5 Weird Military Inventions that Did NOT Work Out

War, famously the mother of all invention, has spurred countless technological marvels. From radar systems to jet propulsion, many of today’s ubiquitous technologies trace their roots back to the bloody demands of the battlefield.

Yet, for every groundbreaking invention, there are a slew of others that, while brimming with audacity, never quite made the transition from blueprint to battlefield, and supplementary to this, is a whole sub-category of failures, that while no doubt moulded by what were at the time sound theories and ideas, are so outrageous and bizarre that they can’t help but look just a bit odd to our modern eyes.

Today we will be looking at five such weird, failed military inventions – so let’s get right into it!

1. Iceberg Aircraft Carriers

Our first weird military failure today is Project Habakkuk, a British attempt to produce a mammoth, floating, and virtually unsinkable aircraft carrier made of ice. This audacious World War II plan to turn icebergs into floating fortresses reads more like science fiction than military history, and yet, it was a project that reached the highest echelons of the British war effort.

The project has its roots early in the war, when German U-Boats were proving to be a nightmare for the Allies, decimating supply routes in the Atlantic. Conventional materials for shipbuilding, such as steel and aluminium, were in dire shortage. It was in this challenging scenario that Geoffrey Pyke, an inventor from the British Combined Operations Headquarters, proposed a solution audacious enough to capture the attention of the British top brass – harnessing cheap, strong, and abundant ice to build a giant, unsinkable aircraft carrier.

Using ice as a construction material was initially dismissed, considered by many of Pyke’s associates to be little more than a joke, and frankly, it is hard to begrudge them their pessimism, after all, ice was brittle, melted relatively quickly, and was unstable on high seas, with a tendency to roll over. However, Pyke wasn’t one to be easily deterred. He envisioned an enormous ship, over a mile long, with an aircraft landing platform on top and a void running its length below to shelter aircraft – and damn it, he was going to do all he could to bring this vision to life!

But fortunately, while Pyke’s vision was met with near universal eye-rolling, his reputation as a genius in the Combined Operations Command lent credibility to his vision and afforded him the opportunity to at least try turn his radical idea into a tangible reality. More fortunately still, he hit a breakthrough in the form of pykrete, a material he invented (hence the name), that was a blend of wood pulp and frozen water. This material fortified the ice, compensating for its inherent structural weaknesses in a manner similar to how steel reinforces concrete.

This newfound material was buoyant, melted slowly, and could be machined and cast. Max Perutz, a molecular biologist, was instrumental in refining pykrete, conducting covert tests in the heart of London.

Upon being introduced to a block of pykrete by Lord Mountbatten, Churchill was reportedly so impressed that he gave the go-ahead for a prototype. According to Mountbatten, in a now-famous anecdote, he even demonstrated pykrete’s buoyancy to Churchill by dropping it into the Prime Minister’s bathtub.

Named Project Habakkuk, after a Hebrew Bible passage hinting at unbelievable wonders, the project’s ambition was boundless. By 1943, a small prototype was in the works to practically test Pyke’s concept, being constructed in Canada on Patricia Lake in Alberta. The envisioned full-scale vessel was to require hundreds of thousands of tons of wood pulp, steel, and insulation. However, despite a promising start, the project soon encountered a major challenge in the form of Cold flow (the deformation of ice) which increased the demand for steel and insulation in construction, pushing the projected weight of the full-sized ship up to a whopping 2.2 million tons, and in turn demanded numerous more electric motors for propulsion, adding yet more weight.

Despite its (kind of) early promise, the winds of war soon shifted, rendering Project Habakkuk less feasible. Increasing demands for steel elsewhere, the development of new airfields, and the introduction of longer-range fuel tanks for aircraft diminished the project’s value, and with a price tag of 10 million British Pounds, it was seen as an unjustifiable gamble.

And so, given these issues, the project was gradually shelved over late 1943 and early 1944. Though it never saw action, the project serves as a testament to the length’s nations will go in times of war and the incredible power of human ingenuity in times of crisis – a quirky footnote in military history, reminding us of the weird, wonderful, and often unrealized inventions birthed in the crucible of conflict.

2. Flying Tanks

The history of military invention is nothing if not a relentless quest for an upper hand on the battlefield, one that has led armies to experiment, sometimes with modest and grounded ambitions, and other times, with notions that seem to challenge the very boundaries of practicality. One such invention, conceived before and during World War II, stands out not for its success but its sheer audacity: the concept of the flying tank. This audacious experiment, aiming to combine the terrestrial prowess of tanks with airborne versatility, has come to represent the extremes of wartime creativity, a weird military invention that, quite literally, never took off.

The 1930s and 1940s were transformative years for military technology. New paratrooper units promised a revolutionary edge; the ability to bypass ground defences and deploy directly into enemy territory. But while soldiers could be parachuted, the heavy machinery that often decided the outcomes of battles remained earthbound. The solution then was clear, if not audacious… the tanks must take to the skies as well! But how?

In the frosty corridors of remote engineering centres, the Soviet answer began to take shape in the form of the Antonov A-40 Krylya Tanka, or “tank wings.” Despite hailing from the legendary Antonov Aircraft Company, this was not REALLY an aircraft in the traditional sense. Instead, it was a T-60 light tank adorned with an impressive set of biplane wings and a twin tail.

The ambitious vision was for this tank to be towed aloft, released mid-air, and then glide serenely onto the battlefield, ready for combat once its wings were discarded. However, theory and practice collided with dramatic consequences, as during its maiden voyage in 1942, the tank’s overwhelming drag nearly caused the towing aircraft, a TB-3 bomber, to crash. Though the tank glided smoothly thereafter, the glaring technological limitations became evident, and thus the Soviets shelved their dream of a flying tank, deeming it too ambitious for the technology of the day.

But the Soviets were not the only nation to attempt to give tanks the gift of flight, as across the channel, the British had their own spin on the concept in the form of the Baynes Bat. A brainchild of legendary aeronautical engineer Leslie Baynes, the Bat was not a flying tank in the strictest sense, but rather it was an initial exploration of the idea – a potential design that might, in the future, be bolted to a tank to carry a tank into the sky. Differing from the Soviets, Baynes proposed a broad, singular, swept wing.

Built in 1943, it showcased potential, especially during the test flights helmed by Flight Lieutenant Robert Kronfeld. Yet, even with its successes, the project faced insurmountable hurdles. Logistical issues, such as the challenge of retrieving these vast gliders from combat zones, combined with a lack of compatible tanks, meant that the Baynes Bat, like its Soviet counterpart, remained grounded in practical military planning.

It is worth noting that while flying tanks may have proved to be a technological dead end some success was had throughout the war in deploying tanks via traditional gliders. The British developed the General Aircraft Hamilcar Glider, which was used to transport many allied light tanks into battle, such as their own Tetrarch and the American M22 Locust. While these gliders didn’t bring full-sized tanks onto the battlefield, they do at least show that maybe the concept of a flying tank wasn’t COMPLETELY outrageous.

Ultimately, the story of the flying tank, both the Soviet and British visions, provides a fascinating insight into the length’s nations would go to during wartime, seeking every possible advantage. The audacity of the idea, attempting to marry two fundamentally different machines, is also a testament to the innovative spirit of the times. Yet, for all its audaciousness, the flying tank became a symbol of overreach, of a concept too weird and wonderful to truly materialize.

3. The Gay Bomb

Our next weird military invention is the so called ‘gay bomb,’ a non-lethal psychochemical weapon that became the stuff of lore amidst defence circles and, later, the public not too long ago.

It was the mid-1990s, the post-Cold War era, yet tensions still bubbled under the geopolitical surface all over the world. Therefore, the US Air Force, always on the lookout for avant-garde solutions to complex problems, entertained an unconventional concept: could one influence or disrupt enemy combatants not through bullets or bombs but by manipulating their emotions and sexual attractions? This wasn’t a plot out of a science fiction novel, but a serious line of inquiry pursued by the Wright Laboratory in Ohio.

The underlying idea was both simple and audacious. Instead of targeting an enemy’s physical capabilities, why not target their psychological state? By dispersing sex pheromones over enemy forces, it was hypothesized that the soldiers would become mutually attracted to each other, causing disarray, distraction, and ultimately diminishing their combat effectiveness.

As outlandish as it may sound, the proposition stemmed from an earnest effort to identify non-lethal methods of engagement. These methods, which ran the gamut from surreal to humorous, sought to incapacitate or disorientate the opposition without causing direct harm. Thus, the “gay bomb” was conceived.

However, as one delves deeper into the details, the project reveals less about military ingenuity and more about the limited understanding and misconceptions surrounding human sexuality of the time. The assumption that exposure to a certain chemical could rapidly alter an individual’s sexual orientation or behaviour is a testament to the then-prevailing notions and biases.

The documents that describe this concept, released years later under a Freedom of Information Act request, spawned both shock and disbelief. While some in the defence community might have seen potential in the idea, many scientists and experts in human sexuality raised eyebrows. Despite the vast body of research on pheromones and their influence in the animal kingdom, there has been no solid evidence suggesting such rapid behavioural changes in humans due to these chemicals. Furthermore, the idea of converting someone’s sexuality through an “aerosol spray,” as some critics pointed out, seemed ludicrous.

These documents became public in the 2000s, causing quite the stir, especially as they detailed how millions of dollars had been spent on the ridiculous weapon’s development. The disclosure did more than just raise eyebrows. It sparked debates on the ethical implications of such a weapon, the underlying biases it revealed about sexuality, and the broader question of where the line should be drawn when it comes to military research.

In a twist that highlights the frankly bizarre nature of this story, the “gay bomb” concept even won the Ig Nobel peace prize in 2007. This parody of the prestigious Nobel Prizes is awarded for achievements that first make people laugh, then think. The award, delivered at a tongue-in-cheek ceremony at Harvard University, was perhaps the perfect closing number to this strange chapter in military research.

In the end, the “gay bomb” remains a curious footnote in the history of military inventions. It stands as a testament to the length’s institutions will go in the quest for strategic advantage, but also as a reminder of the odd, and often flawed, paths that such quests can take.

4. Anti-Tank Dogs

During World War II, a conflict punctuated by both technological advancements and desperate measures, one of the most unconventional, and frankly weird, strategies to emerge was the Soviet Union’s use of anti-tank dogs. As the name suggests, these were canines trained to target enemy tanks, equipped with explosives meant to incapacitate the metallic beasts of war. On paper, the strategy appeared innovative and perhaps even effective against the German panzer divisions that had so far ravaged much of Eastern Europe. Yet, in practice, this curious military gambit proved to be fraught with complications, controversy, and moral dilemmas.

To contextualize the rise of this peculiar strategy, one must consider the situation of the Soviet Union in the early stages of the war. With German forces advancing rapidly into Soviet territories and displaying significant tank superiority, the Soviets were grappling for solutions to stall or repel this armoured onslaught. The Soviet military hierarchy, in a moment of desperate innovation, approved the training of dogs to approach and place explosives near or under enemy tanks.

The training regimen for these dogs was rigorous and, to many, morally questionable. Initially, the dogs were trained to release a timer-detonated bomb near the tank and then retreat. This method, however, proved challenging for the dogs to master, so consequently, the strategy was modified, simplifying the dog’s task to simply locating any enemy tank. The canines were kept hungry, and their food was placed under stationary tanks.

Gradually, the training evolved to include tanks with running engines, gunshots, and other war-related noises to simulate battlefield conditions.

However, the cruel twist in this strategy was the fate of the dogs themselves. Rather than having them release the bombs and retreat as had been originally planned, the final approach was far more fatal – explosives were strapped to the dogs, set to detonate upon impact, sealing the dog’s tragic fate in the process.

But did this unconventional strategy yield results on the battlefield? According to Soviet sources, as many as 300 German tanks were incapacitated by these anti-tank dogs. Such figures, however, have been subject to scrutiny and scepticism. Many Russian historians argue that these numbers were inflated for propaganda purposes, aiming to justify the dog training programs’ moral and ethical implications.

While the overarching efficacy of this strategy remains debated, there is clear evidence for some localized successes. In the heat of battle near Hlukhiv for example, six dogs managed to disable five German tanks. Also, Stalingrad’s airport, a critical battleground, saw 13 tanks neutralized by this method. Finally, during the Battle of Kursk, a pivotal confrontation of the Eastern Front, 16 dogs disabled 12 German tanks, suggesting that, in specific scenarios at least, the method had its merits.

Yet, the broader impact of anti-tank dogs remains murky. The relatively few tanks incapacitated by dog’s pale in comparison to the vast numbers destroyed by artillery, infantry, or other conventional methods. Additionally, the psychological repercussions on Soviet troops, who witnessed these animals’ tragic fates, were profound. These dogs, often viewed as loyal companions, were now sacrificed in a grim theatre of war.

Also, the Germans, quick to identify this emerging threat, promptly instructed their soldiers to shoot any dogs on sight, further undermining the effectiveness of the Soviet strategy.

As World War II receded into history, the story of anti-tank dogs remains a sombre footnote, a testament to the weird length’s nations might go to in the throes of war when everything is on the line.

5. The CornerShot

In the vast cache of weaponry designed over the years, there’s a particular category reserved for the unusual, the fascinating, and the truly bizarre. Among these is the CornerShot, a unique invention that, on paper, seems like a perfect solution to the age-old combat problem: how to engage a target without exposing oneself to danger. Its origin, use, and reception in the military world offer a compelling story of invention, adoption, and scepticism.

The CornerShot was birthed from the creative mind of Israeli Defence Force Lt. Col. Amos Goran.

At its core, it isn’t a weapon, but more of a sophisticated weapon-mounting system. Imagine a rifle-sized frame with a hinging portion at the front, and you have the rough idea. Within this hinge, a weapon, usually a handgun, is clamped securely.

This design allows the weapon to be pivoted to either side, enabling it to be aimed around corners. The real genius, however, lies in its integrated camera system. Mounted just past the hinge, this camera feeds real-time footage to a small screen in the operator’s line of sight.

Thus, a soldier or police officer can aim and fire at threats while remaining safely behind cover, with crosshairs on the camera feed aiding in aiming precision. Since its inception in 2003, it has promised a revolutionary approach to urban warfare, providing an edge in situations where direct engagement was risky.

However, despite its innovative design, the CornerShot isn’t a ubiquitous sight in military arsenals around the world, and is actually a bit of a sales disappointment. So, who actually uses this peculiar device? Its most significant adopters have been specific units within police forces and some specialized military units.

These units primarily operate in dense urban environments where the challenges of blind corners and potential ambushes are more prevalent. Some countries, those with extensive histories of urban skirmishes, including Israel, have found particular use for such a device – but even among them, the CornerShot is a rare and niche beast that is only ever issued on a sporadic, as and when kind of basis.

There are good reasons for the disappointing sales too, as there are some inherent drawbacks to its design and functionality that have hindered its widespread adoption. For one, despite its rifle-sized frame, it doesn’t offer the ballistic capabilities of a dedicated rifle. This limitation means that in situations where firepower and range are needed, the CornerShot falls short.

Additionally, the challenge of aiming through a small camera screen, especially under the pressure of combat, is a hurdle that can’t be easily overcome. The disconnect between operator and weapon, mediated through a screen, complicates target identification and engagement accuracy. Furthermore, tactics developed over two decades of urban warfare, combined with the advent of compact drones and other reconnaissance tools, have rendered the CornerShot less essential than initially thought.

That’s not to say it’s entirely obsolete. Its value as a niche tool in specific scenarios, especially ones requiring stealth observation without direct exposure – keeps it relevant in particular contexts. Furthermore, the ability to adapt the CornerShot with a range of weapons, from various handguns to even 40mm launchers, offers versatility that few weapon systems can boast.

This adaptability means that while it might not be the first tool grabbed in a combat situation, it remains an option for those unique circumstances where its advantages shine. These slight silver linings to the CornerShot’s cloud, however, don’t change the fact that ultimately, it is a weird military invention that never took off.

Key Takeaways

• War has driven many technological advancements, but also many bizarre failed inventions.,Project Habakkuk was a British WWII plan to build an iceberg aircraft carrier using pykrete.,The Soviet Union and Britain both attempted to create flying tanks during WWII, but both failed.,The ‘gay bomb’ was a US Air Force concept to disrupt enemy forces using pheromones.,The CornerShot is a weapon-mounting system designed for urban warfare, but it has seen limited use.

Sources

• Original Side Projects video: 5 Weird Military Inventions that Did NOT Work Out
• Hero image source by Alan Wilson from Peterborough, Cambs, UK / openverse, by-sa.

Related Coverage