Most successful military projects

[The Minsky Moment]

The value of the AK-47 is that it does the job reliably when (e.g.) operated by an untrained child soldier without proper maintenance.

Provided some greater specificity.

[Iormlund]

Looks prettier, but does it make much of a difference otherwise?

Proper machining will result in much tighter tolerances. In a gun I guess that would affect how accurate fire is and perhaps how likely it is to jam or blow up in your face.

Machining parts can also be orders of magnitude more expensive though. You need a lot more time, expensive tools and trained machinists.

[Berkut]

I guess you would have to list the M-1 Abrams as one of the great military projects. Insanely successful tank, and almost certainly still the best in the world at what it does. Part of a system of US Army weapons and training that basically created a world where nobody would even contemplate going to war conventionally with the US and its allies.

[mongers]

I guess you would have to list the M-1 Abrams as one of the great military projects. Insanely successful tank, and almost certainly still the best in the world at what it does. Part of a system of US Army weapons and training that basically created a world where nobody would even contemplate going to war conventionally with the US and its allies.

FYP.

[Malthus]

I guess you would have to list the M-1 Abrams as one of the great military projects. Insanely successful tank, and almost certainly still the best in the world at what it does. Part of a system of US Army weapons and training that basically created a world where nobody would even contemplate going to war conventionally with the US and its allies.

The M-1 is a good choice - it's been in operation with variants for 40 years, and as far as I know, the US has for now decided to simply keep upgrading it. There is no question this is a very successful project.

Here's an interesting blog article comparing the Abrams with the Merkava: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-m1-abrams-tank-vs-israels-merkava-who-wins-18913

The upshot being, the two tanks are somewhat specialized for different roles - the Abrams, for defeating its counterparts on a conventional battlefield, the Merkava for fighting against insurgents armed with anti-tank missiles. The Merkava lacks the advanced depleted uranium armour and ammo if the Abrams and is slower, but has better anti-missile protection.

The blog doesn't actually answer the "who would win" question, though if it was just one on one, all being equal, the Abrams should win.

[Berkut]

How about the Douglas DC-3?

[The Brain]

How about the Douglas DC-3?

Not a military project? Not post-WW2?

[grumbler]

How about the Douglas DC-3?

Not a military project? Not post-WW2?

Except for the "Not a military project" and "Not post-WW2," what has the DC-3 ever done for us?

[Barrister]

How about the Douglas DC-3?

There are still some DC-3s still in active service in northern Canada IIRC.  That's pretty amazing given it went into service in the 1930s.

[Berkut]

Sorry, I should have said the C-47.

[grumbler]

Sorry, I should have said the C-47.

The C-47 is just a DC-3 sold to the military.  Not military and not post-war.

The postwar equivalent would be the C-130.  First flew in 1954, and still being produced as front line aircraft 66 years later.  The last DC-3/C-47, by comparison, came off the line 14 years after the first.  Four times as many DC-3/C-47 aircraft were built, but their total load capacity was only 40% that of the C-130s built.