Shortround6
Major General
"I thought accuracy was basically how close you hit to where you actually intended to hit?"
Accuracy is a much abused or overworked word and needs to taken in context.
How close you come to where you actually intend to hit might be called practical accuracy. It is dependent on the mechanical accuracy of the weapon/weapon system as in rifle bullet and rifle or the consistent fall of a an aircraft bomb. However you then need figure in the accuracy (or limits) of the sighting system plus the effects of environment as in differences due to temperature or cross winds/headwinds or visibility. For moving platforms (aircraft/ships/tanks etc) the steadiness of the platform comes into consideration and then you finally get to the human error or human differences.
If somebody quotes test range "accuracy" what they may be measuring is the mechanical accuracy of the weapon or system with the fewest variables. It gives the best numbers but will probably never be equaled in the field. Measuring results in the field throws everything together and while useful from a planning standpoint has so many variables that trying to isolate any one factor to work on it for improvement is very difficult.
For instance if you are getting a result of a CEP error of xxx when bombing from 20,000ft on city YYY do you need a better bomb sight?, or better weather forecasting (wind direction/speed at different altitudes)?. a steadier bomber ( less yawing/oscillating)? or maybe you need more quality control on the tail fins on the bombs (better uniformity/fewer dents/dings) so the bombs actually fall closer to each other.![Smile :) :)]()
Or maybe you need to put a better head rest on the bomb sight so the bomb aimers in different planes have a more consistent eye position when looking through the sight if individual bombing?
For proper analysis you need a combination of the two. WHY isn't performance in the field coming close to test results?
Unless you are sure that various sources are comparing the same thing and doing it the same way (same conditions) things can get very confusing very quickly.
Accuracy is a much abused or overworked word and needs to taken in context.
How close you come to where you actually intend to hit might be called practical accuracy. It is dependent on the mechanical accuracy of the weapon/weapon system as in rifle bullet and rifle or the consistent fall of a an aircraft bomb. However you then need figure in the accuracy (or limits) of the sighting system plus the effects of environment as in differences due to temperature or cross winds/headwinds or visibility. For moving platforms (aircraft/ships/tanks etc) the steadiness of the platform comes into consideration and then you finally get to the human error or human differences.
If somebody quotes test range "accuracy" what they may be measuring is the mechanical accuracy of the weapon or system with the fewest variables. It gives the best numbers but will probably never be equaled in the field. Measuring results in the field throws everything together and while useful from a planning standpoint has so many variables that trying to isolate any one factor to work on it for improvement is very difficult.
For instance if you are getting a result of a CEP error of xxx when bombing from 20,000ft on city YYY do you need a better bomb sight?, or better weather forecasting (wind direction/speed at different altitudes)?. a steadier bomber ( less yawing/oscillating)? or maybe you need more quality control on the tail fins on the bombs (better uniformity/fewer dents/dings) so the bombs actually fall closer to each other.
Or maybe you need to put a better head rest on the bomb sight so the bomb aimers in different planes have a more consistent eye position when looking through the sight if individual bombing?
For proper analysis you need a combination of the two. WHY isn't performance in the field coming close to test results?
Unless you are sure that various sources are comparing the same thing and doing it the same way (same conditions) things can get very confusing very quickly.