Greatest Weapons of All Time

[Zak33]

I raise you Moby....

[Dareos]

stik wif a nail in it!

[Moby-Dick]

Thats is a well trained pheasant - that guy stole his sapling and he wants it back

[peterb]

If anything, modern warfare has proven than weapons are not as important as tactics.

Some truth in that, but I would suggest that people are the most important factor - troops that are well trained and disciplined to use the weapons effectively.

[Galant]

The 'greatest' is very unspecific. But for me it has to be the Tsar Bomb, even though it was only a potential weapon and not used against anybody.

Disallowed since anyone using it in this scenario would also kill themselves and their allies on a battlefield.

[Galant]

Alright so, to summarise, so far we've had:

What is the all-time best melee weapon for duelling?
Kittens
Assault Moose
Shield
Staff

What is the all-time best melee weapon for battlefield combat?
Kittens
Chainsaw
Shield
Staff
Steel-Shafted, Blunt Edged Mace

What is the all-time best ranged weapon for duelling?
Kittens
AK-47
Horses (?) (One would assume riding the horse but I suppose you could cut one up and swing bits around)

What is the all-time best ranged weapon for battlefield combat?
Kittens
AK-47

What is the all-time best, pre-firearm, weapon for duelling?
Kittens
Long-bow
Assault moose
Shield

What is the all-time best, pre-firearm, weapon for battlefield combat?
Kittens
English Longbow
Shield

[adidan]

What about: What is the all-time best, pre-firearm, weapon for sea combat?

A whale.

[Galant]

Devil's Advocate:

Kittens - What's to protect the user from being overcome by the effect? Also, possible issues if the kitten decides to scratch the user's eyes out.

Assault Moose - Need a bit more info here. Is the user expecting to ride the moose into battle?

Shield/Mace - Both heavy and relatively slow weapons wear a faster weapon might easily over come it in a duel. Battle field usage might be perfect for the mace. A shield on shield battle would be something to behold!

Chainsaw - An interesting idea. Would wreak havoc on wooden weapons is striking or struck by the saw. However, it's still a heavy, cumbersome weapon with significant potential for accidental injury if off-balance. A faster, metal weapon or ranged metal weapon would likely overcome it or be able to strike at the user or their arms which would both be quite static in maintaining. Damage to one's arms might render it rather dangerous if not useless. Definitely an interesting choice though. Oh, and of course, could run out of juice if the opponent keeps their distance.

AK-47 - Well-known for reliability and versatility so no real downsides. However might there be something better? Battle-field maybe nothing better than an assault rifle. M16? In dueling, a more accurate and powerful single-shot rifle would give obvious advantage at distance and/or with cover. Up close though, assault shotgun?

Longbow - Strongest on the battlefield I think. For dueling I think I'd have to go with a melee weapon. Not convinced a bow is a decent weapon when things get personal. Not sure accuracy, rate of fire and stopping power are sufficient against a single, determined, charging opponent.

[adidan]

Longbow - Strongest on the battlefield I think. For dueling I think I'd have to go with a melee weapon. Not convinced a bow is a decent weapon when things get personal. Not sure accuracy, rate of fire and stopping power are sufficient against a single, determined, charging opponent.

Indeed however I'd prefer the crossbow which changed the battlefield and was good for close combat, hell it's been around since about 6BC but then disappeared after the Romans for a few hundred years. You can hide behind a shield while firing which is a bonus.

[Galant]

Indeed however I'd prefer the crossbow which changed the battlefield and was good for close combat, hell it's been around since about 6BC but then disappeared after the Romans for a few hundred years. You can hide behind a shield while firing which is a bonus.

Shorter range, less mobility. Pre-firearm I'm still not certain a melee weapon wouldn't be best.

Edit:

"The crossbow was really the first hand-held weapon that could be used by an untrained soldier to injure or kill a knight in plate armour. The most powerful crossbows could penetrate armour and kill at 200 yards. Longbowmen could certainly penetrate plate mail (though perhaps not at such a great distance), but longbowman were generally highly trained soldiers. This meant that they were also expensive, and that they could not be replaced easily. (Many bowmen were recruited at a young age to master their craft.)

Anyone could use a crossbow though. Crossbows are easier to aim than longbows because the crossbowman doesn't have to use a hand to hold the string back while aiming. On a similar note, a crossbow can be loaded long before the bowman might need to shoot. In this way, the bowman would be able to shoot immediately if surprised. Crossbows require less upper body strength to operate as well. One can use both arms to span (draw back) a crossbow. Crossbows do, of course, come with a price. That price is in efficiency and in the firing rate. Longbowman could shoot 2-5 times more frequently in a given time than a crossbowman."

And this which suggests a cross-bow might be better one on one:

"The Crossbow bolt has more effect against armour at close range, but it is much slower to reload and has less range. As a mass of weapons the longbow is much more effective. Thus one crossbow is probably the better weapon, but if you had say 100 of each then the longbow is better because they could fire more shots at greater range. Certainly that's what Crecy in 1346 would suggest. The most skilled of the English Longbowmen could fire 8-10 shots a minute: the most skilled of crossbowmen could manage only 1 round every minute: most required a minute and a half to fire each round.
Although both has their strengths, as pointed out above, the reason the Crossbow became popular over the longbow is mainly because the crossbow was so much easier to use: it took years and years to become proficient in the longbow (English people started their training as young boys) while the crossbow could be mastered quickly: it was a matter of point and shoot. It was the considerable experience/practice vs little experience/practice requirements that eventually saw a more widespread use of the crossbow."

That reload time might well see you dead though.

[Zak33]

Shield/Mace - Both heavy and relatively slow weapons wear a faster weapon might easily over come it in a duel. Battle field usage might be perfect for the mace. A shield on shield battle would be something to behold!

you think about your own stregth in that though... I to couldnt use a mace.. I'm not strong enough to wield it.. a rapier is more my thing.

But.. a big lad.. with a mace.. is awesome.

Shield combat.. to behold IS awesome.

If you've not seen the Polish and Russians at full contact blood sport you should.

The UK have a good team now though the two finest members are from the East..... however.. it's a thing to watch

Ludlow castle occasionally hosts it and it's gotta be seen to be believed

http://battleofthenations.ua/index.php/news.html

[Galant]

Missed the staff!

Staff: One wonders why, if the staff could be so effective, almost anyone who could afford or choose a sword, did/would, rather than a staff. Ease of access is certainly in favour of the staff but that's not an issue here. If we assume maximum skill with all weapons the problem inherent to the staff is that any given user will have to work harder to deal a lethal blow, than would the user of any bladed weapon. Even a glancing blow with a blade can cut, not so much with a staff. A successful thrusting blow from a sword or spear will cause bleeding at least if not severe or mortal internal injury.

A lucky blow from a blade is likely to cause more damage than a lucky blow from a staff. I'd have to say that whether in a duel or on the battlefield, a staff isn't the best weapon one could choose - although in a pinch or with little resource, it can be a formidable weapon.

TLDR - If a staff is effective, why not a staff with a pointy metal end?

[kalniel]

Kittens - What's to protect the user from being overcome by the effect? Also, possible issues if the kitten decides to scratch the user's eyes out.

You mentioned sufficient weapon building time, so I would assume the kitten is familiar enough with the user not to scratch their eyes out, however if they did so, they'd do it in such a cute way as to have an even greater incapacitating effect on the enemy. Friendly fire is of course a concern, but this turns into a positive if the desired outcome of the battle is peaceful - a neutralising of both forces towards appreciation of kitty cuteness would do much to rid the world of evil. As such kittens are superior to weapons that can be equally (or even more effectively) used for terror.

[peterb]

You mentioned sufficient weapon building time, so I would assume the kitten is familiar enough with the user not to scratch their eyes out, however if they did so, they'd do it in such a cute way as to have an even greater incapacitating effect on the enemy. Friendly fire is of course a concern, but this turns into a positive if the desired outcome of the battle is peaceful - a neutralising of both forces towards appreciation of kitty cuteness would do much to rid the world of evil. As such kittens are superior to weapons that can be equally (or even more effectively) used for terror.

Hmmm, tell that to the Gladiators....

[kalniel]

TLDR - If a staff is effective, why not a staff with a pointy metal end?

AKA pike? Basically the end of the melee arms race until firearms became effective. Need lots of training and discipline to work as a formation to reduce the obvious weakness at very close range.

And they allow me post this (look out for the cat)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html

[Zak33]

Missed the staff!

Staff: One wonders why, if the staff could be so effective, almost anyone who could afford or choose a sword, did/would, rather than a staff.

to own a sword was to show wealth.. people aspired to it

to own a staff.. was to be a peasant

and besides... 7 feet of ash or oak is hard to overcome.. you cant even get near him.. not with a sword.