My dad taught Norden bombsight repair in Colorado during the war. He actually has a fully functional Norden in his bedroom closet. He will be 101 this year.
@davecrupel2817
2 жыл бұрын
You should do videos of your father explaining the sight, showcasing it, and stuff like that. I would *absolutely* watch such videos!
@GoodmanMIke59
2 жыл бұрын
@@davecrupel2817 yes
@MrKen-wy5dk
3 жыл бұрын
Can you imagine how smart and educated in advanced physics the people who designed the Norton had to be in the first place? That's where my respect goes.
@tonamg53
Жыл бұрын
It doesn’t work. The Norton bombsight is nothing but a scam.
@rbaxter286
3 ай бұрын
Guy was a nutjob who was always NOT delivering what was ordered, but who was left alone because of all the career officers who would be embarrassed and possibly cashiered if it were ever found out. The bombsite was an early demonstration of the vendor using "it's Secret" and the military passing that along to keep Congress from getting too nosy and demanding accountability. Thousands died because the military refused to admit they failed.
@cody9419
7 жыл бұрын
Thanks for these Norden bomb sight training films. I've always wondered how it worked
@hrosemd
7 жыл бұрын
David Eichenlaub You're welcome. Enjoy.
@davidvance6367
4 жыл бұрын
David Eichenlaub, bomb site was technological brilliant invention. Without GPS todays bomb site was no better than the Norden
@daniellastuart3145
2 жыл бұрын
it didn't work it was all hype you should watch this kzitem.info/news/bejne/tmx6m6aOm39zfqQ
@johnopalko5223
4 жыл бұрын
This is what's known as a reinforced learning experience. That's one mistake he'll never make again.
@captainoblivious_yt
5 жыл бұрын
"No point in wishing you luck because there isn't any luck in this business. You either learn it, or you don't. And you're either right, or you're wrong" Those are some very truthful words.
@hrosemd
5 жыл бұрын
Bingo.
@BruisedASScheeks
5 жыл бұрын
@@hrosemd Neat.
@erg0centric
4 жыл бұрын
And then firebomb a whole city, you can't miss a whole city.
@martijn9568
3 жыл бұрын
@@erg0centric You'd have to thank other people in charge for that.
@tonamg53
Жыл бұрын
@@erg0centric Yeah, they turned to area bombing because the bombsight doesn’t actually work. There was a mission where they dropped 600+ bombs and only 2 hits the target.
@eddievhfan1984
3 жыл бұрын
To those who may want some explaining, the CIA mentioned by the bombardier (and the narrator) is the Computed Indicated Altitude. In order to account for air pressure changes between the takeoff field and the target, among other details, the bombardier uses pressure altitude (altimeter referenced to standard atmospheric pressure) and outside air temperature to determine the correct altitude for the pilot to fly to to get the right bombing height.
@tonamg53
Жыл бұрын
It would be nice if it actually work… The fact is, it doesn’t. The Norton bombsight is actually a scam.
@eddievhfan1984
Жыл бұрын
@@tonamg53 Norden. And it wasn't a complete scam; they used a bombsight intended for hitting merchant shipping at moderate altitudes to perform precision attacks at high altitude. It was better than trying to hit by eyeball at over 20,000 feet, but everyone was constantly overstating its capabilities, giving it a difficult standard to live up to for an electromechanical computer.
@tonamg53
Жыл бұрын
@@eddievhfan1984 Well, there was a mission where they dropped 600+ bombs using the Norden bombsight and only 2 actually hit the target. I wouldn’t say that “eyeballing” it would be less accurate…
@eddievhfan1984
Жыл бұрын
@@tonamg53 Know where I can find a mission report or BDA of that raid, or a specific date/target reference?
@tonamg53
Жыл бұрын
@@eddievhfan1984 yes, its call google. The first B29 combat mission in WW2 was to bomb a bridge in Bangkok. They hit a Japanese military hospital instead… the hospital was more than 2 km away from the bridge. And if you’re too lazy to use google, then you should able to think for yourself that the bombsight need very accurate wind information and smooth as silk flying for it to work properly.... Do you think it was possible to have both in WW2? Not to mention that wind can change direction at different altitude… This was unknown phenomenon during that period which pretty much rendered the principle operation of the bombsight practically useless.
@tombrown6628
3 жыл бұрын
Very well done training film!👍👍. They obviously trained thousands in the day!👍👍
@HartDoug
4 жыл бұрын
My father was a bombardier on a B-24 Liberator. They flew initially out of North Africa and subsequently (I think) out of either Sicily or Italy. I know he used a Norden Bombsight only because Mom mentioned it; I didn’t know what it looked like until maybe 20 or 25 years ago. They were Top Secret...
@dfirth224
Жыл бұрын
Top Secret but I learned several years ago they were not as accurate as touted during the war. That's why they were not used after the war. Today it's all GPS.
@dukecraig2402
Жыл бұрын
@@dfirth224 It was every bit as accurate as they claimed, the narrative that it wasn't accurate or that it wasn't any more accurate than what the British and Germans had is a myth, but to understand it's accuracy and why those claims about it not being accurate there's several things that must be understood, bear with me here. First is the claims of how accurate it was, the famed "pickle barrel" claim is total nonsense and is something that was never claimed by the USAAF or the creator's of the Norden bombsight, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that a bomber flying at 25,000 ft traveling at 225 MPH could drop a 500 lb bomb into a 2 foot diameter barrel, that claim was never made from any official source nor does anyone know where it came from, it wasn't anyone official but critics of the Norden bombsight throughout the years for whatever reason like to use it as an example of the claims made by the USAAF and the inventors of it to bash it's reputation. Secondly, claiming that the Norden bombsight was inaccurate is like claiming that the M1 rifle was inaccurate based the fact that everytime a US soldier pulled the trigger on one an enemy soldier didn't drop dead, and by using post war reports and records showing that on average it took 200 shots from M1 rifles for every dead soldier as proof that it wasn't accurate, all based on the number of rounds recorded to have been fired in combat divided by the amount of dead enemy soldiers, anyone with any kind of common sense can see how problematic that claim is, take it from someone who owns and has been shooting M1's for 30 years they're deadly accurate, but there's a difference shooting at a target on the range off of a shooting bench and shooting one in combat, results may vary is an understatement for that one. But the single most important thing when it comes dispelling the myth that it was inaccurate is understanding how the critics of the Norden bombsight come to that conclusion, all the supposed experts on the subject want to do is take the total number of bombs dropped by the USAAF bombers and subtract the number that missed and blame the difference on the Norden bombsight, not only is that the laziest way of researching it's accuracy it's also highly flawed because they include the results from the bombs dropped using the H2X ground scanning radar system to sight the targets which was needless to say far less accurate than optically sighting the targets, and the fact is due to the weather over Europe and other factors like the Germans lighting off smoke pots to obscure visibility the majority of the bombs dropped over Europe were dropped using the H2X system and not the Norden bombsight, it's been a while since I saw the record but if I remember correctly something like 60% of the bombs dropped over Europe were aimed using the H2X system and not the Norden bombsight, factoring in the results from the far less accurate H2X system is how they come up with the outlandish figures they do when it comes to the Norden bombsight's record. They also include the results from human errors, like the lead navigator of a bomber formation flying the entire formation to the wrong target and it getting bombed resulting in a zero bombs on target record for that bombing run that gets factored into the math. Of the things that affected the accuracy of the Norden bombsight surprisingly post war reports showed that flak and enemy fighter's had virtually no affect on bomber accuracy, fighter's weren't attacking during the bomb run because of their own forces flak, and the way the bombing systems worked on the bombers the autopilot was actually flying the bomber during it's bomb run, and an autopilot won't be distracted by flak. The other factors that affected bomb accuracy were things like all the debris and dirt thrown into the air by the bombs exploding from the previous bomber boxes that the following boxes had to sight through, just one 500 lb general purpose bomb displaced and threw into the air above the target enough dirt to fill 13 dump trucks, each bomber in a deep penetration mission into Germany dropped twelve 500 lb bombs, that's 156 dump trucks worth of dirt in the air above the target from just one bomber, take that times the number of bombers in a box and that's how much dirt was in the air above the target that the lead bombardier from the next box had to sight through affecting it's accuracy, and every other bomber in that box since they'd toggle their bombs off on cue from the lead bomber. Another thing that gives a false impression of the Norden bombsight's accuracy that critics never take into account has to do with the way the bombs were sometimes intentionally released from the bombers, the Norden bombsight system had a feature called an Intervalometer that had something like 7 settings on it, what that did was release the bombs in a timed sequence along the flight path of the bomber instead of all at once, this was for bombing an area target like a railroad marshaling yard as opposed to a pinpoint target like a building or a ship moored up at a dock, the Norden bombsight took into account the setting on the Intervalometer so that the first bomb released would impact short of the aiming point with the last bomb released overshooting the aiming point by the same distance, when assessing bomb accuracy from drops using the Intervalometer the center of the bomb string should be measured from the aiming point and not all the bombs including the one's that intentionally hit the furthest from the aiming point. Tests of a B17 dropping a single bomb showed that it could consistently place the bomb within 400 ft from the aiming point when traveling at 225 MPH at an altitude of 25,000 ft, just like shooting a rifle from a bench that's the true measure of it's accuracy, factors like overcast clouds, smoke from RAF bombers bombing the same target the night before lightning fires and causing smoke to obscure the target, the Germans camouflaging targets and setting up decoys nearby, smoke pots being lit off to obscure targets, navigator errors causing the wrong targets to be bombed and especially the results from the more often used than not H2X radar system being used to aim bombs getting factored into results and being blamed on the Norden bombsight are not reflections of the Norden bombsight's accuracy, but simply the conditions under which it was used and sloppy research from biased people with an agenda who set out wanting to bash it's reputation in the first place. Realistic combat results of the Norden bombsight, that eliminate the bias of people who include the results from the H2X system into it's record and human error such as navigators leading formations to the wrong target, show that on average the first B17 box's bombs that were optically aimed, with no visual obstructions like clouds or smoke generated from fires as a result of the RAF bombing the night before, using the actual Norden bombsight had an over 80% "bombs on target" (400 feet or less) record, as a result of the dirt and debris thrown into the air above the aiming point from the first box's bombs the second bomber box had an over 70% bombs on target average, with subsequent boxes results degrading down to 25% by the fifth bomber box. An over 80% average of bombs hitting within 400 feet of the aiming point from bombers traveling 225 MPH at 25,000 ft was something no other air force in WW2 could achieve, not the British or the Germans or anyone else who by the way all bombed from lower altitudes and speeds than the USAAF did, that's actually an accuracy that wasn't improved too much on until the advent of GPS and laser guided bombs, the fact is the Norden bombsight was used by some US bombers all the way into the Vietnam War, and it did because despite the claims by critics who use highly flawed research to claim it was inaccurate it was actually very accurate, the Norden bombsight was actually a computer, albeit a mechanical computer and not an electronic one but still a computer, and being one produced computer results.
@rbaxter286
3 ай бұрын
... and the Germans had plenty of examples, including plans one of the MANY GERMAN engineers Norden employed regardless of the BAD IDEA, smuggled to the Germans before the war. It was classified ALSO to keep Congressional Oversight out of the way when the FAILURE of the bomb sight became empirically evident even early on.
@BradiKal61
5 жыл бұрын
"help the bombradier!" "i'm the bombradier. Im all right" "then help him! help him!"
@zombywoof1072
5 жыл бұрын
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
@c3aloha
5 жыл бұрын
There there
@impCaesarAvg
4 жыл бұрын
@@zombywoof1072 In Moscow.
@TheBalls55
3 жыл бұрын
Catch 22?
@anna-elizabeth
4 жыл бұрын
USAAF 8th Air Force suffered more combat casualties than both the rest of the US Army in the ETO, and more than the entire USMC did. We have to remember what these men faced, and did, they did it for our country.
@BOORAGG
4 жыл бұрын
It is interesting to note that the 8th lost 4145 bombers in WW2. BUT, it actually was the 15th that hit Germany the hardest with its oil campaign. The 15th recorded Just over 2000 bombers lost from a smaller number of groups.
@anna-elizabeth
4 жыл бұрын
@@BOORAGG I need to learn more about the 15th. Thank you for telling me this. :)
@iangrimshaw1
3 жыл бұрын
There are memorials scattered around the county of Northamptonshire where I live. Very poignant reminders of the very brave men of the USAAF and thanks from the British people.
@rbaxter286
3 ай бұрын
The 8th Air Force Museum outside Savannah(?) is a death marker for the huge number of 20 year olds who, despite the Hollywood B/S, made up so much of the crews, up to pilots. It made me sick, later on, when I read up on the FAIL performance of the sight AND the idiocy of the military doctrine (bombing a continent with notoriously BAD weather all year long) and realized those young men were sacrificed to technical incompetence and doctrinal pigheadedness by the US Army's equivalent of Chateau Generals. LeMay was a butcher, but he knew what was going to work in Japan.
@TubeDupe
4 жыл бұрын
Mansplaining taken to another level.
@smudgey1kenobey
3 жыл бұрын
LOL!
@oldschoolcfi3833
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine trying do do all that with flack exploding all around, the aircraft shaking and bucking in turbulence, with shrapnel whizzing through the airplane... it must have been a cool customer to be a bombardier.
@grumblesa10
Жыл бұрын
...and the sad part is the sight was not at all that accurate. At BEST at altitude, bombs would impact within a mile of the target. Also by 1944, bombers dropped when the lead bombardier dropped, a defacto area bombing strategy...
@dukecraig2402
Жыл бұрын
@@grumblesa10 Wrong, the Norden bombsight was incredibly accurate, when it was used, the myth that it was inaccurate came to be because of all the hack aviation historians looking at the overall bombs on target average and not subtracting the averages from when other bomb sighting systems were used namely the H2X ground scanning radar system that was used to drop the majority of bombs starting in the fall of 1943 especially during the winters when overcast skies prevented optical sighting. When you look at only the results from when the Norden bombsight was actually used they had an over 80% bombs on target result. Other factors that affected their accuracy were things like the amount of dirt and debris thrown into the air from previous bomber box's bombs, just one 500 lb general purpose bomb displaced enough dirt and threw it into the air above the target to fill 13 dump trucks, each bomber on a deep penetration mission dropped twelve 500 lb general purpose bombs, so that's 13 dump trucks times twelve worth of dirt thrown into the air above the target times the amount of bombers in the first box that the second one has to sight through with every box afterwards having to deal with that much more obscuring their visibility and sighting. Many other things contribute to the myth of it's inaccuracy like navigators flying a formation to the wrong target and it getting bombed resulting in a zero bombs on target result getting blamed on the Norden bombsight by hack historians who don't do the proper research. Germans obscuring the targets by lightning off smoke pots and obscuring visibility isn't the fault of the Norden bombsight, targets being camouflaged with decoys being set up down the road isn't the fault of the Norden bombsight. The fact that the majority of bombs were dropped using bombsighting methods than the Norden bombsight is never subtracted from the results that all get piled on the back of the Norden bombsight leading to all the nonsense about it being inaccurate, just that alone completely destroys it's record and unjustly at that, also is the use of the Intervalometer setting for dropping bombs that intentionally dropped them at intervals along the bombers path, non of the hack aviation historians even take that into account, when you do that means that only the center bomb in the line is actually dropped at the exact aiming point and only it's distance should be factored into the math when evaluating the accuracy of the Norden bombsight. As explained to accurately determine the results of the Norden bombsight it's far more complex than just looking at the overall results of bombing and piling it all onto the Norden bombsight, especially when you consider that the majority of bombs dropped weren't even sighting using it, the fact is correct studies on it's results show that it could consistently drop a bomb from a B17 at 25,000 ft traveling at 225 MPH and have it impact within 400 ft of it's aiming point, no other bomb sighting system used by anyone in the war can even come close to that. Even your figure of the supposed one bomb hitting within one mile, which itself is total nonsense and is something you've picked up from BS online sources most likely just a KZitem comment like your's and not something from an official source, still wouldn't subtract the results of flat out errors like a lead navigator flying an entire formation to the wrong target.
@chrisbolland5634
5 жыл бұрын
And do all this while being shot at with German 88mm flak or FW 190s. God these men had balls.
@dukecraig2402
Жыл бұрын
Fighter's didn't attack over the target because of the heavy concentration of flak, only flak was an issue during the bomb run and a since declassified USAAF report showed that it had no effect on bomb accuracy.
@raymondyee2008
4 жыл бұрын
In the pc game "B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty Eighth" the Norden bombsight in the game is as close as it can be like this video here. On harder modes have to take wind directions into consideration as it affects the drop angle.
@hrosemd
4 жыл бұрын
Neat.
@raymondyee2008
4 жыл бұрын
hrosemd Yep and if you got a “totally destroyed” report in the debrief that just proves that the Norden does work if everything goes as planned.
@ninus17
3 жыл бұрын
@@raymondyee2008 they are making a new "mighty eight" game. it looks amazing so far. the company making it is called microprose
@raymondyee2008
3 жыл бұрын
the silent farmer Yes I have heard of that and that includes the B-24. How it’ll play out once released we’ll know later on.
@mizzyroro
2 жыл бұрын
I'm very disappointed that there hasn't been to my knowledge another pc simulator with a fully functioning Norden bombsight. The might 8th is pretty old and it would be great to see a modern game like dcs use the Norden. Hope I'm worng and can be corrected. I'd buy immediately.
@ChrisKrusey
14 күн бұрын
"SHINBONE WANTS STATEHOOD"
@panzermacher
3 жыл бұрын
Use the force Luke!!!
@tinklvsme
5 жыл бұрын
Good to know In case of a Zombie Apocalypse.
@HighlineGuitars
4 жыл бұрын
I wonder if the narrator sounds like that around the dinner table with his family.
@smudgey1kenobey
3 жыл бұрын
Only on Thanksgiving!
@RB-ib3mo
3 жыл бұрын
@@smudgey1kenobey Mom burned the turkey........"that's one mistake she'll never make again"!!!:)
@19Koty96
2 жыл бұрын
@@RB-ib3mo that suddenly took a darker turn ))
@Mike-tw1pi
4 жыл бұрын
Why didn't they teach them to just bind a few keys to handle all of these functions? That's what I do in IL2. Piece of cake!
@Dproud2700
4 жыл бұрын
12 O'clock high made it look so easy
@theoriginalrabbithole
2 жыл бұрын
The Sperry was a far superior bombsight but backroom deals secured the contract for Norden even though that bombsite NEVER worked as well as it's reputation and secrecy implied and numerous U.S. servicemen were needlessly killed attempting daytime precision bombing runs because that famous Norden bombsite never delivered the hits it promised. LeMay switched over to mass carpet bombing towards the war's end just to decrease the amount of bombs wasted missing the target. There's other YT videos on this.
@cabininthewoods7326
2 жыл бұрын
Bombardier on Enola Gay missed Aioi bridge by 400feet. Not bad from 30,000 ft.
@charlesstuart7290
4 жыл бұрын
After all these KZitem videos I think I am qualified to be a WWII soldier or airman.
@smudgey1kenobey
3 жыл бұрын
Just in time!
@adksherm
3 жыл бұрын
You think thereforr you are
@okoniewski1015
25 күн бұрын
Accuracy by volume.
@PointyTailofSatan
4 жыл бұрын
This video is da bomb!
@anthonypicco7811
5 жыл бұрын
My dad taught the Norden Bombsite to bombadiers... Turns out it didn't work very well but... what are you gonna do?
@hrosemd
5 жыл бұрын
Neat.
@anthonypicco7811
5 жыл бұрын
@@hrosemd He was in the Navy... stationed in Jacksonville, FL during the war
@BruisedASScheeks
5 жыл бұрын
@@hrosemd Neat.
@BruisedASScheeks
5 жыл бұрын
Haha yeah, I was just poking fun at you since you use to word "neat" to reply to people a lot. Was just having some harmless fun, thanks for appreciating it with a thumbs up haha. Take it easy brother, and thanks for the interesting upload. Iv been doing a lot of personal research on the Norden Bombsight since yesterday, I just find it incredibly interesting. Did you know that they spent almost as much on the development of the Norden Bombsight as they did with the Atom Bomb, that's how cutting edge it was. I forget where I learned that yesterday, I don't think it was this video which is why I am letting you know, however I will feel pretty stupid if I did learn that info from your video haha, but yeah I don't think I did, pretty sure it was from this video where some guy did a couple minute rant on how dope the Norden Bombsight was. If you don't mind me asking, which country you are from, where did you grow up, and how old you are and which decade did you grow up in, and also what was it like growing up in that decade and growing up where you were from in that time? Sorry for the 20 questions, I am just curious, I always ask people I meet on the internet those questions, as i am always curious about peoples upbringings and the experiences they had growing up.
@captainoblivious_yt
4 жыл бұрын
It was actually pretty accurate, assuming the conditions were right. Meaning daytime and no clouds.
@DavT-pv2vq
5 жыл бұрын
My father helped develop the bomb site. He rarely talked about it.
@hrosemd
5 жыл бұрын
Neat.
@BruisedASScheeks
5 жыл бұрын
@@hrosemd Neat.
@BruisedASScheeks
5 жыл бұрын
lol I thought you literally meant the bomb site he was aiming for. Took me a second that you meant "bombsiGHt: haha.
@smudgey1kenobey
3 жыл бұрын
Top Secret!
@MrKen-wy5dk
3 жыл бұрын
I hope he knew how to spell "sight" better that you do. Obviously, your brain apple fell pretty far from the tree.
@GoodmanMIke59
2 жыл бұрын
Is this Dana Andrews narrating? If it is, impressive, he played Fred Deery, a returning bombardier in "The Best Years of Our Lives".
@melvinjones2078
5 жыл бұрын
Always thought it was Norton.
@henerymag
4 жыл бұрын
Norton works in a sewer.
@Doggiedodo
5 жыл бұрын
The ear phone looks so Morden. Like my gaming head set.
@albertkundrat814
5 жыл бұрын
"PRAENONTITER, Quaeso!": Just What is a NORDEN-BOMBSIGHT Anyway? Is It a Radioactive JUKE-BOX set out on Parachutes, but spewing out mini-TROJAN Capsules?
@rikijett310
3 жыл бұрын
Riveting!!
@robertmaybeth3434
5 жыл бұрын
They needed to make this more realistic as a training film! I was expecting at least a couple seconds of the bombardier bashing the Norden with his shoe while screaming "GOT_D#MNED F#CKING PIECE A SH##!!!!"
@BackInTheGarden
5 жыл бұрын
@hrosemd, The Gov't looked at thousands of women's hair to find the 'finest' for the 'crosshairs' to create the Norden'... believe it or not.
@hrosemd
5 жыл бұрын
The story of Mary Babnik Brown lives on. Thx.
@ConvairDart106
3 жыл бұрын
For many years it was incorrectly claimed that her hair was used to make the crosshairs in the Norden bombsight. However, as the crosshairs on the bombsight are etched into glass and not made from hair this is not possible.
@tinklvsme
5 жыл бұрын
Can you add more videos? It’s pretty interesting!
@normfreilinger5655
4 жыл бұрын
Norton the same company that builds grinding wheels for grinding metal ?
@nejiniisan1265
3 жыл бұрын
It's Norden.
@matthewbrown3878
5 жыл бұрын
I love the sarcastic narration!! Very Awesome!! Where did you find this video? Any idea when AAF produced it?
@hrosemd
5 жыл бұрын
I found these when I did a NBS restoration a few years ago. I honestly can't remember where exactly. Glad you enjoyed them.
@BruisedASScheeks
5 жыл бұрын
@@hrosemd Neat.
@pasoundman
5 жыл бұрын
In the real world, the Norden bombsight was found to be virtually useless !
@buckhorncortez
4 жыл бұрын
Not if you're dropping an atomic weapon...
@jaggerjards7236
4 жыл бұрын
hahahahaha… good one!
@pasoundman
4 жыл бұрын
@@jaggerjards7236 A lot can be learnt from that observation. Namely, if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true. Same for Elon Musk's SpaceX CGI Mars mission nonsense.
@BOORAGG
4 жыл бұрын
In good weather it was fine. In bad, it was no better than a good guess.
@PauloPereira-jj4jv
3 жыл бұрын
And all this secret for nothing. The Germans received the plans and build their own bombsight, wich by the way was a failure at high altitudes, as the original.
@bogdanresume
4 жыл бұрын
What is the airplane?
@jimmypeters
4 жыл бұрын
It's a Beechcraft AT-11 Kansan, a military variant of the civilian Beechcraft Model 18 designed for bombardier and gunnery training, hence the greenhouse nose and in this case a faired over dorsal opening, in which a gun turret could be mounted.
@LaszloBencze
5 жыл бұрын
Good grief! What an astonishingly complex and fussy piece of gear. No wonder it worked so poorly in real life bombing runs. Way too many tiny knobs to adjust. Way too much to remember. So easy to fudge a crucial step. And then what happens when the plane does not fly level at a preset altitude as the sight requires but engages in evasive action? Hopeless.
@hrosemd
5 жыл бұрын
Amazing isn't it?
@TheWinnieston
5 жыл бұрын
What were the other more successful sights?
@johnbeauvais3159
4 жыл бұрын
@@TheWinnieston Well I can't speak to repeated effectiveness but for one bombing mission they would be flying too low to use the Norden so instead a man made up a simple protractor type sight with corrections for drop angle. It was first used in an attack on Japan in April of 1942
@BOORAGG
4 жыл бұрын
In most cases it wasn't the bombing sight's fault, it was the miserable weather.
@gopherstate777
5 жыл бұрын
It doesn't work. You have to visually sight the target which requires a clear sky? (Norden shared his plans with German engineers. They had there own Norden Bombsite)
@19Koty96
2 жыл бұрын
Well its an optical sight, of course you need clear sky over target, like with other sights. Norden's sight was by coincidence one of the most modern ones. German sights had similar procedure, but also lacked many features.
@DMBall
4 жыл бұрын
You don't have to watch this film twice to understand why bombing accuracy was so poor during WW2. Eventually the Allies more or less gave up and mounted raids of hundreds of planes to flatten everything in the vicinity.
@martijn9568
3 жыл бұрын
That's correct. You shouldn't watch a training video to see what results they actually got in combat. There are better sources for that. What this film does tell you is that the sight was pretty darn accurate, under training conditions.
@RB-ib3mo
3 жыл бұрын
I think I'm right in saying they eventually just followed the leader. When the lead plane opened the bomb bay doors all the others did etc... That way only one bombadier had to do his thing, if even. Maybe I'm wrong but I do know that that type of raid I described was performed a lot.
@19Koty96
2 жыл бұрын
Just get one of the flight sims available that actually feature level bombing and have your own try. You have people who can put bombs one by one into a blast-pen sized target (more or less the limit of the ballistic accuracy of the bombs) with one hand tied, and you have people who couldn't hit a railway yard. Has a lot to do with keeping your calm and sticking to the procedure, which is easier done from your living room than when you have 88mm shells shaking you up.
@rock_and-or_roll
5 жыл бұрын
The Narrator and lietenant are condescending jerks.
@MyBlueZed
5 жыл бұрын
It’s a 1940’s military training film. Let me guess ... You’re a millennial and you’re offended!
@captainoblivious_yt
4 жыл бұрын
The narrator is being sarcastic, the lieutenant just looks disappointed.
@jkorshak
4 жыл бұрын
@@MyBlueZed He might be a millennial but being critical has nothing to do with being offended. People being offended is a straw man for boomers to knock over and feel superior. The writing of the narrator/lieutenant parts is smart alecky quips and asides, common rhetorical devices typically seen in movies and heard on radio of the period - it's more to maintain the viewer's interest than anything else. It's a softer approach which translates better to training films than actual military instruction where you get yelled at and punished until you start adequately performing as you had been trained.
Пікірлер: 132