Most wasteful weapons project after 1900

Yeah, if I remember correctly the German Army really did not want an influx of middle class officers that would have been required for any further expansion of the army pre-war.

the army was already big anyway; would have been more useful to put that money into trucks and tractors (and more machine guns of course)
 
Yeah, if I remember correctly the German Army really did not want an influx of middle class officers that would have been required for any further expansion of the army pre-war.

That's a complete myth. You are confusing the grumblings of a few pensioned off Colonels grumbling about falling standards in their Schloss's with the considered opinions of the General Staff. The German Army (or rather the Prussian Army) had included middle class officers for some time and most people accepted that it.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's a complete myth. You are confusing the grumblings of a few pensioned off Colonels grumbling about falling standards in their Schloss's with the considered opinions of the General Staff. The German Army (or rather the Prussian Army) had included middle class officers for some time and most people accepted that it.

In the technical branches. The Artillery, Engineers, and Logistics were nearly exclusively middle class, while there were VERY few middle class officers in the infantry or cavalry. Even the General Staff was largely from the aristocracy. To expand the most manpower intensive formations like the infantry and cavalry the middle class would have to be included, which the War Ministry was unwilling to do until about 1908. And then it wasn't included in the budget until 1913, thanks to the efforts of Ludendorff, who ended up exiled from the general staff for his sins.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Pre-dreadnoughts with heavy secondaries were rather pointless. Would have been better to make ships with uniform 10 and 9 inch gun batteries for ease of targeting and logistics, especially since such heavy secondaries cannot fire faster than the main batteries in the first place. The Kearsarge was the worst example of this, it had large secondaries mounted on turrets on top of the main gun turrets.

The post dreadnought armored cruisers were also a bad idea, they no longer had an edge in speed over dreadnought battleships (and never had stronger armor or armament) so they were obsolete compared to dreadnought battleships even without the battlecruiser being developed.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Very possible, since it put the country deep in debt in OTL. However, if the Germans hadn't invested in the fleet, the actual post 1914 timeline could be very different. During the huge battles of 1916/17 they would have had a much larger pool of manpower to draw on, as well as (at least some of) the heavy industry that was used OTL to support the fleet.

No, not really. Germany spent less per capita on defense than France. Germany spent a lot more than on social programs than France. Germany easily had the manpower and tax revenue for at least 2 more full armies out of existing tax revenue. Germany's Naval spending was comparable to France, say about 20% more, but this is comparable to a larger population. Or to put in terms of manpower, Germans served two years as draftees, the French 3. I suspect that Germany could have afforded the entire High Seas Fleet and 4 extra armies if it wanted to spend that much.

Now yes, an extra two armies would have been huge in 1914, if one assumes no reaction from the other parties. So would have working with A-H to improve the quality of its troops. It is easy to see Hindenburg starting with two full armies, with a minor offensive with a third army into western Poland. IF, IF, one assumes no more action.

Basically, you are reciting British propaganda, not the actual underlying facts. If you give me a time machine and send me back to 1910 to advise on military spending, I would tell the Kaiser to both spend more on the Navy and Army, and to offer the British a naval limitation treaty. Between Britain having to build even more ships, and the French having to look at 4 years conscription, one of them would blink. Especially, if the Germans publicly offer a solution that the voting public of France or England can accept. For example, the Germans agree to the 1.6 to 1 ratio and to reconfirm the neutrality of Belgium, provided that Britain agrees to help blockade France if France ever attacks through A-L. And Britain agrees that the western German border is set in stone and will defend any side violating.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
the army was already big anyway; would have been more useful to put that money into trucks and tractors (and more machine guns of course)


The German active army was smaller than the French army, but France had so many troops in colonies. (i.e, this shows colonies were money losers and Germany was actually stronger without them.) Once German did not win in the first 6 weeks of the war, the arriving French troops from the colonies made it harder to win quickly by the week. By the time the snows melt in 1915, there is no possible quick CP victory.

Yeah, if I remember correctly the German Army really did not want an influx of middle class officers that would have been required for any further expansion of the army pre-war.

This is largely correct. At first they did not want to expand the pool of officers. Later they allowed middle class people to be officers if they were in support commands.

Germany was sort of two countries: A militaristic, rural Prussia, and a urban, industrial, western Germany. Prussia was more militaristic than France, but France was more militaristic than German.
 
the army was already big anyway; would have been more useful to put that money into trucks and tractors (and more machine guns of course)

The Germans were in general very cautious in terms of new gear. Some elements had been fighting for MG's for a decade when the last army bill came through. I don't see it as a given they actually get the gear to be honest. Some sure but would it be enough to matter?

Michael
 
In the technical branches. The Artillery, Engineers, and Logistics were nearly exclusively middle class, while there were VERY few middle class officers in the infantry or cavalry. Even the General Staff was largely from the aristocracy. To expand the most manpower intensive formations like the infantry and cavalry the middle class would have to be included, which the War Ministry was unwilling to do until about 1908. And then it wasn't included in the budget until 1913, thanks to the efforts of Ludendorff, who ended up exiled from the general staff for his sins.

Yah it was a massive internal blood bath for the German army. Some like Von der Goltz and Ludendorff had been calling for a big increase in the army for years. When Von der Goltz made his own push for a mass army and other reforms he got exiled from Berlin to command 1st Army Corps as his reward.

Michael
 
True, but how much of that was down to the methods used by the Nazis to build them?
And how much more due to British intelligence leaking the hits in the early tests as overshoots, which caused the Germans to then realign the missiles to undershoot?
 

NothingNow

Banned
Gold: (Still remaining) The V3/Paris Gun/Babylon Gun... all of these super guns proved of no tactical or strategic value and could be rightly regarded as enormous wastes of precious money and resources
Silver: (new) The MIM-46 Mauler anti aircraft weapon which went through a horrendously expensive totally failed decade long development process with the army that left it still without any credible air defense
Bronze: (new) The B-2 Spirit program... not just the horrendous costs for the bombers themselves; but the service to keep them flying is completely ass hat insane in terms of resources and dollars needed

Dishonorable mention: (new) The German G-41 rifle (a rare miss for them in the world of small arms)... the feeding, reloading and other mechanisms from this weapon where awful, and the user had an extremely high chance of getting himself killed as the weapon jammed when engaging armed people
I'd say this, but swap the B-2 for the F-104. The B-2's actually kinda useful, and had we produced them in greater numbers, the cost would not have been as bad. The F-104 was much worse, and soundly beats out the Yak-38 in my book mostly because it was on that much larger a scale.
Also, swap the G-41 out for either the Chauchat, or any Nambu pistol. You could at least use the G-41 as a club.
 
I did a thread about this a year ago and wanted to try it again; there where some really interesting projects and discussions brought up, and since we get new members and are doing reading and research I figure there is more to learn and laugh at

Here's some candidates:

B-1 Bomber - Carter sensibly cancelled it, but Reagan persisted upon building it presumably as some kind of Keynesian respiratory airplane. A new manned non-stealthy penetration bomber for nuclear deterrence mission for 1980's? What were they smoking in era of ALCM's and SLBM's?

Iowa-class battleships reactivated. Has there ever been a more pointless exercise? How many times an useful heavy gun for new USN surface combatants could have been developed AND built for the money thrown away at those rust barges?

Challenger tank alongside with Leclerc, Ariete and M1 Abrams. If Germans were building a perfectly good tank already, what's the point of subsidying economy more than necessary? I wonder how much lighter the US Army's logistical footprint might be without M1 Abrams and how many US soldiers were killed due to excessive fuel demands. (not in tanks themselves, but protecting or driving fuel vehicles which would have been unnecessary if US Army used Leopards).

SAAB Viggen. What's the point of developing a fighter whose airframe was marginally better than Draken, why not just upgrade Draken into Super-Draken?

SAAB Gripen. Indigenous fighter production is rarely an economic success story. In case of small country like Sweden with economic realities of 1980's it was lunacy.
 
Now yes, an extra two armies would have been huge in 1914, if one assumes no reaction from the other parties.

If you read my post you will see that I wasn't actually referring to Germany putting another two armies into the field in 1914, I was talking about the manpower and resources which would have been available in 1915/16/17 if the navy hadn't been sitting in port playing cards.
 
On the B-1, didn't Carter can it because the USAF really wanted the B-2 but because it was so classified he couldn't explain the real reasons for his decision? Reagan then used it as a stick to beat Carter with and he couldn't rebut it properly without breaking national security, when Reagan was elected and was briefed on the B-2 he realised Carter had been right but didn't want to lose face so he still revived the B-1?
 
political price?

... I would certainly put the Hochseeflotte in there for a few reasons. The ruinous cost, the divertion of resources from the army, and the general negative effect on Germany's relations with Britain.


Let's say that no German High Seas Fleet would mean the British would not be on the Franco/Russian side. (Without german ships the belgian ports would be of limited consequence). If we accept that the fleet expansion led to Germany going to war at the wrong time in the wrong circunstances, we could say that the political cost of the fleet makes it the worst investment ever.
Say the kaiser buys aTShirt that says "Maham sucks, Mckinder rules". We get France+Russia vs Germany+Britain+Austria...
This could be a big debate. Has it been argued here before a lot of times?
 
B2,F104 and long range AT sniping

The B2 was designd as a first strike weapon for a nuclear war. It could in theory destroy know launch sites as an opening shot on anuclear exchange. If we ever need to take out North Koreas weapons program the B2 will be worth it's weight in gold, wich some people say it's the cost of the bomber anyway.
The other options were cruise missiles and Trident SLBM, but in a nuclear war the flexibility of a manned stealth platform would be very valuable.

The F104 has a bad rep, but not totally deserved. It was a very bad (dog)fighter, but as a fast climbing bomber interceptor it would have done nicely to shoot down any incoming M4 and Tu95 that had came it's way. When it was replaced in that role by the Much Superior F106 the basic frame was turned into a high speed tactical strike naval strike/recce aircraft. Yes it crashed in large nunbers, but in the 60s flying fast at low level was a dangerous bussiness. The Spanish Airforce, that flew different tactical profiles, operated F104 without loss and without complains. For the (OK, limited) purpouse of dropping tactical nukes on soviet tank regiments the F104G was a valid choice until the Tornado came along.
Was it the best? No way. The Bucc was the best low level strike plane of it's day.

On the field of long range tank kills, the 88L71 is credited with 3000m+ kills in russia, and there is little too choose for pure AT performance btw the 88L71 and the 128mm. a 4000m direct hit on a tank is a very rare and fortunate event, and not a very good base for assessing the combat value of a weapon. On the JagdTiger side, late in the war Porsche fitted one with their 16 cylinder 700HP diesel engine, and that would have improved the big fat cat a bit.
I would still rather have more standard Tiger IIs
 

BlondieBC

Banned
... I would certainly put the Hochseeflotte in there for a few reasons. The ruinous cost, the divertion of resources from the army, and the general negative effect on Germany's relations with Britain.

If you read my post you will see that I wasn't actually referring to Germany putting another two armies into the field in 1914, I was talking about the manpower and resources which would have been available in 1915/16/17 if the navy hadn't been sitting in port playing cards.

Please do explain. I don't see the dates in the first post. But ok, I will take the bait. Questions:

1) How did the existence of a Navy sour relations with Britain AFTER the war was started? (1915-1917). Are you suggesting a unilateral scrapping of the German fleet in 1915-1917 means Britain makes peace with Germany?

2) Sitting in port is cheap. The ships are a sunk costs. Where are the ruinous costs?

3) Diversion of resources. Are you talking about the manpower? The capital ships take up less than two corp of manpower. If the fleet is scuttled, it will take more than two corp to keep the British from launch amphibious assaults on the coast.

British war and post war propaganda talked about the ruinous cost to Germany of the High Seas Fleet, but it was just that, propaganda often with out a factual basis. On a per capital basis, Germany had about the same naval budget as France, and spent a lot less on the Army. Russia and France combined easily outspent the Germans on Naval expenditures. In the 1910's, the USA also built a large Navy. It was diplomatic failures, not the design of the ships or the size of the budget that harmed Germany. These same diplomatic failures also harmed Britain, whose best days were when they were allied with Prussia. If Britain had joined the CP and let Germany have Morocco, the British would still have been a super power well into the 1960's.

And as to design flaws, what were the design flaws with the ships compared to peers? (i.e. armor, speed, range, etc)
 
Worst programmes? what about Nimrod MRA4? Or what about TRACER (and all the other embarrassing armoured vehicle programmes since Warrior), over to the States and what about A12, RAH66-my word the list is long and mighty!
 
Top