Alternative History and Technology in RtW

[arminpfano]

On a broader scale the innovation processes look quite similar in military and within civil economy. There are a myriad of products invented too early, presented wrongly, or just by accident not gaining enough attention to become successful. The normal innovation cycle from the scientific description of a (mostly physical) phenomenon to an available product for the masses needs more than 40 years. Nearly all of our contemporary gadgets could have been available much earlier, if only people would have asked for it. Some far-sighting entrepreneurs or ingenieurs by their own are not sufficient in most cases.

In military there seems to be a big difference if an invention or development is made in peacetime (which is the lions share of time), or in wartime. During peace the comando structure, the seniors, and the concepts/dogmas tend to fozzilize very fast, so the chance of breakthroughs are even smaller. New ideas, unconventional people or solutions are never embraced easily by the majority, but when circumstances are critical, they may get a better chance. This is the case in wartimes, especially if you are not yet sure to win.

(This factor is not really modelled in RTW2. Or just indirectly, because you get a higher budget during wartimes, so research is quicker.)

Back to the question of alt realities: Yes, many weapon systems could have been available earlier (or later). But I think that most systems are in one way or another reactions on other systems. So there is a kind of inherent logic in development paths.

For example nobody liked the idea of long range guns before WWI - it was nearly impossible to hit anything at a distance of more than a few km with the available fire control systems. It was just a neccessary reaction because of the torpedo thread. Otherwise the responsibles would happily have stayed to broadsides at point blank range or the like. Same goes for tanks/machine guns, or planes/AA guns etc. etc.

This leads to the picture: Even if some developments would have come sooner or later, the "net structure" of multi-interdependent technological developments (which in toto are based on a) scientific research, and b) sociocultural development) should iron out such temporary effects. Each impulse tend to initiate a counter impulse, and if the impulse does come earlier, so does the response.

And besides: All those fancy steampunk alt realities just wouldn´t work, for sheer technological and/or economical reasons.

[director]

Breech-loading rifles and carbines were investigated before the war and utterly rejected by the War Department - the Henry fouled too much, others were not sturdy enough or encouraged men to fire off all their ammunition. The Burnside came closest to adoption, but was still rejected.

This continued once war broke out, to the degree that units that had purchased their own breech-loaders were required to turn them in and accept standard rifle-muskets or carbines. It was 1863 before the advantages overcame objections, in part due to Lincoln's direct endorsement and partly due to the performance of units like Buford's cavalry and Wilder's 'Lightning' Brigade. So again we see lower-level officers bucking seniors to push a reform through.

The War Department was not just in denial about breechloaders, they were in 'hunt it down and kill it' rejection mode and the Army eventually used some despite everything officers like Ripley could do to stop it.

[oldpop2000]

Jul 9, 2020 15:50:39 GMT -6 director said:

Breech-loading rifles and carbines were investigated before the war and utterly rejected by the War Department - the Henry fouled too much, others were not sturdy enough or encouraged men to fire off all their ammunition. The Burnside came closest to adoption, but was still rejected.

This continued once war broke out, to the degree that units that had purchased their own breech-loaders were required to turn them in and accept standard rifle-muskets or carbines. It was 1863 before the advantages overcame objections, in part due to Lincoln's direct endorsement and partly due to the performance of units like Buford's cavalry and Wilder's 'Lightning' Brigade. So again we see lower-level officers bucking seniors to push a reform through.

The War Department was not just in denial about breechloaders, they were in 'hunt it down and kill it' rejection mode and the Army eventually used some despite everything officers like Ripley could do to stop it.

In the testing of the Henry Repeating Rifle, it did not foul until after 1040 rounds. It was never cleaned or repaired until all the shots were fired. I doubt a soldier in the Civil War would have worried about that very much. Another issue that we don't consider about this issue is the standard combat tactics which were left over from Napoleonic Wars. The tactics just did not require fast firing weapons but it wasn't until later in the war, when someone realized the tactics were ancient and that the repeating rifle was very important. By the time the tactics began to change, the war ended.

[ieshima]

Then you also get the bureaucrats and penny-pinchers who are so determined to not give ground on obvious flaws that it actually hurts their nation.  Mk. 14 anyone?  Probably one of the most expensive boondoggles in all of military history would be the efforts of every nation who tried to get a magnetic detonator to work reliably.  Just how many billions of dollars and millions of manhours ended up in that black hole?

[director]

I'm relying on Nosworth's "Bloody Crucible of Courage", and I mis-remembered which rifle. It was the Sharps that was tested in 1853-54 and which became so fouled that after four or five rounds it became impossible to force the cartridge in without bursting it.

The objection to the Henry was,

"...Col. Ripley, a career officer in the Ordinance Department, was appointed the chief of the Army Ordinance Department in May 1861."
"...during Oliver Winchester's first visit to the Ordinance Department soon after the outbreak of the war. Winchester's presentation of the new Henry rifle completed, Ripley retorted that he believed that 'nine-tenths' of officers would prefer to be armed with a flintlock musket than any breechloader or 'magazine' repeater."
"Winchester would later remember encountering only one coherent objection to breechloaders within the Ordinance Department. It was feared that men armed with rapid-fire small arms would quickly and indiscriminately expend all of their ammunition."


My apologies - I'm 550 pages in and the citation was 400 pages back. At my age I am sometimes certain - and still wrong.

[rimbecano]

Jul 9, 2020 20:49:07 GMT -6 director said:

It was feared that men armed with rapid-fire small arms would quickly and indiscriminately expend all of their ammunition."

Well, that *is* a concern...

...for full-auto rifles.

[oldpop2000]

When you examine the logistics of carrying ammunition, a crate of ammunition holds about 1000 rounds during the Civil War, for 90 pounds. The total weight is 120 lbs with 30 lbs. box. If a brigade of four regiments has 400 men and they are supplied with 1600 rounds, that a total weight of 19,200 lbs. This will require 8.96 six - horse wagon or four-mule wagons. The Union army 6-mule wagon could carry about 4000 lbs. on good roads. So, it works out that 1000 men requires about 29 supply wagons. The Army of the Potomac required about 36 in 1864.

We also have to examine the cost of the Spenser and Sharps riles were were many times the cost of the Springfield Model 1861. The cost of the cartridges for the Spenser were $2.00 but the cost of the Springfield rifle in total was only $20.00. One full load in the Spenser of 9 rounds cost $18.00 not including the total cost of the gun. Keep in mind that the Lincoln administration was really trying to keep the Civil War from turning into a real, total war where the whole of the North was to be galvanized into action both serving and devoting the whole economy to the war. So, expanding the costs of the Army and its supplies does or would not set well with the common person.

It boils down to "you won with what you brung".

I decided to add this information about the above statement. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we were still in the process of building a Pacific Fleet. Prior to 1941, there was only the US Fleet but on Feb 1, 1941 a new headquarters was established at Pearl Harbor for the Pacific Fleet. Now, the real issue is that we defeated the Japanese Navy by the end of 1942. We had fought four major naval battles, two were draws and two were US victories. But all of the operations were strategically successful for the US and utter defeats for the Japanese strategy. The Japanese carrier fleet by the end of 1942 had been defeated. They had lost four fleet carriers and two light carriers. The real issue was the loss of personnel. We lost three fleet carriers. We defeated the Japanese with our pre-war fleet. Then we built our wartime fleet and cleaned their clocks. It boils down to the same issue in the game. You won with what you brung. This is the way I approach the game, I had better have my fleet prepared, trained and built because I am not going to be able to build more ships fast enough except maybe corvettes and possibly destroyers.

[wlbjork]

Just realised that the screw propeller issue occurred roughly 100 years before Sir Frank Whittle had even more issues when developing the jet engine. It took the test flight of the He178 for the project to get back on track, to the point the Gloster Meteor just pipped the Me262 into official service.

[oldpop2000]

Jul 10, 2020 8:21:16 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

Just realised that the screw propeller issue occurred roughly 100 years before Sir Frank Whittle had even more issues when developing the jet engine. It took the test flight of the He178 for the project to get back on track, to the point the Gloster Meteor just pipped the Me262 into official service.

We could actually move the time frame for the screw propeller back to  Archimedes 287-212. He reportedly developed the screw for lifting water and there is very little difference between moving water up hill and moving water to the rear to push a ship. Based on time, let's see, that means it took only about 1600 years for someone to figure out the screw propellor. 

[director]

rimbecano - standard ammunition load for a soldier of the day was 40 rounds, which he carried (and could not carry more because of the weight of the rest of his equipment). That might have to do for a long time, even through one full battle (it was intended to last for one campaign). So the risk of a soldier with a breech-loader banging out 40 rounds in rapid succession seemed high. In practice, officers and men worked out ways to reserve fire until it was needed and ways to get more ammo to the line.


And Hero of Alexandria (10AD-70AD) worked out how to run a steam-jet engine to do real work, in this case opening heavy doors. And he supposedly invented the windmill... So there, in basics, you have the locomotive and the steamship, and with a windmill you get milling, metal-working and such. Except that the attitude toward technology was wrong, the metallurgy wasn't up to it and the need wasn't really there. Invention is a funny thing...

[rimbecano]

Jul 10, 2020 9:13:30 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

We could actually move the time frame for the screw propeller back to  Archimedes 287-212. He reportedly developed the screw for lifting water and there is very little difference between moving water up hill and moving water to the rear to push a ship. Based on time, let's see, that means it took only about 1600 years for someone to figure out the screw propellor. 

The big difference between an Archimedes screw and a screw propeller is that the Archimedes screw is generally open at the top and can have its shaft driven by a power source that is high and dry, whereas a propeller is completely submerged and you need to have a water-tight seal where the shaft enters the ship (and Prince of Wales learned what happens if that seal fails).

[oldpop2000]

Jul 10, 2020 14:04:01 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Jul 10, 2020 9:13:30 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

We could actually move the time frame for the screw propeller back to  Archimedes 287-212. He reportedly developed the screw for lifting water and there is very little difference between moving water up hill and moving water to the rear to push a ship. Based on time, let's see, that means it took only about 1600 years for someone to figure out the screw propellor. 

The big difference between an Archimedes screw and a screw propeller is that the Archimedes screw is generally open at the top and can have its shaft driven by a power source that is high and dry, whereas a propeller is completely submerged and you need to have a water-tight seal where the shaft enters the ship (and Prince of Wales learned what happens if that seal fails).

Yes, very true, but the  basic scientific principle is exactly the same: to move water from one area to another with a propeller like mechanism, to create motion. 

[arminpfano]

The problem of the screw propeller at Archimedes time was the propulsion force behind it, I guess. For 200 slaves oars may be a more effective way to apply their muscle power than circling a wooden shaft going through the length of the galley, ending into some kind of screw.

Hm, nice picture nonetheless. Have to talk with James Cameron to make a blockbuster around that...

[oldpop2000]

Just for information. Here is a picture of Bushnell's Turtle built in 1775. Note the propeller AKA archimedian screw

[gornik]

Turning back to original discussion: I love the idea of noshurviverse. Battle experience should play more role in the tech advancing, than present "Sir, your shells fail. Again!" event. But this idea need some tuning. Let's look at NWS science. We may roughly sort it in three sections:

- Breaking design/aircraft inventions (Ship design and light forces line, new submarines, torpedo bombers, CV etc)
- gradual improvement of weight (Hull, armour, machinery)
- gradual improvement of reliability of certain systems.

First section unfortunately can't be changed without revision of AI method of shipbuilding, or will give player more advantage.
Second one is more flexible, but most of improvements here are connected with metallurgy, material studies and so on, and follow their development quite close. So I don't think there may be many advances.
Third one is what we need, with some exceptions (new turrets...). What techs are here? They are:
1. Turrets. Technical improvements for ROF. So it is more about "hard" materials than open minds.
2. Shells (both AP and HE). Materials.
3. Torpedoes. Materials.
4. Submarines. Here are some tactical improvements, which were developed to counter ASW - wolfpacks and Night surface attacks.
5. ASW. Ideas and materials are mixed, good.
6. Tactics. YES! Only few "material" inventions
7. RADAR. IMO reliable tech may appear only with certain tech level, so it is "material"
8. Shipboard aircraft operation. Except carriers themself, it's more about ideas and right usage of inventions.
9. Amphibious. More about ideas (combination of yet created things).
10. Subdivision. Mostly yes.

So, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 areas (with some additions from another ones) are what we may play with. In peacetime they may advance slower, than now. During wartime they run faster. Certain battle events may additionally increase the speed. Two or more capital ships burned to death? Than fire-fighting tech get bonus. Air groups suffer heavy losses from common deck landings? Shipboard operations improved. Gallipoly happen? (There SHOULD be such event!) Let's invent more safe way to transport troops to Hell shore.

To prevent too fast and straight advance (we tend to fight much more than IRL fleets, and know the future...) I suggest to add "fake" improvements - curious ideas which didn't produce notable results. They are not obligatory, but may slow down your progress significantly. Example: for early ASW warfare there may be "bag and hammer" tech - these methods of blinding periscope historically were mentioned in Adm. Makarov's order about Japanese submarines in 1904. They may appear in another areas, some may even be dangerous for your fleet (this new French powder...).