Norden Bombsight....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Throwing cats among pigeons are we Lucky?
- Thread starter
- #3
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,355
- Jan 31, 2021
The Norden bombsight can be summarized thusly:
It worked great when the skies were clear and the bombing aircraft wasn't being buffeted by flak nor attacked by enemy fighters. However, as the skies were often cloudy and the enemy strongly contesting the raid, that bombing accuracy fell off considerably from the ideal should not have come as a surprise.
It worked great when the skies were clear and the bombing aircraft wasn't being buffeted by flak nor attacked by enemy fighters. However, as the skies were often cloudy and the enemy strongly contesting the raid, that bombing accuracy fell off considerably from the ideal should not have come as a surprise.
yosimitesam
Airman 1st Class
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
And that's true with everything, even modern precision guided weapons. I recall hearing of tests with what I think was the TOW wire guided anti-tank missile. Results on test range targets was superb, with a hit rate of well over 90%. Then they tried setting off random explosions in the area while the operator was guiding the missile and the hit rate dropped to more like 60%. I suppose that with more training the operators could be somewhat desensitized to having explosions go off, but there still was no one shooting at them, which I think would harm your accuracy even if you were not being hit.
yosimitesam
Airman 1st Class
Quite true. The problem of accuracy grows exponentially with height because, ultimately, bombing accuracy is dependent on precise measurement of two things: ANGLES and WIND. A one degree angle error at 25,000 feet, assuming all other variables are taken care of perfectly, will result in a radial error of over 500 feet. (Look at a trigonometric tangent curve and how steep it gets as the angle increases. Radial error increases with the height times the tangent-error of the angle to the target.) Also, the wind speed and direction at bombing altitude may not be constant when falling through 25,000 feet. There will be unpredictable variations in the wind vector in layers as the bomb falls to the earth. Adding all this up is the reason that bombing from high altitudes (in that era) would always have errors, often significant errors. The pre-war bombing trials in the U.S. desert were undertaken at 10,000-12,000 feet (the assumed bombing heights in a possible war, at that time) with very stable winds up to that height (the desert.) The AAC was fooling themselves by believing in those non-realistic tests. (They were suffering from "we must become a separate branch of the military" disease.) In reality, bombing inaccuracy doubles about every 5000 feet in altitude. The bombing problem has too many random variables to be solvable in all cases with an electro-mechanical computation. That's why it wasn't really solved until the late 1960's and early 1970's when terminally guided (laser) bombs came into use.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
There is a story that a B-29 raid on Japan targeted a aircraft engine factory. The attack was successful, leaving the factory in ruins (and leading to the Ki61 being modified into the Ki100 as a result). The B-29's crossed downtown Tokyo on the way out, and one bomber had a problem with a hung bomb. The bombardier went back into the bomb bay to kick the bomb loose and managed to get it to drop as they were crossing Tokyo. The bomb made a direct hit on the HQ of the engine company. The Japanese were very impressed at both the accuracy and thorough nature of the attack, wiping out the factory and the corporate HQ as well..
One P-51 wing commander in Europe was replaced by a new man and decided to stay on and command a P-38 wing. He was very impressed with the idea of the Droopsnoot bombardier-equipped P-38 enabling the fighters to conduct level bombing missions and set up an attack on a German airfield. Flying along at 15,000 ft, everything seemed to be going well and they released their bombs over the German base. Then WHAM! The German AAA had them zeroed in perfectly. They barely escaped getting shot down. Only the newcomers were dumb enough to fly straight and level at 15,000 ft over a target in the ETO. The Heavies flew at 25,000 ft for a reason! Bombing from 25,000 ft threw off bombing accuracy but also limited the guns the German could hit them with and screwed up that accuracy as well.
When the first B-26 units arrived in Great Britain they asked the RAF about their experience and were told not to fly straight and level at 15,000 ft or such lower altitudes for more than 5 minutes ANYWHERE over occupied territory in the ETO. So they planned their missions accordingly, zig zagging all over the place, and the B-26 suffered the lowest loss rate of any USAAF bomber.
One P-51 wing commander in Europe was replaced by a new man and decided to stay on and command a P-38 wing. He was very impressed with the idea of the Droopsnoot bombardier-equipped P-38 enabling the fighters to conduct level bombing missions and set up an attack on a German airfield. Flying along at 15,000 ft, everything seemed to be going well and they released their bombs over the German base. Then WHAM! The German AAA had them zeroed in perfectly. They barely escaped getting shot down. Only the newcomers were dumb enough to fly straight and level at 15,000 ft over a target in the ETO. The Heavies flew at 25,000 ft for a reason! Bombing from 25,000 ft threw off bombing accuracy but also limited the guns the German could hit them with and screwed up that accuracy as well.
When the first B-26 units arrived in Great Britain they asked the RAF about their experience and were told not to fly straight and level at 15,000 ft or such lower altitudes for more than 5 minutes ANYWHERE over occupied territory in the ETO. So they planned their missions accordingly, zig zagging all over the place, and the B-26 suffered the lowest loss rate of any USAAF bomber.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Here is an interesting shot. See the Norden bombsight? It's not there! The only way the flexible nose machine gun in the B-26 could be used was if the Norden bombsight was removed. Fortunately, it was designed to be quickly removed by pulling some pins.
And in the ETO it seems that they made very little use of the package guns on the side, but I do recall reading of a B-26 that broke formation, got on the tail of a BF-109, and shot it down.
And in the ETO it seems that they made very little use of the package guns on the side, but I do recall reading of a B-26 that broke formation, got on the tail of a BF-109, and shot it down.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,731
- May 13, 2018
It has been a long time since reading that, but I believe the B-26 pilot wanted to fly fighters and had a .50 mounted fixed on the fuselage in front of his windshield.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I recall reading of a B-17 pilot who had fixed .50 in the nose he could use, but the B-26 pilot who described getting the 109 said he was using the package guns. Note that B-26 in the photo I posted has not only the four package guns but also a fixed .50 on the Right side of the nose. You see that fixed .50 a lot in B-25's but I do not recall seeing one in a B-26 before. Some A-26's had one or two fixed .50 in the clear nose, too, but it does not seem to be very common. Note that the picture below is of an early A-26C with the hated flat canopy.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Would that be the pilot of "Old 666"?
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,731
- May 13, 2018
Good to learn the correction. Too much reading while young and too poor remembering when old.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
The jpg is not visible in my browser. Anyone else getting this problem?
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,501
- Mar 26, 2007
A problem with displaying pics
If it would be as you said everybody had the same problem with uploading of the pics. But it doesn't seem to be be that because it happens to random files and users. Certainly the changes that have been introduced recently might affect that. But but it would be a general issue. For instance I...
ww2aircraft.net
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Interesting - I tried this page in three browsers and still did not get the jpg displayed
Firefox - my default
Edge - my normal alternative
Waterfox - just tried for the first time.
I will not use Chrome. I try and avoid spyware on my computer.
Firefox - my default
Edge - my normal alternative
Waterfox - just tried for the first time.
I will not use Chrome. I try and avoid spyware on my computer.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
How about as a .png instead of a .jpg?
The fixed 0.5" in the lower nose of the B-26 was a modification that was started in July 1942 on the last 207 B-26B to be built. It then became a standard fit on subsequent production aircraft until part way through the B-26B-45 & B-26C-45 production runs when it was dropped from the equipment fit (late 1943/early 1944).
On the A-26C the pair of fixed 0.5" on the starboard side of the nose were standard equiment as built.
A single fixed 0.5" began to be factory fitted in the B-25C-5 in 1942 at the same time as the flexible 0.3" was upgraded to a 0.5". The B-25D-5 received a pair of fixed 0.5" in the nose as well as the flexible gun upgrade. Early J aircraft had a single fixed 0.5" before 2 became standard again on the J-20. Of course there were a whole host of field mods to the nose armament of B-25C/D.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I have almost never seen an A-26C with the fixed .50's in the nose, although I do recall it being depicted in one of those fabulous cut-away drawings. It certainly was not on the Korean models, at least some of which had the six .50 in the wings.
