- Jul 2012
- Abilene, Texas
Strategic bombers still have the use of taking out major installations that supply a war effort, like factories and trainyards. Although cruise missile spam has somewhat replaced that in the modern age.I'm talking about weapons or weapon systems that were predicted to have a major impact on the battlefield but failed to meet expectations. I'll throw out one example:
Strategic bombers - Billy Mitchell, Douhet, and other advocates between the World Wars predicted that heavy bombers would render armies and navies obsolete and that bombing cities alone could force countries to surrender. Here we are almost 100 years later and it has almost never happened. I think the only war won by bombing alone was the NATO vs Serbia war in the 1990s.
Are there any other weapons that fell well short of expectations?
I would add the Chrysler TV-8, a nuclear-powered tank, and side-loading machine guns.
Also, chemical weapons being used in combat should also qualify, many sci fi works from the interwar years (like Brave New World) make very heavy mention of poison gas in warfare, only for it to be hardly used after some wars in the 1930s.
Chemical weapons may be great at terrorizing populations, but it's not a very great battlefield weapon.