| Author |
Message |
|
delvo
|
Posted: May 29, 2012 - 06:16 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Aug 15, 2011 - 05:06 AM
Posts: 409
Status: Offline
|
I know that bombing was not as precise in, for example, WWII or Vietnam, as it is now with our fancy guidance systems and sensors and computers, but I know they must have done SOMEthing to make it as precise as it could be.
Did bombers have an optical scope in the belly, slanted forward so the bombardier would be looking at a point on the ground ahead of the plane instead of right below and release the bombs when the crosshairs were on the target? If the planes didn't always make their bombing runs at the same speed and altitude, then such a scope would need to be adjustable, so I can see the bombardier's station having a printed chart in which to look up the correct settings for a given speed & altitude. But I just made that up and could be barking up the wrong tree. Would there be a fixed vertical scope and some other method of knowing when to release the bombs, with the crosshairs on another point on the ground some distance away from the target? Were there no optical scopes & crosshairs at all? Did pilots time it based on when the target passed by some particular point on the cockpit canopy? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 21, 2013 - 12:14 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: May 29, 2012 - 08:11 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4269
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
Posted: Jun 03, 2012 - 01:46 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
The Dambusters came up with some pretty clever sighting gadgets too. 'Course, they weren't dropping from on-high tho.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
southernphantom
|
Posted: Jun 05, 2012 - 04:18 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 745
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
|
The F-4E had the APQ-120/AJB-7 combo, which was reasonably effective at aiming via radar. Not quite a Paveway, but still excellent for its day (and not too shabby in scenarios where collateral damage isn't a concern). The A-6 and Vark used crazy old mechanical computers with data tapes and everything.
Seriously. Look at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
count_to_10
|
Posted: Jun 08, 2012 - 12:41 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Mar 10, 2012 - 03:38 PM
Posts: 1321
Status: Offline
|
| In WWII, accuracy was mostly achieved by dive bombers or rockets. |
_________________ Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
stereospace
|
Posted: Jun 08, 2012 - 05:53 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Nov 21, 2009 - 05:35 PM
Posts: 652
Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
|
| I remember hearing a pilot describe dropping non-pgm (dumb) bombs from a fighter-bomber as being similar to dropping rocks from a moving car and trying to hit a storm drain. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
Posted: Jun 08, 2012 - 11:52 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
And yet, the IDFAF managed to knock out Osirak with only dumb bombs aimed with CCIP...while being shot at. Not too shabby.
And speaking of being shot at, if you didn't have to worry about people tryin' to kill ya, you could essentially bomb blind using nothing but math and a skilled carbon-based Bomb/Nav. Knowing drop altitude, airspeed, bomb fall time, and predicted/assumed windage you could figure out an IP and release point for a given target. Not sayin' it'll go thru the front door but you'd get someone's attention.  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|