Glass Cannon/Real Life

Examples of s in include:


 * Since the introduction of gunpowder in the High Middle Ages, Artillery Cannons are (probably) the very first and oldest definition of this trope: Deadly when given a chance to attack from a safe distance but easily neutralized by the destruction of its crew and/or the cannon itself.
 * Tank Destroyers. Popular back in WW II, they were Exactly What It Says on the Tin - usually armed with a tank-grade BFG to destroy enemy vehicles(esp. tanks) with great efficiency, using the mobility allowed by their lighter armor to flank the enemy tanks and attack from the rear. Nowadays, the role of the tank destroyers has been taking up by helicopter gunships, though a number of lighter vehicles have been adapted to the purpose as well.
 * American tank destroyers during World War II were very lightly armoured, in most cases lacking a roof for their turret which exposed the crew to all kinds of nasty unpleasantness like enemy fire, grenades, and worst of all, rain, which is just plain mean-spirited on the part of the idiots who came up with that idea to shave off some weight. They usually mounted a bigger gun than friendly tanks and were extremely fast: the M18 Hellcat can clock up to 55 mph on good roads. However, the whole American doctrine was more or less bunk, since by that time the Germans were on the defensive, and the undergunned American Shermans often wound up facing them instead, without any tank destroyer help most of the time. The Germans and Russians on the other hand, made theirs more akin to Mighty Glaciers instead.
 * M36 Jackson had the excellent 90mm gun which could destroy any German tank at distance. Sadly, it had Sherman chassis and lightly armoured body. It could stand against most infantry and light arms, but against heavier German or North Korean tanks, its first round had to count. (Fortunately, it usually counted.) The Yugoslavians converted M36 into a real tank by up-armouring it and changing the diesel into that of T-62. They served in the Croatian Army to 2005.
 * The reason why a roof was left off American tank destroyers is a matter of debate. Saving weight might have been one, a light turret means a lighter chassis and a faster turn rate. Ian Hogg proposes the theory that it was to remind the crew that they were not a tank and should not pretend they are.
 * One reason put forward is because of the inter-service rivalries of the US Army at the time. Anti-tank guns and T Ds at the time were run by the artillery. If it had a top it would be a tank and thus claimed by the armored forces. This rivalry between armor and artillery lead to some astonishingly bad design decisions.
 * They could've at least given them a friggin' 5-dollar tarp or something to keep the rain off of them...
 * What happens if they get an airburst, dropping shrapnel on them.
 * One example of the light vehicles mentioned in the first paragraph: This. It's basically a Jeep-like vehicle with a recoilless rifle (think "bazooka") mounted on top. Or how about this: a recoilless rifle mounted on, of all things, a Vespa scooter, designed for airborne operations.
 * And the more modern versions which have Jeep/Humvee/UAZ mounted anti-tank missiles like the TOW.
 * A Soviet tank destroyer example from WW 2, the Su-100, whose gun would later be mounted on the Cold War-era T-54/55 series. Soviet soldiers called it the "fucking end to anything" because it could blow through any German tank's front armor (except the King Tiger) at maximum-range.
 * A slightly related example would be the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank from WWII. Its 122mm gun took ages to reload, but could penetrate a Panther tank - completely. One Panther was observed being hit by an IS-2 shell, with the shell coming out the rear of the tank, going straight through several inches of sloped armour, and several more inches of ablative armour e.g. the crew. However, Panthers themselves, with much lighter (but still, for the era, very powerful) 75mm gun, could also penetrate IS-2 armour right back. And then there were ISU-152 - heavy self propelled gun on variant IS chassis. Chassis was produced faster than guns, which led to the idea to slap the same 122-mm cannon on it without a proper turret and call the result ISU-122… which ended up more popular as a tank destroyer, since it was more accurate than fun-sized cannon-howitzers, and usually powerful enough.
 * The Swedish Thirty Years' War era Leather Cannon, which could well be the Trope Namer. It was basically a copper barrel wrapped on stout leather, like cow hide. The idea was to make the cannon light enough to be mobile and easily carried, which it was. It weighed 40 kg (90 lb) and could easily be carried by two men. Unfortunately it also was prone on over-heating- leather is a good heat insulator - and tended to burst if three or more shots were shot in succession without letting the barrel to cool. Purely as a weapon it was a failure, but as a concept it revolutionized the role of the field artillery. The Swedes developed then a heavier but more reliable bronze Regiment Gun, which could be considered as Lightning Bruiser, as it was towed by one horse or three men, was durable enough to be towed in gallop, and could be easily moved to new emplacement.
 * Suicide bombers also tend to fall into this. They don't usually pack armor or a gun, but when they explode, you're in trouble.
 * Admiral Sir John Fisher is famous for saying "speed is armour," and was a proponent of battlecruisers, ships with large (battleship-size) guns that traded armor for speed.
 * Battle of Jutland somewhat enthusiasm in this area. Curiously, while it ended in bureaucratic Blame Games, now it looks like the battlecruisers took beating from each other and battleships (which they should avoid in the intended use), but what caused British losses were not weak defences, but desire to squeeze the advantages combined with poor training (safety procedures were ignored to maximize rate of fire) and logistical problems (excessively sensitive powder used without brass casings). Thus hits that normally would not be crippling led to fires and magazine explosions. Germans didn't have these problems (being more paranoid about ammunition after an earlier disaster of exactly this sort), so for them battlecruisers worked adequately even in a bad situation, and most likely prevented it from getting a lot worse. See e.g. [//www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Battlecruiser this summary].
 * Aircraft carriers exist to operate aircraft. Anything not related to operating aircraft, even to some extent being armed simply to defend themselves without their planes, is usually considered a waste.
 * Light tanks by definition are supposed to be very mobile, protected from small arms and constitute a serious danger. E.g. Soviet BT Tanks: on most BT-5s, 45-mm longbarrel cannon, armour 10–13 mm—price of max speed 52 km/h on tracks and 72 on wheels.
 * Some light tanks just go over the top, however. Look at this experimental monstrosity (1936-1936). It's a launcher for two fortification-busting 245-mm missiles slapped on BT-5. Max range is 1500 m. Failed to hit production run as unfit for real assault due to its crappy accuracy, slow reload and—surprise—fragility from top to bottom. Normally light tanks have nothing to do within visual range from enemy fortification even without extra explosives strapped on top.
 * The US late World War 2 M24 Chaffee light tank is thinly armored even for a light tank, but carried the same gun as the Sherman medium tank. Cold War upgrades by Norway to create what was designated the NM-116 Panserjager took this even further, giving it even more gun (and new engine) but keeping the same armor.
 * Nuclear missiles without silos are arguably the ultimate example of glass cannons in real life, especially in the context of a nuclear war. Ballistic missile submarines have torpedoes, but they would still be in deep trouble if found. Mobile ground based units are even worse, with no defenses at all against the inevitable enemy counterattacks. Of course, you're supposed to just leave before the counterattack anyway.
 * The torpedo boat was a small but maneuverable ship that had powerful armaments that could be used to sink the much bigger battleships of the era, and relied on its speed, agility, and ability to field a lot of them to avoid not getting destroyed.
 * Conventional submarines (at least up to and including WW 2 vintage) also qualify—great for crippling or killing enemy surface vessels from ambush, but they have to get fairly close to do it and again their only real defense against anything that can shoot back is not to get hit in the first place.
 * [//secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Monitor_28warship29#World_War_I WWI style Monitors] were shallow draft ships of questionable seaworthiness onto which the largest spare gun(s) at hand was crammed. Basically a floating artillery battery, they had the advantage of being cheap and able to get in very close to shore where traditional naval ships could not go, even going up rivers.
 * But not the original Monitor-type ships, which were closer to Mighty Glacier niche. While they were unseaworthy at first, that rapidly changed even over the duration of the war, and they were equipped with guns that simply obliterated any conventional ship, while still sporting enough armor and low-profile design which made them almost invincible. They were sufficiently good that after the Monitor v. Merrimac duel (in which the Confederate ship actually fought a deliberately undergunned Monitor) that nobody ever really tried to fight them without strong fortifications and a large advantage in firepower.
 * They are both predated by Bomb Ketches, which where specialised to the point where they were impractical for anything other than attacking coastal targets. A floating heavy mortar and little else.
 * Anything the Finnish Navy can throw in. Their ships are crammed with oversize guns and missiles, and outfitted with minelaying equipment, but have no armour whatsoever - they rather employ hiding in the archipelago as their defensive strategy.
 * Humans in hunting situations. If the guns fail to bring down that bear before it closes into close quarters, prepare for a trip to the hospital. Or to funeral home.
 * Humans in warfare are generally a case of glass cannons in that our technological ability to inflict damage is much greater than our technological ability to defend against damage. They had to build NORAD inside a small mountain to maybe protect it against nukes.
 * Bob Sanders of the NFL's Indianapolis Colts. One of the league's hardest hitters, maybe the best safety in all of football... when he's healthy, which is about as rare as the Colts beating the Chargers these days. Sanders frequently spends half the regular season on the injured list, which might be because he plays so hard all the time, running full-force into offensive players on every play.
 * Another football example - Matthew Stafford of the Detroit Lions. He was the 1st overall pick in the '09 draft, immediately won the Lions' starting QB job...and has started 13 games in 2 seasons since. All because of injuries. Mostly to his shoulders. He hasn't even played a full season's worth of football in 2 seasons!
 * Good examples, both, but the Eagles' Michael Vick fits the archetype perfectly. With his freakish speed and arm strength, Vick is the single most dangerous playmaker in the league... as long as he doesn't get hit too hard. In 9 seasons, he's played all 16 games only once, and has spent quite a few contests limited due to one injury or another.
 * Several examples in mixed martial arts, including fighters that have devastating offense and a weak chin, or fighters with ludicrously brilliant skill in one area and none in any other.
 * Shinya Aoki is one of the most brilliant no-gi grapplers on the planet, but he reacts to punches as though they were illegal.
 * Similarly, Demian Maia is one of the most decorated Brazilian jujitsu practitioners in MMA. At one point, he was undefeated at 11-0 and had won 5 straight fights by submission, despite having no striking ability. Then he fought Nate Marquardt...
 * Bob Sapp has enough strength to pick up a 260 pound man literally off the mat and piledrive him violently to the ground. Yes, in MMA, where piledrivers are neither safe nor done with compliance from the victim. He beat one of the best kickboxers in the world (Ernesto Hoost) twice in 2002. Sapp is also known for the trifecta of having a glass chin, possessing very little toughness or heart, and having laughably few grappling skills. He lost in 2009 to a man 150 pounds lighter than him who fancies himself a superhero, sports a mullet, and goes by the name "Minowaman."
 * Andrei Arlovski, a well-rounded Lightning Bruiser with infamously bad chin.
 * Melvin Manhoef, a dutch kickboxer, has truly horrifying punching power. He was the first, and so far only man to ever knock out Mark Hunt, who was famous for shrugging off career-ending strikes to his presumably granite-filled head. Manhoef delivered said KO while moving backwards. Unfortunately, even though he's fought at the highest levels of kickboxing and MMA and can put together beautiful offensive combinations, Manhoef's strike defense is quite lacking, and he has been knocked out by mid-level fighters far more often than an elite striker should. More saliently, his grappling skills are pure garbage. For MMA professionals, fighting Manhoef can either end in Melvin decapitating you with a punch, or with him meekly tapping out 15 seconds after the fight hits the mat.
 * Many fighters like Melvin Guillard and Houston Alexander have decent striking, scary power and zero grappling skill. Stand with them and they're likely to hurt you, take them down and they'll play you the three-tap symphony.
 * Boxing:
 * Julian Jackson was a boxer whose career spanned the 80s and the early to mid 90s, and is boxing's patron saint of the one punch knockout. Being in the ring with Jackson was to always potentially be one punch away from being KO'd. However, some of Jackson's victims were only knocked out because they knew of the weakness in Jackson's chin and tried to knock him out first. The most prominent example is probably Herol Graham, a slick defensive specialist who made his living by dodging punches and countering his way to a decision. Graham was able to hurt Jackson consistently in the first three rounds of their fight, so he pushed the action and had Jackson backing up in the 4th. Then Jackson connected with a single blow and not only was Graham unconscious before he hit the canvas, he remained out for minutes afterward. Final round and aftermath of the Jackson-Graham fight.
 * Wlad Klitschko has excellent reach and power, but has been stopped several times in his career- and not always by top fighters.
 * Late in Mike Tyson's career Tyson's old trainer Kevin Rooney who coached him in his prime complained that Tyson was no longer the elusive Lightning Bruiser who had once dominated the boxing world. "His style was to use head movement, be elusive. He's not using the style the way he's supposed to be. He's just... he's just a puncher now. If he hits you, he'll knock you out. If you hit him, you'll knock him out".
 * Mosquitoes. Their bite can transmit nasty diseases like Malaria, Dengue, Encephalitis and Heartworm, enough to kill or cripple a human for days. On the bright side, a well-timed smack kills them instantly (usually).
 * Hockey player Eric Lindros was widely heralded as "The Next One" by pro scouts in the late 1980s and early 1990s in reference to Wayne Gretzky, who was in turn called "The Great One" for being the all-time best player to ever put on skates. Lindros was the size of a train and dealt out hits to match, and was a highly skilled scorer to boot. When he made it to the NHL, he was both one of the most dominant and the most injured players in the league.
 * The Argentina national team was accused of this during the 2010 World Cup. Their dynamic and amazing offense blew teams away, until the Germans, who were able to shut down Argentina's scoring attempts, carved its way through the Argentines' notoriously weak defense in an absolutely brutal match.
 * Some of U-17 feminine teams in current world cup, being the match between South Korea and Nigeria (4-4 after 90 minutes, 6-5 for Korea after extra time) the maximum expression of this.
 * Indeed, most teams in the 50's and before could be considered like this comparing current teams. The popularization of catennacio made football/soccer putting an emphasis on defense.
 * More or less the situation with human-held firearms these days. Armor is bulky and unwieldy and guns and ammunition that can penetrate said armor is readily available, even for common criminals, so often it comes down to trying to make sure that you can shoot first and that your opponent can't shoot back.
 * Cars. Arguably better at killing people and destroying things than guns, but quickly fall apart if they hit things. Granted the things they're good at destroying and the things that destroy them if hit aren't one and the same, but since you're from Column A, it's still a good idea to look up from your smartphone before you cross the street.
 * Birds of prey. They have sharp and strong beaks and talons, capable of killing their prey in a split second... but if grounded by a broken wing or leg they are very likely to die of starvation.
 * Combat Robotics has a surprising number of glass cannons. In Robot Wars, Razer had an almost unstoppable weapon, but often broke down of its own accord. Tsunami and Wheely Big Cheese had immensely powerful flippers (but the latter was very difficult to aim) but lacked the durability to fight Lightning Bruisers like Chaos 2 and Mighty Glaciers like Xterminator. In Battlebots, Nightmare had a massive 4 foot diameter spinning disc, and its destructive power was the original reason for the arena having a ceiling, but its wheels were very vulnerable. It lost after having a wheel (and sometimes the gearbox and part of the motor it was attached to) ripped off by horizontal spinners. Many "shell spinners" have huge destructive power, but if they get flipped over, they're toast. Finally, Last Rites, one of the current top-ranked heavyweights, practically defines this trope. Even the most heavily armored opponents cannot simply shrug off blows from its spinning bar, but it is lightly armored, and its wheels are vulnerable to a solid hit to the side. In fact, because its bar is so powerful, and so much weight is poured into the weapon system, it is frequently defeated by the recoil from its own attacks.
 * The Prussian infantrymen of Frederick the Great were renowned for their rapid rate of fire (pretty impressive, given the rather slow firing rate of muzzle-loaded muskets) but were pretty vulnerable in close combat, making them a ripe target for cavalry. Fortunately, Frederick was enough of a tactical genius and a lucky man to prevent decisive defeats.
 * Irukandji jellyfish. They are the size of a fingernail and are so fragile they can't be kept in a tank - they will die from bumping into the glass. They also have a venom that, while it is not lethal, will hurt you so very much that you will wish it was.
 * The Mitsubishi A6M Zero was extremely fragile, with no armor and fuel tanks that would leak continuously from even the smallest puncture instead of sealing like Allied tanks, so that even the most minor glancing hit could destroy it. It also had better armament than any of its rivals and could blast apart most Allied aircraft with a single burst, and a turn rate good enough to get into a firing position against even the most elusive enemy. It was the king of the Pacific skies until faster American fighters showed up that could simply barrel down on a Zero from above, destroy it, and run away before the Zero's wingmates could respond.
 * The Soviet Union produced a literal example. The 2B1 Oka was the largest self-propelled artillery piece ever built, and could fire a 420mm nuclear projectile from it's 65-foot-long barrel up to 28 miles downrange. Unfortunately, the recoil of such a monster cannon was too powerful, damaging the gun mount, snapping the treads, and tearing up the transmission. Assuming it even could fire a second shot, it would be effectively a stationary artillery piece.
 * Vulnerable narcissists fit this trope. They can be overly critical or downright abusive to others, but can't take the slightest criticism themselves.


 * Back to