History AwesomeButImpractical / Military

24th Jun '17 8:58:37 AM Bruhathkayo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In general, most non-carrier nuclear powered surface ships, though in the 21st century, some have argued that nuclear cruisers and destroyers might actually be cost-effective in an era of extremely high oil prices. Gas turbine-powered vessels are, generally speaking, much more efficient than steam-powered (even nuclear steam-powered) ones due to their higher operating temperatures; carriers only get a pass in this regard due to the need for steam to power their aircraft-launching catapults. And to a lesser extent, because not having to carry any fuel oil for the engines means there's more room to store jet fuel and/or munitions for the aircraft.
** One major factor has been overlooked: with nuclear power, a ship very rarely needs to refuel. A modern nuclear supercarrier can go up to 25 years without needing to refuel. While the aircraft on board the carrier still need oil-based fuels, the warship itself is unburdened by long supply lines or oil shortages. This also gives the carrier unlimited range anywhere on the oceans. Unfortunately, this is much less important because the carrier still has to refuel its aircraft. Not using fuel for propulsion only increases aircraft fuel capacity by about 25%.
27th May '17 1:48:13 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Combat Helicopters in general. True, they can carry awesome firepower, are more versatile than fixed-wing aircraft and can fly low and slow where fixed-wing planes cannot, but they have two fatal fault points: engine and rotors. Alike all aircraft, helicopters need to be light to fly, and any additional armour means weight, compromising performance, and engine and rotors cannot be protected. Moreover, to be effective. the helicopter must hover low, slow and close to enemy, leaving it vulnerable to infantry small arms fire, anti-aircraft artillery, anti-aircraft missiles and ''even to [[ImprobableWeaponUsage shoulder-launched anti-tank rockets]]'' such as Bazooka or RPG! US forces lost roughly 50% of its helicopter strength as battle casualties in VietnamWar, and the USSR helicopter casualties in Afghanistan and Syria have been heavy.

to:

* Combat Helicopters in general. True, they can carry awesome firepower, are more versatile than fixed-wing aircraft and can fly low and slow where fixed-wing planes cannot, but they have two fatal fault points: engine and rotors. Alike all aircraft, helicopters need to be light to fly, and any additional armour means weight, compromising performance, and engine and rotors cannot be protected. Moreover, to be effective. the helicopter must hover low, slow and close to enemy, leaving it vulnerable to infantry small arms fire, anti-aircraft artillery, anti-aircraft missiles and ''even to [[ImprobableWeaponUsage shoulder-launched anti-tank rockets]]'' such as Bazooka or RPG! US forces lost roughly 50% of its helicopter strength as battle casualties in VietnamWar, UsefulNotes/TheVietnamWar, and the USSR helicopter casualties in Afghanistan and Syria have been heavy.
22nd May '17 5:45:27 PM Shadeblade11
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Gyrojet gun fired tiny rocket-propelled bullets and was cool enough to showcase in the Bond film ''Film/YouOnlyLiveTwice'', but rocket propulsion caused problems. Rather than starting fast and slowing down, it started slow and built up speed. This meant that within a certain range, the bullet would not be moving fast enough to do any significant damage, and it was reportedly possible to prevent the fired projectile from leaving the barrel just by covering the end of it with your ''bare thumb''. They were also both more difficult to manufacture and much more expensive than conventional bullets, costing several dollars per round. Finally, air turbulence resulting from the transition from subsonic to supersonic speed effectively destroyed its accuracy. So, lack of power at short range, and lack of accuracy at long range. While later designs have ameliorated some of these problems, they remain more curiosities than practical weapons.

to:

* The [[RareGuns Gyrojet gun gun]] fired tiny rocket-propelled bullets and was cool enough to showcase in the Bond film ''Film/YouOnlyLiveTwice'', but rocket propulsion caused problems. Rather than starting fast and slowing down, it started slow and built up speed. This meant that within a certain range, the bullet would not be moving fast enough to do any significant damage, and it was reportedly possible to prevent the fired projectile from leaving the barrel just by covering the end of it with your ''bare thumb''. They were also both more difficult to manufacture and much more expensive than conventional bullets, costing several dollars per round. Finally, air turbulence resulting from the transition from subsonic to supersonic speed effectively destroyed its accuracy. So, lack of power at short range, and lack of accuracy at long range. While later designs have ameliorated some of these problems, they remain more curiosities than practical weapons.
14th May '17 11:39:54 PM Sylderon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Project Babylon was Iraq's attempt to build a supergun that would have rivaled the Nazis' V-3 project. The project would have called for the construction of 2 1000mm cannons and a 350mm prototype, each 156 meters long. The full size cannons would have been capable of firing conventional shells over 1000 kilometers, or firing rocket assisted shells straight ''into orbit''. The guns' intended uses were to either deliver nuclear, biological, or chemical tipped warheads or to disable enemy satellites. However, like the V-3, the Babylon guns suffered from the drawback of being locked into facing a single direction, as well as being gigantic and impossible to hide; one commentator dismissed it's threat, saying that after a few shots, the [[IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Israeli Air Force]] would quickly put a laser-guided bomb right down the muzzle. The gun was so impractical the Israelis never considered it a serious threat. The project ground to a halt after its lead designer was assassinated (whether by Israel or Iran remains uncertain; both were more concerned with his simultaneous work on improving the accuracy of Iraq's ballistic missiles), and the guns were dismantled and destroyed by the UN after the First Iraq War.

to:

* Project Babylon was Iraq's attempt to build a supergun that would have rivaled the Nazis' V-3 project. The project would have called for the construction of 2 1000mm cannons and a 350mm prototype, each 156 meters long. The full size cannons would have been capable of firing conventional shells over 1000 kilometers, or firing rocket assisted shells straight ''into orbit''. The guns' intended uses were to either deliver nuclear, biological, or chemical tipped warheads or to disable enemy satellites. However, like the V-3, the Babylon guns suffered from the drawback of being locked into facing a single direction, as well as being gigantic and impossible to hide; one commentator dismissed it's threat, saying that hide. The gun was so impractical the Israelis never considered it a serious threat; after a few shots, the [[IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Israeli Air Force]] would quickly put a laser-guided bomb right down the muzzle. The gun was so impractical the Israelis never considered it a serious threat.muzzle. The project ground to a halt after its lead designer was assassinated (whether by Israel or Iran remains uncertain; both were more concerned with his simultaneous work on improving the accuracy of Iraq's ballistic missiles), and the guns were dismantled and destroyed by the UN after the First Iraq War.
14th May '17 11:38:37 PM Sylderon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Project Babylon was Iraq's attempt to build a supergun that would have rivaled the Nazis' V-3 project. The project would have called for the construction of 2 1000mm cannons and a 350mm prototype, each 156 meters long. The full size cannons would have been capable of firing conventional shells over 1000 kilometers, or firing rocket assisted shells straight ''into orbit''. The guns' intended uses were to either deliver nuclear, biological, or chemical tipped warheads or to disable enemy satellites. However, like the V-3, the Babylon guns suffered from the drawback of being locked into facing a single direction, as well as being gigantic and impossible to hide. The gun was so impractical the Israelis never considered it a serious threat. The project ground to a halt after its lead designer was assassinated (whether by Israel or Iran remains uncertain; both were more concerned with his simultaneous work on improving the accuracy of Iraq's ballistic missiles), and the guns were dismantled and destroyed by the UN after the First Iraq War.

to:

* Project Babylon was Iraq's attempt to build a supergun that would have rivaled the Nazis' V-3 project. The project would have called for the construction of 2 1000mm cannons and a 350mm prototype, each 156 meters long. The full size cannons would have been capable of firing conventional shells over 1000 kilometers, or firing rocket assisted shells straight ''into orbit''. The guns' intended uses were to either deliver nuclear, biological, or chemical tipped warheads or to disable enemy satellites. However, like the V-3, the Babylon guns suffered from the drawback of being locked into facing a single direction, as well as being gigantic and impossible to hide.hide; one commentator dismissed it's threat, saying that after a few shots, the [[IsraelisWithInfraredMissiles Israeli Air Force]] would quickly put a laser-guided bomb right down the muzzle. The gun was so impractical the Israelis never considered it a serious threat. The project ground to a halt after its lead designer was assassinated (whether by Israel or Iran remains uncertain; both were more concerned with his simultaneous work on improving the accuracy of Iraq's ballistic missiles), and the guns were dismantled and destroyed by the UN after the First Iraq War.
14th May '17 7:30:21 PM Sylderon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It's worse than that - it lacks the air-to-ground ability of fighter-bombers already in use, and lacks the air-to-air ability of the F-22. At this point, it's being pushed ahead more because of a [[SunkCostFallacy "we've invested so much already we can't stop now"]] attitude than any real demonstration of success. On the other hand, we don't know if all the onboard computers would simultaneously have a stroke upon crossing the international date line or if the oxygen system will randomly crap out and suffocate pilots, both of which have happened to the F-22.
* In World War 2, Japan actually deployed balloons to drop bombs. They tied bombs to high altitude balloons that would ride the natural air currents across the Pacific, at which point a built-in timer would release the payload and bomb whatever happened to be below. In a sense, they were successful, being the only attempt by an Axis power in WWII to directly bomb the Continental US that actually ''hit''. On the other hand, the carried bombs were too small and too widely-dispersed to reliably hit anything of strategic value, making them useless as anything other than a terror weapon. A family of six in Oregon killed by one of the bombs are the only known civilian deaths in the US during the war directly caused by enemy action.
** The notorious Unit 731 of the Japanese Army perfected a system to drop plague-carrying fleas via the same balloons, but the US managed to locate and destroy the launch facilities before it was ready. It wouldn't have really done much damage in the scale of the carnage occurring at the time, but would have been awkward and messy to contain had a plague outbreak started in a major west-coast city.

to:

** It's worse than that - it lacks the air-to-ground ability of fighter-bombers already in use, and lacks the air-to-air ability of the F-22. At this point, it's being pushed ahead more because of a [[SunkCostFallacy "we've invested so much already we can't stop now"]] attitude than any real demonstration of success. On the other hand, we don't know if all the onboard computers would simultaneously have a stroke upon crossing the international date line International Date Line or if the oxygen system will randomly crap out and suffocate pilots, both of which have happened to the F-22.
* In World War 2, Japan actually deployed balloons to drop bombs. They tied bombs to high altitude balloons that would ride the natural air currents across the Pacific, at which point a built-in timer would release the payload and bomb whatever happened to be below. In a sense, they were successful, being the only attempt by an Axis power in WWII to directly bomb the Continental US that actually ''hit''. On the other hand, the carried bombs were too small and too widely-dispersed to reliably hit anything of strategic value, making them useless as anything other than a terror weapon. weapon, although the Japanese did also develop incendiary bombs, with the aim to start forest fires. A family of six in Oregon killed by one of the bombs are the only known civilian deaths in the US during the war directly caused by enemy action.
action.
** The notorious Unit 731 of the Japanese Army perfected a system to drop plague-carrying fleas via the same balloons, but the US managed to locate and destroy bomb the launch facilities before it was ready. It wouldn't have really done much damage in the scale of the carnage occurring at the time, but would have been awkward and messy to contain had a plague outbreak started in a major west-coast city.



* The jetpack, sadly, turned out to be this. Starting with the Germans in the later years of WWII, several nations attempted to build a practical jetpack for military purposes. (Though contrary to popular belief, the earliest designs were intended for short jumps rather than sustained flight. Enough to bounce over a minefield or quickly cross a river.) And sure enough, many of the designs did work. They were just too impractical. The engines were incredibly loud, they could only fly for a short time (20-30 seconds), and the pilot could get a nasty burn on his legs if he wasn't careful (not to mention he could ''break'' his legs if he wasn't careful coming down). Ultimately all the military applications jetpacks might have had could be done using easier, cheaper, and safer (though sometimes slower) methods. So while working jetpacks do exist, barring a revolutionary new discovery in small-scale rocket propulsion they are doomed to an eternity as scientific curiosities.

to:

* The jetpack, sadly, turned out to be this. Starting with [[StupidJetpackHitler the Germans in the later years of WWII, WWII]], several nations attempted to build a practical jetpack for military purposes. (Though contrary to popular belief, the earliest designs were intended for short jumps rather than sustained flight. Enough to bounce over a minefield or quickly cross a river.) And sure enough, many of the designs did work. They were just too impractical. The engines were incredibly loud, they could only fly for a short time (20-30 seconds), and the pilot could get a nasty burn on his legs if he wasn't careful (not to mention he could ''break'' his legs if he wasn't careful coming down). Ultimately all the military applications jetpacks might have had could be done using easier, cheaper, and safer (though sometimes slower) methods. So while working jetpacks do exist, barring a revolutionary new discovery in small-scale rocket propulsion they are doomed to an eternity as scientific curiosities.



** The 50's and 60's also saw the US military experiment with one-man helicopter-like flying platforms, which likewise proved possible but not ''practical''. They could stay aloft longer than a jetpack, but only introduced a new problem: soldiers floating above a battlefield are little more than horribly exposed targets begging for someone to shoot them, old-fashioned ground based infantry at least have the luxury of taking cover behind something.

to:

** The 50's and 60's also saw the US military experiment with one-man helicopter-like flying platforms, which likewise proved possible but not ''practical''. They could stay aloft longer than a jetpack, but only introduced a new problem: soldiers floating above a battlefield are little more than horribly exposed targets begging for someone to shoot them, old-fashioned them. Old-fashioned ground based infantry at least have the luxury of taking cover behind something. something.
14th May '17 2:37:58 PM Sylderon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Convair B-36 "Peacemaker" long-range atomic bomber, which kept the balance of power during the cold war and looked positively badass. When everyone was switching to jets Convair used six huge radial engines[[note]]There was actually solid reasoning behind this. The B-36 was intended to make a nonstop flight to the Soviet Union, carrying the very bulky atomic bombs of the time, and get back to the US. The jet engines of the time were such gas-guzzlers that an all-jet plane of that size would have a significantly-reduced payload to carry all the extra fuel, or would require in-flight refueling.[[/note]] - which turned out to be maintenance nightmares, both for their inherent complexity (the ground crews loathed replacing all fifty-six sparkplugs ''in each engine'') and because they were never meant to be mounted in a pusher configuration, resulting in many failures (when your plane losing an engine is considered so routine that ''the mission is allowed to continue as if nothing happened'', you know you have a problem). And for all that the plane was still underpowered, so they eventually fitted four additional jet engines to compensate, though they were normally only used for takeoff and shut down while cruising to conserve fuel. The B-36 also featured an innovative control-by-wire system for the engines... but no mechanical backups, so if the electrics failed you were screwed. And the electronics were mounted in delicate housings that would shake themselves apart under the vibrations caused by the turret guns. Even after the design was tweaked and bludgeoned into some kind of functionality, it still had a tendency to spring oil and fuel leaks all over the place or abruptly catch fire. It got retired ten years after its creation, while its Soviet counterpart the [[BearsAreBadNews Tu-95]] ''[[NATOReportingNames Bear]]'' is [[BadassGrandpa still in use today]] and is predicted to stay in production for ''several more decades''. Then again, it could carry ''ten times'' the payload of the famous B-17 Flying Fortress, and its morale and propaganda value was enormous.

to:

* The Convair B-36 "Peacemaker" long-range atomic bomber, which kept the balance of power during the cold war and looked positively badass. When everyone was switching to jets Convair used six huge radial engines[[note]]There was actually solid reasoning behind this. The B-36 was intended to make a nonstop flight to the Soviet Union, carrying the very bulky atomic bombs of the time, and get back to the US. The jet engines of the time were such gas-guzzlers that an all-jet plane of that size would have a significantly-reduced payload to carry all the extra fuel, or would require in-flight refueling.[[/note]] - which turned out to be maintenance nightmares, both for their inherent complexity (the ground crews loathed replacing all fifty-six sparkplugs ''in each engine'') and because they were never meant to be mounted in a pusher configuration, resulting in many failures (when your plane losing an engine is considered so routine that ''the mission is allowed to continue as if nothing happened'', you know you have a problem). And for all that the plane was still underpowered, so they eventually fitted four additional jet engines to compensate, though they were normally only used for takeoff and shut down while cruising to conserve fuel. The B-36 also featured an innovative control-by-wire system for the engines... but no mechanical backups, so if the electrics failed you were screwed. And the electronics were mounted in delicate housings that would shake themselves apart under the vibrations caused by the turret guns. Even after the design was tweaked and bludgeoned into some kind of functionality, it still had a tendency to spring oil and fuel leaks all over the place or abruptly catch fire. It got retired ten years after its creation, while its Soviet counterpart the [[BearsAreBadNews Tu-95]] ''[[NATOReportingNames Bear]]'' Tu-95 "Bear"]] is [[BadassGrandpa still in use today]] and is predicted to stay in production for ''several more decades''. Then again, it could carry ''ten times'' the payload of the famous B-17 Flying Fortress, and its morale and propaganda value was enormous.
14th May '17 2:36:45 PM Sylderon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Convair B-36 "Peacemaker" long-range atomic bomber, which kept the balance of power during the cold war and looked positively badass. When everyone was switching to jets Convair used six huge radial engines - which turned out to be maintenance nightmares, both for their inherent complexity (the ground crews loathed sparkplug replacement duty) and because they were never meant to be mounted in a pusher configuration, resulting in many failures (when your plane losing an engine is considered so routine that ''the mission is allowed to continue as if nothing happened'', you know you have a problem). And for all that the plane was still underpowered, so they eventually fitted four additional jet engines to compensate. The B-36 also featured an innovative control-by-wire system for the engines... but no mechanical backups, so if the electrics failed you were screwed. And the electronics were mounted in delicate housings that would shake themselves apart under the vibrations caused by the turret guns. Even after the design was tweaked and bludgeoned into some kind of functionality, it still had a tendency to spring oil and fuel leaks all over the place or abruptly catch fire. It got retired ten years after its creation, while its Soviet counterpart the Tu-95 is still in use today and is predicted to stay in production for ''several more decades''. Then again, it could carry ''ten times'' the payload of the famous B-17 Flying Fortress, and its morale and propaganda value was enormous.

to:

* The Convair B-36 "Peacemaker" long-range atomic bomber, which kept the balance of power during the cold war and looked positively badass. When everyone was switching to jets Convair used six huge radial engines[[note]]There was actually solid reasoning behind this. The B-36 was intended to make a nonstop flight to the Soviet Union, carrying the very bulky atomic bombs of the time, and get back to the US. The jet engines of the time were such gas-guzzlers that an all-jet plane of that size would have a significantly-reduced payload to carry all the extra fuel, or would require in-flight refueling.[[/note]] - which turned out to be maintenance nightmares, both for their inherent complexity (the ground crews loathed sparkplug replacement duty) replacing all fifty-six sparkplugs ''in each engine'') and because they were never meant to be mounted in a pusher configuration, resulting in many failures (when your plane losing an engine is considered so routine that ''the mission is allowed to continue as if nothing happened'', you know you have a problem). And for all that the plane was still underpowered, so they eventually fitted four additional jet engines to compensate.compensate, though they were normally only used for takeoff and shut down while cruising to conserve fuel. The B-36 also featured an innovative control-by-wire system for the engines... but no mechanical backups, so if the electrics failed you were screwed. And the electronics were mounted in delicate housings that would shake themselves apart under the vibrations caused by the turret guns. Even after the design was tweaked and bludgeoned into some kind of functionality, it still had a tendency to spring oil and fuel leaks all over the place or abruptly catch fire. It got retired ten years after its creation, while its Soviet counterpart the Tu-95 [[BearsAreBadNews Tu-95]] ''[[NATOReportingNames Bear]]'' is [[BadassGrandpa still in use today today]] and is predicted to stay in production for ''several more decades''. Then again, it could carry ''ten times'' the payload of the famous B-17 Flying Fortress, and its morale and propaganda value was enormous.
14th May '17 1:49:21 PM Sylderon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Loss-rates for armoured vehicles during offensive operations in WWII average 50-300%, but irrecoverable losses were typically only 20-50% (no new vehicles being added). It is extremely easy to put a vehicle out of action, and thus immeasurably important to have an effective vehicle-repair institution in place. Not losing the ground you fight on is also extremely important, as it means you don't have to destroy your immobilised vehicles to prevent the enemy from capturing them.
* The famous German half-tracks for used for supply and as infantry armored cars all used the same ''[[GratuitousGerman Schachtellaufwerk]]'' type of chassis and track, only scaled up or down to their respective size. Unlike tank tracks, which were classic links held together by pins, in ''[[GratuitousGerman Schachtellaufwerk]]'' tracks designed to allow high road speeds all track links were fitted on needle bearings with individual sealing and lubrication. That makes ''a few hundred'' lubricated roller bearings for each vehicle, with expected costs and hardships when building them in large numbers. And all for no useful purpose, since there were strict orders to drive them at lesser speeds than possible anyway.

to:

*** Loss-rates for armoured vehicles during offensive operations in WWII average 50-300%, but irrecoverable losses were typically only 20-50% (no new vehicles being added). It is extremely easy to put a vehicle out of action, action (usually by a 'mobility kill' i.e. damaging the track and road wheels with mines, grenades, or shells fired at the flank), and thus immeasurably important to have an effective vehicle-repair institution in place. Not losing the ground you fight on is also extremely important, as it means you don't have to destroy your immobilised vehicles to prevent the enemy from capturing them.
* The famous German half-tracks for used for supply and as infantry armored cars all used the same ''[[GratuitousGerman Schachtellaufwerk]]'' type of chassis and track, only scaled up or down to their respective size. Unlike tank tracks, which were classic links held together by pins, in ''[[GratuitousGerman Schachtellaufwerk]]'' tracks designed to allow high road speeds all track links were fitted on needle bearings with individual sealing and lubrication. That makes ''a few hundred'' lubricated roller bearings for each vehicle, with expected costs and hardships when building them in large numbers. And all for no useful purpose, since there were strict orders to drive them at lesser speeds than possible anyway.



* Many British and French tanks in the early stages of the war. Guns that can kill enemy tanks, check, armour that means enemy tanks can't kill us, check, ability to move above a walking pace, che-no wait, pass. They did have cruiser tanks too: that could go fast, but had tin-foil armour. Things didn't get much better until very late in the war, by which time it was over anyway.

to:

* Many British and French tanks in the early stages of the war. Guns that can kill enemy tanks, check, check; armour that means enemy tanks can't kill us, us; check, ability to move above a walking pace, che-no wait, pass. They did have cruiser tanks too: that could go fast, but had tin-foil armour. Things didn't get much better until very late in the war, by which time it was over anyway.
14th May '17 1:39:47 PM Sylderon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Meanwhile, the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II Tiger II]] was a Tiger I doping on bull shark testosterone. It was a bigger, badder version of the already big and bad Tiger I, with improvements including thicker, sloped armor and [[UpToEleven an even more powerful 88mm cannon, the most powerful tank-turret mounted cannon in the entire war]]. However, much like anyone else doping on bull shark testosterone, the Tiger II had some serious performance issues. Because of production limitations due to the Allied bombing campaign targeting German industrial production, the Tiger II's initial drivetrain was from a tank half the size, thus resulting in constant breakdowns that often destroyed the engine completely. It was also fuel thirsty, fuel the Third Reich didn't have. The biggest liability however was the Tiger II's sheer size. Try to imagine just how much of a panic attack a logistics officer had when trying to figure out how to pull a 76-ton tank out of a crater in a bog in the middle of a battle. More Tiger II's were rendered unrecoverable due to mechanical failure and getting stuck in terrain than those that were destroyed. When they were destroyed, it was usually due to being in terrain "lesser tanks" had an easier time negotiating and liberal use of the air superiority that the Allies so enjoyed at that point of the war.
** Although the "Porsche Version" of the Tiger Tank lost to the "Henschel Version", Hitler decided that the "Porsche Version" should be used as the basis for a new Heavy Tank Destroyer which initially became known as the ''Ferdinand'' and was later renamed ''Elefant'', which turned out to be a terribly fitting name for a tank that required ''five'' armored recovery vehicles to tow it off the battlefield if disabled. Early models also had no machine guns, which meant Soviet troops could hide in trenches until the tank passed, and then swarm it with Molotov cocktails.

to:

** Meanwhile, the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II Tiger II]] was a Tiger I doping on bull shark testosterone. It was a bigger, badder version of the already big and bad Tiger I, with improvements including thicker, sloped armor and [[UpToEleven an even more powerful 88mm cannon, the most powerful tank-turret mounted cannon in the entire war]]. However, much like anyone else doping on bull shark testosterone, the Tiger II had some serious performance issues. Because of production limitations due to the Allied bombing campaign targeting German industrial production, the Tiger II's initial drivetrain was from a tank half the size, thus resulting in constant breakdowns that often destroyed the engine completely. It was also fuel thirsty, fuel the Third Reich didn't have. The biggest liability however was the Tiger II's sheer size. Try to imagine just how much of a panic attack a logistics officer had when trying to figure out how to pull a 76-ton tank out of a crater in a bog in the middle of a battle.battle, or out of a stream after the bridge beneath it collapsed. More Tiger II's were rendered unrecoverable due to mechanical failure and getting stuck in terrain than those that were destroyed. When they were destroyed, it was usually due to being in terrain "lesser tanks" had an easier time negotiating and liberal use of the air superiority that the Allies so enjoyed at that point of the war.
** Although the "Porsche Version" of the Tiger Tank lost to the "Henschel Version", Hitler decided that the "Porsche Version" should be used as the basis for a new Heavy Tank Destroyer which initially became known as the ''Ferdinand'' and was later renamed ''Elefant'', which turned out to be a terribly fitting name for a tank that required ''five'' armored recovery vehicles to tow it off the battlefield if disabled. Early models also [[PointDefenseless had no machine guns, guns]], which meant Soviet troops could hide in trenches until the tank passed, and then swarm it with Molotov cocktails.cocktails and demolition charges.
This list shows the last 10 events of 651. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=AwesomeButImpractical.Military