5) AK-47
The AK-47
assault rifle is nothing short of iconic.
Not just of the era that it belongs to, but to this day, it is a symbol
of resistance, defiance and especially recently, terrorism. The creator of the weapon, Mikhail
Kalishnikov, once said that he wished he “had invented a lawnmower”. I will not dispute that this weapons does have quite an impact on recent history.
Just... not
as much as entertainment has lead everyone to believe. This one I can’t be bitter or angry
about. Part of the reason why I say this
is because this weapon has such an impact on popular culture and
entertainment. Just google “most influential
weapons in history” and you will find that the entire internet disagrees with
me. And I understand why.
However, I think there are a few
important questions that reduce it to an “average impact” weapon. Does this weapon change the way wars are fought? In a way.
It allows a relatively cheap yet effective assault rifle for any
resistance/terrorist groups. However,
there were other weapons available that they could’ve used en masse. Did the AK-47 deeply affect any of the wars
it was used in? Again, somewhat. The AK-47’s robust design allowed it to be
used well by Vietnamese fighters.
However, most would say that the Vietnamese simply made better use of
terrain, logistics and information than the U.S did. The AK-47 was also the main small arm for
both sides of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. While it’s hard to judge the effectiveness of
a weapon against itself, we do know
that the AK-47 was not the most important weapon of that war. The Stinger Missile Launcher was, for its
portable capability to down Helicopters.
Honestly, most weapons don’t make THE difference in a war. Organization, training and leadership are all
vastly more important. Such was
especially the case with guerilla wars, were the AK-47 is chiefly featured.
4) The Battleship
Again, I
really can’t say that the battleship was “uninfluential”. It was.
But I think there a few big reasons why its overrated. The battleship was quickly eclipsed by the
aircraft carrier as the premier naval war platform. The Pacific Theatre more or less proves my
point. At the naval battle of Midway,
the Japanese lost four (FOUR!)
of their aircraft carriers in that one battle.
How many did they bring to Midway?
Four, which was a sizable chunk of Japan’s aircraft carriers. For the remainder of the war, the U.S. would
dominate naval warfare. This was mostly
because Japan never managed to catch up in their carrier fleet. Instead, they focused on building a lot of
Destroyers, which were ironically destroyed in droves by aircraft carriers. Add that to the fact that most battleship
engagements were with other battleships.
Just like wooden warships really only engaged wooden warships. When a weapon is constantly fighting itself,
it’s hard to say that it’s historically groundbreaking, especially since
battleship engagements are pretty similar in form to wooden warship
engagements.
3) Civil
War Ironclad Warship
This is a
hard one to argue. Not because it’s
influential (It’s not), but because every kid who has gone through
American public education has been taught that the Civil War Ironclad was the
first of its kind, completely impervious and proof of America’s military
ingenuity. First of all, the Civil War
was not the first war that involved substantial Ironclad naval platforms. The Koreans first deployed the geobukseon, or
“Turtle Ship”, in the late 1500s to resist the attempted conquest of Korea by
Japan. The results of the geobukseon
were astonishing. At the Battle of
Sacheon, one geobukseon charged straight into a line of 13 Japanese war
ships. Who won? The one geobukseon. It did have a lot of support from
non-ironclads, but they didn’t charge the line singlehandedly, so the
geobukseon deserves primary credit.
In the American Civil War, there was a short period of time where the Confederate “Merrimack” Ironclad was the bane of the Union fleet. However, only a few months later, the Union “Monitor” "defeated" it (when the Merrimack ran aground), leaving the Union with a monopoly over ironclads. While these ironclads did play important roles in other Civil War campaigns, the North already had naval superiority since the beginning of the war. In short, it was far from game-changing.
2) Poison Gas
In the American Civil War, there was a short period of time where the Confederate “Merrimack” Ironclad was the bane of the Union fleet. However, only a few months later, the Union “Monitor” "defeated" it (when the Merrimack ran aground), leaving the Union with a monopoly over ironclads. While these ironclads did play important roles in other Civil War campaigns, the North already had naval superiority since the beginning of the war. In short, it was far from game-changing.
2) Poison Gas
I really, really
don’t get the emphasis on this WWI weapon.
I just don’t. Before poison gas
shells, the Western Front revolved around trench warfare. After a reasonable amount of poison gas was
used… the Western Front revolved around trench warfare. Even at the first battle it was featured at
in large quantities (2nd Ypres), the Germans only gained a small
amount of trench land, and while they achieved tactical victory, 2nd
Ypres, like any other battle in the war, had no long term effect on the outcome
of World War One.
I plan on
being a history teacher one day, and I have to say, this weapon is barely worth
a mention. I don’t remember any of my
history teachers talking extensively about it, and now I see why. It really didn’t change anything. At all.
1) The
Katana
Please. Internet.
Stop it. I know you like Anime,
but please stop. Please.
Now that you’ve heard me plea to the cold, unhearing, uncaring void that
is internet forums, allow me to talk a little bit about Japanese Feudal
Warfare.
Common myth
portrays the samurai as a spiritual master of the sword who wore heavy armor
and cut apart droves of whatever was in his way because his magic katana sword
could cut through anything. Firstly, the
katana was not the samurai’s first weapon, or for that matter, even his
second. The first weapon a samurai
would’ve used was the umi bow, which was considered just as much of an art as
the art of Japanese sword play. This
makes a lot of sense; open a battle with a long range weapon, then move to a
close range weapon as the enemy closes. The
second weapon a samurai would use would be the Japanese polearm, the
“naginata”, which was basically a shorter katana on a long wooden stick. While they weren’t quite as useful on the
ground, they could be used to great effect while on horseback. Finally, if things really got close quarters,
a katana would be the appropriate option, given its reasonable length and
greater flexibility of a polearm. So a
samurai was responsible for knowing how to wield much more than a katana. In fact, it was probably better to know
archery and horseback/naginata use than katana swordplay.
Like all
the other overrated weapons above, the katana was also of minimal impact. Japan didn’t permanently conquer any
countries until long after the katana was a significant weapon. But to that, most katana fans would point out
its superiority to every other sword in existence. I know that the katana has plenty of upsides,
but I feel the best way to debunk the infallibility of this weapon is to point
out its drawbacks:
a) The
katana was NOT lighter than other swords. The katana weighed in at around two and a
quarter pounds (just over a kilogram) and was around two to two and a half feet
long. That all sounds very impressive,
but not as much when a sword that preceded it by around 500 years did
better. The Viking Sword was around two
pounds and was around three feet long.
And I probably don’t need to mention that there were plenty of other
swords that outperform the katana in the category of weight and length.
b) The
katana has only one side. Once again
drawing a comparison to the Viking Sword, swords that have two sides, while not
necessarily better than sabres or katanas, do have more options. Imagine playing ping pong where your opponent
is not allowed to use a backhand. Now
imagine you are sword fighting someone with only one side to their sword. There’s probably a lot you know you can do,
and you know there are certain strikes that your opponent won’t be able to
do. This alone doesn’t make the katana
worthless, but if the katana really is the “ultimate” weapon, then shouldn’t it
be able to incorporate every, or at least most combat options?
c) The
katana was a difficult to use weapon. If
you’ve never picked up a katana before (I did… once…), then I wouldn’t suggest
using it in case of a break-in, zombie apocalypse, anime convention gone
horrible wrong, etc. The katana is
supposed to draw its speed and cutting potential from a lever-like action used
on the sword’s grip. The swordsman
starts with his top hand back and his bottom hand forward. As he swings and guides the blade, he snaps
his top hand forward and his bottom hand back.
Much like one would cast a fishing rod.
In short, the weapon becomes effective based on torque power, not muscle
power. Which is exactly what everyone
imagines the weapon to be. Everyone
imagines, that since katanas are harder than diamond, (pfft.) you can just hack
away at anything with reckless abandon and whatever is in your way will slowly
slide to the side as it is separated from whatever it is it just cut. In short, a trained swordsman needed to
practice, practice and practice with this weapon before it became
effective. I’ve found that the easier to
use a weapon is, the more influential it is.
Thanks for reading!
Cameron Pribyl
Cameron Pribyl
No comments:
Post a Comment