German engineering

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by panzerschmuck, Sep 8, 2006.

Tags:
  1. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    And they had the first stealth plane.

    They did not. You should not believe everything you see on The History Channel.
    The aeroplane in question was not built for steath and neither was it the first to use the delta shape.
    Again you fall at the first hurdle.
     
  2. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA

    The name just sounded cool. You're actually enlightening me to it's roots. Why I chose the name is irrelevant. You can't argue with the facts so you go to character assassination. The facts are, the only things that anyone really did better engineering-wise than the Germans in WWII was the American aircraft carriers an the nuke. Germany didn't have a naval focus. Nor was it the navy that won the wr in Europe. It was land and air. The nuke, I'll give ya, even though that is subject to debate. But fine, the nuke was not made by Germany first. Only everything else that I the bulwark of the modern American military, namely jets, ICBM's, cruise missiles and smart bombs. And they had the first stealth plane.

    How about a landing craft? Sea Lion and all that?
     
  3. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    :rolleyes: Right such a lucky co-incidence. Like all of your comments so far, poorly sourced and poorly thought out. I mean even the most basic poster on a history website can learn how to use Wikipedia to support their points, something you can't seem to do. You've presented no "facts" as you've supplied no evidence from any sources other than yourself to back up your ramblings. I wonder what colour the sky is in your world?

    Oh do what part about them making the jet, cruise missiles, smart bombs, rockets and first stealth craft are not facts?
     
  4. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    They did not. You should not believe everything you see on The History Channel.
    The aeroplane in question was not built for steath and neither was it the first to use the delta shape.
    Again you fall at the first hurdle.

    I know it was not originally designed for that. It was a flying wing for distance. And it was a happy accident that it was stealth. Still, they made it first. An it did accomplish stealth because of it's relatively two dimensional profile.
     
  5. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    Oh do what part about them making the jet, cruise missiles, smart bombs, rockets and first stealth craft are not facts?
    Wikipedia
    Here because you obviously can't find it yourself.
    It has its flaws but asking you to google information seems beyond your skill set.
    Now provide some evidence to back up your "facts". Just because you've said it doesn't make it so.
     
  6. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    I know it was not originally designed for that. It was a flying wing for distance. And it was a happy accident that it was stealth. Still, they made it first. An it did accomplish stealth because of it's relatively two dimensional profile.

    First?
    How do you explain this from 1942



    Northrop N-9M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  7. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

  8. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    poorly sourced

    That phrase implies that a source or sources have been provided, when thus far, I have seen nothing that even remotely looks like a source. My suspicions mirrors MK's in that the sources are from the television.
     
    Orwell1984 likes this.
  9. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    Nor was it the navy that won the wr in Europe. It was land and air.

    Without the navies, Europe could never have been liberated. No invasion would have been possible. Of course, that is ignoring the fact that if silly Hitler hadn't bottled it, the Wehrmacht could've mounted 'Sealion' using a selection of converted (low tech ? Perish the thought !) inland barges.

    Ask anyone who was there what the effect of the elderly Ramillies and Warspite firing their 15" guns over the Normandy invasion beaches was. Absolutely terrifying for those underneath, let alone those on the receiving end, regardless of how good their equipment was.
     
  10. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

  11. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    They did not. You should not believe everything you see on The History Channel.
    The aeroplane in question was not built for steath and neither was it the first to use the delta shape.
    Again you fall at the first hurdle.

    First?
    How do you explain this from 1942



    Northrop N-9M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    From Wikipedia. Flying wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Tailless aircraft have been experimented with since the earliest attempts to fly. But it was not until the deep-chord monoplane wing became practicable after World War I that the opportunity to discard any form of fuselage arose and the true flying wing could be realised.

    Hugo Junkers patented a wing-only air transport concept in 1910. He saw it as a natural solution to the problem of building an airliner large enough to carry a reasonable passenger load and enough fuel to cross the Atlantic in regular service. He believed that the flying wing's potentially large internal volume and low drag made it an obvious design for this role. In 1919 he started work on his "Giant" JG1 design, intended to seat passengers within thick wings, but two years later the Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control ordered the incomplete JG1 destroyed for exceeding post-war size limits on German aircraft. Junkers conceived futuristic flying wings for up to 1,000 passengers; the nearest this came to realization was in the 1931 Junkers G-38 34-seater Grossflugzeug airliner which featured a large thick-chord wing providing space for fuel, engines and two passenger cabins. However, it still required a short fuselage to house the crew and additional passengers.

    The German Horten Ho 229 of 1945 - the world's first twin jet engine pure flying wing


    It was the first "pure flying wing." which is why it was the first to achieve stealthish abilities.
     
  12. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Okay wow. I now realize you guys are semi delusional.

    Oh, no worries, we are fully aware of that already, the problem is that it is you who show yourself to be full-bore delusional.

    Stop making me out to be the a-hole.
    No, no, you got it wrong there, it is you making yourself a arsehole!

    Look, count the number of different members who have already taken part in this entertaining thread. They come from a variety of countries, age-groups, backgrounds etc. 95% of them never met in person. They don't have much in common at all. Yet not a single one of them has agreed with your views. Why? Three reasons in my modest view: a ) the 'product' is rotten; b ) you are a rotten salesman; c ) both of above.

    How old are you anyway?
     
    Orwell1984 likes this.
  13. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    The German Horten Ho 229 of 1945 - the world's first twin jet engine pure flying wing


    It was the first "pure flying wing." which is why it was the first to achieve stealthish abilities.

    Now you play with words.

    'the world's first twin jet engine pure flying wing' is not the same as 'the world's flying wing'.

    Did you forget your claim that the Me 262 was the worlds first operation jet aircraft?

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Meteor was the worlds first operational jet aircraft.
     
  14. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    Now you play with words.

    'the world's first twin jet engine pure flying wing' is not the same as 'the world's flying wing'.

    Did you forget your claim that the Me 262 was the worlds first operation jet aircraft?

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Meteor was the worlds first operational jet aircraft.

    No I'm not playing with words. I started on the flying wing talk when discussing Germany having the first stealth craft. Being a pure flying wing made it the first stealth. When I said flying wing originally I meant Horton and you know that. I was distinguishing between it and the delta shape. The Messerschmidt was the first operational jet aircraft. It was the first used in battle. Everyone knows that. Here do u get your info?
     
  15. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    The Messerschmidt was the first operational jet aircraft. It was the first used in battle. Everyone knows that. Here do u get your info?

    Quite simply you are wrong.
    The first operational jet squadron was an RAF Meteor Squadron.
    I got my information by using the dates the first squadron entered service.
    When I saw that the German operational squadrons were activated after the RAF one then I knew that the Germans were not first.
    You really need to study the exact meaning of individual words and you would make less of these mistakes.
    Is that simple enough for you?

    The claim the Germans has 'stealth bombers' in 1945 is total bollocks.
    There was no such technology in WW2 and it is simple wishful thinking on the part of knobhead Nazi groupies who also believe in flying saucers and secret moonbases.
     
    Rich Payne likes this.
  16. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    You're nuts. The Me262 was first. Look up Me262 first operational jet and you'll find a million solid links
     
  17. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    You're nuts. The Me262 was first. Look up Me262 first operational jet and you'll find a million solid links

    Well then it should be easy for you,.
    Find the date the first operational German jet squadron was formed.
    The find the date the first operational RAF Squadron was formed.
    Which came first?

    Make my day .........
     
    Dave55 likes this.
  18. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    :lol:
    I suspect he gets it from being remarkably well read on his chosen battlegrounds...

    T,
    You're 'arguing' in a manner that makes it akin to trying to nail down water in order to get a substantiated response from you. Looks bad, sounds desperate.
    Your definition of 'delusional' appears to be 'much better informed', chap - and that's a tad daft.

    You stand on shifting sands.
    You're constantly asserting a rather 'fannish' assessment of German engineering, while apparently demonstrating no real depth of knowledge on that subject.
    You are doing this while surrounded by people who are borderline OCD on the subjects you're spouting about... some of them may even be laughing (and some of them left the 'borderline' bit behind years ago).

    The basis of your argument appears to be 'well... errr... German stuff was great... errr... because I say so.'
    It's not really good enough I'm afraid - I approve of argument, but you have to support assertions otherwise it's not really an argument at all, just someone saying 'I'm right', and therefore rather dull.

    I used to be somewhat over-aggressive in my dismissal of German gear (largely because I was so tired of the fanboy stuff found on the Internet, and lower-rent documentaries), but after years of fascination with Armoured developments across all nations I now know that the picture is infinitely more complex than simplistic assessments like those you're standing by.

    Every weapon or machine has to stand in context, and context is a bugger - Engineering in a military context is connected to:
    Production, personalities, politics, strategy, tactics, mining, the weather, soil composition, the opposition, counter-developments, battle reports, inter-service rivalry, inter-service cooperation, chemistry, materials, history, tools, spares, supply, demand, dumb luck & just about every other conceivable factor you could possibly imagine - the list is endless.
    So... I've been interested in this stuff for decades, I have bookshelves which almost embarrass me with their nerdish content & how much I've spent, and yet I still get nervous about making too many hard & fast statements on what the 'correct' way of doing anything would be, or which was 'the best' (particularly among some of the scary buggers on here - six years of membership and c.4 of 'running' the place has taught me that the depth and width of knowledge is astonishing if you allow yourself to engage with it properly).


    The Bismark was just a ship.
    The 262 was just a plane.
    The Tiger was just a tank.
    Until you accept that, in relation to almost any other military device (excepting perhaps the Atom Bomb... that really was something else... and not German), and see just how few inventions are genuinely paradigm-shifting, you really won't get it mate.
    Everything has it's points, whether good or ill. Discuss and you may be listened to - bang on with no more supporting evidence than 'it was awesome', or 'the web says so', and you will be picked to pieces, by grown-ups who have done all this before.



    I'm trying to be gentle.
    Get it onto engineering - individual cases that you think are so important - and see how long you can defend your points from your apparently narrowly focussed knowledge base, and you might get some appreciation (possibly too late now) - but it's a good idea to concede points when you're beaten - otherwise you're doing no more than wind-pissing.
     
    Dave55 and Slipdigit like this.
  19. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    I respect your demeanor Von Poop. The thing is, I genuinely feel I have provided evidence. It seems like everyone just looks it over. I give links, I give keywords to look up. Are you're right I am a fan of German engineering. Because it's awesome :)
     
  20. Tocharian

    Tocharian Member

    And on the issue of the Bismark and German battleships in general, the Upstart German navy whooped the massive British imperial navy in their one big fight at the Battle of Jutland in WWI. The Bismark in WWII took on almost the whole British Fleet. I think that says a lot
     

Share This Page