What Is The Stupidest Weapon?

"I heard you like to knife, so we put a knife on your knife so you can knife while you knife!"

Funtional chainsword: 21:45 in the video

Hmmm.. there are a lot of weapons that were tried and later abandoned as being useless. For example, multiple barrell muzzleloader guns (mainly navy variants), double chain flails, etc. But at the end of the day, if it's "stupid" but it worked, then was it really stupid?

I can take a 2x4 and sharpen the end with my pocket knife, most would say that is stupid, but if it worked once to save my life or get me out of a situation, then was it a stupid weapon or an effective one for it's given circumstance?

On the other hand, if I took a known effective weapon and changed it to the point where it no longer worked effectively, then yes, that would be stupid because I now reduced my abilty to defend or attack.

Ultimately, "non stupid" weapons are the ones that we consider classic or timeless because they freakin' work and work well.  I don't really feel any weapon in and of itself is stupid because experimentation is how we progress, and not all experiments work out.  What is stupid, however, is issuing a hunk of junk weapon to line troops with the idea that they are to actually use it, the French Chauchat machine gun for example.

Chakram seem really silly to me.

-Very dangerous to the user
-No penetrative properties on a projectile
-short range
-awkward to transport
-very easy to deflect if your target is holding anything

But with a knife in hand, you can't lower your head and charge enemies like a rhinoceros.

They are interesting weapons. One of the longest range thrown weapons - they can be thrown to 200m, and are effective past 100m. Due to their aerodynamics, they will fly level rather than moving in a parabolic arc, so no undershoot or overshoot even if you misjudge the range, and if you miss the first target, it'll keep flying at target-height, and you might hit the next, or the next.

Haven't tried cutting with one, but according to Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey (of the crossbow book), they'll cut through 1" thick branches.

Not good against armour or shields, though. (So, despite their shorter range, javelins have their advantages.)

How about a steam powered submarine ? They actually did exist..very briefly :) In the late 1880's, the Nordenfeldt company built a steam powered submarine for the Ottoman Navy..the "AbdulHamid". It had the distinction of being the FIRST submarine to actually fire a torpedo from underwater and sink a ship..even if it was just a target ship. Look it up on Wikipedia :) Here's a 3D model of it - www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/1886-steam-submarine-abdulhamid/81781/

To quote Jacky Fisher on steam-powered submarines: "The most fatal error imaginable would be to put steam engines in submarines."

The Ottoman ones were not very good. Coal burning, and their underwater propulsion used compressed air (no electric motors) so their underwater endurance was only a few minutes. A warship whose main design feature is stealth belching out great clouds of coal smoke? Stopping and starting the coal fire. Problematic. They didn't really work the way they were supposed to. Maybe not stupid per se, but at least suffered seriously from immature technology.

At least the British K-class were oil-fired rather than coal-burning, and had electric motors for respectable underwater performance. Still, they took 5 minutes to submerge in an emergency dive (30 minutes or more, non-emergency). These were the boats that inspired the Fisher quote above.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_submarine_Abdül_Hamid
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine

If only humans were as big and strong as Grizzly bears.