Some weapons are conceptually flawed, even thought they were designed well. Others are based on a sound concept, but fail in their implementation.
This is not a thread about those weapons. This is a thread about weapons that were regrettable from conception to execution, from start to finish, for everyone involved.
Post failures, rejects, and widowmakers in this thread.
Parasite fighters, especially in the jet era. No retrieval mechanism would work out in real conditions.
Yeah but they were cool
More like the problem is lacking armament and performance.
>parasite fighters
>lack armament
They're called drones / UAVs now.
The main battle tank in the modern era
Thermobaric short range MLRS like TOS. It's a moronic waste of resources.
It's classified as a heavy flamethrower you massive moron, it's made to clear entrenched infantry not duel with actual artillery
FARA was based but super moronic in the era of cheap drones. The ALE drones were cool and will probably be slapped on the Apache at some point.
He never said that it was supposed to duel with artillery, you made an entire post countering an argument that was never made.
>He never said that it was supposed to duel with artillery
He implied it, not my fault you're braindead, he said short ranged short ranged relative to what? To other self propelled rocket launchers which are all artillery is the logical conclusion
But it's so short ranged it gets btfo by ATGMs in the exact kind of fighting it was designed for.
It has more than double the range of a Milan or TOW if it's getting hit by ATGMs then it's the scouting that failed
The Finnish recoilless rifle prototype from WW2
>but recoilless rifles are cool!
Yes but this one was characteristically Finnish i.e. ruined by perceived cost savings. It was supposed to sling everything from Panzerfaust projectiles and old flares to mortar ammo because that's what was in inventory. Acceptable performance could not be achieved for some reason and nothing came out of it
That was clearly a great idea but the pilots were too weak
The second amendment.
The warrior infantry fighting vehicle. It can’t shoot on the move, it fires from a clip with only 6 rounds at the ready before a manual reload must take place, and it doesn’t have atgms.
>can’t shoot on the move
That’s such an import facet of IFVs that it’s almost comical that this is the case
Ever wonder why France is not sending their old MBTs to Ukraine?
Apparently shooting on the move was an afterthought for eurocels mid cold war
That French submarine that had a twin barrel turret attached to it.
>brown
>/pol/
It’s obvious that you are upset by the fact that the warrior can’t fire accurately on the move
Doing the needful I see
>if I call him brown the warrior can fire accurately on the move
Delicious
The most powerful man in England is a pajeet. It’s over
Power is the ability to have effect. Sunak is pretty much impotent, not because the position he holds is bad or lacks powers but because he himself is flawed in ways that make it impossible for him to use that power.
It just goes to show that like putting a pig in a stable won't make it run the grand national, you also can't put a brownoid into a white man's office and expect him to be able to work.