Most overrated weapon of the Cold War

[SgtRL-3]

The Mirror Thread: Most underrated weapon of the Cold War

In my personal opinion, the most overrated weapon of the Cold War was the nuclear weapon: claimed to be capable of destroying human civilization and the ecosystem when launched in their entirety, they were in fact capable of destroying only 40 per cent of the industrial potential of each of the United States and the Soviet Union, even in 1970, when their numbers were at their peak.

The second most overrated weapon was the F-14. The F-14A was plagued by engines with insufficient thrust and poor reliability, and a radar that lagged behind the U.S.'s own state-of-the-art at the same time, and it took until 1988 to get a new engine and 1991 to get a new radar. And until its retirement in 2006, only a small portion of the U.S. Navy's F-14 fleet was upgraded to the F-14D standard with newer radars and engines, with the majority of the fleet still being the outdated F-14A.

The third most overrated weapon was the T-64. Although the T-64A was already in service in 1968 in the military-administrative process, all 1,000+ T-64As produced throughout '66-'76 were pre-production models, with design modifications made as they were built. The T-64B, which was really finalized with full combat capability, began mass production in 1976, not much earlier in fact than the recognized third-generation main battle tanks T-80B (1978) and T-72A (1979). And in another four years, NATO's third-generation main battle tanks, the M1 and Leopard 2, were due to enter service.

Which weapons in your opinion were also the most overrated?

 

[Blue cat]

The Mirror Thread: Most underrated weapon of the Cold War

In my personal opinion, the most overrated weapon of the Cold War was the nuclear weapon: claimed to be capable of destroying human civilization and the ecosystem when launched in their entirety, they were in fact capable of destroying only 40 per cent of the industrial potential of each of the United States and the Soviet Union, even in 1970, when their numbers were at their peak.

The second most overrated weapon was the F-14. The F-14A was plagued by engines with insufficient thrust and poor reliability, and a radar that lagged behind the U.S.'s own state-of-the-art at the same time, and it took until 1988 to get a new engine and 1991 to get a new radar. And until its retirement in 2006, only a small portion of the U.S. Navy's F-14 fleet was upgraded to the F-14D standard with newer radars and engines, with the majority of the fleet still being the outdated F-14A.

The third most overrated weapon was the T-64. Although the T-64A was already in service in 1968 in the military-administrative process, all 1,000+ T-64As produced throughout '66-'76 were pre-production models, with design modifications made as they were built. The T-64B, which was really finalized with full combat capability, began mass production in 1976, not much earlier in fact than the recognized third-generation main battle tanks T-80B (1978) and T-72A (1979). And in another four years, NATO's third-generation main battle tanks, the M1 and Leopard 2, were due to enter service.

Which weapons in your opinion were also the most overrated?

I am a bit puzzled at times about the various accounts I have read about Soviet era Tanks (both during the cold war, shortly after the cold war, and in more recent years when Russia has been using similar tanks.) I am not sure I would use the term over rated to describe them, but I am having a bit of a hard time reconciling some of the reports coming from the conflict in Ukraine with what I seem to recall reading of reported tests by western nations shortly after the cold war ended. (I seem to recall there was some surprise about how difficult the armor on at least some Soviet Era tanks was to defeat.)

I suspect there is a logical explanation for much of this.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I nominate the Norden Bombsight, still used at least as late as the Vietnam war. It never lived up to its hype, unless you were bombing from 10'000ft at 200- 250ish mph on a Californian bombing range on a sunny day.

 

[Salamander]

The battleship. Yeah, they look cool, but they are very limited in capabilities and power projection. Either scrap them or turn them into museum ships, but get them off the seas and spend the money elsewhere.

 

[Enigmajones]

I gotta agree with the OP nuclear weapons were never used during the Cold War.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The Termit antiship missile. It gets points for being a viable weapon at all, and launchable from torpedo boats, but in it’s original guise as a weapon against the Americans it was basically useless due to advances in ECM.

 

[Bellacinos]

Tsar Bomba, Soviet hydrogen bomb that was so powerful that the plane dropping it, wouldn’t be able to escape the blast in time.

 

[Monk78]

The battleship. Yeah, they look cool, but they are very limited in capabilities and power projection. Either scrap them or turn them into museum ships, but get them off the seas and spend the money elsewhere.

But by the time Cold War became frozen the days of battleship are effectively over

 

[Monk78]

F-16 A/B of the 1980s seems like a likely candidate to me
Until the introduction of AMRAAM it’s a limited fighter

 

[Salamander]

But by the time Cold War became frozen the days of battleship are effectively over

And yet it doesn't stop a certain country from dusting a couple of theirs off from time to time.

 

[Monk78]

And yet it doesn't stop a certain country from dusting a couple of theirs off from time to time.

True ! but these were functionally shore bombardment monitors , not to be used in a sea battle

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Western third gen MBTs. They're good, and I'd go so far as to say they're generally better then their Soviet counterparts, but holy shit Iraq flattered them to a ridiculous degree and gave them an overblown reputation of being invincible, untouchable, gods of the battlefield that never miss their targets and are so overwhelmingly tactically superior that they count as a strategic asset.

Sadam's soldiers were wearing canvas helmets. Different tanks wouldn't have made any difference at all at 73 Easting.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

And yet it doesn't stop a certain country from dusting a couple of theirs off from time to time.

That was just them saying "My pocket's deeper than yours"

 

[aaronupright]

F-16 A/B of the 1980s seems like a likely candidate to me
Until the introduction of AMRAAM it’s a limited fighter

F16 with sidewinder and good GCI was lethal even against aircraft with BVR.
Dash, let loose sidewinders, GTFO.

 

[MKD]

In my personal opinion, the most overrated weapon of the Cold War was the nuclear weapon: claimed to be capable of destroying human civilization and the ecosystem when launched in their entirety, they were in fact capable of destroying only 40 per cent of the industrial potential of each of the United States and the Soviet Union, even in 1970, when their numbers were at their peak.

We should have just fired them all off then! It would have been a cake walk!

Putting aside the figures quoted and putting aside the obvious missing impacts of nuclear war beyond damage to industrial capacity we seem to be overlooking the deterrence effect of nuclear weapons.

 

[muddyleathers]

Nukes are the reason the Cold War never went truly hot.
Now, overrated, easy, the a-10. Even its coloring book said it’s main weapon was ineffective in its primary role.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Rifles. All of them. For all the ink spilled on Rifle X being better than Rifle Y, or Cartridge P better than Cartridge Q, it doesn't really matter.

While it might be important for the infantry in the fight, at an operational level all that's really required is that it goes bang when the trigger is pulled. Any target that's hard enough to neutralise that the calibre of your rifle matters, you shouldn't be engaging with rifles anyway - at least in general war. That's been pretty much true since the machine gun went into general issue.

 

[Father Maryland]

I nominate the Norden Bombsight, still used at least as late as the Vietnam war. It never lived up to its hype, unless you were bombing from 10'000ft at 200- 250ish mph on a Californian bombing range on a sunny day.

And to think that woman had to shave her head for what ended up being pointless reasons.

 

[Father Maryland]

True ! but these were functionally shore bombardment monitors , not to be used in a sea battle

The 80s Iowa recall was less about using them for naval gunfire support and more because they were fast, in decent shape, had long range, and were large enough that they could have a bunch of Tomahawks and Harpoons put aboard. For a bit the 4 Iowas made up like half of the Tomahawk capacity of the fleet.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

The real answer: Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow. If you believe Canadian nationalists and all the other people who get hyped on "what if" military projects that never panned out, the Arrow was the greatest breakthrough in aeronautics since the Wright Brothers, a weapon to win the Cold War single-handedly, there were even actually TLs here about how it'd be a competitive air superiority fighter well into the modern day.

In reality, it was a dedicated interceptor built after the superpowers figured out that dedicated interceptors were obsolete. It would've had the performance of an F-106 Delta Dart, an aircraft that first took flight 2 years before the Arrow did and had a bland, uneventful career. Literally the only thing worth noting about the Arrow was that it was built in Canada, that's it.