in terms of firepower
2006-09-17 15:46:51 · 20 answers · asked by 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
30 cal mini guns that are mounted on the sides of AC130 gunships. They fire like 1000 rds per second and totally devastate anything in sight. Either that or the .50 Cal machine gun that can blow someones arm off by the round coming 4 feet from their body withou even thouching them.
2006-09-17 16:01:16 · answer #1 · answered by lvillejj 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is such a badly phrased question. Do you mean in terms of lack of firepower compared to what? Weight? Mass? Reloading speed? What are your criteria?
If I had to throw out just any answer, those CAR-15s with the 8" barrels are probably it. Completely pointless. Too much flash, powder doesn't burn sufficiently to propel a 62-grain round. Spin, penetration, everything is just awful. Turns a fairly good platform into a BB gun.
Everyone has their favorites, I'm sure.
2006-09-18 04:41:28 · answer #2 · answered by Nat 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most military weapons are specialized for certain purposes. The cluster smart bombs capable of taking out entire columns of tanks are not as effective against companies of dismounted infantry who can take cover. Similarly, a Tomahawk cruise missle will utterly obliterate a target but typically not cause a high number of casualties.
You'll need to be slightly more specific so that it can be better discussed. Personally I say a 20-30mm depleted uranium core round because not only is it capable of killing infantry, light vehicles, and disabling tanks, but it is highly effective against a target in cover due to its penetrative powers and is extremely cheap to make.
2006-09-17 15:53:31 · answer #3 · answered by azrael505 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hardcore .50 caliber sniper rifle also known as the M82 Rifle.
These can all range from $4000 to $25,000. With the accuracy ranging with the price. I have read where some can go upwards to 3,000 yards hittin a direct shot, imagine 30 football fields lined with a target It can also penetrate any type of armour it has come across. So god be with the thing being targeted by this type of weaponary.
2006-09-17 16:16:13 · answer #4 · answered by Bleeble Blabble 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how you look at weaponry I guess.
The worst conventional military weapon would be the one that failed to work.
Each weapon is designed to do a specific type of damage. If it's a dud than it's effectiveness is lost, there by making it the worst.
2006-09-17 16:02:48 · answer #5 · answered by gizzardout 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The daisy cutter. British forward observers during Desert Storm thought that we had used a nuclear device when one was set off. I treated blast injuries where the iraqi troops had been a mile away and in a bunker and still suffered internal injuries.
2006-09-17 16:09:06 · answer #6 · answered by medic 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
M.O.A.B. "Mother of All Bombs" or Massive Overpressure Air Burst in militarese. 20,000 pounds of explosive detonated about 30 feet of the ground that flatten everything in a 1 kilometer radius.
nickname: The Daisycutter
2006-09-17 15:51:10 · answer #7 · answered by Cabhammer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
is the flamethrower still used? Imagine a weapon that can set someone on fire! Who came up with that idea? And what kind of sick person would ever want to use such a thing?
2006-09-17 15:52:07 · answer #8 · answered by jdnmsedsacrasac1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The M16. It doesn't pack enough punch and often requires 2 or 3 hits to kill the target.
2006-09-17 15:58:33 · answer #9 · answered by szydkids 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well in guns its the O.C.I.W./G.L. n in bombs,The Trishul.The Trishul is an Indian missile ,nuclear capable,can be fired from anywhere,kills indiscrminately etc...etc.....
2006-09-18 02:41:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋