Greatest Weapon(s) Never Used?

[Zsofia]

I was going to come in and talk about the bat bomb. Evidently it proved very effective when it burned down some of the Air Force buildings in which they were trying to develop it.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

I don’t think a SUBROC was ever used in combat. I especially like the line about “a direct hit is not necessary” (nukes are good like that).

[RickJay]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Even better than that was the XB-70 Valkyrie, a six-engined Mach 3 monster that may be, and I say this entirely without shame, the sexiest airplane ever built.

I have to vote for the B-36. The Valkyrie looks too much like an airliner. The B-36 looks like a BOMBER, and a scary one at that.

[Mr.Excellent]

@RickJay

I have to vote for the B-36. The Valkyrie looks too much like an airliner. The B-36 looks like a BOMBER, and a scary one at that.

Part of that is just the paint-job on the plane in the wikipedia article there. A Valkyrie with a proper, scary black paint job would be more intimidating.

Also, it’s my firm belief that everything becomes intimidating when it’s armed with nukes. Imagine a giant teddy bear. Not very intimidating, right? But imagine a nuke concealed within the teddy bear. Now it’s intimidating.

[j_sum1]

@Wallenstein

To my knowledge 1920’s style death rays have not been used in conflict but would have been all kinds of awesome.

This probably classified, but I believe you will find that they were used once, in 1960, for 20 minutes…

(Ducks and runs)

[Kiber]

Well - I don’t think you can get any more badass then raining destruction from the sky. And 3 weapons systems do that in spades.

Someone already mentioned nuclear ballistic submarines.

But also - ICBMs

And FOBSs. Because we all know, the best solution is just to nuke from orbit.

[The_Piranha_Brothers]

The Holy Handgrenade? Rabbit of Caerbannog - Wikipedia

[lazybratsche]

@acetylene

N-stoff, or chlorine trifluoride. It burns almost anythig it contacts. When it contacts human skin it hydrolizes to produce hydrofluoric acid and hydrochloric acid. And, oh yeah, it lights you on fire, too. Thankfully the Nazis never got the chance to use it.

That stuff is nasty, of course, but doesn’t make for a very good weapon. It’s so unstable that it’s a bigger danger to anyone carrying it. Chlorine trifluoride does burn just about anything (sand, water, concrete…) but the flip side is that it rather would like to react with any vessel it’s contained in. Luckily in most vessels it immediately forms a thin fluoridated layer which prevents catastrophe. But if you crack or dent that vessel, it’ll burn through. God forbid you have a fitting made out of incompatible material… Later, it was used as an experimental rocket fuel. Rocket scientist John Clark describes it:

It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that’s the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Robot_Arm

How about the Big Babylon gun that Iraq was trying to develop in the late '80s. 156 meters long, 1 meter bore.

Two were planned. Most of the barrel of the first one was assembled, then the designer was assassinated and governments started intercepting the pieces that hadn’t been delivered yet. After the first Gulf War, inspectors destroyed what was left.

The “Project Babylon” affair is also the subject of an excellent Frederick Forsyth book, The Fist Of God, if anyone’s after a good read.

[Der_Trihs]

@lazybratsche

That stuff is nasty, of course, but doesn’t make for a very good weapon. It’s so unstable that it’s a bigger danger to anyone carrying it. Chlorine trifluoride does burn just about anything (sand, water, concrete…) but the flip side is that it rather would like to react with any vessel it’s contained in. Luckily in most vessels it immediately forms a thin fluoridated layer which prevents catastrophe. But if you crack or dent that vessel, it’ll burn through. God forbid you have a fitting made out of incompatible material… Later, it was used as an experimental rocket fuel. Rocket scientist John Clark describes it:

I was just reading about that in fact here, “Sand Won’t Save You This Time”, which includes that quote.

There’s a report from the early 1950s (in this PDF) of a one-ton spill of the stuff. It burned its way through a foot of concrete floor and chewed up another meter of sand and gravel beneath, completing a day that I’m sure no one involved ever forgot. That process, I should add, would necessarily have been accompanied by copious amounts of horribly toxic and corrosive by-products: it’s bad enough when your reagent ignites wet sand, but the clouds of hot hydrofluoric acid are your special door prize if you’re foolhardy enough to hang around and watch the fireworks.

Nasty stuff.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@RickJay

I have to vote for the B-36. The Valkyrie looks too much like an airliner. The B-36 looks like a BOMBER, and a scary one at that.

Yeah, and it’ll look like a bomber for the whole six hours you have it on radar, too. The only people scared of that bomber are the people on it who know that they’re going to die just as soon as they get close enough for the MiGs to shoot them down.

As for the Valkyrie looking like an airliner, I guess it might if your name is Tony Stark. My God, man, it’s even more exotic than the Concorde (and the Koncordski), which are the only two airliners that don’t look like they should be airliners.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

Civilian version of the Valkyrie. Or something.

[Lumpy]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Yeah, and it’ll look like a bomber for the whole six hours you have it on radar, too. The only people scared of that bomber are the people on it who know that they’re going to die just as soon as they get close enough for the MiGs to shoot them down.

FWIW, the B-36 was a viable bomber for about a five-year window in the late '40s and early '50s when it first entered service. It could fly high enough that the interceptors of the time had trouble reaching it or catching it, and had the supreme virtue of being big enough to carry the very heavy first generation hydrogen bombs. So only half your bombers make it to target; the ones that do each drop a ten-megaton bomb. It was a short lived design in an era of extremely fast innovation, and was replaced by the B-47 and B-52 as soon as they were available.

[smiling_bandit]

@Tapioca_Dextrin

I’m going to go for two real ships. La Gloire and HMS Warrior. La Gloire was the first ocean going Ironclad warship. It effectively made wooden hulled warships obsolete. The next year, the British launched the Warrior, the first iron hulled warship. That consigned ironclads to the scrapheap and led directly to concept of the battleship.

Neither ship ever saw combat, and were only operational for a very limited time, but between them they completely changed naval warfare.

I’d have to diasgree. While they were important steps, they ultimately made les of a contribution than the Monitor. Both were more vulnerable to enemy fire (though vastly more seaworthy) and failed to incorporate the Monitor’s overpowered guns and rotating turrets, which proved vastly more effective than broadsides. And both had limited impact precisely because they were so untested.

[Quercus]

I’ve heard stories that often pre-gunpowder seiges would drag on until the attackers finally completed their trebuchet/ramp to the top of the walls/other fortification-defeating weapon and only needed to demonstrate that it worked to have the defenders surrender (or as at Masada, NOT surrender). So, assuming this did happen, there are probably some monster trebuchets that at least come close to qualifying.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Kiber

And FOBSs. Because we all know, the best solution is just to nuke from orbit.

While it has not been implemented (that we know of) I am partial to Project Thor (aka Rods from God). A weapon that hits with the force of a tactical nuke but is not a nuke (just a metal pole).

The most described system is ‘an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance.’ The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting “crowbar” rather than a pole.[citation needed]

The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range.[citation needed] There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons.

The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second.

SOURCE: Kinetic bombardment - Wikipedia