Guns Of Icarus Online

Off-Topic => The Pit => Topic started by: Charon on August 12, 2013, 08:03:08 am

Title: Weapons that suck
Post by: Charon on August 12, 2013, 08:03:08 am
This is a thread for REAL LIFE WEAPONS that SUCK.

If you can think of a weapon that has an incredible flaw, post it here. If it's not a modern weapon, be sure to post the following design or enemy counterdesign that fixed those flaws.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Moriarty on August 12, 2013, 08:29:51 am
Banshee rocke.... oh real weapons ... huh
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Swizy on August 12, 2013, 09:30:50 am
(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as72/aicw-2005.jpg)

pls kill me
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Gryphos on August 12, 2013, 11:30:38 am
Pigeon guided missile... I'm not even fucking joking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon)
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: James T. Kirk on August 12, 2013, 01:26:47 pm
Banshee rocke.... oh real weapons ... huh

:(
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Swizy on August 12, 2013, 01:40:03 pm
(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as42/g11_scope.jpg)

Guys let's put pricks on our gun, we rebuild houses with them after the war!
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: HamsterIV on August 12, 2013, 02:40:49 pm
I give to you the Chauchat
(http://mitrailleuse.fr/France/Chauchat/chauchat.jpg)
WW 1 France's idea of what a light machine gun should be. It had a reputation of jamming if dirt got into the magazine or firing compartment. Just the sort of thing you want to give to troops in muddy trenches. Also the barrel could not be exchanged when it got overheated.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Sammy B. T. on August 12, 2013, 09:17:58 pm
The original Bazooka was quite a failure when it came to German tank destruction. While it allegedly fired over a 100 yards, it was really found to only really be about 30 as you had to hit the tread or the very rear of a tank. Patton described it not as a tank hunter but as a weapon of last resort for infantry as they are overran by tanks.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Lord Dick Tim on August 13, 2013, 01:28:16 am
I would need to do some research, but weren't a lot of the first forced air capture designs for automatic weapons total failures?
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: WhiteWeasel on August 13, 2013, 02:31:15 am
In WWII Russians used to strapped bombs to dogs, and trained them to run under tanks and when they got ran over the bomb would detonate. Moral problems aside, the dogs used were trained with russian tanks-which ran on diesel and the germans used petrol. Little did the russians know is that a lot of animals use scent over sight as their primary means of detection. See where this is going?
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Piemanlives on August 13, 2013, 02:39:36 am
In WWII Russians used to strapped bombs to dogs, and trained them to run under tanks and when they got ran over the bomb would detonate. Moral problems aside, the dogs used were trained with russian tanks-which ran on diesel and the germans used petrol. Little did the russians know is that a lot of animals use scent over sight as their primary means of detection. See where this is going?

I remember reading about that, moral problems aside, it was kind of hilarious.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Squidslinger Gilder on August 13, 2013, 05:09:55 am
(http://ravenrepublic.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/flying_tank.jpg)

I remember reading about this thing. Someone thought it was a great idea to mix airplane and tank. Yeah...it didn't work out. Least not until someone thought up the A-10 Warthog.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Piemanlives on August 13, 2013, 05:13:03 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Tsar_tank.jpg)

The Tsar Tank, made to strike fear into the the hearts of the enemy, however it was under powered, vulnerable to artillery, and had a tendency of getting stuck.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Sgt. Spoon on August 13, 2013, 07:47:03 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Tsar_tank.jpg)

The Tsar Tank, made to strike fear into the the hearts of the enemy, however it was under powered, vulnerable to artillery, and had a tendency of getting stuck.
Thanks for linking that. I saw it in a game once I never found out what it was called, or if it ever had existed. Safe to say, it would have been damn cool had it worked.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: N-Sunderland on August 13, 2013, 10:11:54 am
Now, anybody who found any of those things on Cracked.com, raise your hand.

*raises hand*
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Swizy on August 13, 2013, 10:19:48 am
Never was on cracked but I have other sources.

FP elitist
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: HamsterIV on August 13, 2013, 11:14:33 am
I vaguely recall the stories of the American Expeditionary force referring to a french light machine gun as the "Worst piece of equipment ever foisted off on the fighting men of the the United States," and used wikipedia to find the gun. Fun story, Pershing refused to let superior American made weapons onto the battle field (like the Browning Automatic Rifle or the Thompson Sub Machine gun) because he was afraid the Germans might copy them. Instead the American soldiers had to make due with the Chauchat.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Piemanlives on August 13, 2013, 02:56:35 pm
Nope I was not on cracked.com, what ever the hell that is.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Squidslinger Gilder on August 13, 2013, 05:04:26 pm
Remembered mine from an article on a tech/science site then googled flying tank. No idea what cracked is.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: N-Sunderland on August 13, 2013, 05:05:28 pm
Dammit people, you're all boring :P
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Charon on August 15, 2013, 07:19:19 am
(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as42/g11_scope.jpg)

Guys let's put pricks on our gun, we rebuild houses with them after the war!

What's wrong with the G11?
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on August 19, 2013, 02:32:23 am
(http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/images/appliances/laundry-and-cleaning/vacuum-cleaners/reports/upright-ratings/ratings-uprights/ratings-uprights/upright_kirby_sentria.jpg)

granted it's a bit durable, but it's rather unwieldy to use as a bludgeoning device...also expensive.
And no, it's not a pun....

I think a worse weapon would be toe socks...
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Charon on August 19, 2013, 05:10:37 am
Mashed peas
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on August 20, 2013, 04:49:32 am
Mashed peas


Creamed corn
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Plasmarobo on August 22, 2013, 12:26:20 pm
Mashed peas


Creamed corn
A mix of Oxygen, Nitrogen and other trace chemicals: Air.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: James T. Kirk on August 22, 2013, 08:10:47 pm
(http://cdn.hsmemes.com/2012/3/30/fb5b244cc587197e37baff9be0e55cb4.jpg)
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on August 23, 2013, 01:26:29 am
Foam Noodles.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Zenark on August 23, 2013, 10:44:01 am
Foam Noodles.

I don't know, man. With enough effort, you could decapitate someone with one of those.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Sgt. Spoon on August 23, 2013, 11:46:35 am
Noodle Foam
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on August 23, 2013, 12:32:29 pm
Foam Noodles.

I don't know, man. With enough effort, you could decapitate someone with one of those.

Fine.

The holes in the center of foam noodles.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Kharthynogus on August 24, 2013, 03:08:39 am
(http://i.imgur.com/5tfiCnC.png)
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on August 24, 2013, 03:38:35 am
Half of those Child-Safe scissors...
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Riggatto on September 10, 2013, 06:01:29 pm
During WWII the soviets would strap dynamite to dogs and train them to run under the tracks of a tank. It wasn't uncommon for the dogs to run back to the trainer and blow them up instead
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: HamsterIV on September 10, 2013, 06:33:05 pm
I heard that they trained the dogs to run under the center of tanks (where they could easily fit without getting crushed). They would carry a backpack with a antenna that acted like a trigger when it scraped against the bottom of the tank. In training the dogs would run under the tank and get rewarded for doing so. The theory was the dogs would imprint the idea of running under tanks with a backpack as a sure fire way of getting a treat. Then on their big day the trainers would swap out their training pack for one filed with explosives. Unfortunately they did the training with Russian tanks burning Russian grade gasoline. When the dogs were let out on the battle field they went after what they were trained to run under, things that looked like Russian tanks and smelled like Russian grade gasoline. The results were less than desirable (for the Russians at least).
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on September 10, 2013, 06:47:02 pm
Macaroni Art

Never saw anyone win a fight with that.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Plasmarobo on September 11, 2013, 07:32:14 pm
You've obviously never been to kindergarten.

I posit: Nothing.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: James T. Kirk on September 11, 2013, 07:49:35 pm
So nothing is the worst weapon ever?
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on September 11, 2013, 09:16:54 pm
So nothing is the worst weapon ever?

well it certainly is better than something...
But not overused as everything...
though anything might be a better choice...
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Keon on September 12, 2013, 10:52:31 am
Nothingness kills instantly and leaves no trace of the crime.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Zenark on September 12, 2013, 01:58:35 pm
Nothingness kills instantly and leaves no trace of the crime.

How do we even know this 'nothingness' exists?
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on September 12, 2013, 03:50:31 pm
Nothingness kills instantly and leaves no trace of the crime.

How do we even know this 'nothingness' exists?

You don't.

That's what's so scary about nothingness....




Loneliness is as scary as it can drive a man to insanity before it kills him...
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: James T. Kirk on September 12, 2013, 06:33:02 pm
You can never save someone's life.

Only postpone their death.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Keon on September 12, 2013, 06:51:11 pm
Nothingness kills instantly and leaves no trace of the crime.

How do we even know this 'nothingness' exists?

Nothing fears no man and knows no mercy. None of it's victims have ever lived to tell the tale. Scary, huh?
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Letus on September 12, 2013, 07:44:13 pm
Nothingness kills instantly and leaves no trace of the crime.

How do we even know this 'nothingness' exists?

Nothing fears no man and knows no mercy. None of it's victims have ever lived to tell the tale. Scary, huh?

Then the question is...how do we know if this "nothing" truely exists?


...we don't.
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: Piemanlives on September 12, 2013, 07:45:50 pm
Nothingness kills instantly and leaves no trace of the crime.

How do we even know this 'nothingness' exists?

Nothing fears no man and knows no mercy. None of it's victims have ever lived to tell the tale. Scary, huh?

Then the question is...how do we know if this "nothing" truely exists?


...we don't.

All in nothingness...
Title: Re: Weapons that suck
Post by: James T. Kirk on September 13, 2013, 11:57:10 am
Nothingness kills instantly and leaves no trace of the crime.

How do we even know this 'nothingness' exists?

Nothing fears no man and knows no mercy. None of it's victims have ever lived to tell the tale. Scary, huh?

The strange thing is: no man fears nothing.