Superior British innovation vs original German Engineering..

[Sailfree]

No more nails removal.

1. Can often pass a thin blade and separate the two.

2. Wood against kitchen top - stuck to side of chipboard! (wood!) took off thin underside layer of kitchen top.

3. Wood against kitchen tiles - stuck to side of chipboard "stained " kitchen tiles.

4. Skirting board to plaster board /plaster Took off paper film of plasterboard, took off surface of good plaster but pulled up lumps of loose plaster at bottom.

I only use "no nails" where I never have to remove anything its just SWMBO decides that ordinary new kitchen tops are inadequate and must be immediately replaced with granite - silly me why didn't I see that...........coming!!!!!

 

[Cruiser2B]

Have you thought of fixing or replacing the button?

 

[Lakesailor]

You haven't moved with the times at all have you? British, German, good grief.

It's all China now.

How would China solve your problem?

They'd have a shift pattern of small children to sit there and hold the button in. Brilliant.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Hood wasn't innovative, she was an old, outdated piece of junk! Sorry survivors, but true!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hood was an innovative concept, at the time of her design. Even went as far as sloped armour to increase effective thickness. Accepted as the forerunner of the thrid generation battleships but over stressed by wanting that extra couple of knots. Bismarck was a well engineered (effectively near infinite funding) version of Baden, from the same period as Hood.

The DNC at the time opined that Hood vs Bismarck was similar to the Majestics showing up at Jutland. His dates were right.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I thought Hood was ahead of her time in having a self-destruct button fitted. Shame the first German shell landed on it.

 

[Steve_Bentley]

Innovation?- Must Hang...

I had a 1979 Mustang for a while (in the States for 6m break), where they quite evidently don’t have MOT’s.

By the end of the trip (13,000 miles in a big circle) it was on it’s second engine after the original 2.3 V6 blew up 1,500 miles in. The first engine had two dipsticks (plus gearbox dipstick), drank huge amounts of oil and was totally gutless. The second engine 200ci (3.3 straight 6) was even more gutless. During the trip it was steadily modified so that it ended up with a plastic coke-bottle for an air intake (to try to reduce the frequency of overheating stops), power steering pump failed so bypassed (with shorter drive belt), aircon pump failed so bypassed (ditto) a lightswitch that overheated + failed after an hour so you had to jiggle it constantly to work (which meant the driving lamps blew and I spent 3 months on main beams with 3/4ths of the glass taped-up to reduce dazzle). We also had to bypass the leaking heater (shorter heater hose) and the wipers were on the same circuit as the lights. This meant driving in a huge thunderstorm across Texas we had intermittent lights and wipers (much frantic switch jiggling) and couldn’t demist the windscreen so the only solution was driving with your head out of the window (not ideal in the biggest rainstorm I've seen in my life). The exhaust was held up with coat hangers, and several layers of cardboard and carpet stopped my stuff falling through the almost non-existant rusted-through boot/trunk floor.

I could go on but I think I’ve given the essence of the beast. Amercian engineering vs. British ingenuity?

 

[Sailfree]

Re: Innovation?- Must Hang...

But they got a man on the moon! Obviously not a Ford rocket.

 

[charles_reed]

But rustic

and totally re-cyclable

 

[charles_reed]

Not I think

in the best of taste

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Re: But rustic

[ QUOTE ]
and totally re-cyclable

[/ QUOTE ]
But, if I burn it, I destroy a planet.

Can't win.

 

[Slowtack]

Re: But rustic

Essential to ensure these DIY fixes are made of completely combustible materials so there is no evidence after the fire of modifications not in compliance with the original CE mark.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
Hood wasn't innovative, she was an old, outdated piece of junk! Sorry survivors, but true!

[/ QUOTE ]


After Jutland ... the Germans learnt something ... Brits didn't. German ships had anti-flash doors / systems fitted to stop flash into the magazines ... British ships didn't until after Hood suffered the terrible consequences.

She wasn't so much outdated - as not having such item built in.

 

[Sailfree]

[ QUOTE ]
[After Jutland ... the Germans learnt something ... Brits didn't. German ships had anti-flash doors / systems fitted to stop flash into the magazines ... British ships didn't until after Hood suffered the terrible consequences.

She wasn't so much outdated - as not having such item built in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that the british ships had them but had keep the Nelson philosophy that it was rate of fire that was important and to ensure a fast reload left them open.

The Germans went for accuracy assisted by better range optics.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
I thought that the british ships had them but had keep the Nelson philosophy that it was rate of fire that was important and to ensure a fast reload left them open.
>>>
And also tended to leave ready use charges near guns, Malaya found out the hard way that this was unwise. Flash barriers were just one of the problems with the over complex 14" quad turret that so plagued Prince of Wales when Hood was lost. Respective positions of shell rooms and magazines were again more supportive of rapid firing than flash safety. British propellant was probably more prone to deflagration than other nations.

At Justland another British problem was the extremely unreliable AP shells, tending to penetrate but not then explode.

Some of the German engineering was less good, or clever, than it thought it was. They were less good at welding than they thought they were, more than one of their ships had the stern suffer structural collapse due to relatively minor damage. Control cabling was routed above the main armoured deck in far too many instances causing significant control degradation from relatively minor damage. The desire to make smaller powerplants resulted in working pressure at the very limit of then current metallurgy and made for unreliable plant that had a short time between scheduled (and very essential essential) maintainence periods.

 

[HoratioHB]

Thats wot I like about this forum. We can start off talking about jamming the switch on a washing machine and end up debating the merits of automatic 14 inch gun turrets!!!!!

 

[Major Catastrophe]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats wot I like about this forum. We can start off talking about jamming the switch on a washing machine and end up debating the merits of automatic 14 inch gun turrets!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but as boys stuff, they are related.

 

[Shanty]

Agree with you that the problems the British experienced at Jutland were due more to operating procedures than basic design. The Britsh and German anti-flash measures were broadly similar, but the British tended to circumvent them in pursuit of higher rates of fire. This was particularly true of the battlecruisers, possibly due to their lack of suitable training areas, and reflected in their woeful hit rate.

Another factor that deserves mention is the less stable propellant used by the British.

 

[colvic987]

You can tell it was a brit invention, great invention but poorly finished, but the marketing was excellent in this instant. the germans would of sanded and varnished it first before taking the picture.. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif