This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
If you know relavent information please make contributions to this page as I'm sure that there are hundreds of other examples of the articles title than the number i have managed to come up with for the base line article. Siman 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that no mention of the Tizard Mission. --jmb (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit abut it in the second para. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.192 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on adding an Axis Forces equivalent to this article or, possible, including both in the same? I favor the former, but figured it would be worth discussing.--Surv1v4l1st(Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
USSR created 6x6 truck - ZIS-36 - before war, but hadn't enough time to develop it and begin mass production, so Studebaker was indeed first mass 6x6 truck. Also, USSR wanted to produce diesel engine for truck, but had no enough time and decided to build licensied Detroit Diesel 71 series engines, but Winter War led to trade embargo. During WWII USSR imported most technologies of this engines, but Cold War stopped this process and soviet engineers developed this engine for mass production by themselves. GM 4-71 and 6-71 became base for YaAZ-204 and 206 respectively which were produced in 1947-1993 [1]Ходок (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bias
This article, is Anglo-American biased in general, and heavily favors the UK as the benefactor in specific. Undoubtedly, there had to have been more technological cooperation amongst the Allies in general, and in specific there had to be as many examples of American technology being the benefactor of British. Also, the part about British nuclear scientists, seems to omit the fact that when the British scientists first saw the scope and magnitude of the American project, they concluded the British equivalant was markedly behind. In general, this article is insightful and interesting, but it favors the US and UK all-around, and the UK even more so. Jersey John (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you'd like to state to what extent the British benefited from US technical innovation then feel free to add it. However, the only US-devised technical innovations that I can think of that the British benefited from were the DUKW and the LVT. All the other significant new stuff came from this side of the pond, or else originated here, such as the proximity fuze. The US's main technical contribution was in the further development and subsequent mass production of the stuff that was thought up in the UK.
As for the other 'Allied' countries, many had little technical base, so their contributions were, by necessity, minor. For the Soviet Union their technical contribution, at least to the Western side of the war, was negligible. Name one WWII Soviet-devised innovation that was later adopted by many other countries. I can't think of one. Here's a list of the British ones:
There are probably others but ATM off-hand I can't think of any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]