I was reading Claude Remains threadasking about the weakest point on a submarine…when an articleI had read about adding extra armor to weak spots on aircraft used in war came to mind.
The study, which recommended where the extra armor should go, came up with an answer that seems counter-intuitive, but upon reflection makes sense.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
Take a look at the rest of the article. Just thought it an interesting fact to share.
His second example of “dead evidence”, studying the survivors of a crash, demonstrates a flaw in his first example.
He says “What they don’t think about is how many people did those same things, but still died in the crash. The dead can’t be interviewed, so we will never know.”
In the same way, the statistician didn’t know how many of the aircraft that got shot down were hit in the same places as the returning aircraft.
The assumption is that the accuracy of the AA shots at the plane is low enough that essentially any point on the underside of the plane is equally likely to be hit. Shots hitting in critical sections will be under-represented in the planes that return.
Put extra armor wherever the A-10 has extra armor.
That thing’s not a plane, but a tank that by some weird coincidence can also fly.
One of them shot down a helicopter in the Gulf War with the Vulcan.
Cool.
You’re assuming he’s talking AA rather than air to air. I was assuming air to air given the “bullet holes” phrase.