How Allies Used Math Against German Tanks 330
Pepebuho writes "This an article about how the allies were able to estimate the number of German tanks produced in World War 2 based on the serial numbers of the tanks. Neat! Godwin does not apply."
original source (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Godwin does not apply? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who's to say (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be so dismissive. Knowing how many tanks the Germans had in total is related to knowing how many they can marshal in a particular region. Also, part of the allies' goal was to figure out how many tanks the Germans could manufacture. If that number was high, then the Germans could have bolstered an undersupplied and perceived-to-be-weak region.
To be back on track, the math involved is pretty straightforward. For those interested, the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article has more information on the subject.
Re:Same method used for Soviet Bombers (Score:4, Informative)
in the 1950s
so they started looking at satellite photos of the Russian bombers
Hmm. Correct theory, but wrong implementation.
Re:Who's to say (Score:3, Informative)
Knowing tank concentration is NOT vastly more important than knowing the rate of tank production.
Adapting to tank concentrations invokes relatively short term planning concerns. This information is needed to help you decide your counter-concentrations. You know what they have and where they have it, and then you move your stuff in response.
But tank production is HUGELY important. You're talking about EXTREMELY complicated logistical problems there. How many tanks are you going to manufacture in response (lag time)? How many bombers are you going to allocate / train for heavy industry attacks (lag time)? Are they making so many that you've got to come up with a replacement for the Ronson Tank (big lag time)?
World War 2 took a long time. Long range planning was super-important. They didn't have computers. Anything that could make the strategic position clearer was very important. The other poster is right: You shouldn't be dismissive. This was a big deal and some geek's idea helped win the war.
Re:Can US win a future war like it did in WW II? (Score:3, Informative)
The wars in Iraq (which is all but over for the US, good luck with that INA) and Afghanistan are very different from World War Two. If the US had fought Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan with the same disregard for civilian casualties and overwhelming firepower there wouldn't be a problem.
Modern Mindset - Isolate Fallujah, tell the civilians to get out, then go house to house to secure the city with Marines and Army.
World War Two Mindset - Mass on one side of Fallujah, carpet bomb the far side of the city for a couple days, then send infantry in supported by artillery while blowing blocks up, block by block until no one is left to resist. Or, firebomb the city with incendiaries, or bombard with artillery for days before going in, like Casino. Any one that flees, harass with airpower and/or chase down with armored cavalry units
Right now if a shooting war broke out between the United States and today's Germany or today's Japan, it'd be no contest, although Japan has a better military right now, the US would win.
The last time the US really went all out was the ground war to take Kuwait at the end of Desert Storm, and even that was just about 1/3rd of the total air and naval power and about 1/2 of the ground forces. The US military has become much more lethal in the 20 years since Desert Shield started.
Re:Houses too (Score:4, Informative)
Bluntly, you are being daft. Did you not notice the language I couched it in? I'm no WWII expert and don't intend to be one, I'm recounting stories I was told as a kid by my dad. There'll be people who know more than me about this and will correct me - 'lying' doesn't begin to come into it.
Here's my dad guarding Belson [hmd.org.uk], by the way. Picture 1 [eruvia.org] and Picture 2 [eruvia.org]. They were one of the first forces into the area - please let me know when you've achieved a tenth as much.
Anyway, that link shows my dad to have been in the 11th Armoured Division [wikipedia.org]. It seems you're right - not Berlin, but Lubeck and Neustadt. So yes, turns out I'm inaccurate. But lying? No.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Houses too (Score:3, Informative)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Note for world domination: encrypt serial no.'s (Score:3, Informative)
Damm if I know. The account was written by one of guys doing the breaking in, not by one of the analysts.
Re:Note for world domination: encrypt serial no.'s (Score:1, Informative)
ow tell them that Johny's mom had three kids. Point to the penny and say the name Penny, point to the nickle and say the name Nicolas, then point to the Quarter and ask what the third one's name is. Most people will spend a considerable time attempting to work quarter or some variation of it into a name even after repeating that Johny's mom had three kids. Eventually they give up.
(in case anyone is wondering, the third one's name if Johny- as in Johny's mom). It's a little easier then how far can a dog run into the woods.
Sigh.
The correct answer is that you don't have enough information to 100% determine the name. It does not say that Johnny's mother had ONLY three kids, it's quite possible Johnny is the fourth child, or that he is not her biological child.
As for the "How far can a dog run into the woods" The answer is not "halfway" as most people reason, there are multiple correct answers depending on how you read the sentence. For example, one correct answer is he can't, if you interpret "run into" as "impact". The question is rarely posed with the restriction of "assuming a perfectly circular forest", so without that clarification once again the only correct answer is "It cannot be determined with the data supplied". (if the forest is not circular and the dog changes direction partway it is possible to still be heading 'into' the forest yet cover more distance than the width of some parts of it.) Another item to consider in this case is that you're assuming the dog can run at all in the first place, or depending on the size of the forest you're assuming the dog isn't limited by distance or time.
The point of most of those types of questions is not actually to find a correct answer... in fact if they are posed properly there is not a single correct answer. Those types of mind games are used for psychological analysis of personality traits, they help determine how literal or creative a person is, how willing they are to conform to rules or to break them. They are also used as a mental exercise to try and encourage people to think outside the box.
However, in most classrooms you see them most commonly used as an exercise in sorting the relevant from the irrelevant information.
But in most classrooms, the teachers don't pose the question properly which just ends up confusing kids who have an ability to think critically.
I remember a teacher who gave us one such problem, it went something along the lines of "Farmer brown has 6 duck feet and 6 sheep heads. How many ducks are on Farmer Brown's farm?" The intention being that we were supposed to ignore the sheep heads as unnecessary information. My answer was "None. All he has is feet." and I was given an incorrect mark since the teacher wanted the answer of "three". Another student in my class was also marked incorrect, because she answered "No way to tell, we don't know if Farmer Brown is on his Farm or not, but we do know he has the feet. So it's either three or zero depending on where Farmer Brown is."
The type of misdirection problem you're thinking of would be a 'classic' like this: "If an electric train is traveling due east at 50mph and the wind is blowing west at 45mph, which direction does the smoke from the smokestack blow?" The answer being "None, it's an electric train & they don't have a smokestack". Or "If a rooster lays an egg on the peak of a roof, which side will it roll down?" The answer being "Roosters don't lay eggs". Or "If an airplane crashes on the border of the US and Mexico, in which country do you bury the survivors?" The answer is intended to be "You don't bury survivors".
Not to be confused with 'trick' questions, such as "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" Which is actually a double trick question since there are more remains than just Grant's, but the normal answer is "Nobody. You don't bury people in a mausoleum, you entomb them." Or "What color was George Washington's white horse?" The answer is not white, it's an equestrian insider joke because technically no horse is pure white unless it's an albino.