have lead to its Creation (so does it count?). Longbow certainly. I'd go with the Vickers or Maxim for actual machine gun type - I think they influenced warfare and the outcome of warfare more than the .50. Carrier I'd agree with. Submarine I'd certainly agree with.
Other possible - the RPG (it was on the show, forgot about it) or perhaps Panzerfaust (first fairly good AT weapon for infantry). The T-44 was the predecessor for the T-54 I think, but the JS-III was the first really "new" generation tank featuring sloped armor all around (I think).
Heh heh, what about the hand? When it evolved (or was created) it was a defining weapon!
Others... how about the Hind - I think it was the first purpose built attack helicopter, the V2 - first ICBM (I know, but they could have shot it from Italy to North Africa if they wanted)? Wow, there are a lot to go through..

[Kyle Holgate]

I found the list - both the ones chosen by the public vote and the host of the show. Interesting, but I don't agree (big surprise there! :D)

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/weapons/weapons-that-changed-the-world/weapons-that-changed-the-world.html

[Ed Rotondaro]

I find it very hard to put anything in any particular order, but I'd agree with the colt, the stirrup... not sure that's a weapon! Ironclad OK, aircraft in general (along with the invention of the bomb and machine gun) OK, AK-47 certainly, though the German Sturmgewehr 44 may have lead to its Creation (so does it count?). Longbow certainly. I'd go with the Vickers or Maxim for actual machine gun type - I think they influenced warfare and the outcome of warfare more than the .50. Carrier I'd agree with. Submarine I'd certainly agree with.
Other possible - the RPG (it was on the show, forgot about it) or perhaps Panzerfaust (first fairly good AT weapon for infantry). The T-44 was the predecessor for the T-54 I think, but the JS-III was the first really "new" generation tank featuring sloped armor all around (I think).
Heh heh, what about the hand? When it evolved (or was created) it was a defining weapon!
Others... how about the Hind - I think it was the first purpose built attack helicopter, the V2 - first ICBM (I know, but they could have shot it from Italy to North Africa if they wanted)? Wow, there are a lot to go through..


Kyle:

I agree that the stirrup is not a weapon er se, but rather an improvement to another weapon, in this case mounted cavalry with a lance. But try using a lance without stirrups. Prior to stirrups, most cavalry either threw javelins or shot arrows. Fighting with sword, axe or lance without stirrups was a good way to get knocked off the horse.

While I agree that the RPG and Panzerfaust certainly merit consideration, we would have to give the nod to the bazooka which preceeded them both. An RPG is just a product improved bazooka (although lighter and more widely distributed, seems like every other Arab has one).
Regarding the T-44, it was never very numerous in Russian service and really offered little advantage over the T-34/85. The JSIII was quite an accomplishment combining heavy firepower and good armor on a tank that weighed less than a Tiger tank. Still it was the T-54 which really changed the whole concept of the tank. No longer is there this division of heavy, medium andlight tanks. The MBT dominated armor design by simplifying it. The role of the light tank was handed over to wheeled light armored vehicles and there was no longer a need for the heavy tank, although modern MBTs with their composite armors actually weigh more than heavy tanks did.

The reason I'd take the AK-47 over the Sturmgewehr is that it was lighter, cheaper to manufacture and so widely distributed. While the German weapon was the pioneer, it was never available in the kind of numbers that the AK was. Also you'll not that post-war, most NATO armies reverted to a semi-automatic self loading rifle with a full bore cartridge whereas the Russians and their client states switched over to the assault rifle whole heartedly. It took the West decades to do the same.

In the sense that they were more portable and widely available, the Maxim and Vickers MGs certainly were influential weapons, yet that type of MG is no longer in use due to the success of the light machine gun as developed by the Germans. The MG-34 and MG-42 really influenced the development of both the postwar general purpose machine gun and the squad automatic weapon.

I'm sure we can continue to think of many more examples of history making and changing weapons.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I found the list - both the ones chosen by the public vote and the host of the show. Interesting, but I don't agree (big surprise there! :D)

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/weapons/weapons-that-changed-the-world/weapons-that-changed-the-world.html

Kyle:

I think we're both on the same page regarding those lists. Sure the Nimitz class carrier is potent, but it is the aircraft carrier in general that is the world beater. Same with the Nautilis, being the first nuke sub she changed the face of submarines forever, but it was the sub itself that was the real innovation. JDAM I guess belongs on the list as it made for more precise and efficient air attacks. The jury is still out on the BMP versus the concept of an infantry fighting vehicle.

[old_pop2000]

My choices are more sublime.

1. Nuclear Weapons

2. Clovis Point

3. Composite Bow

4. Minie ball

5. Gunpowder

6. Smokeless Powders

7. Mauser Bolt action rifle

8. Maxim Machine gun

9. Quick firing cannon

10. Airplane

11. armored vehicle

12. Ironclad ship

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

I agree that the stirrup is not a weapon er se, but rather an improvement to another weapon, in this case mounted cavalry with a lance. But try using a lance without stirrups. Prior to stirrups, most cavalry either threw javelins or shot arrows. Fighting with sword, axe or lance without stirrups was a good way to get knocked off the horse.

While I agree that the RPG and Panzerfaust certainly merit consideration, we would have to give the nod to the bazooka which preceeded them both. An RPG is just a product improved bazooka (although lighter and more widely distributed, seems like every other Arab has one).
Regarding the T-44, it was never very numerous in Russian service and really offered little advantage over the T-34/85. The JSIII was quite an accomplishment combining heavy firepower and good armor on a tank that weighed less than a Tiger tank. Still it was the T-54 which really changed the whole concept of the tank. No longer is there this division of heavy, medium andlight tanks. The MBT dominated armor design by simplifying it. The role of the light tank was handed over to wheeled light armored vehicles and there was no longer a need for the heavy tank, although modern MBTs with their composite armors actually weigh more than heavy tanks did.

The reason I'd take the AK-47 over the Sturmgewehr is that it was lighter, cheaper to manufacture and so widely distributed. While the German weapon was the pioneer, it was never available in the kind of numbers that the AK was. Also you'll not that post-war, most NATO armies reverted to a semi-automatic self loading rifle with a full bore cartridge whereas the Russians and their client states switched over to the assault rifle whole heartedly. It took the West decades to do the same.

In the sense that they were more portable and widely available, the Maxim and Vickers MGs certainly were influential weapons, yet that type of MG is no longer in use due to the success of the light machine gun as developed by the Germans. The MG-34 and MG-42 really influenced the development of both the postwar general purpose machine gun and the squad automatic weapon.

I'm sure we can continue to think of many more examples of history making and changing weapons.

For armies: The horse (invented by the almighty, but damn useful in warfare), The longbow or just the bow and arrow in general gave distance to the infantry - out distancing the javalin or spear. The Gun in gradually overcame the bow as it was the common man's weapon where a bow took skill (and strength). The machine gun trumped the cavalry, that and motorized vehicles. The tank greatly changed how war was fought too, then finally the infantry anti-tank weapons made the next big change on the battlefield.
Not top tens, but I think I have gotten the big weapons/systems that made fundamental shifts in how land warfare was fought.

[Warship NWS]

The weapon that was actually deployed and used in numbers that added the first true 3rd dimension of warfare.. the skies.. the first aerial scouts of WW1. Nothing changed warfare on such a scale compared to the first airplanes, IMHO. After the first airplanes.. you either gained and retained air superiority or you lost the war.

[Kyle Holgate]

The weapon that was actually deployed and used in numbers that added the first true 3rd dimension of warfare.. the skies.. the first aerial scouts of WW1. Nothing changed warfare on such a scale compared to the first airplanes, IMHO. After the first airplanes.. you either gained and retained air superiority or you lost the war.

Probably more so than the other weapon system that worked in the other direction of the 3rd dimension, the submarine. Nothing has been quite the same at sea since it made its appearance (or dissapearance) either. Betwen the two of them 20th century warfighting was one Hell of a transition!

[old_pop2000]

World's greatest weapon is .............MAN. When he runs out of ammo, he fights with his hands and feet. All weapons are extension of man.:p

[djcyclone]

No one has mentioned the first Cannon, or Bombard thus leading to the creation of modern Artillery.

What about the Destroyer, which changed the war at sea also? The first ship that could do anything that you needed, and truely be Johnny on the Spot.

How about the Kamakazie, the first guided missile?

When it comes too specifices, I think that the Russian rocket truck was a huge step in modern Artillery, and the F-14 Tomcat was in my opinion the biggest advance in Aircraft that we see. There is such a jump from the F-4 Phantom to the F-14 Tomcat that it truely was a breakthrough in itself. As for Destroyers, I would say that the Ticonderoga Class Cruiser was a huge breakthrough being the first ship to be truely capable of area defence. It can defend itself and launch attacks all at the same time. Speaking of that, you have to recognize the advance of the SM2 Missle which was a huge advance in itself. The ability to shoot down incoming missiles with a missile.

I'll stop there. I am tired, but I could think of more if I had the time.

[Warship NWS]

Probably more so than the other weapon system that worked in the other direction of the 3rd dimension, the submarine. Nothing has been quite the same at sea since it made its appearance (or dissapearance) either. Betwen the two of them 20th century warfighting was one Hell of a transition!

Oh my gosh, we actually do agree on something once in a while.. ;) Note though, the sub was around before WW1 began.. what made it far more lethal was the self propelled torpedo, addition of a deck gun, and the ability to deploy multiple mines stealthily.

What is ironic however is how the industrialized age helped to cause WW1 to get started and the mechanized age helped to finish it via the tank, airplane, and submarine being for the first time ever used in effective numbers - all in a matter of just 4 years of war.

Thanks.

[tony_glazebrook]

Hmm. Hard to beat the Romans as an empire that truly changed a huge slice of the world for a long time. I think you could argue they did it with their legionanaries primarily. How did they do it? In my opinion, the weapon that had most effect here was the pilum, part missile, part spear. More flexible weapon than the macedonian pike. Better than the celtic/thracian hand ax because it could be a spear also.

If you don't like that, what about the large curved shield they had - brilliant defensive weapon and with its boss also a nasty offensive weapon of last resort.

Or going back further, you'd have to say the chariot. The Assyrians and Egyptians ruled the early civilised world with it. (The Han dynasty chinese also used it quite a bit). Sort of an early infantry/close support tank, sometimes also used in a heavy assault role.

None of these are as sexy as things that go bang, but from an historical point of view, just as important?

[old_pop2000]

The MP 44 Sturmgewehr was the first assault rifle using a short version of the 7.92 mm standard mauser cartridge. At 500 rpm, with a 30 round clip, selective fire, it was the first. The later StG 45 using the delayed blowback, might have been a better design. This weapon was the basis for the Spanish Cetme and German G3 weapons of the post war. There are claims that the AK was a direct copy of the MP 44.

The AK-47 claim to fame was numbers and reliability. I don't believe that it was better. It used the same gas system as the MP-44, but fired from a closed rotating bolt whereas the MP-44 used a wedge lock. The trigger assemblies are similar and the AK's could be a direct copy in that aspect. Also, Hugo Schmeisser, the MP-44 designer, worked in the post war period, briefly, in the same factory as Kalashnikov did while working on the AK-47. The AK was not revolutionary, it used similiar features found in other rifles.

[JMS]

Nuclear weapons - those who have them have the ultimate security, they cannot be conquered for fear of the consequences.

[Ed Rotondaro]

No one has mentioned the first Cannon, or Bombard thus leading to the creation of modern Artillery.

What about the Destroyer, which changed the war at sea also? The first ship that could do anything that you needed, and truely be Johnny on the Spot.

How about the Kamakazie, the first guided missile?

When it comes too specifices, I think that the Russian rocket truck was a huge step in modern Artillery, and the F-14 Tomcat was in my opinion the biggest advance in Aircraft that we see. There is such a jump from the F-4 Phantom to the F-14 Tomcat that it truely was a breakthrough in itself. As for Destroyers, I would say that the Ticonderoga Class Cruiser was a huge breakthrough being the first ship to be truely capable of area defence. It can defend itself and launch attacks all at the same time. Speaking of that, you have to recognize the advance of the SM2 Missle which was a huge advance in itself. The ability to shoot down incoming missiles with a missile.

I'll stop there. I am tired, but I could think of more if I had the time.

DJ:

Was the Russian Katyusha rocket really that big a deal? The Germans had their Nebelwerfers that usually packed (individually) a bigger punch. Both systems had short range and lacked accuracy. The US put rockets on landing craft and even Sherman tanks. They made a lot of noise but not much else. Now when we see the evolutionary MLRS that is deployed by the US and NATO, we're talking a totally different creature.

Also the F-22 Raptor is just light years ahead of any jet fighter. Consider that the F-4 Phantom served just about the same time as the F-14 and was still very useful. Would either plane be able to contest the F-22's airspace? I'm not sure even the latest MIG or SU can do that.

While the DD certainly has become the primary surface combatant, it like every other ship serves at the beck and call of the aircraft carrier. It's ability to provide air defense and ASW make it versatile enough to stay in service, but it still needs that carrier to provide it with aerial superiority and long reach.

I will agree that the first cannon was a revolutionary weapon that changed how war was fought along with firearms in general.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Oh my gosh, we actually do agree on something once in a while.. ;) Note though, the sub was around before WW1 began.. what made it far more lethal was the self propelled torpedo, addition of a deck gun, and the ability to deploy multiple mines stealthily.

What is ironic however is how the industrialized age helped to cause WW1 to get started and the mechanized age helped to finish it via the tank, airplane, and submarine being for the first time ever used in effective numbers - all in a matter of just 4 years of war.

Thanks.

Chris:

The steam driven torpedo predates the submarine by at least a decade (I'm not talking about submersibles like the Hunley, but rather the subs we see in WWI). Indeed the Japanese used torpedoes to deadly effect during the Russo-Japanese War, yet we don't see subs making an impression until WWI.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hmm. Hard to beat the Romans as an empire that truly changed a huge slice of the world for a long time. I think you could argue they did it with their legionanaries primarily. How did they do it? In my opinion, the weapon that had most effect here was the pilum, part missile, part spear. More flexible weapon than the macedonian pike. Better than the celtic/thracian hand ax because it could be a spear also.

If you don't like that, what about the large curved shield they had - brilliant defensive weapon and with its boss also a nasty offensive weapon of last resort.

Or going back further, you'd have to say the chariot. The Assyrians and Egyptians ruled the early civilised world with it. (The Han dynasty chinese also used it quite a bit). Sort of an early infantry/close support tank, sometimes also used in a heavy assault role.

None of these are as sexy as things that go bang, but from an historical point of view, just as important?


Tony:

I'll dispute Chariots, as they were defeated by good infantry and true cavalry. Once you had pikes and bows, chariots were just clumsy targets. Just my thoughts.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

The steam driven torpedo predates the submarine by at least a decade (I'm not talking about submersibles like the Hunley, but rather the subs we see in WWI). Indeed the Japanese used torpedoes to deadly effect during the Russo-Japanese War, yet we don't see subs making an impression until WWI.

That is correct but torpedoes were not efficient underwater weapons for submarines until they increased in range and were more reliable and in enough numbers to be capable of more then just some tactical individual successes. ;)

[tony_glazebrook]

Nuclear weapons - those who have them have the ultimate security, they cannot be conquered for fear of the consequences.

I was waiting for that one - it's hard to dispute isn't it. As a weapon that got used, it had incomparable effect on Japanese morale comapred to anything else in the allied arsenal at that time. 2 bombs and it's game over. As a weapon that thankfully has not been used since, the mere threat of it's use has been enough generally. I can't think of a weapon that has had that much clout that fear of its being used is enough. Except perhaps germ warfare? Most of the modern 'weapons' that have been raised in this forum have been nothing more than sophisticated delivery systems for nuclear weapons.

[Warship NWS]

The aerial tanker.. without it no global reach of strategic bombing without the need of forward airbases. First used in 1923, operational in 1948, first time used in combat during the Korean War.

[old_pop2000]

Prior to the invention or inclusion of these changes to weapons, the average kill range on a battlefield was about 100 yards. The infantry formation consisted of three lines: a skirmish line loosely formed with distance increased between each soldier, each soldier using cover to fire up on the enemy; the second line consisted of multiple lines of soldiers, closely grouped behind the skirmish line; the third line consisting of reserves to fill in the ranks.

With invention of the minie ball, range and accuracy increased. The killing power of a .58 cal. minie ball was, reported in the Civil War to be over 1000 yards. Best killing range was 500 yards. This was a five fold increase over the ball.

The development of rifling increased accuracy and range. The grooves imparted a spin to the bullet, negated the problem of yawing in the bullet. It maintained the bullet on a much straighter path.

The final piece of the puzzle was the breech loading mechanism. It allowed for faster loading and better use of cover while firing from prone which presented less visible portions of the human body to enemy fire.

What did this do for infantry tactics? The Civil War, Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars all confirmed that the close order formation was obsolete. That the kill zone had increased from 100 yards to well over 1000 yards. That fire and maneuver, using cover, was the answer. Von Moltke the elder identified this and ordered infantry tactics to be changed.

I firmly believe, for the above reasons, that the combination of these three improvements in land warfare, the nature of warfare was fundamentally changed. It changed tactics but it also required much more logistical support due to the increased ammunition usage and also required factory production of cartridges. No longer could the local soldier simply use some lead, melt it then form it into a ball. This made logistic support a priority in all armies. Now armies would increase in size due to the support personnel needed. I believe that this fundamentally changed the nature of war.

[Ed Rotondaro]

That is correct but torpedoes were not efficient underwater weapons for submarines until they increased in range and were more reliable and in enough numbers to be capable of more then just some tactical individual successes. ;)

Chris:

You could probably make the same case for torpedoes fired from surface warships. Improve one weapon system and you increase the efficiency of any platform using that weapon. Better guided missiles can give an older generation aircraft a new lease on life (look at the B-52 for example).

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

You could probably make the same case for torpedoes fired from surface warships. Improve one weapon system and you increase the efficiency of any platform using that weapon. Better guided missiles can give an older generation aircraft a new lease on life (look at the B-52 for example).

Actually, the B-52 was saved mostly due to being the biggest bomb truck the world had ever seen. Missiles were not even part of the B-52 inventory until after the Vietnam war with the deployment of the AGM-86 cruise missiles, with the exception of the nuke tipped AGM-28 Hound Dog (1960) and AGM-69 SRAM which was never used in combat. The B-52 mostly got kept in service, ironically enough, due to reliability, cost effectiveness (very fuel efficient engines), and versatility. If you have air superiority.. nothing beats the B-52 for moving mud, even today.

[Warship NWS]

I don't see the revolutionary nature of the torpedo. It was an evolutionary step from the spar torpedo which was an evolutionary step from the ram.

We might even characterize it as a self propelled mine. If so, it was still evolutionary, not revolutionary. The manner of self propulsion was revolutionary, but not the entire weapon.

The ability to fire a torpedo at a ranged target did revolutionize warfare in itself. Spar torpedoes would have proven entirely impractical vs engined warships capable of more then just a few knots. The spar torpedo itself was not much more then a mine on a stick and used exclusively vs non-moving ships in port, and of which usually put the attacking platform in grave peril of being sunk itself. To engage moving targets.. you had to have a weapon capable of its own propulsion and be able to be fired at a somewhat usefull tactical range. What the self propelled torpedo allowed for was the use in mobile tactical engagements rather then exclusively for defensive or sneak attack situations. It also allowed for submarines, and ships, to have the ability to attack more then one target when they were large enough to carry multiple torpedoes.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Actually, the B-52 was saved mostly due to being the biggest bomb truck the world had ever seen. Missiles were not even part of the B-52 inventory until after the Vietnam war with the deployment of the AGM-86 cruise missiles, with the exception of the nuke tipped AGM-28 Hound Dog (1960) and AGM-69 SRAM which was never used in combat. The B-52 mostly got kept in service, ironically enough, due to reliability, cost effectiveness (very fuel efficient engines), and versatility. If you have air superiority.. nothing beats the B-52 for moving mud, even today.

The BUFF was maintained because it was the only long range, high altitude nuclear and conventional heavy bomber in existance and after Vietnam, we still had to contend with the Communist Bloc countries. With the demise of the B-1 during the Carter years, there was no follow on bomber, so the BUFF had to remain. In 1990, The B-1B bombers still could not provide the capability of the BUFF and depot maintenance was a problem. It took too many B-1B's out of service, leaving inadequate resources. The USAF then decided to accept a proposal from Boeing to provide alternate engines to the BUFF. I am not certain where that idea went, however, they are still debating whether it is cost effect to move ahead. The H model is currently equipped with the TF33 enginers which are an advanced model of the JT8D, turbofan engines. There are more fuel efficient than the original J57 engines. I suspect that the BUFF will be retired with the TF33 installed. I believe that at last count, only 60 are still flyable. There are currently two operational wings; one at Barksdale and one at Minot, with a reserve outfit still at Barksdale. It still has an 80% mission capability rating.

[Kyle Holgate]

Oh my gosh, we actually do agree on something once in a while.. ;) Note though, the sub was around before WW1 began.. what made it far more lethal was the self propelled torpedo, addition of a deck gun, and the ability to deploy multiple mines stealthily.

What is ironic however is how the industrialized age helped to cause WW1 to get started and the mechanized age helped to finish it via the tank, airplane, and submarine being for the first time ever used in effective numbers - all in a matter of just 4 years of war.

Thanks.

We agree more than you know, it's just no fun to go back and forth going yep, yep, yep, uh-hu, all the time! :p
By your logic then the airplane wasn't much without the machine gun or gun and probably the bomb. It did have recon value as did subs to a lesser extent. Both took a while to get to the point where they were much but an oddity (the Hunley? The Wright brothers plane?). Intersting that the sub was conceived as a weapon system from the start - the airplane wasn't.

[Kyle Holgate]

I (once again) agree with Chris about the torpedo. Once it was more or less perfected into a ranged weapon of reasonable accuracy big ships were in danger pretty much only from other big ships or shore batteries (or mines - the "damn the torpedoes" kind).
I think of the torpedo sort of like the infantry anti-tank weapons such as the Bazooka or Panzerfaust. They let the little guy (be it infantryman or torpedo boat) threaten the big boys that could afford big expensive weapons like armored ships or tanks. Now a cheap little weapon (comparatively) was a threat, and it was common.

[Warship NWS]

We agree more than you know, it's just no fun to go back and forth going yep, yep, yep, uh-hu, all the time! :p
By your logic then the airplane wasn't much without the machine gun or gun and probably the bomb. It did have recon value as did subs to a lesser extent. Both took a while to get to the point where they were much but an oddity (the Hunley? The Wright brothers plane?). Intersting that the sub was conceived as a weapon system from the start - the airplane wasn't.

The idea of putting water into the hull of a ship, far more effective then slamming cannonballs into the hull, was derived long before subs were ever around, Dennis nailed that one with "ramming". The problem with ramming was that you put your own ship and men in peril so someone came up with the idea of putting water into a hull by being underwater.. thus the first submersible.

The concept of aerial observation by air was nothing new.. the balloon was the first in the 1800s but a balloon is static, unless you derived some control of it but even then your very vulnerable and damned slow. It just made logical sense that aircraft could do more then the balloon.. it could move in the air, plus it could maneuver. Having a birds eye view, as opposed to ground only view, just made sense. In the end, and as is proven by the numbers of squadrons deployed for each use, the recon ability of the first planes was actually considered more important then fighters themselves, which were usually deployed in fewer numbers. What made fighters valuable is that they could kill observer planes but none of the aircraft would have carried guns had it not been strategically important to retain your eyes in the skies.. otherwise you were considered blind. I will note however, that aircraft were considered for military use as early as 1910, only 7 years earlier the Wright Brothers first took to flight.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

The BUFF was maintained because it was the only long range, high altitude nuclear and conventional heavy bomber in existance and after Vietnam, we still had to contend with the Communist Bloc countries.

As I said.. there is presently no more cost effective way to move a lot of mud then to send a nice big BUFF. The ultimate bomb truck. :D

[Ed Rotondaro]

Prior to the invention or inclusion of these changes to weapons, the average kill range on a battlefield was about 100 yards. The infantry formation consisted of three lines: a skirmish line loosely formed with distance increased between each soldier, each soldier using cover to fire up on the enemy; the second line consisted of multiple lines of soldiers, closely grouped behind the skirmish line; the third line consisting of reserves to fill in the ranks.

With invention of the minie ball, range and accuracy increased. The killing power of a .58 cal. minie ball was, reported in the Civil War to be over 1000 yards. Best killing range was 500 yards. This was a five fold increase over the ball.

The development of rifling increased accuracy and range. The grooves imparted a spin to the bullet, negated the problem of yawing in the bullet. It maintained the bullet on a much straighter path.

The final piece of the puzzle was the breech loading mechanism. It allowed for faster loading and better use of cover while firing from prone which presented less visible portions of the human body to enemy fire.

What did this do for infantry tactics? The Civil War, Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars all confirmed that the close order formation was obsolete. That the kill zone had increased from 100 yards to well over 1000 yards. That fire and maneuver, using cover, was the answer. Von Moltke the elder identified this and ordered infantry tactics to be changed.

I firmly believe, for the above reasons, that the combination of these three improvements in land warfare, the nature of warfare was fundamentally changed. It changed tactics but it also required much more logistical support due to the increased ammunition usage and also required factory production of cartridges. No longer could the local soldier simply use some lead, melt it then form it into a ball. This made logistic support a priority in all armies. Now armies would increase in size due to the support personnel needed. I believe that this fundamentally changed the nature of war.

Dennis:

Bruce Catton in his "Army of the Patomac" trilogy mentions how the percussion rifle made the compact Napoleonic formations obsolete. It also pretty much ended the bayonet charge since the attackers would usually be too badly shredded to push it home. Considering how long the US Civil War lasted, it hard to understand why armies didn't have a better appreciation for the improvements in firepower. We discussed this in reference to WWI, but I think it applies equally to the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars as well.

[paladin5]

I didn't watch enough of the show to see exctly how they did it, but what I saw of it was giving actual models/types of missiles, guns, aircraft and bombs - not generic "aircraft" for example. Go for whatever way you like. In my view for example the machine gun in general qualifies, though in other cases specific types of weapons may be more appropriate - Hind Helicopter for example instead of Helecopter in general.



In that case I am going to have to Stealth aircraft cause when the F-117 first saw action it changed the way arial warfare is fought, and it more or less did so over night. Also as far as i know no other weapons systems in history has renedered as many other weapons systems obselete.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Bruce Catton in his "Army of the Patomac" trilogy mentions how the percussion rifle made the compact Napoleonic formations obsolete. It also pretty much ended the bayonet charge since the attackers would usually be too badly shredded to push it home. Considering how long the US Civil War lasted, it hard to understand why armies didn't have a better appreciation for the improvements in firepower. We discussed this in reference to WWI, but I think it applies equally to the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars as well.
Just about all books on the Civil War, agree that the minie ball, rifle and the breechloader made the Napoleonic style warfare obsolete. However, the Prussian's tried one more time in the Franco-Prussian war and got slaughtered. This is when they changed their infantry manuals.

However, we need to stick with naval and air technology, in this thread.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Actually, the B-52 was saved mostly due to being the biggest bomb truck the world had ever seen. Missiles were not even part of the B-52 inventory until after the Vietnam war with the deployment of the AGM-86 cruise missiles, with the exception of the nuke tipped AGM-28 Hound Dog (1960) and AGM-69 SRAM which was never used in combat. The B-52 mostly got kept in service, ironically enough, due to reliability, cost effectiveness (very fuel efficient engines), and versatility. If you have air superiority.. nothing beats the B-52 for moving mud, even today.

Chris:

As far as reliability goes, the BUFF airframes are older than the pilots flying them these days.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't see the revolutionary nature of the torpedo. It was an evolutionary step from the spar torpedo which was an evolutionary step from the ram.

We might even characterize it as a self propelled mine. If so, it was still evolutionary, not revolutionary. The manner of self propulsion was revolutionary, but not the entire weapon.

Dennis:

I agree with Chris on the torpedo's nature. The spar torpedo besides being impractical was really just a mine on a stick. Torpedoes as we know them are self propelled and capable of even being guided. To make it more complicated though, early mines were referred to as torpedoes (you know "Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead", from Farragut at Mobile Bay).

In the sense that torpedoes and mines do their damage beneath the surface, I will agree that they are similar to rams, but rams required putting the whole ship in danger.

[Ed Rotondaro]

We agree more than you know, it's just no fun to go back and forth going yep, yep, yep, uh-hu, all the time! :p
By your logic then the airplane wasn't much without the machine gun or gun and probably the bomb. It did have recon value as did subs to a lesser extent. Both took a while to get to the point where they were much but an oddity (the Hunley? The Wright brothers plane?). Intersting that the sub was conceived as a weapon system from the start - the airplane wasn't.

Kyle:

Now that is a cogent observation.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The idea of putting water into the hull of a ship, far more effective then slamming cannonballs into the hull, was derived long before subs were ever around, Dennis nailed that one with "ramming". The problem with ramming was that you put your own ship and men in peril so someone came up with the idea of putting water into a hull by being underwater.. thus the first submersible.

The concept of aerial observation by air was nothing new.. the balloon was the first in the 1800s but a balloon is static, unless you derived some control of it but even then your very vulnerable and damned slow. It just made logical sense that aircraft could do more then the balloon.. it could move in the air, plus it could maneuver. Having a birds eye view, as opposed to ground only view, just made sense. In the end, and as is proven by the numbers of squadrons deployed for each use, the recon ability of the first planes was actually considered more important then fighters themselves, which were usually deployed in fewer numbers. What made fighters valuable is that they could kill observer planes but none of the aircraft would have carried guns had it not been strategically important to retain your eyes in the skies.. otherwise you were considered blind. I will note however, that aircraft were considered for military use as early as 1910, only 7 years earlier the Wright Brothers first took to flight.

Thanks.

Chris:

It is also important to keep in mind that aircraft were able to operate in weather conditions that made balloons too dangerous to send up. Look at all those rigid airship disasters that the USN suffered. Germany and Britain also had problems with airships in bad weather as well.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just about all books on the Civil War, agree that the minie ball, rifle and the breechloader made the Napoleonic style warfare obsolete. However, the Prussian's tried one more time in the Franco-Prussian war and got slaughtered. This is when they changed their infantry manuals.

However, we need to stick with naval and air technology, in this thread.

Dennis:

What's interesting to note is that the French Chasspot rifle gave them tremendous firepower that made Prussian attacks so costly. What hurt the French was a lack of modern artillery which the Prussians used to compensate for the dug in French soldiers. And of course what the French learned from their defeat was to create a rapid firing infantry cannon, the fabled French 75mm (but you already know that).

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

As far as reliability goes, the BUFF airframes are older than the pilots flying them these days.

Yep.. good maintentance does wonders.. the A-10 Warthog is older then many pilots flying it now also. If it works.. don't mess with it and if you don't want to risk something far more expensive.. then use something cheaper. There is something to be said for a B-52 that can around the same number of Mk82 bombs on one load as a typical Mk82 payload for a squadron of F/A-18s.

[old_pop2000]

Yep.. good maintentance does wonders.. the A-10 Warthog is older then many pilots flying it now also. If it works.. don't mess with it and if you don't want to risk something far more expensive.. then use something cheaper. There is something to be said for a B-52 that can around the same number of Mk82 bombs on one load as a typical Mk82 payload for a squadron of F/A-18s.
You can thank AMARC for the maintenance and spares. You can also thank the USAF for cacooning many of the planes, to save them for a rainy day.

[djcyclone]

What about Elephants? They where truely the first tank on the battle field. It was the use of Elephants that stopped Alexander the Great from Conquering India. It was only by pure Genius that Alexander discovered that Elephants are afraid of the Squeel of Pigs. It hurts their ears, and so Alexander charged into battle always having pigs on the front lines. He was able to beat India this way.

[old_pop2000]

What about Elephants? They where truely the first tank on the battle field. It was the use of Elephants that stopped Alexander the Great from Conquering India. It was only by pure Genius that Alexander discovered that Elephants are afraid of the Squeel of Pigs. It hurts their ears, and so Alexander charged into battle always having pigs on the front lines. He was able to beat India this way.

Hard to handle and scared of mice.:D:D

[djcyclone]

Hard to handle and scared of mice.:D:D



You've seen too many cartoons. :D

[old_pop2000]

You've seen too many cartoons. :D
Yosemite Sam is my hero. He always lost, but always kept coming after bugs.

"I'm Riff Raff Sam, The Riffiest Riff That Ever Riffed A Raff!", Great Stuff

[djcyclone]

Yosemite Sam is my hero. He always lost, but always kept coming after bugs.

"I'm Riff Raff Sam, The Riffiest Riff That Ever Riffed A Raff!", Great Stuff



Speaking of Bugs, why the hell do they not still show those cartoons. I heard a radio show that said those cartoons where too violent and so they where taken off the air. That is complet BS to me because of the cartoons that are on the air today are very violent.

I guess watching the Cyotee always blow himself up, or always run off that cliff and wait a few seconds before gravity finally grabbed him and brought him back down too earth was just too much for kids to handle. That is why we are all so messed up. Such a shame.

But hay lets watch Power Rangers and watch a gigantic monster destroy an entire city and then see 5 or 6 teenagers stop him. That is not violent at all. They just use martial arts and gigantic dinosour robots to make it all look good.

[asnrobert]

Dennis:

Bruce Catton in his "Army of the Patomac" trilogy mentions how the percussion rifle made the compact Napoleonic formations obsolete. It also pretty much ended the bayonet charge since the attackers would usually be too badly shredded to push it home. Considering how long the US Civil War lasted, it hard to understand why armies didn't have a better appreciation for the improvements in firepower. We discussed this in reference to WWI, but I think it applies equally to the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars as well.

Yes, they still tried to use massed formations in WW1 (as Patton said, "Untutored courage is no mass for educated bullets"). You'd think the generals would have learned their lesson. :rolleyes:

[tony_glazebrook]

Tony:

I'll dispute Chariots, as they were defeated by good infantry and true cavalry. Once you had pikes and bows, chariots were just clumsy targets. Just my thoughts.

Yes, OK, the chariot thing was a bit of tongue-in-cheek :-)

[Ed Rotondaro]

What about Elephants? They where truely the first tank on the battle field. It was the use of Elephants that stopped Alexander the Great from Conquering India. It was only by pure Genius that Alexander discovered that Elephants are afraid of the Squeel of Pigs. It hurts their ears, and so Alexander charged into battle always having pigs on the front lines. He was able to beat India this way.

DJ:

I wonder if after winning a battle, Alexander didn't toss a few pigs on the spit and have a pig roast?;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Speaking of Bugs, why the hell do they not still show those cartoons. I heard a radio show that said those cartoons where too violent and so they where taken off the air. That is complet BS to me because of the cartoons that are on the air today are very violent.

I guess watching the Cyotee always blow himself up, or always run off that cliff and wait a few seconds before gravity finally grabbed him and brought him back down too earth was just too much for kids to handle. That is why we are all so messed up. Such a shame.

But hay lets watch Power Rangers and watch a gigantic monster destroy an entire city and then see 5 or 6 teenagers stop him. That is not violent at all. They just use martial arts and gigantic dinosour robots to make it all look good.

DJ:

I agree, most of the shows on Cartoon Network are far worse than the stuff I grew up watching. The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy are easily the worst of the bunch.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yes, they still tried to use massed formations in WW1 (as Patton said, "Untutored courage is no mass for educated bullets"). You'd think the generals would have learned their lesson. :rolleyes:

Robert:

They're conservative by nature. Most of the British generals were former cavalrymen and they still thought that cavalry charges with lances no less had place on the battlefield. The poor horses. But I will allow that cavalry used as mounted infantry the Russians and Poles did were certainly effective.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yes, OK, the chariot thing was a bit of tongue-in-cheek :-)

Tony:

Who says you Aussies don't have a sense of humor eh mate? Had a nice cold Cooper's Sparkling Lager a few days back. Boy was it good.

[asnrobert]

Tony:

Who says you Aussies don't have a sense of humor eh mate? Had a nice cold Cooper's Sparkling Lager a few days back. Boy was it good.

I think I had one of those at Outback Steakhouse a month ago- it was good. The only Australian beer I see in the stores is Fosters (which I like).

[asnrobert]

Robert:

They're conservative by nature. Most of the British generals were former cavalrymen and they still thought that cavalry charges with lances no less had place on the battlefield. The poor horses. But I will allow that cavalry used as mounted infantry the Russians and Poles did were certainly effective.

Even in the Civil War, cavalry was mostly used as mounted infantry- use the horses to transport the men to the battlefield, then advance on foot while the horses are kept in the rear.

[djcyclone]

DJ:

I wonder if after winning a battle, Alexander didn't toss a few pigs on the spit and have a pig roast?;)



I don't doubt it. Kind of sucks for the pig huh. First you have to run into combat, and then you have to run from your own side to avoid being eaten. Such a Rough Life.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Even in the Civil War, cavalry was mostly used as mounted infantry- use the horses to transport the men to the battlefield, then advance on foot while the horses are kept in the rear.


Robert:

And quite effectively, once armed with repeating carbines as the South found out at Gettysburg.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't doubt it. Kind of sucks for the pig huh. First you have to run into combat, and then you have to run from your own side to avoid being eaten. Such a Rough Life.

DJ:

To badly misquote from Monty Python "It's a pig's, oops man's life in the Army".;) If you have seen that episode you are truly amongst the select few (I know Dennis has).

[old_pop2000]

Robert:

And quite effectively, once armed with repeating carbines as the South found out at Gettysburg.
Actually, Buford's division was equipped, just after Brandystation with .52 cal Sharps single shot, breechloaders. Only two regiments, 5 & 6th Michigan were equipped with Spencer's repeating rifles. Those were in Custer's division.

Buford's men were also equipped with the .54 cal Burnside, the Smith, Merrill, Gallagher and the .54 cal Ballard. In the records of Army ordnance, there is not substantiating records of Spencer's ever having been issued to Buford. Archeologist's findings on the ridge have shown that the cartridges were from Sharps breechloaders, not Spencers.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Actually, Buford's division was equipped, just after Brandystation with .52 cal Sharps single shot, breechloaders. Only two regiments, 5 & 6th Michigan were equipped with Spencer's repeating rifles. Those were in Custer's division.

Buford's men were also equipped with the .54 cal Burnside, the Smith, Merrill, Gallagher and the .54 cal Ballard. In the records of Army ordnance, there is not substantiating records of Spencer's ever having been issued to Buford. Archeologist's findings on the ridge have shown that the cartridges were from Sharps breechloaders, not Spencers.

Dennis:

Which would you rather fight with, a breech loading single shot or a muzzle loader? Either way, the Union cavalry was outgunning the Confederates by 1863. it's no surprise that the Union cavalry began to dominate their engagements henceforth (plus a lack of good replacement horses for the Southern forces from 1863 onward).

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Which would you rather fight with, a breech loading single shot or a muzzle loader? Either way, the Union cavalry was outgunning the Confederates by 1863. it's no surprise that the Union cavalry began to dominate their engagements henceforth (plus a lack of good replacement horses for the Southern forces from 1863 onward).
Union domination of the Confederate cavalry had many reasons. The Confederates were reasonably equipped, but leadership and tactics were far more important. The appointment of Alfred Pleasonton to lead the Union Cavalry was a great improvement. Men like Buford, Merritt, Gregg and Custer all were young leaders. They learned from the Confederates and by 1863 at Brandystation, the Federal Cavalry was able to show that it had learned its lessons.

In answer to your question, the breech loading Sharps carbine was the better weapon. In comparison, the muzzle loading rifle or carbine fired at a rate of about 4 rounds per minute, the breech loader at 20. Which would you rather have? Remember also that one out of four cavalrymen were holding horses.

[Smiffy]

Robert:

They're conservative by nature. Most of the British generals were former cavalrymen and they still thought that cavalry charges with lances no less had place on the battlefield. The poor horses. But I will allow that cavalry used as mounted infantry the Russians and Poles did were certainly effective.

That's a popular misconception. Most, by far, of British generals were infantrymen. This is especially true in the WW1 era. Haig was a cavalryman, and so were French, Robertson and Allenby, but that's about it. I think the misconception arose because generals, and all officers of field rank or above, wore riding breeches and spurs.

However, my world changer is the English longbow. The man on foot can beat the man on a horse. It's an all weather weapon, unlike the crossbow or the composite bow. It has a high ROF and at 100 yards it is very accurate, it can lay down a barrage out to 200 yards or more. It was also socially very levelling, cheap to make it only takes practice and the common man can kill the knight. It's only drawback was it does take a great deal of practice, years in fact.