Motivations for the Creation of RAND

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Operations research is important to work out what is effective and what is ineffective but it can't really come up with ideas. It can wean the good ideas from the bad.
Operations research told us that night bombing by celestial navigation was inaccurate and that attacking tanks with rockets was inaccurate.

Every country had the idea of implementing a proximity fuse in the early 1930s Germany, UK, US, France. Most attempted to use optical methods ie focused light or infrared but there was some idea of using radio.

The Germans were the ones that persisted and got somewhere first.

The time delays used in some of their bomb fuses were electronic since the mid 1930s. The bomber could arm the bomb electrically by charging a capacitor and some bombs could have a variable bursting time delay determined by the amount of charge. The bombs could be armed and disarmed during flight. The fuses were so stable that the Germans were the only combatant that shipped bombs with fuses installed. The aircraft was safe from bombs detonating in a landing crash.

The core of these devices was copper oxide or selenium diodes and a type of vacuum tube (or vacuum valve if your English) called a cold cathode tube or cold cathode thyratron. Basically the cold cathode tube was a very sensitive 3 electrode switch that triggered at a very precise voltage, very fast and let through a large current that could blow a fuse link.

When the British started recovering bombs with these shock hardened fuses they re-examined their earlier work and passed the idea across desks of their best electronic and radar engineers and figured out that it should be possible to toughen a vacuum tube/valve to handle shock.

The man in charge John Cockroft had other important work to do with Tube Alloys (nuclear bomb) but the UK work was passed on to the USA. US engineers at the USN Buro of Ordinance immediately began dropping 37 shells backwards onto concrete and then firing 37mm shells with a hearing aid triode that generated a RF tone to prove the valve could survive.

The circuit used on the US fuse ultimately came from W.A.S Butement the New Zealand/British engineer who developed much Chain Home radar.

It used 5 or 6 valves and turned out to be unexpectedly easy to jam and predetonate so secrecy was important.

*******************

Those of British extraction might be pleased to know that UK development of the proximity fuse did continue. In 1942 test rounds were fired in which a a corner reflector in the base of he shell was tracked by radar. When the shell echo merged with the target echo the shell was detonated by a double pulse. The longer term goal had been to track the shell, compare the miss distance and adjust the aim but it was fund that the dispersion of the shell was much to great to make this realisable. It would have worked for a close in weapons system where the shell dispersal was much less. The program was cancelled in favour of the American fuse which was entering production in 1942.

******************

The German fuse work was suspended in 1940 apparently along with a lot of other programs that could not produce a fieldable weapon within 6 months due to the need to defeat France. Like a great many of the other similarly suspended programs they took a lot of time to reconsititute.

Fuse work recommenced in 1942 and produced test firings by 88mm shells in 1943. The shells could burst at 1m, this was improved to 2m and finally by 1944 to 4m with over 95% reliability That should have been enough since a 88mm shell was lethal to 3.5m. (10m-15m had been hoped for but was not really so) and work continued to improve the detection range to 10m and finally 15m though these were not tested. The shell was essentially ready for production.

The shell worked by detection the distortion in the electrostatic field on one side of the shell versus the other as it spun. This tech had been looked at by Buro or Ordinance but rejected due to its degradation in rain.

The other way the Germans planed to use their cold cathode tubes was to create electrically programmable time fused shells that could be programmed in the barrel or doing loading. They had some success by aging and then grading and matching components.

The German electrostatic fuse had a nose contact fuse. Interestingly the Germans found that when the standard mechanical time delay fuse was replaced by a double fuse (doppelzunder) with a nose contact fuse the lethal hit rate could be increased 4 fold by simply biasing the shells to burst 100m beyond the target. This was because many shells burst early and many late whereas a direct hit would pass through the aircraft seldom destroying it.

Hence the electrostatic fuse would have worked well with a programmable time delay as a backup and with a nose contact fuse. It was cheap and didn't need batteries.

One of the issues may have been that the cold cathode tubes may have needed radium to slightly ionise the gas to get a faster switching as tetrode tubes were developed to avoid this for some reason.
 

The reason the US produced the Sherman is prosaic. Almost all of the dock cranes used to lift tanks into the hold of ships had a 40 ton limit. There would have been no issue for the US to field a 45-50 ton tank in large numbers in 1944 otherwise.

It's not really a fair comparison. The Tiger I and Tiger II were highly specialised breakthrough tanks only meant to be produced in small numbers. They did a fantastic job of keeping their crews alive when faced with incredible odds.

We might rather look at Soviet production of KV-1 and JS-2 (The Soviet Tigers) rather than compare the T-34 to the Tiger.

Some 6000 Panther tanks were produced, it was the replacement for the Panzer III and Panzer IV and was phased in while these older tanks, which were now so nose heavy from armour added to them the springs of the front wheels had to be strengthened, continued to be produced. With a 75mm L48 gun they could penetrate all Sherman's bar the Jumbo.

From 1943 to 1945 you can count the following tanks, all capable of penetrating a Sherman and with strong enough armour to be plausibly likely to resist the Sherman's gun including the 17 pounder in many cases.
6000 Panther
9000 StuG III plus 1200 105mm StuH. The STuG III was the most successful tank killer in the war.
6500 Panzer IV
1200 StuG IV plus 400 of a 105mm version.
2000 Jagdpanzer IV including 800 with the same L70 gun as used on Panther
3000 "Hetzers"
and of course those 1800 Tigers. I/II

I can't see that crossing 1800 Tigers of the list is going to do much but allow maybe 3000 extra Panthers. Net gain only 1200.

And of course the US was not being bombed (nor was the USSR beyond the Urals nor for the most part the UK) which probably halved German production.

The Panzer III and IV simply needed replacing.

I quite like British tanks: they had excellent rough terrain crossing ability which more than made up for their low speed in realistic situations, good track protection and good armour. Britain produced relatively few tanks because American supplies unburdened them of the need to produce huge numbers. The Germans didn't have a choice but to do the best they could. The most produced tank seems to have been the Churchill with some 5700. The UK relied on US and some Canadian production. Likewise with transport aircraft.

The final Panther Issue F (Ausf F) that was to start production as the war ended:
Resolved the final drive gearbox issue by finally fitting the planetary gearbox intended from the beginning
Added 20mm of armour to the Glacis (sloped back at 55) so slope effects multiplied this by about 2.2
Used a Small Diameter turret based on the Tiger II which nearly double armour protection.
Used a 88mm gun by virtue of a space saving coaxial recoil mechanism
Had provision of gun stabilisation via separately stabilised optics (not gun and optics mechanically tied together like the Sherman)
Had provision for a stereoscopic range finder.

So the Pershing and upcoming Centurion would be matched in quality.

German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia
British armoured fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Which alloys exactly, and at which date ?
Just the industry generally, not only experience with mass producing turbos. Wiggins have developed Inconel 625 but it was already owned by a Canadian parent. The US automotive and refinery industry was much larger than UKs and they use / need creep resistant steels and alloys as much as a jet engine. Inconel 625 may have been developed for a jet engine but I spent years of my life surrounded by it, literally by the ton, it is the lining of choice for high temperature sour service pipelines.

Edit. My comment D Deleted member 68059 was not made without thought. I read an article years ago about the joint involvement of the UK and USA in jet development which as far as I remember was a result of lease lend agreements on technology. The Americans were very impressed with what the UK achieved with the resources they had. Nimonic alloy 80 developed by Wiggins for Power Jets engines its derivative 80A is still used for exhaust valves as far as I understand. The operating condition of an R-3350 exhaust valve in a B-29 on climb was operating in a very severe environment comparable to a turbine blade in some respects, I cant find the material grade for 3350 exhaust valves, but I am absolutely certain they would be made to a standard. As I understand it the main reason that USA industry didnt produce alloys suitable to be used as turbine blades is that no one asked them to. Is that incorrect?
 
Last edited:

The first US jet engine, the GE 1-A did use "Hastelloy B"
General Electric I-A - Wikipedia

  • Type I
Initial design based on W.1X. Incorporated automatic control system and forged Hastelloy B turbine blades. First run on 18th April 1942.
  • Type I-A
Revised design incorporating partitions in blower casing at suggestion of Whittle.

It does appear Hastelloy B is an alloy (edited) unrelated to nimonic 80. It seems to be about 65% Ni.
Chemical Composition of Hastelloy Alloy - Hastelloy B B2 C C4 C276 F G G2 N S W X (tubingchina.com)

This ignores the Lockheed L1000 (or J37) and the alloys Lockheed had planned.

Obviously the US were the world leader in turbosuperchargers ever since Sanford Moss developed one.

From what I understand the nimonic alloys came out of work on valve seats as nimonic 75. Nimonic 80 was vastly superior for turbine blades.
 
Last edited:
I edited my post above. Hastelloy is a brand name developed by Haynes, a concatenation of "Haynes Stellite Alloy" patented in 1922 Haynes had previously patented Stellite in 1912.
Stellite - Wikipedia
Haynes International - Wikipedia company was founded by Elwood Haynes in,1920, the company was acquired by Union Carbide.
 
I don't know if that is the only reason for the Shermans weight, the figure of 40 tons pops up all over in terms of tanks, tank transporters Bailey bridges even civilian bridges. Bigger and therefore heavier tanks obviously can withstand more artillery from more angles ranges etc but are just as vulnerable to mines and running out of fuel. There are many places you cant go in a 60 ton tank and if you lose a track you need something very special to recover it. Most Tigers in N Africa were lost when hitting mines and being abandoned
 
Did the US have any equivalent of operational research?
The modern RANDs are for the most part products of the War, and military industrial complex Ike warned us about.
That is the impression that I get.

I'm surprised that there was such a pervasive belief that gas-turbines would be overweight just because they were overweight on ships. Admittedly, it might have been the only example at the time to use.

When it came to Sanford, as early as 1902 to 1903, he'd looked into some kind of jet-engine progenitor, though it seems he either had no interest in pursuing it.
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.
I knew that there were gas-turbines around in the early 20th century, but they were basically useless for propulsion purposes.

RAND started as a sort of Think tank started by Douglass that ended up with USAF funding.
That's correct, but nonetheless, organizations aren't created for no reason, hence the reason for the thread.
I'm a bit too old and sceptical and cynical to regard it as genuine non profit or charitable.
Yeah, I generally don't have terribly positive views on non-profits either.

On gas turbines...
This ignores the Lockheed L1000 (or J37) and the alloys Lockheed had planned.
What was planned for the L-1000/XJ37? The design is quite fascinating in a number of ways.
 
Hey Zipper730,

re "Did the US have any equivalent of operational research?"

My understanding is that prior to WWII the primary, more formal form of operational research in the US military was left up to the Bureau of Ordnance and Bureau of Ships. Otherwise operational research was kind of informal, with West Point and Annapolis significant contributors, along with the Naval War College. Just prior to WWII there were rumblings about starting more comprehensive and formal systematic research - partly due to exposure to the British system during the 1930s, and partly due to the native recognition that "the times they were a changing" quickly.

See: "https://history.army.mil/html/books/hist_op_research/CMH_70-102-1.pdf" for a pretty good history of the beginning of the more formal operational research program for the US Army.

See: "History & Campus" for a pretty good history of the US Naval War College. Note that the NWC was not an official US government organization, but was started by retired and current members of the US Navy.
 
Last edited:

"The Cheiftan" who has a YouTube channel and used to command and drive a Challenger says that the crane lifting limit set the tank weight limit. He's been in pretty much every tank from WW1 onwards. There were a few bigger cranes about in the US and UK no doubt other reasons such as factory cranes, track limits, bridge limits.

Tiger I which were 55 tons were often used to clear mines fields simply by driving through them. This lead to a lot of damaged tracks and suspension. It explains some of the losses.

To me it looks like they used turretless StuG and Jagtpanzers for this roll Simply because it was a way to up gun and up armour an existing chassis.

Germans never gave up on medium tanks. They included them in their E series E10,E25, E50, E75, E100.
 
Last edited:
So, the British had started engaging in Operational Research earlier? When did they start?
Sounds good.
 

Yes, the USN did, under Capt W. Baker, the group was first named ASWORG, Antisubmarine Warfare Operations Research Group
 
Hey Zipper730,

re "So, the British had started engaging in Operational Research earlier? When did they start?"

Informally(?) the UK began OR with the establishment of the Admiralty and various Universities and Royal Societies, so maybe as early as the late-1400s(?). The Royal Navy and its mission of protecting the various countries/colonies and trade routes was the main impetus, along with the need to project power throughout the British Empire and beyond. The various-Admiralty incarnations issued requirements for developments such as ordered husbandry/genetic breeding of trees for ship building, and an accurate maritime chronometer (the story of which is told in the very well done IMO movie/documentary 'Longitude').

Formally, the Air Ministry began OR post-WWI, with the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment - 1918?) and the Admiralty began 'modern' OR with the ARL (Admiralty Research Laboratory - 1921).

See: "Royal Aircraft Establishment - Wikipedia"

See: "Admiralty Research Laboratory - Wikipedia"

Between the wars there were many research projects involving the above entities and the Universities. One of the spin-offs of the system was the AMES (Air Ministry Experimental Station - 1935) later known as TRE (Telecommunications Research Establishment - 1940?). Their relationship with the University system is at the heart of the well known development of British radar and GCI.

See: "Telecommunications Research Establishment - Wikipedia"
 
Last edited:
Yes, the USN did, under Capt W. Baker, the group was first named ASWORG, Antisubmarine Warfare Operations Research Group
I assume ASWORG started in WW2?

I never knew OR went that far back, though I'm surprised the RAE played a role in operational research. I thought they were predominantly like a military British NACA.

It seems that, during WWII, the US had engaged in Operational Research as well as the British, and with the USN directly or indirectly (i.e. retired USN personnel) being involved in the process for sometime well before WWII.
 
Last edited:
Hey Zipper730,

If you can find a copy, check out 'The Origins and Development of Operational Research in the Royal Air Force', Air Ministry Publication 3368
 
Last edited:
Hey Zipper730,

If you can find a copy, check out 'The Origins and Development of Operational Research in the Royal Air Force', Air Ministry Publication 3368

Hi

Examples of 'older' books that discuss OR are as follows, first 'AP 3368' from 1963:


Plus some text, left hand has a brief mention of USN and USAAF:
The older, 1947, 'Science at War':

Chapter II dealing with OR:

The 'Rise of the Boffins', 1962, has mentions of OR throughout:


It should be noted that on some internet websites and in too many history books it is alleged the Andy McNaughton of the Canadian Corps basically 'invented' OR for the Battle of Vimy during 1917 for Sound Ranging. However, this is based on ignoring what actually was going on at the time and re-arranging scientist careers and bears little relationship with the truth. Again the usual thing has happened where authors just repeat what other authors have said in the past without looking at the evidence available.

Mike
 
So it seems that the primary purpose of RAND was
  1. Operational Research
  2. Coordination of technological development and use of technology with policy making/government desires and needs.
Honestly, when I look at this I'm left scratching my head, given that for operational research: There were organizations that existed which predated the war which regarded operational research by both the US Army and US Navy: While the Naval War College was manned by former members of the armed forces, it still had a substantial influence in naval operations, and national war-policies (something that almost certainly would have been known by policy makers at the top); The US Army had organizations that facilitated this function before and during World War II, though it had been greatly scaled up during the WWII (that said, it's scale enlarged during the war, but most organizations enlarged during the war).

There was also definitely the use of science when it came to all of the following
  • Development of aircraft: NACA was a scientific research organization, often aimed at testing aircraft models, and improving designs to extract additional performance: The US Army & US Navy also had air-arms which did applied research on aircraft; they also tested aircraft to determine their use as a weapons system, and tactical and strategic doctrine was developed regarding the use of said aircraft. Even before WWII there were looking into the idea of close and convoy escort (each had their own appeals).
  • The development of ships was heavily scientific in nature, requiring knowledge of structural engineering, chemistry (some metals can burn under the right conditions), and hydrodynamics, so as to produce a ship with good stability and handling characteristics.
  • The development of guns, bombs, and torpedoes all depended on chemistry, particularly metallurgy for both the projectile and barrel, chemistry of explosives for both the propellant and ballistic charge, as well as fuse designs, with the torpedoes also requiring electronics to allow them to maneuver and home in on targets. Bombs, and bullets depended on aerodynamics, with torpedoes depending on hydrodynamics. To accurately aim them, physics was required to determine CEP, and this also required gunsights and bomb-sights, some of which were quite sophisticated.
It seems that RAND was largely unnecessary, as OR already was functionally present, and just needed to remain with some degree of operation after the war, and organizations such as the Council for National Defense, which managed the National Defense Research Committee/Office of Scientific Research & Development all seemed to coordinate civilian scientists with military decision making: Frankly, it seems that an organization such as the Council for National Defense, and it's supporting structures could have simply remained in full operation or reduced as necessary to deal with defense needs, and simply been placed under either the War Department, the Navy Department, some connection between the two, and after 1947: The NME/DoD.

It seems that they could have basically done most of the policy decisions that were done by RAND.
 

Hi

As RAND was a post-WW2 organization it may have been formed as a result of the many scientists that worked in Operational Research during the war would have wanted to go back to their pre-war occupations, therefore, the wartime system of OR was no longer viable?

For interest here are 'The Principles of Operational Research' as described in 'Science at War':


 

Hi Zipper,

The big push for these independent think tanks originated with Hap Arnold. His personal records show his contempt for the Air Corps' and AAF's offices at Wright Field - he regarded them as more of an inbred bureaucracy than a forward-looking science and engineering organization. He split Materiel Division into two organizations and moved their commanders to Washington where he could keep his finger on the pulse. He moved developmental responsibilities to other organizations that he trusted such as the Air Corps Board and Air Proving Ground. And he moved many particularly important projects (such as radar) to independent, civilian organizations.

Wright Field improved greatly over time, but the value of outside investigations still mattered - Rand, JPL, and other organizations continued to flourish well into the Cold War...

Cheers,



Dana
 
Why would the wartime system no longer be viable?

So this was about their lack of forward thinking? In what ways?
 

Users who are viewing this thread