Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
So, why did they need a private organization to connect operational research and research and development decisions?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 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).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?
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.So they don't duplicate effort and do research into developing things the government want to buy?
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.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.
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.
In the important area of creep resistant high temperature alloys the USA was already ahead.
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.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 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.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 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.
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.
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.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.
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.