The Difference Between Test and Reality....

[M.Becker]

Hey! Ours (occasionally) worked…

Yes, but fortunately they didn't work so well during the Hunt for the Bismarck. Neither did FAA ship recognition and that could have ended with two RN CA own goals and Bismarck safe in Brest.

A really lucky case of reality hitting you in the face.

[Nightwatch2]

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

Do we know what happened to the Bureau perps ??

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

It’s been awhile since I read about that. Drach has a video on the subject although I confess to not having watched it, yet.

What happened to the Bureau types that were responsible for the fiasco hasn’t been reported that I know of. I suspect that their further career opportunities were somewhat limited.

They might have gone to prepare the facilities to receive the Bureau types responsible for;

DDG-1000
LCS
FFG Constellation
CGX

And probably BBG-1 someday

[Nightwatch2]

Hey! Ours (occasionally) worked…

Yes, but fortunately they didn't work so well during the Hunt for the Bismarck. Neither did FAA ship recognition and that could have ended with two RN CA onw goals and Bismarck safe in Brest.

A really lucky case of reality hitting you in the face.

Those weren’t “ours”

I was referring to the notorious MK-14 in USN service.

Of which one IJN Admiral was quoted allegedly saying something along the lines of

“The Americans were having some trouble with their torpedoes”

[M.Becker]

You should have said: "Ours worked under some combination of circumstances."

Provided 2/3 of the problems had been identified. Or circumstances forced you to use it in a nominally suboptimal manner.

[kdahm]

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

Do we know what happened to the Bureau perps ??

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

The chief architect of the disaster, Admiral Ralph Waldo Christie, was promoted from BuOrd where he was responsible for the design of the torpedoes and exploders, up to ComSubDiv15 as a captain. Then he was supposed to go to in 1942 to Newport with a promotion to rear admiral to sort out torpedo problems, but was sidetracked to ComSub Operations Fremantle. He stayed there until Nov. 1944, maintaining that the Mark 6 exploder had no problems and resisting orders from Adm Lockwood to deactivate it. His next command was Puget Sound Shipyard. After the war, he was commander of naval forces in the Philippines, then retired in 1949 with a tombstone promotion. He died in 1987.

The problems were kept closely guarded, because it's very important data. Like the actual performance of EW outfits or the engagement envelopes of SAMs.

[Simon Darkshade]

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

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

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

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

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

THANKS!!!

Now I get it! Appreciate the background.

Kdahm is right on the money, with the extra little detail that it was the Australian captain (not coach), at that stage a chap named Greg Chappell; and the bowler he ordered/cajoled was his own younger brother, Trevor Chappell.

Trevor tried to persuade his brother not to do it, claiming he did not know how to do it, sensing the profoundly unsportsmanlike nature of what he was being asked to do.

That was to no avail, and he rolled the ball slowly along the ground to the NZ batsman, who theatrically blocked it and then hurled the ball away in disgust.

The fact it was underarm was one thing - to quote Wiki, which is accurate for once, it was up to then regarded as “archaic, uncompetitive, and not a bowling style that would ever be used seriously at even junior levels of the sport.”

The bigger factor was that it was so unsporting and dishonourable. Off the field, his elder brother Ian, who had retired and was commentating for television, was aghast and shouted out “No, Greg, no, you can't do that!!” The PM of NZ, Robert Muldoon, said it was "the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket" and “an act of true cowardice and I consider it appropriate that the Australian team were wearing yellow".

If the Japanese played cricket back in the day and had done that, then some administrator would have been politely suggesting to Chappell-san that he get out his best set of harakiri knives and start working on a poem.

To relate it back to military matters, we’d need an archaic practice that is so archaic that it hasn’t been covered by any subsequent treaties. That rules out chemical or biological warfare, or offering no quarter to Catholics and the Irish…it is a bit more difficult than I thought. Maybe having captured female troops be sent to a nunnery and made to take vows.

[JBG]

I watched that game live on TV. To say I was somewhat aghast is an understatement.

I can well imagine that then current members of the Wallabies went pale thinking of what revenge might be taken the next time they played the All Blacks, remembering that back in those days all sorts of things went on in rucks and mauls …..

Jonathan