|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 20:15:56 GMT -6
Ok, now we are going to get into some really good stuff. The interwar period and World War 2 especially, were years of the tremendous technological advancements. The improvements in wireless radios, advent of radar, IFF, homing devices, SONAR, the list goes on and on. The design and manufacturing of jet engines. The building of atomic reactors and the development of the atomic bomb. Plastics were first developed and shown in London in 1862 but were not used until the 20th century. Synthetic rubber and more importantly, synthetic fuel. There was a tremendous jump in Pharmaceuticals and medical technology. Improvements and discoveries in civil engineering. The first digital computer was working at Harvard in 1944.
This is a wonderful and fascinating subject which I hope the team takes notice of, because it could really set this game on fire.
Let the games begin.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Aug 13, 2018 20:45:27 GMT -6
We know that, at least, jet engines and guided weaponry (MCLOS weapons like the Fritz X) will be available at the far end of the tech tree. But I would think in many situations these technologies won't necessarily be huge, must-adopt game changers. Which things, then will be?
The biggest steps I can think of (though I am far from being an expert here) that had a huge impact on naval warfare in WW2, are radar-assisted gunnery for surface ships and "VT" (proximity) fuzes for AA weapons. The former makes big guns more accurate and makes night fighting much deadlier, and the latter is a flying leap forwards for the effectiveness of AA guns.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 13, 2018 21:15:54 GMT -6
We know that, at least, jet engines and guided weaponry (MCLOS weapons like the Fritz X) will be available at the far end of the tech tree. But I would think in many situations these technologies won't necessarily be huge, must-adopt game changers. Which things, then will be? The biggest steps I can think of (though I am far from being an expert here) that had a huge impact on naval warfare in WW2, are radar-assisted gunnery for surface ships and "VT" (proximity) fuzes for AA weapons. The former makes big guns more accurate and makes night fighting much deadlier, and the latter is a flying leap forwards for the effectiveness of AA guns. Those might have been the most widely written about steps, but for a pilot, there were others that saved his life. Zed baker for homing on the carrier was one. IFF would ensure that an aircraft detected on radar wasn't blown out of sky if it were friendly. For the Task Force, SONAR was a key technological tool to maintain security against submarines. The computer used by Bletchley Park and developed by Alan Turing to solve enigma codes. There was the IBM Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator called the Mark 1, which aided in the development of the Atomic bomb. These are developments that are not widely publicized but believe me, they were important. Here are some more: Penicillin, Jerrycan, Pressurized Cabin, Radio Navigation and bombing, Radio landing, inertial guidance systems.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Aug 14, 2018 16:06:09 GMT -6
I want to build a battleship powered by jet engines.
fredrik pls
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 14, 2018 16:34:08 GMT -6
I want to build a battleship powered by jet engines. fredrik plsAhem, what is a steam turbine? a turbine that is powered by steam. A jet engine is a turbine engine powered by the expansion of burning fuel. Seems like we are already powering our capital ships by engines similar to jet engines. Later, we moved to gas turbines. a turbine is a spinning wheel that gets its energy from a gas or liquid moving past it. I think gas turbine technology might something to research and use on smaller ships.
|
|
|
Post by hotellobby on Aug 29, 2018 10:37:11 GMT -6
A gas turbine is more or less a jet engine, IIRC some turbines in use today for industrial applications are just modified aero engines. And guess what navies started using to power ships? (in 1960s after the scope of the game but lets just ignore that)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 29, 2018 10:49:40 GMT -6
A gas turbine is more or less a jet engine, IIRC some turbines in use today for industrial applications are just modified aero engines. And guess what navies started using to power ships? (in 1960s after the scope of the game but lets just ignore that) One of the first and most popular gas turbine engines for ships was the LM2500 produced by GE. It was derivative of the GE CF6 aircraft engine. The shop I managed for the government tested and repaired the fuel control and speed governing system which was encased in a soft epoxy. When you had to repair it, that material had to be dug out and then replaced, by heating in a special over. It was a time consuming process to say the least. www.geaviation.com/sites/default/files/datasheet-lm2500.pdfThe radar site at Point Arena that I served at, use Orenda Jet engines from Canadian F-86's for tech load power for the whole site. We had to have tanker trucks coming up almost daily to keep the fuel tanks full. They were noisy also, the whole site had a constant jet noise around it all day and night. We were unique, the only ones like that. After spending fifteen months there, I can see why. Ich.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 30, 2018 20:37:15 GMT -6
One terrific advance was the scientific study of how to detect, attack and kill submarines. Data, data analysis and mathematics gave insight into how to best place escorts, and proved that anti-submarine platforms didn't need a bigger depth charge or a better depth fuse but many small charges with contact fuses able to fire forward and to the sides over a wide arc instead - the hedgehog.
But I'd say the single biggest 'technology' was the development of effective management, of military and economic systems, of transportation and resources. The ability to feed, clothe, supply, train, fuel and arm millions of soldiers, aircraft, vehicles, ships; the ability to move them where needed and fight them in extreme terrain and weather - all that was routinely done by all of the major warring powers on a scale and to a degree that surpassed anything seen before.
One key management technique was the ability to build ships, often in pieces at scattered sites before moving parts to a single place for assembly. Henry Kaiser revolutionized shipbuilding and made possible the transport of military and civilian goods on an unprecedented scale. That was an often overlooked but absolutely essential new technology, and the key to it was management.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 30, 2018 21:00:25 GMT -6
One terrific advance was the scientific study of how to detect, attack and kill submarines. Data, data analysis and mathematics gave insight into how to best place escorts, and proved that anti-submarine platforms didn't need a bigger depth charge or a better depth fuse but many small charges with contact fuses able to fire forward and to the sides over a wide arc instead - the hedgehog. But I'd say the single biggest 'technology' was the development of effective management, of military and economic systems, of transportation and resources. The ability to feed, clothe, supply, train, fuel and arm millions of soldiers, aircraft, vehicles, ships; the ability to move them where needed and fight them in extreme terrain and weather - all that was routinely done by all of the major warring powers on a scale and to a degree that surpassed anything seen before. One key management technique was the ability to build ships, often in pieces at scattered sites before moving parts to a single place for assembly. Henry Kaiser revolutionized shipbuilding and made possible the transport of military and civilian goods on an unprecedented scale. That was an often overlooked but absolutely essential new technology, and the key to it was management. I would agree that the use of the science to solve problems like detecting and killing submarines was vital. Better management techniques in logistics was crucial for the Allies. However, there is one that is a now a sub-field of applied mathematics. This is operations research. This discipline uses advanced mathematics and analytical techniques to help militaries and governments make better decisions. It is a scientific approach to determining the likely effects of weapons and tactics and deciding between different courses of action. It was first used by the British to analyze the effectiveness of their air defense system and the problems associated with gun-laying radar. Eventually teams of officers and scientist were sent overseas, the first to Cairo, to study and assist commanders in making decisions. This was probably the greatest advance in military science. It was OR that proved the case for close air support used in Normandy. It took a Panther tank and ran bombing and gunnery tests to prove how ineffectual the current ground attack techniques actually were, which changed how fighters and bombers were used.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 30, 2018 22:09:59 GMT -6
I remember studying Operations Research in college, taking my CS (applied) degree. The famous 'traveling salesman' problem coupled with matrix algebra... fun times, actually.
I did think it could be useful to help people think 'outside the box': not all scientific advances require hardware, and I think the 'how' of using that hardware is often more important than the actual quality or advanced state of the hardware. In the famous example, a man with a pistol in a rowboat has 'sea supremacy' over a man in a canoe whose pistol has no ammo. The Norden bombsight couldn't live up to its promise despite being very advanced technically; the Sherman was not the best tank in the field in 1944-45 but it was good enough, in large enough numbers, to be a useful war-winning tool.
One more point: speaking of the Sherman, consider the implications of that tank. In 1942-43 it was an adequate tank, easy to service and reliable if not particularly strong in combat. But replacing it with a better tank involved: 1) Collecting design parameters - what is it supposed to do, under which limitations? 2) designing and prototyping - why doesn't it work and how do we fix it? 3) production - is it desirable to reduce production of Shermans to produce the new model? 4) transport - can we transport it in the same volume and weight as the Sherman? If not, how does that affect available transport capacity? Can it be moved over existing railroads, bridges and through port facilities? 5) logistics - how do we produce and stockpile enough ammo, fuel, parts? How do we train existing maintenance techs? How does this affect supporting our existing tanks?
And so on and so forth. The US Army did repeatedly go through that process and decided not once but several times to stick with the Sherman, given the high cost of changing shipping and logistics to replace it and the relatively short time the war was expected to last. You could argue (and I will) that the US Army's failure to 'design in' the ability to move to a bigger tank into its transport and logistical planning was an administrative and managerial lapse - not fatal, but certainly costly.
We see that in ship construction with concerns over tooling up for new kinds of armor, new gun sizes, new shells, new types of engines, as well as dock sizes, repair facilities and so forth.
These are not sexy (and mostly not even interesting) but if you don't think them through you could, for example, wind up with a great tank you can't produce in quantity, transport or maintain in the field. Or a 'Bismarck' that, once it leaves Germany, has no working drydock where it can be repaired, safe from enemy airpower.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2018 9:36:05 GMT -6
I remember studying Operations Research in college, taking my CS (applied) degree. The famous 'traveling salesman' problem coupled with matrix algebra... fun times, actually. I did think it could be useful to help people think 'outside the box': not all scientific advances require hardware, and I think the 'how' of using that hardware is often more important than the actual quality or advanced state of the hardware. In the famous example, a man with a pistol in a rowboat has 'sea supremacy' over a man in a canoe whose pistol has no ammo. The Norden bombsight couldn't live up to its promise despite being very advanced technically; the Sherman was not the best tank in the field in 1944-45 but it was good enough, in large enough numbers, to be a useful war-winning tool. One more point: speaking of the Sherman, consider the implications of that tank. In 1942-43 it was an adequate tank, easy to service and reliable if not particularly strong in combat. But replacing it with a better tank involved: 1) Collecting design parameters - what is it supposed to do, under which limitations? 2) designing and prototyping - why doesn't it work and how do we fix it? 3) production - is it desirable to reduce production of Shermans to produce the new model? 4) transport - can we transport it in the same volume and weight as the Sherman? If not, how does that affect available transport capacity? Can it be moved over existing railroads, bridges and through port facilities? 5) logistics - how do we produce and stockpile enough ammo, fuel, parts? How do we train existing maintenance techs? How does this affect supporting our existing tanks? And so on and so forth. The US Army did repeatedly go through that process and decided not once but several times to stick with the Sherman, given the high cost of changing shipping and logistics to replace it and the relatively short time the war was expected to last. You could argue (and I will) that the US Army's failure to 'design in' the ability to move to a bigger tank into its transport and logistical planning was an administrative and managerial lapse - not fatal, but certainly costly. We see that in ship construction with concerns over tooling up for new kinds of armor, new gun sizes, new shells, new types of engines, as well as dock sizes, repair facilities and so forth. These are not sexy (and mostly not even interesting) but if you don't think them through you could, for example, wind up with a great tank you can't produce in quantity, transport or maintain in the field. Or a 'Bismarck' that, once it leaves Germany, has no working drydock where it can be repaired, safe from enemy airpower. I thank you for your excellent information, let's keep discussing this for RTW2, it might give us some insights.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 31, 2018 18:20:09 GMT -6
Love your work Director . (and you as always Oldpop .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2018 18:56:49 GMT -6
Love your work Director . (and you as always Oldpop . I think personally, all who participate and contribute ideas, thoughts and many times just good questions are performing well on this and the other forums. My hat is off to all of you.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2018 20:04:35 GMT -6
I thought I would provide some rather interesting definitions of operations research:
Operations research can be called the scientific analysis of problems involving any form of action with a view to making that action more efficient," James Bready
"Operations research is the art of giving bad answers to problems to which otherwise worse answers are given," Thomas Saaty
Past operations are studied to determine the facts; theories are elaborated to explain the facts and theories are used to make predictions about future operations." Professor P.M„S, Blackett
Operations research is the study of the optimization of achievement of the purpose of an organization," Thomas E, Oberbeck
I just love the second one. Anyway, take your pick. - From Romeo and Juliet.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2018 20:56:01 GMT -6
The first board that could be considered a scientific operations research organization was titled "The Naval Consulting board of the United States". It was established by Josephus Daniels, SECNAV on July of 1915. It was headed by none other than Mr. T. A. Edison. Yes, Thomas Alva Edison. The first meeting was on October 7th, 1915. Its first major recommendation was that oil fired ships should be the order of the day, although there was limited oil supply in the world. They worked on underwater sound apparatus, machinegun sights, and better optics for range finders. However, those were not in the realm of operations research, the first project in that realm was the sinking of allied vessels by submarines. After collecting data, Edison and committee devised a plan. The plan was never implemented however. Edison used simulation techniques and definite range law, which are both as I read it, operations research tools. The complete story is fascinating.
|
|