Junkers-Larsen JL-12; The Tommy Gun-Ship
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Buy my book: amzn.to/3preYyO
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
My favorite feature is that the plane's cargo hold has space for 30 violin cases.
😆
Well, some like it hot...
Well. It was a flying concerto.
Reminds me of the Tu-2 with 88 PPSh strapped into the bomb bay.
yes true
I wonder if this was where the idea came from, or if it was just parallel development.
wasn't it a Pe-2?
You typed, what I was thinking.😅
There was also SB-2 Bomber with 6 DT MGs firing down 45 degrees. Recoiless gun was also tried likely on same aircraft. Both didn't work well.
Ed, I'd be interested to see your take on the New Caledonia situation.
30 Machine guns is kind of the base level for any American military design during that period. I don't think they could have designed a pair of tennis shoes without 2 forward firing machineguns and a .50 on a swivel mount for each shoe, at the very least .
And that would be bad because.........................?
@@juliancate7089 Because it takes away from the high explosives, which are soooo much more fun.
Now if someone could think of a way to combine fully automatic guns with high explosives..... Perhaps... I don't know why but something rotary comes to mind. 😁
Exhibit B: the us navy
This is why it is so hard for me to go on with life lacking a pair forward firing and a single flex mount on my car.
Cue Drachinifel's USS Second Amendment Rights.
Virgin Gangster: Drive-by
Chad Gangster: *Fly-by*
Fly-by Typewriter
I have a couple books on the Thompson that mention this aircraft and include a few photos, but your information about the plane is more detailed. In the 1920s the Thompson Model 1921 sold for $200 - $225, so fitting out a Junkers with 30 of them would have cost well over $6000, or the equivalent of $112,000 today. This does not include the necessary modifications required or the cost of the 100 round C-drums. These drums were far less common than the 50 round L-drums because of the weight and bulk issue (8.25 lbs loaded). So equipped, a fully loaded Thompson would have weighed 19 lbs. Since the butt stocks were removed from at least 28 of the guns, the weight would be a little less, but the rigging necessary to hold them in place would bring that weight back up. The total load-out for 30 guns would be about 570 lbs. Sixty spare drums, fully loaded, would be an additional 495 pounds, bringing the total weapons load to 1065 lbs, a not insignificant sum in those early days of aviation.
I don't see how 28 drum magazines could be swapped in four minutes even if the plane was stationary on the ground. This would equate to 8 1/2 seconds per gun. Assuming you had a container holding four drums (total weight at least 33 lbs), in 34 seconds you would need to grab the first box of drums from their storage rack, move to a row of guns, pull back the actuator knob on four guns, engage their magazine releases and slide out four empty drums, insert four loaded drums, stack the empty drums in the container, return it to the storage rack, and begin the process again. Now try doing this while the plane is bouncing around in the air.
Swapping magazines would have been the least of your problems. The experiment failed due to a number of factors. Aiming was highly problematic, and the muzzle velocity of the 45 ACP round out of a Thompson barrel was only 920 fps. Compare this with the 2800 fps of a typical 30'06 bullet fired from a Browning machine gun. This meant the aircraft would have to fly danger close to its intended target if there was to be any hope of hitting a target, much less inducing a ballistically significant wound on the intended victims. I believe the Soviets attempted something similar and in typical Soviet fashion, went to even greater extremes.
The Tu-2 with 88 PPSh-41 firing the 7.65mm Tokarev round. It is more powerful than the .45 ACP and better penetration with 1400 fps, but still nowhere near rifle caliber range.
@@rotwang2000 That's the one.
They couldn’t swap out drums in flight because the assistant going that far back would destabilize the plane.
Given the trench warfare mass tactics of the time, the JL likely would work. Buzz over a mass of troops in a trench and cut loose.
Skulls are thin. Steel helmets were invented to protect from Aerial artillery bursts.. So a gravity assist .45ACP would do the job with a free fall terminal velocity of say 500 to 600 fps . (In Middle East the locals shoot their AKs at wedding celebrations. Falling bullets have killed several folks).
The Thompson was certainly a handsome SMG. Never held one, but have shot a clip through a Reising.
In a ground attack role, muzzle velocity is far less important. Fletchette bombers were used for the exact same application at the same time.
@@allangibson8494 From what I've read, the flechettes were not effective in WWI.
A shame it was not designed by the Italians. Imagine a Caproni-Capone
Like a medieval castle
LOL!
Ultimate Gangster plane
Surprised he didn’t sell one to Capone or Bugsy Moran. The Chicago air war would have been an interesting historical rabbit hole.
You know, I wonder if the Westland Westminster helicopter will be covered in this series, it seems like a perfect fit (lots of potential, canned due to politics in favor of something else more radical, more radical thing also gets canned, very British procurement all around)
Ed, I couldn't find any clue that points to the engine running on "benzene". AFAIK, F13 had either a BMW IIIa (used widely in WW1) or JUMO L-2 (same engine but produced by Junkers) installed. This engine ran on 80 octane fuel.
Please note that the German word for petrol "Benzin" sounds almost identical to "benzene".
("benzene" in German is "Benzol")
While there were some "interesting" airplane fuels and additives at that time (benzol, ethanol), I think the problem was mainly in that hoses were made of type of rubber that got stiff and brittle when cooled to low temperatures (maybe it originally had pipes?).
Benzyna is also Polish for petrol.
@@johnjephcote7636 Basically the same in German and Norwegian, "benzin" and "bensin".
@ottovonbismarck2443 - I was just about to make this same comment when I saw yours. You are 100% correct. Running an engine, let alone an aero engine, on benzene doesn't make much sense although I suppose it could be done. The reference to the similarity between the Deutsch word for gasoline (benzin) and benzene is correct, the pronunciation is similar, and the words can confuse those who don't know the language.
Hi Ed. I see that at long last there appears to be recognition of the war in Myanmar on BBC main news . I'd like to think your constant coverage has made a substancial contribution . Well done Ed .
Gives a new meaning to the phrase bullet rain.
Now: A-10 Warthog go "BRRRRR!"
Then: JL-12 go "Nyah, see!"
"Fuelled with benzene, instead of gasoline." Funny, my Dutch parents, and aunts & uncles, always referred to gasoline, as "benzene". Same as Brits call it "petrol".
Not benzene but benzine (Dutch) or benzin (German).
Which to me as a German is very understandable; we call it Benzin (pronounciation same as "benzene", very sharp s, though). Fair enough, because we invented all the good stuff like the wheel, the combustion engine, the car and "Gummibärchen". The Dutch are civilized as well, so they went for an almost proper nomenclature. 🙂
Benzine is naphtha (a mix of simple hydrocarbons from C4 to C8). Benzene is specifically cyclobenzene (C6).
A-10~ "Great Grandpappy, is that you?"
I knew it! The Asd-10 really is German!
Gives new meaning to "I'm coming in hot...no, I'm hot in the cockpit, my planes on fire!"
DO-217/Me-163 mit Schräge musik: Vater?
AC-47: Grandfather?
AC-130: Great Grandfather?
I'm pretty sure neither Do-217 nor Me-163 ever had schräge Musik installed (meaning I never saw a photographic evidence), but Ju-88 definetly had. Also schräge Musik fired upwards, but who am I to say you can't fly inverted ...
There was however an anti-tank weapon called "Panzerblitz" tested on Fw-190, which fired several 30mm (?) cannons downwards using photoelectric cells (which makes no sense to me) or magnetic anomaly detectors (which sounds more plausible) as trigger.
The Soviets then applied the same concept during the Second World War, with a Pe-2, I believe
Any chance to talk about the Curtiss Xp-60?
Stop the very many pigeons!
Stop the very many pigeons!
Nab them
Jab them
Tab them
Grab them
Stop those very many pigeons now!
(Dastardly, Muttley and Tommy.)
It’s like something I’d draw as an 8 year old 😂 I’ll just put a gun here, and here, and….well, I want to put another here but no more room!
*_CARPET MACHINE GUNNING means PROBABLY never having to say you're sorry._* 😉
That's a nice trench you've got, buddy. Be a shame if something happened to it ...
I'm going to make you an overflight you can't refuse.
I really think the ac ought to have an accompanying Larson cartoon of a cow flying a JL-12 and strafing the farmhouse.
Interesting idea & great donor plane, but horribly under-cooked imho. Surely fewer .303s would've been better? Pistol calibre Thompsons seem a weird choice & they'd be useless for close in defence too. The Me-110 with its Schräge Musik firing upwards worked, but the IL-2 showed the real future in ground attack. Thanks Ed, another new one for me.
Why does this character remind me so much of the notorious Dr William Christmas?
This sounds like an aircraft Al Capone would've flown over his rivals.
*JL-12* = *AV-8 HARRIER,* the early years.😉
Sell half of them to Al Capone and the other half to Eliot Ness. 🤑
Thank you for another informative video about an aircraft that I have never heard about. I try to learn something new every day. Your videos frequently help me with this endeavor.
How have you been old chap?
If one was purchased by Mr Capone I’m sure an image of a soot covered rat on the fuselage wouldn’t go unrecognised.
The A-10's great great grand daddy.
Not to be outdone, the Soviet VVS operated Bostons (iirc) with the bomb bay filled with downward pointing sub machine guns...google:
Tu-2Sh “Fire Hedgehog”. An experimental ground attack Tu-2 with 88 PPSh-41 affixed to the bomb bay. (Ca. 1944)
Pity you did not mention the war time Junkers aircraft, even more ahead of their time! Junkers DI all metal monoplane fighter and CL 1 two seater version, and the all metal ground attack J I! All saw service. Finally there was the never built but wind tunnel tested R I... A high speed monoplane bomber that looks like a mid 1930's aircraft!
I plan on getting around to the early junkers, as you say remarkable aircraft.
I can not wait to see! FYI, the only photo of the Junkers R wind tunnel model I know of is in the "the German Giants" by Haddow and Grosz. Not telling the teacher his stuff, just help if you need it. Thank you!
Strange cockpit setup
Now where on earth 🌎 👀 🤔 did you dig up this history? Amazing 👏
As ever, an interresting and less known story in aircraft history,bout that great airplane,,thanks for that and all the best, greetings from northern Germany 👍🍀🛩️
Boy, that Sopwith "Salamander" at :44 sure looks a lot like a Snipe. To me, anyways.
I was of the impression that Salamanders had more space between the upper wing's center section an' the fuselage, and that their upper wings had no dihedral.
The Soviets had a similar idea in WWII to use somewhere around 80 PPSh-41s inside of iirc a Tu-2. Ultimately cluster munitions like the PTAB proved to be more effective.
Japan probably takes the cake though, as, allegedly, they had the bright idea to try and fit one of their bomber designs (iirc the G8N) with a couple of *hundred* full-sized machine guns firing downward. Unlike the Soviets, they never got around to building it.
We got an F.13 replica locally, alongside a working Ju-52. Quiet boring compared to any other aircraft on display, but important pieces of history regardless
That was a great video.Very informative.I believe the Russians, during WW2 tried something similar.
To see this concept in penultimate form look up a variant of the Martin B-57 Canberra moded to have an octet of vertically firing M-134 gatling guns. They were mounted in a revolving bomb bay.
Finns used similar junkers, with floats, during ww2 as a partisan patrol drop off and pick up plane.
Soviets made a similar flying gun platform during ww2.
In my honest opinion the government of the day post WWI were far to quick to implement military spending and personnel numbers cuts and short sighted when it came to aircraft design and manufacturing, if only a small amount of money had been provided for aircraft research the British military, and in particular the RAF and FAA, would have been in a far better position technologically than they were at the outbreak of WWII, even the small amount of design and manufacturing that did happen was crucial in stopping the German Luftwaffe from having air superiority and therefore being able to invade Great Britain, when people like Junkers and Messerschmitt (even when they followed the Versailles treaty) designed radically different aircraft to those of the British (who were stuck with brass that were stuck in WWI designs) they were given the opportunity to carry forward designs that if they were British would have been filled under B1N by the air ministry.
The German aviation industry, for some time after the end of WWI, didn’t let a little thing like their borders stopping them from getting on with their research and prototype manufacturing, we were free to design almost anything we wanted and yet we wasted so many years that we were lucky to catch up (design wise) with the Luftwaffe and other axis powers.
Why do some aircraft providers/owners think that carrying out any modifications to their aircraft is a good idea, this aircraft being a perfect example, at the very least they should investigate (with the manufacturers) if their potential modifications would have safety implications, let’s face it, in this case the it was the fuel/rubber hoses, any unauthorised modifications can have detrimental effects, from handling difficulties at certain points of the flight envelope, fire hazard, mechanical failure and system failures, it might have been seen as acceptable in the 1920s but certainly not in modern aviation. John Larsen might have been able to carry on importing the aircraft in kit form if it had not been for switching the fuel which created accidents and in turn media coverage and finally the authorities getting wise to his, and Junkers, circumventing of the treat rules, much have cost him an absolute fortune, maybe even his company, and all because he decided to use a different fuel, actions have consequences.
An early version of the Vietnam era Spooky? Problem would be the low velocity of the .45 ACP round and it would have to get in close.
I seem to recall a Soviet design that was kinda like this in WWII - just using the PPsh SMGs instead of Thompsons - I don't super remember a lot about it though so I couldn't tell you if it actually worked well or if it was a bad idea. I just sorta remember hearing about something in that vein.
I woner why he didn't just market it as a light bomber but I guess just putting tommy guns into the fuselage required the least reconstruction. Since all Larsen could to was basically assemble kits supplied from Dessau, adding a bomb bay and other features like a rear gunner was beyond his capacity
I'm pretty sure the Soviets tried this concept during WW2. Just can't remember the aircraft they used.
I had known about the JL-6 from its usage as a US-Postal A/C with. Initially seen as an amazing postal craft given its performance, they were soon grounded as a result of all the fiery crashes that do indeed seem traced back to the leaky rubber tubing. They were originally seen as superior to the low flying biplanes in use at the time. Given the international success of the F-13, it's interesting to note that the JL's may have been assembled with poorer grade hoses or used higher octane fuel resulting in their failures (I think the benzene reference may be a mis-translation of the German "benzin" for "gasoline" or petrol for the brits as noted by other posts).
Looking forward to hearing what you think about the BBC'S coverage of Burma this week!
Wonder if this Junkers-Larsen JL-12 is where the USSR got the idea for the Tu-2Sh a.k.a the Fire Hedgehog with it's multi bank rows of 88 machine guns in the bomb bay
I kind of like the look of it. The nose is a little ugly, but I can live with it. Kind of puts me in mind of a Globe Swift or Bellanca Viking.
Haha that’s funny you joked about the price of 30 Tommy guns, cause that definitely jumped out at me as well (even within the context of an expensive aircraft.)
Everybody says the Soviets did this too, nobody agrees on what plane or guns they used. Sounds like Ed has his work cut out for him.
It’s ironical the petrol pipe benzene and gasoline usage is exactly the same problem now with cars running on methanol . methanol is what they put in unleaded petrol so that is somewhat of the same problem we’re having with modern day cars and their fuel lines are breaking down interesting
If only it fired seedlings, every farmer would have bought one....
YUP! Larsen sounds very dansk#¤%#¤..sry', "New world"like 😛
I'm surprised they didn't set up shop in Argentina
I did know about this aircraft but this fills in much of the missing details. Thanks.
If you have enough machine guns, wouldn't the recoil negate the need for wings?
Absolutely bonkers, if i remember correctly the soviets tried something similar during WW2.
Any notion of the trim effects of shooting all 28 downward firing weapons at once?
An interesting gangster connection about these a/c (either the JL-6 or F-13) was that they were also used as rum runners flying liquor in from Canada during Prohibition.
They inspired the Northrop Delta aircraft, one of those classic interbellum a/c with such elegant lines. Jack Northrop knew a good thing when he saw it.
Ambitious fellow , Thanks , quit amusing
5:34 England's stellar foreign language education strikes again...
There is even a scale model of the JL-6: 1:87 from Herpa.
I pity the crewmwmber who has to reload each gun manually damn
He done didded it again. Another plane I knew about and never expected to see a video about.
More dakka!
Our first crack at Puff the Magic Dragon. LOL!
John Dillinger's favorite plane.
Huh. I thought the Soviets were the only ones that tried this tactic.
WW1 attack aircraft is an itch I didnt know I needed scratched
Was Eddie Stinson's Junkers a JL-6?
Can someone marry an aircraft? Asking for a friend.
The first "spooky" gunship
Great video, thank you! Left a sub.
Benzine?! They built an airplane that ran on cancer? The ppl who it took down quickly were the lucky ones!
As an old collegue in the chem lab once told me: "Back in my days, benzene wasn't all that poisonous."
And I'm not sure if our dear Mr Ed isn't mixing something up. German Benzin (note the similarity !), British petrol and US gas are all the same.
Rare bird indeed!
The Germans got it right with their pod containing three sets of MG81Z machineguns in WWII. Used on the Ju87 and Ju88. 'Gießkanne' spitting lead at 9000 rpm.
Super interesting video, love hearing about rarer aircraft and this channel is certainly the place to learn about them. I wonder how (in)effective these would have been in aerial operations, for example had Bolivia converted their Junkers F13 planes to Tommy Gunships during the Chaco War 🤔
The caliber of the Thompson was .45ACP, not .45 Colt, which was an older revolver cartridge.
Made the '20s roar.
🤦 Americans 🤣
Rattle'em Boys!
Really.. how close together were those losses.. it was obviously a fuel spill over hot elements so a basic inspection should have caught this within a few weeks..
hopefully he didn't sold it to gangsters 🤷♂🤷♂
Thanks Ed Nash.....
Shoe🇺🇸
a great very interesting video and aircraft Mr.ed.have a good one Mr.
ty pimp
🤣
Oneth
:)
Benzene ... ?
I always thought benzine, petroleum and gasoline were just different names for the same fuel. Guess I was wrong.
Yay! First to comment,I love this channel
😞😞