Norden Bombsight - Operation

[@blurrcs15]

For those who say that these devices were ineffective, yes it was difficult to use in combat due to flak, but they were surprisingly accurate. US bombers hit their targets much more frequently than British bombers, who had no bombsights and tended to be extremely inaccurate, a reason why they switched to carpet bombing. It was discovered that on one bombing raid the bombs hit no more than 100 feet from their target, which was very accurate at the time.

[@sciencecompliance235]

Very fascinating seeing these old training videos!

[@jsl151850b]

TCM shows the movie 'Bombardier' every now and again.

[@scootermannn]

Wow. Got to see an actual model on display at the Pima Air Museum yesterday.

[@captainoblivious_yt]

That sight cost $6.000 in i assume sometime between 1943 and 1945. That's nearly $85.000 today

[@talltanbarbie5136]

It would be much less with modern digital electronics instead of mechanical analog stuff.

[@1joshjosh1]

I will take 2!!!!!

[@kurtbjorn]

I think the B-29 had a system that had the Norden physically linked to the aircraft, like an autopilot, with the sight flying the airplane. Didn't need a PDI. Jets like the F-16 today have what's called a "death dot", a continuously computed impact point. Put the dot on the target, pickle the bomb.

[@eddievhfan1984]

Most installations *did* get hooked up to the B-17's C-1 autopilot or other autopilot equipment, but I'm sure there were other aircraft installations that couldn't carry the gyro and electronics package for an autopilot, and manual PDI guidance was all you had. If we were to extend the F-16 metaphor, I might call the automatic methods of the Norden a CCRP mode.

[@pan-ggaming8418]

The only things that bothers a person sitting in the bomber sight are incoming bullets from intercepters and the worse, Flak shells exposition shock waves.

[@peashooterc9475]

keeping the silly bubble leveled would be a distraction if nothing else.

[@susic1819]

I could never learn to control one of those

[@Clintwoodz]

Wow $6000 a bombsight in those days equates to close to $80000 in today's money

[@memadmax69]

Each B-17 was a cool $500,000 back in those days.

[@sciencecompliance235]

Sounds about right for such a piece of equipment. Honestly, with the defense industry grift today, which has outpaced inflation, it would probably cost more.

[@Rom2Serge]

in 1945 cost of this bombsight was 6000USD what is 84000 USD to today's money. f-16 lightning II targeting pod cost 1.5 million dollars. 2001 targeting pod cost 15 times more than the latest targeting pod in 1945. what means Miliray corporations are making enormous money on us.

[@1joshjosh1]

Military military Glory Glory. You don't even have to explain it to taxpayers anymore because since the late 80s the American propaganda system makes the military Glory Glory Glory thank you for your service. 911 put a turbocharger on that. Now everything is Glory Glory Glory Military military. You can't go to a sporting event in the United States without being reminded of the glory of the military and thank you for your service blah blah blah blah. Billion dollars on this billion dollars on that nobody's even asking questions anymore.

[@stevelewis7263]

My late father flew dive bombers during WW2, he transferred from regular medium bombers saying that dive bombers were easier to aim and more accurate, he really loved his STUKA.

[@Type99mg]

Great video!

[@TheKdizzle1971]

@ 2:25- you need to stop trippin

[@unclestuka8543]

Did the Germans ever capture one in tact ?

[@hrosemd]

Good question. Would make an interesting story.

[@MrB1923]

A job for Mark Felton.

[@martijn9568]

I believe some of their bombsights relied on similar principles as the Norden did, but there were still some major differences between the two I believe.

[@1joshjosh1]

@@MrB1923 Mr. Everything Nazi himself.

[@peashooterc9475]

They must have had a bunch of them by the end. They had the plans before the U.S. entered the war.

[@vanceduke5196]

Damn think didn't work anyway.

[@andrewbevan4662]

Patronising voice

[@kevinkards]

pity it was all BS

[@root6170]

Too bad it didn't work like it was supposed to.

[@eddievhfan1984]

It did, but high altitude bombing is always a crapshoot, because the wind keeps changing as the bomb drops, especially when you bomb at jet stream altitudes. Admittedly, the sight was originally designed to attack marine shipping and naval ships from moderate altitudes. The Norden at least helped keep it accurate enough that 54 planes to a strike package stood a good chance of destroying their target, rather than dumping all their bombs a mile away.

[@6h471]

Kyle Tekaucic Right. The accuracy of these depended on a steady wind velocity and direction all the way to the ground, and that's almost never the case in actuality. I'm sure it was quite an improvement just the same.

[@michaeltroster9059]

The higher the altitude the less accurate was the bombing. In practise bombing accuracy generally was pretty lousy. Destruction of targets was the result of the working theory that if you dropped enough tonnage of bombs eventually the target was destroyed. The term “precision bombing “ was mostly myth. The company that made the bombsight claimed you could hit a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet...that was BS.