Most wasteful weapons project after 1900

[BlairWitch749]

Its only use was at Sevastopol, other targets (Stalingrad, Leningrad, Warsaw) were considered, but never shelled with this weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav

whoops forgot anzio was a k5 and not a big dora

 

[TheMann]

Iowas: Manpower cheaper than a carrier, and Marines love the mix of 16-inch and 5-inch guns for Naval Gunfire Support. And it can perform anti-ship and land-attack missions with cruise missiles. A lot cheaper than building the Strike Cruiser concept from the 1970s.

And it should be pointed out that I have spoken to a guy who claimed that the Iowas were scheduled for major refits in 1993-95 to improve them further, but that got axed as a result of the peace dividend. This guy did evidently work for a while at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren, so I suspect he knows what he's talking about. He says that the plan was to scrap the ABLs in favor of the Mark 41 VLS (and when I pointed out that this would raise the ship's center of gravity or force it to be reconfigured, he pointed out that the additional weight would be only on the order of 350 tons over the ABLs, which on an Iowa with its armor belt down low isn't too big of a problem - which does make some sense) and improvements in other areas, including 5"/54-caliber secondaries and Mk160 gunfire control - he says (and I've seen this before at other places) that Dahlgren's testing with discarding sabot 11" rounds can put rounds over 50 nautical miles away, with one report saying over 100 nautical miles. Mounts 54 and 55 (the rear-most 5" turrets) would have been tossed, replaced with Mk-29 Sea Sparrow systems that had been proofed against the overpressure blasts from the main battery. The plan was for Iowa to go in FY93, New Jersey in FY94 and Missouri and Wisconsin in FY95.

 

[TheMann]

Wow..... That's...huge.

Now, where is that little Bismarck....

 

[OAM47]

Wow..... That's...huge.

I'd love to explore that thing!

 

[Kome]

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).

Jukra: Disagree with the above. Why are you insisting that four NATO countries throw away their domestic tank industries in favor of buying a German tank? Ever hear of the NIH syndrome, for starters? Unlike the Leo series, whose only combat has been in either peacekeeping (Balkans) or Afghanistan (using HEAT or MPAT rounds against Taliban), the Challenger and M-1 series have seen combat. Against tanks, mind you, and come out on top. The chances of the U.S. Army, the British, and the French buying Leos of any series are near zero under any circumstances. The Italians could either buy from one of the other suppliers or build under license, granted, but they built their own MBT anyway.

The earlier Leopard tanks were a lot weaker in armor as well.

 

[Matt Wiser]

Good gun, good mobility, but armor, not so.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Now, where is that little Bismarck....

Bismark's 15s would be replaced with flamethrowers, warm breath cannons, and salt shooting machine guns

 

[TheMann]

Bismark's 15s would be replaced with flamethrowers, warm breath cannons, and salt shooting machine guns

Which wouldn't have made much difference to a floating airport, no? Assuming it has radar (almost certainly would) it just spots the troublemaker on radar, launches bombers to destroy it.

Heck, they could otherwise just disable it and them have 2.2 million tons of floating ice airport ram the SOB.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Which wouldn't have made much difference to a floating airport, no? Assuming it has radar (almost certainly would) it just spots the troublemaker on radar, launches bombers to destroy it.

Heck, they could otherwise just disable it and them have 2.2 million tons of floating ice airport ram the SOB.

it could ram the fucking kiel canal and or the entire german battle fleet at that size

 

[Kome]

it could ram the fucking kiel canal

That sounds like a really good idea actually.

 

[Matt Wiser]

And it should be pointed out that I have spoken to a guy who claimed that the Iowas were scheduled for major refits in 1993-95 to improve them further, but that got axed as a result of the peace dividend. This guy did evidently work for a while at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren, so I suspect he knows what he's talking about. He says that the plan was to scrap the ABLs in favor of the Mark 41 VLS (and when I pointed out that this would raise the ship's center of gravity or force it to be reconfigured, he pointed out that the additional weight would be only on the order of 350 tons over the ABLs, which on an Iowa with its armor belt down low isn't too big of a problem - which does make some sense) and improvements in other areas, including 5"/54-caliber secondaries and Mk160 gunfire control - he says (and I've seen this before at other places) that Dahlgren's testing with discarding sabot 11" rounds can put rounds over 50 nautical miles away, with one report saying over 100 nautical miles. Mounts 54 and 55 (the rear-most 5" turrets) would have been tossed, replaced with Mk-29 Sea Sparrow systems that had been proofed against the overpressure blasts from the main battery. The plan was for Iowa to go in FY93, New Jersey in FY94 and Missouri and Wisconsin in FY95.

I believe, though I may be mistaken, there's artwork similar to that upgrade over on shipbucket. It adds AEGIS, though, and I don't think the Navy had that in mind. I'd replace the Sea Sparrow launchers with VLS dedicated to the Evolved Sea Sparrow (the VLS-capable one), just to be on the safe side against the main gun overpressure.

 

[Landshark]

Wow..... That's...huge.

Imagine a few of 'em floating off the coast of Japan in 1944 loaded to the icy gunnels with Lancasters.

 

[Sumeragi]

Image a few of 'em floating off the coast of Japan in 1944.

There's a Japanese novel series where after the Soviets conclude an alliance with the Pact of Iron, invades Japan. The result is Japan being occupied, and the conclusion of a Anglo-American-Japanese alliance.... with one of those aircraft carriers being used in the liberation of Japan.

 

[Seraph]

The 120 had ammo developed a decade later; if you put similarly ballistically advanced rounds into the 128 it would have still been a superior weapon... the conqueror and jagdtiger's top speed where close to the same and the jagdtiger had more advanced night sighting than the conqueror as strange as that sounds

The jagdpanther and jagdtiger's gun's had similar penetration capabilities BUT the tiger's gun was much longer ranged, and the weight of it's shot was more capable of putting tanks in the total loss column as opposed to knocked out but possibly repairable column... shermans that got hit by the 128 are said to have been blown to pieces

First....aren't you mixing up the comparison by comparing a Tank Destroyer and a Heavy Tank? The Conquerer and the M-103 both have turret after after and I don't think a Tank Destroyer can take their place for independent operations as you put it earlier(unless I misread something as I skimmed this thread).

Which ammo for the 120mm are you talking about btw?
I presume the gun would of been better then the current British 20 pounder which I read is much superior than the 128mm.
I will note that the German 128mm is actually roughly on par with the 88mmL71

 

[docfl]

This guy did evidently work for a while at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren,

Wow, I was stationed at NSWC from May of 86 to Dec 89. When I was there is when it went from Naval Surface Weapons Center to the Naval Surface Warfare Center. When they fired the big guns they were loud by the barracks over a mile from the gun line.
docfl

 

[Ming777]

I believe, though I may be mistaken, there's artwork similar to that upgrade over on shipbucket. It adds AEGIS, though, and I don't think the Navy had that in mind. I'd replace the Sea Sparrow launchers with VLS dedicated to the Evolved Sea Sparrow (the VLS-capable one), just to be on the safe side against the main gun overpressure.

Umm...that was TheMann's artwork.

 

[Jukra]

Jukra: Disagree with the above. Why are you insisting that four NATO countries throw away their domestic tank industries in favor of buying a German tank? Ever hear of the NIH syndrome, for starters?

NIH syndrome does not good weapons make. Even the USA has been able to purchase foreign weapon systems when necessary. As for saving subsiding blue collar voters, Leos could have been built domestically.

Iowas: Manpower cheaper than a carrier, and Marines love the mix of 16-inch and 5-inch guns for Naval Gunfire Support. And it can perform anti-ship and land-attack missions with cruise missiles. A lot cheaper than building the Strike Cruiser concept from the 1970s.

The four Iowas had, even in their 1980's form, enough manpower to man some 20 Ticonderoga-class cruisers, if fitted with Mark 71 or equivalent would have been far more useful for the buck. Reactivating Iowas really robbed the USN the chance to develop a modern surface warfare gun, since it shelved the development process for possible heavy gun turrets.

B-1: Ever hear of the fact that crewed bombers can change targets, or even be recalled? Once a missile starts to fly, THAT'S IT.

And the fact was that USAF was already operating a horde of useful B-52's, equipped with ALCM's were perfectly suitable bombers. The upgrade path for ALCM's already existed. As for follow-on strikes, B-52's were useful enough for the role.

It's not that B-1 isn't a nice airplane. It's just that it's fairly useless compared to it's enormous cost.

Someone mentioned US MX missile to be a wasteful weapons project and I'd agree with that.

 

[Jukra]

How about French Fleet almost in it's entirety from 1918 to 1940? It's not just Captain Hindsight in action, but what was the point of building a fleet apparently more aimed at fighting Great Britain more than Germany or Italy? For defending French Indochina, a marginal asset at best?

In fact, what might have been a "minimal Fleet plan" for France during Interbellum?

 

[mcdo]

There's a Japanese novel series where after the Soviets conclude an alliance with the Pact of Iron, invades Japan. The result is Japan being occupied, and the conclusion of a Anglo-American-Japanese alliance.... with one of those aircraft carriers being used in the liberation of Japan.

Sounds interesting... what is the title of the series?

 

[Matt Wiser]

NIH syndrome does not good weapons make. Even the USA has been able to purchase foreign weapon systems when necessary. As for saving subsiding blue collar voters, Leos could have been built domestically.

Do the words "Not Politically Possible" ring a bell? Why, pray tell, should the U.S. Army and Marine Corps buy something foreign designed and built when American companies can design and build a main battle tank? The same goes for the British and French militaries and defense industries as well. Try getting your proposal for Leos in the U.S. Army through ANY Congress, even if DOD opposes it-as is likely. It wouldn't make it out of either the House or Senate Armed Services Committees no matter what. Ditto for the U.K. and French parliments as well. No chance at all.


I take it you've never heard of SA-10 and MiG-31, hmm? The B-52 would've been limited to standoff strike with ALCM in this case. The B-1 was needed as a penetrating bomber pending the arrival of the B-2 into SAC (at least that was the plan in the 1980s). Some targets won't be hit due to the missile platform being shot down or caught on the ground, weapons may not initiate over the target, and so on. And some targets required the accuracy that a penetrating bomber can deliver. A bomber that can survive in the Soviet Air Defense environment of the late 1980s a B-52 was not. The B-1, for all its bugs at the time, could.

And Peacekeeper? If it had been built as planned in numbers, but deployed in extra-hardened MM silos, then it's worth it. Hell, replace the entire MM II force missile-for-missile with Peacekeeper in that case. That's 450 missiles, with 8-10 MIRVs each.

I'll take 16-inch over any type of 8-inch any day. And that was what the USMC said in the '80s. NOTHING equals the bombardment potential of a battleship-even today.