NationStates Jolt Archive

In a weird twist of conversation the other day the subject of which item later developed would have been the most usefull at the beginning of WWII came up. Specifically the scenario went if you could take the plans for one thing back to say 1941, what would it be. We discussed a bunch of alternatives and soon realized that many were useless with manufacturing techniques and technologies of the time (remember we said the plans to one thing, so you couldn't bring both the plans for say, an M1A and the the technology for it's ceramic armour).
We finally ended up with a toss up between the AK47 and a Huey UH1. Both we figured could be manufactured with technology and techniques of the time and either would have given an enormous tactical advantage to whomever possesed them.
So what would you bring back?

The designs for the atomic bomb to the Americans. It should jumpstart the program by a year or two (and then we get to nuke hitler! WEE!)

I could think of a number of things i could take back, the top three being:
- a history book
- plans for the helicopter
- plans for atomic bomb

Rock-em, Sock-em Robots.

A list of the horses that won races in 1941.

I'd say general industrial improvement plans. We have an incredibly huge industrial capacity compared to that of our 1939 selves, and as such, it would be an incredible gain to either side.

Failing that, I'd say the AK-47. That Huey would probably still be easily taken down with the anti-aircraft of the time, and as such the AK-47 would be a far more useful weapon. They would probably back-engineer it and come up with larger versions for vehicles as well.

A list of the horses that won races in 1941.

Marty, burn the book!

A computer.

I'd say general industrial improvement plans. We have an incredibly huge industrial capacity compared to that of our 1939 selves, and as such, it would be an incredible gain to either side.

Failing that, I'd say the AK-47. That Huey would probably still be easily taken down with the anti-aircraft of the time, and as such the AK-47 would be a far more useful weapon. They would probably back-engineer it and come up with larger versions for vehicles as well.We decided on the AK because having it as general issue at the start of the war would have certainly made the infantry far more effective. The Huey was chosen not because it was a great combat vehicle but rather because it would have significantly altered the logistics. Can you imagine D-day without the neccesity of an amphibious assault? With helicopters you could bypass the beach and land significant troops and equipment where there was no resistance and it was unexpected.

A computer.:rolleyes: Without the techology for silicon chips it's useless.

An American history book. Surely they could learn from our mistakes of the past 50+ years.

:rolleyes: Without the techology for silicon chips it's useless.

Any technologically advanced item that you would want to take back would not have technological support. AK47s and Huey gunships could not have been maintained by the technology of the time. So to take an item back implies that you're taking the techno-support with you. Given this, a computer would not be out of line.

I would take back current satellite based remote sensing equipment, with the technology that implies.

An American history book. Surely they could learn from our mistakes of the past 50+ years.First off it doesn't fit with the requirement for the plans to one physical thing. Second, once you start changing things the remaining information compromised, I figure the further you go the less reliable the information.

Any technologically advanced item that you would want to take back would not have technological support. AK47s and Huey gunships could not have been maintained by the technology of the time. So to take an item back implies that you're taking the techno-support with you. Given this, a computer would not be out of line.

I would take back current satellite based remote sensing equipment, with the technology that implies.AK47's are a simple design using mostly stamped parts, not only can they be manufactured with techology of the time mentioned they could probably be done at a cheaper cost than an M-1.

Helicopters are not any more mechanically or technically difficult to manufacture than other aircraft, it was coming up with a design and control system that worked that held up development. Having a working durable simple design like the UH1 would have solved that.

Like I said you can't take the plans and technology. Satellites need alot more technology than just the plans for one. You have to be able to get one into orbit to begin with and that's just the first hurdle. Sorry, useless.

Maybe this makes me a bit of an evil person, but I would take back the formula for the anthrax vaccine. It could be manufactured then with the know how. And weaponized airborn anthrax was workable in that time period as well- and they had no cipro, levaquin or other particularly effective antibiotics against anthrax.

Think of it as smallpox ridden blankets for the 20th century.

I'd have to say I'd take back the plans for the M-14. It's similar enough to the M-1 Garand that they'd probably be able to manufacture it without a lot of changes in tooling, and it would give the US soldiers the benefit of the 20 round magazine and .308 caliber, instead of the 8 round enbloc clip and 30-06. It would also have another benefit, as it would make it cheaper for me to get a surplus one today (there would be more USGI parts), instead of being forced to get a commercial copy from Springfield Armory.

I would take back in time, the plans for, The Dust. Anyone who knows of the Golden Age of Sci-fi knows what I mean. A silent killer, instantly lethal, yet a slow death. The Dust could be made to be radioactive for certain amounts of time. Days, weeks, months, even years. It would have ended WWII quickly, and he who controlled the Dust, would rule the world. Finally, my dream of uniting The world in a One World empire would be realised. I would force peace upon the world, or i would destroy it, without mercy, without hesitation, and then, earth would simply be another lifeless sphere in space. Gone, forever more.

I think the huey's turbine engine is beyond the manufacturing capacity of 1941. Turbines were experimental back then, and probably a lot of the materials/alloys used would be considered "exotic".

I'd take back the plans for the proximity fuse. It's wasn't available until 1944, but would have really altered the balance of power in the pacific in 1942-43. (I suppose).

Any technologically advanced item that you would want to take back would not have technological support. AK47s and Huey gunships could not have been maintained by the technology of the time. So to take an item back implies that you're taking the techno-support with you. Given this, a computer would not be out of line.

I would take back current satellite based remote sensing equipment, with the technology that implies.

I'd have to disagree, the AK isn't a lightyear jump in technological sophistication, matter of fact, the AK was actually developed in 1947, and brought into use by the Soviet military in 1949. Though I don't know what kind of improvement it would have been. Quite a few weapons experts consider the AK to be a rather inefficent weapon with a muzzle velocity too low for the heavy 7.62mm rounds it fires. http://www.sovietarmy.com/small_arms/ak-47.html

As for helicopters, the basic designs have been around for about a century, Sikorsky created his first helicopter, the S-1, while still in Kiev in 1909. And even more basic designs were being built as early as 1906. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/early_20th_century/HE2.htm

And you sorta missed the point at the beginning of the thread, it wasn't about bringing any one item back in time, it was about bringing the plans for a item back. Given the technology of the 1940's, I doubt either peice of equipment would have been a stretch to build and maintain.

I think the huey's turbine engine is beyond the manufacturing capacity of 1941. Turbines were experimental back then, and probably a lot of the materials/alloys used would be considered "exotic".
Considering that UH1's were flying by the early sixties I doubt that there was anything that couldn't be manufactured with 40's technology. Even if you had to use a different engine it'd still be an effective tool.

Considering that UH1's were flying by the early sixties I doubt that there was anything that couldn't be manufactured with 40's technology. Even if you had to use a different engine it'd still be an effective tool.

I'm not saying that it couldn't be manufactured at all - jet engines were in existence back then -, I'm just wondering if the industrial base could undergo the rapid retooling required for it to be produced in large enough quantities to make a big difference. Especially as that would divert resources from piston engine production, which was a far more flexible power plant to produce given the types of aircraft flying back then.

But like you said, maybe a piston engine could be substituted. Though likely performance would be decreased.

Considering that UH1's were flying by the early sixties I doubt that there was anything that couldn't be manufactured with 40's technology. Even if you had to use a different engine it'd still be an effective tool.


"In January 1930 an Englishman, Frank Whittle, submitted a patent application for a gas turbine for jet propulsion. It wasn't until the summer of 1939 that the Air Ministry awarded Power Jets Ltd a contract to design a flight engine. In May 1941 the Whittle W1 engine (Figure 5) made its first flight mounted in the Gloster Model E28/39 aircraft. This airplane would later achieve a speed of 370 MPH in level flight with 1000 pounds of thrust." http://www.aircav.com/histturb.html

I'd have to agree with LP, all the tech was there to build the Huey........

"What would you take back?"

An Ohio-class nuclear powered sumbmarine with 24 Trident II missles with nuclear warheads. :D

"In January 1930 an Englishman, Frank Whittle, submitted a patent application for a gas turbine for jet propulsion. It wasn't until the summer of 1939 that the Air Ministry awarded Power Jets Ltd a contract to design a flight engine. In May 1941 the Whittle W1 engine (Figure 5) made its first flight mounted in the Gloster Model E28/39 aircraft. This airplane would later achieve a speed of 370 MPH in level flight with 1000 pounds of thrust." http://www.aircav.com/histturb.html

I'd have to agree with LP, all the tech was there to build the Huey........

Yah, and the germans flew a jet plane in th late thirties. No-one was able to prouce them is sufficient quantities to make a difference though.

I like the idea of taking back a book (or boxed set of books, if need be) detailing major world events and battles between 1941 and the present along with a detailed strategic and tactical analysis of said events.

If the time warp is limited to technological items, then I would want to take either specifications for a Korean War-era tank (perhaps the M-46 Patton) or the plans for an early jet fighter (probably the F-86 Sabre), as both could likely be produced with WWII technology and both would be far superior to what the Axis could have fielded at the time. A third possibility would be the P-51 Mustang, as this would give Allied bombers free reign over German skies much more quickly than would otherwise be possible.

From what little I was able to quickly dig up, the main reasons Germany didn't build in larger numbers any of the several designs they had come up with by the beginning of WW2, especially the Me-262, were politics, I.E. Hitler wanting them to be bombers instead of fighters, indifference towards the program by the Luftwaffe, and logistics. The turbo-jet engines for the Me's were apparently in constant short supply.

And now that I have gotten WAY off THE LOST PLANET's original question......

I cannot really think of anything that wouldn't need current technology and infrastructure to build and keep functioning. Lets face it, advancement in the past 61 years has been going at an incredibly high rate. Most of what we're taken for granted in the private and military sectors were pretty much science-fantasy in the forties.

A list of the horses that won races in 1941.
not quite.
1941-1945 I assume we get to ride the whole war out.
...Gimme 'Red Joey' in the Fifth...

Actually, now that I think about it, I'd take back the plans for a B-36.

Something that can carry 43 tonnes of bombs, has intercontinental range, and can fly above fighter cover.

Bye-bye third reich.

the AK47

You'd only be a couple of years in front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44

The UH-1 is a nice choice, but i'd say the MiG-15 or comparable, or perhaps an early MBT like the Centurion, M-47/48, or T-54.

I totally disagree with bringing the atomic bomb in early. It was terrible enough as it is, but using it on Germany too?

Keeping in mind we already know how the war ends...and I would want ot go back to 1939 not 41.

I wouldnt take anything other then perhaps a Modern Science text book back.
Maybe the schemtic for a microchip...something of that nature.

If I tell you there is 10,000,000 dollars on top of mountain, and you have no idea how to mountain climb.....KNOWING the ten million is up there will motivate you much faster then not knowing.

If you went back to 1939 and put the greatest minds then to work on getting to a destination they could already see...think about where we would be today.

Imagine, 1950 the first microprocessor is invented.
1952 we walk on the moon.
Imagine, 1955 HpNC is being produced.
Imagine, 1960 Shuttle plans are in Alpha.

No, just letting the world know which path to take is good heads up.
Here is 60 years of specualtion cleared up, now catch up and rock it.

I would really bring the racing form.
Andif given a choice between the racing form and anythign else....I would bring the racing form...as I said above....I already know the Nazis will lose.

You'd only be a couple of years in front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44

The UH-1 is a nice choice, but i'd say the MiG-15 or comparable, or perhaps an early MBT like the Centurion, M-47/48, or T-54.

I totally disagree with bringing the atomic bomb in early. It was terrible enough as it is, but using it on Germany too?
It would not have been used on Germany.
They wouldnt have risked Europe...whites...as the region is closely packed with innocents...whites....but since japan is an ISland....people of non-european descent....the choice never really was one.

In a weird twist of conversation the other day the subject of which item later developed would have been the most usefull at the beginning of WWII came up. Specifically the scenario went if you could take the plans for one thing back to say 1941, what would it be. We discussed a bunch of alternatives and soon realized that many were useless with manufacturing techniques and technologies of the time (remember we said the plans to one thing, so you couldn't bring both the plans for say, an M1A and the the technology for it's ceramic armour).
We finally ended up with a toss up between the AK47 and a Huey UH1. Both we figured could be manufactured with technology and techniques of the time and either would have given an enormous tactical advantage to whomever possesed them.
So what would you bring back?
I would take back my grandfather's green pants.

Um, something that coulda been doable a the time. AH-1 Cobra helicopters, complete with thr minigun in front and rocket pods on the sides.

Also up there:
- M249(?) SAW
- M1A2 Abhrams tank
- F/A-22 jet fighter thingy
- the gravity gun from HL-2*

*How cool would tha have been, being able to pick-up a German tank with the gravity gun and shoot it across the French countryside?!

In all honesty:
1. The plans for a 4 rotor Engima machine (hey, you gotta give the code breakers a toy - and they would've been able to take the 4th rotor out to make 3 rotor machines).

If the allies could read German communications from the go, that would've been a massive tactical advantage. However, it didn't win them the war - but helped reduce considerable losses. And the machine itself was not the key, more so the short signal and weather code books. But since we they don't count as plans, out of the equation.

They only really made solid progress in breaking traffic when they go their hands on the code books. And that wasn't for a while. But they were smart cookies. I'm sure they could've worked out a way of breaking the messages without them :)

meny, meny copys [in a box single box :p ] of Sun Tzu's Art of War. i know it was around then, but seriously, every single military commander on all sides in that war should have read it.

you'd have a lot less dead bodys at the end, for a start.

and, quite possibly, a lot less battles lost to stupidity on the part of one side, rather than intelligence on the part of the victors.

of course, you'd have a lot less battles won by morons on the good guys side who got lucky, whichever side that were. but you'd have a lot less lost by intelligent generals who got unlucky too.



alternativly: the transistor. not sure if they had the capacity to manufacture them or not at the time, but it would still put it in the allies hands faster. quite frankly, the only advantage vacume tudes have is a reduced vulnerability to EMP.

I can't really think of anything other than plans for better computers than they had at the time.

Of course, you don't really need anything, because as it is, the good guys won. There's always a chance you'll mess up things and by some weird twist of fate nazis rule Europe for the next century..

It's really funny that most of you guys try to think up something that would've made the Allies win the war faster...

I'm not telling you what I'd give the Germans :eek:

It would not have been used on Germany.
They wouldnt have risked Europe...whites...as the region is closely packed with innocents...whites....but since japan is an ISland....people of non-european descent....the choice never really was one.

*smirk* :p

It's really funny that most of you guys try to think up something that would've made the Allies win the war faster...Well, yes. Or something for gaining personal profit.
Helping out the germans would be rather non-PC. Them being slightly genocidal and stuff..

I'm not telling you what I'd give the Germans :eek:A wedgie? Nightmares? STD? :P
A new more humane ideology perhaps? I suppose there's a few options.

What would I take back? My savings. A few thousand quid and I could live like a millionaire. Genius.

well, what you'd really want to take back is something that would allow the British/Americans to take all of germany, at least, befor the russians did. it would have avoided large problems, or at least reduced them, later i think. and if they had won faster, more allied forces would have been freed up to deal with the japanese, possibly removeing the use of the nuculer[sp] bombs from the war all togeather.