Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Norden Bombsight

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Norden Bombsight Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 3:34:38 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
Twotribes
Milosevic is out of power and is on trail becuase he lost power after war becuase he look weak
The point of my initial post is that if you are fighting a leader who is a coward bomb his residence.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 31
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 4:00:38 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

Did the heavy bombers bomb anyone into submission? They nuked Japan into submission, not sure if that counts. Germany's industry was still going strong until lack of materials started choking it down, and was finished off once the medium bombers and F/B's got into range and destroyed anything that moved. Couldn't hit the targets in either the ETO or the PTO, so in both cases they went to carpet bombing, terror raids, and saturation bombing.

But, you can argue that if destroying specific industrial targets in order to cripple Germanys capability to wage war was the goal, then "surgical strikes" (LOL) using proven platforms with a high degree of accuracy would have been the preferred method. The Mosquito's accuracy rate delivering ordnance against point targets a relatively proven quantity. As was its abilities as an intruder and pathfinder.

"Germans could've put up better defenses against mere fighter-bombers and probably do so with half the resources, thus sending more attention elsewhere."

I'm not certain if any Mossies were ever shot down by a German Night-Fighter through the entire war, none of them could catch one. Resources...Germans invested alot into defences against bombers. Hundreds of thousands of men, and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of high velocity guns that could have been employed elsewhere (like the Eastern Front) as AT guns.

So, considering the abysmal performance of heavy bombers, was forcing the Germans/Japanese to invest into air defense, and terrorizing the populations worth the loss of tens of thousands of aircrew and the expense pumped into heavy bombers? Heck, look at the anemic bombload of the B-17. The fighter escort might have broken the back of the Luftwaffe...but did they need to drag a bunch of bombers along to do it? And if the real objective was to cripple the German war machine by hitting key components of their industry, why didn't they send in precision bombers to do it, regardless of whatever else they did?

I'm just throwing this out for conversation BTW.


I think the key thing to the success the Mossie might've enjoyed had to do with two large factors, of which, since they weren't used more than they were, nobody foresaw very well, and that is, it's not that they were uninterceptable, as to suggest they were faster than anything the Germans had, but that they were wooden therefore radar invisible. The other thing is that they were regarded just as we have regarded them, something of a minor nuisance, or at least compared to the heavies they were. I mean, if you know have 800 heavies over Hamburg and 10 Mossies, and you're thinking as I suggest, then why bother very much with the Mossies when the heavies are the threat (and how much more effective are the heavies if the Mossies are getting a huge chunk of the German's counter-measures instead?)? That thinking of course helped the Mossies have an easier time than would've been otherwise. In some alternate reality if the Mossies, even if there are just ten of them on a raid, are considered the real threat, then naturally you're going to put a lot more effort into figuring ways to deal with it, but, in my mind, should some advent of a Mossie offensive replace the heavies entirely, I'm thinking it would take less resources to deal with it. Of course, if much that were worthwhile in dealing with heavies were proven absolutely useless in dealing with Mossies, then though you would've liked them to be effective, you'll just have to pull those resources out to effect other areas of the war. To carry it to an extreme, if nothing works against them at all, then everything is freed up to be used elsewhere (except for the targets of course).

With the military and public perception of heavies and fighter-bombers during the war, there's probably no way you could've ever tuned off the heavies while turning on the Mossies. Remember as well that no matter how effective they were, that they wouldn't have achieved such effectiveness if it weren't for the 'larger distraction' but also because a pulling back of heavies would've meant little or no daylight raids (since of course much of Mossie success was due to being used at night).

(in reply to juliet7bravo)
Post #: 32
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 4:45:20 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

He is one of those people that think the allies went to far. Never mind we didnt start it, never mind that we didnt round up civilians and gas them.


I'd prefer to get it directly from the horse's @$$ - err, mouth.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 33
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 5:17:39 AM   
Cav Trooper


Posts: 237
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Clinton, South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

but that they were wooden therefore radar invisible.


Ah, not quite true. Although the vast majority of the Airframe was wooden / Balsa construction, there was still alot of metal on the airframe. Namely, Gear struts, Engine(s) and engine mounts, cockpit structures, armor, gunbays etc. The wood did not asborb the Radar signals as most of our composite structures do now.

What I believe that made the Mossie so effective was the sheer speed it carried at altitude for the night missions. As for the Day missions, again sheer speed and manueverablility as a Fighter Bomber combined with the amount of damage the previously mentioned airframe structure could asorb.

As for the Strategic Bombing campaign, initially it did have a solid effect on the German Industry, namely Ball Bearing, Steel works, and Aircraft production. Later as the War progressed, mostly after middle to late 43, the Germans began to disperse the Factories to smaller shops, mostly underground or in mines, for sub component assembly, and for final assembies at other widely dispersed and camoflaged sites. But, what I found odd was, although they went after the Oil and Snythetic Oil refineries and storage facilities, they never really made a concerted effort to go after the Power grid. Namely, the Power stations, generators or distribution network. I believe if they went after that portion of the infrastructure, along with the communication, road and rail networks I personally believe that it would have a greater impact on German Industry faster and more severely than it did, historically.

As for the Brits, that is another subject althogether...

_____________________________

3rd ACR Tanker
3/4 US Cav Trooper
Brave Rifles

"Professional soldiers are predictable; the world is full of dangerous amateurs."

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 34
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 5:39:39 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
From the ETO USSBS

"In the attack by Allied air power, almost 2,700,000 tons of bombs were dropped, more than 1,440,000 bomber sorties and 2,680,000 fighter sorties were flown. The number of men lost in air action (KIA, WIA, MIA, & captured I think) was 79,265 Americans and 79,281 British. [Note: All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative.] More than 18,000 American and 22,000 British planes were lost or damaged beyond repair.

In Germany, 3,600,000 dwelling units, approximately 20% of the total, were destroyed or heavily damaged. Survey estimates show some 300,000 civilians killed and 780,000 wounded. The number made homeless aggregates 7,500,000. The principal German cities have been largely reduced to hollow walls and piles of rubble. German industry is bruised and temporarily paralyzed."

Okay, so we lost 160,000 of our own men in order to "bruise and temporarily paralyze" German industry. With the bruising and paralyzing mostly coming from the medium bombers and F/B's.

Interesting Heavy Bomber Factoids (some of these are inaccurate BTW);
- Over 100,000 Allied bomber crewmen were killed over Europe
- 2/3 of Allied bomber crews were lost for each plane destroyed
- 6 bomber crewmen were killed for each one wounded
- More US servicemen died in the Air Corps that the Marine Corps. While completing the required 30 missions, your chance of being killed was 71%. (25 missions)
- A number of air crewmen died of farts. (ascending to 20,000 ft. in an un-pressurized aircraft causes intestinal gas to expand 300%!) (LOL)
- Average cost of a B-17 (in 1940's dollars) was $200,000.
- 12,000 heavy bombers were shot down in World War 2 (I think this is just USAF planes?...call each one a B-17 (cheapest), that works out to $2,400,000,000 USD in 1940-ish dollars)
- Another 3500 heavy bombers lost and 5000 men KIA in training in the US.
- US Air Force shipped almost 7,000,000 tons of stuff to the ETO by air and water.
- Germany’s power grid was much more vulnerable than realized. One estimate is that if just 1% of the bombs dropped on German industry had instead been dropped on power plants, German industry would have collapsed.

Mosquito - a very fast long range medium bomber which carried a 1.8 ton bomb and successfully relied on its high speed and agility instead of guns and gunners for self-protection. Although its loss rate was lowest of all allied bombers and its bombing precision the highest, British decision makers remained firm in their conservative belief that the main bomber must have gun turrets, so instead of becoming the main bomber type, the excellent Mosquito's advantages were used mainly in support of the main force of the slow heavy bombers, and less than 1/4 of the Mosquitoes produced were of bomber types. The other Mosquitoes excelled in multiple other combat roles.

B-17 Flying Fortress - the world's first 4-engine long range heavy bomber (1935), its excellent basic design enabled the production of ever improved types, and it fought everywhere until the end of world war 2. Built with the concept that a day bomber should be able to self-protect from enemy fighters, the common B-17G type had 8 gun positions with 13 heavy machine guns, arranged to cover all directions. It had a crew of 10 and was equipped with advanced electronics, and could carry over 5 tons of bombs, but mostly carried much less, depending on the mission's range, and as little as just 1.8 tons in missions to Berlin, which is what the British Mosquito bomber carried to Berlin with much greater precision, less losses, a crew of just 2, and no guns, thanks to its high speed which made the Mosquito much harder to intercept.

< Message edited by juliet7bravo -- 10/10/2004 11:19:35 PM >

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 35
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 9:03:44 AM   
A6BSTARM


Posts: 2
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline
The Norden bombsite was originally developed by the navy for use in its torpedo bombers and was adopted for use in the PBY for level bombing of shipping and for level bombing of land targets. The USAAF adopted it for use in the B-17, since they were going to use the B-17 to attack shipping when the Navy wasn't around. As far as I have read most USAAF level bombers in the medium and heavy catagories carried the Norden sight and the USN had it in the TBD, TBF/M, and all of thier patrol bombers (PBY, PB2Y, PB4Y). The Navy found that optimum use was from medium altitude to attack land targets and found out after test following Midway that it really wasn't effective to attack shipping that was moving very fast and that dive bombing and torpedo attacks had a better precentage of kill.

I have found in the game that I get the best results from running the bombers at the heights they were most often used at. In that medium bombers (B-25,B-26,A-26) are used at a medium altitude and the heavy bombers are used at the highest altitude they can fly at. That is where I have gotten the most success.

(in reply to juliet7bravo)
Post #: 36
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 9:11:49 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
A6BSTARM Where did you find this information? It doesn't make much sense.
why would a Torpedo Bomber (which drops in load below 200 feet) need a bomb
sight accurized for performance from above 10,000? Not to mention the apparatus
was rather large and intricate to try to cram into a single engined aircraft. Are you
SURE about this?

_____________________________


(in reply to A6BSTARM)
Post #: 37
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 9:41:42 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
I hope your not flying your heavy bombers over 30000 feet. There is a known bug that when flown that high the aircraft is super accurate.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 38
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 10:35:53 AM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline
Here's a quickie history on the sight

http://www.skylighters.org/encyclopedia/norden.html

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 39
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 2:50:45 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
Reading this description I have the feeling that the bombsight is completely useless in attacking moving targets.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 40
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/11/2004 11:57:31 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

i think it's about 50 or so Mosquitos lost in the night bombing, but i will check ASAP


Checked?


BTW, according to my books the best German WWII night fighter was:

Heinkel He-219 "Uhu" (Nightowl)

First prototype flown in Nov 1942 but, unfortunately for Germans, the project was canceled in May 1944 so only some preproduction aircraft were build (100-300) which equipped certain night squadrons (operationaly used from April 1943).

1/NJG11 at Venlo in the Netherlands shot down 20 RAF aircraft (including 6 Mosquitos) in first 6 sorties by that unit.

On 11 June 1943 major Werner Streib shot down 5 Lancasters bombers in single sortie...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 41
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/12/2004 2:04:49 AM   
A6BSTARM


Posts: 2
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline
The wonderful book called "Destined for Glory: Dive Bombing, Midway, and the Evolution of Carrier Airpower" commented on the designed factors of the Norden sight and how the TBD was built around it. The center crewman manned the Norden sight it was mounted centerline behind a special door that was normally covered up by a torpedo, if the torpedo wasn't carried then usually a 1000lb bomb was carried just up under the pilots seat along with the wing mounts for 100 to 250lb bombs. The bombadier/Navigator would sight through the Norden and using his own release trigger press the button. The USAAF was looking to steal the same amount of precious aviation dollars as USN air was compeating for, so they adopted the sight and used it on a pratice run against an Italian airliner out past the 12NM limit with B-17C's around 1936-38 timeframe. The leader of that was then Col. Curtiss LeMay. The Navy screamed bloody murder about the USAAF stealing thier thunder The book "TBD in Action" published by Squadron/Signal also shows how the Norden Sight was mounted and used.
In actual action the TBD's only used the sights when the conducted some level bombing against the IJN units during the Carrier raids of 1941 and when Fletcher's task force attack Rabual before the battle of the Coral Sea. The USN deleted the Norden Sight from it's torpedo bombers after midway when it realized that the accurracy delievered just was promised when used against shipping and that better hits were achieved using the glide bombing techneqiue
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

A6BSTARM Where did you find this information? It doesn't make much sense.
why would a Torpedo Bomber (which drops in load below 200 feet) need a bomb
sight accurized for performance from above 10,000? Not to mention the apparatus
was rather large and intricate to try to cram into a single engined aircraft. Are you
SURE about this?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 42
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/12/2004 4:38:59 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I hope your not flying your heavy bombers over 30000 feet. There is a known bug that when flown that high the aircraft is super accurate.


No. I hadn't tried bombing from such high altitude before I found out about the bug...,
and to do so afterward would just be cheating. And since I was playing against the AI
it would be stupid as well, because the AI needs all the help it can get to give you a
decent contest.

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 43
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/12/2004 1:59:30 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
Not being the RAF fanboy again but...

Could argue (as Mike did) that radar and the clever navigation beam stuff (Oboe) made RAF more accurate at night than most USAAF in day, for what they wanted ie hit middle of a big city.

Not sure daylight losses were sole reason for switch to night bombing. Have read some argument that is was change of tactic first ie - no matter what we do we won't be able to precision bomb every tank factory, so lets fly lots of big bombers and flatten a whole city to a. kill of the workers in the factories (straight statment by Harris) b. depress moral (huh - like Britain collapsed under blitz...) c. almost as secondary effect dmage industry and infrastructure. And then it was decided you did not need daylight to do that - thought actually they probably did to start with! Not nice but there we are.

Mossies - ah yes what a beaut. Nightfighters got them by sneaking up on pathfinders and 'master bombers' (how Guy Gibson died) loitering round targets (ok only my IMHO/joke) . But quite a few probably downed by jittery Lanc gunners; care to tell difference between two different two-engine fighters on a dark night in split second? Lancs shot at each other often anough. Think that the daylight reece, BDA, and weather check mossies were never caught by a fighter? No bombs no weapons vey high very fast. Weather flights - now why is THAT not modelled?

Last thing - I recall Mossies also being used as ultimate Night fighter counter measure - stalking German NFs as they came back to their airfields. Not much fun having a similar shaped and sized badguy in the approach circuit with you.

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 44
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/12/2004 3:54:43 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk
...


Sorry guys, off topic... Hey Strawbuk, seems your are online right now - I have some email problems at the moment, did you receive my PacWar turn I've sent yesterday?

Cheers,
LST

_____________________________


(in reply to strawbuk)
Post #: 45
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/12/2004 3:59:33 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
Got it and coming right back at ya Dad

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 46
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/12/2004 8:52:41 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Not being the RAF fanboy again but...

Could argue (as Mike did) that radar and the clever navigation beam stuff (Oboe) made RAF more accurate at night than most USAAF in day, for what they wanted ie hit middle of a big city.


Actually, the accuracy comparison I was making did not involve "area bombing" of cities.
During the run up to D-Day, the Railway Marshalling Yards all over France and parts of
western Germany were to be knocked out to cut German communication. These were
"precission targets" generally located within large towns and cities who's civilians the
Allies did not want to target. There was more than a little trepidation about involving
Bomber Command in such operations..., but when the damage assessments were done
afterward they proved to have been very successful. The advances in "target marking"
and "illumination" made during the war, coupled with less flak and fighter defense made
for good bombing conditions. And the fact that each aircraft approached the target and
bombed on it's own meant that the concentrations on the Yards were very tight. The
US aircraft were generally bombing by groups, keying on the lead bombadier which
meant that the "pattern" of bombfall was directly related to the formation being flown.
I just thought it was a kind of "funny" result that the folks who were willing to sacrifice
accuracy for survivability ended up being quite accurate but taking more losses---while
those willing to risk losses to gain accuracy wound up losing accuracy but eventually
gaining survivability (through their escorts trashing the opposition). One of those odd
occurances that proves again thet no Plan (or strategy) survives contact with the enemy.

_____________________________


(in reply to strawbuk)
Post #: 47
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/12/2004 9:27:37 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Checked?


BTW, according to my books the best German WWII night fighter was:

Heinkel He-219 "Uhu" (Nightowl)

First prototype flown in Nov 1942 but, unfortunately for Germans, the project was canceled in May 1944 so only some preproduction aircraft were build (100-300) which equipped certain night squadrons (operationaly used from April 1943).

1/NJG11 at Venlo in the Netherlands shot down 20 RAF aircraft (including 6 Mosquitos) in first 6 sorties by that unit.

On 11 June 1943 major Werner Streib shot down 5 Lancasters bombers in single sortie...


Leo "Apollo11"


err.... not, Honda still keeps my book, maybe he will see this and answer.

Honda? Honda!

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 48
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 5:45:21 PM   
Honda


Posts: 953
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline
No answer for anyone, including me. May we all rot in ignorance, for she is bliss!
New job, exams to pass, girlfriend and computer to please...Man! Gimme a break
Anyway Pauk, we'll meet for "coffee" and you'll get your book back. Fair enough?
P.S.
Shame i couldn't find time to read it cover to cover...

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 49
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 5:58:48 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Not being the RAF fanboy again but...

Could argue (as Mike did) that radar and the clever navigation beam stuff (Oboe) made RAF more accurate at night than most USAAF in day, for what they wanted ie hit middle of a big city.


Actually, the accuracy comparison I was making did not involve "area bombing" of cities.
During the run up to D-Day, the Railway Marshalling Yards all over France and parts of
western Germany were to be knocked out to cut German communication. These were
"precission targets" generally located within large towns and cities who's civilians the
Allies did not want to target. There was more than a little trepidation about involving
Bomber Command in such operations..., but when the damage assessments were done
afterward they proved to have been very successful. The advances in "target marking"
and "illumination" made during the war, coupled with less flak and fighter defense made
for good bombing conditions. And the fact that each aircraft approached the target and
bombed on it's own meant that the concentrations on the Yards were very tight. The
US aircraft were generally bombing by groups, keying on the lead bombadier which
meant that the "pattern" of bombfall was directly related to the formation being flown.
I just thought it was a kind of "funny" result that the folks who were willing to sacrifice
accuracy for survivability ended up being quite accurate but taking more losses---while
those willing to risk losses to gain accuracy wound up losing accuracy but eventually
gaining survivability (through their escorts trashing the opposition). One of those odd
occurances that proves again thet no Plan (or strategy) survives contact with the enemy.


With Oboe and the like would not the accuracy be decreased based on distance from base.
If it is off by 1% at a target 100 miles away it will be within 1 miles.
for a target 500 miles away it will be off by 5 miles.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 50
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 6:13:31 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
Isn't that why the marker aircraft were necessary?

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 51
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 6:29:34 PM   
Brausepaul


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: Braunschweig, Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

...Never mind we didnt start it, never mind that we didnt round up civilians and gas them.


What a lame excuse, I guess the German civil population died happily a better death. Dead is dead.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 52
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 6:49:48 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline
One note on the Mossie. It was less expensive than a Heavy bomber and may have had a better accuracy record than teh Heavies, but it was also flown by Fighter pilots. Not gbelittleing the bomber pilots just that teh Mossie squads and most Tactical squadrons be they P-47's, P-38's, Mossies, Typhoons, Hurri IIc's etc., all had a great deal of trainign in ground attack. The crew was smaller but they took far more traing to bring up to the level needed. Bomber pilots recived most of thier training to stay in formation.

As for Bombloads, the Mossie had a great load and with the addition of rockets could be a real killer on point targets. However they woudl not be ideal for all targets. Oil Fields, large refineries and such woudl still need heavy bombers. Just hitting teh storage tanks, or teh refinery itself, is not all that is wanted. You want all of the loose bombs to damge piping, valves and otehr ancillary tagets.

Teh fast Light Bomber has it's place in WW2 but it woudl not have made the ideal bomber. Modern fighter bombers and Heavy bobmers have incredible accuracy. In WW2 they coudl not achive this without specific tactics, tactics that could have been stopped with old tried and true defense. To achive the precison accuracy they were known for the FB's practiced Dive bombing or Glide bombing. To stop these attacks or to spoil the accuarcy, just put up Barrage Ballons. Combine this with small caliber Flak (20 mm Quad mounts) would be devastating as they were int eh war when employed to defend against these typw of aircraft.

UB

_____________________________


(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 53
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 8:43:16 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
"Bombing Accuracy
During the summer of 1944, 47 B-29s raided the Yawata steel works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and with only one of its bombs. This single 500 lb general purpose bomb (which hit a powerhouse located 3,700 ft from the far more important coke houses that constituted the raid’s aiming point) represented one quarter of one per cent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission."

"It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)"

"One note on the Mossie. ect."

The bombing accuracy of the heavy bombers was so pathetic they were lucky to get a bomb somewhere in the vicinity of the target until very late in the war. If we can train 1080 aircrew to miss the target using 108 aircraft, it would seem logical that we could train 20 aircrew using 10 aircraft to miss the target much more cheaply and effectively...even if they miss the target too, we're still ahead of the game. Actually hitting the target would just be a bonus. Looking at the casualty figures, cost of the heavy bombers, tooling up factories, and the expense of their support infrastructure balanced against their actual effectiveness against German industry, you have to wonder whose industry was actually getting punished as a result of the bombing campaign.

< Message edited by juliet7bravo -- 10/13/2004 1:43:50 PM >

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 54
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 8:56:15 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
The Allied bombing campaign against Germany went after the wrong target. Strategic bombing - whether in Europe or the Pacific - never bombed anybody into submission. The war was ultimately won by parking a tank in their backyards.

If the Allies had bombed only ONE target/objective they could have ground German production and industry to a standstill and that was the German OIL production. Without oil the factories wouldn't be able to make anything, planes wouldn't be able to fly and tanks and trucks wouldn't have been able to move. The Allies did go after the oil but it was down the list of their priorities instead of being number one.

Bombing of cities, or "Terror Bombing", whether by Germans, British or Americans, never broke civilian morale to the point of collapse.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Cav Trooper)
Post #: 55
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 9:30:34 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Yes lets apoligize for the German and Italian AGGRESSORS. Lets pretend that the British and Americans were brutal murderers that woke up one morning and said, humm lets go bomb German cities.

Germany started the war, and set the tone for its conduct. Judging the actions of our predecessors now 60 years later is a poor excuse for makeing excuses for those that CAUSED the war.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 56
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 9:34:30 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey


With Oboe and the like would not the accuracy be decreased based on distance from base.
If it is off by 1% at a target 100 miles away it will be within 1 miles.
for a target 500 miles away it will be off by 5 miles.


Mickey. At this point in the war (1944) Oboe wasn't in much use except as an aid to
the pathfinders. The bombing I'm refering too was the result of airborne radar (H2S,
I think) that allowed the Pathfinder units to find the right target. Then a few Lancasters
would drop massive arial flares, turning night into day so Mosquitoes could "dive mark"
the exact target for the following bombers. With the target clearly designated, the
bombers in the "stream" simply individually bombed on the marked and well lit target.
The accuracy in these raids against "Transportation Targets" by the RAF in the months
just before D-Day was incredably good, with colateral damage being held to a minimum
and the RR Yards left looking like the surface of the moon..., plowed.

What it proved was that in spite of "Bomber" Harris' arguements to the contrary, under
the right circumstances Bomber Command COULD be a "precision instrament" The
discovery came in handy later that year when the German Oil Plants were finally and
decisively targeted. US bombers could damage and disrupt them..., but the huge bombs
carried by the RAF actually destroyed them. B-17's and 24's couldn't handle the block-
buster's the Brits could carry by war's end.

_____________________________


(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 57
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 9:54:51 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
I was merely stating a fact that neither the German blitz of London nor the British/American bombings broke civilian morale. I was also stating a point of view that more effective use of air assets would have been to go after the oil rather than the civilian population.

As a matter of fact, when the European war began both the Germans AND British had prohibitions in place AGAINST bombing of civilians. The first German bombing of London was not only against standing orders but was also the result of some lost bombers. The very next night the British retaliated by bombing Berlin and after that all gloves were off.

Also if you want to place "blame" for World War Two you could go as far back as the Versailles Treaty and maybe even further back. There is no argument that Hitler's aggression started the Second World War in Europe but you must also fault the British, French and Americans for all the missed opportunities they had to stop the war before it started. The British could unilaterally have stopped Mussolini's expansion in Africa by closing the Suez Canal to him; France could have stopped Hitler by overturning his reoccupation of the Rhineland and America could have forced the Japanese war machine to grind to a halt with a handful of selected sanctions in the late thirties. So, in a way, Germany, Italy, Britain, France, Japan and America are all to blame for World War II ... some nations for being the aggressors and others for not having the national backbone to stop the aggressors when it could have been done easily.

This isn't as black and white as some would like this to be. As with everything in life there's no black and white but merely shades of grey.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 58
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 10:00:20 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not asserting that they did, my friend. All I'm saying is that light bombers never proved themselves to be adequate for accomplishing strategic missions. Heavy bombers did not bomb Germany or Japan into submission, of course (the nukes were just a "last straw" kind of thing, I think), but they were not intended to do so. The idea at first was to attrit the enemy's heavy industry and related logistical operations. This was never accomplished, either, although significant damage was done. Eventually, strikes against population centers for morale effect became de rigeuer, and there is no conclusive evidence that this did much more than immolate a lot of civilians.


Actually it wasn't the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which was the "last straw" for the Japanese but rather the entry of the Soviet Union in the war against Japan.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 59
RE: Norden Bombsight - 10/13/2004 10:13:04 PM   
Brausepaul


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: Braunschweig, Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
...
Germany started the war, and set the tone for its conduct. Judging the actions of our predecessors now 60 years later is a poor excuse for makeing excuses for those that CAUSED the war.


No one questioned the countries that caused the war, but killing women and children is an atrocity regardless of the side you're on.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Norden Bombsight Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.281