• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where to add the armor?

Frank Apisa

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
14,102
Reaction score
3,919
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is an old one...and if you know the answer...hide it as a spoiler so that others can have a bit of fun:


During WWII, the British were losing lots of Spitfire fighters to German anti-aircraft gunfire. The knew the planes could fly with a bit more armor than they had, but they were not sure were the extra armor should go - so they commissioned an expert for advice.


The expert ordered that the bottoms of all returning Spitfires be photographed.

The photos showed the damage done by the shells.

He recommended adding additional armor.

Where?

And why?
 
This is an old one...and if you know the answer...hide it as a spoiler so that others can have a bit of fun:


During WWII, the British were losing lots of Spitfire fighters to German anti-aircraft gunfire. The knew the planes could fly with a bit more armor than they had, but they were not sure were the extra armor should go - so they commissioned an expert for advice.


The expert ordered that the bottoms of all returning Spitfires be photographed.

The photos showed the damage done by the shells.

He recommended adding additional armor.

Where?

And why?

On the belly so your balls don't shot off by ground fire? Just a guess.
 
On the belly so your balls don't shot off by ground fire? Just a guess.

Tell ya later...but your response made me cover my jewels with my hand!
 
Fuel tank seems like the obvious answer
 
Fuel tank seems like the obvious answer

Nope. There is a more logical answer.

This is not just a riddle...it actually happened. And the solution makes a great deal of sense.
 
On the belly so your balls don't shot off by ground fire? Just a guess.

Partly you'd want to cover the cockpit so that the pilot doesn't end up dead. A dead pilot can't fly back. As it relates to this "riddle",
you put the armor where there is no damage. The planes that made it back....made it back. So the damage they sustained was not enough to stop it from flying. It's the planes that took damage in other areas and didn't make it back, you can't analyze those damage patterns because those planes didn't make it back. So you assume that they must have been damaged differently than those that made it back.
 
Partly you'd want to cover the cockpit so that the pilot doesn't end up dead. A dead pilot can't fly back. As it relates to this "riddle",
you put the armor where there is no damage. The planes that made it back....made it back. So the damage they sustained was not enough to stop it from flying. It's the planes that took damage in other areas and didn't make it back, you can't analyze those damage patterns because those planes didn't make it back. So you assume that they must have been damaged differently than those that made it back.

Your spoiler hit the nail on the head.

Let it go for the rest of the day...so that others can enjoy it. But you get the gold star.

images
 
Partly you'd want to cover the cockpit so that the pilot doesn't end up dead. A dead pilot can't fly back. As it relates to this "riddle",
you put the armor where there is no damage. The planes that made it back....made it back. So the damage they sustained was not enough to stop it from flying. It's the planes that took damage in other areas and didn't make it back, you can't analyze those damage patterns because those planes didn't make it back. So you assume that they must have been damaged differently than those that made it back.

Ahhh....
 
Nope. There is a more logical answer.

This is not just a riddle...it actually happened. And the solution makes a great deal of sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_of_the_Battle_of_Britain

The main fuel tanks of the Spitfire, which were mounted in the fuselage forward of the cockpit, were better protected than that of the Hurricane; the lower tank was self-sealing and a panel of 3 mm thick aluminium, sufficient to deflect small calibre bullets, was wrapped externally over the top tanks
 


Yeah...but think about it...and consider the question again. (The spoiler in Akari's post gives the correct answer for those who want to give up.)

I'll comment on your response in a spoiler wrap now.

The Spitfire did have more armor than the Hurricane around the fuel tanks. The ones with damage in those areas made it back. The question for the expert was "Where do we put the EXTRA shielding?" The expert recommended putting the extra shielding on the areas with no damage...because apparently planes damaged in those areas were knocked out of the sky.
 
Yeah...but think about it...and consider the question again. (The spoiler in Akari's post gives the correct answer for those who want to give up.)

I'll comment on your response in a spoiler wrap now.

The Spitfire did have more armor than the Hurricane around the fuel tanks. The ones with damage in those areas made it back. The question for the expert was "Where do we put the EXTRA shielding?" The expert recommended putting the extra shielding on the areas with no damage...because apparently planes damaged in those areas were knocked out of the sky.

Could you please provide a source referring to the claim that this is what was done? As I understand it the extra armour was added to the fuel tanks during the battle of Britain in the mid 1940s after many Spitfire planes were hit in their fuel tanks causing the plane to go up in flames and burning the pilot alive. Since we're discussing real history here and more than a simple riddle, it'd be nice if you could simply refer to any documentation that shows this has indeed happened as you portray it.
 
Could you please provide a source referring to the claim that this is what was done? As I understand it the extra armour was added to the fuel tanks during the battle of Britain in the mid 1940s after many Spitfire planes were hit in their fuel tanks causing the plane to go up in flames and burning the pilot alive. Since we're discussing real history here and more than a simple riddle, it'd be nice if you could simply refer to any documentation that shows this has indeed happened as you portray it.


Apocalypse…your first response was:

“Fuel tank seems like the obvious answer”


To which I responded,


“Nope. There is a more logical answer. This is not just a riddle...it actually happened. And the solution makes a great deal of sense.


To which you responded with a Wikipedia link to:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircra...tle_of_Britain

The main fuel tanks of the Spitfire, which were mounted in the fuselage forward of the cockpit, were better protected than that of the Hurricane; the lower tank was self-sealing and a panel of 3 mm thick aluminium, sufficient to deflect small calibre bullets, was wrapped externally over the top tanks


To which I responded,


Yeah...but think about it...and consider the question again. (The spoiler in Akari's post gives the correct answer for those who want to give up.)

I'll comment on your response in a spoiler wrap now.

The Spitfire did have more armor than the Hurricane around the fuel tanks. The ones with damage in those areas made it back. The question for the expert was "Where do we put the EXTRA shielding?" The expert recommended putting the extra shielding on the areas with no damage...because apparently planes damaged in those areas were knocked out of the sky.


To which you have now responded:


Could you please provide a source referring to the claim that this is what was done? As I understand it the extra armour was added to the fuel tanks during the battle of Britain in the mid 1940s after many Spitfire planes were hit in their fuel tanks causing the plane to go up in flames and burning the pilot alive. Since we're discussing real history here and more than a simple riddle, it'd be nice if you could simply refer to any documentation that shows this has indeed happened as you portray it.



I thank you for your participation in the thread, Apocalypse.

It appears, however, you are much more interested in “being right” and showing that “someone on the Internet is wrong”…

…than just having a little fun with a counter-intuitive conundrum.

No problem.

You are right…and I am wrong.

Feel better?


For the others here…this “puzzle” is a variant of a situation that occurred in wartime England…and the expert involved was Abraham Wald. (You can Google him if you want.) The actual situation had to do with bombers rather than Spitfires…but the essentials of the puzzle are as portrayed.

Hope you had fun with it.

The correct answer was given by Akari earlier…and mostly just stresses that the counter-intuitive suggestion was to armor the places not hit…because apparently planes hit in those areas were able to make it back to base. But planes hit in other areas (the spots not hit) apparently suffered damage that was fatal.

Here are a couple more links talking about this particular counter-intuitive phenomena:

How A Story From World War II Shapes Facebook Today

The Counterintuitive World | Mother Jones

Selection bias example with WWII bombers


Hope you enjoyed it.
 
I thank you for your participation in the thread, Apocalypse.

It appears, however, you are much more interested in “being right” and showing that “someone on the Internet is wrong”…

…than just having a little fun with a counter-intuitive conundrum.

No problem.

No. Not really, no. No. :lol:
I was showing interest in the story that's all, no need to get angry just because someone is asking you a question mate.
 
No. Not really, no. No. :lol:
I was showing interest in the story that's all, no need to get angry just because someone is asking you a question mate.

Okay. I guess I was wrong again.

Damn...having a bad day. ;)
 
This does, on a lighter note, remind of the aircraft manufacturer whose plane always had its wing torn off at a certain speed and always at the same spot along the wing(s).

After having tried various remedies, employed a large influx of technicians from outside, made various alterations of design, material and shape, the problem would persist unaltered.

So, in exasperation, they finally offered a reward to anyone who could come up with an idea, no matter how far out of the box.

After having tried all suggestions to no avail, they were left with the final one which consisted of perforating the wing(s) exactly along the break point. Thinking how they might as well try that one too, lo, they met with success, the breakage occurring no longer.

Curious as to how this stroke of genius was arrived at they questioned the "applicant" who explained:

"I've been keeper in a public lavatory for 30 years and joined my experience there with what I also learned in the household, namely that nothing ever tears along the perforated line".
 
It looks like this interesting little riddle has been answered, and quite well. I admit I hadn't thought of the (now obvious) answer.

So, here's another:

A small town has two barbers. One's hair is always well groomed, but the other appears to have been the subject of a small child with scissors.

Which barber do you patronize? Why?
 
It looks like this interesting little riddle has been answered, and quite well. I admit I hadn't thought of the (now obvious) answer.

So, here's another:

A small town has two barbers. One's hair is always well groomed, but the other appears to have been the subject of a small child with scissors.

Which barber do you patronize? Why?



Go to the one with the bad haircut... assuming each barber barbers the other barber. :)
 
It looks like this interesting little riddle has been answered, and quite well. I admit I hadn't thought of the (now obvious) answer.

So, here's another:

A small town has two barbers. One's hair is always well groomed, but the other appears to have been the subject of a small child with scissors.

Which barber do you patronize? Why?
The one with the screwed up haircut.

The well groomed one obviously went to another barber and there being only two in town, it had to be the other one?

Who in turn cut his own and thus looked the way he did? Something the other one wasn't prone to do or he'd have looked exactly the same? Showing that his scraggled counterpart was indeed capable of administering a good haircut, if he could see what he was doing?
 
This is an old one...and if you know the answer...hide it as a spoiler so that others can have a bit of fun:


During WWII, the British were losing lots of Spitfire fighters to German anti-aircraft gunfire. The knew the planes could fly with a bit more armor than they had, but they were not sure were the extra armor should go - so they commissioned an expert for advice.


The expert ordered that the bottoms of all returning Spitfires be photographed.

The photos showed the damage done by the shells.

He recommended adding additional armor.

Where?

And why?

Since the spitfires that returned had been damaged on the bottom, but apparently survived that, the guy recommended armor being added to the other parts of the plane, since the bottom wasn't the problem?

What other areas I cannot guess! The sides? The tail?
 
Since the spitfires that returned had been damaged on the bottom, but apparently survived that, the guy recommended armor being added to the other parts of the plane, since the bottom wasn't the problem?

What other areas I cannot guess! The sides? The tail?

Essentially...any areas of the bottom that showed no damage. (The were working with damage from anti-aircraft guns, which always comes from beneath the plane.) The reasoning being that any planes hit in those areas were unable to make it back to base. As I said earlier...the actual situation had to do with bombers...not Spitfires. (When I first saw the problem presented, it used Spitfires, so I stuck with that.) Read the bottom of my post #13. It has links that may answer your question.
 
Back
Top Bottom