Overview
This lecture examines the development, myth, and reality of the Norden bombsight during World War II, highlighting its technical features, military adoption, effectiveness, and the enduring myths surrounding its precision.
Early Development and Design Challenges
- The Norden bombsight was developed as a mechanical computer to improve bomb accuracy from high altitudes.
- Early bomb aiming was hampered by wind drift and aircraft movement, leading to inaccurate targeting.
- The Norden Mark 11 was initially unreliable and complex; the Mark 15 offered improved usability and accuracy.
- The US Navy and Army Air Corps were initial backers, with the RAF later expressing interest.
Competing Technologies and Military Politics
- Sperry Gyroscope Company developed the superior S-1 bombsight but lost out to Norden due to reputation, lobbying, and military relationships.
- The Army required bomb sights to work with Sperry's A-5 autopilot, but Norden resisted, leading to the development of the Honeywell C-1 autopilot.
- The Norden company used heavy secrecy and marketing to promote its bombsight as a military wonder.
Myth-Making and Propaganda
- Myths were created about the Norden's accuracy and secrecy, including the "pickle barrel" legend.
- Bombardiers underwent strict security protocols and ceremonies to protect the device.
- Media, military, and industry perpetuated the myth, reinforcing the bombsight's legendary status.
- Despite the Luftwaffe obtaining Norden plans, the aura of secrecy persisted.
Technical Operation and Limitations
- The Norden bombsight used a mechanical computer to solve wind drift (course problem) and bomb trajectory (range problem).
- Bombardiers adjusted settings based on altitude, airspeed, and target to automate bomb release.
- Major drawbacks included lengthy gyro alignment and vulnerability to turbulence.
- The RAF rejected the Norden due to these operational flaws.
Combat Performance and Strategic Outcomes
- Actual bombing accuracy was far worse than claimed; early bombing campaigns saw only 16% of bombs within 1,000 feet of targets.
- Tactics shifted from individual bombing runs to formation bombing (combat box), then to area bombing as precision failed.
- By war’s end, improved air superiority raised accuracy, but early results were poor and costly in lives and resources.
- The myth persisted that strategic precision bombing and the Norden bombsight decisively shaped the war.
The Enduring Legacy and Consequences
- The narrative of the Norden’s effectiveness justified daylight precision bombing doctrine and the creation of the US Air Force.
- Propaganda emphasized technological superiority and humane warfare, maintaining public and military support.
- In reality, area bombing and abandonment of precision targeting were the norm by the war's end.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Norden Bombsight — A mechanical computer aiming device for bombs, used by US forces in WWII for high-altitude bombing.
- Sperry S-1 Bombsight — Competing, more advanced bombsight by Sperry Gyroscope, ultimately overshadowed by the Norden.
- Autopilot (A-5/C-1) — Devices that stabilized bombers for bombing runs; the A-5 was by Sperry, the C-1 by Honeywell for compatibility.
- Pickle Barrel Myth — False claim that the Norden could allow bombs to hit targets with extreme precision.
- Combat Box — Bomber formation tactic where only the lead bombardier used the bombsight, others released simultaneously.
- Course & Range Problem — Technical challenges in compensating for wind drift (course) and calculating bomb trajectory (range).
Action Items / Next Steps
- Review lecture notes for understanding of mechanical computing devices in military history.
- Prepare for discussion on the impact of military myths and propaganda.
- Read more on the evolution of strategic bombing in WWII for context.