(in)Famous examples of militaries mucking up weapons designs and development

[Caelius]

Thought i'd make this so that people could highlight certain weapons systems that never quite worked out as they were originally intended, or on the flipslide had to be re-worked, revamped, or rebuilt from scratch completely before they did.

Feel free to list any weapons system at all, no restrictions, just as long as it had a "less than stellar" R&D process.

Famous examples that I can think of right off the top of my head would be the French Chauchat Machine gun from WWI. Which is constantly lauded by historians as having been one of the worst machine gun ever fielded in modern warfare.



And the M-388 Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle:



But the one design that I think just takes the cake (yet interestingly enough managed to be re-worked and has performed admirably ever since) is probably the M2 Bradley IFV.



Most people probably can't even begin to understand just how bad the original design of the Bradley really was, and its a small miracle that the Pentagon bureaucracy was overrided by the US Congress during the vehicle's R&D stage to make it work properly:

The troubled development history of the Bradley is described in a book by Air Force Lt. Col. James Burton, which was adapted for the 1998 film The Pentagon Wars starring Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes. The full story of the Bradley, as seen in the 1998 film, exhibits the number of hierarchical oppositions faced by Lt. Col. Burton who insisted on performing "real life" tests to measure accurately the vehicle's survivability in combat. Tests showed that the Bradley, in its initial version, had to be totally redesigned in order to protect the life of soldiers when hit by a shell or a missile. It was only through the support of the press and Congress that Burton was finally authorized to continue this rigorous testing, hence forcing the redesign of the vehicle which saved the lives of more than 50 infantry men in the two Gulf Wars.

The Pentagon Wars is a great story filled with military satire that does an excellent job of highlighting how bad red tape can be, as well as how it can mess up any weapon system. To this day it remains a disease that can be found in militaries around the world.

Some hilarious clips. The entire movie is the Pentagon bureaucracy at its Best (Worst?) but these few minutes are especially funny and goofy. They really show just how bad the Bradley could have been:

[René Artois]

The first German tank, the A7V, check it out it looks hilarious.

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

The first German tank, the A7V, check it out it looks hilarious.

I wanted to say the A7V Sturmpanzerkampfwagen! (Storm Armoured Combat Vehicle) It was such a godawful design that the Germans had to capture British Tanks, calling them Beutepanzers, and use them!

Anyway, since Reggie used the A7V, I must make do with the Schneider CA1. The French attempt at a WWI tank:

Now, I should explain that at the outbreak of WWI there were two types of track set. The Holt trackset, which was originally designed by a British, Lincolnshire Firm (Rustons) and then exported to America, where it was modified to make tracks suitable for praire sowing vehicles. These Holt tracks were then modified further to become the second type available, Bullock tracks, also for crossing prairies.

Now, it became obvious early into the war to the boffins behind "His Majesty's Landship" that neither track set would be suitable, as they were designed for prairies and the tracks simply fell off when they came into contact with rough ground. Thus they designed the rhomboidal track system we know so well today, which was due to its unsprung, iron plate design, was capable of going pretty much anywhere.

The French, however, were not privy to any of this British research, and after the British Mk1 came out, wanted in on the action. Now, British Mk1 was an excellent design, poorly constructed. It was so secret that the workers making it were called up, as they were not allowed to say what they were working on. As such, British tanks, whilst excellent designs, were built by unskilled, barely trained labour. That is why they were so unreliable.

But, and it is a big but, the French had no equivalent to Messrs. Wilson and Tritton (The British tank's designers) in terms of talent. Also, what with the British tank being Churchill's pet project, it received ample funding. The Schneider, on the other hand, did not. It was apathetically slapped together by giving an armoured truck more armour, and then bolting on a track system. A Holt track system, mind, as the French had neither the time nor the resources to agonisingly develop any better. As if that was not bad enough, the Tank was fitted with miserably inadequate weaponry, only two hotchkiss machineguns and a single 75mm cannon, far behind it's contemporaries. And then to add insult to injury, the hull-like protuberance at the front made the tank ditch itself whenever going up even a moderate incline

Suffice it to say that this made the Schneider slow, unreliable, poor on rough terrain and badly armed. French manufacturing capacity (and resource allocation to armour) lagged behind the British, meaning that, while Britain was churning out hundreds of Tanks (Medium and Heavy), France could barely squeeze out 130, most of which were unsurprisingly lost at their very first engagement, at Berry-au-Bac.

Incredibly, they were in operational use up until the Spanish Civil War, in which the Republicans fielded 4 (rather ineffectually).

Of course, the Schneider was not the only tank built by the French in WWI. The little Renault FT-17 was so good that the USA built it under licence, too. But this, appalling effort will remain a testament to how not to design a tank: with apathy.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

I wanted to say the A7V Sturmpanzerkampfwagen! (Storm Armoured Combat Vehicle) It was such a godawful design that the Germans had to capture British Tanks, calling them Beutepanzers, and use them!

Anyway, since Reggie used the A7V, I must make do with the Schneider CA1. The French attempt at a WWI tank:

Now, I should explain that at the outbreak of WWI there were two types of track set. The Holt trackset, which was originally designed by a British, Lincolnshire Firm (Rustons) and then exported to America, where it was modified to make tracks suitable for praire sowing vehicles. These Holt tracks were then modified further to become the second type available, Bullock tracks, also for crossing prairies.

Now, it became obvious early into the war to the boffins behind "His Majesty's Landship" that neither track set would be suitable, as they were designed for prairies and the tracks simply fell off when they came into contact with rough ground. Thus they designed the rhomboidal track system we know so well today, which was due to its unsprung, iron plate design, was capable of going pretty much anywhere.

The French, however, were not privy to any of this British research, and after the British Mk1 came out, wanted in on the action. Now, British Mk1 was an excellent design, poorly constructed. It was so secret that the workers making it were called up, as they were not allowed to say what they were working on. As such, British tanks, whilst excellent designs, were built by unskilled, barely trained labour. That is why they were so unreliable.

But, and it is a big but, the French had no equivalent to Messrs. Wilson and Tritton (The British tank's designers) in terms of talent. Also, what with the British tank being Churchill's pet project, it received ample funding. The Schneider, on the other hand, did not. It was apathetically slapped together by giving an armoured truck more armour, and then bolting on a track system. A Holt track system, mind, as the French had neither the time nor the resources to agonisingly develop any better. As if that was not bad enough, the Tank was fitted with miserably inadequate weaponry, only two hotchkiss machineguns and a single 75mm cannon, far behind it's contemporaries. And then to add insult to injury, the hull-like protuberance at the front made the tank ditch itself whenever going up even a moderate incline

Suffice it to say that this made the Schneider slow, unreliable, poor on rough terrain and badly armed. French manufacturing capacity (and resource allocation to armour) lagged behind the British, meaning that, while Britain was churning out hundreds of Tanks (Medium and Heavy), France could barely squeeze out 130, most of which were unsurprisingly lost at their very first engagement, at Berry-au-Bac.

Incredibly, they were in operational use up until the Spanish Civil War, in which the Republicans fielded 4 (rather ineffectually).

Of course, the Schneider was not the only tank built by the French in WWI. The little Renault FT-17 was so good that the USA built it under licence, too. But this, appalling effort will remain a testament to how not to design a tank: with apathy.

Though only 20 german tanks were made they prooved to be comfy vehicles for soldiers to sit on, and they did proof good in combat...

[Azog 150]

Though only 20 german tanks were made they prooved to be comfy vehicles for soldiers to sit on, and they did proof good in combat...

They weren't really good at all. Only 17 were ever used in combat, and only 21 were ever delivered. In the first ever tank-on-tank battle, it was the British Mark IV that came out on top. The A7V was unreliable, prone to tipping over and becoming stuck (On the other hand, the British tanks could clear very large obstacles- even by modern standards) and they were never used to great effect. This is why the Germans relied on captured tanks.

You are probably right about them being relatively comfy though Conditions inside British tanks were often horrendous- reaching 50 degrees C, with all the fumes from the engine and the guns. I read a statistic where more British tank crews were casualties due to breathing problems and feeling violently sick thanks to the fumes then there were casualties from enemy fire.

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

Though only 20 german tanks were made they prooved to be comfy vehicles for soldiers to sit on, and they did proof good in combat...

They were utterly useless in combat. The Germans made them so thin and tall that they had an incredibly high centre of gravity, making them liable to tip over at the slightest provocation. They also used the Bullock Tracks, which were al but useless, and had a maximum speed even slower than the British tanks of the era.

[Farnan]

The Ratte and the Maus are other good examples.


But an example of one actually fielded was the original M16. Was issued without a cleaning kit, saying it didn't need one, had major issues with the feeding mechanism, a magazine too small and the flash suppressor that was non-optimal. It was this original design that gave the M16 its bad name.

[hellheaven1987]

SA80.

[Gelgoog]

The Ratte and the Maus are other good examples.


But an example of one actually fielded was the original M16. Was issued without a cleaning kit, saying it didn't need one, had major issues with the feeding mechanism, a magazine too small and the flash suppressor that was non-optimal. It was this original design that gave the M16 its bad name.

actually most of the issues came from the army changing the design. Most of the reliability problems came from the army switching powders which fouled up the weapon considerably. The reason the M16s in service with special forces and air force units got such high praise before official adoption is because they were using the original stoner design.

[Markas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant_tank

"The sole Valiant was retained by the School of Tank Technology, where students were treated to an inspection of it at the end of their course and invited to find fault. "One hopes they started early in the morning."

[hellheaven1987]

Strange, it seems that British was not that good in tank design during WWII.

[Markas]

Strange, it seems that British was not that good in tank design during WWII.

They were a mix, usually the problem was lack of a powerful gun compared to German designs, lack of dual-use capability and fuzzy-minded doctrine.

The Industry was too stretched to produce a universal tank. Only at the end did we have world-beating ones.

I suppose we should be thankful the Valiant didn't go into production.

[hellheaven1987]

They were a mix, usually the problem was lack of a powerful gun compared to German designs, lack of dual-use capability and fuzzy-minded doctrine.

The Industry was too stretched to produce a universal tank. Only at the end did we have world-beating ones.

I suppose we should be thankful the Valiant didn't go into production.

Well, it seems British tanks in WWII were either:

1. Too slow.

or

2. Too thin in armour.

And both were lacking firepower.

[Comrade the Colonel]

I think the british tanks were better than the american in WW2. I could be wrong though.

[bushbush]

I think the british tanks were better than the american in WW2. I could be wrong though.

i am a big fan of british military in ww2, but i don't think their tanks were better than american ones...

[Comrade the Colonel]

I may be wrong, (i hope i am )

[Markas]

I may be wrong, (i hope i am )

It depends on the Tank... buying American tanks relieved the strain on British industry, rather than they were 'better' (although the Sherman's dual-use gun was very helpful).

Well, it seems British tanks in WWII were either:

1. Too slow.

or

2. Too thin in armour.

And both were lacking firepower.

Too slow wasn't really a problem, and the armour was often very thick. The Cromwell was a fast tank, fairly well armoured and armed. Up until then though the Churchill and Valentines were of the 'well-armoured but under-gunned' variety.

[René Artois]

The British were good at taking American tanks and making them better (Sherman 76W and the Grant) but the Sherman was an excellent tank anyway. Problem was the German tank guns were amazing. a

Anyway, tbh i think the two tanks i mentioned were US anyway. EDIT: the Grant was British version of the Lee.

[Poach]

I reckon that counts as disasterous opening test phase.

[Chuffy]

WW2 German Tank design and the Nazi techno-fetishry that it has spawned in history and WW2 nerds since.

A lot of stock is placed in things like the Panther and Tiger which could give ferocious accounts of themselves in actual battles but the logistical and organisational problems of such tanks as well as the costs in both resources and money made such things worse than useless on the wider strategic plane. Such projects were just the tip of the iceberg with the Nazi's and all the experimental superweapon they cooked up repeatedly in order to find some mythical catch-all solution for all their troubles. One; it was never going to work and two; Germany did not have the resources and industrial capacity to waste on such frivolous projects. A single Tiger could have built 4 Panzer IV's instead which would have had far less mechanical and logistical problems to deal with as well as allowing commanders far more flexibility. The Soviets and US managed to clock on to this fact and also had the added bonus of being able to do crazy experimental silliness without impacting the wider war effort.

But no the Tiger is totally cool dude!!!!111elven