Most consensual/divisive weapons post 1900
- Thread starter AdA
- Start date
I don't remember the exact details, but it boiled down to the fact that they were built for bunch of different roles and failed at all of them. There was something about faulty steering, there were problems with the guns, etc. I'm not a WWII expert, so I can't really name specifics.
They were a 40s version of Fisher large light cruiser ( Courageous and Glorious) of the 1910s. Enlarged cruisers with scaled down BB armament , they had the advantage over the originals of having a decent number of guns. (had they been built with 2x2 16'' and they would be exact replicas of Fisher' Follies.
They were built to kill Japanese heavy cruisers. The idea was that they would use their speed and long range guns to dictate the terms of engaments. Buy the time they were built there were no IJN cruisers to kill, so they were used as CV escorts and over expensive cruisers.
And better ground attack capability, more export sales, blah blah blah.
which is a valid arguement , but that's not specifically about the F16 is it ...
there are lots of these types of comparisions in military aircraft e.g. OTH horizon interceptor with a 2 man crew and poweful radar (F14, interceptor versions of the F15 , Tornado ADV) vs dog fighting fighter ( whether Ground / AWACS controlled or a modern computerised aircraft)vs fuel tank / engine / couple of missiles interceptor ( EE lightning)
They used a crap-tonne (metric) of steel, had crews almost as large as the Iowas, had expensive guns made just for them and their role didn't eventuate.
They were however (at least in my opinion) some of the prettiest ships in the USN.
NothingNow
Banned
Yeah, I'd say the F-4, and EE Lightning are far, far less divisive, with the F/A-18 possibly being the least divisive western 4th Gen jet fighter, Superbug not withstanding.
The F-15 might even beat out the the F/A-18 for least divisive of the western 4th Gen.
More or less a waste of money & material as they were ships in search of a mission- seems they were intended as part cruiser killer, part counter to pocket battleships (particularly a feared Japanese one that only existed in the mind of US Naval Intelligence due to a truly bizarre transliteration & translation error with a press release concerning Shokaku & Zuikaku), & part second-line capital ship that could be safely detached to ride shotgun on carriers without weakening the battleline- turned out to be rather superfluous with a bunch of cruisers & the Iowas also available.
And the design had some serious shortcomings- the 12" guns, though nice as far as those go, & 9" belt armor made them a second class battleship unable to stand up to the real thing they could have faced. Compounding this was that some of the places where cruiser instead of battleship practice was followed- only a single rudder, despite being 790' long at the waterline, making them the second-least maneuverable warships in the USN behind the carriers Lexington & Saratoga, plus not having any sort of TDS- that could have been a real issue, if, for example, they got stuck into a Guadalcanal-style knife-fight.
A guided missile conversion in the 50s was mooted when it was found that due to radar placement issues, they offered no advantage over a CA conversion to offset the higher operating costs, and it wasn't until 40 years later that somebody thought up of a role they would have been ideal for- when the Iowas were being modernized & refitted in the 1980s, they were considered to be a bit too big & expensive to run for what the USN had in mind, but the other available option, the Des Moines-class heavy cruisers were too small- the Alaskas would have been just right, but were long gone.
Says a lot about a design that it takes that long & weapons that were barely a dream in the minds of the R&D types when they were built before they become the best tool for a job.
NothingNow
Banned
The F-15 had that initial bit of being ungodly expensive and lacking air to ground capabilities, while the F/A-18 just sort of slipped in there.
I'd think the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet would be taken as different aircraft for this discussion though.
Thinking of 105mms the US M2/M101 howitzer has got to be up there. The M1/M114 155mm howitzer of the same era as well.
And as long as we're on artillery what about the M1897 French 75 for least divisive for the WWI generation of field artillery?
NothingNow
Banned
Yeah. Everybody loves the French 75. It was a great gun. Completely useless in trench warfare, as expected, but everywhere else it was wonderful.
For all those F16 fanboys out there, it is a heap of shit chosen by a bunch of idiots. All the good airforces chose the F/A18, it was designed to be a good BVR fighter and (surprise surprise), it is! The F16 is a day fighter shitter with crap tacked on.
If you want a good USAF plane have a look at the Sabre. It was awesome all the way to 1968 and several Asian militaries were busting to get their hands on Canadair and Australian Avon Sabres in the early 70s.
The Browning M2HB is awesome, in contrast to the M16 which is shit.
USN hasn't made a shit carrier since 1940, in contrast to the RN which hasn't made a good one in that time.
If you want a good USAF plane have a look at the Sabre. It was awesome all the way to 1968 and several Asian militaries were busting to get their hands on Canadair and Australian Avon Sabres in the early 70s.
The Browning M2HB is awesome, in contrast to the M16 which is shit.
USN hasn't made a shit carrier since 1940, in contrast to the RN which hasn't made a good one in that time.
Good as theSabre was, it will automatically split people into two types of fights. One is wether it was better than the MiG15. The other is what Sabre was the best. The Original, The Canadian or the Australian.
And even I may have to reconsider the Spitfire, on the grounds that there is an inevitabe debate wether it was or not better than the Bf109 and there is allways the Merlin vs Griffon debate...
Last edited:
As a nonexpert, for me the question of most divisive weapon systems comes down to those that may fulfill a particular role well but are too specialised so have limited utility or the role has become obsolete.
So in terms of the F16, it may have technical limitations due to it's single engine, short range etc but the Israelis have used it to good effect and it's multirole nature makes it adaptable to a wide range of roles. Compare that to the Tornado, Typhoon, F22 etc whose original reasons for being (air superiority or interdiction in SAM infested Warsaw Pact airspace) no longer exist. I think the F16 is inherently better than the B1, F22 or Tornado as you will get more use out of it.
So in terms of the F16, it may have technical limitations due to it's single engine, short range etc but the Israelis have used it to good effect and it's multirole nature makes it adaptable to a wide range of roles. Compare that to the Tornado, Typhoon, F22 etc whose original reasons for being (air superiority or interdiction in SAM infested Warsaw Pact airspace) no longer exist. I think the F16 is inherently better than the B1, F22 or Tornado as you will get more use out of it.
sharlin
Banned
[American ship designer] I have a great idea Sir! We can built a battlecruiser, but call it a cruiser, it will almost have manning requirements of a full blown battleship, carry new 12 inch guns we'll have to design and build from scratch and have absolutely no decent anti-torpedo protection!
[American naval committee officer who was drunk/stoned/bribed] Sure thing son! Sounds good to me!