What's the worst conventional military weapon?

lvillejj

30 cal mini guns that are mounted on the sides of AC130 gunships. They fire like 1000 rds per second and totally devastate anything in sight. Either that or the .50 Cal machine gun that can blow someones arm off by the round coming 4 feet from their body withou even thouching them.

gizzardout

Depends on how you look at weaponry I guess.
The worst conventional military weapon would be the one that failed to work.
Each weapon is designed to do a specific type of damage. If it's a dud than it's effectiveness is lost, there by making it the worst.

soldierof the 82ndAirborne

A 2nd lieutenant with a compass

slmonellatyphi

Well in guns its the O.C.I.W./G.L. n in bombs,The Trishul.The Trishul is an Indian missile ,nuclear capable,can be fired from anywhere,kills indiscrminately etc...etc.....

pqrama

Anything designed to kill is the worst.

medic

The daisy cutter. British forward observers during Desert Storm thought that we had used a nuclear device when one was set off. I treated blast injuries where the iraqi troops had been a mile away and in a bunker and still suffered internal injuries.

Cabhammer

M.O.A.B. "Mother of All Bombs" or Massive Overpressure Air Burst in militarese. 20,000 pounds of explosive detonated about 30 feet of the ground that flatten everything in a 1 kilometer radius.

nickname: The Daisycutter

Roland D.

The corner shot.

Craig

Depleted uranium rounds.

In the words of Anti-Flag:
"not your grandfather's style of deadly munitions, its silent and deadly long after the mission"

Bleeble Blabble

hardcore .50 caliber sniper rifle also known as the M82 Rifle.
These can all range from $4000 to $25,000. With the accuracy ranging with the price. I have read where some can go upwards to 3,000 yards hittin a direct shot, imagine 30 football fields lined with a target It can also penetrate any type of armour it has come across. So god be with the thing being targeted by this type of weaponary.

something

20 mm, 4500 rounds per minute.

or the daisy-cutter bomb

wildraft1

The mess kit.

jdnmsedsacrasac1

is the flamethrower still used? Imagine a weapon that can set someone on fire! Who came up with that idea? And what kind of sick person would ever want to use such a thing?

Daniel

m16a2 needs 2-3 bursts to kill.
the m4a1 is faster, lightr and...better

hollywood71@verizon.net

bunker buster.

azrael505

Most military weapons are specialized for certain purposes. The cluster smart bombs capable of taking out entire columns of tanks are not as effective against companies of dismounted infantry who can take cover. Similarly, a Tomahawk cruise missle will utterly obliterate a target but typically not cause a high number of casualties.

You'll need to be slightly more specific so that it can be better discussed. Personally I say a 20-30mm depleted uranium core round because not only is it capable of killing infantry, light vehicles, and disabling tanks, but it is highly effective against a target in cover due to its penetrative powers and is extremely cheap to make.

uk expat

Anything in the hands of the US military , cos when they use it they kill their own or their allies !

Nat

This is such a badly phrased question. Do you mean in terms of lack of firepower compared to what? Weight? Mass? Reloading speed? What are your criteria?

If I had to throw out just any answer, those CAR-15s with the 8" barrels are probably it. Completely pointless. Too much flash, powder doesn't burn sufficiently to propel a 62-grain round. Spin, penetration, everything is just awful. Turns a fairly good platform into a BB gun.

Everyone has their favorites, I'm sure.

RANDLE W

The most useless has to be the modern bayonet. If you're close enough to stick 'em, you're close enough to shoot 'em.

szydkids

The M16. It doesn't pack enough punch and often requires 2 or 3 hits to kill the target.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: