A quick little note to expand the context of this video since I only briefly touch on this in the video itself: During WW2, Strategic Bombing was influenced by various developments and underwent several evolutions before the end of hostilities. The bombing done in 1939 or 1940 (or even the bombing attacks in Asia before that) was done in a similar manner to those of 1944 or 1945 but under different conditions and with modern equipment. These usually allowed crews to be more successful and accurate. However, the overall problems described in this video are very much present throughout the war.
That's not entirely true. Low-altitude bombing was used more often as the war progressed, given that it was more accurate and less prone to being screwed up by the weather. Strategic bombing also changed somewhat as the escort situation changed. First, with the introduction of long-ranged fighter escorts, and then with the innovation of aggressive fighter sweeps ahead of the bomber formations. With the introduction of the B-29, strategic bombing from altitudes higher than the vast majority of fighters could reach became possible. Lastly, the introduction of earthquake bombs--the Tallboy and Grand Slam, plus an American version that I can't remember the name of--changed the dynamic somewhat, since bombing at high altitudes could be made more accurate (thanks to the sheer weight, plus the induced spin) and do far more damage to targets. Then there's night-time bombing. The RAF created pioneer units that would illuminate the target and approach with colored flares, while the rest of the following bombers used that to home in on the target.
Only one 500# bomb striking a ship damages its fighting abilities. Near-misses can buckle hull plates below the water line, causing leakage. Sink or knock out an oil tanker or supply ship and the fighting ships are handicapped. When the fuel supply of a fighting ship gets down to the point that it must break off and head for port before running out of fuel, it's done.
@@hyperiongm330 The Mutsuki was stopped picking up survivors when it was hit. It was one of the very few ships outside of harbor ever hit by level bombing.
I was at the air force museum in Dayton, OH back in 2002 when there were a few ww2 German pilots and bomb crews there. My son was around 3 years old and he loved ww2 planes mostly German planes. I talked to a few of the pilots including a stuka pilot, bf109, and a 190. There was a HE111 bombardier with them, at the time I was playing IL2 flying Stukas and HE 111's. I told him about the simulation and how I was having trouble getting the bomb on target. He told me the HE 111 has an automatic bomb site, which was modeldd in IL2, and he would adjust the speed knob to keep the cross on the target which would then drop the bombs at the precise time. After getting home I of course tried exactly what he told me to do and of course the bombs dropped dead on target.
Stew: Let's not forget the Allies' Norden bomb sight. When we lost a bomber, the possible loss of a Norden was of great concern. These sights were very accurate, very secret, and kept under close guard in storage, in transit to/from the bomber, and all the time. I finally got to see one at the WW II museum in Boise, Idaho, USA.
Michael Dougfir Oh yeah the Norden bomb sight was the most accurate of WW2. I have a lot of WW2 pilot manuals and I do have the Norden manual. I also have German manuals unfortunately I can not read German :) The Norden you would not have to mess with the speed knob it would correct itself. It was very high tech for that time.
Stew : the Norden bomb site was far from the most accurate in WW2. It was the most hyped though. The British SBS used to drop, for example, the Tallboy bombs was far more accurate. What accuracy it had was mostly wasted, as the vast majority of US bombers dropped through cloud or when someone else did, as this video covers. 40% of US [daylight strategic bombing] bombs fell more than 3 miles from the target.
Then there was also the fact that, with flak, if you had gunners, about half of them were going to die to shrapnel. Seriously, the average mission expectancy for a Wellington tail gunner was something like 3 missions.
Well, it wasn't only flak, of course, but whenever wellingtons came under any sort of fire, the tail gunner could expect a swift demise, that's why they tended to get armour, in an attempt to make them live longer.
Leocomander Was reading your comment, and when I was at about half way I just thaught " this fucking idiot, I cant believe he is about to say that airstrkes are actually accurate" but then I died of laughter in the end. Fucking masterpiece
Great video Bismarck. Concise and clear. With all the problems bombadiers faced, they had to be exceptionally well trained. The numbers of men killed or lost over enemy territory were very high, so that there had to be a constant stream of new bombadiers being sent to the 'front'. The human element cannot be underestimated here. Not all bombadiers were cool under pressure, or made the right decisions. Having said that the courage of the bombadier under heavy flak and fighter harrassment cannot be underestimated.
I enjoy your videos immensely, thank you. My father was a B-24 pilot in the 15th near the end of the war. He said fighters were scary but being so few they weren't a major threat. But flak surely was. Remember, as the war turned against Germany guns from all fronts were withdrawn and flak became increasingly worse, right till the end . I have the last flak map issued to the 15th right before the surrender and it shows very concentrated flak at the few remaining targets.
I have read that another major issue with bombing accuracy were the bombsights and bombs used. The vaunted Norden bombsight didn't work quite as advertised, as it couldn't compensate very well for things like wind shear and atmospheric conditions. The bombs being used also had a an unforseen issue-they didn't fall straight. Ironically, the Allies extreme security measures surrounding the Norden were completely useless. German spies had acquired plans for the Norden before it ever went into service in the US Army Air Corps, and even used versions of it in some of their own bombers.
Don't stop at 0:34 , it's a chain reaction, 0:42 . And the narrator finishes the sentence right then "...it could all go wrong." My dad was a tail gunner who was hit by flak on his 32nd mission. I was born several years later, so it obviously had a happy ending, no pun intended.
Actually it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Winds, ballistic coefficient of the bombs etc. Computers and radar, ground mapping and doppler helped out a lot. The cross hairs would remain stationary on TV he moving target by the way if the system was working correctly. B52 bomb nav tech here from Viet Nam.
That B-17 remembers me that i had much fun playing Microprose "B-17 flying fortress The mighty 8th", self planning all OPs, before bomb run Recon runs, Briefing about weather/Target ect., then bombing and Recon bomb damage assessment after the attack, when target not destroyed over 60% then a 2nd bomb run. , i planed my Routes into the Reich carefully flying in at high altitude, avoiding Luftwaffe bases and areas with Heavy Flak when possible, never lost the whole plane but many crewmembers. This Game was pure fun even for todays standard
Made me remember a story from a ww2 bombardier. On one mission he dropped his late and ended up hitting a concentration camp. He felt terribly guilty about it until years later he was told by a survivor of that camp that because the guards were taking cover from the attack when his bombs knocked down some of the fences several people were able to escape.
I have always felt that no matter how accurate the Norden bomb sight was, when you have an entire bomb group in a formation that covers more than a mile in width and depth of sky all releasing their bomb loads on the prompting of the lead bombardier, you are going to get an equivalent scatter of strikes over the target.
In the US, there were disputes on the merrits of strategic bombing. Critics cited the civilian casualties and aircraft losses. I remember reading an article I can't find now that reported a commander wanted to carry out bombing campaigns with ground support aircraft. He claimed they could deliver the bombs more accurately and didn't need the massed formations to better the odds for lucky hits. One problem was the range for them was markedly shorter than the larger bombers.
Putting money and resources building Mosquitos doing just that may have saved a lot of American or British bomber crew lives. Mosquitos could take almost at much bombs as the flying fortress and the mos quitos experienced just a fraction of the losses compared to the heavy bombers. But maybe this would only work in theory.
@@callez2402 Mosquitos flew at nearly TWICE the speed of "heavy bombers", and could handle low-level bombing. That gave them a pretty good edge over the heavies
Trouble with bombing. 1. Massive amounts of resources can be wasted building and supporting bombers and bases. 2. Bombing people tends to increase support for the leaders and the war on the enemy side. 3. Bombing people can easily be a war crime. If you don’t win the war, or the history war, you could suffer for this. 4. Bombing people is seen as cowardly and this can embolden your enemies to seek revenge at a future date. 5. If you destroy the enemy society and its infrastructure, you conquer little of value or have to rebuild it, to help ensure long term peace . 6. A small percentage of unexploded bombs, can equip a resistance army with the raw materials for IUDs. 7. It can pollute the land, creating long term problems around targets and friendly airbases and factories. 8. It can create ethical and psych issues in your forces. This can create a long germ burden of disease, than can span generations.
@goodfella21f As far as bombing is concerned, both sides did. The only reason the Allies weren't on trial for bombing Dresden is that they were the ones holding them.
@@kalkovonschpritzendorf1914 The bombing of Dresden is mostly fueled by genocidal hatred rather than military objectives, but my position is rather odd..... I think all target are valid in war, hard or soft, civilian or military, the young, the old, the weak, the disabled, all of them are equally valid target until total capitulation.
Malcolm Lewis: Regarding your number 6: If the resistance army generates enough IUDs (Intra uterine Devices) their population will drop and hinder their war efforts. That would also hinder their ability to produce IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) so it's all good. Right?
That was excellent. I knew it was difficult to bomb, but never got it into real perspective. Thank you. Clear and too the point, you bomb hit, and my mind was blown :D
You made an error regarding the danger to bombers over their target. Fighters would NOT attack bombers at that time, as they would run the risk of flying into their own anti-aircraft fire
Great vid, especially the clips and animations. Also could you go into more detail on Flak like how it works and the different types of Flak barrages/fire?
As a side note; The RAF developed a tactic for their night bombing where they used planes like the Mosquito to fly in, spot target and mark it with a kind of flare bomb. This way the the big bombers could find the target more easily.
Hey Bismarck What video should I look at to improve my WT RB game? Im terrible in RB but pretty good in Sim..its driving me crazy I get shot down all the time in RB. Thanks William
And even after the geometry and algebra lessons required to figure out where the bomb hits then you have to deal with that little thing called wind not easily detectable and often has very deleterious effects on freefall bomb accuracy.
My father-in-law has flown in the tail-gunner position in an old Lancaster back in the early 50's. He said it was horrendous, and that was a peace-time flight!!!
The Norden Bombsight was 90% hype, to scare the enemy and improve bomber crews morale. A bomber traveling at 300 mph covers about 440 feet in one second. If the bombardier was off by 1/4 of a second, he missed the target by 100 feet. Only 1/4 of a second.
Plus acounting for weather conditions was next to impossible. It wasn't until guided bombs became a thing that bombing became actually properly accurate.
The other issue was accurate bombing. One secret American weapon from WWII that Germans were desperate to get their hands on was called the Norden bomb sight. It was a mechanical autopilot bomb sight that took control of the plane for a brief while and adjusted it just right and dropped the bombs on the target at just the right time. Bombs landed on target way more accurately than bombariers trying to guesstimate when to drop their load to hit the target.
Except it didn't work in bad weather and there were plenty of other factors affecting accuracy in good weather. The Norden was rather overrated. Sure, it could put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet in California but Germany was completely different. If there was too much cloud cover, they resorted to the same tactics the British used: radar blind bombing - in effect, area bombing.
I remember the comical scene in Memphis Bell when the pilot advises that there is a school next to the factory they are bombing (like several hundred bombers were all going to hit 1 factory and none of the surrounding area)
Great work! Walking through the problems, step by step, is really clarifying and surprisingly helpful in helping me to grasp something a bit closer to reality. Fascinating. Thank you for the effort that went into making this. Cheers.
My great uncle mike santoro was a bombardier on a liberator . He flew both ploesti raids. Never so much as a scratch. I asked him what about the flak? He laughed . It never bothered me he said. It was like a game”. Uncle mike was a lunatic, a beautiful lunatic. But he was smart as hell and loved going fast in whatever he was driving. Without lunatics like that , the bombing campaign would have ended with mutiny on day one. God bless them all.
I love this game! What mods do you use? I am currently searching for a cool B-17 campaing for SAS modact, do you know anything? I also have UltraPack3 installed with a static campaing called Boxcar where you can fly 25 bomber missions (B17 or B24) in the northwest european theater (GB/France/Germany). But the campaing is a little bit buggy and I am also not a big fan of UP3 because it is nearly impossible to command your bombers to drop the bombs with you when you're the flightleader, and it also has some other issues.
It's small wonder why after the war, there was a lot of effort in developing "smart" weapons. Due to the issues mentioned in this video, you needed a couple of hundred bombers just to take out an industrial site because the circular error of probability (CEP) from dropping a bomb at high altitude was measured sometimes over 300 meters! Today, a modern jet fighter equipped with modern "smart" weapons could hit a target with a CEP of around 2-3 meters--precise enough to take out individual buildings or critical pieces of infrastructure at an industrial site.
They did it with German technology though. The Luftwaffe pioneered radio-guided bomber direction and built several systems to help bombers find their way to the target. The RAF benefited from the capture and reverse engineering of some of that equipment, and combined with their superior usage of radar, eventually ended up able to fulfill the early war doctrines on precision bombing... after that doctrine had been largely discarded in favour of area bombing
@@talltroll7092 Not true - though they did try to give the impression that was what they were doing, so as to mislead the Germans. Gee and H2S were the allied approaches, completely different in nature.
Thank you :) Was hard to do here due to the gameplay and non-gameplay sections following each other. Trying to find a way to not have too much background as that distracts more, probably will change the amout of audio coming from the games (ex: voice)
i just rewatched parts of this video while playing the theme song from Trough the wormhole in the background. it sounded like this video was uploaded straight from discovery channel :)
Hey mate. Just a quick question but I don't know if you are still active to reply I'm using practice debating points and I would be delighted if you would oblige on a few points if you have the time?
@@richardm.170 The original observation is too vague to be useful. For example, in 1942 Bomber Command discovered that less than half of their bombers over the Ruhr area came within even _five miles_ of the target. As our host pointed out, later missions showed great improvement.
if you know what the distance is - in miles/km - that translated into time - you can plan the drop even above the clouds - with added temperature and airdensity.. they are variables affecting the bomb trajectory - RFC
Accuracy from post war reports was generally horrible if flying above 17,500 ft. Below that you could get very good, for the time, accuracy. But above 17,500 falls off quickly due to hang time, wind, clouds and increasing issues with high altitude winds on the bomber itself. Plus IDing the target.
The main bomber group was always slightly behind the pathfinder bombers who had highly experienced crew to locate a target accurately and mark it with incendiary bombs. This made the job of the rest of the group easier as they did not have to waste precious time over the target seeking a target.
@Eugene - wrong Some people who worked on original IL-2 game then joined people working on IL-2 birds of prey(?) and then made war thunder. ...aaand philosopically, those games have nothing in common.
I am not in favor of anyone intentionally bombing civilians! Just a thought; with the exception of children citizens of all countries involved, are also at war with their enemy. Citizens although not being combatants, do provide the means for their troops to fight and therefore are not completely innocent. The idea of that day although wrong( and didn't work) was too take out the war producing factories or eliminate the factories work force.Since factories were in the middle of cities it was inevitable that civilians would be killed. Trying to get 500 planes to drop their bombs only on the target was nearly impossible even it that was their intent. A person who studies history understands that the word Normal only applies to what was normal during a specific time. If you lived in England during the war and had family or loved ones killed in a bombing raid you might not feel too bad about the bombing German civilians. In the early 1800's slavery in the United States (although also wrong) would have been considered a normal situation by most people. There is much talk today on the internet about the bombings and civilian losses during ww2. I think it is unfair to try and apply the moral compass of today to any event in history, as it is trying to apply our normal of today to them in their time.
Another issue the Allies faced was accurate BDA. The Germans came up with a fair number of clever dodges that left apparently destroyed factories in good operating condition. Something daylight bombers had to deal with, besides clouds, were German smoke screens. These would obscure factories, making an accurate drop even more difficult. Besides the fact that the Norden demonstrated fantastic accuracy under test conditions only, was the fact that the USAAC/USAAF went from practically nothing to huge in just two years. It would be impossible to develop "professional" level bombardiers in that short time. The Air Force had to make do with what they had. Even then there are several highly accurate drops on record. On the other hand, another reason the attacks were less accurate was the German Air Force itself. In the 1930s the B-17 was _faster_ than most front line fighters. At the time the bombers really could fly over interceptions attempts with impunity. The bomber could, in fact, always get through. At least until planes like the Spitfire & 109 were developed. If the GAF hadn't gone after the daylight bombers so strongly, the Fortresses would have had a much easier time performing accurate drops. At the end of the day the Combined Bomber Offensive was yet another example of attrition warfare. The Germans were caught in a knight's fork; if they didn't defend the factories, they would be wrecked. If they did defend the factories, Allied escorts would destroy the Luftwaffe.
The reason for switching to carpet bombing was that bombing precision was horrendous. A survey stated that less than 10% of bombs was nearer than 3 miles from target. Down the chimney bombing is a modern term only made possible with cameraguided smartbombs.
Douger Rohmer not really. they did the same thing ships did, used the stars. there are many other ways to guide at night as well, but stars are the best on a clear night.
I saw an program somewhere where they demonstrated the difficulty of astral navigation from an aircraft dome and apparently there were serious probabilities of error there. But yes, later they had H2S and Huffduff and all sorts of things which worked great until the Chermans found out about them and used it against them.
Thanks for the video, it's very interesting. Have you made one on fighter escort tactics? I don't seem to be able to find much information on the way these escorts were operating and positioning themselves in relation to the bombers.
Anthony Beevor mentions in his book "the Second World War", that american heavy bombers, even though bombing by day and with their advanced Norden bomb sights, had a similair or even worse record of hitting their targets than british night bombers =S
The British admittedly had better tactics utilizing pathfinders and the USAAF bombers had to contend with the German dayfighters, which rattled the nerves of bomber crews since the Luftwaffe could field any fighter unit against them really if they had the aircraft capable of attacking the bomber streams.
The only bombers to get anywhere regular accuracy on bombing runs would you light/ fighter bombers or your medium bombers flying below 1,000ft or at tree top level and going one at a time And as for Heavy daylight bombers all they could do was area of carpet bomb. Yes you lead bomber maybe hitting the target but when you have a formation of 50 to 100+ plans dropping all there bombs on the command of the lead bomber at 15,000 ft + you hitting very big ground area.
That's probably a bit unfair. It's certainly true that things like the Norden bombsight never really lived up to the hype it generated because what worked well in the sunny skies of California didn't work in bad weather over Germany. That meant they would end up using their version of the British H2S blind bombing system - in effect, area bombing. I don't rate Beevor at all.
I'm just wondering who thought 2,500 m altitude was reasonable. That's a little over 8,000 feet, low enough for smaller caliber AAA to be effective. Mitsubishi G4M bombers over Guadalcanal routinely came in at around 29,000 feet (8,700-8,800 meters), high enough that only barrage AAA could reach and the fighters needed every minute of warning to make an interception (they typically got about 30 minutes warning from coastwatchers).
Folks, the thing of not bombing “innocent” civilians/non-combatants is unrealistic. Noncombatants worked the war supply, the munitions factories, the road and rail transportation hauling troops and supplies.
A quick little note to expand the context of this video since I only briefly touch on this in the video itself: During WW2, Strategic Bombing was influenced by various developments and underwent several evolutions before the end of hostilities. The bombing done in 1939 or 1940 (or even the bombing attacks in Asia before that) was done in a similar manner to those of 1944 or 1945 but under different conditions and with modern equipment. These usually allowed crews to be more successful and accurate. However, the overall problems described in this video are very much present throughout the war.
Bismarck wenn man sich deaboniert verlierst du 2 Abonnenten man kann das so oft man will wiederholen bugtube
also the Germans and Japanese didn't have Curtis LeMay
That's not entirely true. Low-altitude bombing was used more often as the war progressed, given that it was more accurate and less prone to being screwed up by the weather.
Strategic bombing also changed somewhat as the escort situation changed. First, with the introduction of long-ranged fighter escorts, and then with the innovation of aggressive fighter sweeps ahead of the bomber formations.
With the introduction of the B-29, strategic bombing from altitudes higher than the vast majority of fighters could reach became possible.
Lastly, the introduction of earthquake bombs--the Tallboy and Grand Slam, plus an American version that I can't remember the name of--changed the dynamic somewhat, since bombing at high altitudes could be made more accurate (thanks to the sheer weight, plus the induced spin) and do far more damage to targets.
Then there's night-time bombing. The RAF created pioneer units that would illuminate the target and approach with colored flares, while the rest of the following bombers used that to home in on the target.
+SaltyWaffles The American-built Tallboy was designated the T39, later as the M123, and the Grand Slam as the T14, later designated the M110
il-2 1946
Now replace that static target with a moving target, and you will see why high level bombing against ships was generally unsuccessful.
Yeah, a target moving in a circle. "Generally unsuccessful," talk about understatement! Nicely played.
Tell that to the crew of Mutsuki.
@@yldrayozturk8601 And torpedo bombing;
Only one 500# bomb striking a ship damages its fighting abilities. Near-misses can buckle hull plates below the water line, causing leakage. Sink or knock out an oil tanker or supply ship and the fighting ships are handicapped. When the fuel supply of a fighting ship gets down to the point that it must break off and head for port before running out of fuel, it's done.
@@hyperiongm330 The Mutsuki was stopped picking up survivors when it was hit. It was one of the very few ships outside of harbor ever hit by level bombing.
I was at the air force museum in Dayton, OH back in 2002 when there were a few ww2 German pilots and bomb crews there. My son was around 3 years old and he loved ww2 planes mostly German planes. I talked to a few of the pilots including a stuka pilot, bf109, and a 190. There was a HE111 bombardier with them, at the time I was playing IL2 flying Stukas and HE 111's. I told him about the simulation and how I was having trouble getting the bomb on target. He told me the HE 111 has an automatic bomb site, which was modeldd in IL2, and he would adjust the speed knob to keep the cross on the target which would then drop the bombs at the precise time. After getting home I of course tried exactly what he told me to do and of course the bombs dropped dead on target.
Stew cool story bro
Amazing.
Stew: Let's not forget the Allies' Norden bomb sight. When we lost a bomber, the possible loss of a Norden was of great concern. These sights were very accurate, very secret, and kept under close guard in storage, in transit to/from the bomber, and all the time. I finally got to see one at the WW II museum in Boise, Idaho, USA.
Michael Dougfir Oh yeah the Norden bomb sight was the most accurate of WW2. I have a lot of WW2 pilot manuals and I do have the Norden manual. I also have German manuals unfortunately I can not read German :) The Norden you would not have to mess with the speed knob it would correct itself. It was very high tech for that time.
Stew : the Norden bomb site was far from the most accurate in WW2. It was the most hyped though. The British SBS used to drop, for example, the Tallboy bombs was far more accurate.
What accuracy it had was mostly wasted, as the vast majority of US bombers dropped through cloud or when someone else did, as this video covers. 40% of US [daylight strategic bombing] bombs fell more than 3 miles from the target.
Then there was also the fact that, with flak, if you had gunners, about half of them were going to die to shrapnel. Seriously, the average mission expectancy for a Wellington tail gunner was something like 3 missions.
Cameron McAllister first time I've heard of that many losses to flak. flak vests?
Well, it wasn't only flak, of course, but whenever wellingtons came under any sort of fire, the tail gunner could expect a swift demise, that's why they tended to get armour, in an attempt to make them live longer.
Cameron McAllister , tail gunners were about four times more likely to be killed than pilots.
Mainly because of fighter attacks coming from behind.
Well the Wellington is also just a skeleton with a canvas strechted on top. Very solid construction but it's essentially a colander.
One under attack they had an average life span of like 7 seconds
Accuracy? Airs strikes are extremely accurate they hit the ground a 100% of the time.
Leocomander
Was reading your comment, and when I was at about half way I just thaught " this fucking idiot, I cant believe he is about to say that airstrkes are actually accurate" but then I died of laughter in the end. Fucking masterpiece
hurivoje afrakovic i needed 10 seconds to understand what he said xD
Well played mate well played. But how about naval target? :p
If I drop bombs everywhere I'm bound to hit something accurately
does water count as ground ?^^
Great video Bismarck. Concise and clear. With all the problems bombadiers faced, they had to be exceptionally well trained. The numbers of men killed or lost over enemy territory were very high, so that there had to be a constant stream of new bombadiers being sent to the 'front'. The human element cannot be underestimated here. Not all bombadiers were cool under pressure, or made the right decisions. Having said that the courage of the bombadier under heavy flak and fighter harrassment cannot be underestimated.
+1
@MichaelKingsfordGray virtue without information.
I enjoy your videos immensely, thank you. My father was a B-24 pilot in the 15th near the end of the war. He said fighters were scary but being so few they weren't a major threat. But flak surely was. Remember, as the war turned against Germany guns from all fronts were withdrawn and flak became increasingly worse, right till the end . I have the last flak map issued to the 15th right before the surrender and it shows very concentrated flak at the few remaining targets.
Fascinating video!
Military History Visualized sent me your way and I'm a happy new subscriber!
This was an interesting video. Well done, sir!
Accuracy was greatly improved, when they learned to drop pickle barrels,
with a a bomb already in the barrel.
I wonder why they were so keen to destroy pickle barrels... 😆
Lol i love IL2 Pilot's dialogue.
0:35
"Return to base immediately"
I have read that another major issue with bombing accuracy were the bombsights and bombs used. The vaunted Norden bombsight didn't work quite as advertised, as it couldn't compensate very well for things like wind shear and atmospheric conditions. The bombs being used also had a an unforseen issue-they didn't fall straight.
Ironically, the Allies extreme security measures surrounding the Norden were completely useless. German spies had acquired plans for the Norden before it ever went into service in the US Army Air Corps, and even used versions of it in some of their own bombers.
Very good commentary. Your understanding conveys the subject very well. Gut Getan!
Thanks, I enjoyed the video and the commentary that always follows.
Fantastic content Bismark, keep it up!
Danke schoen :)
that B-17 at 0:34 was fucking intense
Looks like that it was hit by a fighter plane (probably a japanese pilot)
Had to watch that a couple of times to comprehend what happened jesus christ.
it got shocked and aved
Don't stop at 0:34 , it's a chain reaction, 0:42 .
And the narrator finishes the sentence right then "...it could all go wrong."
My dad was a tail gunner who was hit by flak on his 32nd mission. I was born several years later, so it obviously had a happy ending, no pun intended.
Oh but the pun was intended
Actually it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Winds, ballistic coefficient of the bombs etc. Computers and radar, ground mapping and doppler helped out a lot. The cross hairs would remain stationary on TV he moving target by the way if the system was working correctly. B52 bomb nav tech here from Viet Nam.
I'm a uni freshman majoring aerospace engineering, and calculating the ballistic trajectory of an object accounting for drag gives me nightmares
A video like this needs either a followup or more time to give people a better Idea of the difficulties that bombers faced in WW2.
That B-17 remembers me that i had much fun playing Microprose "B-17 flying fortress The mighty 8th", self planning all OPs, before bomb run Recon runs, Briefing about weather/Target ect., then bombing and Recon bomb damage assessment after the attack, when target not destroyed over 60% then a 2nd bomb run.
, i planed my Routes into the Reich carefully flying in at high altitude, avoiding Luftwaffe bases and areas with Heavy Flak when possible, never lost the whole plane but many crewmembers.
This Game was pure fun even for todays standard
Made me remember a story from a ww2 bombardier. On one mission he dropped his late and ended up hitting a concentration camp. He felt terribly guilty about it until years later he was told by a survivor of that camp that because the guards were taking cover from the attack when his bombs knocked down some of the fences several people were able to escape.
Great vid again Bismarck!!!
Great job as always
Some IL2 1946 I see. Just getting started in sim battles against AI on there RN, great fun :)
hey Nick, one of my earliest subscribers, TH-cam is a small place.
Military History Visualized xd
This was a spectacular video. I clicked subscribe. Thank you for putting out such a well-presented production. :)
Thanks a lot, hope you enjoy :)
Great video!
Phenomenal video!
This is why the RAF established “Pathfinder” squadrons
Thanks Bismarck for these vids, theyre very informative and i now know a lot more about problems with bombing in ww2 :)
I have always felt that no matter how accurate the Norden bomb sight was, when you have an entire bomb group in a formation that covers more than a mile in width and depth of sky all releasing their bomb loads on the prompting of the lead bombardier, you are going to get an equivalent scatter of strikes over the target.
Wow! Your channel is amazing ♡
In the US, there were disputes on the merrits of strategic bombing. Critics cited the civilian casualties and aircraft losses. I remember reading an article I can't find now that reported a commander wanted to carry out bombing campaigns with ground support aircraft. He claimed they could deliver the bombs more accurately and didn't need the massed formations to better the odds for lucky hits. One problem was the range for them was markedly shorter than the larger bombers.
Putting money and resources building Mosquitos doing just that may have saved a lot of American or British bomber crew lives. Mosquitos could take almost at much bombs as the flying fortress and the mos
quitos experienced just a fraction of the losses compared to the heavy bombers. But maybe this would only work in theory.
@@callez2402 Mosquitos flew at nearly TWICE the speed of "heavy bombers", and could handle low-level bombing. That gave them a pretty good edge over the heavies
Trouble with bombing.
1. Massive amounts of resources can be wasted building and supporting bombers and bases.
2. Bombing people tends to increase support for the leaders and the war on the enemy side.
3. Bombing people can easily be a war crime. If you don’t win the war, or the history war, you could suffer for this.
4. Bombing people is seen as cowardly and this can embolden your enemies to seek revenge at a future date.
5. If you destroy the enemy society and its infrastructure, you conquer little of value or have to rebuild it, to help ensure long term peace .
6. A small percentage of unexploded bombs, can equip a resistance army with the raw materials for IUDs.
7. It can pollute the land, creating long term problems around targets and friendly airbases and factories.
8. It can create ethical and psych issues in your forces. This can create a long germ burden of disease, than can span generations.
@goodfella21f As far as bombing is concerned, both sides did. The only reason the Allies weren't on trial for bombing Dresden is that they were the ones holding them.
@@kalkovonschpritzendorf1914 The bombing of Dresden is mostly fueled by genocidal hatred rather than military objectives, but my position is rather odd.....
I think all target are valid in war, hard or soft, civilian or military, the young, the old, the weak, the disabled, all of them are equally valid target until total capitulation.
Kalko von Schpritzendorf so bombing a major rail junction funneling troops through to the eastern front is not a legit target.
Righto.
Malcolm Lewis: Regarding your number 6: If the resistance army generates enough IUDs (Intra uterine Devices) their population will drop and hinder their war efforts. That would also hinder their ability to produce IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) so it's all good. Right?
I suppose that's why dive bombers were a thing back then
Great video !!!!
This was suggested, I liked it and now you have my sub... Hope other videos are good as this one. Ty :)
That was excellent. I knew it was difficult to bomb, but never got it into real perspective. Thank you. Clear and too the point, you bomb hit, and my mind was blown :D
You made an error regarding the danger to bombers over their target. Fighters would NOT attack bombers at that time, as they would run the risk of flying into their own anti-aircraft fire
True, they tended to attack bombers on the way in and out.
B-17 Mighty 8th is one of the old flight sim/manegement/strategy games that really needs a modern remake.
Toby-wan I played the fuck out of that game and loved every second of it.
this video came at a great time, just started reading the book "Wild Blue" by Stephen Ambrose.
Enjoy the book !
Great vid, especially the clips and animations. Also could you go into more detail on Flak like how it works and the different types of Flak barrages/fire?
Thank you :) Flak is planned for an upcoming video.
Great video
As a side note; The RAF developed a tactic for their night bombing where they used planes like the Mosquito to fly in, spot target and mark it with a kind of flare bomb. This way the the big bombers could find the target more easily.
Yes, LW did something similar just not with the Mossie. I will be going into Pathfinders at some point.
This is a great video
the legend is back 😢👏
very brief but good points on bombing! you could probably make an easy hour or two total with all the information on bombing in ww2
Yes, it's a huge topic!
very nice videos
Hey Bismarck What video should I look at to improve my WT RB game? Im terrible in RB but pretty good in Sim..its driving me crazy I get shot down all the time in RB. Thanks William
And even after the geometry and algebra lessons required to figure out where the bomb hits then you have to deal with that little thing called wind not easily detectable and often has very deleterious effects on freefall bomb accuracy.
My father-in-law has flown in the tail-gunner position in an old Lancaster back in the early 50's. He said it was horrendous, and that was a peace-time flight!!!
Who thoughts that bombing was accurate? never heard of any one who thought that. (exception to dive bomber)
lokalkakan: Look up the Norden Bomb Sight. It was all about accuracy, and did so well it was carefully cared for and kept a secret.l
The Norden Bombsight was 90% hype, to scare the enemy and improve bomber crews morale. A bomber traveling at 300 mph covers about 440 feet in one second. If the bombardier was off by 1/4 of a second, he missed the target by 100 feet. Only 1/4 of a second.
Plus acounting for weather conditions was next to impossible. It wasn't until guided bombs became a thing that bombing became actually properly accurate.
Norden is really easy to set for correct drop speed. It also has automated drop.
Billy Mitchell
Do you have a video regarding the frequency of bombing run “go arounds” or the ploesti raids?
Fantastic video. It was clear, concise and informative. As for sharing the video, social media and erudition are like oil and water.
Very good video...subbed...:)
The other issue was accurate bombing.
One secret American weapon from WWII that Germans were desperate to get their hands on was called the Norden bomb sight. It was a mechanical autopilot bomb sight that took control of the plane for a brief while and adjusted it just right and dropped the bombs on the target at just the right time. Bombs landed on target way more accurately than bombariers trying to guesstimate when to drop their load to hit the target.
But when you have over 100 + bombers dropping there bombs all at the same time like the USAAF did throughout WW2 that called carpet or area bombing.
Except it didn't work in bad weather and there were plenty of other factors affecting accuracy in good weather. The Norden was rather overrated. Sure, it could put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet in California but Germany was completely different. If there was too much cloud cover, they resorted to the same tactics the British used: radar blind bombing - in effect, area bombing.
I remember the comical scene in Memphis Bell when the pilot advises that there is a school next to the factory they are bombing (like several hundred bombers were all going to hit 1 factory and none of the surrounding area)
Great work! Walking through the problems, step by step, is really clarifying and surprisingly helpful in helping me to grasp something a bit closer to reality. Fascinating. Thank you for the effort that went into making this. Cheers.
My great uncle mike santoro was a bombardier on a liberator . He flew both ploesti raids. Never so much as a scratch. I asked him what about the flak? He laughed . It never bothered me he said. It was like a game”. Uncle mike was a lunatic, a beautiful lunatic. But he was smart as hell and loved going fast in whatever he was driving. Without lunatics like that , the bombing campaign would have ended with mutiny on day one. God bless them all.
I love this game! What mods do you use? I am currently searching for a cool B-17 campaing for SAS modact, do you know anything?
I also have UltraPack3 installed with a static campaing called Boxcar where you can fly 25 bomber missions (B17 or B24) in the northwest european theater (GB/France/Germany). But the campaing is a little bit buggy and I am also not a big fan of UP3 because it is nearly impossible to command your bombers to drop the bombs with you when you're the flightleader, and it also has some other issues.
I haven't played any B-17 campaign, whether custom made or as part of Vanilla. I make my own missions for my content so never needed it.
It's small wonder why after the war, there was a lot of effort in developing "smart" weapons. Due to the issues mentioned in this video, you needed a couple of hundred bombers just to take out an industrial site because the circular error of probability (CEP) from dropping a bomb at high altitude was measured sometimes over 300 meters! Today, a modern jet fighter equipped with modern "smart" weapons could hit a target with a CEP of around 2-3 meters--precise enough to take out individual buildings or critical pieces of infrastructure at an industrial site.
You need to do some research on the 109 squadron mosquito pathfinders. They improved RAF accuracy to unprecedented levels.
They did it with German technology though. The Luftwaffe pioneered radio-guided bomber direction and built several systems to help bombers find their way to the target. The RAF benefited from the capture and reverse engineering of some of that equipment, and combined with their superior usage of radar, eventually ended up able to fulfill the early war doctrines on precision bombing... after that doctrine had been largely discarded in favour of area bombing
@@talltroll7092 They did not. The British developed Gee on their own and independently of the German Knickebein and X-Geraet systems.
@@talltroll7092 Not true - though they did try to give the impression that was what they were doing, so as to mislead the Germans. Gee and H2S were the allied approaches, completely different in nature.
hey Bis, nice video! maybe you can add a little backgroundmusic to make the video even more enjoyable.
Thank you :) Was hard to do here due to the gameplay and non-gameplay sections following each other. Trying to find a way to not have too much background as that distracts more, probably will change the amout of audio coming from the games (ex: voice)
i just rewatched parts of this video while playing the theme song from Trough the wormhole in the background. it sounded like this video was uploaded straight from discovery channel :)
@military aviation history- how can I contact you directly?
The generals estimated that 1 in 100 bombs came within 8 Km of the target, hardly accurate.
Hey mate.
Just a quick question but I don't know if you are still active to reply
I'm using practice debating points and I would be delighted if you would oblige on a few points if you have the time?
@@richardm.170 The original observation is too vague to be useful. For example, in 1942 Bomber Command discovered that less than half of their bombers over the Ruhr area came within even _five miles_ of the target. As our host pointed out, later missions showed great improvement.
if you know what the distance is - in miles/km - that translated into time - you can plan the drop even above the clouds - with added temperature and airdensity.. they are variables affecting the bomb trajectory - RFC
Theoretically. But there's not guarantee of any kind of accuracy. They usually reverted to radar blind bombing - in effect, area bombing.
Accuracy from post war reports was generally horrible if flying above 17,500 ft. Below that you could get very good, for the time, accuracy. But above 17,500 falls off quickly due to hang time, wind, clouds and increasing issues with high altitude winds on the bomber itself. Plus IDing the target.
Bis could you do a video on the Stuka?
*when you accidentally flag the video creators comment and it removes it even when you try to unflag it
Oh, what have you done :o
Bismarck I'm sorry herr bismark
At first I didn't think much of this game, it looks amazing!
What’s it called
@@stopmotionstudios1219 Looks like IL-2 Sturmovik
What mods do you use in Il-2 1946, I Never if rarely ever see more than 30+ planes in base game. plz help and send links
The main bomber group was always slightly behind the pathfinder bombers who had highly experienced crew to locate a target accurately and mark it with incendiary bombs. This made the job of the rest of the group easier as they did not have to waste precious time over the target seeking a target.
What's the game/sim software you're using for this video?
What simulator/game are you using for this demonstration? Reminds me of Arma almost, I have Arma 3
Idk
What game is this, never saw that bombing view or gunner view.
Love this game. I still have it.
What’s it called
IL2 1946... Memories :'(
Ferrari 312T4 just fyi, the same people who made il-2 game are now working on war thunder
@Eugene - wrong
Some people who worked on original IL-2 game then joined people working on IL-2 birds of prey(?) and then made war thunder.
...aaand philosopically, those games have nothing in common.
@@19Koty96 actually from nothing to like just that war thunder had a more real sim than rb
Which simulator are you using?
I love how Bomber Crew makes bombers seem so accurate.
how do you make that animation? is that some kind of emulation game?
actually nvm, it's IL2 1946 written on the top-corner of screen
How effective was a bomber's defensive fire? You sometimes get the idea that enemy interceptors were only ever brought down by fighter cover.
I am not in favor of anyone intentionally bombing civilians! Just a thought; with the exception of children citizens of all countries involved, are also at war with their enemy. Citizens although not being combatants, do provide the means for their troops to fight and therefore are not completely innocent. The idea of that day although wrong( and didn't work) was too take out the war producing factories or eliminate the factories work force.Since factories were in the middle of cities it was inevitable that civilians would be killed. Trying to get 500 planes to drop their bombs only on the target was nearly impossible even it that was their intent.
A person who studies history understands that the word Normal only applies to what was normal during a specific time. If you lived in England during the war and had family or loved ones killed in a bombing raid you might not feel too bad about the bombing German civilians. In the early 1800's slavery in the United States (although also wrong) would have been considered a normal situation by most people.
There is much talk today on the internet about the bombings and civilian losses during ww2.
I think it is unfair to try and apply the moral compass of today to any event in history, as it is trying to apply our normal of today to them in their time.
where does he get the gameplay, if it is that.. is it warm thunder? (I've never played)
Aidan Cler no Its Il2 1946
great game so much to get into
Another issue the Allies faced was accurate BDA. The Germans came up with a fair number of clever dodges that left apparently destroyed factories in good operating condition.
Something daylight bombers had to deal with, besides clouds, were German smoke screens. These would obscure factories, making an accurate drop even more difficult.
Besides the fact that the Norden demonstrated fantastic accuracy under test conditions only, was the fact that the USAAC/USAAF went from practically nothing to huge in just two years. It would be impossible to develop "professional" level bombardiers in that short time. The Air Force had to make do with what they had. Even then there are several highly accurate drops on record.
On the other hand, another reason the attacks were less accurate was the German Air Force itself. In the 1930s the B-17 was _faster_ than most front line fighters. At the time the bombers really could fly over interceptions attempts with impunity. The bomber could, in fact, always get through. At least until planes like the Spitfire & 109 were developed.
If the GAF hadn't gone after the daylight bombers so strongly, the Fortresses would have had a much easier time performing accurate drops. At the end of the day the Combined Bomber Offensive was yet another example of attrition warfare. The Germans were caught in a knight's fork; if they didn't defend the factories, they would be wrecked. If they did defend the factories, Allied escorts would destroy the Luftwaffe.
The reason for switching to carpet bombing was that bombing precision was horrendous. A survey stated that less than 10% of bombs was nearer than 3 miles from target.
Down the chimney bombing is a modern term only made possible with cameraguided smartbombs.
I like how in those b17s at the start blew up an the radio guy told them to return to base
Can you do a video on the hawk jet typhoon?
Germany: builds ball bearing factory
America: Cowabunga it is
Luftwaffe has a field day.
What game did you use?
Interesting video, what's the video from. Looks like some kind of video game.
In the "case study" sections I thought your mobile channel icon was apart of the background
What is the game being played when you are a secondary gunner in be bomber? Please tell me
Toll!
what aircraft is it? loving the design.
IL-2
Aircraft, not game )))
First are B-17's, then some He-111, Ju-88 and Blenheim.
What game is this.
Looking for answer!
Mećem Odzada omg if u find it I will be so great full
Try opening your eyes and looking to the top left when the gameplay is shown.
IL2 1946
That was only one sim, there was definitely another used when he was showing the bomb sight.
Navigation at night was also a serious challenge. I believe in the early days of WW2 they were lucky to find the right city.
Douger Rohmer not really. they did the same thing ships did, used the stars. there are many other ways to guide at night as well, but stars are the best on a clear night.
Mr Cosmo allies had radar and radio triangulation as well, just not very stealthy
Douger Rohmer , Oboe.
I saw an program somewhere where they demonstrated the difficulty of astral navigation from an aircraft dome and apparently there were serious probabilities of error there. But yes, later they had H2S and Huffduff and all sorts of things which worked great until the Chermans found out about them and used it against them.
Thanks for the video, it's very interesting. Have you made one on fighter escort tactics? I don't seem to be able to find much information on the way these escorts were operating and positioning themselves in relation to the bombers.
Anthony Beevor mentions in his book "the Second World War", that american heavy bombers, even though bombing by day and with their advanced Norden bomb sights, had a similair or even worse record of hitting their targets than british night bombers =S
Lavrentivs I love that book.
The British admittedly had better tactics utilizing pathfinders and the USAAF bombers had to contend with the German dayfighters, which rattled the nerves of bomber crews since the Luftwaffe could field any fighter unit against them really if they had the aircraft capable of attacking the bomber streams.
The only bombers to get anywhere regular accuracy on bombing runs would you light/ fighter bombers or your medium bombers flying below 1,000ft or at tree top level and going one at a time
And as for Heavy daylight bombers all they could do was area of carpet bomb.
Yes you lead bomber maybe hitting the target but when you have a formation of 50 to 100+ plans dropping all there bombs on the command of the lead bomber at 15,000 ft + you hitting very big ground area.
That's probably a bit unfair. It's certainly true that things like the Norden bombsight never really lived up to the hype it generated because what worked well in the sunny skies of California didn't work in bad weather over Germany. That meant they would end up using their version of the British H2S blind bombing system - in effect, area bombing.
I don't rate Beevor at all.
I'm just wondering who thought 2,500 m altitude was reasonable. That's a little over 8,000 feet, low enough for smaller caliber AAA to be effective. Mitsubishi G4M bombers over Guadalcanal routinely came in at around 29,000 feet (8,700-8,800 meters), high enough that only barrage AAA could reach and the fighters needed every minute of warning to make an interception (they typically got about 30 minutes warning from coastwatchers).
What game are you getting footage from?
What game is video from?
Folks, the thing of not bombing “innocent” civilians/non-combatants is unrealistic. Noncombatants worked the war supply, the munitions factories, the road and rail transportation hauling troops and supplies.
Hey Bismarck. I've been watching your videos for a few days now. What's the simulation you're using in your videos? It looks fun.
Chris D IL2