PDA

View Full Version : Military History Trivia Part 2



FlakMagnent
01-12-2005, 04:56 PM
Other than the rear and forward propeller of the Do335, what was another feature of the plane that stood out from the rest?


hows that for a trivia question now. Hope its better

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 05:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

This is how Trivia works:

You ask a Question that has a definite, factual, known Answer

We tell you what we think the answer is

What you're asking is:
"What's your opinion and why"

Here's a WWII Trivia Question:

What covered the outer surface of the B-17G "5 Grand"?

FF_Trozaka
01-12-2005, 05:43 PM
rivets? lol

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 05:47 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well, technically, yes. Aluminum is also a technically correct answer.

But that is not the answer. This is a non-standard thing, and quite remarkable. If you saw it the answer would make itself obvious. Nothing at all like needed equipment. The plane could fly very well without it.

Paul_K
01-12-2005, 05:54 PM
The signatures of the workers at Boeing ? I'd imagine it was the 5000th B-17 built so they all signed it, like they all signed the last B-24. Am I right ?

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 05:54 PM
Paul wins http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 06:00 PM
What German Aircraft in WWII had the unofficial nickname "Natter"? (Adder in English)

What were the Natter pilots supposed to do after engaging their target? How was the Natter supposed to land?

Paul_K
01-12-2005, 06:02 PM
Thanks Chuck! I assume the prize money will be sent to my Ebay account, yes ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I know the Natter answer, but I'll let someone else have a go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 06:04 PM
Well, i could, but mail might be better. You want US Double Eagles or Kruggerands?

Athosd
01-12-2005, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
What German Aircraft in WWII had the unofficial nickname "Natter"? (Adder in English)

What were the Natter pilots supposed to do after engaging their target? How was the Natter supposed to land? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be Dr Bachem's Ba349 - vertical takeoff rocket interceptor.
After firing the single rocket salvo the pilot separated the cockpit from the rocket motor and parachuted to the ground (in theory). The motor had its own chute and could be reused.

Cheers

Athos

Waldo.Pepper
01-12-2005, 09:58 PM
My turn;

Why does the engine on the V1 stop?

HotelBushranger
01-12-2005, 11:10 PM
It ran out of fuel, and plummmmmmeted into English towns.

Unless it was shot down first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Waldo.Pepper
01-13-2005, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
It ran out of fuel, and plummmmmmeted into English towns.

Unless it was shot down first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No.
Sorry wrong.
Common misconception.
I knew I would get someone to say that.
Next?

ImpStarDuece
01-13-2005, 04:42 AM
The V1 had a primitive 'clockwork' distance counter. I believe that it was the small prop on the front of the buzz bomb and was pre set to a number of revolutions corresponing to a known distance/target before it switched the engine off.

As to why the engine 'stops' (on/off/on/off). The V1 had some early form of pulsejet i believe. It was catapult launched. A fuel air mixture was rammed back through a serise of spaced pressure valves into a mild steel body and the mixture was explosively ignited by a spark plug. The pressure valve would snap shut with the ignition over-pressure and the superheated gasses would propel the bomb. The resulting increase in airspeed would pop the valves open and the whole process would repeat on/off/on/off and so forth.

Waldo.Pepper
01-13-2005, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The V1 had a primitive 'clockwork' distance counter. I believe that it was the small prop on the front of the buzz bomb and was pre set to a number of revolutions corresponing to a known distance/target before it switched the engine off.

As to why the engine 'stops' (on/off/on/off). The V1 had some early form of pulsejet i believe. It was catapult launched. A fuel air mixture was rammed back through a serise of spaced pressure valves into a mild steel body and the mixture was explosively ignited by a spark plug. The pressure valve would snap shut with the ignition over-pressure and the superheated gasses would propel the bomb. The resulting increase in airspeed would pop the valves open and the whole process would repeat on/off/on/off and so forth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong.
The engine was NOT switched off to initiate the final plunge of the weapon.
Next?

Athosd
01-13-2005, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
My turn;

Why does the engine on the V1 stop? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So that its final approach to the target is silent?

ps ImpStarDeuce - nice description of the pulsejet operation.

RAF_Pagan
01-13-2005, 07:30 AM
When the distance measurement system (the little prop on the nose) determined that the target distance had been reached, a mechanism cut the elevator control cable, which put the V1 into a dive, and the angle of the dive cut off the fuel flow to the engine.

whiteladder
01-13-2005, 10:08 AM
the angle of the dive cut off the fuel flow to the engine.

or more importantly the negative G caused by the nose over.

DuxCorvan
01-13-2005, 10:13 AM
Or the big explosion! It surely switched off engine... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

whiteladder
01-13-2005, 10:15 AM
My turn

The Monroe Effect is used in many munitions. What is it more commonly known as and how was it discovered.

Waldo.Pepper
01-13-2005, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by whiteladder:
_the angle of the dive cut off the fuel flow to the engine. _

or more importantly the negative G caused by the nose over. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whiteladder gets it (close enough anyway)

Look at a picture of a V1 again. There is not a little propeller, however the distance traveled is similar to as described.

What happens is that when the weapon reaches desired distance the elevators were deflected to start the plunge. The engine cut out as a CONSEQUENCE not by design. When the Germans learned of this, later ones were modified so that the weapon was powered throughout the dive.

If anyone wants the source I shall dig up ISBN numbers etc. But the book is The Secret War Author = Jones. A companion book for a BBC Series.

juan_mol
01-13-2005, 04:07 PM
The Munroe effect refers to the partial focussing of blast energy caused by a hollow or void cut into a piece of explosive, a property which is exploited by a shaped charge.

Explosive energy is released directly away from (normal to) the surface of an explosive, so shaping the explosive will concentrate the explosive energy in the void. If the void is properly shaped (usually conically), a high-velocity jet of plasma will form.

It is named after Charles E. Munroe, who discovered it in 1888. Whilst working at the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport in the United States, he noticed that when a block of guncotton with the manufacturer's name stamped into it was detonated next to a metal plate, then the lettering was cut into the plate. If letters were raised in relief above the rest of the guncotton then the letters on the plate would also be raised above its surface. In 1910, Egon Neumann of Germany discovered that TNT containing a conical indentation would cut through a metal plate which would normally only be dented by that quantity of explosive. However, the military usefulness of this effect was not appreciated until the Second World War, the first application possibly being the British No. 68 rifle grenade which entered service in May 1940.

In modern military applications, a Munroe-effect shaped-charge warhead can be expected to penetrate solid steel armor equal to 150-250% of the warhead diameter, though it will tend to be somewhat less effective against modern composite armors and reactive armor which was developed specifically as a counter to shaped charge weapons.

In peaceful engineering applications, shaped charges are very useful for cutting steel girders, perhaps in order to demolish an old building.

whiteladder
01-13-2005, 04:53 PM
Nice answer.

whiteladder
01-13-2005, 04:57 PM
Try this

Research by Ivan Pavlov lead to which WW2 "weapon".

ImpStarDuece
01-13-2005, 05:29 PM
PAvlov's research into learned autonomic and automatic reactions in animals (and people) lead to the Soviet 'mine dog' used during WW2


Essentailly a large dog (great dane, German shepherd etc) would be trained to become a canine kamikazi.

When the dogs were fed their food was usually, but not always, put under a the overhang of a tank track. Continual reinforcement isn't as effective as occasional reinforcement. The dogs would then learn that their food was to be found under a tank track and would head for a tank track whenever they spotted one. The Soviets would strap a large mine with a contact detonator to the dogs back and then release the dogs in the direction of German panzers. The result would of been grizzly and caused some serious consternation among German tankers when it was first observed.

Although it did work it was not a particularly effective tactic. Mostly it ensured a mobility kill or a mission kill but the tank could be repaired easily, particularly as the Germans were advancing. Eventually, as word passed around, German gunners would shoot any dogs they saw on sight for fear of the mines.

Paul_K
01-13-2005, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FlakMagnent:
Other than the rear and forward propeller of the Do335, what was another feature of the plane that stood out from the rest?


hows that for a trivia question now. Hope its better <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to go back to the original question...the other feature was that the Do335 had an ejector seat.

Athosd
01-13-2005, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
PAvlov's research into learned autonomic and automatic reactions in animals (and people) lead to the Soviet 'mine dog' used during WW2..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was another problem with this - the dogs often prefered Soviet tanks.

DuxCorvan
01-14-2005, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
PAvlov's research into learned autonomic and automatic reactions in animals (and people) lead to the Soviet 'mine dog' used during WW2


Essentailly a large dog (great dane, German shepherd etc) would be trained to become a canine kamikazi.

When the dogs were fed their food was usually, but not always, put under a the overhang of a tank track. Continual reinforcement isn't as effective as occasional reinforcement. The dogs would then learn that their food was to be found under a tank track and would head for a tank track whenever they spotted one. The Soviets would strap a large mine with a contact detonator to the dogs back and then release the dogs in the direction of German panzers. The result would of been grizzly and caused some serious consternation among German tankers when it was first observed.

Although it did work it was not a particularly effective tactic. Mostly it ensured a mobility kill or a mission kill but the tank could be repaired easily, particularly as the Germans were advancing. Eventually, as word passed around, German gunners would shoot any dogs they saw on sight for fear of the mines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

War sucks. What was the dogs' fault? This just makes me sick. Even more than human casualties: it's a human war after all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Po-cat
01-14-2005, 05:44 AM
Back AGAIN http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif to the original question, I assume the ejection seat was the right answer?
Curiously, the 2-seat trainer version only had one bang seat.
One prototype crashed with the pilot still on board: he'd pulled the canopy jettison handles, and the canopy came off with his arms still attached.
Urg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif