Weapons that made a major difference in past battles

[hank_rearden]

the roman pillum was the depleted uranium slug of ancient times. only legionaires were allowed to train with and use them (no other army bothered with the weight and difficulty in casting). it decided battles from persia all the way to britain.

the english/welsh long bow of course.

the asiatic composite bow that allowed genghis khan and even the ottoman turks to hand europeans their asses for several centuries.

to a less extent the swiss halberd/poleaxe. ever wondered why few countries ever bothered to invade the swiss?

the long pike.

 

[jazzcat_88]

What about the Islamic curved sword? How is it compared to broadswords used in the Crusades?

 

[not2sharp]

The only battles I can think of that were *decisively* won because of a weapons differential would be naval battles.

Or perhaps, the atomic bombs of 1945.

No, even in naval battles, moral, skill, luck, and leadership play the key roll. It is not enough to have superior weapons; you have to be willing and able to effectively use them. The biggest and finest sword or biggest boom stick will only be burried with you, if the other guy figures out how to get to you first.

n2s

 

[not2sharp]

Yea, naval operations were the main theater where weapons could actually be a surprise, why i dont know, mabey some thoughts on this?

Naval fleets are extremely expensive, and they are used as visible instruments of diplomacy. There is a natural tendency to prolong their useful lifespan and a reluctance underplay their obsolescence.

n2s

 

[zenheretic]

No, even in naval battles, moral, skill, luck, and leadership play the key roll. It is not enough to have superior weapons; you have to be willing and able to effectively use them. The biggest and finest sword or biggest boom stick will only be burried with you, if the other guy figures out how to get to you first.

n2s

Sorry for the thread drift.

N2S, just to muddy the waters of naval battles. Consider the British vs. the German navies, where the British favored the lighter armored yet more maneuverable ships and the Germans the uparmored but slower ships. The up armored did quite well in those engagements.

Back to thread.

IMO the bows were the most influencential. Any sort of bow: long bow, crossbow, the 50. cal machine gun like ballistas the Romans used...from England to Mongolia, the bow was the king.

 

[inspira]

I give the pike/spear another vote, as well as the bow.

The thing is pikes/spears arent really the usual romaticised weapons (swords/bows are) since they are fairly boring sorta weapons. And so not many books or movies are made were the main characters one of the gazillion pikemen in a phalanx... The advantage of the pike was you could teach your average dumb peasent how to use it effectively (you stab something, something dies) in a short amount of time, unlike a sword or a bow which takes a lot of resources to make and time to train people in.

 

[not2sharp]

Sorry for the thread drift.

N2S, just to muddy the waters of naval battles. Consider the British vs. the German navies, where the British favored the lighter armored yet more maneuverable ships and the Germans the uparmored but slower ships. The up armored did quite well in those engagements.

Consider the Battle of Samar, the engagement of Taffy 3, and the remarkable exploits of the USS Johnson (Commander Evans - awarded Medal of Honor).

n2s

 

[FullerH]

Sorry for the thread drift.

N2S, just to muddy the waters of naval battles. Consider the British vs. the German navies, where the British favored the lighter armored yet more maneuverable ships and the Germans the uparmored but slower ships. The up armored did quite well in those engagements.

<Portion Deleted)

You may also wish to address the fact that the German fleet had superior fire control to that of the Royal Navy at Jutland.

 

[hank_rearden]

the battle of samar was planned by the americans to be an open engagement, the result being the complete destruction of the japanese fleet. the japanese saw it as an opportunity to destroy macarthur's sea-going army (7th fleet) through stealth and surprise.

the significance of weaponry during the battle was muted in that engagements were largely assymetric. the japanese southern battleship force in surigao was crippled by night attacks by destroyers and torpedo boats so, come daylight, only one japanese battleship emerged. by this time there were already four american battleships in a line formation, ready to broadside the loan jap BB (and they did).

the northern japanese BB force was reduced somewhat by the sinking of the musashi by carrier planes. but it did emerge off samar and gave the 7th fleet the scare of their lives. the only reason the 7th didn't get creamed was the bravery of the destroyers in boldly attacking the battleships, and the constant fear in the japanese commander (kurita) that the main force (halsey's 3rd fleet) would show up and sink all of them.

the cat-and-mouse game between the decoy japanese carrier force (ozawa) and halsey's 3rd fleet was a tactical victory for halsey but ozawa had accomplished what he wanted: draw halsey away and let their battleships have a crack at the weaker 7th fleet.

 

[zenheretic]

You may also wish to address the fact that the German fleet had superior fire control to that of the Royal Navy at Jutland.

Which supports my statement.

Bravery doesn't always do well....charge of the Light Brigade...

 

[faramir]

I remember reading about a battle where gunpowder-based weapons (arquebus) made the major difference. Invading turkish force got decimated by numerically vastly inferior arquebusiers (few hundred of them). Here's an excerpt I googled up:

1593.

Great victory of Croat and Christian armies over Turks in the Sisak battle, July the 22nd. Near the border city of Sisak, 5,000 Croats under the command of Croatian ban Toma Erdody, aided by Slovenian reinforcements from Carinthia and Styria, have broken the Turkish surround of circa 12,000 men and pushed them towards the Kupa river, constantly pounding them with heavy artillery fire. Caught in the middle between two Christian army flanks, Turks panicked and started a chaotic retreat. Having disintegrated under the unending cannonade, the bulk of the army (circa 10,000 men, with all the chief commanders) drowned in the Kupa river. Christian losses numbered between 40-50 men. Although this battle was the ouverture to the so-called "Long war" (1593.-1606.), it marked, along with the Siget (1566.) and the Lepant (1571.) battles, the change of war fortune in the Ottoman-European wars.

(above paragraph doesn't mention the fact that there were only few hundred arquebusiers who did most of the job; I'm in a hurry now so I can't look up this key part)

 

[kamagong]

What about the ikwla, AKA the assegai that Shaka Zulu "invented." Combined with innovative tactics, the Zulus decimated their enemies who at the time fought primarily with throwing spears.

 

[FullerH]

Shaka's tactics may have been innovative in a South African context but the Roman legions of the Late Republic and the Early Principate would have found them rather familiar.

 

[Raymond1000]

Pike isnt on the list for me because, it wasnt really an inovation, just a modifcation of the spear.

In practice the pike is qualitatively different than the spear. The phalanx with sarissias, or a &#8216;Swiss hedgehog&#8217; protected by pikes, was much harder for cavalry to ride down. For some reason horses are reluctant to run themselves onto a line of pointy sharp sticks.

In all my years of living in England, I have never heard of a Welsh longbow! Bows were made of Anglish Ash, and we used by archers who were loyal to the King of England. As I recall it was only archers who were summoned by the king to possess a longbow.

Scholarly opinion is divided. But a good argument can be made that the &#8216;English longbow&#8217; actually originated in Wales. If that is true, the English longbow is an adaptation of the Welsh longbow.

The biggest deciding factor in any war is the leadership. Under equipped and short on numbers one can still win with superior leadership.

The Duke of Wellington said, &#8220;I&#8217;d rather have an army of stags commanded by a lion than an army of lions commanded by a stag.&#8221;

The short compound recurve bow made mounted archers into a serious fighting force. Just ask Temujin.

 

[kamagong]

Shaka's tactics may have been innovative in a South African context but the Roman legions of the Late Republic and the Early Principate would have found them rather familiar.

Of course. Context is important. His tactics were were revolutionary in his environment, but he was obviously not the first to employ them.

 

[siguy]

as i understand it, important weapons, each in thier own age, or used together, were the phalanx (a formation of men with spears and shields) and a group of slingers. (slinging link) slingers were supposed to be able to shoot farther and more accurately than archers, as recorded by several greek and roman historians.

also, archers were very important, and horse mounted soldiers very devastating.

 

[hank_rearden]

Scholarly opinion is divided. But a good argument can be made that the &#8216;English longbow&#8217; actually originated in Wales. If that is true, the English longbow is an adaptation of the Welsh longbow.

The Duke of Wellington said, &#8220;I&#8217;d rather have an army of stags commanded by a lion than an army of lions commanded by a stag.&#8221;

not really a welsh longbow. but the yew trees initially came from wales.