"What are the ten greatest feats of Military Engineering in the 20th Century?."

[Mush Martin]

Hi all, I know I don't show up too often, but I was having a personal debate
thinking about a book, and asked myself,
"What are the ten greatest feats of Military Engineering of all time ?."
upon considering the question in depth, I asked myself along the line of
a narrower field.

"What are the ten greatest feats of Military Engineering in the 20th Century?."

This is an open debate and is not meant to be a flame forum.
everybody be nice.

Before we begin, I feel that a certain few must be automatically
included.

#1
The Mulberry harbors.

#2
P.L.U.T.O

#3
The Essex class carrier project.

The other seven slots are open and the order is too!

Enjoy the open debate Gents, I know I will:know:

Regards to all

Mush:arrgh!:

[Platapus]

Batteries
Satellites


One thing that ain't on the list would be Powerpoint. :down:

[Stealhead]

1) Military medicine easily the best hidden benefit of warfare it vastly improves medicine for all

2) Military aviation another example of a hidden benefit for example the helicopter a weapon of war that has saved countless lives

3) Submarine development in particular from the end of WWII to modern times

4) Guided weapons technology makes war a lot more efficient get more done with less manpower (usually)

5) Military communications you cant do much without a way to give orders side benefit you can also snoop on your foe to gather intel and even
hack him. An ironic effect of this is that a very small nation can have a lot of power without ever firing a shot.What happens if a hacker shuts down your nations finical institutions? You could be broken or severally weakened it is the ultimate homage to Snu Tzu The supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without fighting.

6) Artillery development the biggest leaps here where during WWI but at the end of the day artillery is still the king of battle even more so now. Just think how many more would die if we fought trench style with our modern artillery and air burst (that works every time) and flechette.

7) Food a more recent development MREs(now used in some form by many nations) are a huge improvement on the type of field rations available in the past.

Not sure you can have a top 10 really all the things I listed I feel have equal importance/effect.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Definitely one would be the submarine, and agreeing with SH above, towards the end of WWII. Advances in technology certainly influenced future designs.

[Stealhead]

Wait is the question greatest of all time or greatest of the 20th century? You use both terms in the OP.

That kinda changes the perspective a bit.

All Time

1) the atlatl first true long range weapon also pretty darn useful for hunting but if a human enemy has no missile weapon and you do
well you win.

2) Cavalry using animals more mobility and as a battering ram pure genius. Mobility is key you can run down retreating enemies that thins out the numbers. Even take land before your enemy can really muster a defense.

[Mush Martin]

Ok to close up parameters it is intended to be the 20th century,


the criterion is Military engineering this would include submarines
but would exclude aircraft for example.
(edit: though individual engineering efforts by the military eg. B-29 or SR-71 would count).

[Buddahaid]

I don't understand. Aircraft are products of engineering.

[Mush Martin]

@ steelhead, I agree in a lot of ways, the mass production of penicillin makes
my top ten list of secret weapons of WWII

[Mush Martin]

Sorry Budda I made a late edit there.:doh:

[Mush Martin]

@ budda aircraft had to be sold to the military at first the submarine was
developed by private enterprise for war.

its subtle but a difference.

MM

[Mush Martin]

The theoretical elements of modern artillery were worked out by Napolean.
Modern Hardware refined capitalizing on it.

[Mush Martin]

Satellite per se were invented by Arthur C. Clarke not the military.
they were developed by two military's agreed, and this one is up for debate.

[Mush Martin]

4) Guided weapons technology makes war a lot more efficient get more done with less manpower (usually)

" Where does the V-2 end and the tomohawk begin ?:06:

[Buddahaid]

Not so. The military had there own aircraft factories for a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Aircraft_Factory

[Mush Martin]

Not so. The military had there own aircraft factories for a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Aircraft_Factory


So the wright brothers offered their stuff to the military and sold it to the
french prior to there own country. The US military was late to jump in
and no one can claim the military invented the airplane I dont think.

[Buddahaid]

So the wright brothers offered there stuff to the military and sold it to the
french prior to there own country. The US military was late to jump in
and no one can claim the military invented the airplane I dont think.

You're walking a fine line then as just about everything is built off prior work from somebody. Your definition excludes the sub
as well.

[Mush Martin]

I think what matters is size and complexity here, to invent the airplane or
is one thing to build on that another, but the B-29 or the Me-262 are individual engineering efforts worthy of discussion of highly complex merit.

For example the Whittle engine, the U.K.'s claim to inventing the jet.
It is not worth it in this debate because nobody uses centrigual turbines
they all use axial turbines which the germans invented.

[Mush Martin]

@ RDP which 20th century submarine ?

Type VIIC
Type IXB
Gato Class fleet boat
Nautilis ( :03: )
Typhoon
????????

[Buddahaid]

There is no way to answer any of this as it all has used in part, or in full, private enterprise to have succeeded.

[ReallyDedPoet]

@ RDP which 20th century submarine ?

Type VIIC
Type IXB
Gato Class fleet boat
Nautilis ( :03: )
Typhoon
????????

The Type XXI, be it American or Soviet subs directly after the war.

[Stealhead]

What I thought this list was supposed to our opinion. Seems like you are pointing out what you do not agree with and what you do agree with.

I see engineering as a constant cycle one thing leads to another which leads to another.You cant have a B-52 without a B-29 and so on down the line. Technology in warfare is all about advancing and then countering a foes technology. One guy makes a better rifle so the other guy must also do so.

Seems to me like you want to discuss things on a much more specific detail than the spectrum of your/a list can cover.For example which is the better design for ground attack? P-47, FW190, Il-2. The reason why in depth can not be covered by a list.

I disagree about Napoleon he developed the theory but the technology to truly use artillery to its fullest effect did not come around until the last century.

Theory of warfare and technology of warfare are two different things and a change in technology almost always results in a change in the theory.

[Mush Martin]

There is no way to answer any of this as it all has used in part, or in full, private enterprise to have succeeded.


there are lots of ways to answer this...:har:

[Mush Martin]

What I thought this list was supposed to our opinion. Seems like you are pointing out what you do not agree with and what you do agree with.

I see engineering as a constant cycle one thing leads to another which leads to another.You cant have a B-52 without a B-29 and so on down the line. Technology in warfare is all about advancing and then countering a foes technology. One guy makes a better rifle so the other guy must also do so.

Seems to me like you want to discuss things on a much more specific detail than the spectrum of your/a list can cover.For example which is the better design for ground attack? P-47, FW190, Il-2. The reason why in depth can not be covered by a list

I disagree about Napoleon he developed the theory but the technology to truly use artillery to its fullest effect did not come around until the last century.

Theory of warfare and technology of warfare are two different things and a change in technology almost always results in a change in the theory.


No what I want is to learn from all of us, and refine my opinion.:hmm2:

[Buddahaid]

there are lots of ways to answer this...:har:

Bollocks! :har::har:

[Stealhead]

But you seem to want to discredit anything that was not first developed as a weapon or tool of war. To cut out the airplane because it was not fist a tool of war seems to e to be missing the point of discussing military technology.

It is all about developing the advantage it matters not if a base technology was first created for a military purpose in mind or not. For example the rifled barrel in firearms this was originally used as away to improve accuracy for the purposes of hunting game not for a more accurate military rifle.

You do realize that centrifugal turbines are still produced? They are not the choice for larger aircraft that is true but many turbojets are centrifugal turbines. Most small engines and many helicopter engines are centrifugal gas turbine.Most aircraft APUs are centrifugal gas turbines.So they did not simply disappear because they where not ideal for every application including military applications.

If this is a discussion let it be a discussion but lets not cut things out because they where "trumped".

[Mush Martin]

Stay in and make your cases I am really here to find out
what it boils down to within the 20th century parameter.

With the exception of the three mentioned in the opener
I am here to settle on whats right, not to tell you whats right.

MM.:sunny:

[Buddahaid]

Fair enough but I think you're working on a term paper or some such.

How about the Bomba.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe

[Mush Martin]

I am considering a book on the subject.

the Bombe is on my list already and may be struck up or down
depending on results of this discourse, also the Purple crack.

[Mush Martin]

I guess what I am reaching for here is a debate amongst my Subsim Peer's
regarding this question, not so much a debate with me. I have always found
this to be a cerebral forum right or wrong... so to speak.


MM.

[Stealhead]

Fair enough but I think you're working on a term paper or some such.

:D
You could write a term paper several times over just on what has already been mentioned.

I once got into a discussion with a buddy the differences between the P-51D and K.The K model had some issues with the propeller(vibration) to put it short most where "modified" back to D standards.

[Mush Martin]

:cool: Oh.... you have no idea, it runs deep with me, believe me. :rotfl2:

[Mush Martin]

The Mulberries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiXJ_kI2Ic4

P.L.U.T.O.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N1UHU3z44U

I will be back in 24hrs enjoy friends

MM:arrgh!:

[Stealhead]

Man this is totally a research paper. All questions but no discussion beyond youtube videos. :O:

[Buddahaid]

The Mulberries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiXJ_kI2Ic4

P.L.U.T.O.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N1UHU3z44U

I will be back in 24hrs enjoy friends

MM:arrgh!:

Those were quite fun to watch. I miss the old History Channel when content actually mattered.

[Jimbuna]

V/STOL eg: Harrier

[Platapus]

Satellite per se were invented by Arthur C. Clarke not the military.
they were developed by two military's agreed, and this one is up for debate.

Clark did not invent any satellite. He came up with the concept of GeoSync Com. Huge difference.

You would be correct if you considered Clark one of the earlier orbitologists.

[Platapus]

I am considering a book on the subject.



And you are conducting your research on opinions posted on a video game website forum??? :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

And you are conducting your research on opinions posted on a video game website forum??? :hmmm:
But Subsim is the font of all wisdom, especially the Grand Theatrics sub forum.

[Mush Martin]

Clark did not invent any satellite. He came up with the concept of GeoSync Com. Huge difference.

You would be correct if you considered Clark one of the earlier orbitologists.

Well hit I stand corrected.

[Mush Martin]

And you are conducting your research on opinions posted on a video game website forum??? :hmmm:


It may surprise you to learn that my opinion is sourced to many places,
not just subsim radiorooms. But subsim is among the great places on the
web for debate. Also its my favorite. :cool:

[Wolferz]

The original premise...
Greatest feat of military engineering in the twentieth century.
Clarification needed.
Are we talking engineering for the military or by the military, such as Combat Engineers or Seabees?

The Romans developed a method of building driven pile bridges over rivers that is still used today in one form or another.
Like the Baily bridge which wasn't really developed or engineered by the military. Just a private contractor who engineered the thing to military supplied specs.

[Admiral Halsey]

Would the Manhattan Project count?

[Buddahaid]

How about Marsden Matting?

[Buddahaid]

Steam catapult. "The use of steam to launch aircraft was suggested by Commander Colin C. Mitchell RNVR,[9] and trials on HMS Perseus".

[TarJak]

You'd have to say airborne radar is up there. Until then night flying yet alone fighting was a dice roll.

[Jimbuna]

Chobham and Dorchester armour.

[August]

The US Interstate Highway System Arguably the largest and most effective military engineering feat of the 20th century.

[Platapus]

The US Interstate Highway System Arguably the largest and most effective military engineering feat of the 20th century.

Good one!

It was not called the US Interstate and Defense Highway System for nothing. :up:

[Wolferz]

Dam buster bombs. IIRC were developed by the British military.
"If you can skip a stone on water, you can skip a bomb on it too.":up:

[Tango589]

You'd have to say airborne radar is up there. Until then night flying yet alone fighting was a dice roll.
Not just airborne radar, I'd say radar in general. Also, sonar. Used widely from finding enemy submarines, to undersea exploration to helping fishermen locate schools of fish.

[GoldenRivet]

The airplane should definitely be included in this list

World War I basically took the airplane from a novelty item, and developed it into one of the worlds most lethal killing machines in the span of a decade.

Demand for improvements between the world wars move the airplane from simple biplanes constructed of wood and fabric and evolved the airplane into massive steel and aluminum four engine bombers with thousands of miles of range.

Within 20 years, the aircraft had evolved to have wingspans of 1.5 to 2 times the total distance of the first powered controlled flight by the wright brothers.

The same cannot really be said for any other piece of militarized engineering

[Jimbuna]

Bailey Bridge.

[Buddahaid]

The airplane should definitely be included in this list

World War I basically took the airplane from a novelty item, and developed it into one of the worlds most lethal killing machines in the span of a decade.

Demand for improvements between the world wars move the airplane from simple biplanes constructed of wood and fabric and evolved the airplane into massive steel and aluminum four engine bombers with thousands of miles of range.

Within 20 years, the aircraft had evolved to have wingspans of 1.5 to 2 times the total distance of the first powered controlled flight by the wright brothers.

The same cannot really be said for any other piece of militarized engineering

I agree but it but he's looking for things that were designed by the military from the get go. As he includes the Essex class carriers which were build at a privately owned shipyard at first, I think it's fair to use something that was built privately from specifications.

So why not the Jeep?

[Jimbuna]

Ho Chi Minh trail.

[ReallyDedPoet]

U-Boat Pens ( France ) WWII

Nice little vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dbdL43wOYjg)

[Aktungbby]

All conflict/battle takes place in time and space...if you can reduce the space or speed up the time you gain the edge over opponents; Strictly along the military lines...of a capable Under Secretary of the Navy (Teddy Roosevelt) capable of preparing a fleet for action in the Philipines (Manila Bay) in 1898, forstalling a Kaiser in central America and disconnecting Panama from Columbia to facilitate a 'canal zone', and sending a great white fleet around the world...the first Military engineering project of the greatest strategic implication is the PANAMA CANAL opened in 1914!. It CRITICALLY shortens the time and space of the two ocean defense concept and incidentally was instrumental in dealing with our concept of Yellow fever-a critical military consideration in itself if going into afflicted regions of the planet without losing half your fighting strength. Since all things at sea are strategic, the Canal is numero uno to this day and just upgraded recently. The concept is not new; the Greeks dreamed of it at Corinth (1st century AD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinth_Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinth_Canal) and of course the French and British at Suez. That was both Napoleon and Rommel's failed strategic objective in cutting off India from Britain. (Aboukir Bay and El Alamein)

[GoldenRivet]

The modern Combat Helmet, World War 1 onwards.

as the story goes, soldiers in the trenches were experiencing a large number of head injuries, so they were outfitted with helmets... this resulted in an Increase in the number of head injuries.

it was supposedly discovered that the number of head injuries increased because the number of fatal head inuries dramatically decreased thus saving countless lives from shrapnel and splintering material as a result of bomb and artillary blasts etc.

simple, effective and could be produced in large numbers

[GoldenRivet]

The military Industrial Complex of World War Two was an engineering marvel - if anything in the logistics of managing manpower materials and other assets on a global scale

When the United States Entered World War Two, after virtually all of it's factories had been refitted to produce ships, tanks, trucks, guns and aircraft...

From 1941 to 1945 the US produced 87,000 naval vessels of various types 100,000 tanks 300,000 airplanes 2 million trucks 20 million rifles and 41 billion rounds of ammunition enough bullets to kill every man woman and child on the earth in 1945.... 17 times over

these figures do not include similar production data from some of the other allied powers.

[Mush Martin]

:salute: Now thats the subsim I remember....

I think you guys should debate it out for your favorites.

yes an Airplane can count but not the airplane, ie. kittyhawk is out.
But P-38 or B-29 is in.

The real reason for this is I couldn`t whittle it down.

How do you describe the incredible societal agility that allows seabees
to build advance bases anywhere­. Whats worth more British radar defense
networks, or how about, Adm. Rickover`s pressurized water reactor.

I am thrilled that you guys are taking it up, I have to admit,
that settling on ten is very very hard. The very reason I posted
here.:know:

[Mush Martin]

How about Marsden Matting?
The Pentagon counts, of course the Manhatten Project counts.

[Mush Martin]

the first Military engineering project of the greatest strategic implication is the PANAMA CANAL opened in 1914!.

:up:

[Jimbuna]

May have already been mentioned but if not...atomic bomb.

[GoldenRivet]

I'll follow Jim with Nuclear Power

[TarJak]

Not just airborne radar, I'd say radar in general. Also, sonar. Used widely from finding enemy submarines, to undersea exploration to helping fishermen locate schools of fish.
Yes but getting all that tech into a small enough package to operate in an aircraft is an amazing feat, particularly in the short few years it was done.

[TarJak]

If we were talking all time it's have to say canned food. An army matches on its stomach.

[Stealhead]

The Manhatten Project is also the largest project as well as the most expensive project ever carried out by a single goverment.

[Jimbuna]

The Manhatten Project is also the largest project as well as the most expensive project ever carried out by a single goverment.

Philadelphia Experiment :)

[Stealhead]

Philadelphia Experiment :)

Well offically acknowleged even then I bet Manhatten is still the most expensive.

[Jimbuna]

Well offically acknowleged even then I bet Manhatten is still the most expensive.

Never realised initially but I thought that was covered in #62 and 63 :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

Aerial photo recon and the two way radio set.

[Mush Martin]

If we were talking all time it's have to say canned food. An army matches on its stomach.


really this dates back to napoleon and peas in wine bottles
field rations are not a 20th century development I feel, but I could easily
be found wrong in this court:yeah:.

[Mush Martin]

Aerial photo recon and the two way radio set.

Very Incisive:salute:.

[Mush Martin]

OK, so let`s start supporting our arguments instead of just declarations.

MM

[Stealhead]

Never realised initially but I thought that was covered in #62 and 63 :hmmm:
I meant as a matter of public record the US goverment never acknoleged the PE. Sorry I did make that clear in the previous post.

[Stealhead]

OK, so let`s start supporting our arguments instead of just declarations.

MM


Wouldnt it be easier to narrow down a list first? Then go to supporting arguments? You make list everyone votes yay or nay with option vote to hear a supporting argument on a given item. Then once ten are selected by vote we can have supporting arguments to help select an order greatest feat being 1 the order selected via vote after supporting/counter arguments.

[Mush Martin]

Wouldnt it be easier to narrow down a list first? Then go to supporting arguments? You make list everyone votes yay or nay with option vote to hear a supporting argument on a given item. Then once ten are selected by vote we can have supporting arguments to help select an order greatest feat being 1 the order selected via vote after supporting/counter arguments.


Thats a really great point, I am going to sit out for a few days, but of course
I (stupidly) had never thought of putting in a survey. You are totally correct.

MM:arrgh!:

[TarJak]

really this dates back to napoleon and peas in wine bottles
field rations are not a 20th century development I feel, but I could easily
be found wrong in this court:yeah:.
That's why I prefaced it with all time. Canning food started in the late18th century iirc

How about freeze dried rations or the powdered egg? Mmm tasty :nope:

[Mush Martin]

That's why I prefaced it with all time. Canning food started in the late18th century iirc

How about freeze dried rations or the powdered egg? Mmm tasty :nope:


This raises another point, I feel the space race "IS" a military issue.
It was either beat the Russkie's or the Yank's!.

Regard's
MM.

[Eichhörnchen]

Hobart's "Funnies". Not taken up in the main by the U.S. when offered by the British (although they did make use of the DD Tank) these feats of design, of purely military origin, were to contribute much toward the success of D-Day.

[Buddahaid]

I have to look that one up but I did get reminded of....

https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=monty+python+funniest+joke+ever+told

[Admiral Halsey]

The Manhattan project. Gave us the weapon that prevented the cold war from going hot.

[Stealhead]

The Manhattan project. Gave us the weapon that prevented the cold war from going hot.

I thought you already listed it. It was a military engineering project.

[Admiral Halsey]

I thought you already listed it. It was a military engineering project.

Added my reason for its inclusion as well.

[Eichhörnchen]

I have to look that one up but I did get reminded of....

https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=monty+python+funniest+joke+ever+told

The "Funnies" were the variously enhanced/adapted armoured vehicles such as the Duplex-Drive Tank, Churchill AVRE bunker-buster, "Crab Tank" (flail for mineclearing) and Bobbin Tank for roadlaying. There was also an instant-bridge laying tank.

They were the brainchild of Major General Percy Hobart and were enthusiastically received by Monty, who developed landing strategies based around their use.

[Aktungbby]

^ Ya left out the NASTIEST one of all IMHO: the Churchill CROCODILE; If the first tanks in WWI had terrified the Germans, this one was a direct descendant of the fear concept. Kind of ancient 'Greek fire 'meets modern treads concept... nothing good goes outta style when killin' your fellow man roastin' and toastin' style!:up: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Churchill_Crocodile_01.jpgI f

[Eichhörnchen]

This shows the "Bobbin" which got all following vehicles across soft or sandy ground. Another well-known "Funny" was the Crocodile flame-throwing tank. It's been said that adoption of these specialist tanks would have saved many American lives, but the only one they would consider was the swimming DD tank.

[Eichhörnchen]

You must've got that in while I was still typing! Many a brown trouser was caused by this Demon of D-Day...

[Jimbuna]

I meant as a matter of public record the US goverment never acknoleged the PE. Sorry I did make that clear in the previous post.

No problem...certainly no harm or foul :cool:

[Jimbuna]

Wouldnt it be easier to narrow down a list first? Then go to supporting arguments? You make list everyone votes yay or nay with option vote to hear a supporting argument on a given item. Then once ten are selected by vote we can have supporting arguments to help select an order greatest feat being 1 the order selected via vote after supporting/counter arguments.

Rgr that.

[Eichhörnchen]

The original premise...
Greatest feat of military engineering in the twentieth century.
Clarification needed.
Are we talking engineering for the military or by the military, such as Combat Engineers or Seabees?

The Romans developed a method of building driven pile bridges over rivers that is still used today in one form or another.
Like the Baily bridge which wasn't really developed or engineered by the military. Just a private contractor who engineered the thing to military supplied specs.

I've been thinking again about the original question and I'd interpret it as calling for things invented SPECIFICALLY for military use, so not including any aeroplanes, ships and suchlike.

Of course the aircraft carrier was a unique feat of completely military conception; there never was a civilian aircraft carrier, but since it was a development of the marine-going vessel we call a ship, can it be included? I don't want to stick my head into a meat-grinder, but I only started to think more deeply about this after re-reading the debate above and seriously considering withdrawing my "Funnies".

Considering the question posed by Wolfertz, I don't suppose either that every feat of military engineering was originated by the Military themselves. But of course anything they do develop will likely be intended for the express purpose of fighting wars but may continue to serve long after its original purpose has been fulfilled.

And further, I always think that a "feat" is something huge, like the Manhattan Project (a perfect suggestion made earlier) but some smaller achievements can have consequences almost as enormous, such as the little metal plate welded over the carburettor of the Spitfire to prevent the engine cutting out in a sudden dive: if the RAF hadn't been able to keep up with the Me109 then NO UK victory in 1940, consequently NO 8th Air Force over here and NO D-Day after that. But does that make that little metal plate a "feat"? It seems too small. That's what made me wonder whether the Funnies were not simply an adaptation of existing hardware (military, sure) but not a feat in themselves...

[mako88sb]

Hobart's "Funnies". Not taken up in the main by the U.S. when offered by the British (although they did make use of the DD Tank) these feats of design, of purely military origin, were to contribute much toward the success of D-Day.

I've always had a problem with the USA being portrayed as turning down the majority of the funnies and the resulting high casualties at Omaha being the result. Utah beach had the lowest casualty count of the 5 beaches and I think it's fairly similar to Gold beach in terms of assault difficulty. Mind you, they were much more successful getting the majority of their DD tanks landed compared to Omaha so that does tend to support the theory that they did make a difference.

However, as far as the rest of the funnies go there's a book written by Richard Anderson Jr called "Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: The 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day" that goes into some detail about how these were not as readily available as one might think. For example, the various forms of Churchill tank based AVRE's used by the British and Canuck's were for the most part delivered mere weeks before the originally scheduled 1st week in May landings. On top of this was the late delivery of most of the special dustbin ammo for the AVRE's petard mortar. Most crews were limited to just 3 practise rounds and due to the rush getting the AVRE's delivered on time, they were unable to develop a proper sighting system for the petard before the invasion. In fact it wasn't until August that they began retrofitting the sights to units out in the field.

Of the other funnies such as Sherman dozers, crabs and Churchill crocodiles, the book does much to explain why they weren't incorporated into the USA's plans. Another issue that would of limited their use even if they did manage to produce enough of them was the simple fact that there was a shortage of landing craft which is why the USA used DUKW's to land some of their artillery.

You really should check the book out if your interested in the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Hitlers-Atlantic-Wall-Engineers/dp/0811705897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409690942&sr=8-1&keywords=cracking+hitlers+atlantic

[TarJak]

I'm surprised that the V2 rocket hasn't been mentioned yet. In terms of engineering and it's contribution to later weapons and civil technology it would have to be up there.

[Stealhead]

I'm surprised that the V2 rocket hasn't been mentioned yet. In terms of engineering and it's contribution to later weapons and civil technology it would have to be up there.

Indeed it was the ICBM that made "mutual assured destruction" a real possibility. The V2 was the first stepping stone as well as towards non-military uses for rockets. The V2 changed things in a major way right away even from the moment the first was used in anger people now had to fear death appearing in an instant with no warning.

[Eichhörnchen]

I've always had a problem with the USA being portrayed as turning down the majority of the funnies and the resulting high casualties at Omaha being the result. Utah beach had the lowest casualty count of the 5 beaches and I think it's fairly similar to Gold beach in terms of assault difficulty. Mind you, they were much more successful getting the majority of their DD tanks landed compared to Omaha so that does tend to support the theory that they did make a difference.

However, as far as the rest of the funnies go there's a book written by Richard Anderson Jr called "Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: The 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day" that goes into some detail about how these were not as readily available as one might think. For example, the various forms of Churchill tank based AVRE's used by the British and Canuck's were for the most part delivered mere weeks before the originally scheduled 1st week in May landings. On top of this was the late delivery of most of the special dustbin ammo for the AVRE's petard mortar. Most crews were limited to just 3 practise rounds and due to the rush getting the AVRE's delivered on time, they were unable to develop a proper sighting system for the petard before the invasion. In fact it wasn't until August that they began retrofitting the sights to units out in the field.

Of the other funnies such as Sherman dozers, crabs and Churchill crocodiles, the book does much to explain why they weren't incorporated into the USA's plans. Another issue that would of limited their use even if they did manage to produce enough of them was the simple fact that there was a shortage of landing craft which is why the USA used DUKW's to land some of their artillery.

You really should check the book out if your interested in the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Hitlers-Atlantic-Wall-Engineers/dp/0811705897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409690942&sr=8-1&keywords=cracking+hitlers+atlantic

That's a great recommendation for me, since I've found myself searching out books on this part of the war far more than any other just lately, and it's one I've never seen. Thanks loads...

[Buddahaid]

I'm surprised that the V2 rocket hasn't been mentioned yet. In terms of engineering and it's contribution to later weapons and civil technology it would have to be up there.

It was on post #13.

[TarJak]

Didn't show up when I searched for it.

[Aktungbby]

Silence is Golden! ??? A world's biggest silencer for a tank?http://i.imgur.com/QURkdfg.jpg

[Stealhead]

That does not count.It is German a "silencer" whose purpose is not to violate the German noise laws. It has no actual military value. We had to deal with German sound laws in Germany. On certain hours on Saturday and all Sunday we had to get permission to run jet engine tests they always said no so engine runs where only performed during the work week. did not bother me really enlisted barracks are always right near the flight line.

Military value zero especially for an artillery round which will be spotted by counter artillery radar and where gun blast signature matters not.



That is not a tank anyway it is an M109 self propelled howitzer.

There is another version which lies parallel to the ground for the Leopard II.

[Aktungbby]

Well it is the anniversary of "tread softly and carry a big stick" T. Roosevelt:woot:

[Eichhörnchen]

My brother commanded the British version of one of these vehicles when he was in the RA in Germany: it was called an Abbot Gun. And yes, people were always calling that a tank...

[Mush Martin]

Just to clarify, 20th Century, engineered for military purposes,
this does not exclude aircraft or ships, but the airplane itself
wasnt for military purposes and the ship was invented in a different
century, however my first post includes The Essex class carrier program
so... ships are ok.

Im surprised no one has put up Chain Home or ASDIC.

MM

[TarJak]

SONAR got a mention earlier. ASDIC was simply an early form of it.

The Bletchley Park decryption complex would be on my list. The Bombe, Tunny and Colossus were a big part of it, though these only provided the daily keys,the auto teleprinters used for decoding thousands of messages once the keys were known were engineering marvels in their own right.

[Jimbuna]

SONAR got a mention earlier. ASDIC was simply an early form of it.

The Bletchley Park decryption complex would be on my list. The Bombe, Tunny and Colossus were a big part of it, though these only provided the daily keys,the auto teleprinters used for decoding thousands of messages once the keys were known were engineering marvels in their own right.

I should imagine the list will be subjective....ask a hundred people and you'll probably get a hundred different lists.

[mako88sb]

That's a great recommendation for me, since I've found myself searching out books on this part of the war far more than any other just lately, and it's one I've never seen. Thanks loads...

Your welcome. I was rushing a bit yesterday so were I mentioned dozer tanks was a error on my part. The USA did use these in their assault forces but the book goes into detail about how many more Sherman's were to be converted to this particular role but due to time constraints weren't.

Another book you might be interested in is this one by Richard Doherty:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hobarts-79th-Armoured-Division-War/dp/1848843984/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409764219&sr=1-1&keywords=hobarts+79th+armoured+division+at+war

It doesn't go into as much detail about the D-day landings but it does cover the funnies use until the end of the war. Interestingly, the author corroborates what Richard Anderson had to say about the AVRE's tight delivery schedule and the fact they only had enough for the British & Canadians so it's pretty apparent that there's no way any of them could of been used on Omaha or Utah beaches. Also, he doesn't refute any of the other points brought up about the various other types of funnies and why they weren't used by the Americans. Despite that, he still takes a shot at the USA at the conclusion of the D-day chapter by implying that casualties on Omaha would of been greatly reduced if only they would of accepted the British offer to use more funnies???? Pretty ridiculous claim when the facts are brought to light including by himself.

[Eichhörnchen]

Thanks again: that's fascinating stuff...:yeah:

[Mush Martin]

I should imagine the list will be subjective....ask a hundred people and you'll probably get a hundred different lists.

True I am certain, but what fun............:D

[Stealhead]

So where we stand? Do you want more detailed arguments or what? You are the CO Mush.

[Armistead]

MRAP II

[Mush Martin]

:hmm2:

I feel we are not ready to stand anywhere yet.

Consider if you will, the Lido Road, or for that matter the
Alaskan Highway. ( these are massive military engineering
projects with lasting economic and political effects.)

How about bio engineering, ie. Not penicillin itself but mass production
techniques developed for penicillin became a mainstay for the rest of
twentieth century immuno research and development.

It goes on and on, as I alluded to before, Rickover's naval
atomic power will carry far beyond the twentieth century and
far beyond the oceans.

:shifty:..............should we pick ten and do a survey?
I am not sure the entries are all in yet?

[Mush Martin]

Or.............. what about the one I am afraid of the most.
Weaponized Ebola Marburg ?.

No, its not enough to be a weapon it must have an impact on the
world outside the military but be engineered for the military. here
at last I think we have reached the correct criterion.

Definitely this moves the Axial flow turbine up the list.

arguments for or against:hmm2:

MM.

[Eichhörnchen]

The Maginot Line

[Jimbuna]

The Maginot Line

Wasn't that a failure? :)

[Eichhörnchen]

Ultimately, yes, but does that disqualify it? When you look at the concept and the engineering, I'd say it's a contender...

[Raptor1]

The line itself was perfectly fine, even a success considering the actual purpose it was built for. It just really couldn't make up for the Allies' strategic failures beyond it.

[Eichhörnchen]

Agree. If I remember correctly, it was undermanned and had perforce to end at the Belgian border; the French were complacent...

[Mush Martin]

There is a saying these days,
"A cave is a grave" I don't feel the Maginot line
for all its impressive engineering, had any real
lasting effect outside five miles. or for that
matter after 1940.:hmm2:

It never kept out what it was meant to keep out.
Thereby spending millions and millions of Franc's for
no effect.

[Jimbuna]

Ultimately, yes, but does that disqualify it? When you look at the concept and the engineering, I'd say it's a contender...

Not even a close second to the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

[Eichhörnchen]

Yes, I know that saying, and it was indeed a testament to the passing of the of the fortress mentality. Do our contenders have to have been a lasting success to qualify?

[Mush Martin]

:hmm2:The contenders should have a lasting and visible influence on the future,
or a level of brilliance not easily matched.

What about chase me charlies? the smart bomb
eventually caught on as a line item.
Or the brilliant engineering behind the Sten mk IIS
the silenced submachine gun in 9mm became the
commando standard for the next half century?
not complex engineering but brilliant engineering
none the less.

this whole question was never going to be simple.:doh:

[Eichhörnchen]

In the Army the Sten was known as "The Woolworths Special" because of its simple manufacture.

[Eichhörnchen]

German Flak Towers; maybe the saying quoted above reminded me of these.

They most certainly do represent a lasting and highly visible influence, at least on their surroundings. In many cases the architects who designed them realised that this would be the case and that they might never be removed.

[Raptor1]

There is a saying these days,
"A cave is a grave" I don't feel the Maginot line
for all its impressive engineering, had any real
lasting effect outside five miles. or for that
matter after 1940.:hmm2:

It never kept out what it was meant to keep out.
Thereby spending millions and millions of Franc's for
no effect.

The Maginot Line wasn't supposed to keep the invasion out, just force it to go through Belgium where the French Army would have a shorter front to defend and more time to mobilize. From that perspective it did everything it needed to do; the invasion did have to go through the Low Countries to get around it, where it was (supposed to be) contested by the best units in the Allied armies, and it was not breached until the campaign was practically over.

The Allies did subsequently get their armies destroyed in Belgium and Northern France, but that was only because they failed to properly deploy their forces to counter the invasion, not because of factors relating to the line itself or any sort of over-reliance on it.

[Eichhörnchen]

So how about this? These structures have an enduring visual impact and the architects who designed them often took this into account: they would in most cases be all but impossible to remove.

[Mush Martin]

lets try to refine it a bit, regarding nuclear power,

clearly the power station reactors deserve consideration,
but where nuclear power takes off is with the Nautilis
and Enterprise.

I tend to give the nod to Nautilis because it is the first
direct product of the naval nuclear reactor program, but
has Enterprise had a wider influence ?:hmm2:

[Eichhörnchen]

Yeah, yeah, but what about Flak Towers: can I have them?:shifty:

[Stealhead]

lets try to refine it a bit, regarding nuclear power,

clearly the power station reactors deserve consideration,
but where nuclear power takes off is with the Nautilis
and Enterprise.

I tend to give the nod to Nautilis because it is the first
direct product of the naval nuclear reactor program, but
has Enterprise had a wider influence ?:hmm2:

I would say less so. By and large only the US operates nuclear powered carriers the most recent French carriers are conventional. Part this due to cost of course and type of naval force a nation has. Also the benefit is lowered with a carrier due to muntions and avation fuel requirements as well as crew fatiuge these are either lesser factors or not factors for a sub. One could argue that nuclear power brings out the true potential of a sub while for a surface vessel it only improves in theory a carrier of course it battle fleet still is mainly conventional and therefore you still have a limitation.

[Stealhead]

Not even a close second to the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Great example of logistics. Actually it was mainly roads until the end sections. One thing they did which was very clever they actually made bridges that where just below the surface of the water they spanned to make them harder and damage.

[Jimbuna]

Great example of logistics. Actually it was mainly roads until the end sections. One thing they did which was very clever they actually made bridges that where just below the surface of the water they spanned to make them harder and damage.

And to great effect when you take into consideration the end game :yep:

[Mush Martin]

Yeah, yeah, but what about Flak Towers: can I have them?:shifty:


No, what makes them any better than the maginot line?

[Jimbuna]

No, what makes them any better than the maginot line?

Nothing...but the outcome was the same.

[Eichhörnchen]

No, what makes them any better than the maginot line?

Well only that they were: (a) bleedin' great huge things which (b) fulfilled their purpose and (c) have had an enduring impact on their surroundings...

[Eichhörnchen]

Because Nazi Germany was a militaristic state, large scale engineering undertakings would often/usually combine civil and martial objectives. The autobahn would therefore qualify in my view (flak towers for the same reason).

[TarJak]

Because Nazi Germany was a militaristic state, large scale engineering undertakings would often/usually combine civil and martial objectives. The autobahn would therefore qualify in my view (flak towers for the same reason).


But as far as engineering feats, go, building a highway is not exactly that great.

[Eichhörnchen]

No, maybe not, but what about the Flak Towers?

[Jimbuna]

Because Nazi Germany was a militaristic state, large scale engineering undertakings would often/usually combine civil and martial objectives. The autobahn would therefore qualify in my view (flak towers for the same reason).

Well beaten by the Romans (highway wise).

[Jimbuna]

No, maybe not, but what about the Flak Towers?

Not all that successful at saving the likes of Hamburg and Berlin from being reduced to rubble by allied bombers.

[Eichhörnchen]

Yes, I'd considered that truth, but they were only a part of what was a hopelessly doomed general defence effort. As far as their part in this defence was concerned, well they were often the only thing left standing after the raids, with their inhabitants mostly saved (their main function being as air-raid shelters) so in that respect I still believe they can be deemed successful.

[Stealhead]

Because Nazi Germany was a militaristic state, large scale engineering undertakings would often/usually combine civil and martial objectives. The autobahn would therefore qualify in my view (flak towers for the same reason).


The autobahn was not designed as a military project so it really can not be counted as one. In fact construction on the autobahn was halted during WWII. Furthermore in Germany the primary logistics mover was the railroad system. Completed sections of the autobahn did prove useful to allied forces and did inspire the Interstate Highway System in the US.

[August]

But as far as engineering feats, go, building a highway is not exactly that great.


But truth be told the Germans did a very good job on what they have. Twice the roadbed depth, excellent drainage, aerodynamic curves It'd be nice if we could have built our interstates like that, especially the thicker roadbed, but with over 42 thousand miles in the system (vs Germany's 8 thousand) the cost is just too prohibitive.

[Mush Martin]

No, maybe not, but what about the Flak Towers?

:hmm2:
the effect of flak towers was easily and mightily eclipsed by
US 5" and 3" AAA using radar guidance, proximity shells and mobility for
protection in the same years as the few towers that were completed.
[edit] also there were a lot more than a just a few US AAA guns.
towers didnt catch on proximity triggers and radar guidance did.

[Eichhörnchen]

The tank