*Play War Thunder for FREE. Join here* playwt.link/milavihist *and claim your exclusive bonus now.* Also, try saying 'H-Panzergranatpatrone Leuchtspur Übung ohne Zerleger' if you feel like it
@@silasradriar6552 I think I have well over 2000 hours, and I do the same. Gajin seems to hate its player base. The new pen model is so broken right now. Bouncing Panther shells off of a fender, or mudflap its asinine.
"The Duck. Because when you think of something that has 2 engines and a gun that destroys tanks, the first association is peaceful domesticated animals" - HowToPlay1337
Well it does look like a duck even down to a yellow beak. Ducks can also be quite vicious. Drakes are known to kill mates by drowning them (by accident) and deliberately killing ducklings. They also are known to attack people causing bite marks and bruising. Not as bad as geese admittedly but like many farm animals not to be treated lightly. As for 'peaceful domesticated animals' do not forget that several farmers have been killed by pigs (and sometimes used as a food source), also cattle kill both farmers and walkers stupid enough to pick up their dogs when attacked. We are not talking bulls here but ordinary cows. Pet cats also have a reputation for tucking into owners (usually the face) when they they are shut in with a collapsed human and there is no other food available. Have a heart attack take four days to die but spend day three being eaten alive. We live in a vicious world not a telly tubby one.
@@mbak7801 Take a gander at this: I've heard some farmers prefer geese to dogs for guard duty. They make a heck of a racket when strangers approach, are highly territorial, and besides, they dont chase cars.
@@mbak7801 Man do I feel lucky , I have been living with and interacting with all those ferocious beasts you named on a daily basis for the last 55 yrs. Can’t believe I have survived all these years on my farm. I’ll take the farm over the city any day . The world must be a scary place for you.😂
How was it u hadn't previously considered the German system for designating airborne automatic weapons? Easy -- u weren't & (probably still) -- aren't a German academic...
Kommandant: "Here is the new aircraft, it is the Hs 129, very heavily armored and armed!" Pilot: "Kool...what are those engines, I have never seen before?" Kommandant: "They are French". Pilot: *gulp*
@@MilitaryAviationHistory If the Wehrmacht had special designations for captured weapons did the Luftwaffe have a similiar system for captured aircraft and engines. And the French were on the verge of producing some really decent aircraft power plants. Just consider it lucky they didn't get a chance to set-up Merlin production. If aircraft and aircraft engines are one of your interests I highly recommend the web site Old Machine Press www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=oldmachinepress.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiYho75j87vAhVBLs0KHX6EA6IQFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw1R7vOgQmBRt1-feuQ6S2aN An excellent website. They mainly cover aircraft and engines that showed promise but didn't make production for one reason or another. Along with other stuff of interest to gear heads. One engine they covered was the largest radial engine ever built to my knowledge. Built by Nordberg these were stationary engines for generating stations and pumping stations. They where something on the order of 12+ft or 3 meters in diameter. In 11 and twelve cylinder versions. Interestingly neither the 11 or 12 cylinder version had a master rod. Very up to date there with no master and slave rods to offend special snowflakes. The last engine they covered was the Curtis Wright H-2120. This was not a flat double stacked engine layout like the the Sabre. This was a hexagonal engine similiar in layout to the Jumo 222 but being only 12 cylinders. A 24 cylinder H-4240 was planned. There were a number of aircraft type engines from the 20 and 30s that in my opinion while they may have been obsolete in the aircraft role would have been very useful in armoured vehicles such as tanks in a detuned state.
My GOD I hate those French engines... When both engines on any other 2-engined German plane get dark red, with a smidge of altitude I can still land perfectly fine. But GOD FORBID my engines turn pale yellow - I just seem to instantly lose all control and speed.
The German engines that stood on the prototypes were much worse than the French ones.According to the technical task, the Ns. 129 was supposed to continue flying on one engine,but even the installation of French engines could not make this device fly normally.And what are only the devices on the engine nacelles worth?The big problem was also the inability to get the Hs. 129 out of the dive and too much effort on the steering wheel.
I was told by one of my colleagues at the RAF Heritage Centre I volunteer at, that years ago he chatted with a RAF Veteran who flew in North Arfica and he said one of his Friends was testing out the cannons for tank busting on a Hawker Hurricane I believe one of the first attempts at seeing if it was actually a practical idea. He was observing from the ground as his mate attempted it, they successfully fired off 3 rounds and then went and landed, he went with some of the ground crew to meet him he said his friend climbed out the cockpit and was White in the face and refused to speak for a good 30 minutes, he ha several cigarettes and then explained Once he fired he lost so much Altitude that he though he was going to nose plant into the ground and that it was terrifying. Don't blame the guy by the sound of that story!
More likely an account of No 6 Squadron RAF's work up with the Hurricane IID with the Vickers 40mm S gun at RAF Shandur in May 1942, where they actually had a captured Panzer Mk IV to shoot at. The Hurricane IID prototype first flew in September 1941 and it and its cannons would have been tested by the RAF's Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) before the type was ever issued to an operational unit. The Squadron became operational with 9 Hurricane IID's on 7th June 1942, claimed its first tank kills on the 8th June 1942 and their first claim against a Panzer Mk VI was on the 15th June. In operational use, the Squadron had three flights, One on operations, One on Training / Leave and one as an operational conversion unit to train pilots to be employed on the type with the Squadron(s) equipped with the type. Each flight had an operational strength of 9 aircraft.
@@Teh0X Yes for the many different weapons and systems that were adopted in 1939, including a Service Rifle, Light Machine Gun, Dive Bomber, Autocannon, etc.
Private! Get the M1 off the M1 so we can mount it on the M1 instead of the M1! And don't forget your M1 in case you run into enemies! Oh, and private? Take this M1 just in case.
I think Nicholas Moran over at the Chieftan said that abandoning a tank becuase a plane is comming is not the wisest of actions. But apparently something green tank crews did -and died for since humans are somewhat more fragile then a tank.
@@01Bouwhuis I clearly said IF THE TANK IS ON FIRE! (specifically in the crew compartment, given the previous comment) In case you didnt know, humans are very afraid of fire, especially in enclosed spaces, and will 99% of the time take their chances with strafing planes, because even if nothing else, there has to be a ditch somewhere to lie down in. Beats being burned alive. For reference: "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire!"
@@01Bouwhuis I remember during the first Gulf war there was some night vision footage released (I think from an Apache) showing some Iraqi tanks in the distance and the crews were outside the tanks milling around in the dark.. a few seconds later the crewmen apparently heard the Apaches as they crested a rise in the desert and and ran straight to their tanks as the Apaches fired Hellfire missiles at the tanks. Crews arrived at their tanks about same time as the missiles. Those guys all died. Iraqi tankers soon learned that staying with their tanks when coalition forces were present was suicide.
Nah, trucks and infrastructure is infrastructure. The Ascended would undermine the enemy populations' will to fight and turn some of them, with disinformation campaigns.
@@thecanadiankiwibirb4512 P-47 and some P-51 pilots took it to the next level. Shoot the train. Blow a bunch of holes in the locomotive's boiler. Train stops. Strafe the rest of the train.
Mission kill isn't restricted to tanks, and doesn't even have to involve damage. For example, if an air defense system forces an attacking aircraft to jettison its weapons in order to evade, that aircraft has been mission-killed, and the ADS has successfully defended its area, even if the ADS misses and the aircraft takes no damage.
Mission killed aplies to many things. Its simply damage or disruption sufficient enough to end its ability to conduct is objective. One could class forcing a vehicle to run out of fuel prematurely as a mission kill.
@@tisFrancesfault I think I get it. It is a valid concept. The idea I was aiming for in relation to this video was that perhaps the intended purpose of the Hs-129 was to do mission kills rather than actual tank kills.
@@NagdlungNiuak It was the idea behind most of the air-to-ground attacks during WW2, regardless of the nation. Actually scoring direct hits explosively destroying tanks was EXTREMELY rare.
@@djizomdjinn Heck, this could happen without firing a shot. Green pilot gets pinged by radar, panics, jettisons, and heads home. To be chewed by his superiors, no doubt.
This means: #1 fly over the tanks to identify each before attacking to attack in right angle of attack #2 observe the tank and start attack while observing the airspace and defending FLAK #3 start with #1 again if you have not identified next target Real life attack might have been different: attack what you can and benefit from the surprising momentum.
@@abercrombieblovs2042 If you want to correct people, at least do it right. Flugabwehrkanone (or Fliegerabwehrkanone) is one big german word. It's abbrevation is spelled Flak or FlaK.
When training on AT weapons we reported Mobility (M) or Catastrophic (K) kills. We would have machine gun teams covering us to kill dismounting crews. Once you’ve seen the catastrophic end to an armoured vehicle you understand how tough and repairable they actually are. Just because it was on fire and gutted and crew dead does not mean it can’t be refurbished and returned to duty but for reporting purposes it’s a K-Kill. M-Kill can be repaired by crews or recovery teams in a very short period in the field.
Amazing video! Not too long ago, I asked (in the comment section) if the community knew of any Mk 103 30mm videos, or other cannon videos, that were not video game content. This is truly a pleasant surprise, thanks!
Fun fact, during my research I found a few files on MK101 and Hs129 production that seemed to suggest that the logistical situation for these two was both horrendous and really good in 1942 (depends what spare part you need).
@@MilitaryAviationHistory so, you mean that there was a "double situation", like "on the airfield we have 32 spare engines and 1 spare windscreen"? I mean, that you have a lot of something but very few numbers of another item?
I like the amount of very specific and complete information you provide. I also like the occasional humor. All of this provides a very entertaining and educational experience. Thanks.
As for the psychological aspect, you can hear this in action in War Thunder... Bo has a special and instantly recognizable callout to warn his teammates: "Duck! Quack! Quack!" I don't even think his tanks get destroyed all that often by 'panzerquackers', not as often as with bombs anyway, but there's usually enough damage to stop the tank dead in its tracks. Having never thought about tactical problems like that, I think it's fascinating to watch those scenarios unfold.
That largely reflects real life experience. It was actually relatively rare for anything other than the lightest of vehicles to be destroyed by air attacks (comparing reported kills by FB pilots to casualty reports from the units they attacked shows that they generally VASTLY overestimated the effectiveness of their attacks, across all nations), but the fear of air attack often had a pretty chilling effect on armour operations. During the Normandy invasion, and to the end of the war, the Panzer divisions took to moving only at night or during poor flying weather as much as they could, due to fear of roaming Allied FBs. I'm pretty sure I have read (can't remember where though, it was years ago) that post-war analysis of German reports show that only about 100 tanks were actually damaged sufficiently to be qualified as "kills" during the whole Normandy campaign, despite the literally thousands of claims by Allied pilots.
I'm a formulation chemist by trade, but developed armor for vehicles,helicopters,body armor and attack boats. In typical German fashion, your attention to numerical details exceeds nearly everyone I used to work with. My wife is German, and she loves two things, numbers, order, and neatness. That's three ? If America, or Russia had been German, the entire world would be speaking German, now. Awesome details and information data. I am soon returning to armored vehicle design, and fabrication once more, and look forward to viewing your technologies.
I visited a questionable "Air Museum" owner was busted some time later on various charges to do with restricted weapons and illegal transactions. Of note he had the front cockpit section of a Hs 129 one of the few that may still exist. Bloody tough front armor and glass with some instruments mounted outside of the cockpit. No sidewall section of the cockpit just the section from the armored front vertical bars enclosing the armored forward glass forward to the nose.
Thanks. That was very interesting. Also ... I think all of us who have at one time or another done serious research ... or attempted to ... when it comes to frustrations with our sources - feel your pain. .
Today I righted a wrong that has been a societal injustice for the last year that I have been watching your videos. Today I liked and subscribed. Thanks Bud, your knowledge and presentation style are exemplary.
I think everyone ended up with absurd designation systems eventually. The British had the "Lee Enfield No. 1, Mk III, star, (HT)". When even the common name is so long that you feel the need to abbreviate it ("SMLE"), something has gone horribly wrong.
from what i remember hs-129 pilots had to change their tactics from scoring kills into scoring mission kills. They were basically unloading most of their ammo on one tank until it blew up when actually it was much better to hit multiple targets and get them to panic, stop, turn back or get damaged just to the point they are not a reliable force anymore.
Makes me wonder why the Allies never really seem to have gotten on the tank-busting cannon trend. From the examples I can think of, most of the heavier cannons were intended for anti-shipping purposes, and the RAF Hurricanes which were used in North Africa, but I'm not sure if they appeared in ETO as well?
The Allies did work on this but I think it's a multitude of reasons why the volume of work was more limited than with the Germans. Simplfied, it's both a combination of having the right planes and weapons (and being able to put them together), the operational requirement for them (a lot of enemy tanks), a permissive environment (so limited AA and enemy air) as well as a leadership that encourages the development of tank hunters. For the Germans, this was the case and became a bit of a mania (There is obviously more to this, I am writing a conference paper on this atm). The Allies were less bothered because beyond Africa and by 1943 the chances of a German tank breakthrough were very limited. Considering the situation in the air, Allied fighter-bombers taking out trucks, supply and reinforcements served their purpose really well and while they were also used against tanks, the ORS reports show quite clearly that they barely knocked one out. Check out Gooderson's book 'Air Power at the Battlefied' or Matthew Powell 'The Development of British Tactical Air Power'
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Didn't the Allies make multitple planes for the anti submarine warfare, by equiping them with a large gun? So say they did need an anti-tank aircraft, couldn't they use these planes?
@@martijn9568 I believe that by the second half of WWII, the various rockets that could be carried aloft were so much more effective,at least when they struck the vehicle. Pilots consistently overestimated effectiveness of strikes,regardless of which air service. The biggest of the rockets matched naval gunfire. All the weight carried aloft,for anything larger than about 20mm,was a serious impediment. A 75mm cannon was a bunch of parasitic weight. Rocket tubes,and later rocket frames ,were much much lighter.
@@martijn9568 They tried a gun with the 57mm armed Tsetse mosquito variant. The cannon had a tendency to jam after the first shot if subject to forces fairly standard in avoiding the 20mm return fire from uboats. The rockets were considered better by the pilots as they didn't require a predictable shallow dive into the target, and could be launched in groups. The rockets also had the advantage of hitting like a 4 inch naval gun HE shell which was what was used to destroy surfaced uboats by the Royal Navy, while the 57mm would do damage and stop a submarine from diving, but often not completely destroy it in the same way hits from rockets would. As for anti tank use, the allies preferred to use general purpose bombs. An allied fighter in the ground attack role usually carried 2 1,000lb bombs which would be used on heavy targets, but the most damaging impact of the ground attack sorties was in hitting the logistics network behind the tank. The trucks, trains, barges, and carts could all be destroyed by a couple of strafing passes by either. 50 cal from the USAAF, or 20mm from the RAF. A tank without fuel, ammunition, or spare parts is useless to the enemy. In theory they could have tried the Tsetse mosquito in an anti tank roll, but it would have, and did, do better using bombs than the 57mm. On top of this, once it had dropped the bombs it could search in the rear areas of the German lines for logistics targets to engage with the 4x 20mm that were removed to fit the 57mm.
@Bismarck, i have a theory about MK103 being not reliable. You can often see hs-129 flying without cannon cover, even during winter. We also know crews didn't trust 30mm, coz it rerely had spectacular effect on target (aka it blowing up). From Martin Pegg's book Panzerjager! we can often read, that pilots dumped most of their ammo on one tank till it was visibly destroyed (aka on fire, smoke, ect) Now if they dump all their ammo, they have to rearm more often. When they have to rearm more often, landing crew is most likely going to skip mounting the cannon cover (as often seen on pictures) Withouth to cannon cover, cannon gets dirty during landings and takeoffs due to be mounted between 2 engines, below the plane, close to the ground. I don't claim to be right on that tho, just something i was thinking about while sorting my hs-129 books. You could say, it would be bizzare for landing crew to skip the cannon cover, but while reading from the same book, landing crew and mechanics were often grossly overworked with lack of spare parts, terrible conditions and long working hours. Don't forget germans sent these planes to Africa without dust filters and antitank ammunition, if i remember Pegg's book right :^)
Could you do a video about Edgar Schmüd and his career/work? I think it is amazing that he designed p-51 and later developed the f-5 and t-38. There are a lot of videos about these aircraft but not the connection to him.
Some Hs 129 pilots flew so low they were given the Infanteriesturmabzeichen. Not bad for an aeroplane with a cockpit so cramped the gunsight had to be fitted outside! I play at "flying" this in that Eastern front aeroplane game that isn't warthunder. The Martin Pegg book is very good, btw.
OKW should have just set the Ostfront to Arcade Battles when they started using the MK101. They could have tracked the kills really easily with the "ground target destroyed" pop-ups.
Have studied history, and war-making and its evolution man and boy as an avocation (to include a decade of professional soldiering) too quickly approaching 60 years. Enjoy your work. Was listening to you explain the nomenclature's meaning while watching it being spelled out when my jaw dropped the way it does when one experiences an epiphany. Had never before realized that on top of all the other advantages the allies on all fronts of the ETO, it took the English speaking members of the coalition a fraction of the number of keystrokes or syllables to get anything done. May sound insignificant, but all those manual typewriters tied up lots of man-hours and caused a considerable lag in transmission of orders and reports, and even when radio traffic was possible took so many more syllables to say anything it could not help but diminish the Wehrmacht's ability to keep up with developments.
I heard about the Henshel plane But there was no mention of Rudel with the stuka mounted 37mm tungsten rounds. I read a book about him and the first mission, he always attacked from the rear not the sides because if you get hit you're going to your own lines but he attacked a T-34 and it blew up almost shooting himself down. These 37mm seemed similar with the tungsten warhead. the biggest cannon , I have a picture taken from a U.S. bomber this looked like a 75mm on a bigger plane but I don't think it was sucessful, thats way to heavy.This was a good vid because you don't hear too much about that plane.But I still think the butt of the tank would be the best spot to hit.Very informative video
Germany: "We cannot maintain air superiority." Also Germany: "Let's build an underpowered tank-buster that has no hope of surviving an engagement with anything that can shoot back."
Chris, just wanted to give you a genuine compliment - with apologies if it sounds a bit backhanded at first, because that's not at all the intent! I've been a channel follower for years now, and it's really been interesting to see how your approach has grown, changed, and taken on new influences. Just in the past week, you've had a video that really reminded me of Greg('s Airplanes and Automobiles), followed by this video which is much more in the style of Bernhard (of Military History Visualized, of course) - but both with your own unique spin, specialty, and attention to detail. Rather than suggesting that you're copying someone else's styles, I'm instead complimenting your versatility and mastery of very different formats and approaches - and bringing in a wealth of research and your own style. In the same way (and I say this as a linguist!) - your English often brings in very British expressions and very distinct Americanisms, often in the same sentences, while always in that unmistakable German tone. It's neat, adds a lot of colour to the language, and makes your content all the more pleasant to listen to. Keep doing what you're doing! It's great to see you try so many different approaches, take on so many different influences, and continue evolving this excellent channel :)
I would have thought to come in from the rear since armor over the engine compartment would be thinner, or on the turret roof. Shows how much I know! LOL
Of those later proposed solutions probably one of the most devious was this vertical downfiring recoilless guns (SG 113A) that were triggered by a magnetometer when the carrier plane (190) flew right over the tank commanders cuppola.
Imagine it getting set off by a steel bridge or something. You dive in for your attack run, turn the gun on, and boom, you shoot a bridge that is next to your target. Kinda funny.
3 Hs-129Bs were modified for these 77mm Forstersonde 6 tube mortars. They were tested at Tarnewitz by EKdo 26. They prove unreliable during these trials to warrant operational use. William Green, 1968
Interestingly, I've just finished reading Christopher Berstrom's book on the air war in the East between April & July 1943. He argues that the tank busters and the Il-2s were actually very effective (with cannons on the one side and PTAB bomblets on the other). I'm not convinced since he doesn't make an effort to match kill claims to actual losses or even operational availability figures for the next day.
The 37mm cannon that you forgot to mention, was so effective in this role, that even the Soviets started to produce the weapon after witnessing the damage it did to their armored fighting vehicles. The Stuka was give an extended lease on life because of this.
"If you like planes, like me. Or if you prefer targets, like tanks or ships." Cracked - me - UP!!! 25:53 You should be better, considering your metre-long words for anything more complex than plain air.
Thank you for this video. I am American and I spent two tours there back in the 1970s; I know that not all Germans were ‘supportive’ of the Nazi view of the world. I have met ‘good’ Germans and knowing what they had to actually ’do’ to maintain their ‘humanity’ is truly impressive. I remember one... I think he was a Bundesvehr Lieutenant Colonel and an American friend told me that the Lieutenant Colonel had been ‘evacuated’ by dog sled from Stalingrad. Hearing someone ‘explain things’ in clearly distinguishable English (albeit with an equally distinguishable German ‘accent’) makes this a very impressive video... Thank you!
Meanwhile the Russians seemed to rightly conclude cannons were not the best way to tank bust, with more of a reliance on rockets, bombs, and anti tank cluster munitions dropped en masse from IL-2s. That seems to make allot more sense to be honest, although it's hard to say how effect the Hs129 could have been if it was produced in numbers anywhere near the IL-2.
I suspect your right about the psychological value (which I suspect far exceeds the material damage). Controlled testing of unopposed allied fighter rocket attacks showed that very few of the rockets would have scored hits on armoured vehicles. If I remember correctly less than 50% of the rockets fired landed within 100 meters of the target. Pretty clearly knocking out a significant portion of a tank unit by aerial rocket attack would require many attacking aircraft or tanks that were for some reason way too bunched up. Still, all of the ground troops hated the rockets. Huge flash big bang, can't do anything but hope that it doesn't hit you. Even the A10 warthog would be almost useless against tanks if it wasn't for the immensely more sophisticated targeting equipment in the A10 and the pilots of the A10's feeling very confident of the planes ability to protect them.
Awesome vid. The HS-129 is the grandfather of the A-10. Amazing that the MK 101 had a muzzle velocity of 960 m/s in 1942. The GAU-8/A is only 50 m/s higher.
With the T-34 wielding the thinnest of the three tank's armour, Luftwaffe tank busters would have been better advised to *always* come in from a flat, or low, angle. That way you cover all bases and maintain a consistent approach.
*Play War Thunder for FREE. Join here* playwt.link/milavihist *and claim your exclusive bonus now.*
Also, try saying 'H-Panzergranatpatrone Leuchtspur Übung ohne Zerleger' if you feel like it
you want to give us depression?
Lmao semi-fluent in German. Wenn ich sprechen dieses Phrase, ich habe nie schwere.
The snail has finally caught up to you.
The game the I have 500 hour on on keep playing. Yet I warn people not to play lol
@@silasradriar6552 I think I have well over 2000 hours, and I do the same. Gajin seems to hate its player base. The new pen model is so broken right now. Bouncing Panther shells off of a fender, or mudflap its asinine.
0:09 "or perhaps you prefer targets, like tanks or ships" Nice one
I am retired US Air Force, and that is how we talked about other vehicles. Good video, keep up the content.
A friend of mine is a submariner and he says there's only two things in the water, subs and targets
when I was studying there were only two types of engineers ....those that built weapons or those that built targets
@@earlyriser8998 Yep, and mechanical engineers build weapons, whereas civil engineers build targets.
@@praetor678 To quote the german artillery: There is no friend or enemy, only worthwhile targets.
"The Duck. Because when you think of something that has 2 engines and a gun that destroys tanks, the first association is peaceful domesticated animals" - HowToPlay1337
i like that one
peaceful? More so than swans, but hardly.
Well it does look like a duck even down to a yellow beak. Ducks can also be quite vicious. Drakes are known to kill mates by drowning them (by accident) and deliberately killing ducklings. They also are known to attack people causing bite marks and bruising. Not as bad as geese admittedly but like many farm animals not to be treated lightly.
As for 'peaceful domesticated animals' do not forget that several farmers have been killed by pigs (and sometimes used as a food source), also cattle kill both farmers and walkers stupid enough to pick up their dogs when attacked. We are not talking bulls here but ordinary cows. Pet cats also have a reputation for tucking into owners (usually the face) when they they are shut in with a collapsed human and there is no other food available. Have a heart attack take four days to die but spend day three being eaten alive. We live in a vicious world not a telly tubby one.
@@mbak7801 Take a gander at this: I've heard some farmers prefer geese to dogs for guard duty. They make a heck of a racket when strangers approach, are highly territorial, and besides, they dont chase cars.
@@mbak7801 Man do I feel lucky , I have been living with and interacting with all those ferocious beasts you named on a daily basis for the last 55 yrs. Can’t believe I have survived all these years on my farm. I’ll take the farm over the city any day . The world must be a scary place for you.😂
Blink twice if the snail has taken your loved ones hostage.
Blink three times if he has stolen you money and your time
@@argusflugmotor7895 *Blinks Thrice*
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ‾ʖ̫‾)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ‾ʖ̫‾)
*Blink four times if you are the hostage*
@@argusflugmotor7895 Blinks 9 to 36 times.
How it is possible that I have never thought about the logic behind the German autocannon designation system. Yes, you taught me stuff.
Wack wack wack
How was it u hadn't previously considered the German system for designating airborne automatic weapons? Easy -- u weren't & (probably still) -- aren't a German academic...
@@sholoms damn your cool
Kommandant: "Here is the new aircraft, it is the Hs 129, very heavily armored and armed!"
Pilot: "Kool...what are those engines, I have never seen before?"
Kommandant: "They are French".
Pilot: *gulp*
They were free, doesn't mean they were able to get many spare parts tho.
Was the best alternative to the initial planes of using liquid cooled engines
@@MilitaryAviationHistory
If the Wehrmacht had special designations for captured weapons did the Luftwaffe have a similiar system for captured aircraft and engines. And the French were on the verge of producing some really decent aircraft power plants. Just consider it lucky they didn't get a chance to set-up Merlin production. If aircraft and aircraft engines are one of your interests I highly recommend the web site Old Machine Press www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=oldmachinepress.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiYho75j87vAhVBLs0KHX6EA6IQFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw1R7vOgQmBRt1-feuQ6S2aN
An excellent website. They mainly cover aircraft and engines that showed promise but didn't make production for one reason or another. Along with other stuff of interest to gear heads. One engine they covered was the largest radial engine ever built to my knowledge. Built by Nordberg these were stationary engines for generating stations and pumping stations. They where something on the order of 12+ft or 3 meters in diameter. In 11 and twelve cylinder versions. Interestingly neither the 11 or 12 cylinder version had a master rod. Very up to date there with no master and slave rods to offend special snowflakes. The last engine they covered was the Curtis Wright H-2120. This was not a flat double stacked engine layout like the the Sabre. This was a hexagonal engine similiar in layout to the Jumo 222 but being only 12 cylinders. A 24 cylinder H-4240 was planned.
There were a number of aircraft type engines from the 20 and 30s that in my opinion while they may have been obsolete in the aircraft role would have been very useful in armoured vehicles such as tanks in a detuned state.
My GOD I hate those French engines...
When both engines on any other 2-engined German plane get dark red, with a smidge of altitude I can still land perfectly fine.
But GOD FORBID my engines turn pale yellow - I just seem to instantly lose all control and speed.
The German engines that stood on the prototypes were much worse than the French ones.According to the technical task, the Ns. 129 was supposed to continue flying on one engine,but even the installation of French engines could not make this device fly normally.And what are only the devices on the engine nacelles worth?The big problem was also the inability to get the Hs. 129 out of the dive and too much effort on the steering wheel.
I was told by one of my colleagues at the RAF Heritage Centre I volunteer at, that years ago he chatted with a RAF Veteran who flew in North Arfica and he said one of his Friends was testing out the cannons for tank busting on a Hawker Hurricane I believe one of the first attempts at seeing if it was actually a practical idea.
He was observing from the ground as his mate attempted it, they successfully fired off 3 rounds and then went and landed, he went with some of the ground crew to meet him he said his friend climbed out the cockpit and was White in the face and refused to speak for a good 30 minutes, he ha several cigarettes and then explained Once he fired he lost so much Altitude that he though he was going to nose plant into the ground and that it was terrifying.
Don't blame the guy by the sound of that story!
More likely an account of No 6 Squadron RAF's work up with the Hurricane IID with the Vickers 40mm S gun at RAF Shandur in May 1942, where they actually had a captured Panzer Mk IV to shoot at. The Hurricane IID prototype first flew in September 1941 and it and its cannons would have been tested by the RAF's Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) before the type was ever issued to an operational unit. The Squadron became operational with 9 Hurricane IID's on 7th June 1942, claimed its first tank kills on the 8th June 1942 and their first claim against a Panzer Mk VI was on the 15th June. In operational use, the Squadron had three flights, One on operations, One on Training / Leave and one as an operational conversion unit to train pilots to be employed on the type with the Squadron(s) equipped with the type. Each flight had an operational strength of 9 aircraft.
Better to have somewhat inconsistent designation system than call almost every equipment M1.
or Type 99
@@rroman259 That tells the year of introduction.
@@Teh0X Yes for the many different weapons and systems that were adopted in 1939, including a Service Rifle, Light Machine Gun, Dive Bomber, Autocannon, etc.
Private! Get the M1 off the M1 so we can mount it on the M1 instead of the M1! And don't forget your M1 in case you run into enemies! Oh, and private? Take this M1 just in case.
Ok commie
I think Nicholas Moran over at the Chieftan said that abandoning a tank becuase a plane is comming is not the wisest of actions. But apparently something green tank crews did -and died for since humans are somewhat more fragile then a tank.
Worse yet is if the fuel oil ignites and pours down on the crew while sheltering!
@@athelwulfgalland Thats a big IF.
Plus, if, IF, the tank is on fire, you evacuate. Bullets and shells miss. Fire inside a closed steel box doesnt.
@@builder396 check chieftains video.... lot of facts, not ifs..armour will keep out schrapnel skin doesn't
@@01Bouwhuis I clearly said IF THE TANK IS ON FIRE! (specifically in the crew compartment, given the previous comment)
In case you didnt know, humans are very afraid of fire, especially in enclosed spaces, and will 99% of the time take their chances with strafing planes, because even if nothing else, there has to be a ditch somewhere to lie down in. Beats being burned alive.
For reference: "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire!"
@@01Bouwhuis I remember during the first Gulf war there was some night vision footage released (I think from an Apache) showing some Iraqi tanks in the distance and the crews were outside the tanks milling around in the dark.. a few seconds later the crewmen
apparently heard the Apaches as they crested a rise in the desert and and ran straight to their tanks as the Apaches fired Hellfire missiles at the tanks. Crews arrived at their tanks about same time as the missiles. Those guys all died. Iraqi tankers soon learned that staying with their tanks when coalition forces were present was suicide.
Broke: shoot at tanks
Woke: shoot at convoy trucks that resupply the tanks
ASCENDED: bomb the infrastructure
The chosen one: Dont start a war,be chill,paint shit.
Yes. Shoot trucks.
No trucks = no fuel/ammo for tanks = tank is useless.
Plus, trucks are way easier to damage
But shooting tanks is so much more fun.
Nah, trucks and infrastructure is infrastructure. The Ascended would undermine the enemy populations' will to fight and turn some of them, with disinformation campaigns.
@@thecanadiankiwibirb4512
P-47 and some P-51 pilots took it to the next level. Shoot the train. Blow a bunch of holes in the locomotive's boiler. Train stops. Strafe the rest of the train.
I heard an american tanker talk about "Mission Kill". Apparently it is a win if you can damage a tank so as to stop it from completing its mission.
Mission kill isn't restricted to tanks, and doesn't even have to involve damage. For example, if an air defense system forces an attacking aircraft to jettison its weapons in order to evade, that aircraft has been mission-killed, and the ADS has successfully defended its area, even if the ADS misses and the aircraft takes no damage.
Mission killed aplies to many things. Its simply damage or disruption sufficient enough to end its ability to conduct is objective. One could class forcing a vehicle to run out of fuel prematurely as a mission kill.
@@tisFrancesfault I think I get it. It is a valid concept. The idea I was aiming for in relation to this video was that perhaps the intended purpose of the Hs-129 was to do mission kills rather than actual tank kills.
@@NagdlungNiuak It was the idea behind most of the air-to-ground attacks during WW2, regardless of the nation. Actually scoring direct hits explosively destroying tanks was EXTREMELY rare.
@@djizomdjinn Heck, this could happen without firing a shot. Green pilot gets pinged by radar, panics, jettisons, and heads home. To be chewed by his superiors, no doubt.
Gosh I remember before UA-cam was a thing, watching Rudel's gun cam footage (37mm) which was quite impressive.
Schultz
@@missionslos8856 What, who? " I know nothing, nothing!" Always great to see a fellow fan :)
11:13-12:15 That has to be the most 'German' rant I've ever seen haha.
The poor record keeping is the most un-German thing I've heard of Germans doing.
The Us mounted a 75mm in the B-25 and the British mounted a 57mm in the DeHavilland Mosquito FB Mk XVIII "Tsetse"
This means:
#1 fly over the tanks to identify each before attacking to attack in right angle of attack
#2 observe the tank and start attack while observing the airspace and defending FLAK
#3 start with #1 again if you have not identified next target
Real life attack might have been different: attack what you can and benefit from the surprising momentum.
FLaK
(FLugzeug abwehr Kanone)
@@abercrombieblovs2042 If you want to correct people, at least do it right.
Flugabwehrkanone (or Fliegerabwehrkanone) is one big german word. It's abbrevation is spelled Flak or FlaK.
@@MrMarci878 Really? I always read that the first part was 'Flugzeug'...
I guess you're right.
Thanks for the clarification :)
You don’t need dedicated aerial tank busters if you have a bunch of Finns, logs, and plot armor.
When training on AT weapons we reported Mobility (M) or Catastrophic (K) kills. We would have machine gun teams covering us to kill dismounting crews. Once you’ve seen the catastrophic end to an armoured vehicle you understand how tough and repairable they actually are. Just because it was on fire and gutted and crew dead does not mean it can’t be refurbished and returned to duty but for reporting purposes it’s a K-Kill. M-Kill can be repaired by crews or recovery teams in a very short period in the field.
Amazing video! Not too long ago, I asked (in the comment section) if the community knew of any Mk 103 30mm videos, or other cannon videos, that were not video game content. This is truly a pleasant surprise, thanks!
Last time I was this early german logistic was still working
Fun fact, during my research I found a few files on MK101 and Hs129 production that seemed to suggest that the logistical situation for these two was both horrendous and really good in 1942 (depends what spare part you need).
@@MilitaryAviationHistory so, you mean that there was a "double situation", like "on the airfield we have 32 spare engines and 1 spare windscreen"? I mean, that you have a lot of something but very few numbers of another item?
@@themodernwarfarehistorian825 Liebeg's Law of the Minimum xD
Always nice to see new viewers on great channels like this.
So that would have been 1915 then
I like the amount of very specific and complete information you provide. I also like the occasional humor. All of this provides a very entertaining and educational experience. Thanks.
Your video's are TOP tier, you are Vary descriptive and have a bunch of examples and explanations!
Great work as usual Chris! Thank you.
Rich.
I signed up to WT with your link in this video today. Thanks very much for all the great work you do!
As for the psychological aspect, you can hear this in action in War Thunder... Bo has a special and instantly recognizable callout to warn his teammates: "Duck! Quack! Quack!"
I don't even think his tanks get destroyed all that often by 'panzerquackers', not as often as with bombs anyway, but there's usually enough damage to stop the tank dead in its tracks. Having never thought about tactical problems like that, I think it's fascinating to watch those scenarios unfold.
That largely reflects real life experience. It was actually relatively rare for anything other than the lightest of vehicles to be destroyed by air attacks (comparing reported kills by FB pilots to casualty reports from the units they attacked shows that they generally VASTLY overestimated the effectiveness of their attacks, across all nations), but the fear of air attack often had a pretty chilling effect on armour operations. During the Normandy invasion, and to the end of the war, the Panzer divisions took to moving only at night or during poor flying weather as much as they could, due to fear of roaming Allied FBs. I'm pretty sure I have read (can't remember where though, it was years ago) that post-war analysis of German reports show that only about 100 tanks were actually damaged sufficiently to be qualified as "kills" during the whole Normandy campaign, despite the literally thousands of claims by Allied pilots.
Wow, this was very well done. Thanks for the upload and I was happy to hit like and subscribe.
I loved the frustration over the poor record keeping. Terrific report as always.
I'm a formulation chemist by trade, but developed armor for vehicles,helicopters,body armor and attack boats.
In typical German fashion, your attention to numerical details exceeds nearly everyone I used to work with.
My wife is German, and she loves two things, numbers, order, and neatness.
That's three ?
If America, or Russia had been German, the entire world would be speaking German, now.
Awesome details and information data.
I am soon returning to armored vehicle design, and fabrication once more, and look forward to viewing your technologies.
Hallo Chris, danke, dass du deine Recherchen durchgeführt und uns präsentiert hast.
I love your use of primary sources (speaking as an archivist!)
US: Hold my beer.. M3 tank, half track, helmet, submachine gun etc.
Always good videos from you, a pleasure to see. very well researched.
Another great video, thanks for sharing!
Interesting and informative. Thanks Chris. 👍
Heya bis! Thanks for sharing this with us. Actually learned a bit from it
Excellent Video. Thank you!
Hs-129 my favorite plane and I liked this report, because it is very detailed and also very informative...Best wishes!
I came here from the Dark Skies video about the 129. Depression first, elation later. Thanks for the great documentaries, mate. Your work is sterling.
Well done,,great information,loved it,thank you.
I visited a questionable "Air Museum" owner was busted some time later on various charges to do with restricted weapons and illegal transactions. Of note he had the front cockpit section of a Hs 129 one of the few that may still exist. Bloody tough front armor and glass with some instruments mounted outside of the cockpit. No sidewall section of the cockpit just the section from the armored front vertical bars enclosing the armored forward glass forward to the nose.
I do like your asides. Controlled plummet. Very good - almost British irony!
I know, I loved that 🤣
Yep. I'll add it to, " a significant, emotional event ", courtesy of Mr Moran.
Great video, I loved it. Thank you
"Its diabolical!" I love you! XD please keep up the great work!
Good , informative. Entertaining,well done .
I remember waaaaaaaaay back in the day when you made WT videos and thought i was having some weird fever dream. good stuff
Interesting video. Waiting eagerly for the sequel.
One of the best channels on YT!
Good one bismark
This is going to be *so* useful when it comes to flying my 30mm cannon aircraft in ground RB. :D
Looking forward to the next vid!
Thanks. That was very interesting.
Also ... I think all of us who have at one time or another done serious research ... or attempted to ... when it comes to frustrations with our sources - feel your pain.
.
His visuals are starting to be competitive with Military History Visualized
great vid Biz!
Today I righted a wrong that has been a societal injustice for the last year that I have been watching your videos. Today I liked and subscribed. Thanks Bud, your knowledge and presentation style are exemplary.
Justin must have been overjoyed to know that the Japanese weren't the only one with weird designation systems.
I think everyone ended up with absurd designation systems eventually. The British had the "Lee Enfield No. 1, Mk III, star, (HT)". When even the common name is so long that you feel the need to abbreviate it ("SMLE"), something has gone horribly wrong.
The Americabs just made it simple. Everything was either an M-1 or M-4 😖
@@mpetersen6 haha no doubt.. plus a couple P-38s thrown in.
@@guaporeturns9472
And I wonder just how many people know what a P-38 is.
@@mpetersen6 I’ve had one in my wallet since I started carrying one , about 45 years.
Cant wait to see the next vid - thx.
from what i remember hs-129 pilots had to change their tactics from scoring kills into scoring mission kills. They were basically unloading most of their ammo on one tank until it blew up when actually it was much better to hit multiple targets and get them to panic, stop, turn back or get damaged just to the point they are not a reliable force anymore.
"controlled plummet" nice attention to detail!
Oh no, like I really needed another military history diversion... Love it
the immense amount of work you must do for this channel is absurd.
The Hs129 was a sharp looking aircraft... liked the Stuka with cannons as well...
Linked to my Tankee buddy, who shares my interest in WW2 technology and tactics.
Yet another informative video as always Chris. And referring to tanks as "targets" 😂😂👍
Makes me wonder why the Allies never really seem to have gotten on the tank-busting cannon trend. From the examples I can think of, most of the heavier cannons were intended for anti-shipping purposes, and the RAF Hurricanes which were used in North Africa, but I'm not sure if they appeared in ETO as well?
The Allies did work on this but I think it's a multitude of reasons why the volume of work was more limited than with the Germans. Simplfied, it's both a combination of having the right planes and weapons (and being able to put them together), the operational requirement for them (a lot of enemy tanks), a permissive environment (so limited AA and enemy air) as well as a leadership that encourages the development of tank hunters. For the Germans, this was the case and became a bit of a mania (There is obviously more to this, I am writing a conference paper on this atm).
The Allies were less bothered because beyond Africa and by 1943 the chances of a German tank breakthrough were very limited. Considering the situation in the air, Allied fighter-bombers taking out trucks, supply and reinforcements served their purpose really well and while they were also used against tanks, the ORS reports show quite clearly that they barely knocked one out. Check out Gooderson's book 'Air Power at the Battlefied' or Matthew Powell 'The Development of British Tactical Air Power'
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Thanks Chris, will do!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Didn't the Allies make multitple planes for the anti submarine warfare, by equiping them with a large gun? So say they did need an anti-tank aircraft, couldn't they use these planes?
@@martijn9568 I believe that by the second half of WWII, the various rockets that could be carried aloft were so much more effective,at least when they struck the vehicle. Pilots consistently overestimated effectiveness of strikes,regardless of which air service. The biggest of the rockets matched naval gunfire. All the weight carried aloft,for anything larger than about 20mm,was a serious impediment. A 75mm cannon was a bunch of parasitic weight. Rocket tubes,and later rocket frames ,were much much lighter.
@@martijn9568 They tried a gun with the 57mm armed Tsetse mosquito variant. The cannon had a tendency to jam after the first shot if subject to forces fairly standard in avoiding the 20mm return fire from uboats. The rockets were considered better by the pilots as they didn't require a predictable shallow dive into the target, and could be launched in groups. The rockets also had the advantage of hitting like a 4 inch naval gun HE shell which was what was used to destroy surfaced uboats by the Royal Navy, while the 57mm would do damage and stop a submarine from diving, but often not completely destroy it in the same way hits from rockets would.
As for anti tank use, the allies preferred to use general purpose bombs. An allied fighter in the ground attack role usually carried 2 1,000lb bombs which would be used on heavy targets, but the most damaging impact of the ground attack sorties was in hitting the logistics network behind the tank. The trucks, trains, barges, and carts could all be destroyed by a couple of strafing passes by either. 50 cal from the USAAF, or 20mm from the RAF. A tank without fuel, ammunition, or spare parts is useless to the enemy.
In theory they could have tried the Tsetse mosquito in an anti tank roll, but it would have, and did, do better using bombs than the 57mm. On top of this, once it had dropped the bombs it could search in the rear areas of the German lines for logistics targets to engage with the 4x 20mm that were removed to fit the 57mm.
I was wondering about the hs129b3 the other day. About how effective it was in real life vs war thunder
I love the description of Instagram.
The ballistics and muzzle energy of the 30×184mm are impressive even to this day.
Good vid. Thanks
@Bismarck, i have a theory about MK103 being not reliable. You can often see hs-129 flying without cannon cover, even during winter. We also know crews didn't trust 30mm, coz it rerely had spectacular effect on target (aka it blowing up). From Martin Pegg's book Panzerjager! we can often read, that pilots dumped most of their ammo on one tank till it was visibly destroyed (aka on fire, smoke, ect) Now if they dump all their ammo, they have to rearm more often. When they have to rearm more often, landing crew is most likely going to skip mounting the cannon cover (as often seen on pictures) Withouth to cannon cover, cannon gets dirty during landings and takeoffs due to be mounted between 2 engines, below the plane, close to the ground. I don't claim to be right on that tho, just something i was thinking about while sorting my hs-129 books. You could say, it would be bizzare for landing crew to skip the cannon cover, but while reading from the same book, landing crew and mechanics were often grossly overworked with lack of spare parts, terrible conditions and long working hours. Don't forget germans sent these planes to Africa without dust filters and antitank ammunition, if i remember Pegg's book right :^)
I wonder what they thought when the weapons got bigger or better, like when the mk103 came out and when they started using the bk37 and bk75
As usual I absolutely loved it. But then I love all of ur shows. Keep up the great work …Ur fan Hubbib
Could you do a video about Edgar Schmüd and his career/work? I think it is amazing that he designed p-51 and later developed the f-5 and t-38. There are a lot of videos about these aircraft but not the connection to him.
Some Hs 129 pilots flew so low they were given the Infanteriesturmabzeichen. Not bad for an aeroplane with a cockpit so cramped the gunsight had to be fitted outside!
I play at "flying" this in that Eastern front aeroplane game that isn't warthunder.
The Martin Pegg book is very good, btw.
I was trying to think of a quote from you in war thunder, but all I can think of is whoa oh, luftwaffe pilots
I love your channel and I leave a like and your info real
11:10 Ha! I thought you sounded kinda annoyed from the start of the video. To be honest the test as a whole seems like quite a mess.
Good video.
Top class presentations
OKW should have just set the Ostfront to Arcade Battles when they started using the MK101.
They could have tracked the kills really easily with the "ground target destroyed" pop-ups.
"If you like planes like me, or perhaps you prefer targets like tanks or ships..." XD I love it.
Have studied history, and war-making and its evolution man and boy as an avocation (to include a decade of professional soldiering) too quickly approaching 60 years. Enjoy your work.
Was listening to you explain the nomenclature's meaning while watching it being spelled out when my jaw dropped the way it does when one experiences an epiphany. Had never before realized that on top of all the other advantages the allies on all fronts of the ETO, it took the English speaking members of the coalition a fraction of the number of keystrokes or syllables to get anything done. May sound insignificant, but all those manual typewriters tied up lots of man-hours and caused a considerable lag in transmission of orders and reports, and even when radio traffic was possible took so many more syllables to say anything it could not help but diminish the Wehrmacht's ability to keep up with developments.
I heard about the Henshel plane But there was no mention of Rudel with the stuka mounted 37mm tungsten rounds. I read a book about him and the first mission, he always attacked from the rear not the sides because if you get hit you're going to your own lines but he attacked a T-34 and it blew up almost shooting himself down. These 37mm seemed similar with the tungsten warhead. the biggest cannon , I have a picture taken from a U.S. bomber this looked like a 75mm on a bigger plane but I don't think it was sucessful, thats way to heavy.This was a good vid because you don't hear too much about that plane.But I still think the butt of the tank would be the best spot to hit.Very informative video
Germany: "We cannot maintain air superiority."
Also Germany: "Let's build an underpowered tank-buster that has no hope of surviving an engagement with anything that can shoot back."
from what i know they were flying so low aircraft were rarely an isse and most ducks were downed by AA.
They weren't doing that helplessly bad in 42, when these whole shenanigans started.
@@Pikilloification And the Luftwaffe could fly in the East until the end of the war.
Chris, just wanted to give you a genuine compliment - with apologies if it sounds a bit backhanded at first, because that's not at all the intent! I've been a channel follower for years now, and it's really been interesting to see how your approach has grown, changed, and taken on new influences. Just in the past week, you've had a video that really reminded me of Greg('s Airplanes and Automobiles), followed by this video which is much more in the style of Bernhard (of Military History Visualized, of course) - but both with your own unique spin, specialty, and attention to detail. Rather than suggesting that you're copying someone else's styles, I'm instead complimenting your versatility and mastery of very different formats and approaches - and bringing in a wealth of research and your own style.
In the same way (and I say this as a linguist!) - your English often brings in very British expressions and very distinct Americanisms, often in the same sentences, while always in that unmistakable German tone. It's neat, adds a lot of colour to the language, and makes your content all the more pleasant to listen to.
Keep doing what you're doing! It's great to see you try so many different approaches, take on so many different influences, and continue evolving this excellent channel :)
Thank you so much :)
Thursday’s with the MAHD lad himself: Chris
Btw, this video reminded me Lindybeige's one on tank hunting, and both videos are great!
Lindy is an ignorant clown.
@@trauko1388 True - so I unsubscribed!
I would have thought to come in from the rear since armor over the engine compartment would be thinner, or on the turret roof. Shows how much I know! LOL
Of those later proposed solutions probably one of the most devious was this vertical downfiring recoilless guns (SG 113A) that were triggered by a magnetometer when the carrier plane (190) flew right over the tank commanders cuppola.
Imagine it getting set off by a steel bridge or something. You dive in for your attack run, turn the gun on, and boom, you shoot a bridge that is next to your target. Kinda funny.
3 Hs-129Bs were modified for these 77mm Forstersonde 6 tube mortars. They were tested at Tarnewitz by EKdo 26. They prove unreliable during these trials to warrant operational use.
William Green, 1968
Interestingly, I've just finished reading Christopher Berstrom's book on the air war in the East between April & July 1943. He argues that the tank busters and the Il-2s were actually very effective (with cannons on the one side and PTAB bomblets on the other). I'm not convinced since he doesn't make an effort to match kill claims to actual losses or even operational availability figures for the next day.
The death Star for size? 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, that was a nice touch for a graphic! lol
The 37mm cannon that you forgot to mention, was so effective in this role, that even the Soviets started to produce the weapon after witnessing the damage it did to their armored fighting vehicles. The Stuka was give an extended lease on life because of this.
übung... übung... WESERÜBUNG!!!!!! I knew I had heard that one before. XD
Great vid. You’re a funny guy.
"If you like planes, like me. Or if you prefer targets, like tanks or ships."
Cracked - me - UP!!!
25:53 You should be better, considering your metre-long words for anything more complex than plain air.
At about 03:14 in this video: _"Size"_
*"That's no moon, that's an auto-cannon!"*
😊😊😊
Thank you for this video. I am American and I spent two tours there back in the 1970s; I know that not all Germans were ‘supportive’ of the Nazi view of the world. I have met ‘good’ Germans and knowing what they had to actually ’do’ to maintain their ‘humanity’ is truly impressive. I remember one... I think he was a Bundesvehr Lieutenant Colonel and an American friend told me that the Lieutenant Colonel had been ‘evacuated’ by dog sled from Stalingrad. Hearing someone ‘explain things’ in clearly distinguishable English (albeit with an equally distinguishable German ‘accent’) makes this a very impressive video... Thank you!
Meanwhile the Russians seemed to rightly conclude cannons were not the best way to tank bust, with more of a reliance on rockets, bombs, and anti tank cluster munitions dropped en masse from IL-2s. That seems to make allot more sense to be honest, although it's hard to say how effect the Hs129 could have been if it was produced in numbers anywhere near the IL-2.
I suspect your right about the psychological value (which I suspect far exceeds the material damage). Controlled testing of unopposed allied fighter rocket attacks showed that very few of the rockets would have scored hits on armoured vehicles. If I remember correctly less than 50% of the rockets fired landed within 100 meters of the target. Pretty clearly knocking out a significant portion of a tank unit by aerial rocket attack would require many attacking aircraft or tanks that were for some reason way too bunched up. Still, all of the ground troops hated the rockets. Huge flash big bang, can't do anything but hope that it doesn't hit you. Even the A10 warthog would be almost useless against tanks if it wasn't for the immensely more sophisticated targeting equipment in the A10 and the pilots of the A10's feeling very confident of the planes ability to protect them.
"Never say I don't teach you stuff." All of this and comedy too.
Awesome vid. The HS-129 is the grandfather of the A-10. Amazing that the MK 101 had a muzzle velocity of 960 m/s in 1942. The GAU-8/A is only 50 m/s higher.
With the T-34 wielding the thinnest of the three tank's armour, Luftwaffe tank busters would have been better advised to *always* come in from a flat, or low, angle. That way you cover all bases and maintain a consistent approach.