Quote:
|
Posted by 481: You cannot choose your hit probability. In a real, honest-to-God gun fight, it will be whatever it is. You may miss every shot. You may make every shot. You might not have a chance to even attempt a shot.
|
True fact.
Not very enlightening, but true.
One chooses (and varies) an
assumption of hit probability to learn something about its impact on the likely outcome. Just as one chooses an assumed sales volume to assess projected profitability. Yes, the sales volume will be what it will be--period. But one needs to know how the different variables will drive the results.
Or, if you prefer, one estimates casualty rates when selecting from among alternative military plans. But the causalities will be what they will be.
Quote:
|
All this hypothesizing, this fantasizing, it is all just mathematical busy work.
|
Not if it makes a point, which it does.
Quote:
|
Attempts at such modeling are exercises in futilty and they have the property of leading the unintiated and unknowing into the perception that they will have more control, know more about what is about to transpire, and expect something other than what they should from such a dynamic and infinitely unpredictable event.
|
Only for those who do not understand what they are looking at.
Quote:
|
No point in it. It is a waste of time for all of the reasons given above.
|
So I said.
Quote:
|
You- no one- needs a model to tell them that 5 rounds < 15 rounds or that no reload < 1 reload.
|
Alrighty then.
But what the model showed us was that, no matter which reasonable assumptions one might choose, the prognosis with five rounds is markedly dimmer than many had believed, and that the situation improves markedly when a few rounds are added.
John did not set out to try to make reliable, accurate projections. He simply wanted to know something about the validity of the claim that, since the average number of round expended in a defensive action is reportedly close to five, five should be good enough.
He succeeded very well.