Malcolm Gladwell: The strange tale of the Norden bombsight
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- www.ted.com Master storyteller Malcolm Gladwell tells the tale of the Norden bombsight, a groundbreaking piece of World War II technology with a deeply unexpected result.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/tra....
One of my favourite public speakers and a phenomenal storyteller. Clever, eloquent and as good an orator as he is a writer. Just a proper legend.
He highlighted a critical point---the most crucial arrow in your quiver is not advanced Tech--but advanced INFORMATION and Advanced quality of JUDGEMENT!!
Yes . Roe - that was a good point to make. Strange that he padded his good point with so much adolescent posturing. 15 minutes of kiddy talk and 3 seconds of wisdom.
STEM gave us nuclear weapons. Philosophy has kept us from using them. But, we don't need the liberal arts anymore. Consider the consequences of that.
I've, forever, felt like much of our military budget, as Americans, should be spent less on kinetic weaponry of conventional war (that's unlikely to happen) and more on intelligence (primary focus), economic approaches, and even exploration of nontraditional creative campaigning.
edit: maybe we should, also, just keep an eye on defensive interception of hypersonic ballistic missiles.
It's all these things. Advanced tech without the information and better judgement is the real problem
And intel is rarely accurate. Defense spending is largely a complete waste of money.
Doctor Gatling invented his gun in the hope that it would be so devastating as to make war unthinkable. That didn't work either.
That's what Tecumseh Sherman thought during the Civil War.
Likewise, Maxim thought with his invention of the Machine Gun, and Alfred Nobel thought his invention of Dynamite would surely be so obviously devastating as to make war unthinkable. When Dynamite did not end wars, instead they got worse, Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prizes, esp the Nobel Peace Prize. Not until the H-bomb did a weapon make war so obviously, unwinnably horrible, that people thought twice and thrice and stopped doing super-huge mega-wars. So far.
@@carlcushmanhybels8159 Syria is destroyed and millions of people are displaced. War continues. Someday it will include nuclear weapons.
@@johncoffey1208 True, but See above: My comment about nuclear deterent --so far (through MAD), (despite previous weapon inventors thinking surely their weapon was so horrible that would stop wars,) "Not until H-bombs... That people thought twice and thrice and stopped doing super-huge mega-wars. So far."
@@carlcushmanhybels8159 I just think that those inventors were wrong to think they'd invent a weapon to stop war. Weapons are used in war to win. Nuclear weapons are used in the same way.
This was much better than the book.
such an excellent story teller and creative genius.
When he starts talking about using the bombsight in actual battle conditions I can't help but think of Yossarian...
My high-school physics teacher was a bombardier during WWII. HE OWNED A nordin Bomb sight and brought it to school. It had more gears than 20 Swiss watches. It took a gifted person to use one of them.
Except a broken Swiss watch is correct at least 2 times a day, vs. Nordens.
He doesn't need to offer an answer to "the problem" to be effective. He only needs to get more people thinking about the problem to have done a good thing! I congratulate Mr. Gladwell, for doing it with such panache.
My grandmother worked in the factory during WW2 making Norden bomb sights.
I loved his work with Paul Simon.
My father would always talk about the Norden bombsight with his friends. And a lot of other things like a cashless society, which my father said would never happen but still, they discussed it. I wished that I had listened more. He knew soo much stuff.
I felt that :/
Amen to that.
I hope you'll forgive me 'necroposting', not to mention that I'm probably missing the point of what you're saying, but in practice we have all but _become_ a cashless society! I mean, it does depend on where you live; as with Google Streetview, the Germans, I'm told, are rather lairy of 'cashless' (and, if so, good for them!) Where I live (Rep. of Ireland) cash has, in effect, become something you keep a little of, in case you need to buy a newspaper ("what're they?!") from a street vendor, or in case the vending machine at work goes 'on the Fritz') or in actuality, for the most part, the 'good deed for the day' Euro or two you toss your local homeless person. And the last time I checked (2 or 3 years ago), usage of cash in some of the Nordic countries was well down in to single figure percentages! You may have gathered that I am uncomfortable to say the least about these developments, but that is probably something better left for another thread! As to your father's commentaries, I don't know whether it would be better to say that on this point he was mistaken (no "Na Na Nyah Nyah Nah" implied!) -- or that, by the very fact that he spitballed on the subject, he was actually way ahead of the curve compared to most people on the subject of a cashless society. [EDIT: Notwithstanding of course, the fact that I never knew him!] I would be inclined to say that the latter was the case.
Malcolm is usually much more logical than this. Gladwell himself acknowledges that Norden was motivated by the philosophy that more precise and devastating weapon would ultimately reduce overall suffering, death and length of a war. 70k people were killed in Hiroshima. Estimates were that without it the war would have lasted 1-2 years longer at a cost of millions more lives. I think that tradeoff fits Norden’s philosophy perfectly, therefore would have received Norden’s approval.
+1 exactly what I was thinking
Quick correction:
The most expensive US program during WWII was the B-29 at $3B. This includes development, production infrastructure, and the planes.
The Manhattan Project cost $2B - about 90% of which was spent on Oak Ridge and Hanford.
No kidding, but facts make no difference to the retards in the historical revision business, alas.
The Manhattan project cost much more than $2B. The cleanup project at Hanford Nuclear Reservation still continues. Until complete we won’t know the final cost. I doubt it will be complete in the first hundred years after the Manhattan Project started.
@@billsmith5109 But, being part of The Greatest Generation means never having to say, "MY Bad!"
This reminds me of this time in high school when I stepped in some Malcom Gladwell and tracked it all the way into my Algebra class. I had no idea I'd even stepped in some Malcom Gladwell until the disgusting smell started filling the classroom. By that time, the entire class was smelling Malcom Gladwell and looking around to see where it came from, including me. Then I saw it, the footprints of Malcom Gladwell all leading up to my desk and right to my left shoe, which was half covered in Malcom Gladwell. Possibly the most embarrassing moment of my life. All I'm saying is, just always make sure to check your shoes for Malcom Gladwell before you enter a building and track Malcom Gladwell everywhere.
I liked it when this guy sings Bridge Over Troubled Waters
This was, I think, an excellent talk. But aside from its main point, it also solves a mystery for me. My favorite movie ever to come out of Hollywood is "The Best Years of Our Lives," in which Dana Andrews is a former bombardier with the Army Air Corps. Now, with the war over, he is interviewing for jobs. And, when asked whether he had experience in the military that would serve him in the civilian world, he sums up his experience as "four years behind a Norden Bombsight." For years, I've wondered what a *Norden* Bombsight was--and now I know.
Except, the Norden Bombsight worked pretty well and was the best sight of the war. It is difficult to understand how complex putting something as clunky as a bomb on a specific spot while 25,000 in the air, when dropped at 220 miles an hour (give or take.)
The US Air Corps was engaged in precision bombing. So when the Air Corp reviewed a bomb strike, a hit was when a bomb actually hit the factory or complex aimed at. So when a bomb missed the building it was considered to have missed the target.
The British were engaged in area bombing and the target was generally a city. When the British missed the target, the bomb missed the entire city.
The British had 38% of their bombs hit their target.
In 1943 34% of all bombs dropped by the US Air Corps landed within 1000 feet of the target. Now 1000 feet isn’t in a “pickle barrel, but a 1000 lb bomb within 100 yards of anything, is a bad day for the anything. In 1944 as fighter opposition dwindled, bomb accuracy increased substantially.
The Norden bomb sight was well worth the money and until actual electronic computers got involved was the best sight in the world.
And Enola Gay didn’t miss the target, the Norden put the Bomb, one bomb, dropped from 30,000, while the plane the plane was doing 300 mph. Ignoring lead angle and trail angle, that is 6 miles, W/in 800 feet. That’s two and a half football fields, and about as accurate as the guns on the USS Iowa, which had a mean dispersion of 246 yards, and the gun computers on the Iowa cost as least as much as the Norden.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved the talk, and agree with the concepts, but everything should be put in perspective. Carl Norden was a genius.
"When the British missed the target, the bomb missed the entire city."
This is untrue. While the Brits were aiming to destroy cities, they still used an aiming point as a target. This was because they wanted to concentrate the bombing in time and space, so as to overwhelm the civil defenses. That meant getting the entire raid across the target in minutes, and getting the payload as close to the aiming point as possible.
By mid 1943, particularly with the use of electronic bombing aids like Oboe and specialized pathfinder formations, RAF Bomber Command was regularly achieving a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of 1 mile or less. That means that 50% of the bombs fell within a mile of the target. Coincidentally, that's standard of precision that the USAAF required in order call a raid 'precision'.
Also, we should understand that 'precision' was a euphemism. The USAAF bomb groups typically bombed on the command of the lead bomber. Consider a formation of B-17s - a combat box - and think of the sheer space it takes up. Then imagine that box of bombers all toggling their load on the drop of the lead bomber. You're getting a combat-box-sized bomb pattern on the ground.
Bladder Splattle I beg to Differ, in 1943 32% of American bombs fell on the specific building or factory or within 1000 feet by late 44 the figure had reached 60% The accuracy of the British aerial campaign was calculated as striking with 1000 feet of the city. In 1941 only 20% of Bombs landed within 5 miles of the target little wonder since they were area bombing, by end of the war using magnetron radar British bombers were able to reliably drop Bombs with 25 feet of the target, but the target was still a city.
www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-butt-report-revealing.html/amp
The British Royal Air-force commission a neutral study compiled by an assistant to the Viscount Lord Lindemen, Churchill’s most trusted advisor:
The report reads as follows:
“It must be observed also that by defining the target area for the purpose of this enquiry as having a radius of five miles, an area of over 75 square miles is taken. This must at least for any town but Berlin consist very largely of open country. The proportion of aircraft actually dropping their bombs on built up areas must be very much less...”
The effect of the contents of the report were both shocking and devastating. Of bombers which reported that they had successfully bombed, on average, only one in five had actually dropped their bombs within five miles of the target. For targets in the heavily defended Ruhr, this dropped to one in ten. On nights when there was a new moon, this fell to one in fifteen.
“... For all the courage, professionalism and determination of the British bombers crews, it is clear that most of their bombs are falling harmlessly on open country and very, very few were actually hitting their ‘targets’ ...”
From UK National Archives.
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/hamburg/sources/docs/7/
This graph shows the accuracy of night bombing of German cities, excluding Berlin. It comes from a detailed report about war operations from 23rd February 1942 to 8th May 1945 by Air Chief Marshal, Sir Arthur Harris.
The graph shows the percentage of aircraft attacking their target area. These figures are based on photographic evidence that show bombers reaching within three miles of their aiming point. Various radar based navigation aids, like "GEE" are also shown on the graph. The "GEE" system had a limited range and from August 1942 the Germans were able to start jamming its signals. Other radar navigation aids such as OBOE and H.2S were developed to increase the accuracy of the bombing.
The failure of American precision bombing during the years of 42-43 was not the result of missing, but the result of immense losses due to German air defenses, both fighter as well as ground based anti aircraft artillery.
The concept of self defending bomber formations proved to be deeply flawed and it wasn’t until the development of long range fighter escort and maintenance of air superiority leading to eventual air supremacy that the benefits of daylight aerial bombing outweighed the massive cost in men and material.
The British had much fewer casualties, both because of the fewer bombers used but also the relative safety of darkness. British bombing was no more effective despite the fact that more bombers completed missions, because the bombing of civilian targets (based on post war analysis) had little effect on productively.
What about the Norden vacuum cleaner mentioned in Hogan's heroes???
Well, I think we can all agree: it sucked!
Scientists at Los Alamos discovered that the bombs with fins were actually not helping them aim them correctly to the targets, it actually collapsed during the descent. That critical piece of information was discovered during the photography of the Little Boy and Big Boy practice bombs. Norden bombsight was useless when the bombs with fins were used.
Essential viewing in 2024.
Carl van Linden wasn't Swiss, but a Dutch engineer, born in the Dutch East Indies, but trained & educated in Switzerland.
Hence, a Swiss Engineer. A Swiss engineer who happened to be of Dutch citizenship. But his engineering was definitely Swiss.
He was Dutch, hello... Just because you went to Switzerland for a while doesn't make you Swiss
Wonder where Carl Norden was from??
@@johnstuart5437 That makes no fucking sense. If you're born in the Netherlands or a colony of the netherlands to dutch parents, you're dutch. You don't become swiss just because you live there.
@@captainoblivious_yt He went back to Switzerland after the war and lived the rest of his life there. So he spent most of his adult life in Switzerland. Easy mistake to make....
Malcolm is giving me sweet calm highschool teach gently explaining concepts I should already know, abruptly mixed with irate dinner guest who I know through a friend I met at a Portland arts collective.
This is similar to the New York Times in 1897 referring to Hiram Maxim's machine gun in these words: "They are peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors." NEVER underestimate humankind's ability to misuse anything.
Why do I keep waiting for Paul Simon to show up...?
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not a thermonuclear bomb. It was a simple fission bomb. Thermonuclear bombs, or two stage bombs, weren’t developed until the 1950’s. Ivy Mike was the first successful test that we know about.
@NOTMYNAME I came to comment precisely about that and then thought I should check if someone else had pointed that out -- and indeed your comment says that it wasn't a thermonuclear weapon. 🙂
Minor detail is that Carl Norden was Dutch rather than Swiss... Tells a different story :-)
@Harry Lagom Most white Indonesians were Dutch, to part-Dutch. Indonesia had been a Dutch colony.
How so? His birthplace has no bearing on the story's unfolding.
Many of the comments here point out the inaccuracies in Gladwell's talk. But the whole story he told was to point out the folly of continuously trying to find the better weapon, when the real answer to winning a war is to never start one in the first place, and instead we need to learn to talk with each other to resolve the differences.
I don’t believe we can be blamed for starting WWI or WWII. we can be credited with helping bring them to a close and allowing most nations to resume their pre-war prerogatives.
My uncle, Commander and Naval aviator (later Admiral) Austen V. Magly, Annapolis Class of 1924, was chosen as Norden's aide for awarding the multitude of contracts to U.S. industries, small and large, for the intricate, extremely sensitive components of the bombsight.
the norden bombsight did save lives. it made it not necessary to invade japan with the loss of millions of lives. thankyou mr.norden. you saved my dad's life.
If this journalist gig stops working for you, Malcom, you might consider trial lawyer or preacher.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley listening to very smart people who will tell you all the things they CAN do, but will never discuss whether they SHOULD do them.
That’s where you and I come in.
The Norden Bombsight was a moral triumph. It ended the war more quickly. Absolutely. Saved countless lives. You are a cynic.
Hitler called, and he wants his "end justifies the means" mentality back.
For many years I worked in the computer software industry. If there was ever an industry beset by Norden bombsights that was it.
This app will change the life of about one million people rich enough to use it to its full extent!
The last 6 sentences of this monologue should disturb you.
My father etched the crosshairs on the Norden bombsight.
As was said in a movie, Crimson Tide... "The true enemy is war itself"
Thanks very much for this fascinating story and the explanation about the high cost and failure rate of the Norden bombsight.
It was interesting to also note that after the many drone strikes this has had a tenfold increase in the number of attacks (suicide attacks etc) on western forces.
Similarly the destruction of Afghanistans opium crops has resulted in 4 or 5 times the opium output. It certainly makes you wonder if perhaps instead of the billions that the west has spent on destroying the Taliban and the Iraqi war machine, if we had spent that money buying up all the opium crops, building up the infrastructure of the two countries, dams, schools, electricity generating and water treatment plants and roads etc would we be in the global fight against terrorism that we are today in 2018
and would we be living in a safer world? Perhaps not, but it was a nice thought.
You're talking as if the Taliban are reasonable people; they are religious extremeists who have no problem with killing anyone who doesn't agree with them. If you built a nice school for girls they would destroy it, same with anything else. You can't change their mind with money, they are living for the next life, not this one.
I don't think that the creation of prosperous, independent nations in the Middle East was quite in line with The West's aims over the last 70 years. Broken, struggling countries that tow the line are much more useful. A few terrorist attacks are inconsequential compared to the geopolitical benefits.
@@jimmorrison4291 you're not wrong there bro, pity those geopolitical aims benefited only 3% of the population
@@martinomichael4967 I have to agree with you. Not much of the money and benefits got down to the lower levels of society in either country. But one thing I know for sure... Cheney's Halliburton walked away with over $$$ 40 BILLION $$$ IN NO BID CONTRACT PROFITS $$$$$ It's ALWAYS about the money!!!
Brilliant!😊
11:54 - a pickle barrel doesn’t know that you’re trying to kill it. A group of guys manning a SCUD launcher are very aware of this, and because they understand that if they stick their noses out of the cave during daylight hours, they will be eating a laser-guided Missile, they remain hidden - which effectively negates them as an effective offensive weapon....at least during daylight hours.
Unlike a stationary munitions factory, you don’t actually have to destroy a deployed weapon to negate its effectiveness. You just have to get them to keep their heads down and not use it. How many bullets are fired by infantry soldiers for each enemy soldier killed? Thousands of rounds are expended for a volume of fire, just to suppress the enemy from advancing or to keep their head down.
Mostly the SCUDS were launched at night, which was safer for the missile launch crews. Which is why a the Patriot Battery Missiles were also used.... which also weren’t as accurate as they might have been against inbound ballistic targets, but then this was not what THEY were initially designed for either.....but that’s another story.
Interesting talk. I know he doesn't blame Norden and this talk is primarily a critique of the military industrial complex, but I can't help but marvel at what the engineers were able to accomplish. Politicians decide what to do with the bombs. Also, He misspoke at 11:01 SCUD missles are ballistic surface to surface missiles. I know the point of the talk is that our gadgets won't save us, but to go through the whole talk and not even show a picture of it!?
Excellent.
In your ending statement, I think you've missed something. With or without Mr. Norden, the use of two atomic bombs did reduce the toll of suffering in that war. Do not forget, the Japanese were not going to stop. They were going to continue, win or lose, to the last man. It was a matter of honor and Emperor. You know, or I hope you know, the lengths at which the Allies went to minimize casualties at both sites. They should have been virtually deserted.
Still, I'm not so sure his heart would have been broken. I think for him, that victory would be bitter sweet.
Actually no, the Japanese tried to negotiate a end of the war via intermediary countries at least 3 times. In fact many Historians feel there would've been a negotiated surrender at least 3 months earlier if the US had not had any nukes in it's armoury
@@mickvonbornemann3824 This is news to me - no sarcasm. Where can we find evidence of the negotiations?
@@ihaligrygg9411 Alright, let's put it like this. You want fewer innocents to die and you want to reduce suffering. You invent this device and since they don't use it like you intended your machine is used to almost indiscriminately bomb civilian areas. Ultimately it's used to deliver the most horrific weapon in human history, obliterating a city the size of Malmö, Sweden killing over 100 000 people. Some were lucky and died painlessly as they were disintegrated by the blast, some were not and would die of radiation poisoning (a symptom of which is your skin painfully falling off). If your invention, designed to minimize suffering, leads to countless children dying in agony as their skin peels off it isn't a bitter sweet victory. It's a disgusting perversion of your original intentions.
Amen. The atomic bombs actually saved countless more Japanese lives and infrastructure since they were committee to dying for their empire. Not to mention the lives of allied forces. All because they believed their emperor was a deity. Could the bombs have been placed on military targets? Maybe. But Americans can't typically understand how different the Japanese culture and resolve was.
Actually according to three former Drone pilots, now whistle blowers, drone warfare is not nearly as accurate the military would like the general public to believe. This is documented in the film “National Bird” produced by Erroll Morris & Wim Wenders.
Ironically, it is in how we use a given technology, not its accuracy, that determines the extent to which it reduces the number of casualties in warfare.
Point of Order: The Bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not a Thermonuclear device, it was an Atomic Bomb... Big difference.
It wasn't a thermonuclear bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. It was a nuclear bomb. A fission bomb was dropped, not a fusion bomb which is called a thermonuclear bomb. Thermonuclear bomb wasn't tested until Nov 1, 1952.
"Hello darkness my old friend..."
Absolutely......:-))))
The story makes me feel kind of sad.
I use to love spaghetti. I used to work with B61's and B57's. Now Spaghetti sauce and nuclear weapons are forever entangled. I wont be able to think of one without the other. On the plus side I did go ketogenic over a year ago, so no more spaghetti for me at least.
Cheers Good One
Art Garfunkel is such a good story teller. I was hoping he would sing "Sounds of Silence", but no luck.
One of my peeves is someone talking with authority about something they don't know themselves. Since everyone is piling on with mistakes they have found I'll point out that at 11:00 he describes a Scud missile as surface to air rather than correctly as a ballistic missile. Don't forget that this talk was likely reviewed by a committee that didn't know the facts either.
I wouldn’t say he’s talking with authority he’s just telling a story
G.Fisher Also to nitpic, he said thermo-neuclear instead of nuclear.
Surface to air, surface to surface - doesn’t matter. They were killing people and had to be destroyed.
This is not uncommon with Gladwell.
His audience knows books, and academia, and they forgive his knowledge gaps.
@@amariner5 I recently finished his "Talking to Strangers"...and have read others His rigor appears unimpresive.
It suggests he looks for a "hook" and runs "somewhere".
The proximity fuse was another big technology breakthrough.
The Pacific War would have been much worse without it.
Enola Gay did not drop a "thermo nuclear" bomb. Little boy was a uranium gun-type fission bomb.
The thermo nuclear bomb designed by Teller and Ulam was only developed in 1951.
Minor technical detail perhaps, but still faults like that always makes me question all the spoken facts that I don't already know about.
trefod Forrest or the trees. Look at the bigger picture.
Eh. Kind of a blah lecture, aside from the theatrics. It doesn't take much insight of any kind to understand and point out the law of unintended consequences and the law of diminishing returns using hindsight. Which our politicians and military admittedly regularly ignore or dismiss because of various ideological motivations.
This is more about inculating leftist anti-military politics piggybacked on a few jejune observations.
Aside from that, the lecturer is impressed with his own peraspicity to an unagreeable extent.
"Which our politicians and military admittedly regularly ignore or dismiss because of various ideological motivations."
Grammar much?
Details are important, Osman.
"The lecturer is impressed with his own peraspicity to an unagreeable extent," said the guy with the screen name, "massive reader," who misspelled two out of the three hundred-dollar words he had unnecessarily deployed in his youtube comment. If you are intellectually honest, you will be willing to consider that it is your reading of this lecture that is jejune, tinted by an ideological animosity towards those phenomena to which you apply the term "leftist."
So sounds like we don’t need more accuracy, but more volume. Take out the good with the bad and start over.
SAD AND HEAVY
Bombsight story was interesting. Political pondering was very questionable.
The Norden was developed as the essential component for the bombers that would defend US coasts from enemy invasion. It was part of a flexible force multiplier. In that role it was an abysmal failure, it was not effective in bombing ships, not even at medium altitudes. Of course in practice bombing factory sized targets in cities was a lot easier to achieve, especially dropped in formation by lead by a leading bomb aimer. 10% is not that bad for the tech. It was probably worse when facing the Jagdwaffe and heavy Flak in ‘42-43. Statistics is always fun. Patriots and Stingers were a lot less effective than claimed. The Norden was not crucial to the Allied bombing campaign.
It was developed to bomb Germany, not defend US shores. There was no real threat of invasion of the US. The US is essentially a fortress as we are in probably the most geographically advantageous location on the globe and would be damn near impossible to invade. The supply lines needed alone for such an operation by any potential invading force makes it damn near physically impossible.
The bombsight was created because bombing was horribly inaccurate and the US thinking at the time in the Air Force was that we could end the war with a very small number of perfectly placed bombs on very specific industrial targets. For example, we thought that if we could just eliminate the ability of Germany to produce the precise ball bearings needed for mechanized hardware we could end the war right there without all the bloodshed and destruction that typically accompanies mass bombing campaigns. The goal was to avoid Dresden, to avoid the firebombing of Tokyo.
Tokyo was firebombed because we discovered the existence of the jet stream; we had to fly high to avoid the anti-air guns but doing so put us up against this MASSIVE headwind and the weather over Japan was also very very cloudy which meant even if we could fly high and get there with enough fuel that we couldn't drop precise bombs because we couldn't see the targets. It all became too much to overcome.
We had to fly in low at night in order to avoid the jet stream and come in under the clouds, but this left American bombers still exposed to AA guns and eliminated the ability to see any targets clearly as they'd have gone lights out on the ground as well. Because of these factors the air campaign was going very poorly with attempted precision strikes (on top of the bombsight being very difficult to use and the fact that if tolerances on the parts within were off even the slightest bit that bombs would no longer be anywhere near precise and machining simply wasn't good enough to prevent that, especially in such a complicated mechanism with so many moving parts in such a demanding environment) and General Curtis LeMay was brought in to manage the campaign and make it work....and so the massive bombing raids against Japan began with napalm being created and used for this purpose because of the proportion of structures that were built almost entirely of wood.
Why did he keep referring to an aircraft manufacturer , Bombardier ( pronounced bomb- bard-e-a), instead of a bombardier?
Right (trains planes and snowmobiles) ! Drive me crazy!
its driving me crazy
@Charles Bishop Because smart people occasionally like to demonstrate how smart they are by using foreign words (usually French by the way) or obscure words and in doing so they completely forget that the primary object of speaking is to be understood.
M Burns -He wasn't speaking French at all when referring to "Bombardier". Bombardier is an aircraft manufacturer in Montreal, Canada. Not Quebec which is a French speaking province of Canada. If he was trying to impress his listening audience then, he should have researched his subject matter a little more closely rather than trying to impress them with a foreign language. The people he is speaking to are intelligent, as well.
@@charlesbishop7583 French. Either way.
True Hearts and Minds Works. Dad was 22ndSAS.
A small clarification - the bomb dropped on Japan was not a Thermo nuclear bomb, but rather a nuclear bomb. There’s actually a big difference.
My dad's boss was a bombardier in B-17s in WWII. For his 60th birthday, my parents found somewhere (this was in the days before eBay or even the Web in general) an old Norden sight. They wrapped it up and gave it to him as a gift. He was stunned, and genuinely appreciated it and treasured it for the rest of his life - it lived in his office at IBM until he retired a bit after my dad, and then was in his den at home. But he also just friggin' fell apart, bursting into tears when they gave it to him. Brought back a ton of memories, some good, most bad. But we are at least partly the product of our experiences, and as I said he DID appreciate it and considered it quite the thoughtful gift.
Where is it now?
Cool story, Neato... Yet I would say we should have joined the Nazis in defeating Russia in Finland and Russia overall... But it was too late when France and England declared war first...
@SaveBlueEyes
Great post as you know some history but I will have to look up Pearson...
I remember some news report of this guy that didn't like what his kids were being taught so you went through an entire history book and then printed it up all the mistakes and lies and whatnot and he had it printed all-in-one long sheet of paper that rolled down several steps of a staircase to illustrate what I believe is political correctness and multicultural Marxist lies written into our history and maybe just stupid scholarship with no real agenda in mind
I remember my dad talking about the NEA years ago which is the National Education Association I think and he mentioned that it was not always this politically correct Lefty publication or organization as I was reading the publication out loud and commenting on what a lefty rag it was
My brother gets it because he is a teacher and pathetically enough a lefty one
That’s a weird tale. Your uncles caused their parents to meet?
In the mid 70's I had an opportunity to buy a complete Nordon bomb sight for $600.00. I needed a couple of hours to get it. When I got back, someone beat me to it. I still regret that.
When I was young dad worked construction on the base somewhere near LA where they were doing work on the Norden bombsight. Since we had a German name a car would follow Dad home every night to the trailer court where we lived. When I was older Mom told me that the people in the car were FBI agents.
Ralph Worlein and if you were Japanese American you would have ended up in a camp.
"Whatcha drawing there Carl?"
"Norden."
What we create defines us.
I can forgive Malcolm for saying American drone strikes were 95% accurate - It wasn't known until years later how much collateral damage they actually cause in real world application. Unfortunately the drones are only as good as the intelligence used when choosing their targets.
Wikipedia states that Carl Norden was dutch
Actually despite "booby trapping" the Norden Bomb Site, the U.S. Army Air Corps was still very afraid of what would happen if the Germans got their hands on one from a downed American plane. So they had a rescue squad that went after planes carrying these sights to retrieve them. And I'm proud to say my father was one of those rescuers in North Africa!
Germans had one they found in a bomber back in 43. They tested it and didn't think much of it. When the RAF got one they thought little of it as well.
Errata: Carl Norden was Dutch... not Swiss.
True. He was educated in Switzerland though. And went back to live there after the war.
Simon Garfunkel?
Brilliant!
Anything with Malcolm Gladwell is informative and enlightening
My uncle Tony was in the Army Air Corps. Based in Alaska. His job was to service the Norden bombsite on planes that were based there.
I do not know if Carl Norden’s heart would have been broken or not. I suspect that unless he asked him Mr. Gladwell doesn’t know either. I do know that countless children of WW2 veterans who did not have to invade Japan are thankful to Mr Norden and the other geniuses who saved countless allied lives through their inventions.
I agree with you. While the device did allow precision destruction, in the end it saved lives.
That's weird logic. He's making that statement based on Norden's speeches, writings, and talks with others. If he was telling how he truly felt, you don't need to ask directly. If he was lying in his speeches, writings, and talks, why wouldn't he just keep lying if you asked him directly?
It seems that he has an agenda rather than the reality that we faced at the time. Missing by 800 ft is a lot better than losing half a million allied lives, not to mention the number of Japanese lives.
Japan surrendered because Russia declared war on them.
@@AJ-fo2pl just out of curiosity, how well have you studied their culture? How well have you took a deep introspect into all of the machinations that were going on at that time? I have spent over 2 decades in the study of it. If you wish to poke holes in my statement, feel free. You will need to come with competent sources.
When I say it saved lives, it did. In a nutshell, if the island was invaded, the carnage would have been extreme. Far worse than it was.
It also has saved lives after the effect. All people now know how devastating those weapons are. That is a main reason they are not used.
If you believe me to be brainwashed, that is your prerogative. Please back it up.
The problem with anything Gladwell says is that his process is so flawed, as evidenced by his conclusions in his infamous David and Goliath video, and even in his more established works like Outliers, that you can't trust anything he says. It's fascinating, but you can't depend on it. This talk is no different. His main conclusion seems to be that while Norden wanted the bomb sight to reduce human suffering in war, it did the opposite. This is a purely emotional conclusion. The Japanese were committed to defending the homeland to the last person standing, and/or commit suicide in the process, but kill as many enemy as possible. This is indisputable. The 2 bombs were dropped 3 days apart, and the 2nd only because they would not surrender.
Like many arguments today, unsupported presuppositions are used as givens, then theories are built on them. Gladwell is probably the most famously bad person at this, because his theories are taken so seriously.
This. Exactly. A perfect review, thank you. I was astonished listening to so much tripe. This man is moronic.
Eisenhower himself said Japan was ready to surrender.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The only problem is, you do have to know were the other point is, or there is really is no point.
Just to clarify things. The B17 was not a good bomber. It could only carry half of the bomb load of a Lancaster and required a much bigger crew. The American generals including Eisenhower visited 617. They wandered over to a Lanc. He looked up and said this is just a flying bomb bay. Then they were taken up to the cockpit. No Co-pilot. All of the crew could fly the plane back with basic training. In the early stage of the bombing of Germany the Norden did not improve accuracy. Its a myth that it was effective. The alarm rang and the US Airforce decided to do bombing from a much greater altitude at daytime. You could factor in cross winds etc but not for the whole drop. There were conflicting wind patterns at different altitudes. When accuracy could not be improved, Bomber Command sanctioned area bombing of Germany. Bombing of specific targets was left to the Mosquitoes and twin engined night fighters. Even then accuracy was still poor. I mean how can you be off target by five miles? In D Day, bombers were sent in to fly down the beaches to bomb the German hard points. They came in at 1500 ft and still missed.
If you can get a copy of a book about Guy Gibson and 617 Squadron, you can appreciate how technology failed. They hit two dams out of three using two bits of wood and a couple of nails. It was not until you could factor in wind patterns and radar in a B29 that accuracy improved.
By the time the USA entered WWII, the USAAF had already committed its heavy bomber force to the doctrine of precision day light bombing of "strategic" targets, namely the military/industrial/economic infrastructure of the enemy so, if not able to win a war beyond itself ("the bomber will always get through" notion, popular with some post WWI theorists) it would at least damage the enemy enough to shorten a war w/o excessive "collaterral damage". This required a heavy bomber like the B-17 which had been operational since the 1930's and the later B-24, both of which they figured could drop a lot of ordnance on enemy targets"with precison". That required a well publicized super semi mystical wonder-gizmo device to make this possible-THE NORDEN BOMBSIGHT!=part tchnologial advance part PR to sell the strategy to the politcal leadership which provided the $$$$$. Of course precisison bombing turned out to be a myth, but it made for great morale boosting and propaganda. At the very beginning of WWII the RAF attempted its version of daytime"precision bombing". But their relatively small fleet of essentially obsolete 2 engine medium bombers were dreadfully inadequate to do the job intended . That, along with the un acceptable casualty rate among the bomber crews mandated a change in strategy. Namely, a large 4 engine bomber The LANCASTER, which would worry little about precision and resort to massive carpet/fire bombing at night. Targets were to include entire cities. Not too worry about "collateral damage." Thus Germany was subjected to near continuous bombings both day and night for years until the final ALLIED VICTORY- on the ground in 1945.
Why didn't they just drop pickle barrels with bombs already in them?
yeah..it would suck to have to eat blown up pickles all the time..
Oh ... you didn't hear about that? Well you see there was this Strike by the Copper Miners who were breaking the War Regulations Act by doing so but - when the warrant was issued to arrest the striking copper workers - there was a typo. They spelled Copper - Cooper. The end result was that it was all the barrel makers who were arrested and sent to prison - unless they volunteered to serve in the army - and hence the lack of pickle barrels. This shortage resulted in the creation of the ubiquitous 55 Gallon Drum that is seen to this day all over the world - but which being an industrial product doesn't require the efforts of a craftsman to produce it.
.
I’m cracking up here
I didn't know the pickle barrels were so important.
That would have left everyone in a pickle, I suppose...
The nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not a thermonuclear weapon, but rather a fission device. This was a great lecture on the foolishness of any idea of "humane war." Definitely sharing.
Gladwell often takes a certain amount of dramatic license with his facts during his talks for dramatic effect. The problematic is that because of who he is, sometimes ppl that don't know better, take his talks as 100% factual.
SCUD missiles were surface to surface devices, not surface to air. Yet another error......
Leo Reisman Orchestra made a Vitaphone short called Patterns in which Bubber Miley was featured in two of the four numbers. Those two were filmed in silhouette so it was not obvious that the soloist was black. Have we made progress since 1929, or not?
"He wears 3-piece suits". Says the guy in Jeans. Possibly unaware that there are pictures of leading mountaineers, people modern enough that their climbs are still test pieces, climbing around the time of WWII, wearing 2 and 3-piece suits. In the sixties I had tailored suits as a 6 year old. It was just what people wore. It is funny how history gets biased.
Of course, no one checks if the presenters are accurately telling the story or making truthful statements. And in this, he isn't.
Lay it on my, chief.
A long time ago, went to visit the Los Alamos museum and they had (at least that's what the sign said) the Norden bombsight from the Enola Gay on display. It sent a chill down my spine when I looked through it! Great talk.
My first job as engineer was working in a plant which was spun off of Norden. We didn't make weapons, we made industrial senors. My boss was a German Jew who escaped the Nazis when he was 18, and served with the U.S. Army in the Pacific. He had worked at the old Norden facility. His first boss at Norden was a German engineer who worked for a German bombsight manufacturer during the war. His German boss said he had a Norden bombsight on his desk all through the War. He was not very impressed with it.
Regardless, the criticisms of the Norden Bombsight are almost as overwrought and preposterous as its proponents claims. It was an effective machine that forced the Germans to maintain a huge air defense establishment at a very steep cost. The 2,000,000 Luftwaffe personnel defending against bombing raids, and the millions of tons of ammunition fired could have been put to effective use on the Eastern Front. (The Luftwaffe estimated that it took 6000 tons of ammunition to shoot down one bomber. About 50,000 US Airmen died over Germany during the War.)
The accuracy of the Norden Bombsight required the Germans to muster strong air defenses, otherwise the Allies would have attacked at 15,000 ft on straight and level courses, like they did over Japan. The Eighth U.S. Army Air Force made its target the city of Berlin in 1943. By that time, with the advent of the P-51 Mustang, German fighters would not rise to meet American air raids, except against Berlin. The purpose of the raids was not to drop bombs on Berlin, it was to destroy the Luftwaffe fighter forces. And they were extremely successful in that endeavor. Air superiority was a prerequisite for a successful invasion of Europe. Without the attacks on Berlin, in which the people of Berlin and the 8th USAAF bomber crews were live bait, the landing of Anglo-American (and Canadian!) forces in France would not have been possible.
The alternative to the Anglo-American landings would have been a Europe in the Hands of either Hitler or Stalin. There is no third choice. Gratitude is too much to expect in this world, but some people (e.g, Swiss, Swedes, Eurotwits in general) might at least be a little more restraint in their smirking.
Every statement above is FALSE
But less false than yours.@@thegeneralist7527
@@beachcomber2008 I've studied Luftwaffe air defenses and the allied bombing campaign extensively. The British led Commonwealth strategic bombing campaign was much more effective because they had learned the hard lessons earlier in the war about the dangers of daylight bombing. The British also learned from their poor results at precision bombing and switched to area bombing, developing pathfinder tactics for target marking, developed electronic navigation aids and countermeasures and many other innovations. The British used their advanced radar in tandem with their sophisticated fighter control network to win the Battle of Britain. Conversely, the German Kammhuber Line air defense system was flawed and vulnerable to being overwhelmed by massed bomber streams. The British shared this information with the US, but the American's blind belief in their daylight precision bombing doctrine and the Norden bombsight resulted in severe mauling by the Luftwaffe until long-range fighter escorts became available. Even as late in the war as the Battle of Berlin the German's were still able to inflict heavy and unsustainable casualties upon both the RAF and the USAAF. The point I would like to make is that this like many other subjects is much more nuanced than a cursory glance would suggest. The Norden bomb-sight was USELESS if you could not see the target because of cloud, as was often the case, especially after the first bombs had been dropped and smoke obscured the target. Let me put it this way, the comment I am criticizing MAY be accurate from an engineering point of view but that it is entirely inaccurate from a historical point of view.
@@thegeneralist7527 I liked and enjoyed your second post, and your analysis agrees with mine, historically, and in engineering terms. Perhaps you shouldn't live up quite so closely to your handle. You seem to be agreeing with the OP here - and yet you call it false. Duh.
What is your analysis historically, and in engineering terms? I do not agree with the OP.
What he doesn’t mention is that the Germans had someone at Norden and they already had a Norden sight. They tested it against their own sight and preferred it over the Norden.
He did mention it in his talk. How did you miss that? Didn't really watch the video, did you? Yep.
the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not a thermonuclear bomb, it was the gun type uranium bomb known as little boy, it was the simplest nuclear bomb design ever detonated
there are very few "advancements" either in military or the civilian world that can be pointed to as 100% positive with absolutely no unanticipated consequences. For example.. with all the development in computer technology, it seems that the end result is people like you reading what people like me write about people like Malcolm Gladwell. And that can't be a good thing.
I'm so happy that Garfunkel found a career outside of music!
why? he is not the writer of music that Paul simon is but he has a beautiful voice! :=). I guess maybe the years haven't been kind to it however. ahem... with no criticism intended towards the speaker with questionable identity appearing in this video.:-)
Too bad for Simon huh!? Lol
YOU WATCH OUT JEMIMA HE MIGHT DROP A DRONE IN YOUR PICKLE BARREL.
Mr Gladwell could have just as well have picked Mobile phones and social media as an example of the law of unintended consequences. I'm anti intervention in regime change meant to support oil production, but the thinly veiled anti war screed doesn't ring as balanced.
Eureka!
Wow . Just, wow . Real history . We really are not as smart as we think , are we.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.-- Dr Ian Malcolm
When I started as a Skydiving Photographer, the best piece of equipment was this sight.
It allowed me to center the falling jumpers into my cameras & video, whether I was flat & stable, pointed head-down or filming on my back...
This is the second TED talk I've seen him give, I have yet to watch the spaghetti sauce one. The first was about David and Goliath. While TED talks are supposed to make us think out of the box and "thinking outside the box" is important. I also know that to encourage that we have to use truth. He makes several mistakes in this talk, but his premise is that things don't make us happy or to improve out lives.
His tries to drive home his point by telling us that how tragic it was that the man who invented this amazing bomb sight didn't accomplish his goals, which was to save lives and make wars shorter and less costly in lives and materiel. The sight was the most accurate of its time and it did save lives on both sides. In fact it was around the clock bombing, the Americans in the day and the British at night, that forced the Nazi's to spend about 40% of their Luftwaffe assets, planes and AAA (Anti Aircraft Artillery a.k.a. Ack Ack and Flak) to the west rather than use it on the eastern front which would have helped the Nazi's over power the Soviets.
He also makes the assumption that Mr. Norton would have been devastated had he known that his famous machine was used in the atomic bomb attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Almost EVER SINGLE pacific theater WWII veteran that I have talked to were grateful for those attacks because it brought an end to the war in Japan much quicker AND kept the Soviets from invading Japan and doing to Japan what they did to the eastern Europe. Even the Japanese that I've met who were children during the war were grateful that those bombs were dropped because they were being trained to fight allied soldiers with bamboo pikes and would have been killed in the process had the planned allied invasion happened.
So my point is that if you're going to help people think outside the box, do it with truth and don't use assumptions and inaccuracies. If you make the kind of mistakes he made, ie calling medium range surface to surface missile a SAM or Surface To Air missile, will only prove you don't know what you're talking about so why should anyone believe your initial premise?
Brian Savage BOX? How about outside the pickle barrel? He is antiwar in reality.
Would my father have lived through an invasion of Japan? Who knows, but as it turned out, he was in first wave of occupation troops.
He came home to his beloved farm and raised a family.
That’s only the second time I’ve heard that reasoning for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Keep the Russians(still officially allies), out of the Pacific theatre. 👍
The bombs in Japan were not thermonuclear. A thermonuclear weapon is a two stage device where a nuclear explosion heats a central core which then produces a hydrogen burn. The weapons dropped on Japan were just nuclear. Thermonuclear was not invented for more than 10 years after.
If they used a thermonuclear bomb then the whole city would be vaporized. Thermonuclear bomb is somewhat 20-100x more powerful than a nuclear bomb.
It was not "more than 10 years after." Check your history -- it was developed in 1951-1952, which is much less than 10 years after August 1945.
Thanks,... Einstein
The atomic bomb did reduce pain and suffering. It prevented a land invasion to Japan in which millions of soldiers on our side and their side would have died. The fire bombs dropped on Japan before the atomic bomb killed many more people then both nuclear bombs and we wont mention how many soldiers and civilians of our country and other countries were killed by the Japanese during WW2 . It would not have broken Norden's heart if he knew his bomb sight was used to drop the atomic bombs. It vindicated his invention because it did what it was intended to do.
Douglas Tees.... You know your history.. You are either self-educated or you were educated before Carter federalized the public schools and reduced education to the lowest common denominator. Thank you for your comments. It is refreshing..
To add fuel to the fire was the little problem of dishonesty. It is now widely considered that much of the results from tests of the bomb sights were exaggerated or outright falsified. Even in ideal bombing conditions bombadiers never got close to the numbers reported by Nordens test runs.
no volume control i guess
He is right to make people think about the implicatins of 'great solutions', but the results must be compared with 'do nothing'.
In the case of the bombsight the 'do nothing' would have been to put the manpower and resources into tactical Air and Land, which would have been beneficial. There are many instances where the Land campaign stalled for want of resources and manpower.
However, in the case of Afghanistan, what is the alternative to using drones? Do nothing? We did nothing to the Taliban, and the result was the 9/11 memorial. I'm not pretending I know the answer, but it isn't nothing.
Not to mention someone is shooting back at you during a bomb run.
He mentions that at 7:25.
Minor technical point: Scud missiles are not surface-to-air. They're short-range ballistic missiles. 10:55
Surface to suface....ballistic....and he clearly knows nothing about Iron Dome....or doesn't want us to know.
Also that wasn't a thermonuclear bomb "twas a nuclear bomb. This idiot doesn't know what he is talking about.
Really effective Speaker, however I think his stats on the number of launchers destroyed is off. Having been there, when the first Scuds were sent at the Coalition and the Raytheon Patriot system was used to counter them, I can tell you a tale that seems to make sense. Based on my experience seems to be true. I was in the chow line one day talking to some guys that operated the patriot battery that was protecting the area. Those guys said if we wanted , we could have jammed all the launchers, as we controlled the air (We did.) We had planes constantly monitoring the entire country waiting for launches. Plus there was a lucrative opportunity for Raytheon to prove it's system and make sales to Israel, Kuwait ,Saudi Arabia ,Turkey etc.. These guys said they needed live tests, and the US wanted to kill the mobile launching platforms, so the missiles were allowed to be launched. The circling F-16's and other fighters would then see the launch and swoop in to kill the mobile launcher. I was younger and very sceptical, thinking "No way our government would allow such a thing."
Two days later, we got orders to move some equipment form the port to our forward staging position. It was a bright hot day and I had to urinate, so I found a nice dry spot in the Dessert. As I was admiring the surroundings, in the distance a missile was launched and it was heading back towards the port. A few seconds later an F16 about 100 feet off the deck broke the sound barrier over me heading toward where the missile was launched from. I was knocked down and of course urine was everywhere and I couldn't hear, but I kept my eyes on the fighter. In the distance there was an explosion. Again, I can only give you my experience, but I think we did get 1 launcher. All I could say was OMG it's true.
@@CharlesPayne It seemed a pretty effective tactic. To my knowledge the only casualties the SCUD missile inflicted during that conflict were to about a dozen or so support troops from the (since de-activated} 1st COSCOM. There's a small memorial monument by one of the "dining" facilities in their former area.
@@elmospasco5558 I do know we were back at the port waiting on more equipment and stayed at a hanger with a reserve unit from PA, I think. We left the next morning with equipment heading to the front. About a week later we got some news papers and saw where a scud dropped that was hit by patriots fell on the hanger and killed the folks we met. It's been a long time, but I found this article article that has similar details to the one we read. www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/world/war-in-the-gulf-scud-attack-scud-missile-hits-a-us-barracks-killing-27.html . We were eating and bunking with those folks the night before they died . The patriots were designed to hit the SCUD before the warhead armed, but the collateral fallout was dangerous. I recall seeing large a piece of of a SCUD that hit a town called hafar al batin (I think ) it was over 1/4 inch thick and about 5 feet long. Looked like it had russian writing on it.
The engineers at Ted never heard of a compressor?
My review, being a summary of the "Malcolm Gladwell Dramatic school of Oration" : 2 sentences of meek-a-mouse hypnotist jive ("unintelligible...sounds...etc..mumblemumble)...AND THEN, TWO SENTENCES ALL-CAPS!! AGAIN, ALLCAPS!
Variably interspersed by the utterance, "Nor-den-bomb-sight". It's the vibe of Dr. Bronner's "All-One or None! All-One! spiel.