Talk:Norden bombsight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Supersonic velocity

This article states that the problem of bombs falling at supersonic velocity was hard to solve. I would thik so, since no projectile has a terminal velocity in any medium higher than the speed of sound in that medium.

See Tallboy bomb for how a bomb can fall far faster than sound. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied text

I'm new here, but the text in this article copies the text found at this page: [1] almost exactly, with a fair amount of original extra words/facts thrown in as well. The page appears to be a US Military site, so maybe it is not a problem, but I figured I'd post this just in case.

Thanks; I'll add it to the list of links. Melchoir 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lotfe-7K bombsight

Deleted uncited speculation about Lotfe-7K bombsight.

[edit] Secret

The article says both that "its existence was a closely guarded secret" and that it was "marketed as the tool to win the war; and it was often touted that the bombsight would drop bombs in pickle barrels". Where was it marketed and who was being touted to if even its existence was a secret? KarlM 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First, it was guarded as a secret; then it was used for propaganda purposes. The fact that Germany, at least later in the war, could not start bomber planes at targets in Great Britain made it possible to reveal the bombsight's existence - how could the Germans profit from knowing about the Norden if they could not bomb anything? And except from Pearl Harbor I don't know of any large Japanese bombing raid; so any bombsight knowledge would not have helped them... Perhaps I should re-read that book by Stewart Halsey Ross to know the exact reasons. And remember: Even if the USAAF says it has a secret bombsight it is propaganda. --Keimzelle 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask the veterans who were stationed at Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Port Moresby etc about Japanese bomb raids after Pearl Harbor, Keimzelle. ;)

The Norden Bombsight was kept a secret simply for the same reason why any "state of the art" military developement is kept a secret more or less, especially during war-time. You don't go advertizing your technology at your enemy's doorstep. If the article says anything about "advertizing", it should be obvious the original author simply used that as a phrase. "Advertizement" was probably happening between the military brass and the manufacturer, as is always.

I've read many WWII-era magazines and the existence of the Norden Bombsight was anything but secret, as Keimzelle implies. Its mechanism was claimed to be highly secret, though other comments on this page raise doubts about that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, people. "We have a pretty acurate bombsight that can put a bomb into a pickle barrel from way up" was probably NOT kept "secret", because that was POSITIVE propaganda and encouraged your own side. But surely the *inner workings* of that sight was kept secret just like any other military developement during wartime - and often during peace time as well - is kept a secret. Where exactly is the part here that you don't understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.46.213 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bombsight

What's a bombsight? --Abdull 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Gee-I guess we may need another article. A bombsight is an optical-mechanical device used to aim free-falling bombs at their targets. -Will Beback 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dither & Bombsights

Dither currently states:

Airplane bombers used mechanical computers to perform navigation and bomb trajectory calculations. Curiously, these computers (boxes filled with hundreds of gears and cogs) performed more accurately when flying on board the aircraft, and less well on ground. Engineers realized that the vibration from the aircraft reduced the error from sticky moving parts.

This seems to partially contradict this page which states:

In combat, this accuracy was never achieved - because the Norden had been tested under "artificial conditions" at the US proving grounds, for example in the absence of anti-aircraft fire and/or adverse weather.

Ewlyahoocom 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no contradiction, Ewlyahoocom. The second paragraph ("In combat, ...") is from me, the first one is not. The second paragraph only compares test flights (for example, at USAAF bombing ranges in the USA), which had idealized conditions – like perfect weather, no anti-aircraft fire, relatively low altitudes – to the actual bombing that took place over Japan. In both cases, bombs were dropped from flying aircraft; and the "dither" effect was always in place when bombs were dropped. Or do you honestly think that the Norden bombsight would let you drop bombs less precisely when your plane is still standing on the runway? :-)--Keimzelle 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah-ha! I misread "artificial conditions" to mean some kind of testing on the ground. Ewlyahoocom 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was secret overrated?

John Lienhart of the University of Houston College of Engineering says the secrecy of the Norden bombsight was mostly hype. The device was downgraded from "secret" to "confidential" in 1935 and to "restricted," the lowest classification, in 1942. A Norden employee sold plans for the device to the Germans in 1937 for $3,000, but the Germans never used it because they practiced dive bombing, not strategic bombing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newschief (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC).