Overrated events/persons in history?

[Dowly]

Thought this might spark some interesting discussion. :yep:

List event or person(s) you think are overrated and why!

I'll start with Boudica/Boudicca/Boadicea's revolt of 60/61 AD.

Why?
It was just another failed revolt against Rome that did not achieve
anything. Boudicca destroyed three cities and killed the populace, two of
which would have very likely have had a large Briton populace (Londium and Verulamium).

Come first real battle against a roughly 10,000 men Roman army led by
Suetonius in favorable positions and Boudicca decides to attack and get her army slaughtered.

Either she was a bad military leader, or she had the numbers.

Either way, she lost and as I said before, the revolt achieved nothing.

Discuss!

[Oberon]

I'm a big fan of Rommel as a general, but his dash through France has been somewhat overblown, if anything it was only the collapse of the French communications ability and disorganisation that prevented him from being isolated and destroyed.
Likewise the tanks he used, only a handful of them were a match for the French and British armour they faced. At the Battle of Arras it was only the Flak 88 which managed to blunt the British attack of Matilda II tanks.

That being said, one of the great successes of the invasion, aside from the surprise of the Ardennes, was the one day when the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were actually organised enough to work together. I believe the Wehrmacht called it 'The day when everything went right', I think it was on the Breakout at Sedan and the crossing of the Meuse. At this point the French government itself believed it was beaten, and things broke down pretty badly. That, really, was the best success of 'Blitzkrieg', the speed and shock, the morale side of it. If the British and French had managed to retreat out of Belgium in time and organise a better defence then they could well have halted the German advance.

In Africa, Rommel was better, but I'm not so sure he deserves the almost mythic status he has attained in modern history, although as generals of the Wehrmacht go, he wasn't a bad one, but I wouldn't have put him as the best. :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

Patton?

[ExFishermanBob]

Magna Carta.

Imagine if there were a document that expressed that the people, town and country, had the right to choose and dismiss their monarch (president) at some time of their choosing (say, every 4 years) and that that was approved by the international ruler of the time (the pope).

Guess what...not the Magna Carta, but the Declaration of Arbroath.

[Raptor1]

I'm a big fan of Rommel as a general, but his dash through France has been somewhat overblown, if anything it was only the collapse of the French communications ability and disorganisation that prevented him from being isolated and destroyed.
Likewise the tanks he used, only a handful of them were a match for the French and British armour they faced. At the Battle of Arras it was only the Flak 88 which managed to blunt the British attack of Matilda II tanks.

That being said, one of the great successes of the invasion, aside from the surprise of the Ardennes, was the one day when the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were actually organised enough to work together. I believe the Wehrmacht called it 'The day when everything went right', I think it was on the Breakout at Sedan and the crossing of the Meuse. At this point the French government itself believed it was beaten, and things broke down pretty badly. That, really, was the best success of 'Blitzkrieg', the speed and shock, the morale side of it. If the British and French had managed to retreat out of Belgium in time and organise a better defence then they could well have halted the German advance.

In Africa, Rommel was better, but I'm not so sure he deserves the almost mythic status he has attained in modern history, although as generals of the Wehrmacht go, he wasn't a bad one, but I wouldn't have put him as the best. :hmmm:

In many ways the Allies lost the Battle of France far more than the Germans won it. Rommel's dash was successful in the end but it was a small part in a large amount of failures on the part of the Allies to deal with the Germans offensive.

In my opinion there's a fair reason Rommel is considered one of the best German generals of the war. I think he was one of the few generals on both sides to really managed to adapt to the conditions of the Western Desert campaign, especially because of his ability to launch full-scale offensives with little warning or preparation to exploit the enemy's weakness. There's a tendency to blame him for the Axis' logistical shortcomings in the North African theater these days but I think that's usually unfair considering the situation he was in.

As for overrated people, in my opinion Attila the Hun often gets an undue amount of attention. He pursued a couple of successful campaigns against the Eastern Roman Empire, which was in a hardly impressive state at the time, but failed to take any significant part of the already collapsing Western Empire until his death, which was followed in short order by that of his empire. Ultimately, I think his reputation is much greater than his actual achievements.

[Betonov]

Alexander the great.
He was an excellent commander but a lousy king.
I don't know if he was trying to make an empire or just building a highway to India.

[Torplexed]

I've always thought Hannibal is over rated. He won a few battles on Italian soil but ultimately lost the war and his home nation of Carthage was wiped out as a result. I'm pretty sure Scipio Africanus thought he was over rated. Get a few elephants over Alps and the accolades go on forever.

Oh..and Yoko Ono. A tedious wannabe artist who only deserves fame for her on-off marriage to someone of far greater talent.

[Torplexed]

Patton?

I'm sure that charge could be leveled against Patton in many ways, but in the pantheon of US WW2 generals, Douglas MacArthur is far more richly deserving. The man presides over a disaster in the Philippines much of it his own making, is plucked from the middle of it as his command crumbles and made a national hero over night. Go figure. General Dmitry Pavlov of the Soviet Western Front should have been so lucky.

[Stealhead]

I'm sure that charge could be leveled against Patton in many ways, but in the pantheon of US WW2 generals, Douglas MacArthur is far more richly deserving. The man presides over a disaster in the Philippines much of it his own making, is plucked from the middle of it as his command crumbles and made a national hero over night. Go figure. General Dmitry Pavlov of the Soviet Western Front should have been so lucky.

Fully agree.

As to Patton he was overrated even during the war as the Germans feared him. Had the whole fake army prior to D-Day as a ruse. What I do like about Patton which can not be be said of his peers is he lead from the front this is why most men under him respected him and his enemies feared him. Rommel was similar in this respect.

When comes to history often it is hard to judge where truth ends and myth begins.

[August]

Montgomery.

His greatest claim to fame is that he just happened to be the latest in a long line of British Commanders when the tide of men and material finally overwhelmed a weakened and stretched out Afrika Corps. During the Sicily campaign his decision to land at Syracuse allowed the Germans to escape from Messina. His tardiness in clearing the Schelde Estuary very nearly ran the Allies out of gas and ammo just as they hit the German border and his Holland campaign was far more than A Bridge Too Far, it got an entire Airborne division wiped out and they were lucky it wasn't three and an Armored Corps to boot.

[Red October1984]

Lewis Hamilton, anybody?

I can't bring myself to consider him one of F1's greatest. I feel like that if he didn't have such a good team of engineers, mechanics, etc behind him he wouldn't be where he is. I feel that everybody gives him credit for what the Mercedes team (and McLaren before, although he had some problems with them) has done for him. I'm not saying he's not good...he's a damn good driver but I don't consider him a living legend by any means. He comes across to me as a guy who takes advantage of a good situation and tries to do too much with it.

EDIT: Opinion is the same regardless of whether or not I have the big Scuderia Ferrari signature. I'd feel the same way, either way.

[Betonov]

Oh..and Yoko Ono. A tedious wannabe artist who only deserves fame for her on-off marriage to someone of far greater talent.

Speaking of which.
John Lennon and the whole Beatles.

[Jimbuna]

Lewis Hamilton, anybody?

I can't bring myself to consider him one of F1's greatest. I feel like that if he didn't have such a good team of engineers, mechanics, etc behind him he wouldn't be where he is. I feel that everybody gives him credit for what the Mercedes team (and McLaren before, although he had some problems with them) has done for him. I'm not saying he's not good...he's a damn good driver but I don't consider him a living legend by any means. He comes across to me as a guy who takes advantage of a good situation and tries to do too much with it.

EDIT: Opinion is the same regardless of whether or not I have the big Scuderia Ferrari signature. I'd feel the same way, either way.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion/estimation....three times world champion at the age of 30 is not some minor achievement.

Can you name me a world champion that won said position with a poor underperforming car and similar backup team?

Speaking of which.
John Lennon and the whole Beatles.

Sacrilege young man :o

[Betonov]

Sacrilege young man :o

I'm a pagan, I know :O:

[u crank]

I'm a pagan, I know :O:

Yes, but you're young so we forgive you. :O:

[Jimbuna]

Montgomery.

His greatest claim to fame is that he just happened to be the latest in a long line of British Commanders when the tide of men and material finally overwhelmed a weakened and stretched out Afrika Corps. During the Sicily campaign his decision to land at Syracuse allowed the Germans to escape from Messina. His tardiness in clearing the Schelde Estuary very nearly ran the Allies out of gas and ammo just as they hit the German border and his Holland campaign was far more than A Bridge Too Far, it got an entire Airborne division wiped out and they were lucky it wasn't three and an Armored Corps to boot.

I tend to agree and Operation Goodwood was the ultimate turning point in the relationship between Eisenhower and him, Eisenhower feeling that Montgomery lied in his promised pre-operational objectives, leaving him (Eisenhower) open to allegations of failure from his 'enemies'.

[STEED]

Present British Prime Minister David Cameron.

UK debt has doubled under him.
Recovery based on the service sector figures, banks in most part.

I know BossMark will agree with me.

[Platapus]

Two events that, while emotional, really are overrated in the context of actual events:

1. Kennedy's address to congress on 25 May 61

I believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.

This is often applauded as being visionary, but it was simply political one-up-manship.

Earlier, Richard Nixon gave two speeches concerning space exploration.

In one, Nixon called for a manned trip around the moon, and in the other predicted that the first manned moon landing would occur in the 1970's

If your political opponent calls for a trip around the moon, then you say landing on the moon

If you political opponent calls for a moon landing in the 1970's, then you say before the 1970's.

JFK's speech writers just took Nixon's speeches and just "added 1".

Since JFK was not initially a big fan of the space race, I often wonder who was JFK competing against? The USSR or Nixon?

2. Reagan 12 Jun 87 speech
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

The actual opening of the border control was much more complicated and the US played an almost negligible role.

Both speeches were inspiring and certainly good political moves. But for actually changing world events, I feel they were overrated.

[Subnuts]

Well, I'd personally list every single person who was in Hitler's inner circle between 1933 and 1945, but if I did, I'd probably break the forum in the process. :O:

[STEED]

Well, I'd personally list every single person who was in Hitler's inner circle between 1933 and 1945, but if I did, I'd probably break the forum in the process. :O:

Not sure. :hmmm:

As your on the subject area..

Barbarossa 1941

On paper looked possible, true to say Hitler did attack in the right year but long term planning and logistical support was poor. After the big punch of the first three weeks the army groups started to fan out and the problems set in. Hitler and his cronies believed in the great German will power, short sighted thinking.

[Stealhead]

Not sure. :hmmm:

As your on the subject area..

Barbarossa 1941

On paper looked possible, true to say Hitler did attack in the right year but long term planning and logistical support was poor. After the big punch of the first three weeks the army groups started to fan out and the problems set in. Hitler and his cronies believed in the great German will power, short sighted thinking.

I think that the German military and everyone else was fooled by blitzkrieg and the fact that as yet (when Barbarossa was planned) no enemy had yet countered it. To think that they would make it all the way to Moscow and capture it before the Soviet military could bring about an effective counter was foolish. Granted they got close 20 miles but did not reach surround or most important actually capture Moscow.

[Betonov]

And lets not forget that Stalins purges likely killed off talented commanders and instilled fear into goverment officials that dared not bring bad news about stepping up war preparations.
The Germans would have crashed into a wall if a less paranoid leader would have let the ww1 and civil war hardened comanders prepare defences.

[Raptor1]

On the subject of Barbarossa, I think Operation Marita and the diversion of Army Group Center to the Battle of Kiev are often given unnecessary credit in supposedly fatally delaying the launch of Barbarossa and the attack on Moscow, respectively. I've seen many people that seem to think that had these events not occurred (ignoring, of course, that it was mud season in Russia when the Battle of Greece took place and the threat the Kiev salient posed to the German lines), the German army would have somehow captured Moscow and won the war.

This likely comes from the (in my opinion) mistaken but widespread impression that the Germans were somehow one right decision short of winning the war, rather than not even being remotely close to anything of the sort.

EDIT: Thinking about it, it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that the German army in World War II is itself overrated in many ways either.

[ikalugin]

EDIT: Thinking about it, it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that the German army in World War II is itself overrated in many ways either.
Which brings me to the point - German stories of GPW (WW2 on the Eastern Front) from which Cold War Western doctrines, tactics and operational concepts were developed.
Somehow people were trying to recapture the way Germans were fighting USSR, but forgeting that Germans lost that war for a reason.

[Oberon]

Continuing on the theme of WWII, I want to take a different stance and promote something, or rather someone, who is rather underrated and indeed has come to symbolise the failures which lead to the war.

Neville Chamberlain.

A name often associated with one action at one place, the treaty of Munich, but Chamberlain did so much more than that. In fact, he presided over the steady armament and preparation of Britain for an outbreak of war in Europe. Churchill came in as PM when it had all been completed, and carried in Britain in the defence and then offensive, but Chamberlain was the PM who laid the groundwork.
It's just a pity that all he is remembered for is a mistake in his foreign policy, but there's a lot of Presidents and Prime Minister who have history like that. :03:

[STEED]

The Beatles..:/\\!!

[Betonov]

The Beatles..:/\\!!

You saying they're overrated or are you going to find me and kill me :o

[STEED]

You saying they're overrated or are you going to find me and kill me :o

:haha:

I just don't get this Beatles mania that is still here today!

They were rubbish and very over rated.

[Betonov]

Thank god I'm not the only one

[STEED]

Thank god I'm not the only one

:har: :har: :har: :har: :up:

[BossMark]

Lewis Hamilton, anybody?

I can't bring myself to consider him one of F1's greatest. I feel like that if he didn't have such a good team of engineers, mechanics, etc behind him he wouldn't be where he is. I feel that everybody gives him credit for what the Mercedes team (and McLaren before, although he had some problems with them) has done for him. I'm not saying he's not good...he's a damn good driver but I don't consider him a living legend by any means. He comes across to me as a guy who takes advantage of a good situation and tries to do too much with it.

EDIT: Opinion is the same regardless of whether or not I have the big Scuderia Ferrari signature. I'd feel the same way, either way.
Got to agree with Lewis Hamilton, his heads that big I am surprised that he can walk through the door, and I could win the F1 championship in the car he as been given to drive.

[BossMark]

:haha:

I just don't get this Beatles mania that is still here today!

They were rubbish and very over rated.
And they are\were scouses......

[Betonov]

Maltese falcon: fell asleep watching it and after second wiewing still found it boring.

Andy Warhol: so he retouched existing images into an ''artsy colory''

Crime and punishment: first part OK, second part an epic about sitting in a prison cell. Cut it down to the same lenght as the first part and you get Shawshank redemption

[Red October1984]

Can you name me a world champion that won said position with a poor underperforming car and similar backup team?

I wasn't at all saying that he's not talented. He's a damn good driver to even be in Formula One and a better one to win but a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Mercedes engineers have crafted the almost-perfect racing car this season.

It's exactly my point. He's a good driver...but he wouldn't be winning if the car wasn't so well put together. Take Fernando Alonso...great driver but awful car. My Ford Focus could probably nearly beat the McLaren-Honda this year. (Not being serious...but insulting McLaren-Honda is necessary)

Got to agree with Lewis Hamilton, his heads that big I am surprised that he can walk through the door, and I could win the F1 championship in the car he as been given to drive.

This whole thing on turn one of the US GP with him and Rosberg just goes to prove the point. Hamilton "under-steered into" his teammate and then claims he did nothing wrong. Then the guy says “Everyone has the right to their own opinion but it doesn’t matter because I won the race so I feel pretty good about it.” Yeah, Rosberg ran wide later and gave up the lead to Hammy but that's unrelated.

Meanwhile, Rosberg is pissed...and it's not the first time this happened either. They crashed at Spa last year.

I just can't bring myself to like the guy or think that he deserves the hype that he gets. I feel like Rosberg would be better off with a different teammate...I feel like he deserves a better teammate whether he's with Mercedes or not in the coming years.

---

This is why WRC, WEC and WTCC is more entertaining. No drama. :rock:

[Sailor Steve]

Can you name me a world champion that won said position with a poor underperforming car and similar backup team?

Juan Manuel Fangio, 1957.

Just my opinion, of course.

[mapuc]

This thread is very interesting to follow, I don't have any person my self I think is overrated. I guess every historical and/or famous person or event have been more or less overrated.

Markus

[Schroeder]

Juan Manuel Fangio, 1957.

Just my opinion, of course.
Michael Schumacher 1994.
Just my opinion.

[Red October1984]

Michael Schumacher 1994.
Just my opinion.

Everything was against him that year too with the cheating controversies and such.

Damn shame, the accident he had. :dead:

[Stealhead]

Everyone cheats in motorsports. Sometimes teams get caught. Especially in Formula One with the amount of money teams spend and the reputations to protect. I gurantee that today in F1 they are cheating in ways that the inspectors haven't even thought of.

[Jimbuna]

Continuing on the theme of WWII, I want to take a different stance and promote something, or rather someone, who is rather underrated and indeed has come to symbolise the failures which lead to the war.

Neville Chamberlain.

A name often associated with one action at one place, the treaty of Munich, but Chamberlain did so much more than that. In fact, he presided over the steady armament and preparation of Britain for an outbreak of war in Europe. Churchill came in as PM when it had all been completed, and carried in Britain in the defence and then offensive, but Chamberlain was the PM who laid the groundwork.
It's just a pity that all he is remembered for is a mistake in his foreign policy, but there's a lot of Presidents and Prime Minister who have history like that. :03:

Mainly agree but Chamberlain was never going to lead us to victory.

[Jimbuna]

I wasn't at all saying that he's not talented. He's a damn good driver to even be in Formula One and a better one to win but a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Mercedes engineers have crafted the almost-perfect racing car this season.

It's exactly my point. He's a good driver...but he wouldn't be winning if the car wasn't so well put together. Take Fernando Alonso...great driver but awful car. My Ford Focus could probably nearly beat the McLaren-Honda this year. (Not being serious...but insulting McLaren-Honda is necessary)



This whole thing on turn one of the US GP with him and Rosberg just goes to prove the point. Hamilton "under-steered into" his teammate and then claims he did nothing wrong. Then the guy says “Everyone has the right to their own opinion but it doesn’t matter because I won the race so I feel pretty good about it.” Yeah, Rosberg ran wide later and gave up the lead to Hammy but that's unrelated.

Meanwhile, Rosberg is pissed...and it's not the first time this happened either. They crashed at Spa last year.

I just can't bring myself to like the guy or think that he deserves the hype that he gets. I feel like Rosberg would be better off with a different teammate...I feel like he deserves a better teammate whether he's with Mercedes or not in the coming years.

---

This is why WRC, WEC and WTCC is more entertaining. No drama. :rock:

TBH and in all fairness I feel similarly regarding 'Finger Man' Vettel.

[Red October1984]

TBH and in all fairness I feel similarly regarding 'Finger Man' Vettel.

If you feel that way about Vettel, I'll allow it. Never liked him all that much when he was at Red Bull, but he's doing his job for Ferrari. He's winning points so I can't complain. Kimi isn't in the points so somebody has to.

It's hard being a Ferrari fan lately. Raikkonen and Verstappen are my guys...I just wish Kimi would get it together. Hopefully, Verstappen will make a move to Ferrari by 2017. Bottas would've been a good snag too but Williams sayeth he stayeth.

On a side note, I'm really excited to see what Haas F1 can do in the future.

[ikalugin]

How about... Apple? I am not sure how it works in the Western countries, but in Russia people buy Apple stuff just b/c of brand loyalty.

[Stealhead]

How about... Apple? I am not sure how it works in the Western countries, but in Russia people buy Apple stuff just b/c of brand loyalty.

Its the same here in the US trendy more than anything. What really gets me is their adds they ran "engineered in America" but of course they don't say its made in China for a substantial amount less than the price tag. Of course that last part is true for any smartphone.

[Red October1984]

How about... Apple? I am not sure how it works in the Western countries, but in Russia people buy Apple stuff just b/c of brand loyalty.

100% agree with this. Apple is evil, IMHO.

[Stealhead]

No more so than Microsoft or Samsung.

[August]

No more so than Microsoft or Samsung.

Oh yeah it is. Apple is more than just evil capitalists, they're also a cult. Walk into any Apple store and you'll see what I mean. :)

[Raptor1]

I'd say Microsoft is the greater evil. At least whatever Apple does can't effect me as long as I don't want to buy any of their products. As for Apple being overrated, I can't really tell as I haven't used anything that they made extensively, though they did have a few noteworthy innovations in the past.

[Buddahaid]

Jaguar or BMW, Ford or Chevy, Datsun or Toyota. ......

Of course, wannabes drive the BMW's.

[Red October1984]

Jaguar or BMW, Ford or Chevy, Datsun or Toyota. ......Of course, wannabes drive the BMW's.

Now this is the one that i'll dispute. Ford invented the assembly line that revolutionized production of everything...Chevy, as much as I hate them, is (at least to my knowledge) the best at simple, cheap, and effective crate engines (LS). Toyota has made some of the most reliable cars on the market. There are people still driving around 1990 Camrys and having no problems at half a million miles. Jaguar and Datsun I have no personal experience with but they are respected in the automotive world for their accomplishments.

And BMW.....BMW? Overrated? Maybe only on the cultural "bandwagon" side of things. At one point they were the best in the world at making engines. Their naturally aspirated inline-6 from the 80's and 90's was beyond excellent. Their cars are also running for a long time given proper care and they develop some of the best performance cars in their respective classes to come out of Europe. I don't know how you can say that cars like the 3.0CSL, 2002, E30 3-series (and M3), and M1 were overrated.

Not to mention the other innovations that have come from various events related to these automakers...

If any in the automotive world were to be overrated, I'd have to say Lamborghini, Porsche, McLaren, Ferrari, Bugatti, etc...all the "bandwagon" cars that people with no knowledge of cars latch onto as the best in the world. If I had a nickel for every time somebody said that Lamborghini and Bugatti made the best cars on earth i'd be rich and wouldn't need scholarships to go to engineering school.

Just my $0.02

[Betonov]

I'd say Microsoft is the greater evil. At least whatever Apple does can't effect me as long as I don't want to buy any of their products. As for Apple being overrated, I can't really tell as I haven't used anything that they made extensively, though they did have a few noteworthy innovations in the past.

This.

Apple is not evil. Apple is just a company that became lasy becasue they have a fan base that will buy everything served. A commercial momentum as one might say.
They were good, they got a following, they no longer needed to be good.

Which makes them overrated.

[Stealhead]

Now this is the one that i'll dispute. Ford invented the assembly line that revolutionized production of everything...Chevy, as much as I hate them, is (at least to my knowledge) the best at simple, cheap, and effective crate engines (LS). Toyota has made some of the most reliable cars on the market. There are people still driving around 1990 Camrys and having no problems at half a million miles. Jaguar and Datsun I have no personal experience with but they are respected in the automotive world for their accomplishments.

And BMW.....BMW? Overrated? Maybe only on the cultural "bandwagon" side of things. At one point they were the best in the world at making engines. Their naturally aspirated inline-6 from the 80's and 90's was beyond excellent. Their cars are also running for a long time given proper care and they develop some of the best performance cars in their respective classes to come out of Europe. I don't know how you can say that cars like the 3.0CSL, 2002, E30 3-series (and M3), and M1 were overrated.

Not to mention the other innovations that have come from various events related to these automakers...

If any in the automotive world were to be overrated, I'd have to say Lamborghini, Porsche, McLaren, Ferrari, Bugatti, etc...all the "bandwagon" cars that people with no knowledge of cars latch onto as the best in the world. If I had a nickel for every time somebody said that Lamborghini and Bugatti made the best cars on earth i'd be rich and wouldn't need scholarships to go to engineering school.

Just my $0.02


I have not once in my life ever heard a person say that Lambrogini or Bugatti made the best cars on earth. BMW is OK yes but as was said on Top Gear douches drive them. Any maker has "bandwagon" fans so you can't justly single out one maker in thus respect.

Most underrated maker Volvo you can thank many safety features because of Volvo. The three point seat belt was invented by Volvo and they gave the rights away free of charge so every car maker could also have three point seat belts.

In the automobile industry competition is a wonderful thing so hard core fans are a good thing because it means more competition. Example the Ford Mustang without it there would be no Comaro.

[Platapus]

Ford invented the assembly line that revolutionized production of everything...

Just because I am just that kind of pompous annoying type of guy...

The assembly line was used long before Ford.

Firearm manufacturer Honoré LeBlanc (some French guy) first made the concept of an assembly line (interchangeable parts) practical in the late 1700's. About the same time English Naval engineer Samuel Bentham, used LeBlanc's idea and adopted it for the assembly of ship blocks. There was also a clothing manufacturer called North that used an assembly line concept in England. And there were others. Rarely in history does one person "invent" something solely on his or her own. t was actually Thomas Jefferson (as SecState) who brought the assembly idea back to the US.

US History being what it is, naturally an American (Whitney) (cue music) "Invented" the idea of using interchangeable parts and used them in an assembly line.

Ok ok ok, But Ford was the first to use an assembly line for manufacturing cars.

Well, Ransom Olds patented the automobile assembly line in 1901.

But Ford was the one that invented the concept of a moving assembly line where the workers stayed in one place and the product moved..... Except that as early as the 1100's , the Venetian Arsenal produced ships by moving them down a canal where they were fitted with new parts at each stop.

Ok, so what did Ford invent?

First of all, Ford learned a lot from his association with Thomas Edison -- Take credit for the work of your employees. What Ford brought to the assembly line was the concept of the Conveyor System, where the product and its components were transported to the right location, in the right order, at the right time to the point of individual assembly.

And let's not downplay this. This was a significant improvement in the long established practice of assembly lines.

So Ford did not invent the assembly line, he just improved it greatly.

It is not surprising that history books written by American's tend to elevate the participation of American's. I am sure that this applies to many countries' history books. :D I have read some Russian history books that made me shake my head ruefully at times.

Yeah, it is not surprising that I don't get invited to too many parties. :)

[nikimcbee]

Battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz. What a waste of resources and manpower. Bismarck was a one hit wonder and didn't complete a full sortie. ...and Tirpitz? German Navy's winner of hide and seek, well just the hide part. They are both like big, mean rotweilers. Bismarck got out once, bit the mailman, then got run over by a truck 5 minutes later. The Tipitz is the dog, chained up in the back yard that barks non-stop.

Maybe it's a Raeder thing?

[vienna]

One of my ex's is German and she used to laugh at people who thought highly of themselves because they owned a BMW. According to her, BMW is often derided in Germany as the "Bayrischer Mist Wagen", or, in English, "Bavarian Manure Wagon (Car)"...


<O>

[Stealhead]

Battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz. What a waste of resources and manpower. Bismarck was a one hit wonder and didn't complete a full sortie. ...and Tirpitz? German Navy's winner of hide and seek, well just the hide part. They are both like big, mean rotweilers. Bismarck got out once, bit the mailman, then got run over by a truck 5 minutes later. The Tipitz is the dog, chained up in the back yard that barks non-stop.

Maybe it's a Raeder thing?


How would they have performed in a proper fleet as opposed to the inadequate one they where part of? I would argure that the strategy of the Kriegsmarine was to blame not the ships themselves.

[Armistead]

Taylor Swift is overrated. Went to her concert in GSO not long ago with son and friends....sounded to me like a dog was dying on stage, not singing.. Ain't no Dolly fer sure

[nikimcbee]

How would they have performed in a proper fleet as opposed to the inadequate one they where part of? I would argure that the strategy of the Kriegsmarine was to blame not the ships themselves.

I don't disagree with you. I thought about going the whole German surface fleet (except the pocket BBs and merchant raiders, but ultimately all fingers point back to Hitler, but I didn't want to go that route.

I'm not saying the Bismarck and Tirpitz are bad ships, so to speak. I just thought of this, they remind me of a top rated college football player, that makes it to the pros and gets hurt (career ending) on the first play of the game.
I forget, was it Hitler or Raeder that wanted the big, massive battleships? Maybe if they followed the original Z plan timeline, they would have been more successful?:hmmm: I picked the ships for the fear factor they instilled vs what they actually delivered.

[Red October1984]

I have not once in my life ever heard a person say that Lambrogini or Bugatti made the best cars on earth.

You must not have be around too many non-car people between the ages of 15-25 too often. I hear that all the time and I'm constantly arguing about it. I hear it a lot at the parts store that I frequent.

Most underrated maker Volvo you can thank many safety features because of Volvo. The three point seat belt was invented by Volvo and they gave the rights away free of charge so every car maker could also have three point seat belts.

Volvo. :yeah: :sunny:

Example the Ford Mustang without it there would be no Comaro.

I disagree. The Mustang came first and started the whole "affordable sports car" thing. The Mustang came first and for several years there wasn't even a Camaro until the fifth gen. Mustangs soldiered on and remained popular regardless of whether the camaro was competing or not. Sure, the Camaro vs. Mustang debate is a huge deal in the muscle world. Yes, it's competition keeps the cars alive, but Chevy hasn't the same dedication to the Camaro as Ford has to the Mustang I feel.

The Mustang set the standard and then the Camaro has been trying to meet or exceed it for years.

Just because I am just that kind of pompous annoying type of guy...

The assembly line was used long before Ford.

.....

It is not surprising that history books written by American's tend to elevate the participation of American's. I am sure that this applies to many countries' history books. :D I have read some Russian history books that made me shake my head ruefully at times.

Yeah, it is not surprising that I don't get invited to too many parties. :)

Well, I simply was not aware of that fact. I was always told that Ford was the first mass production assembly line. I never looked into it enough to know any different, but now I know.

Learn something every day.

[Stealhead]

You must not have be around too many non-car people between the ages of 15-25 too often. I hear that all the time and I'm constantly arguing about it. I hear it a lot at the parts store that I frequent.



Volvo. :yeah: :sunny:



I disagree. The Mustang came first and started the whole "affordable sports car" thing. The Mustang came first and for several years there wasn't even a Camaro until the fifth gen. Mustangs soldiered on and remained popular regardless of whether the camaro was competing or not. Sure, the Camaro vs. Mustang debate is a huge deal in the muscle world. Yes, it's competition keeps the cars alive, but Chevy hasn't the same dedication to the Camaro as Ford has to the Mustang I feel.

The Mustang set the standard and then the Camaro has been trying to meet or exceed it for years.

The Camaro came out in 1967 so I have no idea what you mean by that statement. A generation is a notable change in the design of a model. Mustag first gen was 1964 1\2 to 1973 the 5th gen Mustang is 2005 to 2015. The Camaro was introduced during the 3rd production year of the Mustang.

Mustang in that time had Shelby Camaro (and other Chevies) had Yenko. I'll bet until reading this you haven't heard of Yenko.


The Pontiac GTO 64,65,66,67 looks 1000% better than either the Mustang or the Camaro. As well the 1964 GTO which until 1966 was a package of the Tempest was the first true affordable sports/muscle car and a stock 64 GTO would murder a stock 64 Mustang. The same man who destined the Delorean thought up and designed the GTO. Of course MOPAR was arguable the first to produce a purpose built high performance engine when they started experimenting with thee HEMI in the 1950's.


You don't know very much about Trans Am racing that much is clear as well.

All you have shown is that you are a fan boy of certain makes yet think that people who are fan boys of the competition are wrong.

People who actually own a Bugatti I find it very doubtful shop at Advance Autoparts.

I'm a car(and machine) person but I find the complete history of cars interesting. So I find a 1967 Shelby GT 350 as interesting as a 1970 Freightliner Dual Drive cabover. I enjoy the history and the technology.

[Red October1984]

The Pontiac GTO 64,65,66,67 looks 1000% better than either the Mustang or the Camaro. As well the 1964 GTO which until 1966 was a package of the Tempest was the first true affordable sports/muscle car and a stock 64 GTO would murder a stock 64 Mustang. The same man who destined the Delorean thought up and designed the GTO. Of course MOPAR was arguable the first to produce a purpose built high performance engine when they started experimenting with thee HEMI in the 1950's.

GTO wasn't even part of the discussion. Sure, a 64 GTO would murder a 64 Mustang. I fail to see the relevance.

You don't know very much about Trans Am racing that much is clear as well.

Never claimed to. Nor do I have a strong burning desire to know every fact about every motorsport. Trans Am racing never really caught my interest quite like rally, GP, and touring cars.

All you have shown is that you are a fan boy of certain makes yet think that people who are fan boys of the competition are wrong.

Never said that they were wrong. I'll admit that I have some bias, but don't we all?

I appreciate cars as feats of engineering, no matter the make and model.

People who actually own a Bugatti I find it very doubtful shop at Advance Autoparts.

You're missing the point that I was making. I give up.

[vienna]

I seem to recall, back in the 70s and 80s, the Camaro was referred to as a 'secretary car'; a car bought by female first time new car buyers with their new paychecks from their first adult jobs (secretary)... :hmmm:


<O>

[Buddahaid]

I'm laughing my puny ass off over starting a battle about car makes. My point was merely people tend to adopt brands and there you are, plus, I love to get a dig in about BMW drivers. In my world they are only eclipsed by Prius, er Pre-ass, drivers for oblivious self-righteousness. Tesla Model S drivers tend to be car lovers and drive with awareness.

[Betonov]

Prius is a pension car here, hippies can't afford it but elderly are quickly talked into buying one. And the Tesla is the CEO car.

[ikalugin]

Here it tends to be BMW or Mercedes long sedans (not sure about proper classification, as I know more about tanks than about cars)

In my opinion thougb cars are over rated. They should be means of transportation, not luxury.

[Catfish]

Almost all SUVs.
Bad visibility, weighs tons (thus completely useless in rough terrain with broad tyres etc, you need slim ones and very few weight), waste of interior space though blown up outside, look like moving cancer.

Whoever "designed" this made me look for a vomiting icon smily:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/picturegalleries/8538993/Ten-of-the-ugliest-cars-ever-made.html?image=9

They block the view from all "normal" cars, and the users are mostly crappy, egomanic drivers, completely helpless in a bit of rain in front of the opera.
:arrgh!:
[/rant]

[Stealhead]

I'm laughing my puny ass off over starting a battle about car makes. My point was merely people tend to adopt brands and there you are, plus, I love to get a dig in about BMW drivers. In my world they are only eclipsed by Prius, er Pre-ass, drivers for oblivious self-righteousness. Tesla Model S drivers tend to be car lovers and drive with awareness.


Here its Subaru WRX drivers there is a pelthra of them here. Most likely because lots of young people at FT. Campbell buy them then realize that they are not ideal daily drivers and going to a cash advance store each month to pay the note gets tiresome. So they either sell them it get repossesed. Then the locals buy those. I'm surprised that there are very few if its direct counterpart Lancer around.

Something pickup/SUV related I find very over rated is the whole "Mall Rat" lift and glass packed exhaust trend. All that and the thing would fall apart on a trail.

[nikimcbee]

I'm laughing my puny ass off over starting a battle about car makes. My point was merely people tend to adopt brands and there you are, plus, I love to get a dig in about BMW drivers. In my world they are only eclipsed by Prius, er Pre-ass, drivers for oblivious self-righteousness. Tesla Model S drivers tend to be car lovers and drive with awareness.

:har::haha::har::salute: I call them the " Pious".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXZeq9eXAys
Smug...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c

Speaking of Pious drivers, I almost smurfing crushed one about an hour ago. They got a good honking at and an admonition to learn to drive. My blood pressure is back to normal.

[STEED]

The 1960's


Times I hear people say the 1960's in London was so hip and cool and.... :|\\

Shut up I don't care! :hulk::hulk: