The genius of John Moses Browning.

I have seen some documentation that indicated JMB considered the pistols that he first submitted for consideration to be at least more than adequate and that he did not always accept "suggestions" with good grace. Of course, with lots of money on the line, he would have had no choice but to give his largest potential customer what the customer wanted, but there were reports that he didn't always like it. (Before anyone points it out, I was not there. I agree; I am not quite that old. But I saw stuff in the Army libraries, including some of LTC J.T. Thompson's notes, that never made it into the books.)

Jim
 
Shouldn't this thread be about the (so called) "genious" of Carlo Beretta, Giuseppe Mazzetti, and Vittorio Valle?
 
No, and if you want to be included in the genus of geniuses, you have to spell it correctly.
Otherwise, you might be included in a different genus, altogether.
Unless, of course, you intend to be generous. :)
 
Look at the thread title. That's what it's about. Want to discuss the genius of other designers? Start a new thread!
 
Anyway, the defeat of Nazi Germany had a lot to do with B-17 bombers, P-51 Mustangs, and the Red Army, especially the Red Army
Click to expand...
Geez,I could've sworn that it was the US Army on Omaha Beach back in '44.
 
All the more amazing when you consider that a pencil, ruler, informed intuition and thought were his tools; no CAD, just experience and thoroughgoing knowledge.
Click to expand...

Watched a program on cable about 10 years ago. Showed how some engineers "virtually" built one of their newer Airbus jumbos in a computer way before they even thought of producing it. I mean they could "see" exactly the fitment of a small section wiring harness or hydraulic tube in the design to locate a hole in the right bulkhead. Even down to placement of fasteners. Crazy.

I can only imagine what someone like Browning (or Tesla or the engineers involved with the SR-71) could have accomplished with computer crutches like that.
 
"Geez,I could've sworn that it was the US Army on Omaha Beach back in '44."
Could've sworn Stalingrad was secured in '43, just in time for the Allies to wrap up the smaller scale efforts in Africa and ride Europe's rescue (from the Russians, not the Germans ;)) from a decimated and over extended German army. I'm not complaining, it worked.

"I can only imagine what someone like Browning (or Tesla or the engineers involved with the SR-71) could have accomplished with computer crutches like that."
Tools, not crutches. Like all tools, he'd have done more, faster, with his time. He wouldn't have had to carve so many wooden prototypes, for instance.

TCB
 
"Browning, like all inventors, thought that his latest and greatest was the best possible pistol"

I'm sure he knew he could and would do better each time, but his customers didn't need to hear that ;). I doubt he felt the BAR was the best thing ever, just that it would work and could be made/deployed to his son & others overseas quickly.

TCB
 
"Geez,I could've sworn that it was the US Army on Omaha Beach back in '44."

We like to think that, but realistically, no.

By the time the Normandy landings happened, the Soviets had almost completely pushed the German military out of Russia and were pushing hard into Poland and the Baltic states.

The Western allies could have literally sat out the rest of the war, with no Normandy invasion, and the war still would have ended with an allied victory, likely in 1946.

Read up on Operation Bagration.
 
As Mike Irwin stated, the Russians were already rolling over the Germans by the time of the Normandy invasions. Not too hard to look at German casualties from WW2 and figure out who did most of the fighting. More than 10 times more German casualties on the Russian (Eastern) front than the Western (US invasion) front.

WW2 German casualties
Eastern Front (Russia) - 1,105,987 dead, 3,498,059 wounded
Western Front (France/Belgium) - 107,042 dead, 399,856 wounded
 
Also add to that, a lot of the Germany's best fighter pilots and bomber crews were lost in the Battle of Britain. Browning had the skills of an engineer and a technician, not to common in today's world. A lot of very smart people may have the vision and idea for an invention but transferring that to a prototype is another big step, he could do both.
 
Casualty figures can be a bit deceiving if you look at simply the raw numbers.

To get a good overall feel for how things played out you need to look at how long the different parties were fighting, how many men were engaged in that fighting.

The fighting in France and the low countries (really have to put Holland and even Germany into those figures) went on for less than a year.

The Soviets and Germans, however, had been going at it hammer and tong since 22 June 1941, 3 years longer.

The Germans also had far more forces committed in the East than in the West.

The Russians truly did do most of the fighting and most of the dying in World War II. That is largely, however, a function of their geography. Had the US and Russia's map positions been changed, it's likely that the US would have borne the brunt of the German war machine.


That said, the United States was the prime mover in the other piece of World War II -- the war in the Pacific, and there it was primarily an American effort.

The British and Commonwealth were engaged around the periphery and bore the brunt of extremely heavy fighting, but the United States was the only nation on earth that was capable of prosecuting the Pacific war as it scrolled out.

What makes it even more amazing is that the US effort in the Pacific was seen as the secondary effort. The European war was given priority.
 
We like to think that, but realistically, no.
Click to expand...
No revisionism here but I happen to be quite comfortable with the thought that
the United States of America won the war.The russians took care of their
country and we took care of the world.
 
It was Einstein, I think, who said genius was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Meaning that it was the hard practical work and understanding of it, that led to the insights that enabled for a sudden jump forward.

Browning was like that. He worked hard, he understood what he was doing and that led to certain jumps forward. His guns were models of simplicity for their time. But they could only be simple because he understood the complexity.

Browning struck out sometimes. The only way to avoid this is to do nothing. But most of his strike outs were on the road to somewhere. The elements that did not work were dropped and those that did function lived on and developed.

Browning always worked with a team of people. His first team was his brothers in Ogden. No one who is worth the name genius (and few actually are) works alone.

tipoc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top