"Useless weapons of the 20th century or dangerous to fire." Topic

My contribution: the semi legendary dragonsbreath round, an incendiary round for a standard 12 bore shotgun supposedly issued to some Eastern European Police forces between the wars for crowd control. What it boils down to is a bizarre way to knacker a perfectly good shotgun.

The Canadian Ross Rifle made by a buddy of the Minister of Militia. In the trenches, it clogs first time every time. Guys "lost" them for a Lee Enfield every chance they got.
"The bolt could also be disassembled for routine cleaning and inadvertently reassembled in a manner that would fail to lock but still allow a round to be fired, leading to serious injury or death of the operator as the bolt flew back into his face."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_rifle

Great hunting rifle though!

Brought to you by the same folks who also developed the MacAdam Shield Shovel

link

An entrenching tool that would also act as a personal fortification…. Yeah right.

I see a pattern of glorious Canadian made innovations developing here going up to my time and the 64 pattern webbing, no ammo pouches, and secure d by Velcro that when wet ( and how often does that happen) fell apart, ensuring if one did not duct tape your gear together you lost such mnor items as gas mask, water bottle etc.

My vote would be for the impact-fused grenade issued early on in WW1 to one of the Allies' armies.
Pull the pin, cock arm back to throw…and hit the grenade fuse on the back side of the trench--boom!

And for the M551 Sheridan--either way you fired the main weapon, something bad happened (using conventional ammo knocked the missile guidance mechanisms out of kilter, cranking off a Shillelagh missile left toxic fumes into the fighting compartment which slowed the second-round reload time.

And back to WWI, the Nieuport 28 pursuit plane, issued to the Lafayette Escadrille and to Eddie Rickebacker's unit before they got SPAD XIIIs, had an impolite habit of shedding its upper-wing fabric when diving too steeply. Sorta limits you tactical options, now, don't it?

Useless? Can't think of any firearms that were useless.

Poor to not brilliant via indifferent.

Chauchat – actually a very important weapon in the geneology of light machineguns its reputation notwithstanding. It was particularly poor in .30-06 a round for which it was not intended.

Sten – Perfectly good SMG in its later iterations, light and reliable. Reputation undeserved. Ugly though.

BAR – Automatic rifle masquerading as a light machinegun. Needed a changeable barrel and bigger mag to be any good.

Thompson – Over-engineered, too heavy but great for gangsters. Lovely piece of kit if you don't have to carry it.

Great to brilliant.

MP-44. The DNA of this is in every modern assault rifle.

AK-47 series. Simply the best. Never fails. Rattlers a bit.

M-16 series. Close to the AK. Weapon of choice.

On the 7.62 NATO round. Not controllable on full auto and even more so with short barrelled weapons. Small capacity mags and too heavy.

Then there's the M-72 LAW.

Given a choice between a Molotov Cocktail and M-72, I would happily take the later if I really had to try to tackle an enemy tank.

I once saw a LAW bounce off the armor of a PT76, which is only slightly thinner than aluminum foil. I'd take a properly-made Molotov any day of the week.

LT

not exactly exclusive to the 20th century but I always have thought that Japanese swords were pretty much dangerous things and rather useless.

People still persist owning/training with real swords and get invariably hurt.

Yeah, I've seen some horrific accidents when even semi-competent people train with a live blade. There's a reason that all the iai matches are done with alloy blades without an edge, except for cutting demonstrations.

Can someone explain to me how the steel bolt carrier on an M16 expands more than the aluminum receiver? Aluminum's coefficient of expansion is significantly greater. The fouling problem is caused by nasty ammo (that purchase decision should have been the subject of a congressional inquiry!), which was NOT what the M16 of any species was intended to fire. Unfortunately, I have seen some people that don't clean the important parts of the M16 have serious jams. Important parts defined as the 7 locking lugs and chamber (both bolt and barrel extension). Bore cleaning is largely a non-issue.

In defense of the Savy Crocket, they where made to thump Soviet Armored brigades. If you where in front of one of them only 2 Ks away, well you where already screwed, so you may as well take some of the bastards with you.

Biggest problems with the early M16 where inflicted by the army on itself. The 5.56 projectile was supposed to go 3200FPS, but in the rifle it only made 3150. The load change that made up the extra MV messed up things inside.The forward assist was added to overcome some of the loading problems that resulted from that. Always a good solution, if something doesnt work right, whack it with a hammer. Works every time, especialy with tight tolenace machinery.

There was also a problem with the buffer spring which effected rate of fire and part of the chambering problem, but I dont remember exactly how that worked out.

There was also a requirement for the bullet to be stable in artic conditions. But, the 1 in 16 inch twist in the original was not stable enough ion artic air. So the army changed it to 1 in 12, without chnaging the bullet or load to compensate for the new twist. not good for accuracy.

After all of the Army imposed changes, the original designer m,ore or less disowned it, he knew the trouble that was going to result.

The last change was made by an arms manufaturer, and they didnt bother to tell anybody they had done it. what they did was change to powder they used, only the new much cheaper stuff they used left a lot more residue, so really uped the jamming problem. I saw a news story a year or so ago the the executives that made that little change where finaly released from Leavenworth. They could have stayed there forever if it had been my chioce.

Owen

I did read an account of Navy SEALS in Vietnam who had been issued M-16s. In battle with the VietCong, they did jam at a bad moment. Their superior officer said they couldn't replace them until they were lost or damaged. The SEALs immediately broke their M-16s against trees or dumped some in the Mekong.They got shotguns and M14s replacements and were very pleased.

I read about the German WWII curved attachment for your sub-machinegun or rifle. It was used to shoot around corners. I think it didn't work as intended because it jammed frequently, and you couldn't see where you were shooting. A good idea and in the real world-a terrible weapon attachment.

I saw something on that somewhat recently. The boggest problem after not being able to see of course was that it wore out after only a few hundred rounds. And, if somebody poped around the corner on you, you still had the corner shooter on, not a good situation.

It looks like it wasnt so much bad, as to restrictive. Sure you could have the other guys in the squad cover you, but still the guy up front is out of the fight for a couple of seconds, which is all he is about to last.

I love the recouiless on the scooter. Apperently you didnt actualy shoot it like that, but stopped, and set it up on a tripod to shoot. I imagine that the lack of ammo made it not so good, but as a way to get a heavy weapon from place to place for paratroopers, it worked much better than it looked. And that is really the important part, did it work well. After all the US Arm,y mule is not that different, just a four wheel gokart with a flat bed. Not very big but works just fine for paratroops. Sure better than packing it all by hand.

Owen

I'll vote for the 15" pneumatic guns on USS Vesuvius, the "dynamite guns." They were aimed by turning the ship (which was horribly un-handy), and the range was adjusted with air valves that were too imprecise to do the job. The maximum range was only 2000 yards. And far too many of her shells were duds.

"The pole charge, meant to be used to stuff a small explosive charge down the barrel of a tank's main gun"

Nooo, that's not the purpose of a pole charge (where did you read that?!). A pole charge is used if, for example, you're crawling forward under fire, and you have wire or mine obstacles in front of you. While lying down, you extend the pole charge and set it off. The obstacle is then cleared without you having to expose yourself to fire.

I can't imagine seriously trying to stuff a pole charge down a barrel only 75mm wide. In combat.

I thought the Krummlauf gadget was enable firing over the parapet of a trench while not having to raise even your hands above it to do so?

@Lioninthestars I was told that the bolt carrier expanded more quickly the the receiver several times and accepted it as gospel. I defer to your knowledge and say I am mistaken about the expansion. I still maintain that the M-16 is a very poor military weapon.

Mister X and badger, I've seen pics of that item. The one I saw, though, unless I misunderstood it, had a bent barrel, not an attachment (which the force of the bullet entering the curve, would probably just rip off) and I believe it had a periscope sort of device to allow it to be aimed.

Looks like it was an attachment, not an interal part of the weapon.

Available as an infantry version and one for tanks where you could hose attackers off the top of the vehicle.
A variety of bends were produced though only the 30 degree was made in any numbers. Barrel life was a few hundred rounds.

Though it looks cool, it's hard not to put the T35 in this category.

"Russian anti-mine dogs. More likely to blow up a Russian tank than a German one, because they were trained on Russian tanks."

Allegedly came down to the difference between the smell of diesel powered, as opposed to gasoline powered vehicles, didn't it?

Duck

Unlikely as the first Soviet tanks to use diesel were the T34 and KV1. Before that they were all petrol powered.

Actually the stuff generally accepted about these dogs doesn't stand up to even the smallest scrutiny.

I've come to the conclusion that just about everything you find on them is an urban myth. The only contemporary mention I've found about them that is remotely credible is von Manstein saying his troops had taken to shooting every stray dog because of the mere existence of the mine dogs*.

I have been unable to find an account of their use that has any basis in verifiable fact from either side.

*confusingly the major use of dogs by the RKKA was as mine sniffers. Closely followed by medical units – I've got a great picture of stretchers on little wheels being pulled along by one dog each.

How about those Japanese mortar rounds that had to be tapped to arm?

based on their hand grenade. It's a really neat idea you pull the pin but to actually arm you have to knock it off something hard. They usually did it on the side of the helmet.

When marching through jungle if the pin on your grenade snags and gets pulled out you soon appreciate just how good an idea this is.

For the amount of bother it seems to have caused everyone involved, may I make a late submission for the MGM-51 Shillelagh?

Pat

Surely it has to be the panjandrum…? link

Canadian Fn C2 LMG. All the evils of the BAR but bigger mag and longer and heavier. Almost impossible to be truly prone while firing it!

I loved the C2, never jammed and 2 inch groups at 400 metres, nice kit. I loved my C2 safety sear in my C1 even better though!

Good point Frontovik, I wish we all had better verifiable information on Soviet mine dogs. There is documentary evidence they were sent to Stalingrad, and were sent to the fighting in the Don bend before Stalingrad, but I haven't seen anything reporting on how they actually did. And now you're going to ask me where there is evidence they were sent to Stalingrad, so I'd better start looking up those references!

Holman projector. My father's cousin had to maintain one. You eitther pack it with grease to prevent the rust, which meant that the grenade was likely to stick, or you leave it to rust, so that the grenade sticks, or you constantly have to wire brush the inside of the tube……

The K Boats were alright, if used properly. ie don't submerge in steam mode, any more than you'd submerge in an M Class with the hangar door open. Don't submerge too quickly either or you'll exceed the desgned maximum depth forrard before the stern has submerged properly

The pole charge is two poles lashed at right angles with an explosive charge at the end, per a US Army manual on antitank techniques. Don't ask me why anybody thought it was a good enough idea to put in a manual, but there it is.

Of course, there's always the classic newly-minted lieutenant with a map and radio (or, more recently, Internet access). Absolutely dangerous, just not to the other side.

Patton once said that the two best weapons in the German arsenal were the US jeep and the US halftrack. The jeep because of all the accidents therewith, and the halftrack because troops tried to use it as a tank.

Japanese knee mortar and that funny German rifle that lets you shot around corners.

To pack a flamethrower in battlefield probably required quite some bravery.

As probably did manning a British Wasp carrier: open topped vehicle with weak armour and big fuel canisters inside. Armed only with a flamethrower, and to operate that one would need to drive rather close to the enemy – and becoming a giant bullet-magnet for every panzerfaust in the vicinity.

Yes Flamethrower guys should get extra pay and a medal just for packing the damned things. Wasp Carrier is a supersized flamethrower with no protection. I bet not just panzerfaust, but every bullet launcher in range opened up on them when they where spotted. Nobody wants to get roasted.

Owen

@Mr Pumblechook Thanks, that's more info about ship borne steam mortars than I've gotten elsewhere. The only thing I had heard was the crews tended to use sea water in the boilers, which soon rusted things shut. Judging from your info, I would guess that was only an initial problem till they got educated.

What about the Energa grenade !

Probably the only weapon ever designed in Liechtenstein although I don't think it was made there. Bit of a bummer for the fledgling Liechtenstein arms industry that.

Why would a ship's crew use saltwater in a ship's boiler? The steam powered versions used steam from the ship itself. I doubt even that RN vessels would use seawater for therir boilers, never mind people whose living was from operating ships' boilers. I've heard of late 19th century sailing ship auxiliary boilers being used with salt water, but that could be put right in port quite easily. In any case, if the steam was being generated in the boiler, then it would be steam, which wouldn't include salt, that would be powering the projector.
Salt water getting into the projector itself is a different matter, of course.

Bayonets with no balls!

British Incendiary Grenades (gammon) with the leaded ribbon which has to be maintained with a finger. Great experience!

WWII german single burst flamethrower.

Same as the LAW, the french APILAS from the 80's.
120mm, and a firing blast which cooks the firer and lets him naked! And too bulky to fit into the APCs….

The british Sten, when you do not use it properly!

Anykind of micro MGs or bursts firing auto pistols: Schnellfeuer, Beretta 93, Glock etc….

Don't be too harsh on your M16. Works pretty well!

UZI… Any full-auto weapins that will fire its whole mag on its own when dropped has to be a winner when it comes to worst and most dangerous.

The nuclear howitzer, who wants to fire a nuclear weapon while you are in range of the fall out?

The nuclear howitzer, who wants to fire a nuclear weapon while you are in range of the fall out?

You can protect yourself from fallout if you take some fairly basic precautions. It's launching the weapon from inside the blast radius of the warhead that would really ruin your day. The M65 Atomic Cannon, which I assume you are referring to, had a range of nearly 20 miles, considerably longer than the blast radius of its warheads.

Nuclear warheads have long since been available for both 155mm and 8" howitzers.

LT

The Ross rifle. The only one I know about with the ability to kill both target and shooter with one round.

The SA80 – the only assault rifle known to field strip itself in the presence of an armed enemy. Britain's belated answer to the Chauchat.

The 'BAT' series of heavy recoilless rifles designed to knock out one Soviet tank while simultaneously giving his buddies your position…a 680 pound steel tombstone. link

Zimmerit.