Octagonal pommels hurt the ball of my thumb. I'm a huge fan of the 'Italian' type V1s though. I have a XVIa type blade on mine from Lutel.

Good old Experimental MIRV. Because 1 mini nuke just isn't enough. :celebration:

That's a myth.

Laser guide sharpened stick bombs. :thumbsup: look out!

Biological warfare. An ender ender with out the boom. Why just kill your enemy when you can make them sterile instead. Gotta think about the long term win.

Not so much a myth as an early example of people waving two fingers at other people with meaning. Why is it only offensive in Britain and what were once colonies of the British Empire? Could it be because of the countries in Britain, England adopted the two finger wave as offensive during the Hundred Years War with France? And the English make up the majority of the British population, and of the British colonists in the countries that it is offensive? Save for the States of course, but they change stuff. Like in recent years changing the meaning of the word 'bring' until it means both 'bring' and 'take' without anyone batting an eyelid. They change all sorts. lol

Can you think of an earlier example of people waving their index and middle fingers at other people and having it mean something other than 'two'? And long before it came to mean victory, or peace? Even if it's not true, I like the story, and there isn't a better explanation as to why it came to mean "eff off". lol

Bringing out the big guns!!!!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/kingronster/MVC-014F.jpg

ha


but seriously though...

goodnight sweet prince... forever... :devil:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/M203A.jpg

I've heard they don't build any new Abrams. Apparently when one is taken out of action, it's likely in good enough condition to just be sent to have whatever few repairs it needs and it's good to go. Not far from being indestructible. Insane indeed.

I don't know how long it's been around, but I've always thought holding up 2 fingers (and not the way that suggests the number 2) just meant "Up yours". :thumbsup: has gotten a friend into trouble with immigrants for instance (non-British) since they've interpreted the gesture as a "up yours" symbol. Having a stranger suggest such things isn't always appreciated.

And on topic:
Mongolian bow (both because it looks good and because I have great faith in it's functionality)
Axes (simple yet brutal looking)
The usual European longsword
Curved blades can also look pretty hot overall, falx, shamshir, sabre etc
For more modern weapons I'll go with the http://www.tanaka-works.com/rifle_Kar98k1.JPG%202.jpg.
And even though I know even less about vehicles than modern weapons, the http://www.kheichhorn.de/assets/images/junker_ju-87_stuka.jpg has always been a favorite of mine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaffV2y4Vx4&feature=related
Maybe I'll add to or modify this later, it's more of a "do like" list than my absolute favorites.

Probably the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow, one of, if not the most influential weapon in history. Combined with http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theadventureschool.com/wp-content/uploads/mong-kazak-on-horse.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theadventureschool.com/category/expeditions/&usg=__KFc9_UBDk_fAe_btbt8FKXNLVsM=&h=323&w=485&sz=99&hl=nl&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=FfbxTDup4Wk_eM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=164&ei=zo-ATcmwGMX4sgbI87XrBg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteppe%2Bhorse%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:nl:official%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D900%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=578&vpy=214&dur=2195&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=164&ty=82&oei=zo-ATcmwGMX4sgbI87XrBg&page=1&ndsp=66&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0 they allowed Central Asian peoples to rule most of the world for over two millennia.

I also like the Roman gladius, and the Viking swords it inspired, because they look awesome.

The difference between Ancient heavy cavalry and Medieval cavalry was mianly the introduction of the stirrup. I would say that the stirrup was more important than the composite bow...but then again, its not directly a weapon. Can't win them all!

That goes for Europe, but Asian nomads had invented the stirrup centuries before. According to Wikipedia already in 500 BC, though I am no expert on that myself. The division between Ancient and Medieval history doesn't work very well outside Europe (not even in Europe itself, but that's another debate altogether). I do agree that the invention of the stirrup was incredibly important, since you need it for horse archery as well. And in history, horse archery has had a much larger impact than European style lancers (who were already used in the Macedonian army of Philip II).

Lancers without stirrups could not retain the use of their lancers after the first initial clash - the idea was to hold the lance out to the side loosely so that you could release upon impact. With the invention of the stirrup, a rider could put the entire strength of a lunging horse (yes, they were trained to lunge!) under the tip of the couched lance. Makes for a hell of a lot of difference. Up until the invention of gunpowder infantry, the European heavy cavalry was unstoppable. That being said, the idea of composite bows on horseback makes for a great raiding strategies, something which was put to good use by the people of the Steppe - also a very light logistical footprint considering how many horses were involved.

The http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAVtyHxRl04, of course.

You are definitely right that medieval European lancers were much more powerful than their Macedonian predecessors, but they were not unstoppable. Pike square formations already toppled heavy lancers from their pedestal long before gunpowder infantry came around. And Mongol raiding parties and armies defeated European knights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe. Until the late 18th century horse archers remained the dominant force in Asia, though more often combined with heavy artillery, as done by Babur in India.

Pike squares were amazing but let's not forget the endless amount of drill that was needed to command on of these things; you have 100 men, with 3/4 of the men walking either sideways or backwards. A very novel solution that required a hell of a lot of discipline but the Germans came up with the caracole - mercenary horseman riding up, just out of pike reach, and firing their pistols and riding away to reload. Pretty similar to your horse-archer tactic but with a bit of shock action thrown in.

I don't necessarily think horse archers were a dominant force though; the European standing armies from about the 16th century onwards rarely raised such regiments (Germans and Genoese had mounted crossbowmen!) but they sure did stick around for a long long time. Soldiers of Napoleon's Grand Army were attacked by mounted archers in his Egypt campaign in 1798 and again by the Cossacks in 1812-13. I know for a fact that China still used them but employed far more crossbowmen to counter their swarming tactics. India always seems to prove to be the exception rather than the rule - they are a unique result of strong almost autonomous self governments and mogul states with a lot of European influence. I think, to be perfectly honest, the mounted archer was an excellent raiders unless you pitch them against static defenses - which works out alright until you meet the Poles which don't care much for odds.

Warbirds!

http://i.imgur.com/7msS8.jpg

It is true that pike squares required a lot of drilling, but so did gunpowder infantry and knights and horse archers had a lifetime of training so that isn't really a difference

Europe is a terrible place for raising large amount of horses, so it is no surprise that most armies there throughout history were based either on infantry or a very small core of heavy cavalry. India is actually an excellent example. European influence was in fact very small there, until the English colonization of India in the 19th century (before that, the English trading posts in India were actually vassals of the Mughal emperors!). Gunpowder weapons were adopted (and improved), but used in a very different way than in Europe, more for sniping instead of shooting into massed blocks of other gunmen.

The Qing dynasty in China which I think you are referring to (ruled from 1644 to 1912) were actually Manchus, a steppe nomad people who conquered China with horse archer armies. They used many Chinese troops to keep their huge empire under control, but they never fully abandoned their steppe roots which had formed the basis of their success. I think that, like many Euro-centric historians, you seriously underestimate the Asian nomads. From the Saka conquest of Greek Afghanistan and India, to the destruction wrought by the Huns and the Parthians on the Roman empire, and the Mongols and the Turks of Timur Leng (also known as Tamerlane in the English speaking world) on pretty much all of Eurasia, to the Zunghar Khanate, which was the last real nomadic steppe empire (fell to the Qing dynasty in 1759) there should be little doubt that horse archers remained the most powerful force until not even 300 years ago.

I'll take the GEP gun.

India was trading with the Dutch, the Portugese and the Caliphate long before the Brits came into the picture.

Mounted bowmen and light cavalry did certainly put those nomadic tribes at a distinct advantage on the battlefield but they made up less than half of the entire army - they had siege engineers (usually foreign), heavy cavalry and an actual professional army with its intelligence corps. Horse archery was not a new thing and Europe really didn't much care for it - what with its limited plains, deep forests and endless fortifications. I think horse bowmen had been in and around the Middle East area at around the 2000 BCE mark, I remember reading somewhere. And before that, there was that whole chariot thing too. Still, the composite bow coupled with a stirrup equipped horse and the discipline of a Mongol thrown in is a solid winning strategy (but I would say its the training more than anything - the rest are just a bonus!).

You mentioned Viking swords before - have a look at what this guy makes - its amazing. Link: http://www.castlekeep.co.uk/pagex.asp?bioid=5398.

Of course, but those people never had a significant impact on India, if anything it was the other way around. The Dutch and Portuguese profited from the scraps of the Indian table. The Great Divergence started only late in the 19th century. I'm not sure who you're referring to in the cursive part. Most nomadic forces did recruit from the conquered populations to keep their momentum, especially after they founded their own (semi-)settled empires, that goes without saying. I already mentioned that in the example of Babur, who used heavy artillery, musketeers and other troops (including elephants and large amounts of infantry). Horse archers always remained the dominant part of the army though.

And Europe indeed svcks for nomadic armies, perhaps one of the reasons that no Central Asian federation has ever conquered it. Though I am not sure why you keep going back to Europe, my point was that for the major part of the world (Asia) horse archers were the most important type of soldier. Europe was only an insignificant border territory. I do agree that the skills of the Central Asian warriors (not just the Mongols, though they are the most famous and perhaps most successful example) are by far the most important aspect though. To learn how to ride and shoot like they did requires a lifetime of practice, if you start training as an advlt you are already to late. If I remember correctly, the Mongols in the time of Djenghiz Khan actually bound two year olds to sheep and send them running, so they'd practice riding before they could walk.

And those swords look fantastic, thanks for the link!. If only I wasn't a poor student . Bookmarked for an age in which I can afford one!

http://www.castlekeep.co.uk/gallery.asp?galleryid=211 I'm not sure if they're legal in the Netherlands though. I'll have to check that out when I get rich.

I like things that leave large holes in the earth.

Things like the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb also known as the MOAB (Mother of all bombs). Largest conventional bomb in the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/MOAB_bomb.jpg

Yup. It's painted orange. Dropped from a C-130. Did I mention it's orange? Can be seen for miles. Imagine dropping that on some poor schlubs in Iraq of Afghanistan. "Ooh, look. A falling plane. YAY!!! We shot down another American aircraft!!"

"Oh, wait. We're dead."

I also like things that end with huge mushroom clouds. They also leave giant holes.

The USS Wisconsin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)

Or a brain

Or The Brain (with Pinky of course)

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270. All the fun of a huge blast with an icy sub-munition frosting. I really wish I could see these puppies fire off a few salvos in person.

Also....the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/AC-130H_Spectre_jettisons_flares.jpg/800px-AC-130H_Spectre_jettisons_flares.jpg Spooky. They're not planes, they're flying castle of doom for whoever calls one in. We can tell them "Hey we have enemies in this building shooting at us". All they ask is what floor and what window they can put rounds in a closest through a window with precision. It's awesome.

My Grandpa has a collection of all sorts of American Civil War, WWII, and Vietnam weaponry, and out of all of his weapons I fired, I like the Karbiner 98k the most. There's just something about hearing that greased bolt slide into place and make that sweet little clicking noise before you fire that really feels awesome.