Talk:Norden bombsight

Supersonic velocity

This article states that the problem of bombs falling at supersonic velocity was hard to solve. I would thik so, since no projectile has a terminal velocity in any medium higher than the speed of sound in that medium.

See Tallboy bomb for how a bomb can fall far faster than sound. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied text

I'm new here, but the text in this article copies the text found at this page: [1] almost exactly, with a fair amount of original extra words/facts thrown in as well. The page appears to be a US Military site, so maybe it is not a problem, but I figured I'd post this just in case.

Thanks; I'll add it to the list of links. Melchoir 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Auto-Pilot

The article omits a key point, that is short and to the point, and makes the whole article understandable to the average person. The article does not mention the simple fact that the Bombardier took over certain flight controls from the pilot, for the short duration that they approached the target. They would switch to autopilot, and the Bombardier had Auto-Pilot controls. The Bombardier "dialed in" direction headings into the Auto-Pilot. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lotfe-7K bombsight

Deleted uncited speculation about Lotfe-7K bombsight.

Secret

The article says both that "its existence was a closely guarded secret" and that it was "marketed as the tool to win the war; and it was often touted that the bombsight would drop bombs in pickle barrels". Where was it marketed and who was being touted to if even its existence was a secret? KarlM 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First, it was guarded as a secret; then it was used for propaganda purposes. The fact that Germany, at least later in the war, could not start bomber planes at targets in Great Britain made it possible to reveal the bombsight's existence - how could the Germans profit from knowing about the Norden if they could not bomb anything? And except from Pearl Harbor I don't know of any large Japanese bombing raid; so any bombsight knowledge would not have helped them... Perhaps I should re-read that book by Stewart Halsey Ross to know the exact reasons. And remember: Even if the USAAF says it has a secret bombsight it is propaganda. --Keimzelle 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask the veterans who were stationed at Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Port Moresby etc about Japanese bomb raids after Pearl Harbor, Keimzelle. ;)

The Norden Bombsight was kept a secret simply for the same reason why any "state of the art" military developement is kept a secret more or less, especially during war-time. You don't go advertizing your technology at your enemy's doorstep. If the article says anything about "advertizing", it should be obvious the original author simply used that as a phrase. "Advertizement" was probably happening between the military brass and the manufacturer, as is always.

I've read many WWII-era magazines and the existence of the Norden Bombsight was anything but secret, as Keimzelle implies. Its mechanism was claimed to be highly secret, though other comments on this page raise doubts about that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, people. "We have a pretty acurate bombsight that can put a bomb into a pickle barrel from way up" was probably NOT kept "secret", because that was POSITIVE propaganda and encouraged your own side. But surely the *inner workings* of that sight was kept secret just like any other military developement during wartime - and often during peace time as well - is kept a secret. Where exactly is the part here that you don't understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.46.213 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bombsight

What's a bombsight? --Abdull 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Gee-I guess we may need another article. A bombsight is an optical-mechanical device used to aim free-falling bombs at their targets. -Will Beback 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dither & Bombsights

Dither currently states:

Airplane bombers used mechanical computers to perform navigation and bomb trajectory calculations. Curiously, these computers (boxes filled with hundreds of gears and cogs) performed more accurately when flying on board the aircraft, and less well on ground. Engineers realized that the vibration from the aircraft reduced the error from sticky moving parts.

This seems to partially contradict this page which states:

In combat, this accuracy was never achieved - because the Norden had been tested under "artificial conditions" at the US proving grounds, for example in the absence of anti-aircraft fire and/or adverse weather.

Ewlyahoocom 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no contradiction, Ewlyahoocom. The second paragraph ("In combat, ...") is from me, the first one is not. The second paragraph only compares test flights (for example, at USAAF bombing ranges in the USA), which had idealized conditions – like perfect weather, no anti-aircraft fire, relatively low altitudes – to the actual bombing that took place over Japan. In both cases, bombs were dropped from flying aircraft; and the "dither" effect was always in place when bombs were dropped. Or do you honestly think that the Norden bombsight would let you drop bombs less precisely when your plane is still standing on the runway? :-)--Keimzelle 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha! I misread "artificial conditions" to mean some kind of testing on the ground. Ewlyahoocom 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Was secret overrated?

John Lienhart of the University of Houston College of Engineering says the secrecy of the Norden bombsight was mostly hype. The device was downgraded from "secret" to "confidential" in 1935 and to "restricted," the lowest classification, in 1942. A Norden employee sold plans for the device to the Germans in 1937 for $3,000, but the Germans never used it because they practiced dive bombing, not strategic bombing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newschief (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Accuracy Vs. What?

This article makes a fairly big deal discussing how the Norden never lived up to its theoretical accuracy, but it is worth asking "what was the alternative?". Depending on the size of the target, 10% of bombs hitting a target from 4 miles in the air seems like it could be considered darned accurate. One must also keep in mind that practically all WWII aerial weapons were wildly inaccurate by modern standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.110.100 (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Compared to its contemporaries, for one thing. It was not notably more effective than its competitor, the Sperry bombsight or the contemporary British versions. This article (unfortunately behind a paywall) makes the case that the Sperry bombsight was better in many respects: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=90187&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel3%2F6%2F2989%2F00090187.pdf%3Farnumber%3D90187 -J Daggar

I would suggest that the biggest problem in WWII was not being able to bomb super accurately but to find the target. There are numerous examples of air forces bombing the wrong cities. In that respect, the Norden was no more effective than any other, just as you say. Flanker235 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Acquired by Germany before World War II and 1940s sources

Based on these articles, the device's existence was certainly not secret at least not by 1940 and may have been acquired by Germany as early as 1938. "A government witness against 16 suspected Nazi spies testified today that he had offered to attempt to obtain the secret of the famed Norden bomb-sight for Germany in 1940; but was told not to bother 'because it already was in the possession of the gestapo'. The witness was William A. Sebold, a naturalized American citizen and former employe of the Consolidated Aircraft Co., of San Diego, Cal., his testimony was in support of United States Attorney Harold M. Kennedy's contention that Germany has had possession of the bomb-sight since 1938." from "Federal Agent says Nazis had bombsight in '38." Jefferson City Post-Tribune. Jefferson City, Missouri. Tuesday, September 09, 1941. Page 4. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The "Mr. X" who developed the nation's No. 1 military secret —the jealousy guarded, high accuracy bombsight — is being shielded so carefully it was learned today, that authorities decline to reveal his identity lest his life be endangered." ... "Officials familiar with the sight's performance said that it was an exaggeration to say that the sight could plump a bomb into a pickle barrel unerringly from the altitude of 20,000 feet. He asserted, however, that a small group of bombers equipped with the Norden device could spread a deadly bomb "pattern" over a small target from a great altitude." from "BOMBSIGHT INVENTOR'S IDENTITY KEPT SECRET." Associated Press. Jefferson City Post-Tribune Jefferson City, Missouri. Tuesday, November 26, 1940. Page 6. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another article from September 1941 says that the Norden bombsight was the inspiration for the film Flying Blind. "Flying Blind." Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune. Chillicothe, Missouri. Saturday, September 20, 1941. Page 6. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Inventor

Carl Noden is not mentioned in the summary. Shouldn't he deserve a mention? Sbohra 09:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Norden Bombsight Crosshairs

From family lore, my great-uncle Bailey Snider, a graduate of Berkeley and my grandfather's younger half-brother, was one of the many who worked on the development (or improvements) to the Norden bombsight. The only information the family has is about the cross-hairs. The original cross-hair materials available were either too thick for any accuracy, or were too fragile to be stretched tightly enough to provide the straight lines needed. Ultimately, the web strands (silk) of black widow spiders was used for both its strength and its fineness. I don't know the truth of this, but it makes sense, especially since there is still such a demand for this fiber that they have recently genetically modified goats to produce milk from which this same thread can be drawn on a larger scale than milking spiders.Kjj11 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

The Norden Bombsight crosshairs often are said to have been made using the hair of Mary Bobink Brown, who donated them in 1944. However, this has been disputed by at least one aviation museum and a few web pages. The grounds are that Ms Brown donated her hair in 1944, while the sights were trialled in 932 and in war use over germany etc for years before 1944, that there seem to be no records of it having used her hair before President Reagan's letter to her, and that all the bombsights encountered by the museum had etched glass crosshairs,and copies of the bombardier information file issued to bombardiers in 1945 specifically mention etched crosshairs.Barath s (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Female computers of WW II

One of the bombardiers in this movie indicated that the calculations these women made were fed into the Norden site.

In early December 1941, Betty Jean Jennings was a freshman completing her first semester at a rural Missouri college. In Philadelphia, Doris and Shirley Blumberg were seniors at Girl’s High and Marlyn Wescoff was completing a minor in business machines at Temple University. In an era of limited career opportunities for women, these bright students anticipated low paying careers as schoolteachers or bookkeepers. But on Sunday, December 7, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and changed these young women’s lives forever. With Pearl Harbor suddenly drawing the US in to WWII, the Army launched a frantic national search for women mathematicians. http://www.topsecretrosies.com/Top_Secret_Rosies/Project_Background.html

Can anyone verify the use and entry process of the calculations in the Norden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentvan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK they weren't involved specifically with the Norden bombsight, what they were calculating were generalised ballistic tables: If a bomb of this weight and this shape is dropped from an aircraft travelling at such a speed, in a wind of such a strength and such a direction, how far away does it land? These offsets were of course an important part of the setup (ie during construction) of the Norden, and some of the tables of settings that a bombardier would enter into the sight before and during a mission. They knew bomb details beforehand, but they'd measure winds over the target in flight, using the drift sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Blue Ox" name

The lead has a reference to the naming of this device as "Blue Ox". I read quite a bit on this machine, and have never come across this term before. Looking about at the usual suspects, I can find only a single historical reference to this term, from a Boeing advertisement that ran in a few magazines circa 1942/43. I can find no evidence in any of the other references, or talking to any of the owners or former bombardiers I know, that anyone ever used this term in practice. I am going to move it from the LEAD to the body unless anyone has a good reason not to. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Blue Ox" is also a reference from the WWII era bombardier school at Deming, NM. The class' publication (yearbook, of sorts) was titled "The Blue Ox". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:8803:8500:B53F:D848:4194:59BC (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norden bombsight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1995/FM/swpn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Links to sources

I discovered that some links to sources, namely Searle and Correll, followed dead or broken links. In the case of Correll, a simple updated format was needed. In the case of Searle, the source can be found in the IEEE's database after some Googling, but requires institutional access. I found a copy of it (in better quality, too) over at http://docslide.us/documents/the-bombsight-war-norden-vs-sperry.html. Since that seems kind of sketchy (and takes forever to load), I rehosted it and changed the link. Lueking (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusion with angles

In the Basic operation section, two angles are defined: The Norden thus calculated two angles: the range angle based on the altitude, airspeed and ballistics; and the current angle to the target, based on the ground speed and heading of the aircraft. The difference between these two angles represented the "correction" that needed to be applied to bring the aircraft over the proper drop point. In order for this to be correct, each of the two angles must be the angle of the line-of-sight (LOS) to the target. The current angle is the LOS at any point in time during the bomb run. The range angle must be the LOS to the target at the drop point when the end of the bomb trajectory would strike the target. A diagram of this would be of great help.Tvbanfield (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish in the Lede

"in peacetime testing the Norden demonstrated a circular error probable (CEP)[a] of 75 feet (23 m), an astonishing performance for the era."

Not at all astonishing if the bombs are dropped from a height of 20 feet. This information about the height is missing however, which makes the statement useless at best. 91.10.31.154 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as you're bombing the right city... Flanker235 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Tachometric bombsights

The text explains the concept adequately by saying: "design that directly measured the aircraft's ground speed and direction, which older bombsights could only estimate with lengthy manual procedures". The jargon adds nothing useful and serves only to confuse all readers except those with the most specialized knowledge, while violating multiple guidelines that urge avoiding use of jargon in lede sections. A piped link that avoids abstruse jargon is a reasonable compromise. DonFB (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So now I've raised it at WP:ANEW you start trying to discuss it?

There already was a piped link for this term. You removed it: [2] and again: [3]

This term is crucial to the Norden bombsight, both to its importance and to understanding its operation. It's the canon example of the tachymetric generation of sights, which was a major innovation.

Yes, the term is 'jargon'. That's why it's linked. Of course the article could go into more depth to explain it. It does already at Basic operation, but this could always be improved. However deleting mention of it does none of that. Tachymetric operation is crucial to the Norden, easily enough to justify its inclusion in the lead.

"design that directly measured the aircraft's ground speed and direction, which older bombsights could only estimate with lengthy manual procedures". is a strongly misleading description because it omits tachymetric. It was not the only sight that measured [sic] ground speed and direction and avoided the manual work of the early sights, but it was the first that avoided having to present them to the bombardier as an offset when aiming, but instead used a tachymetric approach by use of the offset prism in order to present a single presentation of target and cross hair. This was the Norden's innovation and it needs to stay in the article.

Incidentally I've always opposed the term 'tachometric' here, in favour of 'tachymetric'. Both are correct and contemporary, but tachometric has the unfortunate common use associated with angular rotation (which is not relevant) and that's too confusing. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you believe the lede has "strongly misleading" text, then fix it. In such fix, you could restore the jargon--if you include a brief definition as part of the text. Standalone jargon, with a link to a long-winded passage that itself fails to explicitly define the term, is a disservice to readers who may think they need to follow a link from an abstruse term in the lede to understand the topic. DonFB (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears you are OK with bombing-related jargon like circular error probable being linked and explained, but not the term tachometric. I am at a loss what the difference might be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That phrase is comprehensible and offers a helpful example. I doubt one in a hundred people can comprehend tachymetric. If its inclusion seems so important, why not include a brief definition in the text? The link offers virtually no help. Multiple guidelines strongly recommend avoiding jargon in the lede section of articles to better serve a wide readership. The term is used within the body of the article, for those readers who decide to delve more deeply into the topic. DonFB (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the link: it goes to a section of the Bombsight article. The lede of that article uses the term twice without actually defining it. The section that is linked has seven paragraphs. The unlucky reader who follows the link will not see the term defined until the seventh paragraph of the section, consisting of one sentence: "All of these designs collectively became known as tachometric sights, "tachometric" referring to the timing mechanisms which counted the rotations of a screw or gear that ran at a specified speed." Editors with expertise in the subject who think the term belongs in the lede of the Norden article should incorporate that information into the lede of that article. That will serve readers a lot better than expecting them to wade through seven paragraphs of material in another article. DonFB (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the appropriately depictive term, and added a brief intratext note describing in brief the components of a tachometric bombsight and their integration which distinguished it from previous advanced but much more limited bombsights.

Anyone - Don? - is welcome to expand upon this in the body of the article (and rewrite the section on bombsights dealing with tachometric devices) as they please. Both would be helpful. But let this be an end to the edit war. Attempting to erase something on shallow and inapprpropriate grounds is not a gain for the encyclopedia or its readers. Improving the above sections is.

It is a much greater disservice to them to mislead them with willfully over-simplified language, as such:

The Norden Mk. XV, known as the...was an early design that.... [my italics]

Which implies that the Norden was an early bombsight design, rather than the most advanced bombsight ever developed (to that point). This is a much greater offense to readers than using a proper term with a link (and now supportive intratext note) distinguishing and describing the Norden as what it is.

The ideal upshot of which is the growth of the encyclopedia, the opposite of an editor's censoring of content they do not care for. As it indeed entices readers with curiosity and skill to improve the existing Norden article, and the bombsight section on tachometric devices. Which is precisely how Wikipedia grows, and improves. Ideally with editors with proven skills in mechanical areas (like Andy) supported by others such as self-attested professional editors (like yourself, at your home page), working together to improve Wikipedia, not censor it. 2601:196:180:DC0:185C:F7EF:7739:43AC (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

To IP user 2601:196:180:dc0:f420:cbc4:36c1:1932: The section in the Bombsight article linked from the jargon in the lede of the Norden bombsight article begins: "The limitations of vector bombsights (which required a long straight run before dropping the bombs to accommodate windage) led to the development of bombsights based on the field of tacheometry." No further definition or explanation of the term is provided in that section, though you have touted the fact the section is linked as providing an explanation. You have just now removed the last paragraph of that section, which contradicted the first, but the more serious problem remains in forcing readers to chase links around the encyclopedia to learn the meaning of an obscure piece of jargon. Instead of actually defining the jargon, the Bombsight sentence I quoted offers yet another link: to tacheometry. So now the reader, who may merely have wanted a brief overview of Norden Bombsight, is led to a third article to find out what the jargon means. That third article begins by defining its subject as "a system of rapid surveying" "using a tacheometer (a form of theodolite)". Of course, theodolite is linked to its article, for people who may not know what that is. At this point, the reader might chase down that link into a fourth article, or they might happen to scroll past the five paragraphs of the Tacheometry lede into the article body and will see a little more information that may help clarify what tachymetric means.

The multiple guidelines I have cited strongly recommend against using jargon in the lede of articles, but they do say that if a highly technical term seems unavoidable, then at least provide a brief definition as part of the text. You have not made any such suggestion, and in fact you have even pointed out that the body of the Norden article is lacking explanation of the term, which is all the more reason for its exclusion from the lede. The average reader, who almost certainly does not know the jargon, has no choice but to chase the links or continue reading the lede with a sense they're missing important information, or stop reading altogether. One of the guidelines I cited literally says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links". Have you read that? Virtually no reader will be familiar with the jargon you think is appropriate in the lede; they are not, therefore, missing out on information meaningful to them. They can follow the link from the word design if they're curious and discover the jargon. Or if they decide to pursue the article beyond the lede, they will eventually find the jargon, although, to repeat, it remains inadequately explained, which seems like indifference on the part of editors who think the jargon is so important that it must appear in the lede, where, as I've pointed out, it would serve as a starting point to a chase three or four articles deep. This is not the way to respect and serve readers. DonFB (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see my response immediately above (at this point), which addresses the thrust of your issues here. The proper term is now transparent in the Norden bombsight lead; the gross misconception perpetrated by leaving it out is eliminated; and it is supported by an intratext note.

Indeed, you are correct that both the section on tachometric bombsights at the bombsight page, and the article on tacheometry, deserve improvement. In fact, I spend a considerable time yesterday doing so at both. Which is precisely the sort of growth of the encyclopedia, improvement of the encyclopedia, that is spurred by using the appropriate term where it is deserved (and Andy's defense of it). As above, perhaps you - a professional editor - can put some of the many words I assume you have left to devote to Wikipedia to advancing the related sections further. Or, ideally, work in concert with someone of demonstrated aptitude in such mechanical matters, combining your strengths. And grow the encyclopedia, and improve it, further. I look forward to seeing that. It would be great. 2601:196:180:DC0:185C:F7EF:7739:43AC (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the word early did not belong in the previous version.

I'd like to know if you have a one-sentence definition of tachometric (or tachy- or tacheo-), using generally recognizable words. DonFB (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't right now...but I'm getting closer to it. The trick (I am discovering) is to work backwards from the Norden M-1 (the "most advanced" tachometric bombsight of its day) to the origin of tachometric efforts (which will double one back to the early '30s days of the Norden and the competing Sperry). The net of which appears to be that the term and concept of a tachometric bombsight derive from the ability of one to apply tacheometric trigonometry (via an integrated mechanical computer) to continually update the bomb release solution. In the simplest form they take (or are fed) simultaneous readings of the aircraft's elevation and location over the ground, identify the target (via integrated optics, in so many words, in the form of an optical rangefinder), then use trig to create a constantly updating release point solution.

They also became gimbaled and electrically gyro-stabilized (as a foundation for being able to do useful route and trajectory calculations), with advances that initially allowed the operator to plug in factors such as wind drift. Both the British and the Germans had generally similar tachometric bombsights (the Germans' having devolved directly from the Norden via espionage, which was at least simplified and in many opinions improved). The British (as with so many other wartime exigencies) were stretched too thin to go further than they had proven able to (and had been unable to buy Nordens directly from the US) and simply adjudged that a simpler vector sight was a better application of their scarce resources for night time carpet bombing than a tachometric sight, and left the US (and its effectively limitless resources) to its persistence with attempting to achieve daylight "precision bombing".

Everything took a quantum jump for the Norden when autopilot got coupled to the bombsight proper, which also integrated real-time data (such as speed and elevation) straight from the aircraft's gauges. This (in theory) allowed the plane to "fly itself" to the target (though the reality was that it was easier and quicker for the bombardier to keep his telescopic sight trained on the target and let the autopilot "steer" the plane there than it was to let the autopilot do all the work (which resulted in the plane inevitably falling off-course (due to what we'll just call "real world deviations"), the autopilot recognize it, then have to take measures to correct for it...forcing it to continually do a whole set of calculations and adjustments that could be eliminated by the bombardier's limited participation)).

I'll see if I can tighten this up and integrate it at the tachometric section of the Bombsight article, which has been improved alot but still needs both more clarity and congruence.2601:196:180:DC0:185C:F7EF:7739:43AC (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that reply would be a little longer than a one-sentence definition. Here's what I've learned: the word 'tachometric' (or tachy or tacheo) came to be identified with the Norden bombsight among the people who were involved in its development and among people--such as a few Wikipedia editors--who study the history of its development. It is not a word, of course, that the general public ever came to be familiar with. So, use of the word in the lede section of the Norden article serves to "educate" the public--as represented by Wikipedia readers--about lingo associated with the device. The word, of course, does not by itself educate anyone, as far as I can tell, because even a person, such as yourself, cannot, at present, offer even a simple one-sentence definition of the word that would inform anyone about what characteristics made the Norden different than previous devices. The question, in my view, comes down to whether Wikipedia is "educating" readers or informing them. Somewhere in Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, can be found a statement that Wikipedia is not in the business of "educating" readers, like a textbook, for example. Inclusion of the word, of course, satisfies devotees, aficiandos and students of the Norden and its development, which obviously includes a handful of Wikipedia editors. It does nothing, repeat, nothing, to inform general readers what made the Norden different from devices that preceded it. That's because the word is all but unknown to the general public and, I believe, will always remain so. The very fact that among Wikipedia editors the very spelling of the word is unsettled demonstrates its obscurity. That is why, ultimately, the word contributes nothing useful to the lede--because it is uninformative, repeat, uninformative, and its presence does nothing more than satisfy the longings of (a handful of) students of the history of the device, among whom are a few Wikipedia editors. DonFB (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Don. You are obsessing on this. It is a tachometric bombsight. It's what it is. A billion dollars was spent on developing it; the Germans copied it; the British couldn't afford to continue developing one of their own for their airfleet (and reverted to a vector bombsight, except for their most powerful and important bombs, which they indeed used a tachometric bombsight of their own development for). Just because some non-specialists are having to educate themselves in very technical matters does not make EXCISING it, CENSORING it because YOU DON'T LIKE IT, a viable way (per WP policies) to approach it. You've got to let it alone. It's obvious you are unwilling to contribute to improving any of the content/articles/talk page entries surrounding the matter. You're just being obstinate, and filibustering, and hoping others will give in or go away. Which is NOT the Wikipedia ideal, or model. Since you won't help, please stop. Please. 2601:196:180:DC0:A1B9:CD12:9653:EAA3 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)