Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Log in or Sign up

British military 'inventions''?

Discussion in 'Military History' started by bronk7, Feb 1, 2015.

Page 1 of 4

bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

what were some of the British military inventions such as Chobham armor, Optical landing system, ski jump??...with the OLS, why did the Brits invent it before the US, considering the US had much more ''experience'' and need for it?? [considering the much bigger fleet and operations in WW2 ]

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#1
Drew5233 Member

Joined:

Mar 9, 2009

Messages:

584

Likes Received:

93

I'm assuming we are just talking WW2?

Steam Catapults on Carriers

Hobarts Funnies

Grand Slam Bomb

Radar

Colossus

Bouncing Bomb

Bailey Bridge

Depth Charge

Torpedoes

Sonar

To name but a few with the help of Google.

Click here if you require War Diaries or Files from the National Archives

Drew5233, Feb 1, 2015

#2

4jonboy likes this.
Drew5233 Member

Joined:

Mar 9, 2009

Messages:

584

Likes Received:

93

Of course Tanks, Aircraft Carriers and Battleships were all British as well but all pre WW2.

Click here if you require War Diaries or Files from the National Archives

Drew5233, Feb 1, 2015

#3
GRW Pillboxologist WW2|ORG Editor

Joined:

Oct 26, 2003

Messages:

20,829

Likes Received:

3,054

Location:

Stirling, Scotland

Here's a quick resume-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_inventions#Military
There's also PLUTO-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto
And Mulberry-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour

I would imagine the fact most of these were developed in wartime is why we beat the US to them.

Regards,

Gordon

GRW, Feb 1, 2015

#4
Fred Wilson "The" Rogue of Rogues

Joined:

Sep 19, 2007

Messages:

3,000

Likes Received:

328

Location:

Vernon BC Canada

Night Landings systems.
MicroWave.

"Never EVER ever Volunteer to Volunteer." End Discussion. "Chilanko Bye."

Stepson of Arthur Ellison Sovereign: See: http://www.members.shaw.ca/ASovereign/Art.html
WW2 Bomber Command RCAF Navigator on Lancasters and Wellingtons.

Named after Fred Sutherland of the Dambusters.

"Apple Pie without Cheese is like a Kiss without a Squeeze."
A little Quip from the Nicest Person I have ever Known: My Dad.

Fred Wilson, Feb 1, 2015

#5
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

Fred Wilson said:

Night Landings systems.
MicroWave.
Click to expand...

Microwave also?? wow...I use it almost everyday

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#6
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

Drew5233 said:

I'm assuming we are just talking WW2?

Steam Catapults on Carriers

Hobarts Funnies

Grand Slam Bomb

Radar

Colossus

Bouncing Bomb

Bailey Bridge

Depth Charge

Torpedoes

Sonar

To name but a few with the help of Google.
Click to expand...

no, anytime

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#7
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

The_Historian said:

Here's a quick resume-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_inventions#Military
There's also PLUTO-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto
And Mulberry-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour

I would imagine the fact most of these were developed in wartime is why we beat the US to them.
Click to expand...

I would think the US, with its much bigger production/research ability, would've developed at least some of these first?? my hat is off to the Brits, not just for this, but for other reasons...

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#8
phylo_roadking Member

Joined:

Oct 16, 2010

Messages:

1,381

Likes Received:

155

Bronk - it's about the requirements/needs that these are a reaction to In many cases - it's just down to the British identifying, or reacting to, a particular need before the Americans encountered it.

"Et Dick tracy, il est mort? Et Guy LeClair?"

phylo_roadking, Feb 1, 2015

#9
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

phylo_roadking said:

Bronk - it's about the requirements/needs that these are a reaction to In many cases - it's just down to the British identifying, or reacting to, a particular need before the Americans encountered it.
Click to expand...

the Brits needed the OLS and the Chobham more/before the US? much thanks all replies

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#10
Takao Ace

Joined:

Apr 27, 2010

Messages:

10,103

Likes Received:

2,574

Location:

Reading, PA

bronk7 said:

what were some of the British military inventions such as Chobham armor, Optical landing system, ski jump??...with the OLS, why did the Brits invent it before the US, considering the US had much more ''experience'' and need for it?? [considering the much bigger fleet and operations in WW2 ]
Click to expand...

The Japanese were using an OLS, chakkan shidoko, in 1932...The British introduce theirs when?

Takao, Feb 1, 2015

#11

bronk7 likes this.
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

Takao said:

The Japanese were using an OLS, chakkan shidoko, in 1932...The British introduce theirs when?
Click to expand...

I can only find a 1954 article on the Brit one...

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#12
Takao Ace

Joined:

Apr 27, 2010

Messages:

10,103

Likes Received:

2,574

Location:

Reading, PA

Oops...spelt it wrong, it should be chakkan shidoto.

Takao, Feb 1, 2015

#13
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

Takao said:

Oops...spelt it wrong, it should be chakkan shidoto.
Click to expand...

yes, I looked up the other one!....Mirror Landing Aid was developed because of the jets great landing speeds, I believe

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#14
Takao Ace

Joined:

Apr 27, 2010

Messages:

10,103

Likes Received:

2,574

Location:

Reading, PA

Drew5233 said:

Of course Tanks, Aircraft Carriers and Battleships were all British as well but all pre WW2.
Click to expand...

Battleships were not...Research the USS South Carolina(BB-26)

Designed prior to HMS Dreadnought, but the Americans were in no rush to complete her.

Takao, Feb 1, 2015

#15
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

Takao said:

Oops...spelt it wrong, it should be chakkan shidoto.
Click to expand...

nice call here...I never knew about that.....as much as I've read on the Pacific air war!...most of what I've read, give the Brits credit.....now, the systems are a bit different

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#16
gtblackwell Member Emeritus

Joined:

Jul 4, 2006

Messages:

2,271

Likes Received:

678

Location:

Auburn, Alabama, US

Tea brewer built into a tank ! A necessity.

Gaines

gtblackwell, Feb 1, 2015

#17
phylo_roadking Member

Joined:

Oct 16, 2010

Messages:

1,381

Likes Received:

155

bronk7 said:

the Brits needed the OLS and the Chobham more/before the US? much thanks all replies
Click to expand...

Chobham was the result of various parallel research programmes in different locations - the U.S. went down two relatively blind alleys however while the British developed Chobham. From Wiki...

Since the early sixties there were, in the US, extensive research programmes ongoing aimed at investigating the prospects of employing composite ceramic materials as vehicle armour.[20] This research mainly focused on the use of an aluminium metal matrix composite reinforced by silicon carbide whiskers, to be produced in the form of large sheets.[21] The reinforced light metal sheets were to be sandwiched between steel layers.[22] This arrangement had the advantage of having a good multiple-hit capability and of being able to be curved, allowing the main armour to benefit from a sloped armour effect. However, this composite with a high metal content was primarily intended to increase the protection against KE-penetrators for a given armour weight; its performance against shaped charge attack was mediocre and would have to be improved by means of a laminate spaced armour effect, as researched by the Germans within the joint MBT-70 project.[23]
An alternative technology developed in the US was based on the use of glass modules to be inserted into the main armour;[22] although this arrangement offered a better shaped charge protection, its multiple hit capability was poor.
Click to expand...

..whereas on the OTHER side of the Atlantic...

the United Kingdom another line of ceramic armour development had been started in the early 1960s, meant to improve the existing cast turret configuration of the Chieftain that already offered excellent heavy penetrator protection; the research by a team headed by Gilbert Harvey[27] of the Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (FVRDE), therefore was strongly oriented at optimising the ceramic composite system for defeating shaped charge attack.[28] The British system consisted of a honeycomb matrix with ceramic tiles backed by ballistic nylon,[29] placed on top of the cast main armour.[22] In July 1973 an American delegation, in search of a new armour type for the XM815 tank prototype, now that the MBT-70 project had failed, visited Chobham Common to be informed about the British system, the development of which had then cost about ₤6,000,000; earlier information had already been divulged to the US in 1965 and 1968.[30] It was very impressed by the excellent shaped-charge protection combined with the penetrator impact damage limitation, inherent to the principle of using tiles. The Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Aberdeen Proving Ground that year initiated the development of a version, named Burlington, adapted to the specific American situation, characterised by a much higher projected tank production run and the use of a thinner rolled steel main armour. The increased threat posed by a new generation of Soviet guided missiles armed with a shaped charge warhead—as demonstrated in the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, when even older-generation missiles caused considerable tank losses on the Israeli side—made Burlington the preferred choice for the armour configuration of the XM1 (the renamed XM815) prototype.[31]
Click to expand...

So -

However, on 11 December 1974 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Federal Republic of Germany and the US about the common future production of a main battle tank; this made any application of Chobham armour dependent on the eventual choice for a tank type. Earlier in 1974 the Americans had asked the Germans to redesign the existing Leopard 2 prototypes, considered by them too lightly armoured, and had suggested adoption of Burlington for this purpose, of which type the Germans had already been informed in March 1970; the Germans however in response in 1974 initiated a new armour development programme of their own.[32] Having already designed a system that in their opinion offered satisfactory protection against shaped charges, consisting of multiple-laminate spaced armour with the spaces filled with ceramic polystyrene foam[33] as fitted to the Leopard 1A3, they put a clear emphasis on improving KE-penetrator protection, reworking the system into a perforated metal module armour.[citation needed] A version with added Burlington was considered, including ceramic inserts in the various spaces, but rejected as it would push vehicle weight well over sixty metric tonnes, a weight then seen as prohibitive by both armies.[34] The US Army in the summer of 1974 faced the choice between the German system and their own Burlington, a decision made more difficult by the fact that Burlington offered, compared with steel armour, no weight advantage against KE-penetrators:[35] the total armour system would have a RHA equivalence against them of about 350 mm (compared to about 700 mm against shaped charges).[36] No consensus developing, General Creighton Abrams himself decided the issue in favour of Burlington.[37] Eventually each army procured its own national tank design, the project of a common tank failing in 1976. In February 1978 the first tanks protected by Burlington left the factory when the first of eleven pilot M1 tanks were delivered to the US Army.
Click to expand...

...and the rest is, er, history.

"Et Dick tracy, il est mort? Et Guy LeClair?"

phylo_roadking, Feb 1, 2015

#18
bronk7 Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 5, 2013

Messages:

4,753

Likes Received:

328

Location:

MIDWEST

much thanks phylo, ....this is super interesting and informative<>i see the multiple hit capacity is a key to it?? I have read in general about the common tank idea....obviously, the Chobham is/was better....I work in an engineering section, and I can understand how development works like that....

bronk7, Feb 1, 2015

#19
Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

Joined:

May 21, 2007

Messages:

18,047

Likes Received:

2,366

Location:

Alabama

Bronk, necessity is the mother of invention. As others have stated, most things are invented/created because of a real or perceived need. Thankfully it was our good allies who had the need and the inspiration to create and devise outstanding implements of war. With your back to the wall, you'll try most anything to gain an advantage.

Don't dismiss the US war-equipment design ability. The bazooka is one item that quickly comes to mind.

Best Regards,
Jeff

Old Hickory Recon, Memories of the 30th Infantry Division, 1943-1945 Kindle

Slipdigit, Feb 1, 2015

#20

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 4

Share This Page

Hello and welcome to the WWII Forums!
Sign up and join the discussion!