Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I forgot about the Boulton Paul Deviant --a fighter with a turret
yes, not many people know about it because it was a failureI forgot about the Boulton Paul Deviant --a fighter with a turret
Never even knew that existed. Did a little research. Yeah it ended up being used in gunnery practice as a target tow, and air sea rescue. lol! Yeah, not Britain's finest hour.
With the exception that it, like nearly all of Germany's cutting edge weapons systems, was pressed into service before all the bugs were worked out of it....Scads of them were captured intact because they would break down and be abandoned.^^^^^^Yep. The Panther was designed to counter the T-34, and it did that well. It was also better than anything the other Allies had. I always thought the Germans would have been better off with focusing on Panther production, than Tigers, or King Tigers.
.....I'm no expert, but I thought the Japanese industrialization age was long after Britain's and America's.....so I'm guessing their weapons manufacturing would've been ''far behind'' .Japanese Nambu Pistol. More dangerous to the person using it due to unexpected discharges. So unreliable, that it took Japanese officers at least three or four attempts to commit Hari Kari with it. Most used the more dependable small sword.
what were some bad weapons of WW2?
here's the PIAT anti-tank weapon
says effective range about 100 yds--but in reality it was much shorter
over 30lbs compared to about 14 for the bazooka
Warfare History Network » Ordnance: The British PIAT (Projector Infantry Anti-Tank) GunThe PIAT’s cocking system bordered on the bizarre. Inside the tube of the weapon was an enormous spring. The soldier unlatched the shoulder pad, stood on it, gave the weapon a half-turn to unlock the body from the shoulder pad, then lifted the weapon straight up, which cocked the spring. When the gunner heard a click, he knew the weapon was cocked. He then reattached the shoulder pad with another half-turn, raised the weapon to his shoulder, and took aim. Cocking the PIAT took a lot of strength. If the gunner could not get enough leverage to overcome the power of the spring, he simply had to start the process over.
Japanese Nambu Pistol. More dangerous to the person using it due to unexpected discharges. So unreliable, that it took Japanese officers at least three or four attempts to commit Hari Kari with it. Most used the more dependable small sword.
.....I'm no expert, but I thought the Japanese industrialization age was long after Britain's and America's.....so I'm guessing their weapons manufacturing would've been ''far behind'' .Japanese Nambu Pistol. More dangerous to the person using it due to unexpected discharges. So unreliable, that it took Japanese officers at least three or four attempts to commit Hari Kari with it. Most used the more dependable small sword.
Japanese Nambu Pistol. More dangerous to the person using it due to unexpected discharges. So unreliable, that it took Japanese officers at least three or four attempts to commit Hari Kari with it. Most used the more dependable small sword.
That's the wrong pistol. The one you are referring to is the Type 94 Nambu.
I'm no expert either, but that sounds about right. I just no that to the Japanese, and even to a degree the Europeans, a sidearm was a symbol of being an officer, more than an actual weapon. However, you could actually fight with most other country's pistols.
good/bad/odd/whatever ....that's how these threads usually goWhat did this thread mean by BAD?! I'm getting confused. Some of these barely left drawing boards. I'm not going to call that "bad". Is it "bad" when it didn't perform? or what? Most of the European riflemen ended up fighting World War 1 bolt-action trench wars all over, with the Mosin Nagint for Russians, the British Enfield , the german kar-98 ,the Japanese. So America's late industrialization was full of rifles with clips the m1 garand or m15 or BAR or Thompson, automatic fire, well-stocked soldiers, and barely any million dead frozen Russia Nazis, etc. Its highly recommended.
.....good point on the bolt action vs the semi-automatic /etc ..interesting to learn how that happened....What did this thread mean by BAD?! I'm getting confused. Some of these barely left drawing boards. I'm not going to call that "bad". Is it "bad" when it didn't perform? or what? Most of the European riflemen ended up fighting World War 1 bolt-action trench wars all over, with the Mosin Nagint for Russians, the British Enfield , the german kar-98 ,the Japanese. So America's late industrialization was full of rifles with clips the m1 garand or m15 or BAR or Thompson, automatic fire, well-stocked soldiers, and barely any million dead frozen Russia Nazis, etc. Its highly recommended.
and it worked perfectly--but they lost a ''lot'' of the bombersOne of the strangest bombs ever created was the Dambuster bouncing bomb. They released it over water and it would skip to the target, usually a dam.
this one? I do recall seeing partisans with theseThe FP 45 liberator pistol. The U.S. made about a million of them at about ten cents a piece from stamped parts. Single shot .45 of questionable reliability allegedly dropped to partisans under the theory "use a gun to get a gun" you can hardly find a single relic today outside of WW2 land fills.