Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
motherjones.com
Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#2> count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire.
>
> Obvious but wrong
Please tell me I'm not the only one who instantly thought, obviously wrong. And thought the obvious solution is look at what got shot down (or similar such as the article listed)
Really? Are most people this illogical?
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#3> count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire. > > Obvious but wrong Please tell me I'm not the only one who instantly thought, obviously wrong. And thought the obvious solution is look at what got shot down (or similar such as the article listed) Really? Are most people this illogical?
Unfortunately the enemy are rarely cooperative in allowing your aircrash investigators to visit the site and examine crashed aircraft.
You could examine enemy bombers that you had shot down but apart from the design and vunerabilites being different you would miss those that had exploded leaving little wreakage or had been crippled and crashed over the sea on the way back. You would still select for a set of damage that allowed an enemy place to crash reasonably intact
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#4> count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire. > > Obvious but wrong Please tell me I'm not the only one who instantly thought, obviously wrong. And thought the obvious solution is look at what got shot down (or similar such as the article listed) Really? Are most people this illogical?
Sure, if they could manage to dredge enough wrecks out of the channel to provide a sufficient sample.
Barring that, and depending on the budget for armor, looking at the areas without bullet holes on the surviving planes is a reasonable approximation.
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#5> count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire. > > Obvious but wrong Please tell me I'm not the only one who instantly thought, obviously wrong. And thought the obvious solution is look at what got shot down (or similar such as the article listed) Really? Are most people this illogical?
My immediate thought upon seeing the headline was "that seems counterintuitive," but that's because I assumed they were analyzing planes that were shot down or nearly so.
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#6You can't just say (Bullet hole here) + (returned plane) = (don't need to as much armor there). You also need to understand the circumstances of how the plane returned. Was it crippled and just barely made it back with critical systems straining? Or was it mostly functional?
If there was a common place where planes were shot that caused the airplane to fly home for an emergency landing, then that spot is a good place for armor.
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#7> count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire. > > Obvious but wrong Please tell me I'm not the only one who instantly thought, obviously wrong. And thought the obvious solution is look at what got shot down (or similar such as the article listed) Really? Are most people this illogical?
Unfortunately the enemy are rarely cooperative in allowing your aircrash investigators to visit the site and examine crashed aircraft. You could examine enemy bombers that you had shot down but apart from the design and vunerabilites being different you would miss those that had exploded leaving little wreakage or had been crippled and crashed over the sea on the way back. You would still select for a set of damage t…
Some of your interceptor craft would probably crash over friendly territory, but probably not many bombers
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#8> count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire. > > Obvious but wrong Please tell me I'm not the only one who instantly thought, obviously wrong. And thought the obvious solution is look at what got shot down (or similar such as the article listed) Really? Are most people this illogical?
> "Really? Are most people this illogical?"
Seeing how frequently punishing people following below average performance and rewarding them for above average performance is used as a managerial/coaching/teaching technique...yes.
Re: Put armor where there aren't bullet holes
#9Survivorship bias: