The Difference Between Test and Reality....

[MikeKozlowski]

...Today I Learned:

* In testing, the Wehrmacht said the V-1 had a CEP of 850 meters.

*In postwar testing, the V-1 was found to have a CEP of 12 kilometers.

Mike

[Sukhoiman]

quality control, stochastic minimization etc may have been significant factor when using Jewish slave labour....and non-ideal production environments etc.

(If the original CEP was actually valid and not for internal chest thumping etc)

[Johnnie Lyle]

Someone was trying really hard not to get that open billet in a Luftwaffe Felddivision somewhere outside Minsk . . . and got an express ticket there instead.

[kdahm]

Is that in a Test, there's a break for both lunch and Tea, there are endless debates about LBW, one side doesn't take the field until the game is half over, and underarm is a scandalous affair.

In reality, routine jobs are commonplace, lunch is foreshortened, much less Tea, everyone tries to play at the same time, and underarm is still scandalous unless one is a Paris fashion designer.

As far as the V-1 goes, that's the difference between test and production articles, the German manufacturies were notoriously and accurately bad, and the V-1 couldn't get a spot on the Scotland World Cup team.

[warshipadmin]

Wind. Oh so was the CEP an ellipse, ie was it mostly range errors or heading errors?

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

IIRC, the CEP was further munged by skewed reporting.

The UK press and 'pressed' Double Cross spies all reported strikes were long / short of Central London. Targeting was duly adjusted...

Also, with UK weather variably 'Westerlies', their mid-Atlantic weather-ships hunted, sunk and U-Boot weather reports sporadic, the Rocketeers had limited awareness of head-winds, jet-stream etc.

[gtg947h]

Many years ago, my job was designing a test rig for some aircraft systems, which the other engineering groups would use. We were having trouble with some components in our test, and our "customer" was blaming our rig because the return path for high DC current was not as perfect as they thought it should be. "These things work fine on the vendor test bench!" So we asked what the vendor's test bench was.

Turns out, said test bench was a 10ft solid copper bar that everything was grounded to, with super short power supply cables. They had tuned everything in the system assuming almost negligible voltage drop. The real system was to return current through the aluminum aircraft structure and had wire runs on the order of 75ft, pushing lots of amps.

The suggested fix (to make the test rig more like the vendor's test bench!) included welding steel to copper to aluminum...


The old saw about theory and practice comes to mind...

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

Ouch...

Given even a few amps provides enough voltage drop along bus-rail for 'routine' measurement...

So, 'Ring Main' ? Laminate bus-bar ? ( Better for higher-frequencies than 'solid'... )

Beat their tunnel-vision techs around heads with two-metre 'earthing' rods ??

[Belushi TD]

Another thought to keep in mind....

Its entirely possible the "Test" objects were lovingly hand crafted and assembled by a crew of machinists and scientists who had a vested interest in NOT going to the Eastern Front, and therefore made sure everything was as perfect as they could make it.

The Reality objects were, as I understand it, mostly crafted and assembled by slave labor, whose main concern was making the object just good enough to not get shot or sent to a camp.

Belushi TD

[Nightwatch2]

IIRC, the CEP was further munged by skewed reporting.

The UK press and 'pressed' Double Cross spies all reported strikes were long / short of Central London. Targeting was duly adjusted...

Also, with UK weather variably 'Westerlies', their mid-Atlantic weather-ships hunted, sunk and U-Boot weather reports sporadic, the Rocketeers had limited awareness of head-winds, jet-stream etc.

THAT, I suspect is the principle reason for the disparity in operational performance. And that is an example of the difference between test environments and operational performance in many other instances.

The real world is full of factors that generally can’t be replicated in test environments.

Which underscores that real testing comes with operational use no matter what system one is using.

[Simon Darkshade]

Is that in a Test, there's a break for both lunch and Tea, there are endless debates about LBW, one side doesn't take the field until the game is half over, and underarm is a scandalous affair.

In reality, routine jobs are commonplace, lunch is foreshortened, much less Tea, everyone tries to play at the same time, and underarm is still scandalous unless one is a Paris fashion designer.

Well, there are lunch and tea breaks in any sport that spans an entire playing day; LBW appeals are not so much debates as attempts to persuade the arbitrating party on high that missing London is close enough, honestly; the bit about a side not appearing until 2.5 days in is as rare as hen’s teeth in the modern game; but it is the underarm gag which falls flat. The last time underarm bowling appeared in a Test was 1910, and that style had long, long died off before Greg Chappell engaged in what Richie Benaud rightly called one of the most disgraceful things he’d ever seen on a cricket field in 1981, which was in a One Day International, not a Test.

[Belushi TD]

Underarm is disgraceful? I strongly suspect the skills of practitioners of American Women's Softball would come as a great surprise to the cricketing world.

How about submarine pitching? For those of you who are not afficionados of "America's Pastime", that's about 25% of overhand pitching. Dennis Eckersley was the most famous submarine pitcher in the 80's and 90's.

Sidearm? About 50% of overhand.

And then there's doing it about 75% of overhand.

Are they all equally unacceptable, or if you'll permit me the pun, not cricket?

Belushi TD

P.S. Rereading this post, I realize it comes off fairly obnoxiously. Its not meant to be. Please take it as a serious question, because I actually want to know.

[Nightwatch2]

Underarm is disgraceful? I strongly suspect the skills of practitioners of American Women's Softball would come as a great surprise to the cricketing world.

How about submarine pitching? For those of you who are not afficionados of "America's Pastime", that's about 25% of overhand pitching. Dennis Eckersley was the most famous submarine pitcher in the 80's and 90's.

Sidearm? About 50% of overhand.

And then there's doing it about 75% of overhand.

Are they all equally unacceptable, or if you'll permit me the pun, not cricket?

Belushi TD

P.S. Rereading this post, I realize it comes off fairly obnoxiously. Its not meant to be. Please take it as a serious question, because I actually want to know.

Nice pun

I’m rather curious too. I don’t get the reference

[David Newton]

We're all over that particular joke.

[M.Becker]

...Today I Learned:

* In testing, the Wehrmacht said the V-1 had a CEP of 850 meters.

*In postwar testing, the V-1 was found to have a CEP of 12 kilometers.

Mike

British, German and particularly American torpedoes say: Hold my tea/beer/whiskey.

[kdahm]

Is that in a Test, there's a break for both lunch and Tea, there are endless debates about LBW, one side doesn't take the field until the game is half over, and underarm is a scandalous affair.

In reality, routine jobs are commonplace, lunch is foreshortened, much less Tea, everyone tries to play at the same time, and underarm is still scandalous unless one is a Paris fashion designer.

Well, there are lunch and tea breaks in any sport that spans an entire playing day; LBW appeals are not so much debates as attempts to persuade the arbitrating party on high that missing London is close enough, honestly; the bit about a side not appearing until 2.5 days in is as rare as hen’s teeth in the modern game; but it is the underarm gag which falls flat. The last time underarm bowling appeared in a Test was 1910, and that style had long, long died off before Greg Chappell engaged in what Richie Benaud rightly called one of the most disgraceful things he’d ever seen on a cricket field in 1981, which was in a One Day International, not a Test.

Try to make one joke.....

The lunch is explainable. Having a Tea break is a constant source of humor. Particularly because it isn't called an intermission or something like that, but a break specifically for Tea.

Halfway through the game is not necessarily half of the allowable time, but half of the effort also works. Or when one side retires and the other takes over.

LBW, to me, looks like the same issue with offsides in FIFA, pass interference in American football, and called balls and strikes in baseball. Endless debates about which incidents count and which ones don't, very fuzzy implementation of the rules (even with video review), and no lack of chances to blame refs/umpires/officials.

Yes, I was more referring to the 1981 incident, but if someone in modern Cricket had bowled underarm, it would still have been scandalous. As I've only really watched some T40 cricket and no one-day or Test matches, I hope you'll pardon my attempt.

Underarm is disgraceful? I strongly suspect the skills of practitioners of American Women's Softball would come as a great surprise to the cricketing world.

Yes, and underarm is also fairly prevalent in both ten-pin and candlestick bowling. It really depends on the sport, since an overhand or sidearm throw in horseshoes is legal but not done. Underarm is allowed in the MBA, but it doesn't get the speed and so isn't practical. So very much a sport specific issue. It's still difficult to make a Test joke, since softball, bowling, beanbag, horseshoes, and many other sports don't use the Test term.

And you are correct, sir, in that all of those are definitely not cricket.

[kdahm]

I’m rather curious too. I don’t get the reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_ ... nt_of_1981

In 1981 in the Australia/New Zealand one-day match, the thing came down to the last ball bowled. New Zealand required a score of six on that ball to tie, which means that it must leave the bat and exit the field of play without touching the ground in between. A bounce and out would score four. Theoretically, there could be six points scored by running between the wickets, but that wouldn't happen.

The Australian coach told his bowler to deliver underarm and along the ground, meaning the batsman had to play defensively and there simply wasn't enough energy to get it up and out of the field. It's legal in that case, since it was declared to the umpires first, but was illegal in other places like England One-Day matches. International Cricket banned it totally after that game.

This is similar sportsmanship as diving over the offensive line or doing a play when lined up in the US football Victory Formation. Or paying bounties for injuries to opposing players.

[Nightwatch2]

...Today I Learned:

* In testing, the Wehrmacht said the V-1 had a CEP of 850 meters.

*In postwar testing, the V-1 was found to have a CEP of 12 kilometers.

Mike

British, German and particularly American torpedoes say: Hold my tea/beer/whiskey.

Hey! Ours (occasionally) worked…

[Nightwatch2]

I’m rather curious too. I don’t get the reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_ ... nt_of_1981

In 1981 in the Australia/New Zealand one-day match, the thing came down to the last ball bowled. New Zealand required a score of six on that ball to tie, which means that it must leave the bat and exit the field of play without touching the ground in between. A bounce and out would score four. Theoretically, there could be six points scored by running between the wickets, but that wouldn't happen.

The Australian coach told his bowler to deliver underarm and along the ground, meaning the batsman had to play defensively and there simply wasn't enough energy to get it up and out of the field. It's legal in that case, since it was declared to the umpires first, but was illegal in other places like England One-Day matches. International Cricket banned it totally after that game.

This is similar sportsmanship as diving over the offensive line or doing a play when lined up in the US football Victory Formation. Or paying bounties for injuries to opposing players.

THANKS!!!

Now I get it! Appreciate the background.

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

For reference, given the infamous Mk_14, with its persistent 'Non of the Above' magnetic & contact triggers plus wonky depth holding...

Do we know what happened to the Bureau perps ??

What little I've read about it suggests scandal was 'hushed up' for 'Operational Security', lest provide 'Encouragement to the Foe'.