Books you wish someone else would write so that you could read

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
31 October 2014
Messages
717
Reaction score
303
Website
www.hisutton.com
It's too soon to say I'll write another book, but my head and inbox is full of potential projects. What are the books you wish someone had written?

Here are some of the ideas which I like, but which I am sure aren't on my shortlist. So I wish someone else would write them.

1
Mega Warships. Am illustrated history of particularly impressive, large, heavily armed warships. Like battleships and cruisers. Starting with Dreadnought, then picking a few impressive designs since then. Wrap it in context, other comparable designs from other countries and of course the unbuilt projects. Doesn't have to be exhaustive. My choices would be:
Dreadnought
Graf Spee
Yamoto
Long beach
Kirov
Zumwalt

Insert, remove, swap but you get the idea
 
Anybody want to write it with me?

I Love super ships!
 
I'd volunteer some custom illustrations, pro bono of course, if the project got off the ground.


Another idea.

2. The same but for aircraft carriers. Starting with Hermes, then a few WW2, Cold War, current. Obviously current projects allows you to get photos and illustrations from. The shipbuilders.

Kiev and CVA-01 would be musts
 
English language book on the Soviet Carrier designs. If I could leave my dayjob and do what ever I want, I would definetly start working on it given that someone pays the bills and so on...
 
A book of the quality and density of Jay Miller's "Skunk Works" but about ABMs from their inception to now, worldwide. (I'm lookin' at you SOC. ;) ).
 
sferrin said:
A book of the quality and density of Jay Miller's "Skunk Works" but about ABMs from their inception to now, worldwide. (I'm lookin' at you SOC. ;) ).
With a Volume II about ICBMs/SLBMs :D
 
Look through this thread and see if anything strikes your fancy:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14839.0.html
 
Great thread.


One topic which I was seriously considering but have decided is not for me is a history of units, tactics and equipment of maritime counter-terrorism. I cover that a fair bit in Covert Shores, including tactics (mostly UK, US and Aus) but there's a lot more to be written. The challenges that put me off are:
A) sensitivity of recent/current capabilities and tactics. I self-censored a lot in Covert Shores.
B) difficulty getting photos
C) doesn't play to my strengths, which are the broadness of my research and illustrations

But I'd love someone else to tackle that
 
gollevainen said:
English language book on the Soviet Carrier designs. If I could leave my dayjob and do what ever I want, I would definetly start working on it given that someone pays the bills and so on...

I agree. What I would dearly love is one focusing on the Sovietski Soyuz battleships. Not as a chapter in a larger book, but a comprehensive book all on its own.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
A book of the quality and density of Jay Miller's "Skunk Works" but about ABMs from their inception to now, worldwide. (I'm lookin' at you SOC. ;) ).
With a Volume II about ICBMs/SLBMs :D

That's a book that I would buy. I've been going back to the primary sources and reference books since what's available is limited. Everything from Jane's annuals to period books like nuclear weapons and foreign policy. My collection is full of all sorts of odds and ends so I'm always trying to gather broad but solid tomes like that.
 
What about a book on the Tu-160 in the Famous Russian Aircraft series by Yefim Gordon? We have had the Tu-95 and Tu-22/22M.
 
Weapons of WW3: soviet advanced weapons designs and concepts 1946-59

Object 279 tanks spew onto Long Island from giant submarine landing craft whilst SS-1 Scunner ballistic missiles rain down from P2 submarines and jet bombers roar overhead. ...

Serious look at soviet Russia's most ambitious weapons concepts of the early Cold War. Reflecting on the input of German technology and also US and British influences. Illustration of design progression and connection to the realized weapons systems that actually emerged.
 
.


Actually you have made me think, how about ;


"Unofficial Transfer - how spies, leaks, mistakes (and misdirection) affected weapons design and deployment during the Cold War"


Enough for several volumes if one could ever get near the truth.


.
 
Nice one. Such events that come to mind in the naval realm are the impact of the Walker spy ring on soviet submarine quietening.

Japanese 'peaceful civilian' tech transfer in 1980s of milling machines which allowed the soviets to make effective screwback submarine propellers.

And the perceived midget submarine gap in 1950s which influenced British plans to build more x-craft.
 
I would love to buy a book on Similar lines as Famous Russian Aircraft Series by Yefim Gordon on the Mig 23/27 Series and the Mil Mi 24/35
 
Submarines called Nautilus

Jules Verne's Nautilus ( http://www.vernianera.com/Nautilus/Catalog/index.html )
HMS Nautilus ( http://www.rnsubs.co.uk/Boats/BR3043/chapter07.php )
USS Nautilus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SS-168) )
USS Nautilus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SSN-571) )
Exomos Nautilus ( https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DISNEYS_20-000_Leagues/conversations/topics/3641 )
UC-3 Nautilus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC3_Nautilus )
 
Submarines 101: an illustrated history of submarine design
Aircraft carriers 101: an illustrated history of aircraft carrier design

Sadly I can only really add anything new via the illustrated bit.
 
I'd wish for more post-WW2 Secret Project books, such as the following;
- French Fighters and/or Bombers (Mirages alternatives, Mirages that never flew or entered production, strategic bombers for the deterrent, the road to the Rafale etc.)
- German Fighters and/or Bombers (V/STOL projects, Eurofighter alternatives etc.)
- Maybe Italian Fighters and/or Bombers

While French designs should be enough for at least one book on their own other European countries (above, Spain, Dutch, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Warsaw pact countries etc.) may need to be grouped together.

I'd buy them in a heart beat :)
 
stealthflanker said:
Manga Introduction to Airborne Radar.
o8QxgsV.jpg
 
covert_shores said:
Submarines 101: an illustrated history of submarine design

There is a good German book (also in English) by Ulrich Gabler about the history and practice of submarine design (lots of illustrations too) called, appropriately, "Submarine Design" or "Unterseebootbau". Gaber was the founder of IKL so a VERY authoritative source on submarine design. TKMS used to give out copies of it when they were in your neighborhood looking to sell a boat or two. I also have Friedman's "Submarine Design and Development" which is pretty good. It has a lot more history stuff than Gabler's book but lacks the engineering 101 side of submersible design.
 
covert_shores said:
Submarines 101: an illustrated history of submarine design ............




British fast submarines (Explorer/Excalibre, the putative first SSN and later SSNs all had a basis of their design in the aerodynamic studies for the R.101 airship.


.
 
I've heard it said but I wonder to what extent that is actually true. Excalibur and Explorer look nothing like an airship/teardrop hull. There were also some other fast modifications to either T or A-boats with the saddle tanks replaced by over/under ballast tanks like in the Japanese fast boats. Again nothing like an airship. And by the time Dreadnought came along the USS Albacore (and x-1) had demonstrated the teardrop hull. Dreadnought doesn't look or work like an airship either.

There must be some truth to the story but it appears massively overstated and simplified to me.
 
.


Excalibur and Explorer had to have a seakeeping casing, but according to their ships cover underwater they were 86% efficient as compared to the ideal R.101 shape.


The streamlined T-'s and A-'s were nothing to do with the R.101 aerodynamics. What they did do was show just how hard it was to get streamlining (and more especially self-noise right. They took over three years to get the disappearing streamlined bollards right after their initial disappointments.


Dreadnought and the Valiants basically American back-ends, but British front ends but the need to match hydrodynamics meant there were compromises (Dreadnought shows this especially). Likewise the different torpedo tube and sonar placement.


One of the great things about the British designs was that they could go "on the step" for very high speed on the surface which I haven't heard that any US design could.


( The USN also used airship data in their designs. )
 
Great stuff. I cannot find any decent images of Excalibur or explorer below the waterline (admittedly I am on a phone).

The mix of UK and U.S. Concepts on the SSNs explains why I wasn't seeing the connection. The casing and planes are also differences in approach at that time.

Dreadnought and most subsequent British designs have a marked chined bow, what's that about?
 
.


These images show just how odd Dreadnought was ;


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://collections.rmg.co.uk/mediaLib/444/media-444239/large.jpg&imgrefurl=http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66038.html&h=663&w=1280&tbnid=-Gbm5B0EsXyz-M:&docid=ZMCt3eX3TL5hVM&ei=qNLuVeeNFILN7QbjlJ7QDA&tbm=isch&ved=0CD8QMygVMBVqFQoTCOeBhK-258cCFYJm2wodY4oHyg


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rnsubs.co.uk/Boats/BoatDB2/img/dreadnought1_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rnsubs.co.uk/Boats/BoatDB2/index.php?BoatID%3D680&h=370&w=559&tbnid=oCxvO_UAWOFj9M:&docid=EOeWxfHPam8cgM&ei=qNLuVeeNFILN7QbjlJ7QDA&tbm=isch&ved=0CCAQMygAMABqFQoTCOeBhK-258cCFYJm2wodY4oHyg


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://forum.sub-driver.com/filedata/fetch%253Fid%253D63669%2526d%253D1313262075%2526type%253Dfull&imgrefurl=http://forum.sub-driver.com/forum/general-topics/1662-british-submarine-id/page4&h=646&w=866&tbnid=yYKVbeAkKJGVWM:&docid=ZlMGI27UUgNdpM&ei=qNLuVeeNFILN7QbjlJ7QDA&tbm=isch&ved=0CDAQMygQMBBqFQoTCOeBhK-258cCFYJm2wodY4oHyg


.


The Chin sonar is just a basic difference in RN/USN sonar design choice.


The USN went for a spherical sonar transmitter/receiver which meant that they went for a basically spherical outer casing/bow within which the sonar was housed ;


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbMhtThtzrEgaAww5Y5REKeJznYg4Wy7MwyIcbMgoNMlOyhUA6Tw


These were developed from German originals




The RN went for chin mounted multiple flat panels (in various variations)








All-in-all you won't find out the real truth because the details are VERY secret.
 
I thought that skipjack and the USN SS' with albacore hulls had circular arrays a lot like dreadnought, and there you are the same difference in now profile.
 
From my understanding the design of the bow of the British nuclear boats is from the old rigid airships. That is their softened triangular arrangement compared to the US style spherical bow. Australia has offered up under the late (13-7-15), great Professor Emeritus Joubert AM a bow designed to encourage laminar flow that is different to both. But since the Australian government is convinced no-one in Australia knows anything about submarines it is unlikely to be built here or anywhere else.

PS A biography of Peter Joubert would be a good book to add to this list.

http://www.sail-world.com/Emeritus-Professor-Peter-Numa-Joubert-AM-dies-at-91/136595
 
Very interesting chap are there any images of his design? There's a similar unsung expert in UK who comes to mind, still with us in fact. Dick Tuson. He was more on midget subs though.

Anyway, looking at the R-101 nose and submarine bows leaves me none the wiser.
 
covert_shores said:
Very interesting chap are there any images of his design? There's a similar unsung expert in UK who comes to mind, still with us in fact. Dick Tuson. He was more on midget subs though.

See attached paper.

covert_shores said:
Anyway, looking at the R-101 nose and submarine bows leaves me none the wiser.

You're not meant to validate "common knowledge"! Keep that up and who knows where society and its illusions will be? ;)
 

Attachments

  • ADA470163.pdf
    515.6 KB · Views: 14
.


You may have noticed that the R.101 was NOT teardrop shaped.


Also, as I said, the Explorers needed a seakeeping casing and hence were only 86% efficient compared with the idealised submarine hull based on the R.101 work. (Please see their ships cover).
 
Last in Class : old school warships serving long after their peers are retired. You know how there have always been a few outdated warships and subs serving around the world, well I think that there's a certain charm and dignity in that. Like the predreadnoughts still in service after WW2, or soith American cruisers and river gunboats. Taiwanese guppies and Half of the Cuban navy. A book please.
 
Here are a few proposal:

A series of books following the style of N. Friedman books for US ships or Jordan and Dumas for French ships covering (I mean books covering not just one class but the whole evolution of the ship types):

Russian (Imperial) /Soviet battleships designs
Soviet/ Russian aircraft carriers

German battleships (both hochseeflotte and kriegsmarine)
Japanese battleships
Japanese aircraft carriers
Italian battleships

A book about all US aircraft carrying ships designed to support amphibious assault (from the Iwo Jima class - or previous Essex conversions) to plans for the future and covering also the studies of Mobile off-shore bases)

Exotic ship / fleet concepts

A volume (or perhaps more) on US hypersonics, ramjets and missiles like Gibson and Buttler British volume

Have a nice day
F_T
 
Experimental and Prototype Helicopters of the United States, 1930's to the present day. This, I think, repesents a significant part of aviation history that has been all but ignored and hasn't been properly recorded in any meaningful way.

500 Fan.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom