The World's Worst Weapons - book I got for Christmas

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't know this book or author, but...

The X-3 Stilletto: It never lived up to its potential or it's test goals due to being way underpowered. It was designed for research into jet-powered flight in the Mach 3 area, but never flew any faster (IIRC) than 908 mph. And, it looked ridiculous -- fine if you're trying to spear clothes off of clotheslines as you pass by, but I think they went WAY overboard on that nose.

But, I'll agree with you -- the X-3 was a research tool, and never meant to be a combat aircraft.

Stuka: Great attack aircraft in its prime, but that prime was in the Spanish Civil War. It was slow in anything but a dive, and it's only reprieve was in the invasion of Poland where Poland's entire military was inadequate. They got shot down regularly even while Dunkirk was going on, and the Battle of Britain convinced even the Germans that continuing to use the Stuka in any but very limited roles was a good way to kill off a pilot you don't like -- plus many you DID like.

The AK-47??? I've fired it, and the recoil is heavy but not uncomfortable, unless you go to automatic; then you're going to fight an increasingly-losing fight to control the muzzle climb. (Short bursts only!) Accuracy is the AK-47's weak point.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think I know the book you mean, is the author Martin J Dougherty?
I flicked through the book once and found it very subjective, I think the author totally fails to put the item into context.

For example, the previously mentioned X-3 was built in the 1950s, designed with knowledge from the 1940s. It was right at the cutting edge of aircraft/speed knowledge. Does the author believe the builders should have "already known" the information they were trying to discover? (That's the impression I get).

As for the Swordfish, it wasn't a "bad" plane per se, just in use beyond its use-by date so to speak. It was from the wrong era to be fighting WW2 but they had little else.
And if he thinks the AK has "unpleasant recoil", he should try shooting a FAL in auto.

Bitching aside, I think it's one of those books for the casual military fan, I certainly can not take it seriously when the author thinks the AK is a "worst weapon".

[LBraden]

Swordfish - Taranto 1940 - Half the effective Italian Navy for the loss of, some reports say 1 plane and crew, others say 2 planes and 1 crew.... I don't call that "bad" I call that "bloody lucky". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

PzKpfw I is different from the PzKpfw VI Tiger, VERY different.

Panzer I was effectively what was needed in WWI, not Blitzkrieg.
Panzer VI was an over-sized tank that was a good idea, just not for a country with low supplies, heck a modern M1A2 SEP is slightly bigger than a Tiger.

As for the FAL on full auto, wait till you are doing shoulder-stock fire of a Gimpy while using it on a "bodge mount" in a Landy doing cross country riding, both your shoulder and back hurt like hell.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by LBraden

PzKpfw I is different from the PzKpfw VI Tiger, VERY different. Panzer I was effectively what was needed in WWI, not Blitzkrieg.
Panzer VI was an over-sized tank that was a good idea, just not for a country with low supplies, heck a modern M1A2 SEP is slightly bigger than a Tiger. As for the FAL on full auto, wait till you are doing shoulder-stock fire of a Gimpy while using it on a "bodge mount" in a Landy doing cross country riding, both your shoulder and back hurt like hell.

Yup big differrence between Panzer 1 and Tiger 1. Panzer 1 wasn't realy a tank at all, more a tracked cavalry vehicle or scout car. Weighed less that 6 tons and armed only with two 7.92mm MG's. This type of vehicle was fairly common during the interwar period of the 20's and 30's but obsolete to all intensive purposes by 1939.

[Raellus]

Despite the Stuka's already-mentioned shortcomings, it did continue to serve ably in the CAS and tank-busting roles on the Eastern Front until the Soviets gained air superiority in '44. In some ways, the JU-87 is a spiritual ancestor to today's A-10 Warthog and SU-25.

The AK-47 is widely considered to be the most influential weapon system of the entire 20th century and it will continue to serve well into the 21st. There are no less than three books (not technical manuals, mind you) entirely devoted to the historical significance of the the AK series currently on the shelf at B&N, including the bestselling The Gun, which I just recently finished (it was quite good). Claiming that the AK is one of the world's worst weapons is like claiming that cigarettes are good for your health. That's the kind of senstationalist revisionism that bad historians use to get published. I think that this is an author that I will stay well away from.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The AK-47 is widely considered to be the most influential weapon system of the entire 20th century and it will continue to serve well into the 21st. There are no less than three books (not technical manuals, mind you) entirely devoted to the historical significance of the the AK series currently on the shelf at B&N, including the bestselling The Gun, which I just recently finished (it was quite good). Claiming that the AK is one of the world's worst weapons is like claiming that cigarettes are good for your health. That's the kind of senstationalist revisionism that bad historians use to get published. I think that this is an author that I will stay well away from.

The text for the AK47, in case anyone cares:

Firing a short 7.62x39mm cartridge on semi- or full-automatic modes, the AK47 was one of the first assault rifles in the world, and in many ways it is not a good weapon. Its recoil is unpleasant; it is awkward to use with the cocking handle on the wrong side and a counterintuitive fire selector switch. It is also not very accurate.

And yet due to the incredibly robust and almost totally idiotproof design, the 'AK' has gone on to be a world-beater. It is particularly popular with conscript armies and militia.

Then why is it in a book titled "World's worst weapons"?

[copeab]

The Panzer I was designed as a training tank for the Wehrmacht; it was really not intended to be used in combat. However, September 1939 caught the Germans short of real tanks like the Panzer III and Panzer IV (the Panzer II was really too light, but a skilled commander could disable other tanks with it's 20mm gun).

(I do like to have some Panzer I's if I play the Germans in Steel Panthers, viewing them as armored MG nests on defense and expendable 'the enemy is here!' flags on offense).

I would consider the Tiger II a worse tank than the Tiger I. Every bad thing about the original was magnified in the sequel.

Worst airplane? Well, the Me 163 Komet killed more of it's pilots than Allied fighters did. The Ba 249 Natter was an even worse idea. However, this title possible goes to the Breda Ba.88 Lince (lynx), a twin engine fighter bomber. Several hundred were built based on prototype performance. However, once military equipment was added in the production models, performance dropped off to deathrap levels. In the end, those that survived the first few attempts to use them in combat were stripped of useful gear and left around airfields, to confuse photo-reconnaisance and serve as targets for the British to waste bombs on.

As for the counterintuitive selector on the AK-47, I've heard that explained that the gun was primarily intended as an automatic rifle, so auto on the first setting off safe was a logical extension of this (OTOH, the M16 was meant to primarily fire single, aimed shots, so it's selector settings were single before auto). No idea if this is true.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by RN7

Yup big differrence between Panzer 1 and Tiger 1. Panzer 1 wasn't realy a tank at all, more a tracked cavalry vehicle or scout car. Weighed less that 6 tons and armed only with two 7.92mm MG's. This type of vehicle was fairly common during the interwar period of the 20's and 30's but obsolete to all intensive purposes by 1939.

My bad. He does list the Pzkpfw 1, but there is a completely separate entry for the Pzkpfw VI Tiger I.

The text:

The Tiger I quickly gained a reputation as a deadly opponent due to its heavy armour and powerful 88mm main gun. The tiger was not, however, quite the ultimate weapon it seemed. Hugely expensive to produce and rather complex to maintain, the Tiger absorbed a lot of resources in return for its formidable combat power. Just getting it to the battlefield presented a problem.

The Tiger was too heavy for most bridges and a lot of roads, and the running gear suffered from clogging in muddy conditions. Its gun was immensely powerful, but traversed very slowly and its performance in the field was hampered by being underpowered and fuel greedy."

Every one of those arguments can be leveled at the Abrams, the Challenger, the Chieftain, the Leopard II - any of them. I saw an Abrams shear its own return roller going through a muddy gully - the tank was downed for a good two hours while being repaired.

it's an unintentionally funny book, that's for sure.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I think I know the book you mean, is the author Martin J Dougherty?
I flicked through the book once and found it very subjective, I think the author totally fails to put the item into context.

For example, the previously mentioned X-3 was built in the 1950s, designed with knowledge from the 1940s. It was right at the cutting edge of aircraft/speed knowledge. Does the author believe the builders should have "already known" the information they were trying to discover? (That's the impression I get).

As for the Swordfish, it wasn't a "bad" plane per se, just in use beyond its use-by date so to speak. It was from the wrong era to be fighting WW2 but they had little else.
And if he thinks the AK has "unpleasant recoil", he should try shooting a FAL in auto.

Bitching aside, I think it's one of those books for the casual military fan, I certainly can not take it seriously when the author thinks the AK is a "worst weapon".

That is the very book. And yeah, the author has a pretty skewed view on a lot of these.