Ah gotcha--thanks for the assist!

Aggie12B said:

---

---

I love it. We beat your ass with a ragtag army and saved your ass in WWII.

But it's easier to do that with a little logic:

Any plane hit that makes it back gets marked where it could still function. If the plane doesn't make it back, it's a loss - right?

So all the surviving planes are getting hit in "safe" spots, and the lack of hits on an overall factor tells you where to up armor the aircraft. It's almost reverse survivorship bias.

Aggie12B said:

---

---

Well we actually didn't beat them in the War of 1812. But funny still all the same.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

ravingfans said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

---

The survey doesn't include the suicides.

---

Took me a bit to put 2 and 2 together

---

Too clever for me, or maybe I'm just out of touch--whats the connection?

---

In WWII, they did a survey of planes returning from missions, marking on a chart like the one above, where they were hit by enemy fighters. The idea was to figure out where to add protection or armor

The problem was the survey was only done on planes that made it home It was not done on planes that got shot down (duh) so the survey was useless. What was needed was data on where planes were hit and shot down, not where they were hit and survived.

Just like a survey that doesn't include trans suicides

---

Correct...

The survey in the meme shows an example of survivor bias in the data...

One tweak: the survey of surviving planes wasn't useless - the results could be inverted.

Church Elder Pulls Fire Alarm To Delay Vote On New Carpet https://t.co/94q68IxGhj pic.twitter.com/4gmaGuc6Jr

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) October 8, 2023

I'll play. stupid fcking cnt

The_Waco_Kid said:

---

But it's easier to do that with a little logic:

Any plane hit that makes it back gets marked where it could still function. If the plane doesn't make it back, it's a loss - right?

So all the surviving planes are getting hit in "safe" spots, and the lack of hits on an overall factor tells you where to up armor the aircraft. It's almost reverse survivorship bias.

---

This going way off on a tangent from funny tweets but it's an interesting ops research topic.

That logic supooses that additional armor on the surfaces that had not been hit on surviving planes would make all planes them more survivable. That would need to be tested. The tradeoff in the weight of additional armor (or any armor) versus flight performance and takeoff weight must be proven. More armor could have made the planes less survivable.

About 10 years ago, the USMC was deliberating whether it was an acceptable risk allow Marines to wear lighter and more comfortable "plates carrier" armor vests that had only a SAPI plate versus the heavier Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) that had smaller arm openings higher collar and kevlar neck and crotch protectors that would stop low velocity fragments in those regions. Marines much preferred to wear plate carriers because they were less uncomfortable, lighter, and cooler than MTV. To make an informed decision, the Corps needed data.

1. They needed to know how the MTV vs plate carrier affected speed and mobility

2. They needed to know what the differences would be in the number of hits and severity of the wounds for MTV vs plate carrier.

They designed an experiment that measured the difference in speed and agility of individual Marines using an obstacle course called the Marine Corps Loead Effects Assessment Program (Mac-LEAP). As expected, Marines in the sample who wore MTV were slower and fatigued more quickly than Marines wearing just plate carriers.

The experiment was then to put robotic targets (with hit sensors) wearing the MTV moving at the slower speeds and robotic targets with Plate Carriers moving incrementally faster on a shooting range where the robots would randomly move between hiding places. When the robots came from behind an obstacle, Marines would shoot at them. There were multiple robots on the range exposing themselves at Irregular intervals and multiple shooter. At the end of the experiment, they counted the number of hits and the location of hits and whether the location of shots would have been lethal.

The results of the experiment validated that robots with less armor protection moving at a slightly faster speed were statistically less likely to be hit than the robots wearing more armor and moving slower. The number of fatal hits on faster robots was still less than the number of fatal hits on slower robots.

Of course, bullets are a different threat than fragmentation. If they had been throwing grenades or dropping mortar rounds on the robots, the additional kevlar on the robots wearing MTVs might have come out better.







Getting back to the example of B-17s, it would be difficult to validate whether more fragmentary protection on the zones unhit on surviving aicraft would equate to better survivability. If they were facing SAMs instead of Flak guns, no amount of armor would have made a difference.

Ulysses90 said:

---

The_Waco_Kid said:

---

But it's easier to do that with a little logic:

Any plane hit that makes it back gets marked where it could still function. If the plane doesn't make it back, it's a loss - right?

So all the surviving planes are getting hit in "safe" spots, and the lack of hits on an overall factor tells you where to up armor the aircraft. It's almost reverse survivorship bias.

---

This going way off on a tangent from funny tweets but it's an interesting ops research topic.

That logic supooses that additional armor on the surfaces that had not been hit on surviving planes would make all planes them more survivable. That would need to be tested. The tradeoff in the weight of additional armor (or any armor) versus flight performance and takeoff weight must be proven. More armor could have made the planes less survivable.

About 10 years ago, the USMC was deliberating whether it was an acceptable risk allow Marines to wear lighter and more comfortable "plates carrier" armor vests that had only a SAPI plate versus the heavier Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) that had smaller arm openings higher collar and kevlar neck and crotch protectors that would stop low velocity fragments in those regions. Marines much preferred to wear plate carriers because they were less uncomfortable, lighter, and cooler than MTV. To make an informed decision, the Corps needed data.

1. They needed to know how the MTV vs plate carrier affected speed and mobility

2. They needed to know what the differences would be in the number of hits and severity of the wounds for MTV vs plate carrier.

They designed an experiment that measured the difference in speed and agility of individual Marines using an obstacle course called the Marine Corps Loead Effects Assessment Program (Mac-LEAP). As expected, Marines in the sample who wore MTV were slower and fatigued more quickly than Marines wearing just plate carriers.

The experiment was then to put robotic targets (with hit sensors) wearing the MTV moving at the slower speeds and robotic targets with Plate Carriers moving incrementally faster on a shooting range where the robots would randomly move between hiding places. When the robots came from behind an obstacle, Marines would shoot at them. There were multiple robots on the range exposing themselves at Irregular intervals and multiple shooter. At the end of the experiment, they counted the number of hits and the location of hits and whether the location of shots would have been lethal.

The results of the experiment validated that robots with less armor protection moving at a slightly faster speed were statistically less likely to be hit than the robots wearing more armor and moving slower. The number of fatal hits on faster robots was still less than the number of fatal hits on slower robots.

Of course, bullets are a different threat than fragmentation. If they had been throwing grenades or dropping mortar rounds on the robots, the additional kevlar on the robots wearing MTVs might have come out better.







Getting back to the example of B-17s, it would be difficult to validate whether more fragmentary protection on the zones unhit on surviving aicraft would equate to better survivability. If they were facing SAMs instead of Flak guns, no amount of armor would have made a difference.

---

FWIW, they DID this analysis in WWII...

Quote:

---

During World War II, Wald was a member of the Statistical Research Group (SRG) at Columbia University, where he applied his statistical skills to various wartime problems.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald#cite_note-Wallis1980-5][5][/url] They included methods of sequential analysis and sampling inspection.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald#cite_note-Wallis1980-5][5][/url] One of the problems that the SRG worked on was to examine the distribution of damage to aircraft returning after flying missions to provide advice on how to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. Wald derived a useful means of estimating the damage distribution for all aircraft that flew from the data on the damage distribution of all aircraft that returned.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald#cite_note-Mangel1984-2][2][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald#cite_note-Wald1943-6][6][/url] His work is considered seminal in the discipline of operational research, which was then fledgling.

---

And it was a HUGE ops research project...

And based on the graphic if the tail, wing, or nose get shot off, or cockpit gets shot up the plane goes down.

The example I provided was trying to illustrate that adding armor to aircraft or humans may lower survivability if it decreases speed or maneuverability. There's a point of diminishing return for armor. It was David's dilemma when Saul offered him his armor to face Goliath.

I think it was a Malcom Gladwell book where i read that it would have been stupid for David to wear armor. Apparently, guys with slings were a major component of Israeli armies. Fast, mobile, amd rapid fire. Loadimg up with armor defeats the purpose

rab79 said:

---

And based on the graphic if the tail, wing, or nose get shot off, or cockpit gets shot up the plane goes down.

---

I think you can certainly interpolate that the planes with hits on the engines and cockpits did not make it back to base

CanyonAg77 said:

---

rab79 said:

---

And based on the graphic if the tail, wing, or nose get shot off, or cockpit gets shot up the plane goes down.

---

I think you can certainly interpolate that the planes with hits on the engines and cockpits did not make it back to base

---

From what I understand, the initial assessment was that those were the areas that needed more armor. But, after they reassessed it without the survivorship bias, they realized what you said...

rab79 said:

---

---

That's freaking awesome.