8 Weapons That Succeeded for the Wrong Reasons Explained

Comments · 22

• TI

  @Tinman253 · 6 hours ago

  I happen to like this one. If the 88 being an anti tank weapon was a surprise. Why did the Germans make anti tank shells for it? The answer is that In WWI the 88 was a Naval gun. They repurposed the gun for ground use during WWII.

  1

• BR

  @brianasalone1978 · 8 days ago

  Re: sherman. 1. Tank on tank battles were relatively rare. Mainly on Russian front. 2. There were variants like the sherman jumbo which had 101 mm frontal armor. 3. A newer tank-the Pershing was ready by mid 1944 but delayed ( army resistance among other reasons) until Jan 1945. Better armor, better gun but only 20 actually served before wars end.

  3

• ML

  @mladenmatosevic4591 · 7 days ago

  Massive artillery barrages were much used in WWI, especially against infantry massing for attack or on defense position right before own attack. And unlike air attack, you had no roaring of engines as a warning before Katyusha rockets struck in massive wave.

  2

• GI

  @Gilroben · 7 days ago

  There&apos;s something I call &quot;the Gladius Falacy&quot;. If you ask the question what&apos;s the best sword ever. The gladius will always be surpassed in range. But the point is that it was never meant to be used by it self. It was made to be used with the scutum that allowed the soldier to close the distance. You almost can never divorce a weapon or a technology of its context in order to compare it to another one. <br> <br>To me that&apos;s exactly the trap that we tank nerds can fall into. In the case of the Sherman/Tiger of almost any other weapon comparison.

  2

• ML

  @mladenmatosevic4591 · 7 days ago

  Pillum was meant to skewer man, or at least his hand, alongside shield. Roman metallurgy did not have skill to sheaple produce steel, as oppose to forged iron, and quenching just tip was enough for disposable pilla.

  1

• WY

  @Wyndeward · 5 days ago

  The Sherman was designed and built for doctrine that was no longer operational. &nbsp;Tanks were intended as offensive weapons against a variety of targets, hence the original 75mm gun. &nbsp;Tank destroyers were intended as dedicated defensive anti-tank forces. &nbsp;However, Germany was mostly out of the business of massed armor offensives on the Western front.<br><br>I would also point out that the Tiger might have been a good weapon, but it wasn&apos;t a great weapon system; It was too heavy for bridges not, for trains, too wide for some tunnels. &nbsp;It was bespoke, built by skilled craftsmen, rather than mass produced on a production line.<br><br>Point of fact: &nbsp;The United States built more Shermans than German built tanks.

  1

• JO

  @johnchurchill6778 · 2 weeks ago

  Thank you very much for your time and dedication!.... I&apos;m the very first one to thank you! Great indeed!!!

  2

• GI

  @Gilroben · 8 days ago

  Ok, about the Pilum, I have a question: If the bending was not the aim, why make it in that exact form, with long thin metal shaft, and not just a wooden shaft with a small point? It seems they made a complicated weapon for a simple goal. And the Romans were all about efficiency.

  1

• MI

  @michaelhband · 12 days ago

  👍👍👍

• WB

  @wbrennan2253 · 10 days ago

  Katyusha, accuracy by volume. Classic👍

  1

• TH

  @Thoringer · 7 days ago

  Flak = Flugabwehrkanone = air defense cannon (actually flight, not air, but that doesn’t translate well this way)

  1

• PA

  @parazid.official9811 · 10 days ago

  good, but i hate the AI pics

  3