SIGforum
How have I never heard of the Curta before?

This topic can be found at:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/9620062264

October 20, 2019, 01:21 PM
Pipe Smoker
How have I never heard of the Curta before?
The reason that you hadn’t heard of the Curta before is that you didn’t read the “Looking for recommendations for a calculator” thread, where I mentioned it, and posted a link.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...880063164#8880063164



Serious about crackers.
October 20, 2019, 06:49 PM
flashguy
In the 1950s I used Monroe and Friden mechanical desktop calculators to do computations of surveying problems (using 10-place logarithm and trig tables to assist). I even learned how to compute precise square roots using the electro-mechanical Friden (later models had the function built-in, but I had to use the weird manual process). We were required to keep 10-place precision in our calculations.

In the 1970s I used an early electronic calculator with Nixie® tube readouts to perform radar siting calculations and map coordinate conversions. It was able to do trig and log functions, but was not programmable--so I wrote a manual "program" to do coordinate conversions.

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
October 20, 2019, 07:17 PM
sjtill
I remember in the early 70's lusting after an Olivetti Programma "desktop" computer for doing, IIRC, matrix inversion.


_________________________
“Remember, remember the fifth of November!"
October 20, 2019, 07:19 PM
BamaJeepster
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
What was always a mystery to me, though, was the obsessive secrecy about it during the war, and yet there must have been countless examples that fell into German hands due to the number of aircraft that were shot down over the continent.


Your post prompted me to look for an answer, because I was curious as well and didn't really know the answer. Found an article online written by an Air Force veteran who is a former curator at the National Air and Space Museum and an expert on the Norden sight:

quote:
...
Until late 1943, the Norden bombsight was always protected by exceptionally heavy security. Sights were normally stored in air-conditioned, dustproof vaults that were patrolled by armed guards. During training, USAAF bombardiers had to swear a solemn oath to guard the secret weapon with their lives (see sidebar below), and they were responsible for destroying it in the event of an emergency landing behind enemy lines. Whenever a bombardier or ordnance technician carried a sight out to an aircraft, two armed guards accompanied him.

After hundreds of Norden-equipped bombers were shot down over enemy territory during 1943, Allied officials knew that the Germans had surely studied the bombsight and learned its secrets. As a result, security was finally relaxed. When the war ended, details of the ingenious device were finally made public. But U.S. intelligence experts received a shock when they interrogated Luftwaffe personnel: The Germans had known the bombsight’s secrets even before the war, thanks to a spy at Norden.

Herman W. Lang, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had been employed as a draftsman and inspector at the Norden factory during the 1930s. American authorities didn’t know that he had served as Nazi stormtrooper in Germany between 1923 and 1927. Recruited as a member of the Duquesne Spy Ring, in 1938 Lang gained access to the plans for the bombsight and hand-copied the blueprints, which were then smuggled to Germany via ocean liner. He traveled to Germany for a “vacation” to assist Luftwaffe technical experts, receiving 10,000 Reichsmarks for his efforts. Lang returned to his job in America, but was later betrayed by a double agent, convicted of espionage and sentenced to 18 years in prison.

The Germans built a mock-up of the Norden sight and compared it to the new Lotfernrohr 7, or Lotfe 7, bombsight then being used by the Luftwaffe. The Lotfe 7 was similar in operation to the Norden, but much simpler and easier to operate. It consisted of a single metal casing holding the majority of the mechanism, with a tube extending out the bottom containing a mirror that reflected the image of the target into a small telescope in the box. The mechanisms within combined the functions of the Norden’s stabilizer and optics, moving the mirror to stabilize the image, as well as tracking the target. The Lotfe 7’s controls were also simpler than the Norden’s, consisting mainly of three large knobs to adjust aim.

The Luftwaffe decided their Lotfe 7 was better than the Norden and gave the American device no further consideration. So despite years of extraordinary efforts by U.S. military and civilian authorities to keep the Norden bombsight secret, America’s secret weapon was never secret—except to the American public.

https://www.historynet.com/not...norden-bombsight.htm

I ran across this old Periscope film about the Principles of the Norden bombsight that I though was pretty cool:




“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
October 20, 2019, 07:42 PM
4x5
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
What was always a mystery to me, though, was the obsessive secrecy about it during the war, and yet there must have been countless examples that fell into German hands due to the number of aircraft that were shot down over the continent.


Your post prompted me to look for an answer, because I was curious as well and didn't really know the answer. Found an article online written by an Air Force veteran who is a former curator at the National Air and Space Museum and an expert on the Norden sight:

quote:
...
Until late 1943, the Norden bombsight was always protected by exceptionally heavy security. Sights were normally stored in air-conditioned, dustproof vaults that were patrolled by armed guards. During training, USAAF bombardiers had to swear a solemn oath to guard the secret weapon with their lives (see sidebar below), and they were responsible for destroying it in the event of an emergency landing behind enemy lines. Whenever a bombardier or ordnance technician carried a sight out to an aircraft, two armed guards accompanied him.

After hundreds of Norden-equipped bombers were shot down over enemy territory during 1943, Allied officials knew that the Germans had surely studied the bombsight and learned its secrets. As a result, security was finally relaxed. When the war ended, details of the ingenious device were finally made public. But U.S. intelligence experts received a shock when they interrogated Luftwaffe personnel: The Germans had known the bombsight’s secrets even before the war, thanks to a spy at Norden.

Herman W. Lang, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had been employed as a draftsman and inspector at the Norden factory during the 1930s. American authorities didn’t know that he had served as Nazi stormtrooper in Germany between 1923 and 1927. Recruited as a member of the Duquesne Spy Ring, in 1938 Lang gained access to the plans for the bombsight and hand-copied the blueprints, which were then smuggled to Germany via ocean liner. He traveled to Germany for a “vacation” to assist Luftwaffe technical experts, receiving 10,000 Reichsmarks for his efforts. Lang returned to his job in America, but was later betrayed by a double agent, convicted of espionage and sentenced to 18 years in prison.

The Germans built a mock-up of the Norden sight and compared it to the new Lotfernrohr 7, or Lotfe 7, bombsight then being used by the Luftwaffe. The Lotfe 7 was similar in operation to the Norden, but much simpler and easier to operate. It consisted of a single metal casing holding the majority of the mechanism, with a tube extending out the bottom containing a mirror that reflected the image of the target into a small telescope in the box. The mechanisms within combined the functions of the Norden’s stabilizer and optics, moving the mirror to stabilize the image, as well as tracking the target. The Lotfe 7’s controls were also simpler than the Norden’s, consisting mainly of three large knobs to adjust aim.

The Luftwaffe decided their Lotfe 7 was better than the Norden and gave the American device no further consideration. So despite years of extraordinary efforts by U.S. military and civilian authorities to keep the Norden bombsight secret, America’s secret weapon was never secret—except to the American public.

https://www.historynet.com/not...norden-bombsight.htm

I ran across this old Periscope film about the Principles of the Norden bombsight that I though was pretty cool:
[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="408" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/143vi97a4tY" width="725"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]


As Paul Harvey used to say, 'now I know the rest of the story'. I also wondered about the secrecy and the fact that Germany must have had hundreds of samples to study. That was a very interesting story. Thanks for sharing it.



Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice - pull down your pants and slide on the ice.
ʘ ͜ʖ ʘ
October 20, 2019, 08:01 PM
sigfreund
Yes, thanks much.

I am pretty familiar with the history of espionage in the 20th century, but had never heard of the German spy Lang; something else to look into.

It’s also interesting that the Germans had a sight they considered superior to the Norden. Another of those inconvenient facts that often don’t appear in histories written by the winners.




6.0/94.0

To operate serious weapons in a serious manner.
October 20, 2019, 09:51 PM
Pipe Smoker
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
<snip>
It’s also interesting that the Germans had a sight they considered superior to the Norden. Another of those inconvenient facts that often don’t appear in histories written by the winners.

Fortunately for us, they didn’t have a bomber superior to the B-17. Not to mention the B-24.



Serious about crackers.
October 21, 2019, 05:00 AM
PHPaul
quote:
Originally posted by V-Tail:
quote:
Originally posted by PHPaul:

Other than a neat mechanical/technical exercise...why?
An excellent device to calculate the cost of restoring a bulldozer.


Not sure it goes that high. Eek Razz

Actually, I'm into it for $40 worth of engine oil and 90wt, a $100 battery and a $60 carb kit.

So far...




Be careful when following the masses. Sometimes the M is silent.
October 21, 2019, 05:06 AM
PHPaul
BTW I get that mechanical calculators were a hot ticket back in the day and one that small was damn near miraculous, my question was "Why now?" except for the obvious "nostalgia and because it's neat" reason.




Be careful when following the masses. Sometimes the M is silent.
October 21, 2019, 07:19 AM
220-9er
Slide rules put man on the moon and build skyscrapers. That was after being used to make nukes and build the tools to win the war(s).
Today few people would know what one is and fewer know how to use one. This is sort another version.
In my day, which is apparently a long time ago, you learned to use them in math class. Master that tool and the concept and you could do most math problems in your head.
Seems to be a lost art.


___________________________
Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible.
October 21, 2019, 08:03 AM
Pipe Smoker
^^^^^^^^
Indeed! But slide rules don’t have add/subtract capabilities. There is a small group of Japanese stores here in San Diego. At one of them a clerk at the checkout counter uses an abacus to total customer purchases. She is very fast with it. Faster than an adept person using a desktop digital calculator could manage.



Serious about crackers.
October 21, 2019, 12:28 PM
flashguy
^^^^^ Slide rules couldn't add or subtract, and they had limited precision--even the way oversized ones were limited to 4 or 5 significant figures. The big Friden electro-mechanical calculators had 10-digit data entry and 20-digit product/dividend registers. My first hand-held calculator (a Sanyo) cost $175 and could display 16 digit answers (limited to 4 decimal places, though); it had BIG buttons--very easy to use, and the display was LED.

There have been calculation races between skilled abacus users and those with calculators--the abacus usually wins.

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
October 21, 2019, 02:19 PM
220-9er
quote:
Originally posted by flashguy:
^^^^^ Slide rules couldn't add or subtract, and they had limited precision--even the way oversized ones were limited to 4 or 5 significant figures. The big Friden electro-mechanical calculators had 10-digit data entry and 20-digit product/dividend registers. My first hand-held calculator (a Sanyo) cost $175 and could display 16 digit answers (limited to 4 decimal places, though); it had BIG buttons--very easy to use, and the display was LED.

There have been calculation races between skilled abacus users and those with calculators--the abacus usually wins.

flashguy


Of course modern calculators and computers are better than a slide rule. My point is that you need to know enough to put the decimal point in the right place to use one properly.
Many people that now use more modern tools don't necessarily have that skill and by depending on the machine to think for them, tremendous mistakes can be made.


___________________________
Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible.