The Really Stupid Really Stupid Ideas thread

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Hello,

This is a thread for sharing the really dumb ideas in military history. I'm not talking about blunders here, even obvious mistakes. I'm talking about the ideas that make you go "good grief what were they thinking!?!?"

These can be stupid ideas for weapons, or equipment, or tactics - anything military related.

One thing that I must request is that everyone keeps it civil and doesn't start painting anyone else's country with the actions of a few military imbeciles. No "that was a bad idea that just goes to prove all Americans/Russians/Israelis etc are stupid" please.

To start this off I will provide the first example:

The Athens Double Barreled Cannon

From the American Civil War (http://ngeorgia.com/feature/adbc.html)
Second link (http://www.newgeorgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-3516)

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o265/WDW_Megaraptor/m-3516.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o265/WDW_Megaraptor/doublebarrelcannon1.jpg

The Double Barreled Cannon was invented by John Gilleland in 1863 Georgia. His idea was to simulatenously fire two cannonballs held together with a chain. It was hoped that this would cut down yankee ranks like a scythe through wheat.

Of course, firing both barrels at exactly the same time was impossible. As the link I gave reports:

The Cannon was taken out on the Newton Bridge Road in April 1862, for test firing. The test was, to say the least, spectacular if unsuccessful.

According to reports one ball left the muzzle before the other and the two balls pursued an erratic circular course plowing up an acre of ground, destroying a corn field and mowing down some saplings before the chain broke.

The balls then adopted separate courses, one killing a cow and the other demolishing the chimney on a log cabin. The observers scattered in fear of their lives.

Some reports claimed two or three spectators were killed by the firing. The reports of the deaths have not been substantiated. The Watchman promptly reported the test an unqualified success.

Gilleland continued to insist that the gun was a success, but the Confederate War Department wisely refused to keep working on it. The gun was retired to Athens and used to fire blanks in the town square, where it remains today in front of City Hall.

[Martial]

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/gravity/images/xfy1_seq.jpeg
I always hated this thing.

[Martial]

The Flex Deck is another stupid idea.

The paper is "Wheels Up
Landing Development Program" by the Honorable John M. Moore (AF),
Mayor, Cocoa Beach, Florida and I have summarized and quoted all the
following from it.

The driver for the wheel-up programs was the weight saving possible if
aircraft didn't have to carry landing gear around unused except for
takeoff and landing. An airplane without landing gear would take off
using a little trolley that would stay on the ground, or drop off just
above it, with a rocket for extra thrust, if needed, and would land
using some sort of catching system with a wire and a resilient
energy-absorbing "runway".

There were three different services trying to make wheels-up landing
work, the USAF at Edwards, the USN at Patuxent River, and the RAF or
FAA at Farnborough. The USAF used an F-84G and a "runway" made by GE
that was a lot like the British Flexdeck.

On the first USAF wheels-up landing "the hook struck the approach
ramp, bounced over the arresting wire and returned to deck contact as
the airplane flew level over the [GE-made inflated flexible] deck.
The hook then encountered a puddle of water sprayed on the deck for
lubrication, the impact of which closed the micro-switch [installed to
retract the flaps, preventing damage of the flaps and the deck] on the
hook, retracting the flaps on the test vehicle. The F-84[G] the
settled onto the deck, skidded the remaining length of the deck,
dropped into the desert and ground to a halt in a large cloud of dust.
This incident resulteed in excessive damage to both the test vehicle
and the test pilot, putting both out of the program.

"A second test vehicle was prepared and a second pilot located who was
willing to pursue this interesting program. Following a brief
training program, the Air Force scheduled its second landing.

"In this landing, the arresting hook successfully engaged the cable
causing the airplane to pitch violently into the deck on its nose for
a series of 3 or 4 bounces before coming to a halt. Motion pictures
showed that at the first impact, the pilot, who was strapped in
snuggly [sic], disappeared completely in the cockpit on initial
impact. This left a clear impression of the pilot's central and
lateral incisors on the top of the control stick, and also caused a
severe injury to the pilot's neck. This terminated the Air Force
wheels up landing program.

[Freibier]

Jabroni, this is your chance!

[Aerosoul]

Jabroni, this is your chance!
He got banned for multiple accounts.

woot

[Oneto15]

One idea for the maximisation of the Harrier was the "Skyhook". This concept was to use a crane that could be mounted on a small ship, such as a helicopter frigate, to lift Harriers off the deck and allow them to fly off, and then recover them later. On recovery, they could be returned to their deck hangar, or refueled while they dangled on the crane, and released to continue operations. The crane would be "smart", with stabilization capabilities and a panel indicator mounted to give the Harrier pilot location information. With such a system, even a helicopter frigate could operate four Harriers as a kind of "mini-carrier".


http://www.vectorsite.net/avav8_3_06.jpg

Edited.

Source: http://www.vectorsite.net/avav8_3.html#m5

Further Details.

In efforts to exploit the sales potential of the Sea Harrier, which rested largely on its ability to operate from small, inexpensive ships, British Aerospace proposed the installation of ski-jump decks on commercial vessels, and the ‘Skyhook’ concept that would allow such aircraft to operate in the VTOL mode from ships without any form of aircraft deck.

‘Skyhook’ was invented by Heinz Erwin Frick (a BAe test pilot of Swiss descent) and the corresponding specification No.2104014 was filed with the British Patent office in 1982. Frick had been struck by the ease with which a Sea Harrier can be hovered with great precision, regardless of wind variations. It occurred to him that if this hovering accuracy could be combined with a space-stabilised ‘Skyhook’ on a ship, then it could provide the means for the aircraft to recover to a highly mobile deck. If the design of the ship precluded the use of a ski-jump take-off, then the aircraft could depart from the ‘Skyhook’, although its warload radius performance would then be much more limited.
The concept required very little modification to the aircraft itself – simply a hoisting point above the centre of the gravity and possibly some local strengthening. If the operator wanted to refuel the aircraft while suspended from the ‘Skyhook’, this would require modification of the fuel system, but it would still represent a minor expense. The major development task would be the advanced technology crane, presumably with an inertial platform in its base sending commands to a fast-acting hydraulic system that would keep the head of the crane moving linearly through space.
The computations for the crane system were based on the RN’s 4,250-ton Sheffield class of destroyers, and the design allowed for sea state 6, to give uninterrupted operations in the North Atlantic for 97% of the time. Using a special form of display attached to the crane head to assist the pilot to hover accurately, it was concluded that the aircraft could easily be placed within the ‘capture envelope’ of the ‘Skyhook’. Engagement was to be performed by a robot system, scanning IR-absorbent patches bonded to the upper surface of the aircraft around the pick-up probe, and moving the hook accordingly. An IR engagement-control system was proposed in order that the aircraft could be illuminated in night recoveries without affecting the pilot’s night vision.

Despite the very limited warload-radius performance available from the ‘Skyhook’ launch (which would be less restricted in the case of an AV-8B), the concept undoubtedly has some potential in the context of convoy protection and in providing an outer defensive perimeter by making use of radar picket ships around a conventional carrier. However, BAe estimated in the mid-1980s that the system would cost around $12 million to develop. The company also insisted on acting as prime contractor for ‘Skyhook’, rather than granting a licence (eg, to a company in Japan, where the concept might have special attractions). In the event, UK-MoD showed no great interest and BAe was unwilling to invest its own funds in the project, so ‘Skyhook’ has been filed away, at least for the present.

http://home.planet.nl/~alder010/Future/skyhook.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~alder010/Future/skyhook-1.jpg

Source:http://home.planet.nl/~alder010/Future/Future.html

[ShakesFIST]

He got banned for multiple accounts.

woot

That somewhat sucks. This could be a "Best Of..." thread for him.

[Mastermind]

In a book titled "Secret Weapons of WWII" I read about an attempt to hide the Thames River, a large bend of which was being used as a land mark guide for German night bombers. The idea was to sprinkle coal dust over the surface of the water to hide the reflectivity. The book describes several hilarious attempts by the researchers to successfully hide the huge, fast flowing river. They also were involved in a design to build "landing retro-rockets" for heavy parachute loads dropped from aircraft...one incident describes a near disaster when the test rig, with a jeep on a platform rigged with several black powder rocket motors, hanging from a crane was accidentally ignited while the "scientists" were standing directly under it...the poor lads were severley scorched...but, thankfully, not permanently injured....however, the priceless jeep was utterly destroyed. An excellent read.

[SineJustitia]

It's rather apocriphical, but too good to leave out here: when someone asked famous US-comedian Will Rogers in WW1 what could be done to stop the german U-boats, he answered: "just boil the oceans". When asked how, he shrugged: "the technical details I leave to you. I'm more of a policymaker myself."

On a similar silly note, in 1974 Belgian cartoonist Jacques Devos wrote/drew a superb encyclopedia of Weird Weapons through the ages. In French it was called "Armes Farfelues", and it featured weapons like butter (!)-firing rifles, thermic bombs that froze the enemy and quadruple-barreled muskets.

Unfortunately, it was never published in English, as far as I know...

[deadtired]

butter (!)-firing rifles

That put a whole new spin on the "guns and butter" models I was taught in my macro-economics class.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

A favorite Cold war lets-all-spend-research-money-on-something-silly project;


On January 1, 1957, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission selected the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) predecessor, the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, to study the feasibility of applying heat from nuclear reactors to ramjet engines.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Pluto1955.jpg

The "Tory-IIC" prototypeThis research became known as "Project Pluto" and was moved from Livermore, California to new facilities constructed for $1.2 million on eight square miles (21 km²) of Jackass Flats at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), known as Site 401.

The complex consisted of six miles (10 km) of roads, critical assembly building, control building, assembly and shop buildings, and utilities. Also required for the construction was 25 miles (40 km) of oil well casing which was necessary to store the million pounds (450 t) of pressurized air used to simulate ramjet flight conditions for Pluto.

The work was directed by Dr. Ted Merkle, leader of the laboratory's R-Division.

The principle behind the ramjet was relatively simple: motion of the vehicle pushed air in at high pressure through the front of the vehicle (ram effect), a nuclear reactor heated the air, and then the hot air expanded at high speed out through a nozzle at the back, providing thrust.

The notion of using a nuclear reactor to heat the air was fundamentally new. Unlike commercial reactors, which are surrounded by concrete, the Pluto reactor had to be small and compact enough to fly, but durable enough to survive a 7,000 mile (11,000 km) trip to a potential target.
The success of this project would depend upon a series of technological advances in metallurgy and materials science. Pneumatic motors
necessary to control the reactor in flight had to operate while red-hot and in the presence of intense radioactivity. The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant the reactor, code named "Tory", had to survive temperatures of 2,500 °F (1,600 °C), and conditions that would melt the metals used in most jet and rocket engines. Ceramic fuel elements would have to be used; the contract to manufacture the 500,000 pencil-sized elements was given to the Coors Porcelain Company, which would become better-known later for their brewery division. The tolerances were so tight that Tory's base plates had an auto-ignition point only 150 degrees above the reactor's peak operating temperature. Engineers calculated that the aerodynamic pressures upon the missile might be five times those the hypersonic X-15 had to endure.

The proposed use for nuclear-powered ramjets would be to power an unmanned cruise missile, called SLAM, for Supersonic Low Altitude Missile. In order to reach ramjet speed, it would be launched from the ground by a cluster of conventional rocket boosters. Once it reached cruising altitude and was far away from populated areas the nuclear reactor would be turned on. Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered 'down to the deck' for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union. Once powered up, the unshielded half-gigawatt nuclear reactor would emit highly lethal radiation in a large radius; such a vehicle could not possibly be human-piloted or reused. Indeed, some questioned whether a cruise missile derived from Project Pluto would need a warhead at all; the radiation from its engine, coupled with the shock wave that would be produced by flying at Mach 3 at treetop level, would have left a wide path of destruction wherever it went. The SLAM as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. Contrary to some reports, the exhaust of the engine would not itself be highly radioactive.

The nuclear engine could, in principle, operate for months, so a Pluto cruise missile could be left airborne for a prolonged time before being directed to press home its attack.

On May 14, 1961, the world's first nuclear ramjet engine, "Tory-IIA," mounted on a railroad car, roared to life for just a few seconds. Three years later, "Tory-IIC" was run for five minutes at full power, producing 513 megawatts and the equivalent of over 35,000 pounds force (156 kN) thrust. But despite these and other successful tests the Pentagon, sponsor of the "Pluto project," had second thoughts; Intercontinental ballistic missile technology had proved to be more easily developed than previously thought, reducing the need for such highly capable cruise missiles. On July 1, 1964, seven years and six months after it was born, "Project Pluto" was cancelled.

[Buckeye67]

WW2 Soviet anti-tank dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog):

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/Dog_mine8c3.jpg (http://imagesocket.com/view/Dog_mine8c3.jpg)

[AgentX]

^That's really stupid blowing up a hungary animal. Sadists!

[ShakesFIST]

^That's really stupid blowing up a hungary animal. Sadists!

It beats blowing up a human to do the same thing.

[the_recruit]

Megaraptor;2471889']
The Double Barreled Cannon was invented by John Gilleland in 1863 Georgia. His idea was to simulatenously fire two cannonballs held together with a chain. It was hoped that this would cut down yankee ranks like a scythe through wheat.

Of course, firing both barrels at exactly the same time was impossible. As the link I gave reports:


Gilleland continued to insist that the gun was a success, but the Confederate War Department wisely refused to keep working on it. The gun was retired to Athens and used to fire blanks in the town square, where it remains today in front of City Hall.




WOW

can you imagine wat damage that could have done regardless of the timing of the cannons firing? that would have been scary to watch to say the least.

[SnakeBiteLeader]

^That's really stupid blowing up a hungary animal. Sadists!


Would you feel better if they used midgets?

[IraGlacialis]

Two words: Project X-ray

The Bat Bombers
By C. V. Glines
Illustrations by Chris Fauver

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat1.jpgDR. Lytle S. Adams, a dental surgeon from Irwin, Pa., was vacationing in the southwestern US on December 7, 1941. Like millions of Americans, he was shocked at the news from Pearl Harbor and couldn't believe Japan had been able to mount such an attack. In those days, "Made in Japan" meant cheap, shabby, and inferior. Americans' image of Japan was of crowded cities filled with paper-and-wood houses and factories.
Dr. Adams pondered how the US could fight back. In a 1948 interview with the Bulletin of the National Speleological Society, Dr. Adams recalled: "I had just been to Carlsbad Caverns, N. M., and had been tremendously impressed by the bat flight. . . . Couldn't those millions of bats be fitted with incendiary bombs and dropped from planes? What could be more devastating than such a firebomb attack?"
Dr. Adams went back to Carlsbad and captured some bats. At home, he read everything he could find about the tiny flyers. He learned that there are nearly 1,000 species around the world and that each bat lives up to thirty years. The most common bat in North America is the free-tailed, or guano, bat, a small brown mammal that may catch more than 1,000 mosquitoes or gnat-sized insects--a load twelve times its own size--in a single night. Weighing about nine grams, it can carry an external load nearly three times its own weight.
On January 12, 1942, Dr. Adams sent to the White House a proposal to investigate the possible use of bats as bombers. In those days, well-meaning citizens were proposing all kinds of warfare ideas, most of them impractical. However, this idea, after being sifted through a top-level scientific review, became one of the very few given the green light. It was passed to the Army Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) for further inquiry in conjunction with Army Air Forces. The official CWS history states simply: "President Roosevelt OK'd it and the project was on."
Dr. Adams and a team of field naturalists from the ******* Foundation, University of California, immediately set to work and visited a number of likely sites where bats would be available in large quantities. Bats are found mostly in caves, though great numbers roost in attics, barns, and houses, under bridges, and in piles of rubbish. "We visited a thousand caves and three thousand mines," Dr. Adams later related. "Speed was so imperative that we generally drove all day and night when we weren't exploring caves. We slept in the cars, taking turns at driving. One car in our search team covered 350,000 miles."
A Choice of Bats
The largest bat found was the mastiff, which has a twenty-inch wingspan and could carry a one-pound stick of dynamite. However, the team found there weren't sufficient numbers available. The more common mule-eared, or pallid, bat could carry three ounces, but naturalists determined it wasn't hardy enough for the project.
Finally, the team selected the free-tailed bat. Though it weighed but one third of an ounce, it could fly fairly well with a one-ounce bomb. The largest colony of freetailed bats found by Dr. Adams' naturalists, some twenty to thirty million, was in Ney Cave near Bandera, Tex. The colony was so large, according to a report by CWS Capt. Wiley W. Carr, that "five hours' time is required for these animals to leave the cave while flying out in a dense stream fifteen feet in diameter and so closely packed they can barely fly."
Collection of the bats was not difficult. Three nets, about three feet in diameter, on ten-foot poles were passed back and forth across the cave entrance as the bats flew out. As many as 100 could be caught on three passes. They were removed from the nets and placed in cages in a refrigeration truck. Dr. Adams took some to Washington, releasing them in the War Department building to show Army officials how they could each carry a dummy bomb.
In March 1943, authority to proceed with the experiment came from Hq. USAAF. Subject: "Test of Method to Scatter Incendiaries." Purpose: "Determine the feasibility of using bats to carry small incendiary bombs into enemy targets."
The bats' habits were studied intently. Meanwhile, Dr. L. F. Fisser, a special investigator for the National Defense Research Committee, began to design bombs light enough to be carried by bats. He did not find it difficult, because there was a precedent for miniature incendiaries. England's principal firebombs, used in World War I, were called "baby incendiaries." Filled with a special thermite mixture, these bombs weighed 6.4 ounces each.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat2.jpg
Arming the Bats
Dr. Fisser designed two sizes of incendiary bombs for the bomber-bat experiments. One weighed seventeen grams and would bum four minutes with a ten-inch flame. The other weighed twenty-eight grams and would burn six minutes with a twelve-inch flame. They were oblong, nitrocellulose cases filled with thickened kerosene. A small time-delay igniter was cemented to the case along one side.
The time-delay igniter consisted of a firing pin held in tension against a spring by a thin steel wire. When the bombs were ready to use, a copper chloride solution was injected into the cavity through which the steel wire passed. The copper chloride would corrode the wire; when the wire was completely corroded, the firing pin snapped forward, striking the igniter head and lighting the kerosene. Small time-delay smokebombs were also designed so test flights of bats could be traced by ground observers. They burned for thirty minutes with a yellowish flame that could be seen several hundred yards away at night; white smoke was also emitted.
To load a bomb aboard a bat, technicians attached the case to the loose skin on the bat's chest by a surgical clip and a piece of string. Groups of 180 were released from a cardboard container that opened automatically in midair at about 1,000 feet, after which, says the CWS history, "bats were supposed to fly into hiding in dwelling and other structures, gnaw through the string, and leave the bombs behind."
In May 1943, about 3,500 bats were collected at Carlsbad Caverns, flown to Muroc Lake, Calif., and placed in refrigerators to force them to hibernate. On May 21, 1943, five drops with bats outfitted with dummy bombs were made from a B-25 flying at 5,000 feet. The tests were not successful; most of the bats, not fully recovered from hibernation, did not fly and died on impact. The bat-bomber research team was transferred a few days later to an Army Air Forces auxiliary airfield at Carlsbad, N. M.
Newly recruited bats were placed in ice cube trays and cooled to force them into hibernation. They were then transported to the airfield to await test mission assignments. Captain Carr explains how the test cartons were prepared for the drop tests: "Bats were taken from the refrigeration truck in a hibernated state in lots of approximately fifty. They were taken individually by a biologist, and about a one-half inch of loose chest skin was pinched away from the flesh. While this operation was being done, another group was preparing the incendiaries. One operator injected the solution in the delay [mechanism], another sealed the hole with wax, and another placed the surgical clip that was fastened to the incendiary by a short string. . . . The incendiary was then handed to a trained helper who fastened it to the chest skin of the bat." Drops were made from a North American B-25 and a Piper L-4 Cub.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat3.jpg
Complications Arise
There were many complications. Many bats didn't wake up in time for the drops. The cardboard cartons did not function properly, and the surgical clips proved difficult to attach to the bats without tearing the delicate skin. When these problems were somewhat resolved, new bats were taken up for drop tests with dummy bombs attached. Many simply took advantage of their freedom to escape or refused to cooperate and plummeted to earth.
The Army tests were called off on May 29, 1943, and Captain Carr prepared a final report. "The bats used at Carlsbad weighed an average of nine grams," he wrote. They could carry eleven grams without any trouble and eighteen grams satisfactorily, but twenty-two grams appeared to be excessive. The ones released with twenty-two-gram dummies didn't fly very far, and three returned in a few minutes to the building where we were working. One flew underneath, one landed on the roof, and one attached itself to the wall. The ones with eleven- gram dummies flew out of sight. The next day an examination of the grounds around a ranch house about two miles away from the point of release disclosed two dummies inside the porch, one beside the house, and one inside the barn."
More than 6,000 bats were used in the Army experiments. In his secret report, dated June 8, 1943, Captain Carr concluded that a better time-delay parachute type container, new clips, and a simplified time-delay igniter should be designed if further tests were to be carried out. He also recommended a six-week controlled study of bats during artificial hibernation. After this, he said, another test should be conducted with 5,000 bats.
Captain Carr reported tersely that "testing was concluded . . . when a fire destroyed a large portion of the test material." He did not mention that, in one test, a village simulating Japanese structures burned to the ground. Nor did he state that a careless handler had left a door open and some bats escaped with live incendiaries aboard and set fire to a hangar and a general's car. Records do not reflect the general's reaction, but he could not have been pleased. Shortly thereafter, in August 1943, the Army passed the project to the Navy, which renamed it Project X-Ray.
The Sea Services Take Over
In October 1943, the Navy leased four caves in Texas and assigned Marines to guard them. Dr. Adams designed screened enclosures that were prefabricated at Hondo Army Air Field and placed over the cave entrances to capture the bats. A million could be collected in one night if necessary. By that time, the Navy had handed the project off to the Marine Corps.
The first Marine Corps bomber-bat experiments began on December 13, 1943. In subsequent tests, thirty fires were started. Twenty-two went out, but, according to Robert Sherrod's History of Marine Corps Aviation in World War II, "four of them would have required the services of professional firefighters. A new and more powerful incendiary was ordered."
Full-scale bomber-bat tests were planned for August 1944. However, when Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, Chief of Naval Operations, found that the bats would not be combat-ready until mid-1945, he abruptly canceled the operation. By that time, Project X-Ray had cost an estimated $2 million.
Dr. Adams was disappointed. He maintained that fires generated by bomber bats could have been more destructive than the atomic bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended the war. He found that bats scattered up to twenty miles from the point where they were released. "Think of thousands of fires breaking out simultaneously over a circle of forty miles in diameter for every bomb dropped," he said. "Japan could have been devastated, yet with small loss of life."

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat.html

[silveykyle]

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/449/esw12hbiz3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Pekhota]

^That's really stupid blowing up a hungary animal. Sadists!

Sadism is the sexual gratification from inflicting pain on another person, not animals. Also I doubt the Soviets gained sexual gratification from this act.

[Kilgor]

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/1000_1.jpg

n June 23rd of 1942, Dir. Dip. Ing. Grote (along with Dr.Hacker) from the Ministry of Armament, who was responsible for the production of U-Boots suggested the development of a tank with a weight of 1000 tons. Adolf Hitler himself expressed interest in this project and allowed Krupp to go ahead with it. Project was designated as Krupp P 1000 (Ratte - Rat). This "land cruiser" would be 35 meters long, 14 meters wide and 11 meters high. P 1000 would be equipped with 3.6 meters wide tracks per side made of three 1.2 meters tracks, similar to those used in excavators working in coalmines. It was planned to power P 1000 with two MAN V12Z32/44 24 cylinder Diesel marine engines with total power of 17000hp (2 x 8500hp) or with eight Daimler-Benz MB501 20 cylinder Diesel marine engines with total power of 16000hp (8 x 2000hp). According to the calculations it would allow P 1000 to travel at maximum speed of 40km/h. P 1000 would be armed with a variety of weapons such as: two 280mm gun (naval gun used in Scharnhorst and Gneisenau warships), single 128mm gun, eight 20mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft guns and two 15mm Mauser MG 151/15 gun.

In December of 1942, Krupp created new design of 1500 ton tank - P 1500. It frontal armor would be 250mm thick and it would be armed with 800mm super heavy mortar "Dora" type and possibly two 150mm artillery pieces. P 1500 would be powered by two or four submarine diesel engines. In early 1943, Albert Speer cancelled both projects. P 1000 turret ended up at coastal defence battery (Batterie Oerlander) near Trondheim, Norway.

Even before P 1000 and P 1500, in 1939, Krupp began working on other similar projects for projected series of self-propelled coastal guns for the German Navy - Kriegsmarine. Series was to include 14 different platforms designated from R1 to R14. Armament was to range from 150mm to 380mm and it was to be mounted on fully traversible turntables on tracked carriages. One of the designs was R2 coastal gun armed with 280mm gun. The series never left drawing boards.

ripped from Achtung panzer

[Angelino]

My personal favorite is the story of the Swedish Ship, Vasa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_Vasa).

She was built over a 2 year period. First, the King demanded that they change the dimensions AFTER they'd started work on the keel. Next, the King demanded that she be the most powerful warship in the world. Thus, they ended up adding extensions to the ship and loading the heaviest guns they could find; and she became too top-heavy. Worse, they took her on her maiden voyage with open gun ports. Result: she sailed for about 300 feet, leaned over a bit, took in water through the gun ports and sank.

When she sank, she also cost the Swedes a significant chunk of their economy at that time (2% of their GNP was spent on just this one ship!)

[udt87]

Megaraptor;2471889']

The Athens Double Barreled Cannon
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o265/WDW_Megaraptor/m-3516.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o265/WDW_Megaraptor/doublebarrelcannon1.jpg

lol, I remember seeing that thing when I was 4 1/2 years old... wow, I feel old. ;)

[udt87]

WOW

can you imagine wat damage that could have done regardless of the timing of the cannons firing? that would have been scary to watch to say the least.

I heard that they actually tried shooting that thing off once and it nearly blew itself apart... that's when they decided to just use "blanks."

[udt87]

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/3355/billinghurstvandebrgdb7.jpg

Ok, here's one for the history books... The Vandenberg Gun. It had 85 to 400+ barrels depending on the caliber. The breech held the ammo, and was completly loaded each time it would be fired. Now that would seem rather simple, if it hadn't been that when it would be fired, not one but all barrels would fire. That's 85 to 400+ shots coming in your direction in a fraction of a second. What made it so unsuccessful was that it had to be completly loaded, fired, unloaded, reloaded, and fired again. Modern day that would take some time, not to mention during the American Civil War.

[LRPV]

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/3355/billinghurstvandebrgdb7.jpg

Ok, here's one for the history books... The Vandenberg Gun. It had 85 to 400+ barrels depending on the caliber. The breech held the ammo, and was completly loaded each time it would be fired. Now that would seem rather simple, if it hadn't been that when it would be fired, not one but all barrels would fire. That's 85 to 400+ shots coming in your direction in a fraction of a second. What made it so unsuccessful was that it had to be completly loaded, fired, unloaded, reloaded, and fired again. Modern day that would take some time, not to mention during the American Civil War.

Interestingly enough the concept is renewed today as MetalStorm.

[RECON DOC]

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/Maginot%20cutaway%20--%20NYT%20imaginary%20-%202.jpg

[silveykyle]

haha ^^

.......

[LRPV]

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/449/esw12hbiz3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


A jabroni clone?

[Ratamacue]

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/Maginot%20cutaway%20--%20NYT%20imaginary%20-%202.jpg

That looks like something I remember drawing in 5th grade.

[silveykyle]

A jabroni clone?
No thats 100% jabroni. I think it was his first abortion, the photoshop job on it blows

[MichaelF]

Would you feel better if they used midgets?

Now that you ask? Yes.

[MichaelF]

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/Maginot%20cutaway%20--%20NYT%20imaginary%20-%202.jpg

In its defense, the Line worked. The Germans saw that it would be horrendously expensive to storm the frontier.

Where it went wrong was in not -extending- the Line across the secondary Axis of Advance (Belgium/Ardennes/Holland). This was due to politics (Belgium had it's own forts of equal caliber) and economics (France's GDP took a nose dive).

Had the Line extended to the North Sea, WWII would have been much, much different*.

So: Good idea. Bad execution.



*- The French Army was, arguably, better armed and supplied than the Wehrmacht. Much of their troop capacity was cut off when the Germans looped around through Belgium and Holland (this is what chased the BEF to Dunkirk). Had they not been cut off, France would have still been viable.

[Mablod]

Would you feel better if they used midgets?

Might have worked better, the russians did the mistake of training the dogs with russian tanks. Not a very good ideap-)



Edit: Just read the article, they trained anti tank dogs until 1996??!

[RECON DOC]

@MichaelF

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. It was a colossal waist of resources and the leadership was fakakta. Fixed fortifications can be skirted. Whether or not they extended them is moot, the Germans would have found a way around.

[asch]

Might have worked better, the russians did the mistake of training the dogs with russian tanks. Not a very good ideap-)

Edit: Just read the article, they trained anti tank dogs until 1996??!

i smell bull**** on this one wikiwisdom. p-)
it's rather strange, but i never heard about those anti-tank dogs before.

[udt87]

i smell bull**** on this one wikiwisdom. p-)
it's rather strange, but i never heard about those anti-tank dogs before.

I've got some history books at my dad's place that have all sorts of pics on anti-tank dogs; I thought it exceedingly strange at first too. :)

[PrivatePyle]

Two words: Project X-ray

I always thought the incendiary bats were some sort of myth, though the more popular version where they 'apparently' tested them but they returned to a friendly airbase to roost and burnt it down has to be bull.

[Mablod]

i smell bull**** on this one wikiwisdom. p-)
it's rather strange, but i never heard about those anti-tank dogs before.

Yeah sounds like BS. But who knows, could be true though.
If the propaganda is true and they actually destroyed 300 tanks then it worked quite good(somehow doubt this).
Although I wonder how many russian tanks got destroyed by misfires p-)

[AgentX]

Would you feel better if they used midgets?
I would, but only if you volunteered to be the first.

Sadism is the sexual gratification from inflicting pain on another person, not animals. Also I doubt the Soviets gained sexual gratification from this act.
Not true. Sadism is the derivation of pleasure as a result of the suffering of others. And one can never be too sure of what humans are capable of.

[Bert]

Cold war bomb warmed by chickens (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3588465.stm)

[SturmPionier]

Cold war bomb warmed by chickens (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3588465.stm)




What a freakin´ idea rofl rofl

[SturmPionier]

In its defense, the Line worked. The Germans saw that it would be horrendously expensive to storm the frontier.

Where it went wrong was in not -extending- the Line across the secondary Axis of Advance (Belgium/Ardennes/Holland). This was due to politics (Belgium had it's own forts of equal caliber) and economics (France's GDP took a nose dive).

Had the Line extended to the North Sea, WWII would have been much, much different*.

So: Good idea. Bad execution.



*- The French Army was, arguably, better armed and supplied than the Wehrmacht. Much of their troop capacity was cut off when the Germans looped around through Belgium and Holland (this is what chased the BEF to Dunkirk). Had they not been cut off, France would have still been viable.


Think about this:

WW1 was an "Static war", trenches, barbed wire, trenches etc.... WWII and the operationell Plan "Fall Gelb" (Operation Yellow) was planned as mobile warfare, the main forces where Tanks and Infantry (mot.), so Bunkers und Forts are not really effective if the enemy rushes in to your rear !

[Vehemence]

Now that you ask? Yes.

It would be funnier, too!

[Martial]

It really just blows my mind that these things achieved funding and were actually built and tested! Did no one have the nerve to stand up and scream, "STOP!" during the research phase?

[chulo_allen]

The Czar Tank
The Russian inventor Captain Lebedenko proposed such a wheeled tank in May 1915. The machine weighed 2.5 poods (40 to 44 tons) and was formed as a gun carriage having the running wheel diameter of 9 m and rotation speed of 10 rev/min. With such parameters, the machine was expected to easily cross entrenchments, ditches and a vertical wall, to crush a blindage, etc. The "chariot" ran at 28 m/min, which was equal to 18 km/hr.
A scale model of the machine was manufactured. It had 30 cm nickel-plated wheels and a gramophone spring drive. Captain Lebedenko offered this model to Czar. The toy impressed Czar. As a result, the construction of a full-size machine was financed. During the test conducted in August 1927, the machine made a move, broke a big old birch tree with its front axle and stalled with its rear wheel in soil. Another attempt to make the machine move, made in 1918, was also a failure.
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/9337/lebedenko015c6225zn9.jpgSo far, the "Czar-tank" (they wanted to call this machine by analogy with the "Czar gun") has been the largest war machine that ever was in the world's tank building practice. That solution was undoubtedly the strongest one for that time and those conditions. The design simplicity, high arrangement of cannons and machine guns over a battlefield, good visibility for the crew could have made the wheeled tank a strong enemy under those fighting conditions. To stop the wheeled tank, it was necessary to hit exactly the hub of the running wheel whereas hitting any point of the caterpillar was fatal for a caterpillar tank.
The disadvantages of this design are the difficulty to mask the 9-meter tank on a battlefield, high pressure of the wheels on the ground and impossibility to execute fire in the area shielded by the wheels. In addition, the developers committed some errors the most important of which was wrong distribution of load between the running wheels and the rear wheel. All that made the Lebedenko wheeled tank a curious construction which did not have any influence on the tank construction progress.

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/4149/lebedenko5b6372yi4.jpg

[SturmPionier]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/408420371_8745f3f6ab_o.jpg

+ Technical infos :
http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/Boardroom/7104/tsar/tsar_tank_main.htm

[Dasein]

Fixed fortifications themselves are not a bad idea. Rather, one needs to know where to fortify in order to prevent an enemy from simply bypassing your forts. For example, the Japanese fortified many of the volcanic islands in the Pacific to great effect, as the US had little choice but to try and capture these islands. The Germans, too, build many impressive fortifications, from the Atlantic Wall to the U-boat pens and Flak Towers and bunkers in Berlin.

[chulo_allen]

Fixed fortifications themselves are not a bad idea. Rather, one needs to know where to fortify in order to prevent an enemy from simply bypassing your forts. For example, the Japanese fortified many of the volcanic islands in the Pacific to great effect, as the US had little choice but to try and capture these islands. The Germans, too, build many impressive fortifications, from the Atlantic Wall to the U-boat pens and Flak Towers and bunkers in Berlin.
in those days, but now the weapons have changed and once they know where a fixed position is, its one button away from being destoyed by smart bomb. what is more important now a days for fortifications is its secrecy .. if they dont know where it is, they cant bomb it

[name already taken]

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/Maginot%20cutaway%20--%20NYT%20imaginary%20-%202.jpg
Modern version of trenches where troops were immobilized during 4 years without moving during WW1 !

[Lokos]

WWII and the operationell Plan "Fall Gelb" (Operation Yellow) was planned as mobile warfare, the main forces where Tanks and Infantry (mot.)

That wasn't as apparent as you suggest in 1940. And the main forces were horse-drawn infantry, just like in WWI. Count the tank divisions, the motorized divisions and the infantry divisions (horse-drawn), and think about it.

Lokos

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I remember reading that the US military considered a plan to create a weapon that would somehow deliver sex hormones to the enemy. The idea was that widespread homosexuality in the ranks would be bad for morale.

[ShakesFIST]

Megaraptor;2473828']I remember reading that the US military considered a plan to create a weapon that would somehow deliver sex hormones to the enemy. The idea was that widespread homosexuality in the ranks would be bad for morale.

I remember reading that too! I just can't remember where (besides your post).

[martinexsquaddie]

The LSW aka the crow cannon now sort of being used as a dmr but when issued was ment to be a machine gun

[Robbee]

The M-388 Davy Crockett was a tactical nuclear recoilless rifle projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War.

If that's not enough to convince you it was a stupid idea, read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29).

[chulo_allen]

i dont see anything wrong with an accurate tatical nuke for surgical strikes.. unless u are saying a Nuke is a bad idea

[MichaelF]

@MichaelF

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. It was a colossal waist of resources and the leadership was fakakta. Fixed fortifications can be skirted. Whether or not they extended them is moot, the Germans would have found a way around.

All true.

However, judging from the ferocious effort it took to penetrate (not overrun) small points in the Line during late May/early June (Operation TIGER), further extension of the main fortifications would have allowed the French (and UK) mobile forces (which were sitting behind the Line) to bottle up any German successes.

Might not have tipped the balance, but France would not have fallen nearly so "easily".

As it is, they only fortified part of the Frontier, then stuck their main force behind it. The Germans came in through the unfortified and lightly-defended Holland/Belgium axis, cutting France in two.

The Alpine Line (southern span of the main Line) did stop the Italian thrust cold. The Main Line totally blunted the German assault, but the French mobile forces (which would have shored the Line up) were occupied trying to save Paris.

Good concept (fortify the borders, mobile reserve to reinforce). Bad execution (half measures).

Essentially, they had a massive armored front door, and a curtain for a backdoor...

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

i dont see anything wrong with an accurate tatical nuke for surgical strikes.. unless u are saying a Nuke is a bad idea

Tactical nukes yes, firing them from man-portable shoulder fired launchers is verging on the comical...

[Ratamacue]

Megaraptor;2474142']Tactical nukes yes, firing them from man-portable shoulder fired launchers is verging on the comical...Nonsense! Haven't you ever read Starship Troopers?

[chulo_allen]

Megaraptor;2474142']Tactical nukes yes, firing them from man-portable shoulder fired launchers is verging on the comical...
Davy Crockett could be launched from either of two launchers: the 4-inch (120 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi (2 km), or the 6-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of 2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, and could be mounted on a tripod launcher or carried by truck or armored personnel carrier. They were operated by a three-man crew.


why not? its got the range where u should be safe, but i dont think they were ever ment to be shoulder fired

[Mastermind]

According to my research…the Davy Crocket had a range of 1.7 to up to 2.5 miles and the war head delivered a nuclear blast equivalent to 10 to 20 tons of TNT…the smallest practical size for a fission bomb. The blast radius was less than ¼ mile, and the radiation effects were lethal up to that range. However, it is reported the blast and radiation effects would have been harmless to the crew, provided they took some form of shelter, such as in a trench. The 51 lb warhead was launched from a 4” tube and the propellant was via recoilless rifle charge and rocket assisted via the tail pipe of the projectile. Although the weapon was not very accurate by modern artillery standards, it was accurate enough to center on troop concentrations and avenues of advance. The intense radiation from the detonated war head was designed to contaminate an area with lethal radiation for a minimum of two days, which was considered long enough to mobilize a blocking NATO force. The weapon was actually deployed in Europe from 1961 through 1971. 2,100 weapons had been built by the time the Army decided to withdraw it from service. The warhead was also deployed on the AIM-26A Falcon missile.

[name already taken]

All true.

However, judging from the ferocious effort it took to penetrate (not overrun) small points in the Line during late May/early June (Operation TIGER), further extension of the main fortifications would have allowed the French (and UK) mobile forces (which were sitting behind the Line) to bottle up any German successes.

Might not have tipped the balance, but France would not have fallen nearly so "easily".

As it is, they only fortified part of the Frontier, then stuck their main force behind it. The Germans came in through the unfortified and lightly-defended Holland/Belgium axis, cutting France in two.

The Alpine Line (southern span of the main Line) did stop the Italian thrust cold. The Main Line totally blunted the German assault, but the French mobile forces (which would have shored the Line up) were occupied trying to save Paris.

Good concept (fortify the borders, mobile reserve to reinforce). Bad execution (half measures).

Essentially, they had a massive armored front door, and a curtain for a backdoor...
Wouldn't work today. Who would have the means to create an impenetrable network of fixed defenses in this age of high speed mobility ?

I think the salute nowadays is in mobility. Makes it that more complicated for the ennemy.

[Mastermind]

Yes...I think static defenses have been pretty much obsolete since Verdun.

[Jaguar]

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2140/antonovktqi9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Karo]

http://lachschon.gamigo.de/screens/200603/cENt_sOLDier-1142347004.jpg

[Jaguar]

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8021/mp44ze4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Freibier]

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8021/mp44ze4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Believe it or not, for the purpose it was designed, it worked quite well and it could be detached in seconds

[IraGlacialis]

^^^^^
What was the original purpose?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/408420371_8745f3f6ab_o.jpg

+ Technical infos :
http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/Boardroom/7104/tsar/tsar_tank_main.htm
You have to admit, as impractical as it was, it still looks badass.

[Silver Cup]

^^^^^
What was the original purpose?

I think it was designed for the crew members of the German mobile artillery platform the ''elephant'' ( I think that is the name, I may be wrong) which was designed without a machine gun on top.

So this weapon was devised to keep enemy troops from climbing onto the vehicle. They would just shoot it out of the hatch.

[Silver Cup]

Double post. :-(

[IraGlacialis]

I think it was designed for the crew members of the German mobile artillery platform the ''elephant'' ( I think that is the name, I may be wrong) which was designed without a machine gun on top.

So this weapon was devised to keep enemy troops from climbing onto the vehicle. They would just shoot it out of the hatch.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the info.

What about this WWII idea? :grin: Good ol' Pykrete.
http://www.kirchersociety.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/pykecrete.jpg
June 26, 2006
Project Habakkuk (http://itotd.com/articles/575/project-habakkuk/)
Building aircraft carriers out of ice

H.L. Mencken has been famously quoted as saying, “There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” Or, as the saying is often misquoted, “Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answers.” Either way, it’s true that simple solutions are often overlooked, and equally true that seemingly simple solutions often turn out to be infeasible. Such was the case with an ambitious project undertaken by the Allies in World War II (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AOV3O?ie=UTF8&tag=interesthingo-20&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=380613&creativeASIN=B0000AOV3O&adid=3aaef9aa-e70a-4d17-8e15-ab4b60f4e0f7): building gargantuan ships out of ice.
As silly as this may sound at first blush, the idea was meant to address a set of very serious problems. Supply ships on their way across the North Atlantic from Canada to the U.K. were frequently intercepted and sunk by German U-boats (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F6ZC7K?ie=UTF8&tag=interesthingo-20&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=380613&creativeASIN=B000F6ZC7K&adid=9298ee65-f001-49f5-99a8-836870e67dc3). Planes could protect the ships, but only within a limited distance from land, as there was nowhere to refuel in the middle of the ocean. Aircraft carriers would have helped, but they required enormous quantities of steel, which was in short supply. What was needed was a way to land aircraft in the mid-Atlantic without overtaxing the steel supply.
A Prophetic Voice (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310225582?ie=UTF8&tag=interesthingo-20&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=380613&creativeASIN=0310225582&adid=cbc8c965-58e6-4d13-bdc6-0557487c7ddf)
In 1942, a British scientist named Geoffrey Pyke—an adviser to Lord Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations—came up with the idea of cutting off a large piece of an arctic iceberg or ice floe, leveling its surface, and towing it into the ocean to serve as a landing platform. The platform would melt eventually, of course, but Pyke believed that a large enough piece of ice would last at least a few months—longer if it were insulated on the outside and cooled from within by a refrigeration system. Better yet, the platform couldn’t be sunk; even if it were damaged by torpedoes or bombs, repairs could be made simply by freezing new chunks of ice into place.
Mountbatten sold the idea to Winston Churchill (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039541685X?ie=UTF8&tag=interesthingo-20&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=380613&creativeASIN=039541685X&adid=72cf346f-8579-465a-9116-6e760eb9dd99), who gave it his enthusiastic support. Pyke called his operation Project Habakkuk (frequently misspelled as “Habbakuk”), after a verse from the biblical book of Habakkuk: “Look at the nations, and see! Be astonished! Be astounded! For a work is being done in your days that you would not believe if you were told.” (Habakkuk 1:5, New Revised Standard Version) The full-size aircraft carrier Pyke envisioned was to be 2,000 feet (about 600m) long and 300 feet (about 90m) wide—hollow, with walls 40 feet (about 12m) thick. That would have made it almost two orders of magnitude heavier than other aircraft carriers of the period. It would be slow, however, with a top speed on the order of 6 knots, and have limited maneuverability.
With the ship’s enormous size and weight came other complications. For one thing, ice is brittle; keeping a huge piece of it intact on rough waters was going to be a challenge. For another, ice deforms under pressure, which means that a large vessel—particularly a hollow one—would sag and likely crack over time. To find ways of dealing with these and other problems, a team of workers in Canada began research and experimentation, going so far as to build a small prototype vessel—60 feet (about 18m) long by 30 feet (about 9m) wide—on Patricia Lake in Alberta. The prototype was a wooden frame filled with chunks of ice and covered with insulation. A cooling system much like an air conditioner sent super-chilled air through a network of pipes in order to keep the ice’s temperature well below freezing.
Better Than Ice
Meanwhile, in early 1943, two researchers at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, New York, made a fortuitous discovery: by mixing wood pulp, sawdust, or cotton wool with water and freezing the slurry, they could create a substance that still floated nicely but was much stronger and less brittle than plain ice. This material was dubbed pykrete (or Pykecrete) in honor of Pyke. Experiments showed pykrete to be highly resistant to compression, chipping, and even bullets. It could be shaped with ordinary woodworking tools, and even better, it melted much more slowly than ice. This new material was quickly seen as key to the success of Project Habakkuk, which by that point was seeming increasingly problematic based on the results of the Patricia Lake tests.
According to a popular (but probably apocryphal) story, Mountbatten showed up at Churchill’s home one day while he was bathing and dropped a block of pykrete into the hot water. When the pykrete didn’t melt, Churchill was convinced that the new substance was just what they needed for Project Habakkuk. Most accounts frame the story as Churchill’s introduction to the notion of aircraft carriers made of ice, but if it happened at all, it would have been well after the project in its original form was underway.
Down the Drain (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00022EEZI?ie=UTF8&tag=interesthingo-20&link_code=em1&camp=212341&creative=380613&creativeASIN=B00022EEZI&adid=42456603-260f-458d-8cb0-7df2384474dc)
Despite the seemingly miraculous properties of pykrete, however, the project was going nowhere fast. One problem was money: the first Habakkuk carrier would have cost about $100 million. Likewise, the complexity of building, insulating, and refrigerating such a large structure would have required time and manpower that none of the Allies could afford. And even though wood pulp was more plentiful than steel, that, too, was in short supply. On the other hand, aircraft range was improving, while conventional aircraft carriers were increasing in number. All these facts made Project Habakkuk seem like a waste of resources, and by early 1944, research was halted—before construction of the full-size carrier even began.
In the years since, pykrete has remained, for the most part, a curiosity of history. Other than perhaps the odd ice hotel (http://itotd.com/articles/418/ice-hotels/) here and there, potential uses for a bulletproof, buoyant, frozen building material don’t immediately leap to mind. It’s a clever solution in search of a problem, and it may be searching for a while. —Joe Kissell (http://alt.cc/)

[Karo]

I think it was designed for the crew members of the German mobile artillery platform the ''elephant'' ( I think that is the name, I may be wrong) which was designed without a machine gun on top.

So this weapon was devised to keep enemy troops from climbing onto the vehicle. They would just shoot it out of the hatch.

It was supposed to work as an (nearly) all-round infantry defense for tank crews and for urban warfare (like shooting around corners and stuff like that). It wasnt (only) constructed for the Elefant tanks, at least i have never heard of it. The Ferdinand (after the upgrading they were called Elefant) tanks were re-armed with a MG after the offensive at Kursk (around middle 1943 if im not wrong), so it doesnt make too much sense to construct again later only for this tank the Krummlauf.

And the Elefant tank wasnt a mobile artillery platform - it was a Jagdpanzer (hunting tank).

[chulo_allen]

I think it was designed for the crew members of the German mobile artillery platform the ''elephant'' ( I think that is the name, I may be wrong) which was designed without a machine gun on top.

So this weapon was devised to keep enemy troops from climbing onto the vehicle. They would just shoot it out of the hatch.
you are right. the "elephant" didnt have any cox guns so they made use of the little eye slits to shooot through

[MichaelF]

Wouldn't work today. Who would have the means to create an impenetrable network of fixed defenses in this age of high speed mobility ?

I think the salute nowadays is in mobility. Makes it that more complicated for the ennemy.

Semi-agreed.

Fortifications and Strongpoints allow canalization of incoming Enemy forces and oblige the enemy to either storm them or expend troops pinning them down, while allowing mobile Friendly forces to pivot around them.

As a stand-alone defense, yes, fixed fortifications are dead. Without a mobile force to back them up, the Enemy can concentrate his effort and breakthrough. Modern weapons (anti-bunker munition, helicopters, etc) have removed the possibility of an "untakeable" fortress.

[name already taken]

Semi-agreed.

Fortifications and Strongpoints allow canalization of incoming Enemy forces and oblige the enemy to either storm them or expend troops pinning them down, while allowing mobile Friendly forces to pivot around them.

As a stand-alone defense, yes, fixed fortifications are dead. Without a mobile force to back them up, the Enemy can concentrate his effort and breakthrough. Modern weapons (anti-bunker munition, helicopters, etc) have removed the possibility of an "untakeable" fortress.
Stand alone fixed fortifications and even more a standalone networked fixed fortification system, as the maginot line was are a thing of the past.

There are no fixed system that cannot be defeated nowadays. As components of a more global strategy they still can play a role. But as being the whole strategy, no.

The decline of the proud tradition of fixed fortification started with the use of the cannon somewhere in the 15th century.

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/1647/pierre8cl6.jpg (http://www.castles.org/castles/Europe/Western_Europe/France/Pierrefonds.htm)

[BloodyTalon]

The Heliofly III
http://avia.russian.ee/foto/baumgartl_heliofly-357_1.gif
"Alright men! Vee are going to penetrate Allied territory by strapping zese massive propellors directly above our heads und try to fly like helicopters, ja?"

"..."

[RECON DOC]

All true.

However, judging from the ferocious effort it took to penetrate (not overrun) small points in the Line during late May/early June (Operation TIGER), further extension of the main fortifications would have allowed the French (and UK) mobile forces (which were sitting behind the Line) to bottle up any German successes.

Might not have tipped the balance, but France would not have fallen nearly so "easily".

As it is, they only fortified part of the Frontier, then stuck their main force behind it. The Germans came in through the unfortified and lightly-defended Holland/Belgium axis, cutting France in two.

The Alpine Line (southern span of the main Line) did stop the Italian thrust cold. The Main Line totally blunted the German assault, but the French mobile forces (which would have shored the Line up) were occupied trying to save Paris.

Good concept (fortify the borders, mobile reserve to reinforce). Bad execution (half measures).

Essentially, they had a massive armored front door, and a curtain for a backdoor...

There it is.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

Here you go, the skeleton Tank.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/usmt-PioneerSkeletonTank.jpg

It was a tank with a frame structure, the frame saving wight and making it stronger

The idea was that enemy bullets would pass through the gaps in the frame....

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/MediumTanks.html

[Suicaine]

XM214

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Machine-Guns/GE_XM214_Minigun-2.jpg
might not share the same opinion to everyone else but the idea of a heavy weapon in 5.56 makes my guts slurge.

and theres this
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/airborne/scotterrecoiless.jpg

- Alex.

[Asheren]

Erm can anyone tell me how to aim this scooter thing at anything?

[chulo_allen]

Erm can anyone tell me how to aim this scooter thing at anything?
EASY, u ask the enemy to pose and smile at the very big camera that is straped to your Vespa

[Atlantic Friend]

Megaraptor;2473828']I remember reading that the US military considered a plan to create a weapon that would somehow deliver sex hormones to the enemy. The idea was that widespread homosexuality in the ranks would be bad for morale.

I don't remember it broke the Spartans' morale... ;)

Okay, now someone HAS to post a pic of the SPARTAAAAAAA guy.

[Minardiau]

I wouldn't really say these were stupid ideas, however all the major navies designed atleast, some even laid down some really tremendous battleships that would of been biggger, better armed, better armoured then any warship ever built. The Germans even designed a BB that came in at 130,000 tonnes with 20inch guns.

Yanks had the Montana Class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_class_battleship

British had the N3 Class of Battleship. It should be noted that the British eventually produced the Rodney class and HMS Vanguard which were basically cut down versions of this vessal. IF HMS Vanguard is anything to by, these ships would of arguably have been better then the Iowa as Vanguard had better sea keeping abability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N3_battleship

The Japanese came up with the Super Yamato class of ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Yamato_class

And finally Germany came up with this monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_class_battleship_%281944%29

The thing that I find interesting is that British ships tended to be somewhat lighter then comparative Japanese, US and German modern designs despite having similar specifications in armament and armour. Wether this is due to the British have more experiance in battleship design and construction I'm not sure.

The interesting thing to note. Unless I'm mistaken, apart from Yamato, Musashi, Repulse and Prince of Wales no other battleships were sunk by enemy air attack. (Attack on Tirpitz, Taranto and Pearl excluded. Lets be honest here. A ship in port is not exactly a fair fight now is it)

[Quack of Doom]

Great threat!

Not really stupid, but I for one never really got it:
Bicycle troops... the swiss still use them: http://www.bikepatrol.nl/plaatjes/zwiss.JPG

[chulo_allen]

^ faster than on foot and deadly quite like a ninja.. unless u get those sound makers on the wheels and tassles

[name already taken]

Great threat!

Not really stupid, but I for one never really got it:
Bicycle troops... the swiss still use them: http://www.bikepatrol.nl/plaatjes/zwiss.JPG
You could buy one here (http://www.yellowjersey.org/swiss.html) but it wasn't cheap. Like everything from Switzerland, in fact.

The Deluxe or Officer's model differs in having a front tubular British steel handmade luggage rack and double rear similarly fashioned baskets.

The front rack and baskets are compatible with standardized military gear mounts. Steel fuel and water cans, a radio, ammunition cases, a mortar with base and a stationary heavy machine gun with tripod can all mount directly as they would on any other military vehicle.

Since the introduction of this ultimate patrol vehicle in 1995, the Swiss (who are immersed in radical social changes of late, what with allowing women to vote and for some inexplicable reason recognizing the silly United Nations, which is comprised of many lesser states that the Swiss certainly could have really done well without) have since disbanded their bicycle patrols so there will be no more of these fine machines.

Update Autumn 2004

The last has been sold.
Too late !

I've heard they were anti-radar stealth coated but I didn't find any written confirmation.

[chulo_allen]

You could buy one here (http://www.yellowjersey.org/swiss.html) but it wasn't cheap. Like everything from Switzerland, in fact.

Too late !

I've heard they were anti-radar stealth coated but I didn't find any confirmation about this.
when the person on top of the bike is bigger than the bike any way, its no use doin all that, unless u anti-radar the ridder too.. lol plus all the ground cover would make a radar quite useless .. i bet its just an urban myth..

[name already taken]

A few samples:

Czech Army (CSA) Log Saw:


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5553/logsawzb9.jpg (http://www.deutscheoptik.com/)

Bundeswehr Officer’s Mess Serving Bowl:

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/2720/servingbowlor5.jpg (http://www.deutscheoptik.com/)


Many many more (http://www.deutscheoptik.com/). Really a must :grin:

[name already taken]

when the person on top of the bike is bigger than the bike any way, its no use doin all that, unless u anti-radar the ridder too.. lol plus all the ground cover would make a radar quite useless .. i bet its just an urban myth..
Makes a lot of sense :grin:

[chulo_allen]

Makes a lot of sense :grin:
maybe it is true, and truely make it a stupid idea

[name already taken]

maybe it is true, and truely make it a stupid idea
Unfortunately I couldn't find anything written.

But I found this:
The UAB -- Urban Assault Bicycle -- provides another solution to traffic problems. The UAB, based on the Swiss Army Bike, has a grenade launcher mounted on the rear carrier designed to fire the grenades just far enough to penetrate the windshield of a car that is following too closely. Grenades come in three types -- smoke, incendiary, or HE -- to suit your mood. Mounted to the front carrier is a submachine gun to prepare you for an on-coming, left-turning motorist, an on-coming, passing motorist in your lane, or an occasional "thrill-kill." Side protection, however, is lacking, deemed a serious weakness. For those willing to wait, the Spike Bike Signature Series will be coming out soon, which may correct this deficit.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/humor/addit.htm

[Hullebullen]

Great threat!

Not really stupid, but I for one never really got it:
Bicycle troops... the swiss still use them: http://www.bikepatrol.nl/plaatjes/zwiss.JPG

My dad did his service in a bicycle platoon somewhere way back in the 19th century (oh,well, not quite)...and jebus...the distances those guys were biking! They biked halfway across Sweden on their exercises on those old, heavy military bikes, in full loadout...

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The interesting thing to note. Unless I'm mistaken, apart from Yamato, Musashi, Repulse and Prince of Wales no other battleships were sunk by enemy air attack. (Attack on Tirpitz, Taranto and Pearl excluded. Lets be honest here. A ship in port is not exactly a fair fight now is it)

You are mistaken.

The sinking of the Italian battleship Roma (http://www.regiamarina.net/others/roma/roma_us.htm) - the first ship ever sunk by a guided weapon.

The Bismarck was sunk by torpedo fire only after being badly damaged by air attack.

Also the Tirpitz wasn't sunk in port, but while transitioning between ports.

[Mablod]

Megaraptor;2475987']

(http://www.regiamarina.net/others/roma/roma_us.htm)
The Bismarck was sunk by torpedo fire only after being badly damaged by air attack.

Also the Tirpitz wasn't sunk in port, but while transitioning between ports.

You are wrong. Tirpitz was badly damaged in Kåfjord, to the point that she was not battle worthy.
She was then transfered to Håkøya outside Tromsø, barely running on her own(although speed was reduced to about 5-7 knops out of fear that she would break apart).
Here she was planned to be used as a stationary fort.
She was dragged up very close to the shore, and big rocks was laid around her to prevent her from tip over.
This work was however not finished, and because of that and the huge craters made by the Tall Boy bombs under the ship she was able to capsize.

[martinexsquaddie]

I so want one having a sudden urge to kill the stupid road users of brighton :)

[chulo_allen]

I so want one having a sudden urge to kill the stupid road users of brighton :)
welcome little cricket of Omega

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

McDonnel XF-85A Goblin (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=586&page=2)

The funniest looking jet fighter ever created.

The XF-85 parasite aircraft was developed to protect B-36 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=360) bombers flying beyond the range of conventional escort fighters. In theory, a B-36 penetrating enemy territory would carry its protecting fighter in the bomb bay. If attacked by enemy aircraft, the bomber would lower the Goblin on a trapeze and release it to combat the attackers. After the enemy had been driven away, the parasite fighter would return to the bomber, hook onto the trapeze, fold its wings and be lifted back into the bomb bay. Although the XF-85 was successfully launched and flown from an EB-29B on several test flights, it was never successfully recovered in flight or flown from a B-36. The test program was canceled in late 1949 when mid-air refueling of fighter aircraft for range extension began to show greater promise.

[krasnayaarmiya]

WW2 Soviet anti-tank dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog):

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/Dog_mine8c3.jpg (http://imagesocket.com/view/Dog_mine8c3.jpg)
Apparently, this was not a complete failure, as the dogs did destroy tanks, BUT: "However, in 1942 one use of the anti-tank dogs went seriously awry when a large contingent of anti-tank dogs ran amok, endangering everyone in the battle and forcing the retreat of an entire Soviet division. Soon afterward the anti-tank dogs were withdrawn from service."

AWESOME

[krasnayaarmiya]

The interesting thing to note. Unless I'm mistaken, apart from Yamato, Musashi, Repulse and Prince of Wales no other battleships were sunk by enemy air attack. (Attack on Tirpitz, Taranto and Pearl excluded. Lets be honest here. A ship in port is not exactly a fair fight now is it)

Query: when since we were hunters & gatherers has war been fair?

[krasnayaarmiya]

Megaraptor;2473828']I remember reading that the US military considered a plan to create a weapon that would somehow deliver sex hormones to the enemy. The idea was that widespread homosexuality in the ranks would be bad for morale.
This was probably conceived by a latent homosexual.

[Kilgor]

Apparently, this was not a complete failure, as the dogs did destroy tanks, BUT: "However, in 1942 one use of the anti-tank dogs went seriously awry when a large contingent of anti-tank dogs ran amok, endangering everyone in the battle and forcing the retreat of an entire Soviet division. Soon afterward the anti-tank dogs were withdrawn from service."

AWESOME

And course the dogs often had a hard time telling soviet and german tanks apart. The Germans just shot every dog they came across in the SU.

[Kilgor]

The interesting thing to note. Unless I'm mistaken, apart from Yamato, Musashi, Repulse and Prince of Wales no other battleships were sunk by enemy air attack. (Attack on Tirpitz, Taranto and Pearl excluded. Lets be honest here. A ship in port is not exactly a fair fight now is it)

There is no "fair" in war :)

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's the...Rotabuggy (http://www.unrealaircraft.com/roadable/rotabuggy.php)...

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o265/WDW_Megaraptor/rotabuggy.jpg

The work of the Airborne Forces Experimental Establishment at Ringway, Manchester, on the Rotachute from 1940 onwards led to the suggestion that the free-wheeling autogyro principles employed could also be applied to larger loads. The designer, Raoul Hafner, suggested the Rotabuggy, a Jeep (or "Blitz Buggy") with rotors, and the Rotatank, a similarly modified Valentine tank. A development contract was placed with the M.L. Aviation Company at White Waltham in 1942, covered by specification 10/42.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/417/anptz4.jpg

This converted B-36 bomber (designated the NB-36H) carried an operating nuclear reactor to study how to build a nuclear-powered aircraft


Between 1946 and 1961, the Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission spent more than $7 billion trying to develop a nuclear-powered aircraft. Although no airplane ever flew under nuclear power, the Air Force converted this B-36 bomber, known as the Nuclear Test Aircraft, to carry an operating three-megawatt air-cooled reactor to assess operational problems (it made 47 flights over Texas and New Mexico between July 1955 and March 1957).

The NB-36H carried the reactor in its aft bomb bay and incorporated a new nose section, which housed a 12 ton lead and rubber shielded crew compartment with 10-12 inch (25-30 centimeters) thick leaded-glass windows. Water pockets in the fuselage and behind the crew compartment also absorbed radiation (due to weight constraints, nothing was done to shield the considerable emissions from the top, bottom or sides of the reactor).

In theory, nuclear-powered aircraft could stay in flight for weeks at a time. General Electric built two prototype engines for such a plane. These engines exist today and can be viewed outside the EBR-1 complex in Arco, Idaho.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1825/flyingreactorengineme6.jpg

Link (http://web.archive.org/web/20060302180919/http://www.radiationworks.com/flyingreactor.htm)

[Calanen]

http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/kubinka-71-maus-421b.jpg

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Maus%20tank

Also known as the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus. It was one of the few super-heavy tanks that ever got off the drawing board.

The Maus was to be a 188-tonne giant fitted with a either 75mm, 128mm or even a 170mm turret mounted gun and was planned to move at a staggering 20km/h. There were two prototypes produced, going by the appropriate names of V1/"Maus I" and V2/"Maus II".

Maus I, the first turret-less prototype was completed on Christmas Eve of 1943 and was put through extensive testing. Powering its bulk was an altered Daimler-Benz MB 509 engine which could produce almost 500 horsepower, but yet was only able to move the Maus I at about 13km/h, or 5mp/h. This was not the only problem with its weight -- other weight issues were the suspension and the fact that no bridges anywhere could support its 180,000 pound mass and it had to be fitted with a snorkel so it could be driven underwater (yes, it was air-tight).

The second prototype, Maus II, was completed in mid-1944 and unlike its forebearer, included a working turret complete with 128mm and 75mm guns (which could penetrate most tank armour at over 3500 metres) and a powerplant provided by Porsche, and later replaced by another Daimler-Benz Diesel.

Upon the defeat of the Reich, several unfinished turrets and frames were discovered, and a fully assembled Maus (V2 turret on a V1 hull) is on display at the Museum of Armored Forces in Kubinka, Russia.