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

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

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 ( )
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]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

@ RDP which 20th century submarine ?

Type VIIC
Type IXB
Gato Class fleet boat
Nautilis ( )
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]

Originally Posted by 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.

there are lots of ways to answer this...

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

there are lots of ways to answer this...

Bollocks!

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

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

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.