ADVERTISEMENT

Norden Bombsight: Put a bomb in a pickle barrel at 20,000 ft altitude.

I know there is a lot of history and WW II buffs on here so the post. I was just watching Weaponology on the American History Channel. The "expert used the pickle barrel quote. I thought I'd google Norden and try and see how this game changer worked. Interesting article.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-norden-bombsight-accurate-beyond-belief/

Back in the 40's, during the war, either a B24, or B25 emergency landed about a mile from my house in a local farmers field. When the locals, kids etc. ran to the field, they were met by the armed crew outside the plane and warned not to come any closer than about 100 yards or they would shoot them. After a few hours, some other personnel showed up and removed the Nordin gun site placed it in a case, loaded it on a truck with some other armed personnel and the entire crew drove off.
 
Quite a few myths qwere generated by the Army Air force to bolster their chances of becoming a separate branch. The Norden was one and another was the alleged success of strategic bombing. Neither worked

The bombsight only worked to best effect in optimum weather conditions, which the rain and fog of Europe seldom provided. You also had to use it in the daylight, which left you open to big-time fighter attacks. Conditions were even worse over Japan, which was one reason the B-29s went to area bombing and night raids, much as the Brits did in Europe. While the Germans were able to replace much of the production lost to bombing and even increase production in some cases, they had to devote vast resources in manpower and materials to defend against the Allied bombing raids — resources that could have been used elsewhere — so it's not quite true that the bombing didn't "work."
 
Quite a few myths qwere generated by the Army Air force to bolster their chances of becoming a separate branch. The Norden was one and another was the alleged success of strategic bombing. Neither worked
To say nothing about the absolutely horrific losses suffered by the aircrews and the staggering civilian death toll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmos and acg116
Quite a few myths were generated by the Army Air force to bolster their chances of becoming a separate branch. The Norden was one and another was the alleged success of strategic bombing. Neither worked
The Red Army deployed 2.5 million men, 6250 tanks, 7500 planes, 41,600 artillery pieces and 3255 rocket launchers in the battle for Berlin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brupsu
The bombsight only worked to best effect in optimum weather conditions, which the rain and fog of Europe seldom provided. You also had to use it in the daylight, which left you open to big-time fighter attacks. Conditions were even worse over Japan, which was one reason the B-29s went to area bombing and night raids, much as the Brits did in Europe. While the Germans were able to replace much of the production lost to bombing and even increase production in some cases, they had to devote vast resources in manpower and materials to defend against the Allied bombing raids — resources that could have been used elsewhere — so it's not quite true that the bombing didn't "work."
I didn't know until 17 years ago when my dad passed away and my mom mentioned that she worked on the Norden bombsite. Like the military these ladies rarely talked about what they did during the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
I know there is a lot of history and WW II buffs on here so the post. I was just watching Weaponology on the American History Channel. The "expert used the pickle barrel quote. I thought I'd google Norden and try and see how this game changer worked. Interesting article.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-norden-bombsight-accurate-beyond-belief/
Thought I might purchase one, but the asking prices are too much. $3,500 - $7,000.
Cool Training film.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2
With all the bombs dropped you would think taking Berlin wouldn't be that difficult.

It made taking Berlin more difficult. The massive rubble provided natural defensive positions for the Germans and denied the Russians wide open avenues of approach. Many a Russian armored vehicle was destroyed by a kid with a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon hiding behind a pile of rubble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGLOV
On a somewhat related note, the city which suffered the greatest death toll as a direct result of bombing may have been Tokyo. Unlike the European cities, it was almost entirely made up of wooden structures and burned to the ground. (Hiroshima may have lost more people in total once you factor in later deaths from radiation.)
 
It made taking Berlin more difficult. The massive rubble provided natural defensive positions for the Germans and denied the Russians wide open avenues of approach. Many a Russian armored vehicle was destroyed by a kid with a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon hiding behind a pile of rubble.

Yes, but thousands of German fighters that could have been deployed to bomb and strafe the Russians soldiers as they moved toward Germany had instead been deployed defending against British and American air attacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGLOV
To say nothing about the absolutely horrific losses suffered by the aircrews and the staggering civilian death toll.
Wasn’t the magic number something crazy low like 15 missions before you had a high probability of dying?
 
Wasn’t the magic number something crazy low like 15 missions before you had a high probability of dying?

Early on the airmen stood only a 20% chnce of completing their 25 missions. The mission requirement was increased to 35 after fighter escorts were fully employed. By that time the German airforce was pretty well decimated and it became much easier to complete the 35 missions.
 
With all the bombs dropped you would think taking Berlin wouldn't be that difficult.

Berlin was pretty much turned into a vast heap of rubble by American and British bombers (as was Stalingrad by German bombers, and the Monte Casino in
Italy by the Allied air forces). Unfortunately, building rubble makes for superb defensible positions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGLOV
it's difficult to believe that the results justified the loss of life
Thank Sherman during the civil war. War evolved to destroying the enemy's manufacturing, breadbasket and their will to fight. The bombing, initially, was designed to destroy the Manufacturing. But the enemy simply moved the site, went underground, took POWs and restarted. So the secondary goal was to kill the people (read Slaughterhouse five). In the end, war is war. You are in or you are out. Limited wars, don't work (see Vietnam and AF). You go in, kill as many enemy as you can, and get out. End of story.
 
My first job out of college was Burroughs Corp. They used to make product just outside detroit. it was the plant where the norden bombsight was made. The guy who hired me, was the lead navigator for the 100th bomb group when the war ended. We used to sit and listen to him for hours:
  • One of the first to see a jet (ME-262)
  • Carpet Bombing in 1944/45
  • Believes he is the only Nav to shoot down an enemy fighter
  • Lead Nav-ing a hundred+ B17s over England out of Stansted (I believe)

Two recommendations: Eat at the 100th Bomb Group restaurant at the CLE airport. It is full of authentic items donated by Bloody 100th members (including the guy who hired me) and read 'A Higher Calling" book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Potter
Thank Sherman during the civil war. War evolved to destroying the enemy's manufacturing, breadbasket and their will to fight. The bombing, initially, was designed to destroy the Manufacturing. But the enemy simply moved the site, went underground, took POWs and restarted. So the secondary goal was to kill the people (read Slaughterhouse five). In the end, war is war. You are in or you are out. Limited wars, don't work (see Vietnam and AF). You go in, kill as many enemy as you can, and get out. End of story.
Actually, I was referring to the loss of our aircrews- I think there were better, more efficient ways to use our manpower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
Quite a few myths were generated by the Army Airforce to bolster their chances of becoming a separate branch. The Norden was one and another was the alleged success of strategic bombing. Neither worked.

That (bolded) statement is simply untrue. Allied bombing absolutely crippled Germany's petroleum output (both natural and synthetic fuels) making victory pretty much an impossibility for the Germans. Also, fighter plane production was greatly affected. So much so that the Germans had to break-up their centralized manufacturing effort and disperse it far and wide. If "neither worked" then why did the Luftwaffe pull a substantial portion of its Eastern Front fighter force and reassign it to France, western Germany, Holland, and Belgium? I'll answer that. It was a desperate attempt to stem the immense destruction of their manufacturing output. It was so vital that German fighter pilots were awarded two, and then later three air kills for every bomber they brought down.

Also, the hordes of bombers devastating Germany forced the Luftwaffe to focus on killing the American B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers (and British Avro Lancasters and Halifax heavy bombers at night). Meanwhile, the USA fighter forces were directed to perform dangerous low-level attacks on the German transportation system (railroads, truck convoys, barge traffic, coastal sea traffic, etc), Luftwaffe fighter bases and all other targets of opportunity. The German's fighter forces were unable to cope with this two-pronged Allied attack as they were stretched too thin. The Luftwaffe rapidly lost the battle of attrition as 1944 came to a close. By D-Day the German fuel supply had been reduced to only about 10% of what was required to remain combat effective. Fuel guzzling heavy Panzers were often abandoned as fuel supplies dried up on both fronts. Also, the huge strategic bombing effort drew vast resources away from the Eastern Front in a very successful effort to assist advancing Russian forces. So the statement "neither worked" is quite incorrect.
 
That (bolded) statement is simply untrue. Allied bombing absolutely crippled Germany's petroleum output (both natural and synthetic fuels) making victory pretty much an impossibility for the Germans. Also, fighter plane production was greatly affected. So much so that the Germans had to break-up their centralized manufacturing effort and disperse it far and wide. If "neither worked" then why did the Luftwaffe pull a substantial portion of its Eastern Front fighter force and reassign it to France, western Germany, Holland, and Belgium? I'll answer that. It was a desperate attempt to stem the immense destruction of their manufacturing output. It was so vital that German fighter pilots were awarded two, and then later three air kills for every bomber they brought down.

Also, the hordes of bombers devastating Germany forced the Luftwaffe to focus on killing the American B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers (and British Avro Lancasters and Halifax heavy bombers at night). Meanwhile, the USA fighter forces were directed to perform dangerous low-level attacks on the German transportation system (railroads, truck convoys, barge traffic, coastal sea traffic, etc), Luftwaffe fighter bases and all other targets of opportunity. The German's fighter forces were unable to cope with this two-pronged Allied attack as they were stretched too thin. The Luftwaffe rapidly lost the battle of attrition as 1944 came to a close. By D-Day the German fuel supply had been reduced to only about 10% of what was required to remain combat effective. Fuel guzzling heavy Panzers were often abandoned as fuel supplies dried up on both fronts. Also, the huge strategic bombing effort drew vast resources away from the Eastern Front in a very successful effort to assist advancing Russian forces. So the statement "neither worked" is quite incorrect.

I'll grant you that but...daylight strategic bombing initially ignored the german air defenses. The armament on the heavy bombers was deemed sufficient to protect the bombers without the need of escorts. As long as this went on, it just didn't work. Once the allies went after the german air force (against the wishes of the bomber mafia), bombing improved but it was considered a non strategic comapign, so to speak. The destruction of the german air force ultimately allowed successful bombing runs with a dramatic reduction in the loss of Usa personnell.. This was after such debacles as Ploesti, Schweinfurt/Regensburg which almost led to the dismantling of the 8th. Taking on the German air force was never considered strategic by the powers that be.
More important than the targeting of the synfuel plants were the attacks on the German coal industry. Don't forget, the German economy was coal based whereas the USA was the closest thing to an oil economy.
 
I know there is a lot of history and WW II buffs on here so the post. I was just watching Weaponology on the American History Channel. The "expert used the pickle barrel quote. I thought I'd google Norden and try and see how this game changer worked. Interesting article.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-norden-bombsight-accurate-beyond-belief/

My father was a bombardier on a Boeing B-17G named "Little John" (ID letters of "JUX" and "UXJ" painted on the fuselage) based at RAF Podington (airfield), England (Eighth Air Force, 92nd Bombardment Group, 327th Squadron). Type "Podington" (and/or "Doc Furniss War Film") in the YouTube search tray if interested in seeing a typical WW2 bomber airfield in action.

He flew 20 mostly hellish combat missions over Europe. On his last mission, his bomber was badly crippled by German fighters (FW-190s) and flak over eastern Germany (they were bombing an FW-190 fighter aircraft factory).

The pilot (Lt Trost) radioed home base that the aircraft was badly damaged and that he was going to attempt to limp to and crash land in Sweden. As they flew over the Baltic Sea the crew threw out everything they could to lighten the load as the B-17 was slowly losing altitude (the plane was down to one good engine and another engine crippled but putting out partial power; the other two engines were dead). As they neared Sweden, Swedish fighter planes intercepted them and escorted them to Bultofta airbase where Lt Trost managed to perform a successful wheels-up crash landing (as the aircraft's hydraulics were completely shot out by the fighters).

My father and his crewmates were interred (they were de facto prisoners of war) of Sweden for the rest of the conflict. On one side of the airbase was the barracks for American and British POW aircrew and on the other side, there were barracks for German aircrew POWs. The two sides were not allowed to comingle. My father was employed by the Swedish government as an aircraft mechanic (prior to volunteering for air combat he was fully trained as a B-24 bomber mechanic having received almost a years training at the bomber plant at Ypsilanti, Michigan).

Believe me, there is a LOT more to this story, loads of fascinating details and whatnot I gleaned from my dad (and not covered in the excellent book mentioned below).

If interested, you can read about this and much more in a fascinating book (available from Amazon.com) by George Webster (Ph.D. Biochemistry), the aircraft's radio operator and rear dorsal gunner. It is a fairly easy and quick read, and likely you will not be able to put it down (Click on the book's front cover to read the Preface):
Savage Sky: Life and Death on a Bomber over Germany in 1944 (Stackpole Military History Series)
Feb 11, 2016
by George Webster
 
Last edited:
That (bolded) statement is simply untrue. Allied bombing absolutely crippled Germany's petroleum output (both natural and synthetic fuels) making victory pretty much an impossibility for the Germans. Also, fighter plane production was greatly affected. So much so that the Germans had to break-up their centralized manufacturing effort and disperse it far and wide. If "neither worked" then why did the Luftwaffe pull a substantial portion of its Eastern Front fighter force and reassign it to France, western Germany, Holland, and Belgium? I'll answer that. It was a desperate attempt to stem the immense destruction of their manufacturing output. It was so vital that German fighter pilots were awarded two, and then later three air kills for every bomber they brought down.

Also, the hordes of bombers devastating Germany forced the Luftwaffe to focus on killing the American B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers (and British Avro Lancasters and Halifax heavy bombers at night). Meanwhile, the USA fighter forces were directed to perform dangerous low-level attacks on the German transportation system (railroads, truck convoys, barge traffic, coastal sea traffic, etc), Luftwaffe fighter bases and all other targets of opportunity. The German's fighter forces were unable to cope with this two-pronged Allied attack as they were stretched too thin. The Luftwaffe rapidly lost the battle of attrition as 1944 came to a close. By D-Day the German fuel supply had been reduced to only about 10% of what was required to remain combat effective. Fuel guzzling heavy Panzers were often abandoned as fuel supplies dried up on both fronts. Also, the huge strategic bombing effort drew vast resources away from the Eastern Front in a very successful effort to assist advancing Russian forces. So the statement "neither worked" is quite incorrect.
Imagine building P-51 mustangs instead of B-17s You could have built 4 Mustangs for every bomber you don't build (the bomber weighed more than fours tines as much and needed four engines). Instead of a crew of 10, the fighter has a single pilot. Instead of building roughly 13,000 bombers, you build over 50,000 fighters- and sweep the enemy out of the sky, then use your air power for close air support, something the Mustang was far better at than any bomber of the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGLOV
Back in the 40's, during the war, either a B24, or B25 emergency landed about a mile from my house in a local farmers field. When the locals, kids etc. ran to the field, they were met by the armed crew outside the plane and warned not to come any closer than about 100 yards or they would shoot them. After a few hours, some other personnel showed up and removed the Nordin gun site placed it in a case, loaded it on a truck with some other armed personnel and the entire crew drove off.

Great story. Too bad we don't guard our technology with equal vigor today!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGLOV
The bombsight only worked to best effect in optimum weather conditions, which the rain and fog of Europe seldom provided. You also had to use it in the daylight, which left you open to big-time fighter attacks. Conditions were even worse over Japan, which was one reason the B-29s went to area bombing and night raids, much as the Brits did in Europe. While the Germans were able to replace much of the production lost to bombing and even increase production in some cases, they had to devote vast resources in manpower and materials to defend against the Allied bombing raids — resources that could have been used elsewhere — so it's not quite true that the bombing didn't "work."

Exactly! I will also add, the Brits did the night bombing while we did the day bombing. That was the agreement.
 
With all the bombs dropped you would think taking Berlin wouldn't be that difficult.

Because bombings don't take ground. Troops do. But you already knew that. Bombing disrupts the economy and is valued for its psychological impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGLOV
The Red Army deployed 2.5 million men, 6250 tanks, 7500 planes, 41,600 artillery pieces and 3255 rocket launchers in the battle for Berlin.

And let's not forget, many of those artillery pieces and rocket launchers were towed by Studebaker trucks we sent to Russia up through Iran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGLOV
On a somewhat related note, the city which suffered the greatest death toll as a direct result of bombing may have been Tokyo. Unlike the European cities, it was almost entirely made up of wooden structures and burned to the ground. (Hiroshima may have lost more people in total once you factor in later deaths from radiation.)

Good point. And we took full advantage of it. Low altitude (actually tree top) level bombing using incendiary charges. It killed approx. 100k civilians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJTopp99
I'll grant you that but...daylight strategic bombing initially ignored the german air defenses. The armament on the heavy bombers was deemed sufficient to protect the bombers without the need of escorts. As long as this went on, it just didn't work. Once the allies went after the german air force (against the wishes of the bomber mafia), bombing improved but it was considered a non strategic comapign, so to speak. The destruction of the german air force ultimately allowed successful bombing runs with a dramatic reduction in the loss of Usa personnell.. This was after such debacles as Ploesti, Schweinfurt/Regensburg which almost led to the dismantling of the 8th. Taking on the German air force was never considered strategic by the powers that be.
More important than the targeting of the synfuel plants were the attacks on the German coal industry. Don't forget, the German economy was coal based whereas the USA was the closest thing to an oil economy.

Good point but how was the bombing considered a "non-strategic" campaign when you can't hide the casualties from the public. Impossible!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJTopp99
Imagine building P-51 mustangs instead of B-17s You could have built 4 Mustangs for every bomber you don't build (the bomber weighed more than fours tines as much and needed four engines). Instead of a crew of 10, the fighter has a single pilot. Instead of building roughly 13,000 bombers, you build over 50,000 fighters- and sweep the enemy out of the sky, then use your air power for close air support, something the Mustang was far better at than any bomber of the day.

We had air superiority in Vietnam and yet we still relied on bombers to do the heavy lifting, not touch and go strafes by FA (fighter-attack) aircraft.
 
We had air superiority in Vietnam and yet we still relied on bombers to do the heavy lifting, not touch and go strafes by FA (fighter-attack) aircraft.
very different war- with an enemy that avoided large engagements while hiding in the jungle - there isn't a lot of jungle in western Europe
 
ADVERTISEMENT