What are the biggest failed weapons programs in history? Pic

>>32616564
Le F-35 post

>>32616564
I still wish the Eagle got somewhere. She was a sexily awkward bird that answered a question that no one really asked, and I can respect that.

>>32616610
First post, best post.

File: A-12_Avenger_Concept.jpg (1MB, 1168x1246px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1168x1246px

just give us magic RAM LMAO

File: 16138552451_54f9722f26_o.jpg (129KB, 1000x542px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1000x542px

>>32616638

It was meant to be as fast climbing as possible to counter potential Japanese bombers over the US. A very sensible idea when radar was still in its infancy. Then it was changed to a long range fighter role, but the P-51 was better by the time the kinks were worked out.

I think it could have been a great multirole aircraft ala the P-47 fighterbombers over europe, but that role really wasnt considered when it was in development.

File: F-7U_Gutless.jpg (36KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x400px

>>32616564

Avro Arrow

File: MBT-70 MBT.webm (2MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x360px

>>32616564
US spend more than 20 years without a decent tank because of clusterfuck of MBT-70 + XM803 + XM1 program. Only M1A1 was more or less decent and troops received it when Cold War was over. Basically, whole Cold War US was behind USSR in armor.

>>32619069
M60's are a lot better than you are implying.

File: ss (2015-01-05 at 08.18.13).png (82KB, 641x1389px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 641x1389px

>>32619107
Basically, M60 = T62.

>>32619128
I too enjoy seeing how accurate old intelligence reports were, when more accurate information is freely available on the internet.

>cold war
>Soviet tanks with thermal sights

>>32619128
The US constantly underestimates all its equipment and overestimates its competition.
What better way to farm more tax shekels than to constantly say they are behind in every thing and need money for better stuff.

Look at how the US supposedly viewed the Mig25.

>>32619225
Pessimism is safer then optimism when it comes to that kind of thing. The US assumed a worst case and aimed to win anyway. That said, it has led to some wasteful programs.

>>32619128
And the USSR still had and used shit tons of T-55s and T-62s in the 80s as well

>>32619225
or the MiG-29

The future warrior project for US infantrymen

>>32619298
You take that back! There is literally nothing wrong with the T-62!

>>32616564

>Fairey Battle
>HE 162
>Yamato and Musashi
>Mustard gas
>M9 pistol

>>32616920
Fucking this
Air and space magazine had a really good article on the cutlass. I Never realized just how awful this was in service.

>>32619499
>M9 Pistol
>nigger you must be joking
The M9 deserves every bit of respect the 1911 gets. It's been in wide service for over 30 years. It's been through several wars. It's stopped thousands of criminals.

You can hate it all you want, but when you're talking about important handguns, the Beretta 92series is in the top 5, right there with the 1911 and the Colt Single Action.

File: 1462163028352.jpg (367KB, 1144x1024px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1144x1024px

>>32619499
>Mustard gas
what's wrong with it?

>>32618507
Fun this hurts.

File: laser plane.jpg (59KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x450px

>>32616564

File: arsenal-vb-10-production[1].jpg (114KB, 1024x547px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x547px

I love late prop fighters. They look so cool and powerful.

File: tempest2.jpg (276KB, 1518x894px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1518x894px

>>32620232

>>32616564
the various chemical weapons programs developed between the world wars and during WWII. Unless you consider a MAD with chems to be a succes

File: 1441139190762.jpg (175KB, 1214x561px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1214x561px

This.

File: Colt OHWS 04.jpg (86KB, 800x466px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x466px

And we got stuck with massive Mk. 23 and M9.

>>32620435
it's just a G36 with a redesigned shell. this isn't big.

File: 6004047636_faae7b3b47_b.jpg (192KB, 1000x736px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1000x736px

>>32620232
The Blackburn Firebrand is my favorite, its lines are the perfect blend of WWII British aesthetics and Cold War brutal efficiency.

If I was a multimillionaire, I would build one from scratch.

File: 7e0c58ef5d.jpg (36KB, 540x383px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 540x383px

>>32616564
Germany's WWI Zeppelin program.

It chewed up untold amounts of precious resources as the Zeppelin designs got bigger and bigger to fly higher and higher to avoid British fighters, and in the end, only a small handful of bombing missions early in the war were true successes, while the later designs became increasingly complicated ways to burn money and kill admirals.

They WERE cool as all hell though, especially the giant designs from late in the war like the L-70 class, that were 750 feet long, 80 feet in diameter, with a lifting volume of over 2.5 million cubic feet.

Only the Hindenburg and the Akron/Macon were appreciably larger.

File: IMG_0012X512X300_SL-20_Airship.jpg (26KB, 512x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 512x300px

>>32620872

File: L_70_Zeppelin.jpg (271KB, 2405x765px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 2405x765px

>>32620879
In terms of mechanical complexity, cutting-edge technologies, and outright sheer cost, Germany's WWI Zeppelin fleet were pretty much the dieselpunk equivalent of the B-2.

File: V-2 rocket.jpg (201KB, 1200x936px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1200x936px

>>32616564
>not this

File: Is-3_lesany.jpg (313KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1024x683px

>>32616564
Probably anything past the IS3, slow, armour is practically useless due to the widespread adoption of HEAT and APDS/APFSDS rounds and lets not mention the shitty gun.

>>32621211
How is the D25T shitty? it's a very powerful gun, sure RoF was a little low, but that doesn't make it bad

>>32616610
Fpbp
Chair force eternal btfo

File: 300px-122_mm_gun_(A-19)_displayed_at_the_Museum_of_Heroic_Defense_and_Liberation_of_Sevastopol_on_Sapun_Mountain.jpg (23KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x225px

>>32621236
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_(A-19)#Ammunition Against the tanks it was up against like the conway, m60, leopard 1, its complete shit.

>>32621293
it will go through a leopard, no problem, conway (i'm getting wot vibes here...) is just a centurion chassis, and not very very well armored

M60 can be dealt with using post war ammunition

>>32620448
>we got stuck with an excellent pistol

>>32621236
It was designed first and foremost as an artillery cannon, it lacks and ergonomics needed for a tank cannon and it's accuracy was lacking in comparison to its purpose built counterparts. For its caliber, it's penetrative performance was shockingly poor.

>>32619173
This.

Even the M48A5 could penetrate the T-72 from the frontal arc with the M774 and M833.

>>32621368
the D25 was not inaccurate, that is a wot meme. It was mostly from that russian optics were bad, especially in the early war

The ergonomics though, absolutely, even if the breech was modified for tank use.

And even if the penetration was poor, it was excellent at fucking up infantry, pillboxes and so on, which is what a tank usually does

File: Leopard_1A5A1_2.jpg (241KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x1067px

>>32621313
If i was in a one on one tank battle i would rather be in a leopard or a m60, both have superior manoeuvrability, optics and their guns can go through the is3 like paper, the IS3 is just too slow and cumbersome.

>>32621423
in a tank on tank engagement, sure. But don't forget tanks do much more than fight each other

but as in a "tank killer" role the leopard is superior, any day of the week

>>32621409
>the D25 was not inaccurate, that is a wot meme.

Not everything you don't like is wot or a meme.

>>32621293
>>32621409
Compared to late war and post war guns like the American 90mm, the D25 has rather small amount of HE filler.
What other things matter on shells effectiveness against soft targets and concrete?
Any comparison tables?

>>32621462

>According to Jentz' Germany's Tiger Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics, the KwK 36 8.8L/56 gun had 100% accuracy against a 2.5 meter by 2 meter target in training conditions (known range). The KwK 43 8.8L/71 gun on the Tiger II also has 100% accuracy at this range. Since the maximum deviation of the IS-2's D-25T is 80 cm at that range, it is safe to say that it can achieve 100% accuracy at that range as well.

>Now, let's go up to 2000m. The accuracy of German tanks decreases slightly: 87% for the Tiger and 85% for the Tiger II. To see how the IS-2 measures up, let's hold up an imaginary 2.5 meter by 2 meter target to the distribution, like the Germans would be testing against

>As you can see all shells fall within the target's surface! By German metrics, the IS-2 has 100% accuracy at this range, even higher than the accuracy of the Tiger and Tiger II. Now, this is only one 10 shell trial, and the Soviet distance is 1900 m instead of 2000 m, so I cannot readily say that the IS-2 is more accurate than either of the German Tigers, but the reader can clearly see that the accuracy of the Soviet D-25T gun is at least comparable. According to a table of penetrations that will be the topic of a later post, the D-25T's armour piercing shells could defeat 129 mm of flat armour or 105 mm of armour angled at 60 degrees, enough to penetrate all armour of German tanks, aside from the upper glacis plate of the King Tiger.


This is sadly from a website i cant link because the spamfilter fucks me over, but just copy some lines and google them i guess