ASB send you back to 1929

[stevep]

Originally Posted by NomadicSky

How old are you? This is 1929 you'll be going back alone you don't have anyone to explain anything to whos ever seen you before.

NomadicSky

52, for a few months more. What I basically meant is that if I tried explaining what happened to me and where I come from it would be difficult not mentioning explicitly or from what I say that I'm a lot older than my current body in TTL. Its one thing to have this jump back in time, but adding another sudden twist makes the basic story a little harder for people to accept. Although it does make life a lot easier for me.

Steve

[Ward]

Originally Posted by stevep

NomadicSky

52, for a few months more. What I basically meant is that if I tried explaining what happened to me and where I come from it would be difficult not mentioning explicitly or from what I say that I'm a lot older than my current body in TTL. Its one thing to have this jump back in time, but adding another sudden twist makes the basic story a little harder for people to accept. Although it does make life a lot easier for me.

Steve

So you are now 21 again with the life knowledge of a 52 year old .

[Sbiper]

Been done already, though not exactly, see the Foresight War http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/TFW%20Extract.htm . As an interesting aside a fan made a fanfic version featuring an American http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ForesightAmerica.htm , great begining but story kinda losses momentum and runs out.

[NomadicSky]

Originally Posted by stevep

NomadicSky

52, for a few months more. What I basically meant is that if I tried explaining what happened to me and where I come from it would be difficult not mentioning explicitly or from what I say that I'm a lot older than my current body in TTL. Its one thing to have this jump back in time, but adding another sudden twist makes the basic story a little harder for people to accept. Although it does make life a lot easier for me.

Steve

I personally like part of the twist. And who would you need to explain it to everyone you knew doesn't exist or in your case is much younger than you knew them to be. For me even my grandparents don't exist.

[Jim Smitty]

For me the three books, would be the following:1) A general weapon book, ie small arms, tanks, aircraft,and subamrines with enough drawings to start the design, and with a little help finish it, 2) a book on solid state elections and get a jump start on that, 3)a book detailing engine and transmison designs. I would most likely have to make these books to get the information I want together.

I would set up a shop and start working on some of the smaller designs, ie small arms. At the same time start playing the market once the bust happens. Once I had a working AK-47 I think I would take and so it off to Colt and all the other small arms companies within the US. I think an AK would hands down win out over the M1. Once my foot was in the door, I think I would be getting funding for some of my other ideas.

[Sbiper]

I don't think an AK-47 would beat an M1 in US Army trials IMHO. How do you convince the Generals that will be making the decisions that the AK-47 (and it cartridge, even more importantly) is better? Look at the design specification and performance specs asked for when the US Army went with the M1, an AK-47 does not have a chance in hell of being comeptitive.

I am assuming you are talking about the M1 Garand as opposed to the M1 Carbine.

A better plan would be to try and get the US Army to adopt one of the following:

1.The UK 7mm round that was used in the EM-2 assault rifle (thats .280 for you Yanks) and use it in the M1. If this is adopted then design a decent GPMG to use this round as well.
2. Any of the current new intermediate rounds being bandied about as a replacement for the 5.56/7.62 NATO rounds; these are the in the 6.5 to 6.8mm size range.
3. An outside contender: 6.5x50SRmm Ariska: Excellent round, has almost the same performance as a NATO 7.62, yet is controllable on full auto due to its much lower recoil. The later Spitzer bullets design for this round gave excellent long range performance and inflicted horrendous wounds due to their 'rear heavy' design that ensured that the bullet rapidly slewed inside a target.


You will however be up against massive institutional and industrial interia to try and get the US to adopt any other round appart from the 30-06 though, the General's just won't understand your reasoning for a new round (without showing them the 'future history'). Remember the US Army generals wanted a full power battle rifle, NOT an Assault rifle when they held the design competition for the M1.

The history of US Army small arms trials and design comeptions is littered with monumentally stoopid design decisions, notably the 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 NATO; you are up against it trying to get the US to adopt any type of effective assault round/weapon prior to WW2 (and in fact even after WW2), the M1 was replaced by the M-14 for Gods sake, another full power round battle rifle, US Army seems to have learnt none of the infantry combat leasons of WW2.

[Sbiper]

From asking around some people who are much better aquainted with this subject than me and the consensus re: US Army small arms in the 30's is this:

1. M1 Carbine improvements: use a shortened .30 Remington round, with a spitzer bullet of about 130 grains for about 2250fps MV, removable box mags of 30 round capacity. This would be a formidable proto assault rifle, keep the M1 Garand with the 30-06 round etc as a battle rifle/sniper rifle.

2. Keep the 30-06 as a Sniper/MMG round, design a Garand for the .250 Savage, due to the lower recoil impluse this would be able to have full auto fire, and fit with detachable box mags. Equip your squad with these 'assault rifle' Garands and LMG's in .250 Savage; shorter carbine version of this new rifle replaces the need for the M1 Carbine for issue to support troops.

3. No matter what you do US Army Squads need a better LMG than the BAR and a better MMG that the M1919 Browning, design either a better LMG or a proper GPMG.

[Jim Smitty]

Originally Posted by Sbiper

From asking around some people who are much better aquainted with this subject than me and the consensus re: US Army small arms in the 30's is this:

1. M1 Carbine improvements: use a shortened .30 Remington round, with a spitzer bullet of about 130 grains for about 2250fps MV, removable box mags of 30 round capacity. This would be a formidable proto assault rifle, keep the M1 Garand with the 30-06 round etc as a battle rifle/sniper rifle.

2. Keep the 30-06 as a Sniper/MMG round, design a Garand for the .250 Savage, due to the lower recoil impluse this would be able to have full auto fire, and fit with detachable box mags. Equip your squad with these 'assault rifle' Garands and LMG's in .250 Savage; shorter carbine version of this new rifle replaces the need for the M1 Carbine for issue to support troops.

3. No matter what you do US Army Squads need a better LMG than the BAR and a better MMG that the M1919 Browning, design either a better LMG or a proper GPMG.

The problem with the 30-06 is its over powerful for a LMG or MMG design. A 7.62 NATO round is needed.

Plus the OP states the ISOT starts in 1929, the M1 Garand is in the design stage. If not the AK than the FN FAL in 7.62 NATO, and thats pushing the FN FAL to the limits of its design.

[Sbiper]

Originally Posted by Jim Smitty

The problem with the 30-06 is its over powerful for a LMG or MMG design. A 7.62 NATO round is needed.

Plus the OP states the ISOT starts in 1929, the M1 Garand is in the design stage. If not the AK than the FN FAL in 7.62 NATO, and thats pushing the FN FAL to the limits of its design.

You don't want the 7.62 NATO, you can keep the 30-06 as the difference between these two rounds is marginal at best.

Best option is to use modifed versions of rounds already in production and use the Garand action as the basis of a full auto rifle, with any of the smaller non 30-06 rounds proposed.

If you want a clean sheet design then use the 7mm (0.280) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British arguably the best all purpose round ever developed.

You are up against huge institutional inertia, General McAurthur seems to have thought that US Soldiers needed a rifle/cartridge that could kill horses at 1000 meter, hence the rejection of the .276 Pederson, a round that would have made an excellent 'all puropse' round

[perfectgeneral]

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", 1934
John Maynard Keynes, "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money", 1936
W Edwards Deming, "The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education", 2000

I'll send a letter to Anthony Gustav de Rothschild and to the authors above.

Use Julius Edgar Lilienfeld's patent solid state FET transistors as a starting point to developing a universal computer even before Alan Turing has thought of one. Invite Lilienfeld to settle in Glasgow (no wheat pollen to set off his allergies). Get him working on a MOSFET (metal oxide semiconductor) transistor made by lithography, chemical oxidising and etching to build up layers on ultra pure silicon.

Use a Cavity Magnetron to develop centimetric radar. using delayed feedback of the transmission signal to moderate the received signal.

Use herringbone planetry gears to develop large (35 ton) tanks, powered by a large Harry Ricardo diesel engine. Torsion bar and Horstmann bogies suspension (accessible with the wheels still on), bars running between the floor armour panels. Sloped armour, 6ft turret ring for a three man turret, reclined driver's and hull MG operator's seat with steering wheel, intercom and tank to tank radio, 2ft track width and axial 'sighting' machine gun. The usual advanced tank features.

Jet engines. Axial and Centrifugal flow. Roy Feddon's sleave valve radial engines. Arthur Rowledge's inline 60° V12 engines. Yadda yadda

Off the gold standard. On the British Standards. New Deal infrastructure and training.

[Sbiper]

Originally Posted by perfectgeneral

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", 1934
John Maynard Keynes, "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money", 1936
W Edwards Deming, "The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education", 2000

I'll send a letter to Anthony Gustav de Rothschild and to the authors above.

Use Julius Edgar Lilienfeld's patent solid state FET transistors as a starting point to developing a universal computer even before Alan Turing has thought of one. Invite Lilienfeld to settle in Glasgow (no wheat pollen to set off his allergies). Get him working on a MOSFET (metal oxide semiconductor) transistor made by lithography, chemical oxidising and etching to build up layers on ultra pure silicon.

Use a Cavity Magnetron to develop centimetric radar. using delayed feedback of the transmission signal to moderate the received signal.

Use herringbone planetry gears to develop large (35 ton) tanks, powered by a large Harry Ricardo diesel engine. Torsion bar and Horstmann bogies suspension (accessible with the wheels still on), bars running between the floor armour panels. Sloped armour, 6ft turret ring for a three man turret, reclined driver's and hull MG operator's seat with steering wheel, intercom and tank to tank radio, 2ft track width and axial 'sighting' machine gun. The usual advanced tank features.

Jet engines. Axial and Centrifugal flow. Roy Feddon's sleave valve radial engines. Arthur Rowledge's inline 60° V12 engines. Yadda yadda

Off the gold standard. On the British Standards. New Deal infrastructure and training.

Not too bad but a couple of observations:

IC's n' MOSFETS: you are starting in the early 30's at the height of the depression, without significant financial backing you are going to have trouble getting off the ground. I worked in IC manufacturing for nearly 20 years and making the damm things is not a trival task. Instead of IC's early tranistors (as in 'transistor radios') are a better and technically easier bet. You can pretty much swap a transitor for a valve, so you have an immediate market and more importantly an easy transition from one technology to another.

Cavity magnetrons: You do know that the Japanese used cavity magnetrons extensively in their radars yet their magnetrons were rubbish and did not have the performance of the Allied ones? The discovery of high powered cavity magnetrons in the UK was a total fluke, the Germans, Japanese and Italians all had cavity magnetrons either in use or under development and none of them matched the UK's design for power output, I'd be very careful messing with this one (unless you know EXCATLY what you are doing).

Tanks: Torsion Bar Suspension, big no-no, way too expensive and difficult to manufacture, plus horrendously vulnerable to mine damage. Horstman bogies, yes, and develop a standard range. Going straight to a 35 ton tank, not so sure about that, I'd aim for a 25-30 ton tank initially (incorportaing all the various goddies you want: sloped armour, standard Horstman boggie suspension, front mounted engine etc.) and a bigger 45-50 ton model later. Both these tanks can be used as the basis for APC's, SPG's, SPAAG's, SPAG's etc.

Aero Engines: yeah earlier jet engiens, more research into sleve valves, get Stanley Hooker in to RR earlier and working on supercharging asap. Have the Air Ministry sign multi year deals with RR and Bristol that have specified targets for increased engine performance every year, get the Griffon into service earlier, ditto with the Centarus.

An outside bet would be to try and get the RR Crecy developed earlier, potentially 5000hp from a Merlin sized engine, try and get Bristol to convert Hercules and Taurus to two stroke action (like the Crecy).

re:training etc. biggest shortages in the UK during the war were of skilled welders and electricains, expand vocational training in these areas.