Jub wrote:I wonder if bombardments get less carpet saturation oriented as gunnery calculations get more precise or if military inertia means that one bit of new tech doesn't change anything?
There are other obstacles than military inertia. One is communication- without radios you can't communicate between forward observers and artillery, which means you're still firing blind into a target area. If the position of the target was accurately surveyed in advance you may hit it more often, but you still hit it. If enemy troops are dug into an area, you still have to saturation-bombard that area to suppress them, let alone destroy their fortifications.
Also, none of this really becomes relevant until you get precision-machined guns and shells capable of
reaching out to indirect-fire ranges, starting in the very late 19th or very early 20th century.
Zor wrote:Sidewinder wrote:1990 technology could build the difference engine's parts within the tolerances necessary to MAKE IT WORK. 18XX technology could not. Even if you showered Babbage with money, the difference engine would not work until technology had sufficiently advanced to manufacture the its parts within the necessary tolerances.
As I said what I gathered the ones the historians/engineers took that into consideration and the Difference Engine they did build were made with bits in the tolerances which could be achieved at the time at which it was designed/when Babbage was alive.
Well, key question here: in what era? Today, turning out ten thousand very precisely cut gears might be routine, while in 1845 it might have taken the combined efforts of half the watchmakers and gearcutters in Europe for all I know.
A Difference Engine that is
too expensive will accomplish very little if making even one of the things is too much work to justify the uses to which it can be put. It's like, if you could build a computer with all the modern capabilities, but any such computer cost a hundred billion dollars, there
MIGHT be demand for one of them. That one would be elaborately time-shared for numerous enterprises... but there damn sure wouldn't be demand for them among anyone except the very biggest national governments and maybe some
huge corporations. So it wouldn't change nearly as much as it would if the things cost a reasonable sum of money.
Zixinus wrote:Electric computers and the digital revolution happens earlier. When making electric computers Babbage's work wasn't well-known about and electric computer makes spent time re-making the ideas that Babbage already made. Now computers would evolve from the mechanical computer to the electric in more gradual steps. Clockwork logic may have a stronger influence on modern computers. But not much beyond that.
Aside that, not terribly much. Computers were a specialized machinery until the home-computer revolution.
Well, inventing them earlier has
some consequences. But for a lot of applications, Babbage's machine may not offer much actual advantage over a punch-card machine or an analog mechanical computer that runs on cams.
HMS Sophia wrote:Jub wrote:I wonder if bombardments get less carpet saturation oriented as gunnery calculations get more precise or if military inertia means that one bit of new tech doesn't change anything?
You might see mechanical fire control computers on Ironclads maybe? I honestly don't know much of the capabilities of the difference engine.
I'm not sure they'd offer much advantage over an analog computer like the ones that were historically built. The advantage of the Babbage engines was that they were programmable and could perform arithmetic fast- or rather, in massive parallel. It was not that they could calculate the complicated trigonometric functions involved in naval gunnery fast. For that purpose, an analog computer that can literally return the correct value of f(x) for arbitrary input values of x by
turning a crank to point to x has some advantages.
Moreover, a Difference Engine has so many moving parts that it would be very hard to maintain on a warship that experiences a lot of vibration and shocks.
If they could work like this, you might see an earlier switch over to a uniform battery on capital ships sooner than 1910 (HMS Dreadnought) to take advantage of fire control for the larger guns. Not that this would change a huge amount, Britain could still outproduce everyone massively at this point.
Well, historically the switch to uniform battery was made in 1905-6, yeah. However, if you go back much before 1905, you lose some of the other key technologies needed for central battery control, like electrical circuits to relay the control signals. You also get smaller, more cramped warships that don't have as much room for a four ton computer... and guns that simply can't throw shells as far, making it less advantageous to be able to elevate them for indirect fire at extreme range.
The first naval battle fought at such extreme ranges was Tsushima, which was right on the brink of the Dreadnought Revolution as it is. In cases like Manila Bay, only seven years earlier, there was basically
no effective fire into enemy ships from more than a few thousand yards away. Go back to 1882 and the bombardment of Alexandria and while the fire control may be better than in Nelson's day, the gun ranges are still down to "line of sight, point, elevate slightly, and shoot." And a difference engine might not change that very much.