Motivations for the Creation of RAND

[Zipper730]

I'm not sure even what forum to place this in, so I just put it here (I don't object if it's relocated to another forum): Regardless, I'm curious what variables lead to the development of RAND?

I've been told the Manhattan Project played a big role, but I'm curious if there were other technical developments in which the government successfully or unsuccessfully failed to coordinate industry and scientific efforts in line with governmental policy.

I'm curious, for instance, if the development of jet-engines played any role in this.

 

[pbehn]

RAND?

 

[Zipper730]

P pbehn , RAND: Research ANd Development -- the think tank.

You know, come to think of it -- it might have been a smart idea to put this under "Post War"

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Zipper730,

It was originally called Project RAND, and later became the RAND Corporation. When it incorporated it included this in its charter:

"To further and promote scientific, educational, and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare and security of the United States of America."

Check out this link: "A Brief History of RAND"

 

[PStickney]

I'm not sure even what forum to place this in, so I just put it here (I don't object if it's relocated to another forum): Regardless, I'm curious what variables lead to the development of RAND?

I've been told the Manhattan Project played a big role, but I'm curious if there were other technical developments in which the government successfully or unsuccessfully failed to coordinate industry and scientific efforts in line with governmental policy.

I'm curious, for instance, if the development of jet-engines played any role in this.

RAND started out as the "Industrial Research" arm of Douglas Aircraft, before it was spun off as an independent (But still close ties to Douglas) organization in late 1948 Seems that one of their early adventures was to try to obtain B-47 design and wind tunnel data from Boeing, who politely refused.

 

[Zipper730]

T ThomasP and P PStickney ,

What I'm mostly interested in is what particular variables gave rise to RAND. I'll explain here: This quote is from Wikipedia, and while that's not normally a good source -- most other sources seem to describe the same thing, and Wikipedia is easy to access as it seems closely coupled to Google.

RAND was created after individuals in the War Department, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, and industry began to discuss the need for a private organization to connect operational research with research and development decisions. On 1 October 1945, Project RAND was set up under special contract to the Douglas Aircraft Company and began operations in December 1945. In May 1946, the Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship was released.

So, why did they need a private organization to connect operational research and research and development decisions?

 

[pbehn]

T ThomasP and P PStickney ,

What I'm mostly interested in is what particular variables gave rise to RAND. I'll explain here: This quote is from Wikipedia, and while that's not normally a good source -- most other sources seem to describe the same thing, and Wikipedia is easy to access as it seems closely coupled to Google.
So, why did they need a private organization to connect operational research and research and development decisions?

So they don't duplicate effort and do research into developing things the government want to buy? I think the Batelle institute has a similar function, not even mentioned in the Wiki page when I was training in Metallurgy and testing the drop weight tear test was known as a "Battelle" , it was developed as part of materials research on Liberty ship failures. Battelle Memorial Institute - Wikipedia Battelle drop-weight tear test (BDWTT).

 

[Zipper730]

So they don't duplicate effort and do research into developing things the government want to buy?

But didn't the US and UK both have mechanisms to deal with that? I was more curious if it had to do with the fact that the US lagged behind the UK & Germany in technological development and hadn't properly mobilized industry with government needs.

 

[pbehn]

But didn't the US and UK both have mechanisms to deal with that? I was more curious if it had to do with the fact that the US lagged behind the UK & Germany in technological development and hadn't properly mobilized industry with government needs.

If you look for negatives you will find them, there were many areas where the USA was ahead of Europe, like four engine bombers, turbochargers aerofoils. The P-51 was in production before the USA officially entered the war. In areas like Bombe production for decoding Enigma the USA quickly overtook the UK in quantity and quality.

 

[Shortround6]

But didn't the US and UK both have mechanisms to deal with that? I was more curious if it had to do with the fact that the US lagged behind the UK & Germany in technological development and hadn't properly mobilized industry with government needs.

Would you like to list some examples?

Not saying the US was always ahead or even equal in all areas but the US was doing a pretty fair job in some areas.
Number and size of wind tunnels in the UK in 1939-40 compared to US for example.
US naval AA guns for another.
US Naval Steam machinery in the late 30s.
The whole turbo-charger thing. May not have been combat ready in 1941-42 but nobody else even came close.

please define "properly mobilized industry with government needs" in regards to which industries and which needs.
In 1941 the US built 2.591 light tanks and 1,430 medium tanks and in 1942 the US built 10,674 light tanks and 15,720 medium tanks (or tank chassis)
This does not include half-tracks.
The US had some of best artillery in world, perhaps not as flashy as some of the german stuff but solid, reliable, accurate and effective.

 

[Zipper730]

S Shortround6

Jet engine development...

 

[pbehn]

S Shortround6

Jet engine development...

In the important area of creep resistant high temperature alloys the USA was already ahead.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Very interesting subject. For the origins of Operational Research try this book "Blackett's War: The Men Who Defeated the Nazi U-Boats and Brought Science to the Art of Warfare" Blackett was really the father of what we now call operational research. He didn't invent weapons, he used math and science to develop better tactics and ways to use the weapons at hand.

The modern RANDs are for the most part products of the War, and military industrial complex Ike warned us about. Institutions like JHU's APL, that developed the VT Fuse then became a trusted agent for the Navy, or MIT's CSDL that contributed to gyroscopes.

Ramo and Wooldridge teamed to form a RAND that played a big part in the Systems Engineering of the early Strategic Missiles like the Atlas Program, the company they formed would merge with Thompson Products and become TRW. TRW was acquired by Northrop Grumman.

 

[Shortround6]

The General Electric turbo charger was two of the three elements needed for a jet engine. Compressor, burner section and turbine.
When asked about this later, Dr Sanford said that the opportunity not taken of putting a burner can/section between the two elements they did have was "Dumb, just dumb".

A number of earlier jets engines failed on the test bench due to poor compressors and a few failed due to poor turbines. The US was right in there with turbine (and turbine blade ) development and just as important, mass production. Bearing technology was also important. Keeping that oh so simple shaft turning at many thousand RPM in a high heat environment wasn't easy.

Technology is more than the basic idea, The idea for gas turbines dates back to before WW I, in fact there was a discussion/article on a gas turbine powered battleship in the 1913 Naval Annual. Being able to actual produce a working example and have it enter service is where most of the work is.

If you can build thousands of turbo chargers per month with tens of thousands of turbine blades then building a few hundred jet engines a month is not that far away.

 

[pbehn]

The General Electric turbo charger was two of the three elements needed for a jet engine. Compressor, burner section and turbine.
When asked about this later, Dr Sanford said that the opportunity not taken of putting a burner can/section between the two elements they did have was "Dumb, just dumb".
.

I read somewhere that I can no longer find that Whittle's early research was for an engine driven compressor followed by combustion cans and a thrust producing "jet". Whittles idea that the compressor could be driven by blades in the exhaust jet stream was (predictably) dismissed as impractical by those above.

 

[pbehn]

The US had some of best artillery in world, perhaps not as flashy as some of the german stuff but solid, reliable, accurate and effective.

I would say proximity fused artillery was very flashy and changed things in the Pacific, against V1s targeted at London and Antwerp. When introduced to the battlefield proximity fuses was devastating to German infantry and their tactics.

 

[pinehilljoe]

I read somewhere that I can no longer find that Whittle's early research was for an engine driven compressor followed by combustion cans and a thrust producing "jet". Whittles idea that the compressor could be driven by blades in the exhaust jet stream was (predictably) dismissed as impractical by those above.

A good book about Whittle is below. The author devoted a chapter to Whittle. Whittle knew the limitation of the piston engine was air, air is ultimately limited to the size of the cylinders ina piston engine .

The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World Amazon product ASIN 0062652567

 

[Shortround6]

I would say proximity fused artillery was very flashy and changed things in the Pacific, against V1s targeted at London and Antwerp. When introduced to the battlefield proximity fuses was devastating to German infantry and their tactics.

I believe the proximity fuse started with the British? At least the original idea/circuits. The Americans were able to productionize it ( make it by the hundreds of thousands and have a shelf life/storage of a number months without without maintenance).

The British were a bit busy at the time

But as I am saying, there is more to "technology" than the basic idea.

 

[pbehn]

I believe the proximity fuse started with the British? At least the original idea/circuits. The Americans were able to productionize it ( make it by the hundreds of thousands and have a shelf life/storage of a number months without without maintenance).

The British were a bit busy at the time

But as I am saying, there is more to "technology" than the basic idea.

That was basically my point, the USA may have been behind the curve in some but not many on Sept 3 1939, certainly not by 1948. In any case much of what contributed to winning was mass production of what became civil not military "stuff". D-Day was initially a military victory but only continued to be so by support from portable harbours, communication cables used to pump oil and ship designs that could land on a beach and get off again. In terms of "stuff" made there were more Sherman "tank killer" versions made than the Germans made Tiger I and II tanks by a considerable margin. 49,000 M4 Shermans, 84.000 T-34 and T34-85s against 1.300 Tiger Is and 489 Tiger IIs.

 

[Koopernic]

I'm not sure even what forum to place this in, so I just put it here (I don't object if it's relocated to another forum): Regardless, I'm curious what variables lead to the development of RAND?

I've been told the Manhattan Project played a big role, but I'm curious if there were other technical developments in which the government successfully or unsuccessfully failed to coordinate industry and scientific efforts in line with governmental policy.

I'm curious, for instance, if the development of jet-engines played any role in this.

RAND started as a sort of Think tank started by Douglass that ended up with USAF funding.

I suspect that its ultimately that corporations and elements of Government (such as the USAF, CIA, whatever ) like to influence social policy and with it politics so they can secure more funding. A think tank provides a bit of leverage and skills up ones social influence clout. If one looks at RAND's web site it looks like impartial sociological analysis. Never trust impartial. Things are never that easy. I'm a bit too old and sceptical and cynical to regard it as genuine non profit or charitable. In addition if you want to prepare a nation for war you need to create the psychological conditions within it to want to fight (often an ugly thing). First noted by a von Clausewitz after the Prussian defeat by Napoleon where Clausewitz noted the population were not prepared to fight a war against Napoleon because he presented as a kind of revolutionary egalitarian. US Strategists revisited von Clausewitz's writings after the Vietnam war which was not a military defeat of the USA but one of just giving up the will to fight in a way even though military victory was possible.