Super Prototypes In Real Life

In fiction, ancient tech is the best, but even better is one off technology and methods.

Examples include medical technology like super serums.
Military technology like experimental weapons and vehicles.
And more.


What are cases of this in real life?

Many in ancient times I'd imagine, before standardized production was made.
With cottage industry and no standardization, a sword from a blacksmith could be vastly different in quality by a sword from the same blacksmith made at a later time.
Individual performance could vary from various factors, like bad lucky, poor circumstances of that time, imperfect knowledge, or more.


In many modern real life cases, prototypes often under perform what they are meant to replace at first in many ways, and requires lots of time, effort, money, and skill to make work.
And once they're made to work, then a way is found to try to mass produce it cheaply.
 
Well, you wanna talk about successful used prototypes, I'll think of a few.

For starters (and a given definition of success,) the Me-163 comes to mind. Considering the absolute insanity that involves putting guns on two very dodgy fuel tanks and a rocket motor, the fact they didn't all up and explode on the runway is success.

Another one would be the Monitor and the Virginia at the battle of Hampton Roads. Both ironclad boats and steamships in their virgin battles, neither one failed and both succeeded to prove wooden ships outdated.

Last, I'll mention the classic prototype Devices- Little Boy and Fat Man; both of which themselves were different prototypes of the same weapon.
 
What are cases of this in real life?

Many in ancient times I'd imagine, before standardized production was made.
Arguably ancient Mycenaean architecture qualifies; it is sometimes called Cyclopean architecture because the Greek civilization that arose after the collapse of the Mycenaeans thought that no mortal could have built such things and attributed them to the Cyclops.
 
The Inca masonry methods? Super resistant to earthquakes and such.

The infamous Toledo steal and blades?

Archimedes reported war machines and steam cannon.

Greekfire and the launchers it used.

Use of coke leaves by incan courrier services.
 
Last edited:
The Inca masonry methods? Super resistant to earthquakes and such.

The infamous Toledo steal and blades?

Archimedes reported war machines and steam cannon.

Greekfire and the launchers it used.
That's more lostech than super prototype. You want something like the one of the dozens of one-off prototype prop fighters that the US made in WW2 that were rejected because P-51 IS FINE and jets offering better performance.
 
I kind of have one or two theories as to where the "super prototype" trope came from, at least from fiction/anime specific.

One is the belief that "super prototypes" exist to test and demonstrate multiple new systems at the same time in order to test these systems concurrently from a cost-saving standpoint, but these systems had always been intended to be installed on separate platforms in actual combat as installing all of these systems on a single, mass-produced platform would be cost-prohibitive or other practical factors may interfere. Gundam and maybe a few other "real mecha" series seems to be the most likely place to encounter this rationale, but it's a bit problematic from a realism standpoint as it works 180-against practical realities - it's usually easier and more cost-effective to test systems individually, and once they're ironed out production scales make them more practical to install a bunch at a time on a single platform.

The other theory is that the "super prototype" does represent a hoped-for production model, but a lot of the features get "drummed-out" and "dumbed-down" from the actual production version due to cost considerations. This actually is realistic; in fact it happens almost all the time so there are at least a few real examples. Two that immediately come to mind are the YF-22 - it at least promised a whole bunch of stuff like dual proto-DAS-like IRST sensors on the wingroots and immediate AIM-9X compatibility (in fact the shape of AIM-9X is mostly dictated by the need to fit two in the F-22's side bays) that are either being very slowly implemented or completely cancelled on the production F-22 due to cost considerations. Another is DDG-1000 Zumwalt - which, again, at least on paper was going to have a whole bunch of fantastic capability such as true, SPY-1-like (actually superior) BMD capability and such, that ended up being removed from the actual vessels - but on top of that, with only three being produced they still come off as super-prototypes compared to the DDG-51 Flight III Burkes that are being produced instead. If you're looking for the best dictionary picture of a real-life super prototype, there you go. You've also got numerous Abrams prototypes and test vehicles equipped with what could still be considered semi-exotic technology such as 140mm smoothbore guns and completely automated turrets that never made it on production vehicles because the technology was either too impractical for that time or too expensive.

The final theory is that a "super prototype" isn't so much a prototype per se but just a single unit meant to be so elite and capable the exorbitant cost justifies itself in the hands of an equally elite pilot such that the two together can win the war single-handedly. This tends to be common for obvious narrative reasons, but again I guess the F-22 or B-2 kind of ends up being a close approximation of a real-life example.

For starters (and a given definition of success,) the Me-163 comes to mind. Considering the absolute insanity that involves putting guns on two very dodgy fuel tanks and a rocket motor, the fact they didn't all up and explode on the runway is success.

I don't know if that really qualifies since there were attempts made to produce the Me-163 in serial number and they managed to build quite a few. Plus...it really wasn't that "super."

Another one would be the Monitor and the Virginia at the battle of Hampton Roads. Both ironclad boats and steamships in their virgin battles, neither one failed and both succeeded to prove wooden ships outdated.

That is more appropriate, although most of their features were quickly implemented into successive ships, especially since the USN got to serial-producing turreted monitors (which of course eventually evolved into super-dreadnought battleships).

Last, I'll mention the classic prototype Devices- Little Boy and Fat Man; both of which themselves were different prototypes of the same weapon.

*shrug*? I guess? In terms of being prototypes of "the same weapon," Fat Man was a prototype implosion fission device while Little Boy was a prototype gun-type fission device. The gun-types were easier to work out so most early-generation nuclear weapons were of that type but the US quickly perfected the implosion fission bomb which quickly became the standard. Fat Man was more representative of the typical serial-produced nuclear fission bomb until being replaced by miniaturized (in comparison, so they can be loaded up onto virtually any combat aircraft in the inventory) thermonuclear bombs.

Now, Tzar Bomba, yeah. You might even argue that's a real example of at least two out of the three archetype theories I listed, if not all three.
 
Last edited:
Some I can think of are the IS-7, the T-34 armed with 100mm LB-1, the ISU-152 armed with 152mm BL-10, and the T-220 (itself already a "powerful prototype") armed with 85mm F-30.
 

Ok I'd argue maybe that is an example of installing extra gear on a super-prototype, at least in particular the really bizarre fixed machine guns with combat value so dubious someone really needs to explain to me what were they thinking with that.

Also you have no idea how tempted I am to ask if you've been playing WoT too much (well I guess I effectively just did anyway).

As for the T-220...eh. Going strictly off of replay channels off YouTube (so the military accuracy is pretty much nil), people describe it as a "Tier IV hull with a Tier V turret" (or is it Tier IV turret on a Tier V hull?) which doesn't strike me as impressive.
 
Last edited:
Ok I'd argue maybe that is an example of installing extra gear on a super-prototype, at least in particular the really bizarre fixed machine guns with combat value so dubious someone really needs to explain to me what were they thinking with that.

Also you have no idea how tempted I am to ask if you've been playing WoT too much (well I guess I effectively just did anyway).

As for the T-220...eh. Going strictly off of replay channels off YouTube (so the military accuracy is pretty much nil), people describe it as a "Tier IV hull with a Tier V turret" (or is it Tier IV turret on a Tier V hull?) which doesn't strike me as impressive.
The IS-7 was itself a super-prototype, the machineguns were only part of the design. (Yes, the machinegun armament was...a little extreme.) I was thinking more about the armor, main gun, and mobility.

As for the T-220, assembly was completed by January 1940, when the armor (90mm front) was still impressive, and superior to the contemporary KV-1. (The "KV-220" ingame has the KV-1 turret (installed in the hull September 1941), which was not the original turret planned for the vehicle.)
 
The Soviet laser tank? I forget the name, the one with artificial rubies for focusing lenses.
 
The Soviet laser tank? I forget the name, the one with artificial rubies for focusing lenses.

Silly Sovets! They should know by now the best way to ensure accuracy is to send political dissidents to the Gulags so as to draw the Great Stalin's attention so his hand may guide your shells!

Yeah, I know, WoT meme, but still funny.
 
The Soviet laser tank? I forget the name, the one with artificial rubies for focusing lenses.
1K17 Szhatie



In fiction, ancient tech is the best, but even better is one off technology and methods.

Examples include medical technology like super serums.
Military technology like experimental weapons and vehicles.
And more.

What are cases of this in real life?
At the tail end of WW2, there were quite a few high-performance fighters and bombers designed and flown by the Allied nations that were vastly superior to current production aircraft -- but exceedingly few of them ever made into production, for two reasons:

1) a general reduction in production as the war was tapering off, and the Axis was on the ropes
2) most of them were prop designs, and the future was clearly in jet engines -- even if relatively few jet fighters had been made, and even fewer fielded.

Still though, for their time, planes like the A-38 Grizzly, MB 5, and XP-72 (to pick a few random examples) , would definitely have qualified as "super prototypes" if they'd been rushed to the front lines and put into combat. There just wasn't a need, and everyone knew in a few years they'd be upstaged by jets anyway.

The MB 5 was deffo the sexiest prop fighter ever made, too. It's like the perfect combination of a P-51 and a Spitfire... with contra-rotating propellers!



Many in ancient times I'd imagine, before standardized production was made.
With cottage industry and no standardization, a sword from a blacksmith could be vastly different in quality by a sword from the same blacksmith made at a later time.
Individual performance could vary from various factors, like bad lucky, poor circumstances of that time, imperfect knowledge, or more
There's definitely some truth to this -- the quality of materials and the work done on it was inconsistent enough in pre-modern times that one could never be totally sure that an item wasn't going to break or otherwise wear out more quickly than expected. However, there were also known distinctions between low- and high-quality work. For example, metallographic analysis of grave finds from the middle ages Avars* has found multiple, distinct types of construction for swords put into graves -- from cheaply made weapons primarily of one piece of low-grade material quickly assembled, up to more expensive weapons pattern-welded out of different grades of material in a more time-consuming process. Smiths knew what sort of material went into their productions, how it was assembled, and what sort of treatments like surface hardening were applied -- so generally speaking, they had a pretty good idea of what kind of quality their final product was, and said quality was dependent primarily on factors they knew and could control.

*Avar-Age Polearms and Edged Weapons: Classification, Typology, Chronology and Technology, pg 297-298
 
*shrug*? I guess? In terms of being prototypes of "the same weapon," Fat Man was a prototype implosion fission device while Little Boy was a prototype gun-type fission device. The gun-types were easier to work out so most early-generation nuclear weapons were of that type but the US quickly perfected the implosion fission bomb which quickly became the standard. Fat Man was more representative of the typical serial-produced nuclear fission bomb until being replaced by miniaturized (in comparison, so they can be loaded up onto virtually any combat aircraft in the inventory) thermonuclear bombs.

Now, Tzar Bomba, yeah. You might even argue that's a real example of at least two out of the three archetype theories I listed, if not all three.
Since the US didn't have any spare nuclear weapons when the fatman and littleboy were used, they fit the super-prototype archetype to the T.

As for the Tsar Bomba, it was built at a point where nuclear weapons weren't meant to be used as actual weapons of war but were used for science and posturing.
 
Not exactly a prototype per se, but early production T-54s had 120mm thick frontal armor, and later ones had it reduced to 100mm.
 
One is the belief that "super prototypes" exist to test and demonstrate multiple new systems at the same time in order to test these systems concurrently from a cost-saving standpoint, but these systems had always been intended to be installed on separate platforms in actual combat as installing all of these systems on a single, mass-produced platform would be cost-prohibitive or other practical factors may interfere. Gundam and maybe a few other "real mecha" series seems to be the most likely place to encounter this rationale, but it's a bit problematic from a realism standpoint as it works 180-against practical realities - it's usually easier and more cost-effective to test systems individually, and once they're ironed out production scales make them more practical to install a bunch at a time on a single platform.

That's sort of amusing given that in the original MSG the RGM-79 was only a comparatively minor step down from the Gundam prototype. But funnily enough the idea got so much traction in the popular imagination that even the shows own successors have become enamored with it.
 
That's sort of amusing given that in the original MSG the RGM-79 was only a comparatively minor step down from the Gundam prototype. But funnily enough the idea got so much traction in the popular imagination that even the shows own successors have become enamored with it.

Well the RX-78 both created and defined the 'super prototype' concept. In many ways Amuro and the Gundam are patterned after Kouji and the Mazinger Z - 18m tall robots built from an indestructible metal, piloted by a relative of its creator. The difference is that the Mazinger Z was essentially unique, something that only Juzo could make, and most giant robots in the 60s and 70s were like this. One-off products of a singular mad genius built from unique technology. The Gundam was designed by a fairly conventional engineer and built from what was conventional, if advanced technology.


Anyway, the advanced first run robots of anime are largely just following in the footsteps of Gundam, which was in turn following in the footsteps of the superhero robots that came before it (by way of Tomino's other works that tried to ground giant robots in war drama). Apart from dramatic convention - it's good to have your heroes in hero robots - I don't know if they have real analogues. They are, effectively, designs that make it to completion without having to make compromises.

That said, the performance of some production weapon systems today are so great that I guess they basically count. The production model F-22 had to make a lot of compromises, but it's a very remarkable plane regardless.
 
That said, the performance of some production weapon systems today are so great that I guess they basically count. The production model F-22 had to make a lot of compromises, but it's a very remarkable plane regardless.

Nah man. YF-22, now there's your Super Prototype. Gotta admire the guy who asked Lockheed if they wanted to make a fighter version of the Blackbird.

In a similar vein, we also have such projects as the Fubuki destroyers, and the also the first VLS destroyers. Also of nautical note would be the once-battlecruiser hulls turned into flattops by the accursed WNT.
 
That's sort of amusing given that in the original MSG the RGM-79 was only a comparatively minor step down from the Gundam prototype.

Um, ok.

I'm kind of thinking more along the lines of the classic Windam and its spiritual successors (unless the Windam is the RGM-79, I don't pay attention much to the number codes), which seems to be purposefully-designed to sacrifice its pilots to appease the Super Prototype Gods. @Ford Prefect seems to be getting at what I'm trying to get at.

The production model F-22 had to make a lot of compromises, but it's a very remarkable plane regardless.

At least some of those compromises are artificially or arbitrarily imposed due to what had rapidly become an ever-constrained budget. It'd be easier to re-implement those designed features back into the plane - and some of them are slowly being done so (and the plane had been designed to accept upgrades from the F-35 program from the beginning, too) - but it's a bit of a debate if it's worth doing so or just move on to a successor design already (whether that be a single manned plane design, a single unmanned plane design or a distributed unmanned system).

But that's another thread.

we also have such projects as the Fubuki destroyers, and the also the first VLS destroyers.

How so? And what "first VLS destroyers?" As far as I'm aware it's either the Flight I Burkes or the SpruCan conversions, neither of which were particularly capable compared to a Flight IIA. Or the Flight II Ticos which would be more in line - except they're the largest cruiser class we've had since WWII, by far.
 
Last edited:
I'm kind of thinking more along the lines of the classic Windam and its spiritual successors (unless the Windam is the RGM-79, I don't pay attention much to the number codes), which seems to be purposefully-designed to sacrifice its pilots to appease the Super Prototype Gods. @Ford Prefect seems to be getting at what I'm trying to get at.
The Windam is from Gundam Seed Destiny. It's completely irrelevant, and too prone to jobbing to be worth mentioning. The first five gundams (and the Astray frames) featured in Gundam Seed are decent examples, and actually form a somewhat sane family of prototypes, if you assume the Duel (or the Astray frames) is the basic design, and everything else is just adding one or two prototype features.

The GM series though, like any mass production unit in a mecha series weren't particularly awesome, and didn't get badass moments because plot armor. It was a capable platform, but lacked the stupider/more expensive features and looks of the RX-78 and RX-79 series, and didn't have absurdly great pilots operating them. Which is true of most Gundam super-prototypes. Most of which are either explicitly stated to be test mules or are ridiculous proof of concept systems or one off superweapons handed off to an ace pilot or unstable teenager to see what it'll do on the battlefield.
 
Wasn't the YF-23 superior to the YF-22 in some respects (stealthier and faster)? That may qualify as 'super prototype,' or two rather, since they made two- "Black Widow II" and "Gray Ghost".

That's like the Zeon suits you only see one of in the series because they tried to make so many superunits in the OYW.
 
Wasn't the YF-23 superior to the YF-22 in some respects (stealthier and faster)? That may qualify as 'super prototype,' or two rather, since they made two- "Black Widow II" and "Gray Ghost".

It's depending on what criteria you're measuring, and how those planes stack up on those criteria is murky due to the plethora of highly-biased layman blogs and sites (a lot of it appears to be biased strictly from frustration with the entire procurement process rather than any actual objective superiority with the YF-23).
 
Wasn't the YF-23 superior to the YF-22 in some respects (stealthier and faster)? That may qualify as 'super prototype,' or two rather, since they made two- "Black Widow II" and "Gray Ghost".

That's like the Zeon suits you only see one of in the series because they tried to make so many superunits in the OYW.
From what I've heard, the YF-22 won because of its insane kinematics and the YF-23's weapon bay placement causing possible structural issues.
 
I think all the fighters in the contest qualify. The YF-23s are still a pair of fighters, best in the world in some respects, that were made and put aside.
 
Back
Top