3 ms·
This comment made me wonder how much easier proximity fuzes would have been to develop in WW2 had they had transistors (or integrated circuits). I assume makin
by pfdietz 1y ago
This comment made me wonder how much easier proximity fuzes would have been to develop in WW2 had they had transistors (or integrated circuits). I assume making modern solid state electronics 20,000g shock resistant is much easier than doing the same to vacuum tubes.
- MadnessASAP 1y agoNo need to wonder, proximity fuzes are still used today. And yes, they are much smaller, cheaper, more reliable, and precise.
- pfdietz 1y agoI was wondering how much easier it would have been, specifically in dollar terms. Order of magnitude?
- MadnessASAP 1y agoWell according to this person* by the end of WW2 a proximity fuze cost $18 or $314 today. I figure I could probably put together a resilient fuze using off-the-shelf parts that's at least as good as a WW2 era one for <$100 (potted solid state parts are really frickin resilient to G forces). With some optimisations for mass production I think <$30 is doable. So I'm going to say an order of magnitude easier. Of course factoring in today's markup on military parts and the failings of military procurement, that fuze will actually cost the tax payer $3000-$30000 + R&D. * https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/75940/what-has-happened-to-proximity-fuzes-after-world-war-2 https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/75940/what-has-h...