GDG- Arty Anti-personnel Effectiveness

[Batrinque at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/2/06 11:24:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
ccj at infionline.net writes:

> Frankly, I can't answer some of them, because I 
> doubt they can be answered, and even if they could, I doubt they could be 
> answered to your satisfaction.  

All the more the reason to treat the medical data cautiously.  Even those of 
us who have taken the trouble to study the data.

There is a story, possibly apocryphal, from WW2.  The US Army Air Force 
initiated a careful statistical study of the location of antiaircraft damage on all 
airplanes returning from bombing raids over German-occuppied Europe.  Careful 
analysis was made to determine which parts of planes suffered the most 
frequent hits, and it was then decided to add extra armor to those locations.   
Until someone pointed out that they were doing it backwards.  The data was for 
damage to planes that had made it home.  The most frequently damaged locations on 
the planes were actually those that could most readily withstand damage and 
had the least need for additional armor.  Where the extra armor would be most 
useful would be in those locations with few or no recorded damage, because 
planes hit in those spots did not often make it home to be included in the study.  
With artillery casualties in the CW, it might be useful to at least wonder if 
the data is really representative of the whole situation or whether it might 
be skewed because of various factors.


Bruce Trinque
Amston, CT