81–90 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another example is when the M16 rifle was first introduced in the Vietnam War, it was unreliable due to fouling.
That was the Army's fault. They changed the powder from the one specified by Colt and the Air Force. They didn't require the troops to clean their weapons (wtf?), and the Ordnance Corps desperately wanted the M-16 to be a lighter M-14. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that while the US losing her carriers at Midway would have allowed Japan free reign in the South Pacific for a few months, that was already the case for anywhere that all 6 fleet carriers showed up. Nothing the US had - combined, worldwide - could match those 6. Killing the US carriers at Midway was just to turn it from a 6v3 to a 6v0 - instead it ended up 2v2, but so goes war. Japan invading Hawa…
You are right of the unarguability of US manufacturing against Imperial Japan's, but that inevitability still doesn't eliminate the time recapturing territory that had Japanese presence. Their no surrender policy made island recaptures slow, brutal and ugly. Even with carrier provided air superiority. Had they got to Hawaii, I imagine the experience would have been similar to all Japanese occupied territories -- fami…
Its role in reducing sexual competition for older officers is necessary to understand any offensive war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Japanese wouldn’t be able to sustain a US invasion, but they would have conquered Australia and would probably have forced the US out of the Pacific war. That was the gamble. Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union.
Ironically, if Japan had committed all 6 fleet carriers to the South Pacific in early 1942, they might have been able to conquer Australia. Instead they split them - two to the South Pacific, to be damaged in the Battle of the Coral Sea, and then the four remaining operational carriers to Midway. Had all 6 shown up at Midway... Things probably would have gone differently. The things that show up in hindsight, of cour…
When I was a child, I played a DOS game called Silent Hunter I. Basically, it's a submarine warfare game which you play as a U.S. Navy submarine in World War II, cursing the Pacific Ocean and attacks Japanese warships. When playing the game, I was extremely frustrated about the Mark XIV torpedo onboard - After going through the painstaking process of calculating the projectile, hitting the fire button, I would watch…
A 1943 USAF documentary about ground-based anti-aircraft fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zPNMqVi2E
A short YouTube documentary about the failure of the German super-battleship Bismarck's anti-aircraft gunnery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTO3JagV8gE
In fact the Germans had been working quite seriously on guided surface-to-air missiles during WWII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_lsh0BJGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Q92V5hK-c
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By definition, tests have to be more complex than the underlying code. The test have to setup the conditions, execute the action and validate it. Don't confuse complexity with shitty unreliable tests (timing-based tests)
Depends on the type of test. What you guys are talking about are unit tests, and are designed to test individual methods/functions. You write a separate test for each one. There's other types of testing, integration tests sound like what you are both complaining about. Integration tests test the interaction between components of a system, and are thus far more complex and likely to break as you're developing (which i…
When I was a child, I played a DOS game called Silent Hunter I. Basically, it's a submarine warfare game which you play as a U.S. Navy submarine in World War II, cursing the Pacific Ocean and attacks Japanese warships. When playing the game, I was extremely frustrated about the Mark XIV torpedo onboard - After going through the painstaking process of calculating the projectile, hitting the fire button, I would watch…
A lot of interesting material on British systems of that time can be found at the Dreadnought Project:
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Category:Fir...
http://www.jutland1916.com/tactics-and-technologies-4/range-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logic behind test bans (in conjunction with numerical caps on warheads) is to create uncertainty in the reliability of one's own arsenal to discourage either side from contemplating a first-strike.
I'm not sure about that. What if you're convinced that your brilliant scientists have created working warheads while you think the enemy's dolts haven't been able to keep their arsenal working? What if your enemy thinks the same thing in reverse? I think there's always a temptation to overestimate one's own capability and underestimate the sophistication of others.
When I was a child, I played a DOS game called Silent Hunter I. Basically, it's a submarine warfare game which you play as a U.S. Navy submarine in World War II, cursing the Pacific Ocean and attacks Japanese warships. When playing the game, I was extremely frustrated about the Mark XIV torpedo onboard - After going through the painstaking process of calculating the projectile, hitting the fire button, I would watch…
Here are a few fun videos related to this. A 1943 USAF documentary about ground-based anti-aircraft fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zPNMqVi2E A short YouTube documentary about the failure of the German super-battleship Bismarck's anti-aircraft gunnery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTO3JagV8gE In fact the Germans had been working quite seriously on guided surface-to-air missiles during WWII: https://www.you…