CORE meets AoD, a TT review: Sweden

[GFK]

Hello all!

I was contacted by Hagar and he asked me to pitch in with the Scandinavian tech development, because he needed an expert in the field. Since I work on the CORE development team and I have studied much of Sweden’s industrial history I felt I had something to contribute in this field. To make it simple I will add links from the much hated site (at least in academic circles) Wikipedia. The reason is simple – much of the info I have available to me is in book form and most of it is in Swedish so the best source of online information is easily obtainable at Wikipedia in the subject. With my extensive knowledge in the field I also guarantee that the info I write about are just backed up by the information from Wikipedia to show you the validity of that I didn’t just pull things out of thin air.

In fact I got to say I was positively surprised by the fact that so much info has been added about the once so famous Swedish manufacturing industry to the online lexicon. So enjoy and please feel free to send me feedback or ask questions if something is unclear. PS: When it comes to pictures for the suggested tech teams I will try to provide them IF there is a decision made that they will be used
Thank you all in advance

3200 Elektrolux AB
No comments

3201 AGA AB
No comments.

3202 Arne Beurling
No comments.

3203 Astra
It should be Astra AB. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_AB)

3204 Atlas Copco
It should be called Atlas Diesel AB. Then the company will change it’s name in 1956 to Atlas Copco after acquiring the Belgian company Airpic Engineering NV and where copco is derived from the French acronym Compagnie Pneumatique Commerciale. Another thing is that this company should have and added trait in the form of industrial_engineering which is an area they worked with extensively. For example by 1948 the factory area that they had constructed and ran in Sickla (not including the housing complexes for workers) during just a few years where 210 000 square meters, which is a lot for a company in Sweden at the time.

Some of the info can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Copco and the other can be found at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Copco (it’s in swedish though)

3205 Bengt Nordenskiöld
No comments.

3206 Bofors AB
This should be named AB Bofors see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors
Another thing is that Bofors should have naval_artillery as a trait and in turn ALL other naval yards should lose the trait naval artillery, because the manufacturer of naval guns was indeed done by Bofors and Bofors alone in Sweden.

3207 Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori
This tech should be replaced in 1943 by Försvarets Fabriksverk and CGSG should stop to exist. Because in 1943 FFV took over the operation from CGSG. So its end date should be 1943. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_Carl_Gustaf

3208 Charles de Champs
No comments.

3209 Eriksbergs Mekaniska Verkstad AB
Add the trait management because Eriksbergs had exceptional management which led the company to have the biggest profits of any Swedish ship manufacturer at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eriksbergs_Mekaniska_Verkstads_AB

3210 Flygtekniska Försöksanstalten
No comments.

3211 Försvarets forskningsanstalt
No comments.

3212 Gösta Ehrensvärd
No comments.

3213 Götaverken
Name should be AB Götaverken.
Remove trait naval_artillery, since ALL forms of naval armament in Sweden was exclusively made by Bofors and no one else.
Add traits: aeronautics -- since Götaverken had airplane production along with their production of ships and they manufactured Hawker Hart airplanes amongst others. See http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götaverken (in swedish unfortunately)

3214 Helge Jung
No comments.

3215 Husqvarna
Name should be Husqvarna AB.

3216 Hägglund & Söner
No comments.

3217 KaMeVe
KaMeVe is short for Karlstads Mekaniska Verkstad but it was so small so it’s irrelevant and so I believe there has been a mix up with Kockums Mekaniska Verkstad. So the name should be Kockums Mekaniska Verkstads AB (perhaps it’s to long so then the short version would be KoMeVe). Also this in not to be confused with Kockums Jernverk (which manufactured steel) . Add trait: technical_efficiency since Kockums developed many specially built ships and above all submarines (almost all of Swedens submarines (with one exception) at the time was co-developed and built at Kockums Mekaniska Verkstad). See http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kockums (in swedish unfortunately)

3218 Karlskrona Naval Yard
The name of the naval yard should be Marinverkstäderna because this naval yard was called Marinverkstäderna up until 1960 when it became a state owned company under the name Karlskronavarvet AB. Remove trait: naval_artillery since naval guns where exclusively developed and manufactured by Bofors. Add Trait: naval_training and training because Marinverkstäderna was not a company but a naval yard operated by the Swedish navy until the change in ownership during the 60s. see http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlskronavarvet (in swedish unfortunately)

3219 Kockums AB
The name should be Kockums Jernverk AB.

3220 Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan
No comments.

3221 LM Ericsson
No comments.

3222 Landsverk AB
It should be AB Landsverk not the other way around. Landsverk should have it’s end date changed to 1968 since that is the year they get bought by Kockums and change their official name to Kockum-Landsverk AB. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_Landsverk and http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_Landsverk

3223 Lise Meitner
She can’t possibly have a starting date of 1930 since at that time Lise Meitner wasn’t even a Swedish citizen and at that time she lived in her home country of Austria. She only came to Sweden in 1938 after Germany had annexed Austria and her Jewish family was in danger of persecution. Therefore her starting date should be changed to 1938. Her end date should also be changed to 1960 because she left Sweden that year and moved to the UK where she would spend the remainder of her life.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner

3224 Manne Siegbahn
No comment.

3225 Nils Swedlund
No comments.

3226 Olof Thörnell
No comments.

3227 SAAB
The company that original was founded in 1937 (starting date need to be changed to 1937) was called Svenska Aeroplan AB and started manufacturing airplanes. At this time the company should only have the aeronautics trait and the mechanics trait along with the technical efficiency trait and it’s end date should be 1939. Then in 1939 the company grows and can be renamed SAAB after buying out ASJA and moving their head office to Linköping. Then the traits should be expanded to what they are now (aeronautics, industrial_engineering, mechanics, rocketry, technical_efficiency).
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab (in swedish unfortunately)

3228 Sandvikens Jernverk AB
No comments.

3229 Scania-Vabis
Scania-Vabis should have 1969 as end date since that year they merge with Saab to form Saab-Scania.

3230 Sven Gustaf Wingqvist
He died in 1953 so he needs to have his end date reduced to that year. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Gustaf_Wingqvist

3231 The Svedberg
His real name was Theodor H. E. Svedberg (The is only a shortening of his name). He stopped working in 1967 so his end date needs to be reduced from 1970. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Svedberg

3232 Torsten Rapp
He needs to have his starting date adjusted because in 1930, which is his starting date now, he was only a lieutenant. It’s also the year he was first transferred to the airforce and not really in a position to develop doctrines. He started to have influence with a promotion he received in 1943, when he was made Head of the Air commandsupport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsten_Rapp

3233 Volvo
The name should be AB Volvo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo

Tech team suggestions without any perticular order:
I)Svenska Kullagerfabriken AB
The world renowned bearing company, manufacturing bearings and much much more. By 1912 it was represented in 32 countries and bearings from the company where used by the UK, GER and many other countries during the period and made the Swedish manufacturing industry into what it was. Volvo was founded by the Managing director of SKF. It’s such a founding stone for SWE so it’s almost a crime it’s not been included so far.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF)
http://carlotta.gotlib.goteborg.se/pls/carlotta/VisaPerson?pin_perMasidn=211142
1930-1970

II)Svenska Radioaktiebolaget
It was THE pioneering swedish company that developed Radio communications in Sweden and was later bought by Ericsson in 1982. It was founded by five major corporations (AGA, ASEA and LM Ericsson amongst them) and was to be a development and research company in the field of radio communications and development, television and later cell phone communications.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_Radioaktiebolaget
1930-1970

III)AB Lindholmens Varv
Major ship manufacturer and naval yard. The third along with Kockums and Götaverken, although it was suffering from financial problems during the 30s.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_Lindholmens_Varv
1936-1960

IV)Militärfysiska Institutet
An institute devoted to converting theoretical physics into military application. They built facilities and tested weaponry and developed weapons such as shaped charges for armor penetration amongst many others. Later this research institute got merged into Försvarets forskningsanstalt (FOA) in 1945.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militärfysiska_institutet
1941-1945

V)Försvarsväsendets kemiska anstalt
The chemical equivalent of Militärfysiska institutet, devoted into converting chemistry into military application. They experimented with gas developed for warfare use, developed explosives and smoke ammunitions. They also did extensive testing of foreign chemicals and explosives to harness their secrets for Swedish purposes. Just like Militärfysiska institutet they got merged into FOA in 1945.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Försvarsväsendets_kemiska_anstalt
1937-1945

VI) Gustaf Ljunggren
Was the main expert in Sweden when it came to chemicals and their effect on people and thus the best known professor in the field of protection against chemical weapons during 1920-1950. He headed the gas laboratory in Lund and became the head of Försvarsväsendets kemiska anstalt. He later became the head of FOA1 (the chemical department of FOA) after the 1945 merger. He was also a reserve officer at the Coast artillery regiment.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Ljunggren_(kemist)
1930-1961

 

[Hagar]

I can confirm Lise Meitner's availability should be 1938 (if at all). Before that time she was part of Hahn's team, which in turn should be the top pick for Germany from 1936-1938 (i.e. Heisenberg should be out of the picture, basically - he was still happily messing about with Quantum Physics rather than Nuclear Physics). Meitner's flight from Germany would weaken Hahn in terms of a tech team (or better yet, dropped as one IMHO). Heisenberg takes over Hahn's spot there. Within CORE we gave Hahn the 1936-1938 spot for Germany at skill 8, and Heisenberg from 1938 onwards with a (very generous) 7. The latter (himself a Jew, actually) was 'just' the best of the rest, the top researchers in the field had left Germany by then. Most of those ended up as part of Oppenheimer's team...

Both Meitner's and Hahn's inclusion post-1938 is a matter of debate though. First off, Meitner was only granted Swedish nationality in 1949, and was 'just' a refugee before that time. Besides, from 1939 onwards Nuclear Physics research shifted from 'normal research' to 'weapon research'. Both Hahn and Meitner refused to do any active weapon research, Meitner even refusing to join the Manhattan Project. I don't know any better choices for Sweden here though...
Within CORE it's not much of a problem to begin with - Sweden would steer well clear of any nuclear research within the mod. Too little to gain, and too much to lose for almost any country, with the exception of the US, and just maybe Germany and the USSR. Though the US and German approach are highly different (the Germans were aiming for a dirty bomb rather than a high-yield weapon the US did). Heck, the US even used the German Uranium for their bomb program in 1945 to speed up things. The USSR only gained access to the whole shebang from their moles within the Manhattan project... I don't know how viable nuke research is within regular AoD though.

 

[kunadam]

3203 Astra
It should be Astra AB. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_AB)

Actually I would prefer to remove the AB from the names that still have them. I got the feeling that AB is like Inc, Co., GmBH etc. and as such refer to their legal status and should not be considered part of their name.
I mean does they ever but that into their logo?

3206 Bofors AB
This should be named AB Bofors see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors
Another thing is that Bofors should have naval_artillery as a trait and in turn ALL other naval yards should lose the trait naval artillery, because the manufacturer of naval guns was indeed done by Bofors and Bofors alone in Sweden.

TT's are not manufacturing centers or any such. Bofors can get naval artillery, but the naval yards have to retain it, as otherwise they won't be fit for naval research.
The question is, whether Sweden had military naval research. If so, proper naval TT are required.
Civilian naval yards are the ones without naval artillery, the military ones all have artillery.
I prefer to design TTs for a role, and just throw them together based on production figures.

 

[GFK]

Actually I would prefer to remove the AB from the names that still have them. I got the feeling that AB is like Inc, Co., GmBH etc. and as such refer to their legal status and should not be considered part of their name.
I mean does they ever but that into their logo?

The problem with removing AB is that for many companies it's an integral part of their Historical name. For example you would have to rename SAAB to SA and no one would know what the hell you where talking about. So sadly yes, it does mean Inc. but for many Swedish companies it's seen as part of their name and many did use it in their logos.

 

[bestmajor]

Torsten Friis isnt in?

 

[GFK]

Torsten Friis isnt in?

Yes. He was decorated general and chief of the air force between 1934 and 1942. He was originally a fortification officer but was tasked with the mission to design an air force. He also passionately worked for a domestic air force industry and died in 1967.

 

[Easy1]

Hi GFK!

I did some work with Sweden some time ago .

Seems like you have done a pretty accurate job here, and most of it looks good to me.

I included Sven Gustaf Wingqvist, one of the founders of Svenska Kullagerfabriken AB. Back then I felt that Svenska Kullagerfabriken was kind of irrelevant to the technology researched in HOI, so I went with including Wingqvist instead. But...my mind may have changed. Svenska Kullagerfabriken got this huge importance it seem, and was one of the largest industrial concerns in Sweden, so I may be ok with it as a tech team. One question though. What about the other ball bearing factories around the world at the same time, weren't they as important? Is Svenska Kullagerfabriken something unique?

Anyways, if we include Svenska Kullagerfabriken, should we exclude Sven Gustaf Wingqvist? He was the founder after all, so I feel its a bit much to include both of them. Or maybe he is unique enough to deserve the title as a tech team too? I'm asking you, because you seem to know more than me on this.

When that is said, I'm a bit skeptical of including various public institutions related to military research. A lot of countries got dozens of them, and they do not necessarily possess innovative or concrete technological knowledge, but are foremost organizational formations within the country's ministry of defence.

Actually I would prefer to remove the AB from the names that still have them. I got the feeling that AB is like Inc, Co., GmBH etc. and as such refer to their legal status and should not be considered part of their name.
I mean does they ever but that into their logo?

The problem with removing AB is that for many companies it's an integral part of their Historical name. For example you would have to rename SAAB to SA and no one would know what the hell you where talking about. So sadly yes, it does mean Inc. but for many Swedish companies it's seen as part of their name and many did use it in their logos.

When it comes to the "AB" designation" I think we cannot have a general rule. We have to look at each different case. For some companies The GmBH or AB designation for example is as good as an explicit part of the name of the business. And from my understanding the importance of business entities like those above tend to vary between countries. In Germany and Sweden for example it seem to be a explicit part of the name for a lot of businesses. In Norway it is "AS" and this entity in most cases is rather not important to the name of a Norwegian business.

3206 Bofors AB
This should be named AB Bofors see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors
Another thing is that Bofors should have naval_artillery as a trait and in turn ALL other naval yards should lose the trait naval artillery, because the manufacturer of naval guns was indeed done by Bofors and Bofors alone in Sweden.

TT's are not manufacturing centers or any such. Bofors can get naval artillery, but the naval yards have to retain it, as otherwise they won't be fit for naval research.
The question is, whether Sweden had military naval research. If so, proper naval TT are required.
Civilian naval yards are the ones without naval artillery, the military ones all have artillery.
I prefer to design TTs for a role, and just throw them together based on production figures.

I approve that civil naval yards don't produce any naval guns. But, I got a Question related to this. Is producing naval artillery really that big of a deal? I mean, could not the other Swedish shipyards have done it too in relatively short time if someone (the Swedish government for example) gave them orders to do it? And beside, most naval technology is not about naval artillery.

 

[GFK]

Thank you very much Easy1 for your kind comments! I'm currently on vacation but I though I would pop in and answer your questions.

WRT to Sven Gustaf Wingqvist - His qualities as an inventor are revolutionary indeed but if he was put in only for his qualities as an inventor for the time period then I would remove him. The reason for it is because Wingqvist contributed with his most famous inventions roughly between 1905 all the way up to 1932. This is remarkable but predates the period we are aiming for. On the other hand Wingqvist is one of the great captains of swedish industry, so if he is to be included for his ability to run, organize and assess mechanical industry in general he is a good pick. After 1932 he worked extensively on different boards and was mostly in the role of a business man and as a giant of Swedish industry. The patents for the ball bearings and the important function of development was held by SKF for the time period, so it's better to have the company available in my view if you absolutely must eliminate one.

SKF owned back then the patent for what we see today as the modern, self-aligning design of ball bearings. The company also set many of the industrial standards for ball bearings so in this sense they are unique. Many don't realize this but ball bearings are essential for all modern forms of industry to function and was unlike much other civilian industry therefore essential to any war effort.

For example the importance of the ball bearing industry can be illustrated by the fact that the allies precision targeted ball bearing production in the begging of their bombing raids on Germany. It was nonetheless ineffective to bomb the GER ball bearing industry because GER could replace production and could buy ball bearings from neutral SWE so later this tactic was scrapped by the allies. Some of this is mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

When it comes to the "AB" designation" I think we cannot have a general rule. We have to look at each different case. For some companies The GmBH or AB designation for example is as good as an explicit part of the name of the business. And from my understanding the importance of business entities like those above tend to vary between countries. In Germany and Sweden for example it seem to be a explicit part of the name for a lot of businesses. In Norway it is "AS" and this entity in most cases is rather not important to the name of a Norwegian business.

Indeed.

I approve that civil naval yards don't produce any naval guns. But, I got a Question related to this. Is producing naval artillery really that big of a deal? I mean, could not the other Swedish shipyards have done it too in relatively short time if someone (the Swedish government for example) gave them orders to do it? And beside, most naval technology is not about naval artillery.

This question is a very good one but the answer is also quite simply that they would never had a chance to develop and produce naval ships, guns and ammunition in time for the war because naval power was not something that the swedish gov. gave priority to when they mobilized. We have to remember that Sweden was not in any way mobilized before 1936 and most of it's vessels where built before WW1 and even the few ships Sweden had where the result of much political turmoil before they where approved and built (read more about this here http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverigeklass ).

When Sweden did increase defense spending with Försvarsbeslutet 1936, airpower along with tanks where the main beneficiaries because compared to the Kaiser-germany's navy and Tsar-Russian naval forces both the Third Reich's and the USSR's naval fleets where mere shadows of their former self. Therefore the need just wasn't there. Sweden also largely expected and built on the notion of Soviet aggression, so the navy did not hold any priority and as such the Swedish gov would probably just favored tanks and aircraft to an even greater extent instead of forcing shipyards to develop what would have been very costly naval vessels - with uncertain delivery time.

The second thing is that modern naval gun manufacturing in Sweden was successful because it was closely linked to the chemical industry. Bofors not only developed the naval guns but also the ammunition, from gun powder to grenades, they developed and owned almost the entire manufacturing chain. So even if the Shipyards would have been ordered to manufacture the naval guns, to which they would in a sense have lacked the know-how, there would still be the question of ammunition. Shipyards could therefore not hold the key to Swedish naval production by themselves, instead the gov. would have been forced to implement a much greater plan for naval reconstruction which would have been very difficult to pull of politically and practically without soaring costs.

The more likely scenario in my view is that without Bofors there would have been only a very small surface navy with very light ships. They would probably not have put much effort into development and certainly they would have not built any capital ships.

 

[kunadam]

I love to read the history text you offer.
And the question still remains. Should SWE naval yards as a TT for this abstract game have naval artillery or not? Also should BOFORS have this specialty eve thought it would not take part in naval research.

My answer to the first is YES and to the second I DO NOT CARE

 

[GFK]

I love to read the history text you offer.
And the question still remains. Should SWE naval yards as a TT for this abstract game have naval artillery or not? Also should BOFORS have this specialty eve thought it would not take part in naval research.

My answer to the first is YES and to the second I DO NOT CARE

I'm here to please, even though an occasional reader is grumpy. Even you Kunadam must admit that to make a "historical" game sometimes it's a plus to use historical facts to support arguments instead of just pulling things from thin air. Otherwise, if we just left it up to the "fairytale" people to make these choices we might end up with the school of Hogwarts as the main university in the UK. So if you want a shorted version which includes game balance (which seems to the the underlying issue to why it's difficult to remove the traits) then how about this: civilian SWE naval yards (all but Marinverkstäderna where civilian) should not have naval artillery and BOFORS should have it.

 

[Easy1]

I'm fine with only Bofors as the only tt with naval artillery specialty. The other naval yards will still fit for naval research but they will be some slower - that may be realistic.

I wonder what would have happened if Sweden suddenly found itself in war though. A lot of civilian naval yards in the US became military ones as soon the US entered into the war.

What we are facing here is a shortcoming of the Tech team solution of technology in HOI2, all this is much easier solved with the HOI3 way of representing technology.

GFK, if you have good pictures for your proposals (and the vanilla teams) at hand, don't hesitate to post them. And, will you do the other Scandinavian countries too? I hope so

 

[GFK]

I'm fine with only Bofors as the only tt with naval artillery specialty. The other naval yards will still fit for naval research but they will be some slower - that may be realistic.

I wonder what would have happened if Sweden suddenly found itself in war though. A lot of civilian naval yards in the US became military ones as soon the US entered into the war.

What we are facing here is a shortcoming of the Tech team solution of technology in HOI2, all this is much easier solved with the HOI3 way of representing technology.

GFK, if you have good pictures for your proposals (and the vanilla teams) at hand, don't hesitate to post them. And, will you do the other Scandinavian countries too? I hope so

Hello!

I'm currently on vacation but I popped in to give you some pictures and some answers.

I will start by trying to answer what Sweden would have done if they found themselves in a war, because this is essentially a very complex and difficult question. It would depend on who they had to fight, the USSR, the Axis or even the allies.

The naval yards would see considerable gov. involvement as long as there was a likely chance of invasion but SWE would not have put any considerable resources into converting them - US style. If they had to fight the USSR or GER, they would probably have put their main resources into land and air forces. The reason for this is what I mentioned earlier - to try to delay any potential enemy as long as they could within their territory. In essence one could compare SWE to Norway in this case, because the strategy would be the same, to try to hold out on land in well fortified pockets for others to intervene. The same would happen if the Allies invaded through Narvik.

The point where I see SWE prioritizing Naval yards would be in a situation where they had to fight the allies - and where the USSR is not involved in the war and the threat of invasion is low. Essentially we are talking about a scenario where Norway and DEN are in Axis hands and the USSR still holds the non aggression pact with GER and where SWE has joined the Axis. In this case, SWE would be in "safer" position to invest in it's naval forces in a bigger fashion. This said, I still don't see them completing any major conversions before the latter part of the 1940s, mainly because of lack of resources.

WRT the pictures for my proposals here are the most important ones I could fins so far -
Svenska Kullagerfabriken AB:

Svenska Radioaktiebolaget:

AB Lindholmens Varv:

Militärfysiska Institutet:

Also found a picture for Astra AB:

When I get back I will try to take some time and help out with Norway, DEN and Finland too. Take care

Edit: fixed the links since they didn't work for some reason the first time.

 

[HistoryMan]

Hi all Just throwing in some comments here, on a couple of points.

Bofors and Naval Artillery. There is a huge difference between potentially manufacturing large calibre guns and designing them. Designing and testing such weaponry is a highly specialised technical task, and is not something that a naval yard would be able to pick up and do in any sensible time frame for the game. My personal view here is that Bofors should get this trait, and no-one else would. One other possibility (if people feel that this might mess-up research by tying up Bofors on some Naval research when it should be doing some artillery work, say) is to create a separate Bofors Naval team. Naval yards, whether civil or military, actually tend to limited research or testing ability, and that doesn't change with wartime and the switch of production - naval guns still invariably came from the specialist makers, it was just the the hulls and so on for the ships might be built in formerly civilian yards.

Lise Meitner. She should only cease to be available (as part of the Otto Hahn team) to Germany if Germany is actually Nazi orientated, of course. Like Heisenberg, she fled after the Anschluss, since her protection of being an Austrian citizen then ceased. Therefore, if the Anschluss does not take place (for some reason), it is likely that the Hahn TT for Germany should continue. She did actually continue some form of discussion and collaboration with Hahn even after she fled Germany, so perhaps the Hahn team might stagger on an extra year or so after she leaves. As far as being a Swedish tech team, well, I think she would only appear as a Theoretical physics researcher, not one who should be a useful TT for researching actual bomb techs. Given that she worked at Manne Siegbahn's institute, perhaps her arrival should merely add a skill point or a specialisation to this team instead of her being a separate TT. All this is, of course, dependant on her fleeing Germany, as noted above.

Tim

 

[GFK]

One other possibility (if people feel that this might mess-up research by tying up Bofors on some Naval research when it should be doing some artillery work, say) is to create a separate Bofors Naval team.

You are a solid rock when it comes to innovativeness Tim! Great idea and shame on us for not thinking of this earlier.