When helmets were 1st introduced for soldiers, the number of head injuries skyrocked. They were going to ban them until someone realised that the helmets were saving people who would normally have been killed.
Depends on what you are counting as a `helmet' as well as the intention of the design. Horse cavalry soldiers had helmets a long time ago and it helped saved their lives. Ditto for the stupid looking British `pie helmet' introduced in WW 1. They were designed to deflect debri from overhead explosions and the worked fairly well at that. Someone finally noticed that they didn't protect the ears and necks from explosions,. Hence the German and American and Russian helmets of WW2 which did that fairly well.
I'm a retired professional historian who did my work mostly using graphic tools (books archhival material etc,). The age of the internet has opened whole new windows on to the past through the production of manificent documentaries like this one. Congratulations, my comrads.
I understand what you mean ( I hope) in these days of computers that can tell the operator it has a fault when the self diagnosis program works out the best way to correct the problem.Its a similar situation with modern cars with a problem, the mechanic simply plugs in and downloads the information, which will have a remedy for the trouble. The old days of real thinkers and doers has passed.Take 3D films for instance you may be forgiven thinking it is pretty new.But the idea was used to train pilots for D Day missions ( each pilot could do their task over and over again in 3D on a scale model of the terrain they would see.The filming was done by a spitfire squadron that flew on its side filming ( at great risk). The old saying that necessity is the mother of invention, is quite true IMO. Radar,sonar, computer,jet engine just to name a few ....
The internet has also opened the doors to widespread historical inaccuracies. One no longer has to write a book to deliver false narratives to literally billions of people. Rather than examine the accuracy of statements, the internet age is prone to believe that the more they hear a story, the more valid it is.
@@jackburnell3209 -Libraries {stored information} throughout history provided immense volumes of false information.. (science;),.. to those who could read. 'Logical thinking/further research..., only possessed/practiced by relatively few..;]
@@jackburnell3209 Perhaps but many historical online sources (e.g. TIK) substantiate every claim they make by citing references. He has become great and famous in part because he is obsessed with the accuracy of claims and has uncovered many historical inaccuracies as a result of carefully researching issues. Outside that stirling example of how to do online history, many sources also raise issues when claims have not been carefully researched and established as most likely, or true. On these matters I don't think that the internet is any worse for readers than books. Books typically list sources at the end or cite them with text numbers but who reading a book would question such references. That's how Daivd Irving go away with his gabage. Nobody bothered to check his references. In the end, there's little either a reader or a watcher can co to establish the veracity of claims being made in what they are reading or watching.
@@johndunbar7504 Sure, there are books filled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. But in publishing a book, one has to write a book, find a publisher, market it and sell it. To post falsehoods on the internet, you write it and post it. I could point you to 50 online publications that say the Holocaust never happened and the earth is flat. Not many books espousing the same garbage though because a book has to be approved by a publisher and deemed marketable. Of course it's up to the reader to verify the authenticity but if you're using Google or mainstream media to find the reference material, you'll only get the results they want you to see. It's just easier and faster to put unsubstantiated bs online.
First and foremost he was - a Human Being. i am sure that if you try to exclude any person from this classification,you automatically exclude yourself.
There is a similar story about how the number of head injuries among British infantryman increased in World War I after the introduction of steel helmets. Luckily, calmer minds prevailed over the naysayers. The soldiers that were coming home with head wounds would otherwise have been killed.
@@touristguy87 The thing that is in common between the video's point and the example of the introduction of helmets in WWI is that dead soldiers are not taken to hospitals, while destroyed aircraft are not returning to their airfields. Survivorship bias.
Another similar example, but coming from the other direction, would be the manufacturing of spare airframe parts for British bomber aircraft during WWII: Planes that survived to be rebuilt needed wing-tips, tail parts, propellers, engines and above all bomb doors. These were the parts that are found damaged on damaged aircraft that returned to their airfields. When a belly-landed (in England) Lancaster, for example, was rebuilt, it donated it's engines, which were checked for shock-loading, while the bent propellors were scrapped, and the bomb doors needed replacing as the plane had landed on them. Sometimes whole wings or other major airframe parts were salvaged and put on planes actually on the production line, if undamaged and up to date with modifications. A modest accounting of bombers repaired this way in 1944 alone indicates that over 3,200+ of the front line (more than the front line in fact, at any given time) had been made up of damaged aircraft repaired with the addition of recovered and new-build parts. Over 50,000 engines of Rolls-Royce manufacture had also been recovered, repaired, reconditioned and returned to service. In this case, the planes that survived were almost always contributing to the front line strength of their air force.
It was 'operational research', a new(ish) management technique at the time. They identified a better vfm for VLR aircraft, patrolling the Atlantic and protecting shipping, instead of spreading iron and h/e all over German fields and being shot down. Politics delayed implementation, wasting much treasure and many lives.
One of my most enjoyable classes in college was history. The professor filled my little brain with all kinds of information that I was unaware of. Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately we are witnessing history repeating itself once again.
Robert Baker, I doubt your brain was or is little. You did not know as much at that time but if you look at your life you will see progress. That is what we're here for.
@@nolanbowen8800 Unfortunately we or alot people have lost the ability to transfer knowledge and experience or at the least fewer people have that skill. I can look back and know exactly how I could achieve my desired outcome yet not many role models to enlighten me!
@@nolanbowen8800 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was came to mind. Too much information is skewed these days or for decades from what I have seen. When I wore a younger man's clothes I could decern the difference between what was important to me and the commercialism that has always been put in our faces. I truly don't believe people know the difference anymore. And that all I know about that!
@@robertbaker3174, There are always those to enlighten but they often have to be searched for. If you lived where I do, in Idaho, I could point you in the direction of those who are wise. I also have found enlightenment in books and the internet. I read scripture as well and have found much in them.
As an aeromech engineer and pilot I've been aware of this "discovery" for awhile but nevertheless watched this retelling with great interest from end to end. You've done an excellent job of explaining it all with appropriate accuracy - nice work. The logic that emanates from this particular case is easily applied to multitudes of other safety critical operations whether in aviation, military or otherwise. Therefore IMO it is something that should be remembered and recited again and again and again.
Please rework your video program. A twin airplane has two exhaust streams and only at altitude where the air temperatures and exhaust allow those contrails to form. That would be an altitude an A-20 Havoc seldom, if ever, saw!
@@greglittell9109 Yes but that is not the point I was trying to make. Propulsion redundancy is a good thing to have if yr trained to deal with it and have attained requisite experience. It might just get you back to base or at least a splash down close enough to the boat such that the helos know where to look.
My uncle flew A-20s in New Guinea. I wish he were still around so I could ask him tons of questions about the A-20 and the war I have no idea about armor on A-20s but, "Uncle Joe" came home and had a full life and good career. He is currently lies peacefully in Arlington. I am going to see him soon. I plan on asking him tons of questions when I get there. My tribute to him.
@@valinorean4816 Arlington is a Military Cemetery in Washington DC. It is where the US Tomb of the Unknown Soldier lies. I am sure Desertwalker means "lies" as in lay down, not lives, and his uncle and himself will talk when he himself dies.
@@Wailwulf Hopefully not, if he and his uncle will talk in heaven, then my grandpa and Stephen Hawking are screaming in Hellfire and will forever, no thanks, anything else is still better than that.
One of my bridge partners in college (12970's) was Dr. Walter Leighton, Professor Emeritus of math at Mizzou. He was one of those mathematicians who were recruited by the War Department to study all sorts of problems including logistics, air to air aiming of machine guns, avoiding U boats, etc. This research led to the field of study called "Operations Research".
There was a similar problem for British Intelligence during WWII: the V-1 flying bombs were beginning to arrive in Britain, with the earliest ones falling within the large area of the City of London. Mathematicians deduced after about twenty bombs that the aiming point was Tower Bridge in the centre of London. The scientists on hand for the work suggested reporting (in international news) the bombs that landed in London, but give the time and date as for a bomb that had overshot into North London. Soon, the Germans began to reduce the average range of the bombs. This life-saving idea was opposed by political animals who took exception to 'people in the farmlands of the County of Kent south of London being killed when they would not have been otherwise'. It was gently pointed out that bombs in the suburbs of London had killed two to three people on average and wrecked three or more houses, while a bomb in a field in Kent killed about one hundredth of a person and almost always damaged grass and some trees. They also moved the anti-aircraft defences of London to the South coast, so that AA-damaged bombs fell in the sea or on fields, rather than London as before. The same mis-reporting trick caused the later V-2 rockets the same problem.
The AA guns were moved to the coast because they began using proximity fuses rather than timed fuses. Untriggered proximity fused shells would land in the sea rather than on Kent. It also allowed intercepting fighters operate inland behind the"Diver Belt" safe from AA fire
An interesting bit of history was the French couldn't figure out how the Germans were adjusting fire during the shelling of Paris. They searched the city of Paris for the forward observer. They never found him because he didn't exist. The Germans just waited for the newspapers to be delivered to neutral Switzerland and then wired the corrections to Germany.
A victory of education over the "common sense" of armouring the damaged bits. Also the actress Hedy Lamarr was a bit of a mathematician and developed frequency hopping radio signals to help make radio jamming more difficult. This technology is still used in WiFi.
Hedy's idea, and to add to it, she collaborated with Georges Antheil who helped her develop the concept. Hedy--not Hedley--was more than just a pretty face!
Hedy's "frequency hopping" was an attempt at controlling torpedo's warheads but was never implemented in WW Twice The earliest use of it, as far as I know, was in the 60's with the man-pack radio. This was a tactical radio that transmitted 1/10 of a dB above background noise, had a VERY directional Sloped wire antenna, and used a random number generator linked to a satellite to hop frequencies. It simply could not be detected. (the satellite was used only to establish timing synchronization) One of my college professors invented this radio. Now Freq. hopping is used in cell phones.
@@scotte2815 I think the Navy finally adopted aspects of this technology in the 1960's, and then, as you mentioned a backpack radio setup. (I'll have to check on those sources). But the basic principal of frequency hopping has stood the test of time. What got me was that Ms. Lamarr wasn't even trained in mathematics, but she had a curious, inventive mind, and maybe that trumps learning in some cases.
Great video. I learned about this when I was trained as a Six Sigma black belt at Ford Motor Company. We actually discovered several black belt projects that were treating successes as if they were failures.
Another cool story of WW2 maths is this: when the allies captured/destroyed a german tank, they often took it for examination... simebody started collecting the serial number of some parts in those tanks, and based om those numbers they were able to predict the total german tank production... with far better results than the spies/intelligence sources. It's quite advanced statistics, but check it out. It's called German Tank Problem
According Richard Feynman, RAF Bomber Command ignored similar conclusions reached by a group he was in. It took careful analysis to realize there was survivor bias going on both by the analysts but also by the command.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad G'day, Ah, that is not true. NO Aircraft hit by Schragemusik made it back to tell the tale. The RAF & USAAC discovered that Schragemusik was a thing, only after Adolf shot himself and Doenitz surrendered ; and then the Nachtjagdfliegeren revealed that which they had successfully previously kept Top Secret. Not a lot of German Nightfighter Crews ever fininished up parachuting or crashing into captivity, to be interrogated and have their Aeroplanes examined - because Hitler prohibited them from flying Night Intruder missions (on the theory that Allied Aircraft shot down over Allied Territory had no effect on German Civilian Morale - so the NachtJagdwaffe was restricted to operating over their own home ground. Thus..., no Allied Aeroplanes ever made it home - after they'd heard the sounds of German Jazz Tunes, coming up through the floor of their Hairygoplane, fired from directly below. The drill was to formate carefully and aim for the Fueltanks in the Wing Centre Sections, between the Fuselage and one of the inner Engines. Blowing out and lighting up a Wing Tank and wrecking an Engine while shredding the Wingspars was fairly sure to kill the Bomber - while simultaneously keeping the Nachtjagdgliegeren safe from any possibility of their Cannon-fire detonating the Bombload... Perfect Tactics & Equipment, "airtight" Security..., and still ; they Lost the war, because they were fighting for a silly selfish Megalomaniac. Such was their CHOICE. Such is life. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot If you read as much as I do, for as long as I have, you too will eventually see the photo of RAF personnel inspecting the aircraft in question. Its wings were perforated at an angle corresponding to that of the attacking guns. Sorry I can't provide a link for you . . .
Before World War Two there was a bias against anti-aircraft artillery fire calling it "ineffective" in American bomber circles. The Norden bombsight was most effective at 15,000 altitude--and that turned out to be the most effective altitude for heavy anti-aircraft cannon fire. Some of the glitches in aircraft design were due to deliberate blindness. This was an excellent explanation of survivor's bias. Sometimes it takes a genius to break free from groupthink. Thanks.
Yea, but lower then that brings you into the range of medium altitude AA guns, then you've got even more people shooting at you. That was the whole idea of high altitude bombing, only the enemies biggest guns could shoot at you and not practically everything he has. The biggest reason the USAAF lost so many bombers early on was the "Bomber Mafia's" refusal to allow escort fighter's to use drop tanks to escort the bombers all the way to the targets because they wanted to prove their concept that the bombers could fight their way to the targets and back unescorted, the common narrative that the fighter's in theater at the time didn't have the range to escort the bombers is a lie cooked up by the Bomber Mafia to cover their asses over the heavy losses early on so they wouldn't get drug in front of a Congressional inquiry about why they wouldn't allow the fighter's to escort them, every P47 in theater at the time of the Schweinfert and Regensburg raids had al least the ability to use the British made pressed paper tanks with some fighter groups like the 56th FG already having gotten the P47D-15 which had the ability to use the US made all metal pressurized drop tanks, it was that configuration that was used by P47's to escort bombers over Berlin before P51's were doing it.
@@dukecraig2402 Absolutely spot on!!..It's well known to the Cognizant that the Bomber Mafia Putas were responsible for thousands of unnecessary Bomber Crews killed due to their megalomaniacal desire to validate unescorted daylight raids to Germany. The rest We know.🤬
@@4vepvik781 Yea, but like every other concept I suppose there's only one way to find out whether or not it'll work. They were so sure of it that all fighter's were initially designed without provisions to mount drop tanks, Lt Kelsey, the guy in charge of aircraft development for the Army worked behind the scenes before the US got in the war to make sure that by the time it got in it the production models would be able to mount them. And the P47N, contrary to popular belief, was not designed specifically for the Pacific, early on Republic saw the need for increased range in the P47 because of the Bomber Mafia's refusal to allow the use of drop tanks and went to work on wet wings for it, but once the Generals relented and allowed the use of drop tanks the P47 could go wherever it needed to gobin Europe and the US Army saddled Republic with developing variant's that wound up not being produced anyways so it slowed the development of the wet wings to where by the time they were done victory in Europe was a foregone conclusion, so it was decided they'd be sent to the Pacific where their tremendous range would best be suited, but contrary to popular belief they were originally intended by Republic to be used in Europe, not the Pacific. If they'd have been developed as early as they could have they'd have had a lower alphabetic designation than N, perhaps they'd have been the beginning of the D series, who knows.
My middle school science teacher was Charles B. Leighton navigator on the Memphis Bell. He developed a system of blocking German radar during these bombing raids. Great teacher and patriot!
There is another story where mathematicians calculated how Planes could avoid Flak by predicting where gunners would normally aim their artillery, based on the normal speed and flight path of approaching bombers, then fly in a Zig Zag pattern to avoid being shot at
Yea bu you can't do that during the bomb run, and as anyone will tell you who flew on those bombers "The flak is always the thickest right over the target"
@@leadsolo2751 But that's where most loses were due to enemy fighter's. The reason that the bomber loses were so heavy early in the war is because of the "Bomber Mafia" Generals refusal to allow the fighter's to use drop tanks because they wanted to prove their concept that the bombers could fight their way to the targets and back unescorted, then when those early raids turned out to have such heavy losses the Bomber Mafia Generals started the lie that the fighter's in theater at the time didn't have the range to escort the bombers all the way to the targets so they wouldn't get drug in front of a Congressional Inquiry over the bombers being unescorted, and that's a false narrative that's repeated to this day by hack aviation writer's who don't bother to do the research. The fact is every single P47 in theater at the time had at least the ability to use the British made pressed paper drop tanks that could have taken them there, even worse some units like the 56th Fighter Group was already flying the P47D-15 four months before the Schweinfert/Regensburg raids, they had the under wing pylons that could use the US made all metal pressurized drop tanks, that's the configuration that was used by P47's to escort bombers over Berlin before P51's were doing it. Then late in the war to cement their lie about the fighter ranges the Bomber Mafia Generals came up with a falsified report on fighter ranges that purposely short changed the P47 on it's actual range, that's another source of reference material that WW2 aviation writer's use to continue the false narrative that the fighter's in Europe at the time lacked the range to escort the bombers all the way to those early targets. It remains to this day one of the biggest and least known cover up's in US military history, the Bomber Mafia Generals did such a good job of covering their asses that to this day people who are supposed to be authorities on the subject still believe their lie.
Armoring the plane engines in the context of those many manned bombers seems obvious once you've seen this. Fascinating that it took a brilliant mathematician serving the air force to reach that most cost-effective solution.
3:46 "...Wald's secretaries had to snatch his notes and essays out of his hands as soon as he was finished writing them, because he didn't have the proper security clearance to read his own work" ~~~~~ 🤣🤣🤣TOO 🤣🤣🤣FUNNY 🤣🤣🤣
My Dad, a mathematician, an algebraist, contributed to the war with gun projectile path estimation, I believe, from the scant info he gave us. RIP. Our parents and grandparents really had it tough from 1930 to 1945. Nothing approaching our problems today. And a shout out to FDR, god bless him.
...trust me, your did didn't come up with that. He might have come up with his own version, but if you look into the history of gunnery you'll find that "projectile path estimation" was done back in the 14th century with the advent of artillery. Probably back in the days of catapults and other mechanical launching devices. Wow, let's Google that too: Who discovered the equations for projectile motion? Galileo's Information sheet: Galileo's projectile model Through these experiments, Galileo established that the motion of a projectile is a combination of constant horizontal velocity and vertical motion, in which the projectile accelerates at a rate of 9.8 m s-2. Who first calculated planetary orbits and proved that the Earth was not the center of the solar system, not to mention the universe? Probably the guy who was first put to the stake for heresy for saying that to the wrong person.
FDR was in a wheelchair like Professor X and he implemented socialism in the Republic so he MUST be a good guy, that 'infamy' speech was pretty cool though.
Mike's dad was probably one of many working on these problems during WWII. 20th century ballistics was greatly refined compared to previous calculations or the simple equation that I learned in geometry class. (My geometry teacher taught artillery at Fort Know during WWII.) Willis Lee completely revised the USN's ballistics table in the 1920's and 30's greatly improving them. If you want precision you need to calculate for many factors such as temperature of the air and the ammunition, barometric pressure, wear on the gun barrel, aerodynamics of the shell, motion of the target, etc. A great deal of ballistics research was done during WWII. The first US computers were built at Aberdeen Proving Grounds during the war to work on these problems.
We used to laugh at American soldiers wearing their flack jackets and helmets at 105°. We stayed relatively cool in our non bullet proof aertex shirts. I wonder who was more effective in combat.
It turns out the ones wearing the Aertex shirts as they remained combat effective for a longer duration. Research coming out of Afghanistan shows that the large amounts of PPE were just as bad as not wearing any.
My experience was the soldiers with the Aertex shirts, and even fancier gear, were often in the LEAST hazardous roles within the combat zone. Not to diminish the service, everyone has their job and as this video shows all jobs contribute, but its a strange thing the regular soldiers put into the line of fire get the least say in their uniform and equipment.
Abraham Wald also contributed greatly to our understanding of human decision making. His sequential probability ratio test laid the foundation for the drift diffusion model, the most important mathematical model of decision making in neuroscience and psychology research today. What an influential dude!
Excellent history about Mr. Wald which is a good reminder that war waging is a science that relies a lot on lessons learned and professional advice. While fighting in the Middle East, we had several scientists (many former military service-members), analyzing the effectiveness of our weapons, the damage to our equipment, and looking at our casualties. The "Survivor's Bias" is a very important variable to consider when looking at battle-damaged equipment. Thank you for the upload. Ciao, L (Veteran)
Someone explained this research on mapping damage to Johnny von Neumann. He immediately told them that they were all wrong. They should map the planes that were shot down, not those that returned! This was of course not possible, but his point was clear.
I've often wondered how much impact this sort of operational research had on the generally high esteem in which scientists were held and respect for scientific learning and conclusions that seemingly existed during the 1950s and '60s. Many upper and mid-level commanders would have witnessed first hand the fruits of having scientists and statisticians study and offer useful solutions to problems they were encountering on the battlefield. In addition to the insights they were able to offer on the topic of this video, they were able to offer useful advice on problems as varied as the optimal size of a convoy, the best way to find and kill U-boats, the relative effectiveness of different artillery bombardment strategies and so on. Once their war service was over, most of those commanders would have gone into the private sector. Since they were officers, many would have been tapped for management positions. When they encountered problems in operating what ever business they were involved in, they would have known they could turn to the scientific community to help them find useful answers. Today, it seems that neither scientists nor their findings are very highly regarded by society.
I used to put my G I JOE figure (12 inch not the little ones) in a Tonka Jeep and pull it behind my bicycle. I’d turn sharply at high speed causing the Jeep to skid and flip over multiple times. We’d then figure out based on Joe’s position and the distance from the Jeep whether he could have “theoretically” survived the crash. He never did.
When I studied Psychology at University, statistical analysis was a BIG part of the course, since it was essential in examining the significance of experimental results. In 2nd year stats, we were taught about this very story (Abraham Wald and the survivorship bias). I've brought this topic up in a number of relevant discussions, but always had to refer people back to journals, or articles discussing Wald and his WWII accomplishments. I'm really glad that there's now a mini-documentary style info-vid about this topic. It'll make it easier if I have to bring this up again in the future. Thanks TJ3.
Read Fred Kaplan's “The Wizards of Armageddon” for the story of the RAND corporation and its group of experts like Wald many of whom did similar work in the war.
This was a great, well produced, and easy to follow video, about a smart, and heroic man. It is sad that he and his wife died, not long after escaping nazi, evil atrocities, and him being such a help to the survival of so many air crewmen, and planes. He greatly deserves to be remembered. Thank you.
Mathematicians also developed 'Linear Programming' a tool to better allocate scarce resources during WW2. In essence, you had an 'objective', then there were the 'constraints' the the purpose was to find the 'optimal solution'. Neat. I learnt this at college back in 1978! I believe that it was Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defence under who's leadership this particular mathematical tool was developed.
Thank you for bringing this information out, this man was a hero and I am so glad he was able to use his talent to fight against the nazi evil. I hope his name and example are well remembered.
Its truly stunning to think how simple this principal is if your available sample is thought of as analogous to a negative image in photography. It's interesting too that his insight is an example of practical common sense that somewhat inaccurately is not normally associated with the abstract intelligence of academics like him.
This interests me. I have heard of this. I googled “Video of engineers trying to figure out where to reinforce World War II aircraft” to find the story again and your video was the first one that popped up.
This was the subject of a "Puzzler" offered by Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers, on NPR. What puzzles me is why it took a mathematician to figure it out.
A statistical mathematician would look at the data and see that there was only data from planes _not_ shot down, and would want to see the data from the planes that _were_ shot down in order to get a true picture.
A similar story is told of Douglas Bader, a British flying ace who flew both Hurricanes and Spitfires for the RAF in World War 2. He was shot down and captured in August 1941, before the US entered the war, but took part in many operations over France and in the Battle of Britain. One day the squadron he commanded was visited by a team of Air Ministry boffins who had worked out where best to place the limited armour available to the fighters. After finding out how they had gone about this task - by analysing damage reports, he is reported to have said something along the lines of "but these are the ones that made it back!". I can't remember where I read this, but probably in the biography "Reach for the Sky". This was written ten years after the war, so may have been influenced by American experience if that was known to the author, Paul Brickhill. But the basic flaw involved in the survivor fallacy may well have been fairly obvious at the time to pilots actually involved in the fighting. Plus the boffins were arguing for a redistribution of the limited armour available. Pilots may well have had their own strong preferences based on the injuries they had encountered or most feared. So probably would want armour placed behind the pilot's head and under the seat.
Turing has been overhyped. His colleagues found him difficult to deal with, and he wasn’t as effective as is sometimes claimed. Bletchley Park did however play a crucial role in the war, mainly in code-breaking.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 You may have noticed I didn't simply mention Turing. But overhyped? He isn't simply remembered for his contribution to cracking an enigma code, but also for other contributions to mathematics/computing.
Thank you for sharing...the world owe alot for the mathematician who saved the alid air men... And my respect and tribute to him and his family. I am an indian, sad to know his tragic death in our soil🥺😪. RIP
I've not seen your channel before until now. I am one min and 6 seconds into it and am duly impressed with the introduction. Enough of that though, I'm going to finish the video and see what you got.
I watch most of your videos and enjoy your channel. A mathematician who had almost never had a job did single-handedly save the bombers in WWII. But this wasn’t him. Keep up the good work.
While a cool story, I am baffled that adding more armor around Engines and the Crew was lost on Military higher ups, that they needed a mathematician to explain it to them. It seems pretty common sense to protect the most vital areas of a plane.
I'm surprised they listened to him. When someone outside the professional clique gives advice that contradicts their prejudices, he is usually marginalized and ignored. "How many combat missions have you flown? None? Get out of here."
I think how much of the anti-discrimination work is wasted by people making moral arguments against prejudices. It's a more effective argument to note the great inefficiency of prejudice. For instance, how much has it hindered the human race's development to dismiss women's intellectual abilities?
This is why you can spot a tyrant, by his attacks on education and intelligence in general. Peoples that value intelligence and education are more effective peoples.
I had a professor in college who had the same problem as Wald. He was not allowed to read the papers he wrote. He also had to refer to drones as widgets since he was not allowed to use the word drone. The US government paid for an expensive study on the chemistry of certain types of batteries used in missiles and electronic counter measures. Unfortunately the man who controlled access to the study couldn't be convinced that those of us who designed and built the batteries had a "need to know".
Nice work-- well-written and clearly delivered narration. Graphics were closely related to the content, and the flight simulations were as good as any archival film. Looking forward to your next one.
Anyone familiar with ww2 British genius and Nobel prize winner Patrick Blackett? He came to the same conclusion with RAF bombers and pioneered the field of Operational research and many other achievements. Check him out on Wikipedia!
Very good and informative. More than a few did their part behind the scenes, without whose insights and help things would have taken much longer and at greater cost.
Excellent and fascinating presentation. Ironic and very sad that Wald and his wife should not be able to live out their life to the full like those aviators that he helped save.
During WW2 operational research in the UK suggested that saving all the weight of defensive armament,turrets etc would make the bombers far safer as they'd be much faster,but the crews turned it down. Similarly the bombers that survived night bombing were often the ones that did not fire their guns. All that did was attract night fighters.
Same effect as the introduction of helmets causing an instant major increase in head injuries when you look at wounded soldiers in the hospitals. You also need to account for all the dead soldiers with head wounds to get the full picture.
To cut a long story short, the military didn't want to armour the areas with most damage. They knew that those areas where returning aircraft showed least damage were those that needed protecting - Wald's task was to work out from the few aircraft that returned with damage in those areas what would be the most cost-effective distribution of armour
@@valinorean4816 It begins by repeating the urban myth that he was the one who pointed out that undamaged areas were the ones that needed armour - after that it gets back to reality and (rather too subtly) admits that the air force knew that already.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad but the sense of the topic is there. You don't need to dig deeper and make the video less attractive and less interesting to the viewers. Like making a research paper, you don't need to use fancy and deep words cuz the reader will be less interested and can't understand the topic due to words that a average people cant understand. It just the same as what this video does.
What a paradox!!..This esteemed mathematician optimised where to place armour from where the Military could not perceive where to not obviously install it and then the Bomber Mafia deliberately inhibit adequate drop tanks for the P47 Escort Fighter and short change the P47s range by cooking up shortened radius of action of the aforementioned Fighter when the B24s/B17s were being cleaved from the air. The Bomber Mafia then panicked n got the P51 Mustang into service spouting the superior range that the Thunderbolt already had but was impeded by the Bomber Mafia's perverse imperative to validate unescorted daylight raids!! What else have they covered up n continue to cover up!!?? RIP to all those volunteers who stepped forward.
This reminds me of a story from the 1st World War: When the British Army suffered too heavy casualties from head wounds, they've decided to issue their troops protective helmets. Lo and behold, the number of head wounds jumped up a whole lot. The general staff were bemused, couldn't understand it. Eventually, they concluded that with their heads protected with the helmets, the soldiers were taking more risks and therefore getting wounded more often. They were about to recall all the helmets and send the soldiers to battle unprotected once again, when somebody grew a brain and realized the number of head wounds has increased, because, previously, those head wounds would have been fatal, therefore placing these casualties under the count of dead, period. With the helmets, those injuries became survivable, thus increasing the statistics for head wounds - but decreasing the numbers of soldiers killed. Which meant that the helmets were, in fact, achieving their purpose - unless the general staff actually preferred dead soldiers? So the helmets stayed...
An interesting reply and having read of the case on a "'more serious" site, I'll support the argument. But I don't see the need for the snarky comment about the General Staff (note the capitalisation) preferring dead soldiers. Just like the USAAC/USAAF staff, they weren't previously aware of the implications of survivorship bias. Just like you don't seem to be aware of the benefit of 20/20 hindsight ...
@@DraftySatyr 1. The snarky comment about the British Army's General Staff is a covert reference to their public perception as a bunch of idiots determined to get all their soldiers killed and doing their outmost to achieve that goal. Something about "lions being lead by donkeys". 2. The situation isn't exactly the same. In the case of the bombers, the USAAF staff didn't have any statistics on the damage done to the downed airplanes, so they went with the only data they did have and failed to take survivorship bias into account; Whereas the British Army staff did have all the data they needed: the statistics on the reduced number of casualties, and the statistics on the rising number of survivable head injuries. They failed to check it and compare it before and after in both columns, only in one - the head injuries. 3. I'll be interested to know which "more serious site" you used to fact check me. Thanks.
In early war, Luftwaffe fighters were mainly using the MG17 7,92-mm machine gun, and were taught where to aim on aircraft as to achieve maximum effect: cockpit, engines, fuel tanks etc. Therefore it made sense to armor those places. As the war progressed, the Germans increasingly relied on "Minengeschoss" high explosive 20-mm and later 30-mm shells, that would simply smash the airplane's structure, wherever it hit. This also might have a contribution to this, rather than just the Genius mathematician. Sorry to spoil the party.
This is akin to one reason why the use of shrapnel shells was discontinued in favor of conventional HE. While intuitively it'd seem more effective as an antipersonnel shell, in fact, interviews with captured German surgeons revealed that they seldom removed shrapnel balls from wounded soldiers; British Army surgeons confirmed this for instances when it was known the Germans were likewise using shrapnel. The explanation was that the fuzing wasn't precise enough, that is, many shells didn't explode several feet above the ground as intended, but upon contact, so the shrapnel pieces simply buried in the earth. Also, the shells had been tested with wooden mockups of soldiers; but in fact, where they did hit men; the balls simply didn't penetrate but rather caused bruises and sometimes broken bones, as the balls were quite able to penetrate wood planks but not human flesh. This problem was somewhat alleviated in WWII by the US Army with the adoption of the proximity fuze, which made it possible to more reliably detonate above the target to get a more deadly effect.
Wrong aircraft, *and* incorrect information. The aircraft depicted in the video are the Douglas A-20 Boston / Havoc, not B-17s which have *four* engines. The Navy flew the Boeing PB-1 and PB-1W which were B-17Gs in all but name. "Ton of Fun" shouldn't have a glazed nose.and shouldn't constitute an entire flight 4:26. The aircraft that Wald actually studied seems to be lost to us. There are no sketches to go along with his analysis despite that an internet image search would suggest that were. The sketches one finds are speculative reconstructions - the one at 6:47 is as good as anyone else's.
There are a few types of match students. 1 doesnt see the purpose and doesnt care . 2 .One doesnt care but understands and uses it sporadicly . 3 And the one that asks the question where can i use this equation or formula for.
His logic led to the B-17-G variant. His thinking in combination of bombing reports convinced the USAAF and Boeing that a chin turret was an essential up-grade for the B-17-F. (The B-24 which had a chin turret had very substantially different damage statistics.) PDQ the G variant utterly dominated the 8th Air Force fleet. The Luftwaffe could no longer get away with their 'javelin' attack -- "twelve o'clock high" to the USAAF aircrews.
Kinda like a "duuuuhhh" when you consider the front turret on the B-24J was due to an RAF upgrade specification from their EXPERIENCE with plain glazed nose the D model. The naïve USAAF doctrine had it that two aircraft approaching each other head-on at such speeds would negate the practical use of frontal protection. Both the Luftwaffe and later the Japanese air forces figured that one out for the B-29's, that the frontal pilot crew area was the main "soft spot" in both of Boeing's big bombers.
When helmets were 1st introduced for soldiers, the number of head injuries skyrocked. They were going to ban them until someone realised that the helmets were saving people who would normally have been killed.
Something analogous happens with car seatbelts and insurance companies.
I quite like the term “survivorship bias”. Definitely worth remembering.
@@markgibson8358 correlation does not imply causation is another good one.
Depends on what you are counting as a `helmet' as well as the intention of the design. Horse cavalry soldiers had helmets a long time ago and it helped saved their lives. Ditto for the stupid looking British `pie helmet' introduced in WW 1. They were designed to deflect debri from overhead explosions and the worked fairly well at that. Someone finally noticed that they didn't protect the ears and necks from explosions,. Hence the German and American and Russian helmets of WW2 which did that fairly well.
@@johndunbar7504 the 1st tin hats in ww1 i believe the story dating from, but not sure. Its wartime infantry story i heard along time ago.
I'm a retired professional historian who did my work mostly using graphic tools (books archhival material etc,). The age of the internet has opened whole new windows on to the past through the production of manificent documentaries like this one. Congratulations, my comrads.
I understand what you mean ( I hope) in these days of computers that can tell the operator it has a fault when the self diagnosis program works out the best way to correct the problem.Its a similar situation with modern cars with a problem, the mechanic simply plugs in and downloads the information, which will have a remedy for the trouble.
The old days of real thinkers and doers has passed.Take 3D films for instance you may be forgiven thinking it is pretty new.But the idea was used to train pilots for D Day missions ( each pilot could do their task over and over again in 3D on a scale model of the terrain they would see.The filming was done by a spitfire squadron that flew on its side filming ( at great risk). The old saying that necessity is the mother of invention, is quite true IMO.
Radar,sonar, computer,jet engine just to name a few ....
The internet has also opened the doors to widespread historical inaccuracies. One no longer has to write a book to deliver false narratives to literally billions of people. Rather than examine the accuracy of statements, the internet age is prone to believe that the more they hear a story, the more valid it is.
@@jackburnell3209 -Libraries {stored information} throughout history provided immense volumes of false information.. (science;),.. to those who could read. 'Logical thinking/further research..., only possessed/practiced by relatively few..;]
@@jackburnell3209 Perhaps but many historical online sources (e.g. TIK) substantiate every claim they make by citing references. He has become great and famous in part because he is obsessed with the accuracy of claims and has uncovered many historical inaccuracies as a result of carefully researching issues. Outside that stirling example of how to do online history, many sources also raise issues when claims have not been carefully researched and established as most likely, or true. On these matters I don't think that the internet is any worse for readers than books. Books typically list sources at the end or cite them with text numbers but who reading a book would question such references. That's how Daivd Irving go away with his gabage. Nobody bothered to check his references. In the end, there's little either a reader or a watcher can co to establish the veracity of claims being made in what they are reading or watching.
@@johndunbar7504 Sure, there are books filled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. But in publishing a book, one has to write a book, find a publisher, market it and sell it.
To post falsehoods on the internet, you write it and post it.
I could point you to 50 online publications that say the Holocaust never happened and the earth is flat. Not many books espousing the same garbage though because a book has to be approved by a publisher and deemed marketable.
Of course it's up to the reader to verify the authenticity but if you're using Google or mainstream media to find the reference material, you'll only get the results they want you to see.
It's just easier and faster to put unsubstantiated bs online.
I've never heard of Mr. Wald but we owe him much.
Great story of a not so known American hero
First and foremost he was - a Human Being.
i am sure that if you try to exclude any person from this classification,you automatically exclude yourself.
This is the first time i understood something coming from a mathematician in my life.
Excellent explanation and narration of his work!!
This and gambling odds. No , you're not going to win that money back.
There will be a test later.
There is a similar story about how the number of head injuries among British infantryman increased in World War I after the introduction of steel helmets. Luckily, calmer minds prevailed over the naysayers. The soldiers that were coming home with head wounds would otherwise have been killed.
there is virtually nothing in common between the video subject and the subject of your post
which is nothing more than you having a metoo moment
That actually is another example of survivorship bias.
@@touristguy87 The thing that is in common between the video's point and the example of the introduction of helmets in WWI is that dead soldiers are not taken to hospitals, while destroyed aircraft are not returning to their airfields.
Survivorship bias.
Another similar example, but coming from the other direction, would be the manufacturing of spare airframe parts for British bomber aircraft during WWII: Planes that survived to be rebuilt needed wing-tips, tail parts, propellers, engines and above all bomb doors.
These were the parts that are found damaged on damaged aircraft that returned to their airfields.
When a belly-landed (in England) Lancaster, for example, was rebuilt, it donated it's engines, which were checked for shock-loading, while the bent propellors were scrapped, and the bomb doors needed replacing as the plane had landed on them.
Sometimes whole wings or other major airframe parts were salvaged and put on planes actually on the production line, if undamaged and up to date with modifications.
A modest accounting of bombers repaired this way in 1944 alone indicates that over 3,200+ of the front line (more than the front line in fact, at any given time) had been made up of damaged aircraft repaired with the addition of recovered and new-build parts.
Over 50,000 engines of Rolls-Royce manufacture had also been recovered, repaired, reconditioned and returned to service.
In this case, the planes that survived were almost always contributing to the front line strength of their air force.
The Brits didn't keep track of head wounds prior to helmets being issued.
Mathematicians also developed anti-submarine search patterns for the Navy and optimised the way they dropped their depth charges.
sure in the sense that we are all all mathematicians at some level
It was 'operational research', a new(ish) management technique at the time. They identified a better vfm for VLR aircraft, patrolling the Atlantic and protecting shipping, instead of spreading iron and h/e all over German fields and being shot down. Politics delayed implementation, wasting much treasure and many lives.
So you saying my A1, B2, C3 system is flawed 😉
One of my most enjoyable classes in college was history. The professor filled my little brain with all kinds of information that I was unaware of. Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately we are witnessing history repeating itself once again.
This was also a subject in our industrial engineering.
Robert Baker, I doubt your brain was or is little. You did not know as much at that time but if you look at your life you will see progress. That is what we're here for.
@@nolanbowen8800 Unfortunately we or alot people have lost the ability to transfer knowledge and experience or at the least fewer people have that skill. I can look back and know exactly how I could achieve my desired outcome yet not many role models to enlighten me!
@@nolanbowen8800 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was came to mind. Too much information is skewed these days or for decades from what I have seen. When I wore a younger man's clothes I could decern the difference between what was important to me and the commercialism that has always been put in our faces. I truly don't believe people know the difference anymore. And that all I know about that!
@@robertbaker3174, There are always those to enlighten but they often have to be searched for. If you lived where I do, in Idaho, I could point you in the direction of those who are wise. I also have found enlightenment in books and the internet. I read scripture as well and have found much in them.
Thank you. A number of my adult friends who flew in combat survived because of a math professor I knew nothing about till now.
As an aeromech engineer and pilot I've been aware of this "discovery" for awhile but nevertheless watched this retelling with great interest from end to end.
You've done an excellent job of explaining it all with appropriate accuracy - nice work.
The logic that emanates from this particular case is easily applied to multitudes of other safety critical operations whether in aviation, military or otherwise.
Therefore IMO it is something that should be remembered and recited again and again and again.
Please rework your video program. A twin airplane has two exhaust streams and only at altitude where the air temperatures and exhaust allow those contrails to form. That would be an altitude an A-20 Havoc seldom, if ever, saw!
@@greglittell9109 Yes but that is not the point I was trying to make. Propulsion redundancy is a good thing to have if yr trained to deal with it and have attained requisite experience. It might just get you back to base or at least a splash down close enough to the boat such that the helos know where to look.
My uncle flew A-20s in New Guinea. I wish he were still around so I could ask him tons of questions about the A-20 and the war I have no idea about armor on A-20s but, "Uncle Joe" came home and had a full life and good career. He is currently lies peacefully in Arlington. I am going to see him soon. I plan on asking him tons of questions when I get there. My tribute to him.
"I plan on asking him tons of questions when I get there." - what do you mean? or did you drop the letter "v" in "lies"?
@@valinorean4816 Arlington is a Military Cemetery in Washington DC. It is where the US Tomb of the Unknown Soldier lies. I am sure Desertwalker means "lies" as in lay down, not lives, and his uncle and himself will talk when he himself dies.
@@Wailwulf Hopefully not, if he and his uncle will talk in heaven, then my grandpa and Stephen Hawking are screaming in Hellfire and will forever, no thanks, anything else is still better than that.
"Math is the worst subject in the world, except for those who apply it" - my math prof
so physicists??????
Hey bro, nice pfp. El psy congroo.
math is the worst subject...............is a subjective statement!!! some enjoy it more than sex!!!
@@humility-righteous-giving Is that why Isaac Newton never married or had children?
@@humility-righteous-giving Not so sure about that -- my son and DIL are both math professors at Duke and they have 3 kids...
One of my bridge partners in college (12970's) was Dr. Walter Leighton, Professor Emeritus of math at Mizzou. He was one of those mathematicians who were recruited by the War Department to study all sorts of problems including logistics, air to air aiming of machine guns, avoiding U boats, etc. This research led to the field of study called "Operations Research".
There was a similar problem for British Intelligence during WWII: the V-1 flying bombs were beginning to arrive in Britain, with the earliest ones falling within the large area of the City of London.
Mathematicians deduced after about twenty bombs that the aiming point was Tower Bridge in the centre of London.
The scientists on hand for the work suggested reporting (in international news) the bombs that landed in London, but give the time and date as for a bomb that had overshot into North London.
Soon, the Germans began to reduce the average range of the bombs.
This life-saving idea was opposed by political animals who took exception to 'people in the farmlands of the County of Kent south of London being killed when they would not have been otherwise'.
It was gently pointed out that bombs in the suburbs of London had killed two to three people on average and wrecked three or more houses, while a bomb in a field in Kent killed about one hundredth of a person and almost always damaged grass and some trees.
They also moved the anti-aircraft defences of London to the South coast, so that AA-damaged bombs fell in the sea or on fields, rather than London as before.
The same mis-reporting trick caused the later V-2 rockets the same problem.
The AA guns were moved to the coast because they began using proximity fuses rather than timed fuses. Untriggered proximity fused shells would land in the sea rather than on Kent. It also allowed intercepting fighters operate inland behind the"Diver Belt" safe from AA fire
Arguably an even more clever deduction than the subject matter
An interesting bit of history was the French couldn't figure out how the Germans were adjusting fire during the shelling of Paris. They searched the city of Paris for the forward observer. They never found him because he didn't exist. The Germans just waited for the newspapers to be delivered to neutral Switzerland and then wired the corrections to Germany.
A victory of education over the "common sense" of armouring the damaged bits.
Also the actress Hedy Lamarr was a bit of a mathematician and developed frequency hopping radio signals to help make radio jamming more difficult. This technology is still used in WiFi.
This is true I remember studying this.
Hedy's idea, and to add to it, she collaborated with Georges Antheil who helped her develop the concept. Hedy--not Hedley--was more than just a pretty face!
@@jessfrankel5212 Love the Blazing saddles reference.
Hedy's "frequency hopping" was an attempt at controlling torpedo's warheads but was never implemented in WW Twice
The earliest use of it, as far as I know, was in the 60's with the man-pack radio. This was a tactical radio that transmitted 1/10 of a dB above background noise, had a VERY directional Sloped wire antenna, and used a random number generator linked to a satellite to hop frequencies. It simply could not be detected. (the satellite was used only to establish timing synchronization)
One of my college professors invented this radio.
Now Freq. hopping is used in cell phones.
@@scotte2815 I think the Navy finally adopted aspects of this technology in the 1960's, and then, as you mentioned a backpack radio setup. (I'll have to check on those sources). But the basic principal of frequency hopping has stood the test of time. What got me was that Ms. Lamarr wasn't even trained in mathematics, but she had a curious, inventive mind, and maybe that trumps learning in some cases.
Great video. I learned about this when I was trained as a Six Sigma black belt at Ford Motor Company. We actually discovered several black belt projects that were treating successes as if they were failures.
Hi James, I was a fellow Six Sigma black belt too ! Four years of products with improvements !
Another cool story of WW2 maths is this: when the allies captured/destroyed a german tank, they often took it for examination... simebody started collecting the serial number of some parts in those tanks, and based om those numbers they were able to predict the total german tank production... with far better results than the spies/intelligence sources.
It's quite advanced statistics, but check it out. It's called German Tank Problem
Since Americans didn't fight alone he presumably also saved the lives of many other nationals.
If this secret information was shared with other nations, it may have.
According Richard Feynman, RAF Bomber Command ignored similar conclusions reached by a group he was in. It took careful analysis to realize there was survivor bias going on both by the analysts but also by the command.
@@washingtonradio Until an aircraft damaged by Schräge Musik returned from a raid, the RAF had no idea any of its planes were killed this way.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad
G'day,
Ah, that is not true.
NO Aircraft hit by Schragemusik made it back to tell the tale.
The RAF & USAAC discovered that Schragemusik was a thing, only after Adolf shot himself and Doenitz surrendered ; and then the Nachtjagdfliegeren revealed that which they had successfully previously kept Top Secret.
Not a lot of German Nightfighter Crews ever fininished up parachuting or crashing into captivity, to be interrogated and have their Aeroplanes examined - because Hitler prohibited them from flying Night Intruder missions (on the theory that Allied Aircraft shot down over Allied Territory had no effect on German Civilian Morale - so the NachtJagdwaffe was restricted to operating over their own home ground.
Thus..., no Allied Aeroplanes ever made it home - after they'd heard the sounds of German Jazz Tunes, coming up through the floor of their Hairygoplane, fired from directly below.
The drill was to formate carefully and aim for the Fueltanks in the Wing Centre Sections, between the Fuselage and one of the inner Engines.
Blowing out and lighting up a Wing Tank and wrecking an Engine while shredding the Wingspars was fairly sure to kill the Bomber - while simultaneously keeping the Nachtjagdgliegeren safe from any possibility of their Cannon-fire detonating the Bombload...
Perfect Tactics & Equipment, "airtight" Security..., and still ; they Lost the war, because they were fighting for a silly selfish Megalomaniac.
Such was their CHOICE.
Such is life.
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot If you read as much as I do, for as long as I have, you too will eventually see the photo of RAF personnel inspecting the aircraft in question.
Its wings were perforated at an angle corresponding to that of the attacking guns. Sorry I can't provide a link for you . . .
Abraham Wald was indeed a brilliant statistician. His methods of sequential analysis form the basis for modern clinical trials.
Before World War Two there was a bias against anti-aircraft artillery fire calling it "ineffective" in American bomber circles. The Norden bombsight was most effective at 15,000 altitude--and that turned out to be the most effective altitude for heavy anti-aircraft cannon fire. Some of the glitches in aircraft design were due to deliberate blindness.
This was an excellent explanation of survivor's bias. Sometimes it takes a genius to break free from groupthink. Thanks.
Yea, but lower then that brings you into the range of medium altitude AA guns, then you've got even more people shooting at you.
That was the whole idea of high altitude bombing, only the enemies biggest guns could shoot at you and not practically everything he has.
The biggest reason the USAAF lost so many bombers early on was the "Bomber Mafia's" refusal to allow escort fighter's to use drop tanks to escort the bombers all the way to the targets because they wanted to prove their concept that the bombers could fight their way to the targets and back unescorted, the common narrative that the fighter's in theater at the time didn't have the range to escort the bombers is a lie cooked up by the Bomber Mafia to cover their asses over the heavy losses early on so they wouldn't get drug in front of a Congressional inquiry about why they wouldn't allow the fighter's to escort them, every P47 in theater at the time of the Schweinfert and Regensburg raids had al least the ability to use the British made pressed paper tanks with some fighter groups like the 56th FG already having gotten the P47D-15 which had the ability to use the US made all metal pressurized drop tanks, it was that configuration that was used by P47's to escort bombers over Berlin before P51's were doing it.
@@dukecraig2402 Absolutely spot on!!..It's well known to the Cognizant that the Bomber Mafia Putas were responsible for thousands of unnecessary Bomber Crews killed due to their megalomaniacal desire to validate unescorted daylight raids to Germany.
The rest We know.🤬
@@4vepvik781
Yea, but like every other concept I suppose there's only one way to find out whether or not it'll work.
They were so sure of it that all fighter's were initially designed without provisions to mount drop tanks, Lt Kelsey, the guy in charge of aircraft development for the Army worked behind the scenes before the US got in the war to make sure that by the time it got in it the production models would be able to mount them.
And the P47N, contrary to popular belief, was not designed specifically for the Pacific, early on Republic saw the need for increased range in the P47 because of the Bomber Mafia's refusal to allow the use of drop tanks and went to work on wet wings for it, but once the Generals relented and allowed the use of drop tanks the P47 could go wherever it needed to gobin Europe and the US Army saddled Republic with developing variant's that wound up not being produced anyways so it slowed the development of the wet wings to where by the time they were done victory in Europe was a foregone conclusion, so it was decided they'd be sent to the Pacific where their tremendous range would best be suited, but contrary to popular belief they were originally intended by Republic to be used in Europe, not the Pacific.
If they'd have been developed as early as they could have they'd have had a lower alphabetic designation than N, perhaps they'd have been the beginning of the D series, who knows.
@@4vepvik781 is
@@dukecraig2402 p-38 s had incredible range and were not used as escorts....
My middle school science teacher was Charles B. Leighton navigator on the Memphis Bell. He developed a system of blocking German radar during these bombing raids. Great teacher and patriot!
There is another story where mathematicians calculated how Planes could avoid Flak by predicting where gunners would normally aim their artillery, based on the normal speed and flight path of approaching bombers, then fly in a Zig Zag pattern to avoid being shot at
I think there's an old training video about that somewhere on TH-cam.
I recently saw something about sending a decoy (it was a real plane) to draw the fire while the rest used a different approach.
Yea bu you can't do that during the bomb run, and as anyone will tell you who flew on those bombers "The flak is always the thickest right over the target"
@@dukecraig2402 above the target, Yes definitely - But the method reduced losses en route to the target
@@leadsolo2751
But that's where most loses were due to enemy fighter's.
The reason that the bomber loses were so heavy early in the war is because of the "Bomber Mafia" Generals refusal to allow the fighter's to use drop tanks because they wanted to prove their concept that the bombers could fight their way to the targets and back unescorted, then when those early raids turned out to have such heavy losses the Bomber Mafia Generals started the lie that the fighter's in theater at the time didn't have the range to escort the bombers all the way to the targets so they wouldn't get drug in front of a Congressional Inquiry over the bombers being unescorted, and that's a false narrative that's repeated to this day by hack aviation writer's who don't bother to do the research.
The fact is every single P47 in theater at the time had at least the ability to use the British made pressed paper drop tanks that could have taken them there, even worse some units like the 56th Fighter Group was already flying the P47D-15 four months before the Schweinfert/Regensburg raids, they had the under wing pylons that could use the US made all metal pressurized drop tanks, that's the configuration that was used by P47's to escort bombers over Berlin before P51's were doing it.
Then late in the war to cement their lie about the fighter ranges the Bomber Mafia Generals came up with a falsified report on fighter ranges that purposely short changed the P47 on it's actual range, that's another source of reference material that WW2 aviation writer's use to continue the false narrative that the fighter's in Europe at the time lacked the range to escort the bombers all the way to those early targets.
It remains to this day one of the biggest and least known cover up's in US military history, the Bomber Mafia Generals did such a good job of covering their asses that to this day people who are supposed to be authorities on the subject still believe their lie.
Sampling is always more important than it seems.
Armoring the plane engines in the context of those many manned bombers seems obvious once you've seen this. Fascinating that it took a brilliant mathematician serving the air force to reach that most cost-effective solution.
The fact that those others couldn't see this obvious answer, should have been grounds for demotion.
3:46 "...Wald's secretaries had to snatch his notes and essays out of his hands as soon as he was finished writing them, because he didn't have the proper security clearance to read his own work" ~~~~~ 🤣🤣🤣TOO 🤣🤣🤣FUNNY 🤣🤣🤣
My Dad, a mathematician, an algebraist, contributed to the war with gun projectile path estimation, I believe, from the scant info he gave us. RIP. Our parents and grandparents really had it tough from 1930 to 1945. Nothing approaching our problems today. And a shout out to FDR, god bless him.
...trust me, your did didn't come up with that. He might have come up with his own version, but if you look into the history of gunnery you'll find that "projectile path estimation" was done back in the 14th century with the advent of artillery. Probably back in the days of catapults and other mechanical launching devices. Wow, let's Google that too:
Who discovered the equations for projectile motion?
Galileo's
Information sheet: Galileo's projectile model
Through these experiments, Galileo established that the motion of a projectile is a combination of constant horizontal velocity and vertical motion, in which the projectile accelerates at a rate of 9.8 m s-2.
Who first calculated planetary orbits and proved that the Earth was not the center of the solar system, not to mention the universe? Probably the guy who was first put to the stake for heresy for saying that to the wrong person.
FDR was in a wheelchair like Professor X and he implemented socialism in the Republic so he MUST be a good guy, that 'infamy' speech was pretty cool though.
@@touristguy87 Read the comment again. Nowhere did it say his Dad discovered or invented anything.
Mike's dad was probably one of many working on these problems during WWII. 20th century ballistics was greatly refined compared to previous calculations or the simple equation that I learned in geometry class. (My geometry teacher taught artillery at Fort Know during WWII.) Willis Lee completely revised the USN's ballistics table in the 1920's and 30's greatly improving them. If you want precision you need to calculate for many factors such as temperature of the air and the ammunition, barometric pressure, wear on the gun barrel, aerodynamics of the shell, motion of the target, etc. A great deal of ballistics research was done during WWII. The first US computers were built at Aberdeen Proving Grounds during the war to work on these problems.
We used to laugh at American soldiers wearing their flack jackets and helmets at 105°. We stayed relatively cool in our non bullet proof aertex shirts. I wonder who was more effective in combat.
I wonder who was more likely to survive and tell this story… 🤔
Don't forget to sit on your helmet when riding in a helicopter in a combat zone.
It turns out the ones wearing the Aertex shirts as they remained combat effective for a longer duration. Research coming out of Afghanistan shows that the large amounts of PPE were just as bad as not wearing any.
@@andrewweninger1059 Besides, all the bullet holes provide ventilation.
My experience was the soldiers with the Aertex shirts, and even fancier gear, were often in the LEAST hazardous roles within the combat zone.
Not to diminish the service, everyone has their job and as this video shows all jobs contribute, but its a strange thing the regular soldiers put into the line of fire get the least say in their uniform and equipment.
Abraham Wald also contributed greatly to our understanding of human decision making. His sequential probability ratio test laid the foundation for the drift diffusion model, the most important mathematical model of decision making in neuroscience and psychology research today.
What an influential dude!
Excellent history about Mr. Wald which is a good reminder that war waging is a science that relies a lot on lessons learned and professional advice. While fighting in the Middle East, we had several scientists (many former military service-members), analyzing the effectiveness of our weapons, the damage to our equipment, and looking at our casualties. The "Survivor's Bias" is a very important variable to consider when looking at battle-damaged equipment. Thank you for the upload. Ciao, L (Veteran)
Someone explained this research on mapping damage to Johnny von Neumann. He immediately told them that they were all wrong. They should map the planes that were shot down, not those that returned! This was of course not possible, but his point was clear.
I've often wondered how much impact this sort of operational research had on the generally high esteem in which scientists were held and respect for scientific learning and conclusions that seemingly existed during the 1950s and '60s.
Many upper and mid-level commanders would have witnessed first hand the fruits of having scientists and statisticians study and offer useful solutions to problems they were encountering on the battlefield. In addition to the insights they were able to offer on the topic of this video, they were able to offer useful advice on problems as varied as the optimal size of a convoy, the best way to find and kill U-boats, the relative effectiveness of different artillery bombardment strategies and so on.
Once their war service was over, most of those commanders would have gone into the private sector. Since they were officers, many would have been tapped for management positions. When they encountered problems in operating what ever business they were involved in, they would have known they could turn to the scientific community to help them find useful answers.
Today, it seems that neither scientists nor their findings are very highly regarded by society.
too many studies get Biased funding - please the funders
@@davidm.4670 That can be sorted through relatively easily.
Honest Scientists
Awesome! A hero of WW2 that wouldn't normally get the recognition, except for the excellent work of Mr. "TJ3"! Thanks!
A great tribute to a man who knew how to think outside the box. He saved hundreds if not thousands of lives.
I used to put my G I JOE figure (12 inch not the little ones) in a Tonka Jeep and pull it behind my bicycle. I’d turn sharply at high speed causing the Jeep to skid and flip over multiple times. We’d then figure out based on Joe’s position and the distance from the Jeep whether he could have “theoretically” survived the crash.
He never did.
That’s science for you!
Failure is more informative than success. Failures are precious. This is why we must value pioneering efforts regardless of their outcome.
When I studied Psychology at University, statistical analysis was a BIG part of the course, since it was essential in examining the significance of experimental results. In 2nd year stats, we were taught about this very story (Abraham Wald and the survivorship bias). I've brought this topic up in a number of relevant discussions, but always had to refer people back to journals, or articles discussing Wald and his WWII accomplishments. I'm really glad that there's now a mini-documentary style info-vid about this topic. It'll make it easier if I have to bring this up again in the future.
Thanks TJ3.
Thx for covering it! My lecturer mentioned this when studying probabilities
Math major here, we love simplicity and beauty in the abstract which lead to yet to be seen real world applications.
Read Fred Kaplan's “The Wizards of Armageddon” for the story of the RAND corporation and its group of experts like Wald many of whom did similar work in the war.
This was a great, well produced, and easy to follow video, about a smart, and heroic man.
It is sad that he and his wife died, not long after escaping nazi, evil atrocities, and him being such a help to the survival of so many air crewmen, and planes. He greatly deserves to be remembered. Thank you.
Mathematicians also developed 'Linear Programming' a tool to better allocate scarce resources during WW2.
In essence, you had an 'objective', then there were the 'constraints' the the purpose was to find the 'optimal solution'. Neat.
I learnt this at college back in 1978!
I believe that it was Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defence under who's leadership this particular mathematical tool was developed.
This is the simplex method. It was used to organise the Berlin airlift.
In engineering colleges it is taught as operations research in India.
Yeah, but then he went on to mandate that all services use the F-111 and implemented some really bone-headed mandates for combat troops in VietNam.
I like how you show his genius by pouring a bunch of math in the screen
Ah, so this renown amusing anecdote is really entirely sheer thruth, with a few extra twists thrown in! :)
Click and Clack of Car Talk (NPR) fame used this for one of their puzzlers on a Saturday program in around 1997
Thank you for bringing this information out, this man was a hero and I am so glad he was able to use his talent to fight against the nazi evil. I hope his name and example are well remembered.
Survivorship bias. This was the example given to us in my psychology class.
Its truly stunning to think how simple this principal is if your available sample is thought of as analogous to a negative image in photography. It's interesting too that his insight is an example of practical common sense that somewhat inaccurately is not normally associated with the abstract intelligence of academics like him.
This interests me. I have heard of this. I googled “Video of engineers trying to figure out where to reinforce World War II aircraft” to find the story again and your video was the first one that popped up.
This was the subject of a "Puzzler" offered by Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers, on NPR. What puzzles me is why it took a mathematician to figure it out.
A statistical mathematician would look at the data and see that there was only data from planes _not_ shot down, and would want to see the data from the planes that _were_ shot down in order to get a true picture.
A similar story is told of Douglas Bader, a British flying ace who flew both Hurricanes and Spitfires for the RAF in World War 2. He was shot down and captured in August 1941, before the US entered the war, but took part in many operations over France and in the Battle of Britain. One day the squadron he commanded was visited by a team of Air Ministry boffins who had worked out where best to place the limited armour available to the fighters. After finding out how they had gone about this task - by analysing damage reports, he is reported to have said something along the lines of "but these are the ones that made it back!".
I can't remember where I read this, but probably in the biography "Reach for the Sky". This was written ten years after the war, so may have been influenced by American experience if that was known to the author, Paul Brickhill. But the basic flaw involved in the survivor fallacy may well have been fairly obvious at the time to pilots actually involved in the fighting. Plus the boffins were arguing for a redistribution of the limited armour available. Pilots may well have had their own strong preferences based on the injuries they had encountered or most feared. So probably would want armour placed behind the pilot's head and under the seat.
If you're talking about mathematicians who saved lives, don't forget Alan Turing and his associates at Bletchley Park.
Turing has been overhyped. His colleagues found him difficult to deal with, and he wasn’t as effective as is sometimes claimed.
Bletchley Park did however play a crucial role in the war, mainly in code-breaking.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 You may have noticed I didn't simply mention Turing. But overhyped? He isn't simply remembered for his contribution to cracking an enigma code, but also for other contributions to mathematics/computing.
Fascinating video. (Put the armour where it doesn't get hit) Genius!😀
Thank you for sharing...the world owe alot for the mathematician who saved the alid air men... And my respect and tribute to him and his family.
I am an indian, sad to know his tragic death in our soil🥺😪. RIP
Love the fact that the Havoc was chosen as the bomber to use in the video.
I've not seen your channel before until now. I am one min and 6 seconds into it and am duly impressed with the introduction. Enough of that though, I'm going to finish the video and see what you got.
found this channel 3 minutes ago and i am already planning on watching every video
I watch most of your videos and enjoy your channel. A mathematician who had almost never had a job did single-handedly save the bombers in WWII. But this wasn’t him. Keep up the good work.
While a cool story, I am baffled that adding more armor around Engines and the Crew was lost on Military higher ups, that they needed a mathematician to explain it to them. It seems pretty common sense to protect the most vital areas of a plane.
I'm surprised they listened to him. When someone outside the professional clique gives advice that contradicts their prejudices, he is usually marginalized and ignored. "How many combat missions have you flown? None? Get out of here."
Gotten recommended two videos . Earned my subscription. Keep on 👍🏻
Germany's intellectual loss is the Allies gain.
I think how much of the anti-discrimination work is wasted by people making moral arguments against prejudices. It's a more effective argument to note the great inefficiency of prejudice. For instance, how much has it hindered the human race's development to dismiss women's intellectual abilities?
This is why you can spot a tyrant, by his attacks on education and intelligence in general.
Peoples that value intelligence and education are more effective peoples.
@@stevetheduck1425 Yep, politicians who publicly state that they love the uneducated are not to be trusted.
Much of the crazed Nazi anti-semitism ended up being a "brain drain", shooting their war effort in the foot.
something about this story has and will always be amazing to me
Great video. Thanks. And what a great contributor Walk was.
I had a professor in college who had the same problem as Wald. He was not allowed to read the papers he wrote. He also had to refer to drones as widgets since he was not allowed to use the word drone.
The US government paid for an expensive study on the chemistry of certain types of batteries used in missiles and electronic counter measures. Unfortunately the man who controlled access to the study couldn't be convinced that those of us who designed and built the batteries had a "need to know".
Nice work-- well-written and clearly delivered narration. Graphics were closely related to the content, and the flight simulations were as good as any archival film. Looking forward to your next one.
Anyone familiar with ww2 British genius and Nobel prize winner Patrick Blackett? He came to the same conclusion with RAF bombers and pioneered the field of Operational research and many other achievements. Check him out on Wikipedia!
A problem solving method known as Kepner Tregoe, was derived from this particular example. It is a way to simplify a problem, and not get lost in
Very good and informative. More than a few did their part behind the scenes, without whose insights and help things would have taken much longer and at greater cost.
You make very interesting videos. Keep up the great work!
Excellent and fascinating presentation. Ironic and very sad that Wald and his wife should not be able to live out their life to the full like those aviators that he helped save.
During WW2 operational research in the UK suggested that saving all the weight of defensive armament,turrets etc would make the bombers far safer as they'd be much faster,but the crews turned it down. Similarly the bombers that survived night bombing were often the ones that did not fire their guns. All that did was attract night fighters.
They also experimented with bombers modified to carry even more guns but that proved ineffective as well.
Very good video and most excellent narrating. I'm gonna subscribe.
Same effect as the introduction of helmets causing an instant major increase in head injuries when you look at wounded soldiers in the hospitals. You also need to account for all the dead soldiers with head wounds to get the full picture.
Brilliant, but; a very simple solution all at the same time.
Sometimes the most brilliant solution is the one that cuts through the ideas of others who only seek complex problems. Nature prefers simplicity.
To cut a long story short, the military didn't want to armour the areas with most damage. They knew that those areas where returning aircraft showed least damage were those that needed protecting - Wald's task was to work out from the few aircraft that returned with damage in those areas what would be the most cost-effective distribution of armour
so the fundamental narrative of the video is bs?
@@valinorean4816 It begins by repeating the urban myth that he was the one who pointed out that undamaged areas were the ones that needed armour - after that it gets back to reality and (rather too subtly) admits that the air force knew that already.
@@Nastyswimmer is there a source w/t such bs where I can read about this story?
I'm sure there is more to it than that but my first reaction is 'no shit, Sherlock'. Protect the engines, cockpit and fuel tanks eh? genius.
Ahh, yeah - but don't forget aircrew. Autopilots were not quite so clever back then.
You my friend have earned a subscriber
You have an excellent narrating voice and rhythm.
Thanks!
I'd like to see a video about Fritz Kolbe, who inspired the writing of the book A SPY AT THE HEART OF THE THIRD REICH
As the submariner's problem with the US torpedoes that wasn't fixed until 1943
Excellent video😊👍 I like his voice and narration
He repeats the same info to make the video longer and appear more erudite. Poor . . . !
@@EllieMaes-Grandad but the sense of the topic is there. You don't need to dig deeper and make the video less attractive and less interesting to the viewers. Like making a research paper, you don't need to use fancy and deep words cuz the reader will be less interested and can't understand the topic due to words that a average people cant understand. It just the same as what this video does.
@@triplejproductionscreation1057 I wish you were correct, but you're not.
Thanks for the underlying math and pyhsics.
What a paradox!!..This esteemed mathematician optimised where to place armour from where the Military could not perceive where to not obviously install it and then the Bomber Mafia deliberately inhibit adequate drop tanks for the P47 Escort Fighter and short change the P47s range by cooking up shortened radius of action of the aforementioned Fighter when the B24s/B17s were being cleaved from the air.
The Bomber Mafia then panicked n got the P51 Mustang into service spouting the superior range that the Thunderbolt already had but was impeded by the Bomber Mafia's perverse imperative to validate unescorted daylight raids!!
What else have they covered up n continue to cover up!!??
RIP to all those volunteers who stepped forward.
you're ranting
Nuts. You're simply nuts. How do people come up with this shit? Bomber mafia??
@@PDZ1122 🤣🤣The truth hurts doesn't it n the delusion continues to this day
@@PDZ1122 And then on top of all the bespoke armour plating allocation,the high command upped the the mission quota from 25 to 30!!.😳
@@4vepvik781 I swear to god that should be known as the boomer emoji.
VERY interesting subject matter on your channel. Bravo.
This reminds me of a story from the 1st World War: When the British Army suffered too heavy casualties from head wounds, they've decided to issue their troops protective helmets.
Lo and behold, the number of head wounds jumped up a whole lot.
The general staff were bemused, couldn't understand it. Eventually, they concluded that with their heads protected with the helmets, the soldiers were taking more risks and therefore getting wounded more often.
They were about to recall all the helmets and send the soldiers to battle unprotected once again, when somebody grew a brain and realized the number of head wounds has increased, because, previously, those head wounds would have been fatal, therefore placing these casualties under the count of dead, period. With the helmets, those injuries became survivable, thus increasing the statistics for head wounds - but decreasing the numbers of soldiers killed. Which meant that the helmets were, in fact, achieving their purpose - unless the general staff actually preferred dead soldiers?
So the helmets stayed...
An interesting reply and having read of the case on a "'more serious" site, I'll support the argument. But I don't see the need for the snarky comment about the General Staff (note the capitalisation) preferring dead soldiers. Just like the USAAC/USAAF staff, they weren't previously aware of the implications of survivorship bias. Just like you don't seem to be aware of the benefit of 20/20 hindsight ...
@@DraftySatyr
1. The snarky comment about the British Army's General Staff is a covert reference to their public perception as a bunch of idiots determined to get all their soldiers killed and doing their outmost to achieve that goal. Something about "lions being lead by donkeys".
2. The situation isn't exactly the same. In the case of the bombers, the USAAF staff didn't have any statistics on the damage done to the downed airplanes, so they went with the only data they did have and failed to take survivorship bias into account; Whereas the British Army staff did have all the data they needed: the statistics on the reduced number of casualties, and the statistics on the rising number of survivable head injuries. They failed to check it and compare it before and after in both columns, only in one - the head injuries.
3. I'll be interested to know which "more serious site" you used to fact check me.
Thanks.
Thank you!
Love your channel!
Enjoyed the presentation.
In early war, Luftwaffe fighters were mainly using the MG17 7,92-mm machine gun, and were taught where to aim on aircraft as to achieve maximum effect: cockpit, engines, fuel tanks etc. Therefore it made sense to armor those places.
As the war progressed, the Germans increasingly relied on "Minengeschoss" high explosive 20-mm and later 30-mm shells, that would simply smash the airplane's structure, wherever it hit. This also might have a contribution to this, rather than just the Genius mathematician. Sorry to spoil the party.
Great story. Good work!
Nicely done.
Well done; very informative.
Mathematicians also worked out manoeuvres for bombers, in range of AA fire, to confuse gunners
This is akin to one reason why the use of shrapnel shells was discontinued in favor of conventional HE. While intuitively it'd seem more effective as an antipersonnel shell, in fact, interviews with captured German surgeons revealed that they seldom removed shrapnel balls from wounded soldiers; British Army surgeons confirmed this for instances when it was known the Germans were likewise using shrapnel. The explanation was that the fuzing wasn't precise enough, that is, many shells didn't explode several feet above the ground as intended, but upon contact, so the shrapnel pieces simply buried in the earth. Also, the shells had been tested with wooden mockups of soldiers; but in fact, where they did hit men; the balls simply didn't penetrate but rather caused bruises and sometimes broken bones, as the balls were quite able to penetrate wood planks but not human flesh. This problem was somewhat alleviated in WWII by the US Army with the adoption of the proximity fuze, which made it possible to more reliably detonate above the target to get a more deadly effect.
Other than the fact that the Navy did not fly B-17's, fascinating. Great graphics, too.
Wrong aircraft, *and* incorrect information.
The aircraft depicted in the video are the Douglas A-20 Boston / Havoc, not B-17s which have *four* engines. The Navy flew the Boeing PB-1 and PB-1W which were B-17Gs in all but name. "Ton of Fun" shouldn't have a glazed nose.and shouldn't constitute an entire flight 4:26.
The aircraft that Wald actually studied seems to be lost to us. There are no sketches to go along with his analysis despite that an internet image search would suggest that were. The sketches one finds are speculative reconstructions - the one at 6:47 is as good as anyone else's.
@@Hi11is Thanks for the correction!
That America did not use the British Mosquito bomber concept was just borderline criminal.
It's this kind of thing that makes me proud to be doing A-levels.
There are a few types of match students.
1 doesnt see the purpose and doesnt care .
2 .One doesnt care but understands and uses it sporadicly .
3 And the one that asks the question where can i use this equation or formula for.
1:10 That last guy in the Panzer 1 looks like he's wearing an Italian hat.
That was excellent, thank you
His logic led to the B-17-G variant. His thinking in combination of bombing reports convinced the USAAF and Boeing that a chin turret was an essential up-grade for the B-17-F. (The B-24 which had a chin turret had very substantially different damage statistics.) PDQ the G variant utterly dominated the 8th Air Force fleet. The Luftwaffe could no longer get away with their 'javelin' attack -- "twelve o'clock high" to the USAAF aircrews.
Kinda like a "duuuuhhh" when you consider the front turret on the B-24J was due to an RAF upgrade specification from their EXPERIENCE with plain glazed nose the D model.
The naïve USAAF doctrine had it that two aircraft approaching each other head-on at such speeds would negate the practical use of frontal protection.
Both the Luftwaffe and later the Japanese air forces figured that one out for the B-29's, that the frontal pilot crew area was the main "soft spot" in both of Boeing's big bombers.
Salute to this mathematician
Even thought i hate the subject
Now i understand without math we can't live