Special Units

[stormbind]

Originally posted by sabo10
In ... England I believe everyone migrated from Normandy, (the normans) correct??

Hardly, but I'll come back to that after this...

In the global expansion and world-wide intergration that started circa 1450, every country has been changed by immigrants fleeing one problem or another. So I would argue that a civilisation's culture stems from whatever happened before the age of expansion. There's just too much trade for modern countries to be really unique, and the ones that are unique are that way because of their ancient culture.

Culture and early Britain:

The earliest inhabitants of what is now England were celts, and there is still a lot of culture stemming from them.

After the Romans came for a visit, the celts returned to power and history/fable contains characters like King Arthur.

They are the natives, and they have not been forgotten. They were eventually forced out of England and settled in Scotland. But Great Britain includes both states so that's accademic.

Shortly afterwards, the Saxons and later the Normans joined in. The Norman invasion conquered Saxony (South England) but the bulk of those soldiers were Flemmish, nor Norman. They also fought the Britons who occupied North England but failed to quell the resistance so pillaged the land instead.

Although a close call, even King Richard the Lion Heart doesn't overshadow the stories of King Arthur and the Britons.

Culture and early France:

Gauls were native Frenchians . They too have cultural significance.

Culture and early Italy:

Romans were native Italians. Tons of culture

Culture and early America:

Red Indians were native Americans. Loads of culture if you look for it.

Culture and early Norway:

Scarey vikings in long boats eating raw fish. Yum-yum

Ok, I seem to have forgotten what I was on about. Someone remind me

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by sabo10


Yeah, it was the ME262, unless I missed something in school I was taught that jets were invented in Germany.

here is a quote from the history of the Jet engine.. (see I got proof)
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

We all know what that says and if you read it, it says the first was not the Me262!

The Me262 flew around 1942, or later. The jet engine was invented in 1930. That's 19...*!#$"...30!!!

It says that on the page that you are so keen to refer to. You're so blind you cannot even read your own "proof".

 

[sabo]

ok ok, lets not get 'technical' here, I mentioned ME262 because it was the first jet to sucessfully go into production (in reference to "little mans" and "no idea's" post). I pointed to the article because it says germany invented the first jet, it was for you so know the truth. I was talking about two separate things, are YOU blind?

And why all of the sudden the argument about the ME262, is this to take the focus off of the fact you were wrong?

 

[The Little Man]

This is what i meant, by saying Hans von Ohain was the inventor of the Jet Engine. "Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine.", however I did present my point of view rather vaguely and I'm sorry for that, it did indeed made me stand quite foolish lol

However, to argue a bit further upon this, Hans von Ohain being the first to create an operational jet engine also makes him in my oppenion the first true inventor of the Jet engine.

Well, just to take something to compare. Leonardo De Vinci drew serval sketches of machines(e.g. Helicopters, planes, tanks....etc),which would work, if build correctly. However, they never were, and the inventors ended up being completly different people, who also had operational units made. This same could be said about the invention of the Jet engine.
However, this is stupid details, and I'll agree on Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle being the co-inventors of the jet.

French Weaponary, general second world war 2 era tanks.

 

[The Little Man]

Originally posted by stormbind

As already pointed out, the Meteor used the basic W.1 engine but regardless of that... the Meteor went on to fight in North Korea, Argentine Civil War and many other wars... they were still in service with the Brazillian Air Force in 1975. That's not a failure, that's a success! What did the Me262 do? Did it just gather dust in some musseum?

The Me262 was far superior, and it was years ahead in design. However, the production of the plane stopped after World war 2, probaly due to Germanys defeat.
Ok, maybe failure was rather rough, but then let's say inferior to the Me262.

Originally posted by stormbind

So you're saying the only way England could win in the war that it did win, was to use tactics so much better than anything the Germans could possibly dream up? Ok, I'll accept your argument

Well, England was able to win the war because they had strong allies such as the Soviet Union and the USA. Germany was out produced by far, and the british used mainly american equipment, at least after the official american entry to the war. (Now, ships and planes are not being argued here)

Originally posted by stormbind

Besides, British tanks in 1944 rocked. I forgot the name, it's the one that comes before Chieftain.

Please do show some proof of this tank....

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by sabo10
Yeah, it was the ME262, unless I missed something in school I was taught that jets were invented in Germany.

here is a quote from the history of the Jet engine.. (see I got proof)
and here is where you can find it
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

Well, sabo, you've made the same elementary error as The Little Man: you make a contentious statement and then post as "evidence" a URL that contradicts you. In fact, the same URL he quoted!

As you can see by reading the words you quoted, von Ohain built the first operational jet in 1939, a full 9 years after Whittle invented the concept. Building isn't the same as inventing!

Rather than insisting you're helping people to "know the truth", you could try reading - the site (quite generously) suggests that Ohain can be regarded as a co-inventor of the jet - it most certainly doesn't say he was the first and only inventor (because the evidence is he wasn't).

The reality of the situation is that the jet engine was first conceived in England, and first built and flown in Germany. Sorry if that's not one-dimensional enough for you, but that's the way history is.

@stormbind:

They (the Celts) are the natives, and they have not been forgotten. They were eventually forced out of England

That will come as something of a shock to the people of Cornwall! The Celts were mainly either displaced or assimilated* in the rest of England, but there's still a thriving and reasonably pure Celtic presence in the far south-west of England, as well as Wales. History isn't as one-dimensional as you paint it, either.

*NB mainly assimilated rather than displaced. The Celts are still around in the centre of England - they're just not the majority culture.

the bulk of those soldiers were Flemmish, nor Norman

Where on earth do you get this idea from? The Norman invasion was made up of Normans and Bretons. There is no evidence of Flemings involved in William's army.

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by The Little Man
Please do show some proof of this tank....

I think you'll find he means the Centurion.

It was designed in 1944, but never saw action in WW2. It was extremely succesful in Korea and saw service in several armies. Go to a decent search engine and run "Centurion tank".

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by sabo10
I pointed to the article because it says germany invented the first jet, it was for you so know the truth.

And why all of the sudden the argument about the ME262, is this to take the focus off of the fact you were wrong?

Not at all, I had no interest in the Me262 - the most famous plane to do nothing.

That article does not say Germany invented the first jet. It says the opposite! It says Germany invented the second jet in 1936! England had it in 1930.

It's been invented, done. No argument, doesn't matter if it flies or not... it's invented.

The first jet engine to be put together was also English! This was just a working engine with no airframe. This was in 1937. It may not have flown but it was the complete working engine.

The first airframe to fly powered by a jet engine was in 1939 and was German. But there is a distinct difference between an engine and an aircraft!

The Me262 appears 1942+ but all sources I have found say the first model was powered by a piston engine and not a jet engine, and I can find no date for when it flew with a jet engine.

Bell in America also mass produced a jet powered aircraft in 1942. It may/may not have been the first production aircraft with jet engines. It's not a well known aircraft because it sucks, but it was still a jet powered fighter in service with the USAAF.

None of this matters. It was invented in 1930 by an Englishman. It was built in 1937 by an Englishman. Unlike the German engineers, he did not have funding from a crazy warlord called Hitler so he could not afford to build an airframe, but he still invented the first jet engine.

The end.

 

[The Little Man]

That was and probaly might very well still be the biggest success in british tank design history.

However, would rather have a Panther anyday though

M262, yes it first flew with the "Jumo 004 Piston" engines, however after that it then flew with Jumo 004B engines, which were not piston on 18 July 1942.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Illustrious
Where on earth do you get this idea from? The Norman invasion was made up of Normans and Bretons. There is no evidence of Flemings involved in William's army.

I don't think anyone knows the exact movements of all tribes that roamed England before recorded history. But I do think what I said about the celts is correct for the bulk of the population. Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule and I won't dispute that. All Celts in England were united under King Wihthed of Kent in 960AD, they became dissorganised and fragmented after that which allowed the Saxons a chance to settle.

That's about all I know on post-Roman Celtic England.

Onto the Norman invasion in 1066...

William of Normandy had a large number of Flemmish mercenaries. He rewarded them with large sums of land, particularly in the north of England.

I don't know the names of the nobles in question but I am almost 100% sure that the lords given land in Yorkshire (and possible Lancashire) were Flemmish.

The "Lion Rampant" that is associated with Scotland (which is a very common Heraldic symbol) was first used by a Count in north Prussia (I think), but by 1066 was very common across the lowlands and it was those nobles who introduced it to the British isles.

The Norman invasion did not change the people who worked the land, it only changed the noble families so the event was nothing like a mass immigration - someone suggested it was.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by The Little Man
That was and probaly might very well still be the biggest success in british tank design history.

However, would rather have a Panther anyday though

M262, yes it first flew with the "Jumo 004 Piston" engines, however after that it then flew with Jumo 004B engines, which were not piston on 18 July 1942.

I think the American Bell thing flew in August 1942 with W.1 engines, so that's a pretty close call

Personally, I'de rather have a Challenger II which protects it's crew from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There's a nice and safe feeling about that.

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by Illustrious


Well, sabo, you've made the same elementary error as The Little Man: you make a contentious statement and then post as "evidence" a URL that contradicts you. In fact, the same URL he quoted!

.

Yes I can see where there was some confusion, I meant to separate the two though, that's why I used two separate paragraphs, sorry

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by stormbind
William of Normandy had a large number of Flemmish mercenaries. He rewarded them with large sums of land, particularly in the north of England.

I don't know the names of the nobles in question but I am almost 100% sure that the lords given land in Yorkshire (and possible Lancashire) were Flemmish.

If you're saying that a reasonable number of William's nobles were Flemish, I won't argue. I objected to your initial suggestion that "the bulk of the soldiers" were Flemish: that is a very different statement and one not supported by the facts.

The "Lion Rampant" that is associated with Scotland (which is a very common Heraldic symbol) was first used by a Count in north Prussia (I think), but by 1066 was very common across the lowlands and it was those nobles who introduced it to the British isles.

It's possible to consider it as a direct Flemish influence, but not with anything like that degree of certainty.

The lion rampant was probably the most common charge across Europe, and the origins and influences behind the Scottish use of the lion aren't clear. Not even the court of Lord Lyon King of Arms is 100% certain of its origin - although there is a persistent belief that it represents a "heraldised" version of the lion that was the emblem of the old gaelic kings of Dalriada.

It is important to remember that, while the Norman influence on England was substantial, its influence on Scotland was minimal until Plantagenet times.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by The Little Man


Ok, maybe failure was rather rough, but then let's say inferior to the Me262.

A lot of Me262 were manufactured for the Luftwaffe, but they didn't make a name for themselves. I may be wrong, but I think they were never succesful in any mission.

I haven't looked it up, but the Me262 may have been faster but something in the RAF was shooting it down!

Originally posted by The Little Man

Well, England was able to win the war because they had strong allies such as the Soviet Union and the USA.

England won the Battle of Britain without help. Almost 3000 RAF pilots took part, but only 7 were American and 0 were Soviets. The planes they flew (mostly Spitfire and Hurricanes) were all manufactured in England.

After that, the Luftwaffe had lost all hope of winning air superiority and Germany had no way of invading England! It was not "Game Over" but Germany had clearly lost the edge before America decided to join in.

The USA did supply lots of equipment after 1943. Most important were the tanks and ships (although, they were obsolete WW1 ships that had very little use). England could not make many tanks due to lack of metals.

The USSR did not supply anything to England. Like England, Russia had a severe lack of materials and almost no light metails.

Russia built a lot of planes from steel tube and wood. I think England built most of theirs from wood and canvas which was actually more advanced (called stressed skin manufacture or something - I might be wrong). If you want names of important aircraft, look up Yak-1 (something Russia could build) and Yak-3 (what they wanted to build! ).

Clearly, Germany had a significant advantage with materials.

Did you know, the Hurricane was designed in 1933 and were dispanded at the very start of 1947. The plane was already outdated when Germany attacked. That didn't stop it beating two types of ----- out of the Luftwaffe. So much for German engineering

Now I just know someone is fuming and wanting to post obsene language. Don't take it personally, it stops being fun if you do that

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Illustrious


If you're saying that a reasonable number of William's nobles were Flemish, I won't argue. I objected to your initial suggestion that "the bulk of the soldiers" were Flemish: that is a very different statement and one not supported by the facts.

That is what I meant to say

But in retrospect, I would have assumed that the Flemmish nobles brought their own troops with them?

On the subject of the Lion. Whats-his-name, the Scottish King... same time as Wallace. Anyway, that guy's "Lion Rampant" might be the same as the one depicted in the Swedish National Coat of Arms. Don't know Swedish history, but it could be interesting, perhaps... maybe... maybe not. I'll shut up.

 

[stormbind]

Sorry - I consistently mispelt Flemish. My bad

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by stormbind
That is what I meant to say

But in retrospect, I would have assumed that the Flemmish nobles brought their own troops with them?

By and large not. William padded out his cavalry forces with quite a number of ambitious second sons. To get mass manpower, apart from his own Norman subjects, he depended heavily on mercenaries from Brittany.

On the subject of the Lion. Whats-his-name, the Scottish King... same time as Wallace. Anyway, that guy's "Lion Rampant" might be the same as the one depicted in the Swedish National Coat of Arms. Don't know Swedish history, but it could be interesting, perhaps... maybe... maybe not. I'll shut up.

The thing is, if you look around Europe, you will see lots and lots of lions rampant - it's simply the most common charge on early shields. The main reason is that the lion is associated with the highly desirable traits of ferocity and nobility - the connection goes back to biblical times. By the time organised heraldry started, lots of kings and nobles were using lions as their badges/emblems.

It's highly improbable that any of them are connected - it's more likely to be an example of what biologists call "convergence": if something's a good idea, it stands a fair chance of arising independently in a number of places. Trying to spot "connections" is a guaranteed way to drive yourself mad

 

[No idea]

Originally posted by stormbind


Not at all, I had no interest in the Me262 - the most famous plane to do nothing.


The end.

Most famous plane to do nothng?!

The Me 262 was a very capable and advanced aircraft. I quote from 'Aircraft of WW2' "The Me 262 was technically 10 years ahead of other wartime fighters. [that includes the meteor]" and the Me 262 was one of the first aircraft to have an ejector seat.

The first jet powered Me 262 flew on the 18th of july 1942 and would've got into service in 1943 if Hitler hadn't ordered most of them to be equipped as fighter-bombers istead of the fighter role which they were designed for.
Now lets compare the Me 262 with the inferior Meteor:

Meteors top speed:415mph (Most late WWII piston engined fighters could fly at that speed)
Me 262 top speed:540 mph

No of Meteors built: 20 MkIs 210 MkIIIs
No of Me 262s built: 1430

Meteors service ceiling: 12,190m
Me 262s service ceiling: 11,500m

so the Me 262 was far superior to the Gloster Meteor.

And the germans also made the worlds first jet powered bomber(the Arado Ar 234) and the worlds first rocket powered aircraft (the Me 163)

 

[stormbind]

English leaders made the decision not to put humans in rockets. It was unsafe, and many German rocket planes blew up on the runway. Like an early pistol, it's more a danger to the user than the person it's being pointed at.

Many more Meteors were built after WW2. This is not shown in your post.

Your statement suggests the Meteor had a higher service ceiling, and then you say so clearly the Me262 was superior. I don't know if this is an error or not but I can't really respond.

I did think the Me262 was slightly faster and I believe this was already said. However, it's hard to judge an aircraft by the values on paper; the Me262 was known to have very poor maneuverability.

If you are trying to guess what might have happened if the war had continued... English jets were about to get a awful lot better.

This may not be 100% accurate, I haven't checked but I am sure someone will: One of the errors that has been repeated throughout this thread and the About/Inventors site is that the early (1930/1936) jet designs had simple compressors. A turbo-jet is slightly different and has layers of turbine blades.

The first turbo-jet was also "innovated" by Whittle, it was called the W.2 (1942?)

I don't know when the first W.2 powered plane flew, but the Miles M.52 had a W.2 engine fitted to it. A scale replica of the Miles M.52 achieved Mach 1.5 shortly after the war.

The low speed of 415 mph may have been for saftey - something the Germans didn't worry about. The Gloster E.28 that flew in 1941 reached 500 mph demonstrating clearly that the RAF could have competed at those speeds if they needed to - but they didn't need to, did they?

Small issue that has not been addressed. I believe a patent lasts five years. The jet was invented in 1930, the patent expired in 1935! Whittle's engine design was also published so Ohan had the advantage of seeing someone elses design.

--

P.S. I am not the one to mention Me262 and I never said it wasn't superior - I have an almost neutral opinion of the aircaft and am probably not the right person to argue the Meteor was better.

All I said was that the USA should not have the better jet in Civ3 - All this about Germany versus England (with USA nowhere to be seen) only strengthens my original statement.

Also... England should be able to build jets without aluminium! The Hawker Hunter was extremely succesful and had a wooden airframe!

 

[Stapel]

Stormbind,

You SEEM to be a little pro-Britain prejudiced.......

Anyway, IMHU, hisorians do not argue about the superiority of one plane or another, more about the production level and about the reliability (spare parts).

AND: USA did deliver tons of stuff before 1943, The lend-lease construction was there before USA entered the war in 1941!