Military Review

Bad NATO Weapons: How the West Failed Some Military Developments

13

Every country or company that produces weapons - from submachine guns to fifth-generation fighters - has its most unsuccessful projects. Of course, the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, the probable adversaries of Russia, did not escape this fate. In terms of the number of failed developments, the leader, of course, is the American military industry, since the United States produces the largest amount of Western weapons as a whole.


Let's figure out what developments in the military sphere the West failed.

Not so long ago, the National Interest magazine recalled the BAT homing warhead, developed during the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. The Pentagon dreamed that with one missile it would be possible to destroy several Soviet tanks... But it turned out that dreams and reality are still different things: the project was frozen, and then completely closed due to insolvency.

The self-propelled howitzer Crusader was announced as a weapon capable of firing up to 10 rounds per minute and was considered by the creators as an alternative to the well-known M109 system.

However, the howitzer was too heavy, which reduced its maneuverability. The command of the American army insisted on lighter weapons. As a result, the project was closed, although more than $ 2 billion was spent on its implementation.

Bad NATO Weapons: How the West Failed Some Military Developments

Self-propelled howitzer XM2001 Crusader

Another interesting unsuccessful example of the development of new weapons can be called the XM-29 rifle-grenade launcher complex, which was developed by specialists from both the United States and Germany: the American company Alliant Techsystems and the German company Heckler & Koch. However, this time even the vaunted German gunsmiths were unable to design a complex that could be effectively used on the battlefield.

So, it turned out that the operator could work with it only from a prone position, and the solid weight of 10 kg excluded the possibility of its quick use. Another popularized project also ordered to live long - the XM-25 computerized grenade launcher, the cost of which was so high that even the American army could not afford its massive use.

One cannot but recall the failed attempt to modernize the M1 Abrams main battle tank. The American military had claims to this combat vehicle for a long time, although it was used for many years in almost all armed conflicts in which the American ground forces participated. At a certain period, the American command decided to replace the tank with lighter and more mobile vehicles that could show greater efficiency in armed conflicts of a local nature, for example, in the Middle East.

A competition was announced to create a machine for the MPF (Mobile Protected Firepower) project, in which two companies won - BAE Systems and General Dynamics. The first presented the reissued M8 tank, the second - a self-propelled combat vehicle with a 120-mm gun. In April 2020, the Griffin 2 tank was officially presented, however, skeptical assessments of the prospects for the serial production of this vehicle immediately began to be heard in the expert community. According to the most optimistic forecast, a new tank of the American army may appear only in a few years, but not less than in three years.

These examples are far from a complete list of failed projects of the American army over the past decades. At the same time, it is possible that in the future, arms companies will also offer projects that are obviously unsuitable for mass production, and Pentagon officials will first admire them and then reject them.
Author:
Photos used:
Twitter / Jimkir78; http://www.pica.army.mil
13 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. credo
    credo 4 December 2020 14: 23
    +18
    Well, what can I add here, but perhaps only one thing - "He who does nothing, he never makes mistakes."
  2. Bolt cutter
    Bolt cutter 4 December 2020 14: 57
    0
    Who does not take risks does not drink chifir champagne yes
    1. Shiva83483
      Shiva83483 4 December 2020 21: 11
      +3
      and whoever takes a risk ... it happens and boiling water is happy in the Mari ASSR
  3. Vladimir Butusov
    Vladimir Butusov 4 December 2020 15: 06
    +2
    And what about the B-117 stealth bomber? This is not a grenade launcher for you.
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 4 December 2020 16: 59
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir Butusov
      And what about the B-117 stealth bomber?

      This plane was not a womber from the word at all. This "lame goblin" - the airfield nickname in the USAF, was designated as F-117, the full name of Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, where the letter F stands for Fighter-fighter. The fact that it was used as a strike aircraft is another matter. The F-105 "Thunderchiff" was also listed as a fighter, but was reputed to be the best and most reliable strike aircraft during the US aggression in Vietnam, by the way, the losses of the 105th in Vietnam amounted to almost half - 395 out of 833 produced, including prototypes ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 9 December 2020 08: 21
        0
        What is it? Well, tell me, what is the name of the plane, all the armament of which consists of 2 bombs of 905 kg each?
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 4 December 2020 15: 14
    +3
    Everything is very, very bad with them, there is absolutely nothing to fight with ... smile
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 4 December 2020 17: 05
      -1
      Quote: parusnik
      Everything is very, very bad with them, there is absolutely nothing to fight with.

      Yes, our pilots talked about the armament of air defense units in about the same way, when during the exercises they had to simulate a strike on objects covered by the S-300 air defense systems, or the same air defense officers when they were training to repel enemy air raids, on our regiment laughing good drinks
  5. iouris
    iouris 4 December 2020 16: 49
    +1
    Here! Finally, something positive has appeared.
  6. tank64rus
    tank64rus 4 December 2020 17: 05
    +3
    Long live the military lobby and the cut of the American budget. Then again the hand of the Kremlin will say and the terrible Russian hackers have filled up all our projects.
  7. Basarev
    Basarev 4 December 2020 17: 09
    +4
    Suffice it to say that the Union also had failures, while modern Russia has so many unsuccessful models that it is easier to list those that could.
  8. Cowbra
    Cowbra 4 December 2020 19: 46
    0
    It would be easier to list what has taken off for them in 30 years. I got hooked on someone with my tongue six months ago, sat and thought. could remember only submarines Virginia, and then they count the times of the Cold War design. And that's it, there is nothing more to remember ...
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 5 December 2020 05: 32
    0
    Armament during the Cold War (and now Cold War 2.0 is even cooler than it was under the USSR) is a colossal commercial project, the purpose of which is not only preparation for war. Money, a lot of money from the budget, feeds firms engaged in some kind of development, correct, incorrect, but the bottom line will be ... Under the USSR there were "boxes" (closed research institutes) in which a lot of developments were carried out, very strange, on at first glance ... There are no such organizations in the USA, but the work still needs to be done ...