Can Weapons of war be overrated? and if so which are the Most overrated weapons . I mean, right from the beginning, mankind has built and developed powerful weapons for waging war. There’s no doubt that some systems have proven to be destructive in battle and have earned fearsome reputations for their brutal efficiency.
Well, on the other hand, some of these weapons develop the same fearsome reputations but are not entirely justified due to their lack of effectiveness and exorbitant cost becoming the Most overrated weapons.
Lastly, some weapons fall into a weird category, boasting a reputation that’s completely out of proportion to their primary usefulness on the battlefield. In essence, these weapons take up more ink than they deserve and are entirely overrated.
In this post, we’re going explore some of the most overrated weapons of all time and have a detailed look at how they occupy a bigger space in the defense sphere than they truly deserve. The list is going to comprise of the suggestions and opinions of intellects from Quora and the weapons are going to consist of both the ones from the past century and those that are presently amongst us.
Let’s do this!
RELETED: 5 bizarre weapons from World War 2
Mark 14 Torpedoes
Taking the first spot is the view of a user known as Robert Clouse, he says:
“There is a bunch of them; I will just offer one of them, the Mark 6 exploder. It was the magnetic detonator of the Mark 14 torpedoes used at the start of WW2.
It was thought of as the greatest advance in Naval warfare for decades. This is what it did far too often.
The early Mark 14 was garbage and probably one of the Most overrated weapons , and field modifications are what finally fixed the several problems with it by the end of WW2.
The Mark 14 torpedo had four major flaws.
• It tended to run about 10 feet (3.0 m) deeper than set.
• The magnetic exploder often caused premature firing.
• The contact exploder often failed to fire the warhead.
• It tended to run “circular,” failing to straighten its run once set on its prescribed gyro angle setting, and instead, to run in a large circle, thus returning to strike the firing ship.
At least one U.S. submarines were sunk by their own Mark 14 torpedo, the USS Tullibee, and the USS Sargo damaged the same way on 25 September 1942, when a circular run went off it’s stern.
Hard to find a greatly honored weapon that for a long time, firing it was actually a way to kill yourself.”
Tiger I and II
Konstantin Riumin had this to say about these tanks:
“This. “Most mighty-awesome-unbeatable-mega-hyper-godlike tank ever made,” the Tiger I.
In reality, it was horribly unsuited for real war. Sure, in open fields against inferior tanks it was a beast, but
• Battles are waged everywhere, not only on open fields
• Enemy tanks could be more dangerous than 75mm M4/T34–76/
• The enemy can use other ways, like artillery/tank destroyers/airstrikes/bazookas, etc.
The tank is not only tank destroyer, and Tiger was poor in other roles (f.e. its 88mm 9 kg HE shell was almost similar in effect to 85 mm 8.5 kg HE shell of T34/85, and T34/85 was much cheaper).
And even in good situation, Tiger was bad because it was unreliable, clumsy and very expensive. Best WW2 tanks were Pz. IV, Sherman, and T34. Tiger was a megalomaniac’s wet dream and a testament to German engineering, not the divine engine of destruction. Like, tank for parades, not for all-out war.
And Tiger II was an absolute joke.”
Railguns and Laser Rifles two of the Most overrated weapons
Another user known as Calerio Cietto took it out on two weapons;
Railguns use two rails and a sliding armature, which can be used to launch kinetic projectiles like a slingshot by using electromagnetism.
The upside is that no explosives are used. As long as the gun has current and ferrous bits to launch you can fire. Since the biggest part of a cartridge is the explosive, you can carry much more projectiles!
The railgun is the ultimate slingshot.
On the paper railguns are the 21st-century weapon:
• No explosives on board make warships safer for crew
• Excellent on nuclear-powered warships
• Not leaving explosive wastes around
• Can shoot down incoming missiles
• Can deliver a payload in the fastest way possible
• Mach6 speed and 100+ nautical miles reach!
• Very cheap ammo
On reality, maybe they will wait the 22nd century:
• Each shot erodes the barrel(1000 shots it is a current milestone to reach)
• Use huge amount of power, in the order of MWatts
• Require massive capacitator banks to hold the charge for the next shot
• The payload must bear 800°C and 2T of the magnetic field, which fries most electronics.
• Not stealth at all. Very loud sonic boom and thermal signature
So their only place, for now, is only on nuclear-powered warships, who really don’t fear to be discovered or plan to destroy the enemy before it can even leave the seashore.
Plasma core, easily replaceable barrels, new kind of conductors and improvement on the energy management are a field of research.
Recently some electronics in a railgun survived the travel. Legendary achievement!
Right now they are used in US Navy as experimental weapons.
Even if they are futuristic, they are underwhelming in many aspects.
On the paper they should be perfect:
• 99% of power is directly delivered to the enemy
• the shot travels at light speed.
• Electricity as ammo, easily obtainable and universal.
• The pulsed laser makes shot invisible and makes no noise in fly
• no arching, really easy aiming
On the field:
• Fog makes it ineffective
• easily countered by a shiny armor, or a mirror
• few shots can be squeezed from a battery
• banned because of it’s blinding power. Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons
• shots needs to be focused to do damage. You need to adapt the focus to the range you want to hit.
Really really high chance to get blinded permanently by part of the reflection of the shot.
And that’s why the military still hasn’t cool laser rifles…
People who own laser cutter will be the most aware of how absurd a laser rifle would be. Cutters take a long time or much power to cut trough few mm of metal when a saw would cut through very easily.
You could say that seeing trough a camera or protective glasses would be enough, but laser also burns camera sensors, and even the best glasses can’t protect you from a close beam or distort colors so much that would be hard to see at all.”
LOOK AT: How culture evolution turns nasty
The last one the list is the opinion of Ahani Akbar;
“Lets say that only Russia had Hydrogen bombs. The United States and her allies would launch a full-scale invasion of Russia. You might see 50 million troops marching on Moscow.
Russia could lob missiles at the invading countries, but that would only strengthen the world’s resolve.
Many would die, but Russia would lose in the end. And it still wouldn’t be as devastating as MADD (Mutually Assured Destruction), the current US policy regarding nuclear retaliation.
So if the US is willing to destroy the planet after a nuclear attack, surely they would use everything they have to prevent any other nation from having a nuclear monopoly.
So Nuclear Weapons are overrated because no one can use them. And If only one nation, especially a hostile one, had them, the world would wipe them out like all the smaller kids banding together to defeat a bully.
It is possible that Russia would promise the other nations leniency and offer incentives for allying themselves with Moscow, but I could see few democratically western influenced countries doing this.
If no one could figure out how to create the weapons, the world would seize them out of fear.
A good example is how terrorist groups continue to openly fight the US and other nuclear nations. North Korea and Iran mock and threaten the US which has enough warheads to probably make the planet uninhabitable for humans.
Nuclear weapons really are not even all that great of a deterrent.They haven’t stopped terrorists; they didn’t stop communism, they didn’t end the Korean war.
The Nazis surrendered before the Japanese empire, which had two atomic bombs dropped on them, killing tens of thousands instantly. And many Japanese chose death over surrendering to some foreign nation.
If Moscow nuked NYC, millions would die, but war capability would barely be affected, and an outrageous attack on a multicultural civilian population would cause dozens of nations around the world to join in a counter attack. They wouldn’t stand for one nation to have that kind of power.”
So there you have it! These are just a few weapons that happen to take up more ink than they deserve.
Now, you should know that there are still much more that should be added to the list like the famed AK-47, the F-35 airplane, the Katana sword, Norden M bombsight, the predator drone and much more but I guess we should focus on these for now.So, what do you think about the weapons on the list? Do you feel they are truly overrated or otherwise?