4 ms·

Minutes of a Meeting Held at Gear Ratio on Tuesday 13 June 78 [pdf]

35 points by akehrer 2y ago

gonzo 2y ago
A bit of background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamba_Pistol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamba_Pistol Link is from here: https://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-end-of-the-mamba-a-tale-of-manufacturing-incompetence/ https://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-end-of-the-mamba-a-tale...
- wolfgang42 2y ago
  The Forgotten Weapons video says that probably less than 100 of these were ever produced, and the production line never managed to make one that worked properly. This seems like an important detail which is missing entirely from the Wikipedia article. (There used to be a paragraph mentioning the small production run, but it got lost in this edit[1] in 2021.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamba_Pistol&diff=prev&oldid=1026338998 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamba_Pistol&diff...
- totetsu 2y ago
  And some more background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesian_Bush_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesian_Bush_War
CamperBob2 2y ago
Interesting, but what's the intended takeaway, other than "Hardware is hard?"
- dcrazy 2y ago
  My only useful takeaway was on page 68 when Val Forgett talks about being specific and complete in every communication.
- smitelli 2y ago
  Management and communication is evidently quite a bit harder.
  - Animats 2y ago
    This is from the paper drawing era. One reason that AutoCAD was such a success was that, at last, you could ship editable drawings to others. You could be sure the dimensions totaled properly, since dimensions were derived from coordinates. This project ran into both problems - a supplier had drawings which disagreed with the company doing the assembly, and changes made in one part of the operation didn't propagate back to the master copy. Modern manufacturing uses configuration management systems on drawings and models, just as programmers do with code. Outsourcing remains a headache. There was a philosophical difference in manufacturing between the US and UK through WWII. In the UK, it was considered normal to have workbenches with people using files to touch up parts that didn't fit. In Detroit, parts that didn't fit were rejects, and discarded. The classic Detroit tester is a go/no go gauge.[1] This allowed assembly by low-skill workers. In the transcript of the meeting, you can read the argument between people from those different mindsets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go/no-go_gauge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go/no-go_gauge
    - lazide 2y ago
      The US mindset also allows effective massive production, and the ‘American System of manufacturing’, aka the ‘armory practice’ [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_system_of_manufacturing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_system_of_manufactu...]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

35 points by akehrer 2y ago

A bit of background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamba_Pistol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamba_Pistol Link is from here: https://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-end-of-the-mamba-a-tale-of-manufacturing-incompetence/ https://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-end-of-the-mamba-a-tale...

wolfgang42 2y ago
The Forgotten Weapons video says that probably less than 100 of these were ever produced, and the production line never managed to make one that worked properly. This seems like an important detail which is missing entirely from the Wikipedia article. (There used to be a paragraph mentioning the small production run, but it got lost in this edit[1] in 2021.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamba_Pistol&diff=prev&oldid=1026338998 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamba_Pistol&diff...
totetsu 2y ago
And some more background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesian_Bush_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesian_Bush_War

CamperBob2 2y ago

Interesting, but what's the intended takeaway, other than "Hardware is hard?"

dcrazy 2y ago
My only useful takeaway was on page 68 when Val Forgett talks about being specific and complete in every communication.
smitelli 2y ago
Management and communication is evidently quite a bit harder.
- Animats 2y ago
  This is from the paper drawing era. One reason that AutoCAD was such a success was that, at last, you could ship editable drawings to others. You could be sure the dimensions totaled properly, since dimensions were derived from coordinates. This project ran into both problems - a supplier had drawings which disagreed with the company doing the assembly, and changes made in one part of the operation didn't propagate back to the master copy. Modern manufacturing uses configuration management systems on drawings and models, just as programmers do with code. Outsourcing remains a headache. There was a philosophical difference in manufacturing between the US and UK through WWII. In the UK, it was considered normal to have workbenches with people using files to touch up parts that didn't fit. In Detroit, parts that didn't fit were rejects, and discarded. The classic Detroit tester is a go/no go gauge.[1] This allowed assembly by low-skill workers. In the transcript of the meeting, you can read the argument between people from those different mindsets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go/no-go_gauge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go/no-go_gauge
  - lazide 2y ago
    The US mindset also allows effective massive production, and the ‘American System of manufacturing’, aka the ‘armory practice’ [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_system_of_manufacturing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_system_of_manufactu...]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]