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!:

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.

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

https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=U...joke+ever+told

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.

Added my reason for its inclusion as well.

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.

Bring on the marshmellows BBY!
 

^ 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/wikipedi...ocodile_01.jpgI f

Bobbin Tank:
 

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.

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

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

Rgr that.

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...