Avro Lancaster - How the Bombsight Mk XIV Worked

[@DanLo-v3h]

Excellent series of videos, great work Bryan and many thanks

[@zebgelatchi]

Super video, I covered that computer in basic training as an Instrument fitter. Can always remember the unit when powered continuously oscillated, making a zug zug sound, it was alive! My first introduction to the worls of computers, astounding technology for the time.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for the info!

[@davegoldsmith4020]

Welcome back Bryan, what a video, I was watching this thinking this is less than thirty years after they used to throw bombs over the side from an open cockpit!. I also thought how did they concentrate on all this with the sky exploding around them. Great Video

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks Dave. Creating the AP diagrams takes a great deal of time. I'm pleased to like the video!

[@barbarybar]

Thumbs up to the person who designed the graphics. Terrific video.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thank you, all the AP diagrams are created by myself. They take a great deal of time to complete. Thanks for subscribing and for watching!

[@Sokol10]

Outstanding documentary.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Many thanks!

[@Simon_Nonymous]

This is such a fascinating video I will be watching it again! And yes - a simialr video on the SABS would be grand, especially if it can be done as a comparison to the Mk. XIV sight.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for watching!

[@mainlander6299]

As a recent subscriber, I find your videos a refreshing change. So much detail, I sometimes have to go back and re-watch parts. Keep up the outstanding work. 👍

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Welcome aboard! And thankyou for subscribing, I have many more videos planned

[@jackthebassman1]

Brian, your knowledge is absolutely superb and more than that soooooooo interesting. Thanks for posting.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

I appreciate that! Thank you for subscribing!

[@gitfoad8032]

There was a really interesting letter to the 'Mail (I think) maybe 20yrs ago, from a ret. Squadron Leader on this, comparing to Norden sight & US 'precision bombing'; he gave the numbers (lost to time) on relative accuracies, & it was a complete no-contest - RAF win.

[@JohnyG29]

Yeah the Norden was rubbish (the RAF rejected it in '43), which is why the USAAF resorted to area bombing in daylight just like the RAF did at night.

[@scullystie4389]

@@JohnyG29 the nordon was not a good bomb sight at all. But the reason the USAAF stuck with daylight bombing was to force the Luftwaffe's hand. Better accuracy was of secondary concern. Forcing Germany to send good planes and pilots up daily, to get shot down by numerical superiority, was deemed by strategists like LeMay to end the war faster than doubling down on night bombing.

[@gitfoad8032]

@@scullystie4389 - I don't think that's true: precision bombing was the doctrine. 'Pointblank' - incl. 'freijagd' tactics, came well into the US bombing offensive when the range became available - AFTER a couple of years of precision bombing.

[@scullystie4389]

@@gitfoad8032 I think Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles does an irrefutable explanation in better depth than I can manage over youtube comments lol, using primary sources from the time. It's in Part 8 of his P-47 series. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZvIh2atqrJ_aNU

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for watching!

[@cycleSCUBA]

Another fascinating and detailed video. As mentioned that the Mk XIV sight was also used in Wellingtons, not sure if anyone else has suggested it but there's an excellent WW2, 1941 short film 'Target for tonight' about the crew of a Wellington and the build up to a bombing raid. I'd guess they used an earlier sight version but this film shows the skill and concentration needed to operate it when under heavy bombardment. We Will Remember Them🇬🇧🌹i

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for watching and sharing

[@richardvernon317]

Sight on that film was most likely the Mark IX, which in its earliest form was in use in 1917. Mark XIV started to see wide scale service in 1942.

[@patfontaine5917]

Glad to see a post! I was getting worried about you!!

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks Pat.

[@kimchipig]

Yipee! Another Bryan video!

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Yep and many more coming! Thanks Len

[@octowuss1888]

Wow, what a great video - so much detail! Had no idea the US used this sight too as the T1. Guess the Norden wasn't as good as promoted.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@richardvernon317]

Sperry took the Mark XIV design and built it under licence as the T1, mainly for UK use under Lend -Lease. 22,000 units built in total. Main issue with the Mark XIV was it didn't work above 25,000 feet. Sights used on the Mosquito's needed major modifications to get them to work up to 32,000 feet.

[@craigdavid7792]

Very good.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@scroggins100]

Superb Bryan. Really enjoying your efforts mate. Bit confused about the computer, TV setting. How do you set that with a mixed load?

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

The bomb aimer would enter the bomb TV information located on the Levelling card attached at the top right of the computor unit. If you pause the video when the Levelling card is on show, you will see all the individual bomb TV and weight information. Thanks so much for watching and subscribing

[@JeffBilkins]

Analogue mechanical computers are amazing.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

They certainly are Bart. Truly amazing. Thanks for subscribing and for watching

[@stevekaczynski3793]

1:26 - Not the main theme of the KZbin, but note how tiny the parachute exit is. The Lancaster was notoriously difficult to escape from in an emergency and one commentator has referred to that exit as being almost criminally too small.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Yes, the Lancaster was hard to escape from. The Handley Page Halifax was reportedly better, as it had a wider fuselage. Thanks for watching.

[@richardschaffer5588]

Excellent! The Sperry T1 was US produced copy of the Mark XIV made to supplement British supplies, but also used in B25 and B26 medium bombers where the very quick 10 second setup time would outweigh the greater accuracy (if any) of a Norden or Sperry S1. The Norden and the S1 fly the aircraft via the autopilot during the bomb run lengthening it. Both are unsuitable for night operations. The inaccuracies of all WW2 bombsight were mainly caused by bad weather, poor visibility, German countermeasures and of course crew skill. “Target Ploesti” Leroy Newby Presidio Press 1983 has a good description of practical use of the two American sights. Brian do you know if there was a standard procedure for the bomb aimer to guide the pilot onto the target? That’s the obvious weak link of the Mark XIV.😊

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for info and for watching!

[@DavidMiddlemas]

I have recently purchased a T1 Mk14 made by GMC. Ive enjoyed your excellent video but I dont understand how the aimer can view the target through the cross without him needing to be in a fixed position: If the position of his eye varies, does that not affect the angle of how the target is viewed through the cross illuminated on the glass plate - and hence the overall trajectory of the falling bomb? Am I missing something obvious?

[@michaelkiehn9254]

Great video! What fantastic technology! What would have happened in the event of the aircraft being shot down or crashing over enemy territory? Would the bombardier have destroyed the sight and computer before leaving the aircraft?

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

No, there would not have been time. I don't believe any detonation device was fitted to the computor Unit. Thanks for subscribing Michael.

[@iancarr8682]

Really interesting presentation, thankyou. Would be interested in who were the manufacturer(s) of the bomb sight assemblies.

[@JohnyG29]

It was designed by Patrick Blackett at RAE Farnborough, and production was spread out over numerous factories in the UK. I believe some were also built by Sperry in the US later in the war.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for watching.

[@robinwells8879]

I have been reading Harry Yates book “luck and a Lancaster” about his flying based at RAF Mepal local to me. I had not realised that after bomb release they had to continue straight and level-ish for the bombing camera “flash” for a given time related, I assume, to their altitude etc. That must’ve been gruelling in the extreme. I would love to see an aimer in the flesh to be able to get a feel for it. Wonder if they have one at Duxford?

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for watching

[@Eric-kn4yn]

It was more gruelling if they didnt get photo flash right threats of doing extra mission to correct method as punishment

[@jamesross1799]

My great uncle John was a bomb aimer on 186sqn. On lancaster bombers 1944 45.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for sharing

[@marka5478]

Is there anything available abut the SABS that was used by 617 Squadron? I read a little bout it in Paul Brickhill's book The Dam Busters

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

I will look. Thanks for watching

[@clint1257]

I understand that my uncle, H C Pritchard, was involved in the design of this bombsight. Is there any information about people involved in its development? My father told me that my uncle had established that two variables used in previous bombsights were dependent and this discovery enabled the design to be simplified. I have a newspaper clipping that announced the award of £500 to him for an invention relating to this bombsight but it doesn't go into details.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Very interesting and thanks for sharing!

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Bombers had to fly at night in a straight line until bombs hit ground exploding for photo flash bomb.to explode allowing photograph of impact accuracy

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

I'll be working of a video covering the F.24 camera soon! Thanks for watching

[@Eric-kn4yn]

@@ukaircraftexplored6556 creep back was a concern for master bomber master of ceremonies photo flash would have also minimised this problem

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Sighting head.moved.up and down to remain level I've seen on ww2 film of that ??

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks

[@Eric-kn4yn]

@@ukaircraftexplored6556 cheers from australia

[@normmcrae1140]

The accuracy of THIS Bombsight is orders of Magnitude BETTER than the "Famed" Norden Bombsight from the US..... The Norden wasn't even the best bombsight the US had - but it was used because the PROPAGANDA from the Norden company was the best.

[@ukaircraftexplored6556]

Thanks for sharing and watching

[@michaeltroster9059]

The Sperry Company actually made a better bombsight than Norden, but politics prevailed, so Norden won the contract. The Norden was not as accurate as they advertised. As for comparing the Norden and the British Mark 14 the end results were about equal when the results were compared after the war. Neither was perfect.

[@DIVeltro]

Both sights are only as accurate as what the input data allows them to be. Put in wrong data, and you get a wrong solution.

[@richardvernon317]

@@DIVeltro Got to be able to see the Target as well. On the vast majority of raids that didn't happen, on either daylight or night missions. Also you will not believe how much Wind directions and speeds change within 4 or 5 miles of Atmosphere depth.

[@pete1342]

Arguing over who had the superior bomb sight is a fools errand to begin with. At best, bombing accuracy with unguided dumb bombs depends mostly on wind, and wind speed and direction can change several times from 25000 feet to the ground. No optical bomb sight can predict that.

[@annehersey9895]

How does the sight work at night since by ‘42 the Yanks were doing the day bombing and the RAF night bombing. How does this sight compare with the US supposed ‘game changer’ Nordgren bomb sight. It seems to me that none of them really were able to hit a building without a bit of luck.