Resolution of the apparent discrepancy between the number of massive
  subhaloes in Abell 2744 and {\Lambda}CDM
  Schwinn et al. (2017) have recently compared the abundance and distribution
of massive substructures identified in a gravitational lensing analysis of
Abell 2744 by Jauzac et al. (2016) and N-body simulation and found no cluster
in {\Lambda}CDM simulation that is similar to Abell 2744. Schwinn et al.(2017)
identified the measured projected aperture masses with the actual masses
associated with subhaloes in the MXXL N-body simulation. We have used the high
resolution Phoenix cluster simulations to show that such an identification is
incorrect: the aperture mass is dominated by mass in the body of the cluster
that happens to be projected along the line-of-sight to the subhalo. This
enhancement varies from factors of a few to factors of more than 100,
particularly for subhaloes projected near the centre of the cluster. We
calculate aperture masses for subhaloes in our simulation and compare them to
the measurements for Abell 2744. We find that the data for Abell 2744 are in
excellent agreement with the matched predictions from {\Lambda}CDM. We provide
further predictions for aperture mass functions of subhaloes in idealized
surveys with varying mass detection thresholds.
