The worst that ever was...

[Vespers War]

In a similar vein to "The best that never was," how about a thread for the flawed, the poorly executed, or just the badly designed weapons and vehicles of the past?

My first contribution is the World War II era A38 Valiant. Intended as an assault tank for use by British forces in Asia, it was intended to combine minimum weight with maximum armor. Equipped with a 6-pdr gun (with 55 rounds), a pair of Besa machineguns, and a 210 horsepower 2-stroke diesel, the 27 ton vehicle was slow, lumbering, and had vicious flaws that possibly could have been worked out, but weren't worth the effort. Excessively heavy clutches wore out the driver in an hour, the gear lever had a tendency to whip when downshifting, the turret was bolted, and the ground clearance was too low. Its top speed of 12 miles per hour on pavement was lethargic

A38 Valiant
Crew 3
Tr Mov 29/14
Com Mov 6/3
Fuel Cap 238
Fuel Cons 119
Maint 14
HF 23 HS 20 HR 15
TF 23 TS 20 TR 7

QF 6pdr (57mm) L/50
Rng 380
HE C3, B13, Pen 2C
KE Dam 13, Pen 10-9-7-5

If this had been developed five years earlier and the flaws worked out, it might have been useful as a colonial tank, given Japanese armored doctrine. It would have still been slow and short-legged, but nearly invulnerable to Japanese tank guns and with a gun powerful enough to be effective against any Japanese tank.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Wasn't the Valiant the tank that, so it was claimed, if the driver's foot slipped off the pedals, it would become trapped under them? The rumour was that he would be trapped because of this and would have to have his foot amputated to release him.
I'm assuming that while there's probably truth in the claim that it wasn't quite as drastic as all that... however, any vehicle that has that sort of claim levelled against it, well, it's probably not a vehicle worth dealing with!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Wasn't the Valiant the tank that, so it was claimed, if the driver's foot slipped off the pedals, it would become trapped under them? The rumour was that he would be trapped because of this and would have to have his foot amputated to release him.

Yes it is. It was so terrible to drive it didn't even make it to the test area for the suspension test (pretty much the first thing that's done) before the driver got out and refused to go another inch, and the officer in charge called the whole thing off. The vehicle was left where it was and towed the 13 miles back to the workshop later where it was pulled apart and inspected. Almost anything you can imagine could be wrong, was.

It's so bad it makes the Sentinel look good. https://youtu.be/uPFHr18pt3Q

[pmulcahy11b]

Weapons-wise, we have the horrible Chauchat light machinegun, called by many who had to use it The Worst Weapon Ever Inflicted Upon the Infantry. The mechanism jammed regularly, often to the point where it had to be field-stripped to get it running again; it was prone to double-feeds, the magazine has large open slots, meant to allow the gunner to see how much ammo he had left; in the trenches of France, the slots merely meant that the ammo inside got very dirty and muddy and fed this dirt into the chamber, leading to more stoppages, and the 8mm Lebel magazines were large, heavy, clumsy, and difficult to load into the weapon due to their pronounced curve. The US Marines used them, since the BAR was not ready and would not be until near the very end of the war, but theirs were rechambered for .30-06. The Chauchat did not react well to the new ammo and this caused frequent failures to feed and extract; in addition, the new magazines did not fit well. Most gunners simply threw them away in disgust or used some of the newer French designs which were beginning to make their appearance late in the war. The unit armorers were always pissed trying to fix the Chauchats. I'm sure many gunners died due to failures at the wrong moment. All in all, a bad joke for the infantry.

[copeab]

The 8mm Lebel cartridge was terrible for self-loading and automatic weapons.

The British 95mm Infantry Howitzer of 1942 is perhaps a classic example of how not to design a weapon. In 1942, a decision was made by the British to design a new support howitzer for the infantry. The gun was made up of parts from several existing weapons, including a 94mm anti-aircraft gun, a 25-pdr field gun and 6-pdr anti-tank gun. Despite being listed as a 95mm weapon, it was actually 94mm, and used the HE and smoke shells of the old 94mm pack howitzer. Not surprisingly, this mishmash of components had problems, not the least of which that the cradle (from the 6-pdr AT gun) was really too light for the job. Also, the gun was designed to be broken down into 10 loads for pack transport, but it was discovered that repeated firings could shake the parts loose. All this could possibly have been overcome if not for one problem. No one had yet asked the infantry if they actually wanted the weapon; when they were finally asked, the answer was “No.” The infantry was quite happy with their support weapons and weren’t interested in a one-ton howitzer. This finally killed the project. Several hundred had been built, but only a few were ever used in action (mostly in field trials). Almost all were scrapped after the war.

Weight: 1.05 tons
Range: 8,000 yards

[dragoon500ly]

My vote for one of the worst tanks is the World War Two Cruiser Tank Mark V Covenanter.

Designed as a replacement for the Cruiser Tank Mark IV, with thicker armor. It was designed in 1938-39 and one of the features was a new designed 12-cylinder horizontally opposed power plant. It was an excellent idea, developing 340hp, but it was a large engine and almost totally filled up the engine compartment, leaving no room for the radiators. The rushed design process left several problems with the most serious being engine cooling. The solution was to mount the radiators on the left front of the hull, with the coolant pipes running through the crew compartment. This resulted in the crew compartment becoming a rolling sauna.

The Covenanter as a gun tank, never served outside the British Isles. The only versions that saw combat service was the Covenanter Observation Post and the Covenanter Bridgelayer.

[swaghauler]

The "goat" (gamma-goat) was responsible for more accidents than any other vehicle when I first joined the Army.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Weapons-wise, we have the horrible Chauchat light machinegun, called by many who had to use it The Worst Weapon Ever Inflicted Upon the Infantry. The mechanism jammed regularly, often to the point where it had to be field-stripped to get it running again; it was prone to double-feeds, the magazine has large open slots, meant to allow the gunner to see how much ammo he had left; in the trenches of France, the slots merely meant that the ammo inside got very dirty and muddy and fed this dirt into the chamber, leading to more stoppages, and the 8mm Lebel magazines were large, heavy, clumsy, and difficult to load into the weapon due to their pronounced curve. The US Marines used them, since the BAR was not ready and would not be until near the very end of the war, but theirs were rechambered for .30-06. The Chauchat did not react well to the new ammo and this caused frequent failures to feed and extract; in addition, the new magazines did not fit well. Most gunners simply threw them away in disgust or used some of the newer French designs which were beginning to make their appearance late in the war. The unit armorers were always pissed trying to fix the Chauchats. I'm sure many gunners died due to failures at the wrong moment. All in all, a bad joke for the infantry.

From what I've heard from people who have fired them, the 8mm Chauchat is a slightly below average gun with odd recoil (due to using a long recoil system) and that nasty tendency to get clogged with gunk from the open magazine that you noted (75% of stoppages were magazine problems). Closed magazines were made in mid-1918, but didn't make it to the front before the end of the war. They'd also jam if overheated because the heat would cause parts to swell and the recoil system would get stuck at full recoil. The ones built by Gladiator mostly had defective sights; SIDARME built much better (but far fewer) guns.

The .30-06 version is the true disaster. All of them were made by Gladiator, and many had poorly reamed chambers and out-of-tolerance machined parts. At least 40% were rejected by inspectors, and even those that passed inspection sometimes had chamber dimensions that caused extraction problems (on top of the dirt and overheating and sights issues).

The Belgians and Poles, who converted their Chauchats to 7.65mm and 7.92mm Mauser (the FM 15/27 and RKM wz 15/27 respectively), kept them until the 1930s because when it was converted for use with rimless rounds, the Chauchat was mostly reliable.

What's really horrifying is the monstrosity that is the Chauchat-Ribeyrolles, a cut-down Chauchat intended for use as a PDW. Luckily, the war ended before it finished trials.

In the end, the Chauchat's flaws do leave one to wonder what would have happened if the French had converted over to (rimless) 7x59mm Meunier before the war. They had planned to replace the Lebel with the STA A6, a semi-automatic rifle fed from stripper clips, but delays in development of the ammunition meant they had just completed the first batch of 1,000 rifles when war broke out and France decided not to switch calibers mid-war. With an easier-to-stack round that could be put in a straight, closed box magazine, at least some of the flaws in the Chauchat could have been mitigated like they were with the switch to Mauser rounds.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

the M60 had a cupola-mounted .50 cal, controlled from the inside. The M85. They were also mounted on LVTP-7s.

The thing wasn't fired with a trigger, but rather a pull chain that actuated a solenoid. It was incredibly unreliable, and if you had to clear a jam, had a tendency to fall to pieces, usually with one of the springs in the gun firing important parts all over creation.

Infantry versions with spade grips were tested, to replace the M2, but they were widely hated.

Oh, and the ammunition linkage (despite the rounds being .50 cal) weren't compatible with the M2. I heard that the military still had a few million rounds sitting in storage, but that could be apocryphal.

But yeah, that thing sucked.

[Olefin]

We put that remote controlled .50 cal on the M88A2 as well - but with a lot better system than a pull chain - that sounds like a screw up waiting to happen

[unkated]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Oh, and the ammunition linkage (despite the rounds being .50 cal) weren't compatible with the M2. I heard that the military still had a few million rounds sitting in storage, but that could be apocryphal.

Make it an easy to picture punishment detail for an offending soldier (or low-ranking private) to spend several hours a days in T2K taking these apart to harvest the .50 cal.

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

a lot of the salvage jobs are going to be really tedious - everything from trying to strip every useable part you can get out of old wrecks to policing brass for reloads

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Punishment detail aside, that's an interesting question. In the chaos of post-strike supply shipments to Europe (what tiny few there were), let's say you wound up with a few cases of this ammo, and also an M85. Would it be better to make do with the finicky gun until the ammo was spent, or spend the time relinking the ammo to use in an M2...hmm...decisions, decisions.

But anyway, back to the worst that ever was...what about the Dragon ATGM? Woof. Huge backblast signature, big kick, terrible minimum range...like all things if it's all you have, then you use it, but man if it's hump that or a Javelin, I know which one I'm taking.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Punishment detail aside, that's an interesting question. In the chaos of post-strike supply shipments to Europe (what tiny few there were), let's say you wound up with a few cases of this ammo, and also an M85. Would it be better to make do with the finicky gun until the ammo was spent, or spend the time relinking the ammo to use in an M2...hmm...decisions, decisions.

But anyway, back to the worst that ever was...what about the Dragon ATGM? Woof. Huge backblast signature, big kick, terrible minimum range...like all things if it's all you have, then you use it, but man if it's hump that or a Javelin, I know which one I'm taking.

As for the M85 and ammo, first do I have a M2, if so then yes I would spend the time relinking the ammo, if I did not then I would have to try and make the best of what I had.

I can not say if the Dragon is a good weapon or not never having used it, but just guessing as it was designed in 1966 I am guessing it is a first generation ATGM, and looking at it from that light it looks decent to me, having good penetration, accuracy, and for the day range.

I was going to say that of course everyone would take something that was designed 23 years later, but then I thought about the M2/M85 and made me think, but still for the most part with some exceptions like the M2 I would still the newer better over the older, assuming it does something different and is not experimental.

[Vespers War]

Another fun World War I oddity is the Grenade No. 12. Also known as the "hairbrush" grenade, it had a pound of ammonal (ammonium nitrate and aluminum) in a box strapped to a handle, with a total weight of 3 pounds (1.36 kilos). Due to this high mass, it can only be thrown 3/4 of a character's normal throw distance. It's a C:4 concussive grenade and is equipped with a 5-second time fuze. It's so bulky, heavy, and clumsy that it's just an absurd weapon. They apparently were carried using a string through a hole in the handle, and a (posed) picture exists of a Frenchman with at least 7 of these grenades, a total of almost 10 kilograms of grenade. They entered service in spring 1915, and I believe left service at the end of that year.

[Matt Wiser]

Don't forget Naval Aviation's worst from the jet age: the F7U "Gutless" Cutlass. Also known as the Ramp Monster, Ensign Eliminator, etc. Wally Schirra, who flew it in his test pilot days, called it a "Widow Maker." Underpowered engines and prone to ramp strikes when landing on carriers.....

[Olefin]

How about the Sheridan light tank - that has to be close to the top of the list for worst ever weapons system

[dragoon500ly]

The M-60A2 was right up there with the Sheridan.

[Vespers War]

The Norinco Type 62 probably deserves a mention as well. A lightened Type 59 (China's T-54/55 knock-off), it had 50mm of armor on the turret, 35mm on the glacis, and 15mm everywhere else. The 85mm main cannon is not stabilized and typically fires around 3 rounds per minute. Maximum road speed is 60 km/h, with a top off-road speed of 35 km/h. It did have a low-light periscope - with a 50 meter visual range. Unlike the Sheridan, it was not amphibious. Like the Sheridan, any sort of infantry-portable anti-tank weapon would go right through the armor. It was intended for use in mountains and other undeveloped terrain where a MBT couldn't go, but it was found to be too vulnerable even in those regions.

[Adm.Lee]

In an RPG, I encountered a historical Austro-Hungarian 19th century breechloading rifle, that needed an absurdly large number of actions to reload. Can't remember the name of it.

In a book on US infantry weapons of WW1, there was a blurry photo of a bayonet-mount flamethrower. It only had fuel for one squirt, but the idea was obviously to shoot it as one had closed up on a German trench or MG nest. I was appalled at the idea of multiple soldiers firing these about the same time in the heat of action, much less trying to cross no-man's-land with an extra weight at the long end of their rifles?

[swaghauler]

How could such a thread exist since February WITHOUT ANY MENTION of the Gammagoat? I'll bet that this vehicular monstrosity has injured or killed more soldiers than IEDs did. There are only THREE types of Gammagoat driver;
* Those who have rolled one.
* Those who will roll one.
* Those who have rolled one but won't admit it.

[cawest]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

How could such a thread exist since February WITHOUT ANY MENTION of the Gammagoat? I'll bet that this vehicular monstrosity has injured or killed more soldiers than IEDs did. There are only THREE types of Gammagoat driver;
* Those who have rolled one.
* Those who will roll one.
* Those who have rolled one but won't admit it.

as someone who had to drive one. I do not fall into those three cats. maybe it was because I only used it on a flight line as a helo tug. that was quite bad enough. while I have not rolled one, I have jack knifed them a few times. But they or the helo never rolled over. AHHH the true 9th circle. back up a ah-64 into an almost full hangar with one of those little monsters because of a wind storm.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

In an RPG, I encountered a historical Austro-Hungarian 19th century breechloading rifle, that needed an absurdly large number of actions to reload. Can't remember the name of it.

If it was a military rifle, the pre-bolt-action breechloaders in use were the Wanzl and the Werndl. The Wanzl was a trapdoor rifle (flip open, dump spent round, load rimfire cartridge, close, cock, fire), while the Werndl was a rotary-breech rifle (rotate breech to the right, dump spent round, load round, rotate breech to the left, cock, fire). I've seen video of both in use, and for single-shot rifles they're not terribly slow. Anything with a magazine is obviously far quicker, but neither of these would have needed multiple GDW rounds to reload.

Austria-Hungary started transitioning to bolt-actions in 1872 with the Fruwirth Carbine, and adopted bolt-action long rifles with the 1881 Kropatschek before switching to Mannlicher in 1885.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

In a book on US infantry weapons of WW1, there was a blurry photo of a bayonet-mount flamethrower. It only had fuel for one squirt, but the idea was obviously to shoot it as one had closed up on a German trench or MG nest. I was appalled at the idea of multiple soldiers firing these about the same time in the heat of action, much less trying to cross no-man's-land with an extra weight at the long end of their rifles?

There's reference to these in The Springfield 1903 by William S. Brophy, but I only found a limited preview online. The Flaming Bayonet Mk III used 5 or 6 (sources vary) .44 caliber cases filled with incendiary mixture; the liquid version was the Mark I. Apparently they were capable of shots up to 10 meters, but the Army Chemical Service stopped experimenting with them as the war ended. Weights for various rifle-mounted flamethrowers ranged from 5/8 of a pound to 4.5 pounds.

[copeab]

I'm going to go with a controversial one:

The FG-42

Yes, this was a marvel of engineering, being a rare rifle-caliber weapon controllable from the shoulder in automatic fire. However, it was excessively expensive, served no purpose by the time it entered production (the Fallshirmjagers were ground-based light infantry by 1942 and no longer needed a gun that combined the 98k and MG-34 for air-drops), and was inferior to another gun developed at the same time (the Mkb 42(H), the first step in the StG-44 line, which was cheaper and an ideal paratrooper weapon, anyway).

[swaghauler]

If we are talking about modern equipment too, I'd include the LCS program. The Zumwalt, the F35, and the new Ford-Class carriers are all "technology demonstrators" with the associated "teething problems." The LCS or "Little Crappy Ships" are fairly conventional but totally unreliable and 100% over budget. The Navy has deployed ONE Independence Class ship successfully since 2012. The Navy now wants to ditch the LCS and move onto a proper Frigate. These ships don't even work as minesweepers (their primary mission design). With 2 30mm cannon (single-barreled but firing the A10's GAU 8 rounds), 1 57mm Cannon, and a single RAM (rolling airframe missile) Launcher (11 rounds on the Independence and 21 on the Freedom Class) with a range of 10km, they cannot even defend themselves from most Russian or Chinese Corvettes. I guess the Navy CAN bolt 8 Harpoon Launchers to their decks but with no Standard or Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles for AA defense, they are sitting ducks for enemy ASh missiles.