9 ms·

> Although outnumbered, the Taiwanese pilots achieved a positive kill-to-loss ratio. That's not that impressive, even 1:1000 kills:losses is a positive ratio.

> Although outnumbered, the Taiwanese pilots achieved a positive kill-to-loss ratio. That's not that impressive, even 1:1000 kills:losses is a positive ratio. I assume they mean a ratio > 1. And: this is a pretty incredible story. If you don't bother reading it all (it's not that long), at least read this bit: > Exploiting thick fog and careless guards, Manfred Ramminger – a KGB-agent in West Germany – entered Neuburg air base during the evening of Oct. 22, 1967. Together with his Polish driver Josef Linowski and German F-104 Starfighter pilot Wolf-Diethard Knoppe, he stole an operational AIM-9 [sidewinder missile] from the local ammunition depot and transported it down the entire runway on a wheelbarrow to his Mercedes sedan, parked outside the base. > The 2.9-meter-long missile proved unwieldy. Ramminger broke the rear window and covered the protruding part with a carpet. In order not to attract attention of the police, he then marked the protrusion with a piece of red cloth, as required by law.

desdiv 8y ago
Different fields have different definitions for the same terms. In the context of kill-to-loss ratios, the military defines a positive ratio as > 1.
close04 8y ago
The use of ratio can be a bit misleading. But in this context positive ratio means positive difference between kills and losses. A 1:1000 ratio for example is mathematically positive but would translate to 1 - 1000 = -999. Negative "ratio".
- tomc1985 8y ago
  The article is full of technical terms for warfighting. It's only misleading in the sense that technical writing is sometimes misleading to outsiders.
  - close04 8y ago
    You're right, that's what I wanted to say with "misleading", using a less common meaning in this context.
ptero 8y ago
This is indeed a great story, which gives again two different views on security. East of the iron curtain everything, even marginally secret, was very carefully controlled, accounted for and losing a single not-too-secret page meant an automatic 10-year labor camp term. West of it, control was much looser and many more secrets leaked out. However, technology was also developed much faster -- you need serious encouragement to convince a good engineer to work under East's penalties and restrictions on personal life if other interesting work is available. East put major resources of the state on stealing technology not by choice -- it had few other options to avoid military tech obsolescence. So leakage and all, West's system worked pretty well. My 2c.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ransom1538 8y ago
  Yes. But put ON your tin foil hat for a second. I think the West wanted the missile to be taken. Handing over old missile technology is pretty ingenious. If your adversary actually pulls it off and copies it, they will have a 5 year old missile. Having an old missile on your warplane, while flying against the latest tech was a death sentence. This was different than say, nuclear technology, where having a 5 year old model was still extremely dangerous. Also, being handed old tech sucks up all your engineering resources. An analogy would be reading vs writing code. Reading code is x10 more difficult, fraught with misconceptions and inability to expand the tech.
  - scruffyherder 8y ago
    And it keeps the arms race in motion.
  - afiori 8y ago
    It could have been 10 years old even, the point is that they can use it to build better missiles. This can happen both because their missile were terrible or because now they can copy the solutions you used 5 (or 10) years ago. unless that particular model was a certified crappy missile that could not work in any way and that was a plot the have them lose time there is no reason to give them an old missile.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Similar to the wheelbarrow, I've always wondered why a new nuclear country would need ballistic missiles to deliver a threat - a parcel service, or a Volkswagen driving across the border would be slower but who's in a hurry?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Substantially harder to trace, too. A missile leaves a pretty obvious trail; a container on a ship carrying thousands of them in NYC's harbor is going to be harder to attribute to an attacker.
  - afiori 8y ago
    If the US bombs you and rises strong check on naval traffic and frontiers it is not going to be easy. Overall missiles protect from other missiles.
  - petre 8y ago
    What's the strategic advantage of blowing up the NYC harbour? Most probably none.
    - blattimwind 8y ago
      The strategic advantage of blowing up NYC harbour is getting bombed back in time before stone tools where a thing.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        That's why you'd do it in this fashion. A nuke in a random container on a ship filled with thousands of them, owned by a bunch of shell companies, combined with the fact that the evidence gets blown up in the process... Quite a bit harder to track to a source than "hey look a rocket launched from Iran".
        zaroth 8y ago

desdiv 8y ago

Different fields have different definitions for the same terms. In the context of kill-to-loss ratios, the military defines a positive ratio as > 1.

close04 8y ago

The use of ratio can be a bit misleading. But in this context positive ratio means positive difference between kills and losses. A 1:1000 ratio for example is mathematically positive but would translate to 1 - 1000 = -999. Negative "ratio".

tomc1985 8y ago
The article is full of technical terms for warfighting. It's only misleading in the sense that technical writing is sometimes misleading to outsiders.
- close04 8y ago
  You're right, that's what I wanted to say with "misleading", using a less common meaning in this context.

ptero 8y ago

This is indeed a great story, which gives again two different views on security. East of the iron curtain everything, even marginally secret, was very carefully controlled, accounted for and losing a single not-too-secret page meant an automatic 10-year labor camp term. West of it, control was much looser and many more secrets leaked out. However, technology was also developed much faster -- you need serious encouragement to convince a good engineer to work under East's penalties and restrictions on personal life if other interesting work is available. East put major resources of the state on stealing technology not by choice -- it had few other options to avoid military tech obsolescence. So leakage and all, West's system worked pretty well. My 2c.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ransom1538 8y ago
Yes. But put ON your tin foil hat for a second. I think the West wanted the missile to be taken. Handing over old missile technology is pretty ingenious. If your adversary actually pulls it off and copies it, they will have a 5 year old missile. Having an old missile on your warplane, while flying against the latest tech was a death sentence. This was different than say, nuclear technology, where having a 5 year old model was still extremely dangerous. Also, being handed old tech sucks up all your engineering resources. An analogy would be reading vs writing code. Reading code is x10 more difficult, fraught with misconceptions and inability to expand the tech.
- scruffyherder 8y ago
  And it keeps the arms race in motion.
- afiori 8y ago
  It could have been 10 years old even, the point is that they can use it to build better missiles. This can happen both because their missile were terrible or because now they can copy the solutions you used 5 (or 10) years ago. unless that particular model was a certified crappy missile that could not work in any way and that was a plot the have them lose time there is no reason to give them an old missile.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Similar to the wheelbarrow, I've always wondered why a new nuclear country would need ballistic missiles to deliver a threat - a parcel service, or a Volkswagen driving across the border would be slower but who's in a hurry?

ceejayoz 8y ago
Substantially harder to trace, too. A missile leaves a pretty obvious trail; a container on a ship carrying thousands of them in NYC's harbor is going to be harder to attribute to an attacker.
- afiori 8y ago
  If the US bombs you and rises strong check on naval traffic and frontiers it is not going to be easy. Overall missiles protect from other missiles.
- petre 8y ago
  What's the strategic advantage of blowing up the NYC harbour? Most probably none.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    The strategic advantage of blowing up NYC harbour is getting bombed back in time before stone tools where a thing.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      That's why you'd do it in this fashion. A nuke in a random container on a ship filled with thousands of them, owned by a bunch of shell companies, combined with the fact that the evidence gets blown up in the process... Quite a bit harder to track to a source than "hey look a rocket launched from Iran".
      - zaroth 8y ago