Saving lives now!

During World War II, the Allied command faced significant losses of aircraft due to enemy fire, resulting in a substantial number of them getting shot down by the enemy.

So here's the dilemma: How do we make sure our planes can withstand enemy fighters while still being agile and fuel-efficient?

Finding the right balance is the challenge. Too much armor weighs down the aircraft, making it less agile and consuming more fuel.

On the other hand, not enough armor leaves the planes vulnerable.?

So what would you do?

This is how the experts tackled the dilemma.

Those in charge hired SRG, The Strategic Research Group which was “the most extraordinary group of statisticians ever organized, taking into account both number and quality” including Abraham Wald.

They had a team of talented mathematicians holed up in a New York City apartment, working tirelessly to figure out the perfect amount of armor.

The military came to the SRG with some data they thought might be useful. When American planes came back from engagements over Europe, they were covered in bullet holes. But the damage wasn’t uniformly distributed across the aircraft. There were bullet holes in many parts of the fuselage.

This is the data that they came back with:

Where would you put armor ??? on the airplanes?

What is the obvious answer ???

Well, the military had a proposal:?

• Armor the fuselage
• The middle area of the plane,?
• In places with more bullet holes.

Is that what you would do?

Abraham Wald saw things differently. Instead of focusing on fixing the weaknesses, he focused on the strengths of the planes.

He asked himself, what about these planes allowed them to come back despite being riddled with bullet holes ????

What made them strong enough to withstand such damage?

Wald focused on the planes that managed to return from their missions as opposed to those that did not. He examined the distinct patterns of the bullet holes and made an astute observation.

The bullet holes that were seen on the returning planes were areas where they could take hits and still fly back home.?

The reason there were fewer bullet holes in the engines? or cockpits wasn’t because enemy fighters were not targeting them, but because planes that got hit in the engines or cockpit simply did not return.

They were lost in combat.

This led him to a surprising conclusion .?

The areas that needed reinforcing were not the ones with the most bullet holes, but those with the fewest.?

The areas devoid of bullet marks were the areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to be lost.?

Wald's perspective shifted the focus from the evident weaknesses to the less apparent strengths.

So he focused on the strengths ???? of the aircraft and reinforced those areas allowing the least armor and greatly improving the aircrafts ability to take hits and still come home ??.

Wald's story is a vivid reminder of the importance of looking beyond the obvious, challenging assumptions, and focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses.

It's a powerful lesson that resonates beyond military strategy and into our daily lives and personal growth.

We need to build our strengths, not our weaknesses!