I feel like there's about a 90% chance that Glukharev was informing on his bosses. Being accused of espionage and just being transferred especially, since that comes off as a 'well yes he's spying but it's on behalf of us, so he's not in trouble, he's just going to look at another guy'
That NS-37 is like one of those Cards Against Humanity moments "Either the card is so bad there is no point in using it or so good that you CAN'T use it"
Well, they made one even bigger. One with a 45mm cannon. It was so bad, that you had to shoot it while going at least about 240 mph or you’ll risk stalling from the recoil which slowed your plane a lot. It would also shake the whole plane once shot, and the 45mm Yak usually had to be escorted by 2 Yak-3’s in sorties.
When I was a teenager I was very interested in the history of the Russian/Soviet aviation and space program, but as it was the 1980's information was damn hard to come by and what information I could get was unreliable. I love your channel and the 15 year old me from the past is very much enjoying it.
The opposite was when I was growing up in 1980s Czechoslovakia. Soviet and Czechoslovakian stuff everywhere, but very little about western or German stuff. They even suppressed the fact that western part of Czechoslovakia was liberated by US Army. So I got to know only after 1989. Bit crazy :)
I’m glad to see someone else who grew up before me that enjoys the same things. Very cool shit. I like the old Soviet stuff, too, since it was much easier to see American military and aviation stuff as a kid since it’s kinda pushed on you with Call of Duty and stuff. I have some old cold-war era watches, one with radium in the hands (I never wear it and keep it put away - it still glows!) and I thoroughly enjoy games like War Thunder, modded Kerbal Space Program, and DCS.
The Yak-9T ended up being very effective against light ships in the black sea though. At shorter ranges it was also incredibly effective against bombers, though the Germans just didn't have many of those. If they had access to better gunsights it would have been a lot more effective in general but that was not the case until after the war, which is part of why the Mig-15 had more success despite using a worse version of the gun (though with a higher fire rate). It's everyone's favorite meme-plane in warthunder, so at least it has that
@@johnmurphy5689 14,000 is actually very small especially considering that they fought on 3 fronts (Western Europe, Russia and Africa) plus their manufacturing capabilities were crippled due to constant Allied bombings so replenishing them or even basic maintenance and repair was very difficult to do so seeing those 14,000 on the Eastern front alone is just daydreaming.
Similar to the 'tank killer rockets'. The Brits shot a a stationary tank with their best, and hit it with one rocket out of 67 fired , for only superficial damage. The American decision to go with heavy machine guns (and a LOT of them, because 'Merica), and use them againt fighters and everything that wasn't armored like a tank worked out better.
My most obvious take away from this yet again excellent film is, that in the west you were fired when unsuccessful at your job, while in the east you were fired upon for the same reason.
Mostly just under Stalin. The guy was literally as bad as Hitler... The USSR tried hard to clean up the mess he made and salvage what Lenin had created. But it was a perpetual uphill battle.
The only guy who actually delivered was the one who kept his job tho. If crazy how fast and how much turnout there was, at least it seemed to be stat and result based.
@@yum9918 Nah he just knew something good was coming and wanted the glory for himself. As they never changed the blueprints. Although why is a mystery, as he'd get paid no matter what. Maybe a better Dacha was on the cards for each victim he claimed.
I hope you and all you family stay safe in these terrible times , & I'm glad your mother is well out of the Russian invasion . And thank you for coming back with another well researched video despite having lots of other calls on you time . I'd fire up the old line about .."it would not be " but that seems inappropriate in the current climate. Stay safe .
It's not a Russian Invasion when America helped overthrow Ukraine in 2014. Joe biden even admitted he's been starting wars recently, he admitted to committing high Treason.
It's really cool that the stock footage used actually has something to do with what he's talking about at the time rather than just random stuff just thrown in there like other RUclips channels do
The Yak-9T actually has a very big and noticeable difference to previous Yak-9 models: the cooler intake under the engine. It is specifically this modification, which German Airforce instructed pilots to look out for, and if noted, preferably not engage (!), as the engagement would be too dangerous. Strange that it was missed in the video, although it was a German source where I got that from (am a German, was studying history)
Not true, Both Yak-9 sans suffix and Yak-9T had identical oil cooling intakes underneath the nose. German pilots were instructed in 1944 to avoid dogfights with Yak fighters WITHOUT oil coolers underneath the nose. The Yak in question there is the Yak-3, although same was true for the Yak-9U which appeared at the same time with the VK-107 engine. Neither of these have anything to do with the Yak-9T.
I applaud your skill at providing just the right amount of background information and context to make understanding the relationship Yak-9T and the NS-37 concise and comprehensible in such a relatively short video. Thank you very much for your efforts.
@@PaperSkiesAviation I personally enjoy your sense of humor quite a bit, and noticed this video shared it less than usual. Hope you're okay bro. Take care...
5:04 please tell me that is a real photo. It is just so comically oversized that it looks fake. Very well done as usual. You can really tell the amount of effort you put into these videos.
Hehe, imagine a world where that sort of thing became normal! But that ridiculous size is part of the appeal of recoilless guns - mounting guns of immense caliber onto smaller hulls, chassis, or airframes.
@@banzeyegaming2234 Monitors are generally considered coastal/harbor defense vessels with oversized guns. They have the full size guns of a ship bigger than themselves but its so much weight they sacrifice speed, range and handling to the extent they're rarely ever oceangoing. That wouldn't be true with using a recoil-less version. You could mount that big gun with no more weight than would be present with the standard smaller guns typically fitted. The bonus of a recoil-less rifle is that since you don't have to contain all the force from that larger shell they can be really light. Perfect example of that is the M67 76mm recoil-less rifle that the US used vs a regular M1 76mm Tank gun. The M67 clocks in at 37.5 lbs (17 kg) empty while the M1 weighs 1,141 lbs (517.55 kg) in comparison. You have larger shells that waste a lot of powder in exchange for having a significantly lighter gun itself. The downside of course being that the guns have an immense back blast that you have to be careful of.
19:44; what an amazing piece of film. The Yaks in the foreground with an American B-17 in the background. Finding both at the same airfield, on purpose, is pretty amazing.
Happened more often than you might think. Many missions launched from the UK or Italy ended up in Russia. Look up Operation Frantic, and see if you can find Geust and Petrov's book "Lend Lease Aircraft in Russia" for more. The USSR ended up with a couple of dozen B-17s, though they weren't actually lend-lease. They also had B-24s and a few Lancasters.
It's nice to see a new video from you, although these are very difficult times for you and your family. Thank you. I sincerely hope your family is safe and secure and notably that your father is safe as well. i salute his courage.
Love your content and presentation. This is the first time I've sign up to a service like Curiosity and I'm looking forward to your content on Nebula. Thanks for your effort.
In the game "Secret Weapons Over Normandy" you could install a 57mm cannon pod to almost any plane once you unlocked it. You could drop tanks, destroyers, and even carriers down with it. Strapping that gun to the belly of a F4F Wildcat is as ridiculous as you might think, but oh so effective in game.
There was another attempt to mount a 37mm cannon on a fighter prior to Yak-9T. LaGG-3 had it in 1941-2. Not because it was needed but because Shpitalny wanted to see one more of his guns adopted and heavily lobbied that. It had same problems: low probability to hit a tank, insufficient penetration/damage, lack of armor on a plane that is supposed to dive through AA and the heavy cannon made LaGG-3 even worse dogfighter (it already wasn't stellar). On the other hand, the cannon showed itself very well against bombers because it had longer range than machineguns (thus allowing to fire from beyond tail gunner's range) and even one hit desintegrated the plane. During combat trials LaGG-3 with 37mm cannon shot down 13 and damged 4 more planes in 4 combat encounters.
Also, the engineer's (the 'L' part) preferred engine wasn't the one that he wanted. The end result was completely unreliable and underpowered as a result.
Yak-9T was not useless. Before it came out, fw-190 pilots ususally engaged yaks in head-on attacks because of yak's relatively poor aament. After several dozen 190s suddenly exploded in the air they were forced to abandon this tactic against all yaks
Ah yes...nothing like an arrest and execution on flimsy charges to end a weapons or technology project in the USSR. Also love that you always tell these stories from a far closer perspective than many people could having family born in the former USSR and your father having been a pilot! That´s why you focus on people and topics other channels rarely do. Hope you and your family can stay safe in this insane times!
Hey, just so you know, you make really good videos, and I'm here as a random. I just notice, in the few videos I've watched, besides the obviously extensive information you research to write these, the pacing and format of the videos is very good. For example, you introduce the next main sub-topic of the story (in this case the plane's unique gun system), then we go back like, multiple decades sometimes, and it's immediately clear why we are where/when we are in relation to where we just came from. You just set that up well, and then in seeming to tangent, continue to lead us through a the story while also providing so much context for that sub-topic we're heading back towards. It's just subtle but very impressive, and I wanted to point it out for everyone. P.S. Oh, and you have a great voice and accent for narration :P It's nice to listen to.
Reminds me of the A-10 and that one test where it had to shoot down 12 tanks, being able to swoop down at them as many times as it needed, while they didn't move, it only managed to make 3 immobile, and it was said that all 3 of those could be made to work by the next day, it was hilarious
After the blood and guts of the crew were mopped out, sure. The thing is in the field, being three tanks short will lose your battle. Part of knocking equipment out in warfare is not letting the enemy recover/fix the device. Thinking that test is a complete failure is the flawed thinking of non-combat personnel and committee thinking. It's like general Burton's crusade against the Bradley.. he didn't know his independent test failures were useless because he tested for roles and situations that weren't what the weapon was supposed to do.
@@Ben-mw9vz a-10 can carry those and loiter nearby/maneuver quickly enough to save lives on the ground. Then it can land at an improvised airfield nearby for reload from a herc and do it again, and that's what other bombers/ground attack can't do. Strike eagles and bombers don't lend themselves well to spontaneous missions like close air support, or would need a spotter drone in the area.
Well this was really a known weakness of the GAU-8, insufficient armour penetration to reliably kill modern tanks. In those days the A-10's chief anti tank weapon was the AGM-65 missile, which remains able to kill any tank with a single hit. The cannon was, to tell the truth, rather redundant from the start. SPAAG systems like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka make going low and close enough for a strafing run in a plane as slow as the A-10 practically suicidal.
I used to love flying the Yak 9T in Aces High 2. Great competitive online game. Anyway I digress... it was like throwing softballs at the enemy, the trajectory was insane and lining up didnt always work with the low round count you had, but when you got used to the gun it was amazing. Single round impact fighter destruction, two to three well aimed shots on a bomber wing and it was out. Huge fun, especially if vox was open and you got to hear someone berate you as they went down haha.
I remember watching an episode of "Wings of the Red Star" on the History Channel many years ago, where they had a WWII Soviet pilot talking about the P-39, and he mentioned how much he loved the 37mm cannon it had; you got in close -- 50 yards or less -- and all it took was one round to destroy almost any aircraft. Kind of an interesting commentary, comparing his version of 'close' to the way most British and US fighters had the collimation set for their wing-mounted guns.
Hello Paper Skies, I just wanted to say that nobody on RUclips does exactly what you do, as well as you do. I hope that you and your family are safe during these dangerous times. And when you are able, we are all eagerly awaiting another excellently researched and interesting video from you-- but no pressure, you obviously have to take care of the things that matter most first.
I'm sure you're aware but thought I'd point out for prosperity the Yak-9 was derived from the Yak-UTI and has a tandem two seat planform. The cockpit wasn't moved back, they used the rear placement for it, where normally on the Yak-9 variants the front placement is used for the cockpit. The reason for the Yak-9 was simply to make use of tooling and production which had been improvised on a large scale to convert Yak-UTI trainers into the Yak-7 combat variant of the trainer. The Yak-9 was basically this aircraft redeveloped as a purpose built fighter upon the same planform, mainly the panelling is different although some late Yak-7 are in every respect identical to an early Yak-9 except for the cowling machine gun, a lighter ShKAS instead of a heavy Beresin, showing it is a converted trainer. You couldn't visually tell them apart at that stage, it was actually the Yak-7 which introduced the bubble canopy and cut down rear fuselage, but earlier production is just a blanked over second crew position and is obviously a converted two seater. It was an emergency measure to convert the Yak-UTI into the Yak-7 and then ramp production of it alongside the Yak-1 and as far as I know one of the factors which led to this was being a little more stable and easier to fly, the Yak-1 was extremely nimble but noted for its ability to become a handful for a novice pilot, by contrast the Yak-7 was noted for being very easy to fly for novices and a stable gun platform, a bit like the British Hurricane's reputation in the RAF as compared to the Spitfire, different but still very good. Simply, the Yak-1 was the thoroughbred and the Yak-7 the converted trainer with a blanked out rear position. Production of the Yak-7 was ramped so that thousands as a fighter, instead of dozens as a trainer were built and could be instantly produced. The Yak-9 is basically a refinement built as a fighter from scratch, but is the same aircraft built on the same planform with the same tooling. The stroke of genius about the Yak-9 was Yakovlev realising its heritage provided an opportunity to create the first multirole fighter type, in a sense. The airframe would not be imbalanced by use of the original rear crew position for heavy internal equipment like extra fuel tanks or bombs, such as in the Yak-9B and Yak-9D. Alternatively the cockpit could be moved to the rear position and give room for extra armament or larger armament in the front, again without impacting the flight characteristics in any significant way which is something you certainly couldn't do with a Yak-1. You could fit a Nudelman into a Yak-1, you could move the cockpit back a bit to accommodate it, but you would run into CoG issues you don't get with the Yak-9 and it would probably be unflyable. You could also put an extra auxiliary fuel tank in the rear fuselage of a Yak-1 just like a Mustang and vastly increase its range but would run into the same trouble as the Mustang with flight instability and manoeuvring restrictions until the tank is used up, again you don't have this problem at all with the Yak-9 as it was designed originally for a second crew position. You can have bombs behind the cockpit in a bay, extra fuel, or move the cockpit back and put a giant cannon in the front and they didn't give it any handling problems. And you could do it all on the same production line with the same aircraft and never delay a constant supply of deliveries to the field. They're all simple modifications upon the same planform. With all that in mind, at that point Stalin probably would've given Yakovlev a headjob. Favouritism is an odd word however, being favoured by a dictator is like being licked by a tiger.
well unfortunately if the tank was at the frontline and already shooting at your buddies or logistic support could not be destroyed or tampered with, this was the most reliable weapon. even if logistics are destroyed, there is still a tank driving around
Hey bud, where you been? Hope you're doing OK. Weird to see such a talented artist like yourself just disappear, how it doesn't have to do with the war. Anyway just wishing you the best if you see this!
so incredibly fun in war thunder tho. for some spaghetti code reason the first shot is always 100% exactly where your pipper is, and then after that it starts deflecting. so its super satisfying going headon with a p47 doing one click and watching the trajectory of the round land right on the upper part of the engine and knocking it out instantly.
8:13 Did it come to your mind that maybe Glukharev was the one behind the demise of the people around him? He was probably connected to some other official or KGB, and fed them information about those guys the whole time. EDIT: I now read more comments here and apparently I can promote myself to the rank of Captain Obvious.
Every time I learn about the soviet union I'm amazed at how it managed to have such of a wealth of talented people despite executing so many of them for various silly reasons.
Think about talented people in our country. Some go to machine shops, some to wafer fabrication, some to making TVs, or cars, or water skis, chemical manufacture, food, advertising, the stock exchanges and so many other places you'd go silly before you named them all. I think the Soviets had a similar amount of geniuses at one point in time. But they killed a huge number of their creative and scientific minds, and it only seems like they had a huge pool to draw on in the military because these smart people were not being used in other places. Consider how many genuinely intelligent people there are in the real estate business, or in cutting edge dental technology, or in any of the many many mature industries that America had which the Soviets either did not have, or had in a very demure state. Soviets could hardly keep up with America in war technology, but even to do that they fell behind in a thousand other little industries. A guy like Steve Jobs, building new phones with spare parts he bummed off of engineers, and turning that into a business, would have had a much more difficult time getting off the ground in the USSR. And some people, if they don't have that opening, wither away, and their genius never blooms.
Can you imagine what the YAK-9T would do to morale on the German side? It's a plane that looks like any other plane, but hits so hard that one hit is almost certainly a kill shot, and occasionally can be used at ranges that are outside what you normally consider dangerously close (ie: needs to be actively watched so they don't line up a shot) That'd be a *terrifying* thing to know about when you're out and flying sorties, it's like being an infantryman who knows the enemy is fond of using snipers and has no idea if or when one of those soldiers they see off in the distance is gonna come out with one of those anti-tank sniper rifles instead of a normal combat rifle.
@@miskatonic6210 as been said above Yak-9T was almost indistinguishable from other Yak-9 modifications on the decision making distance (to engage head on or not) and was capable of bringing any enemy fighter down with just single hit. It was a fact that after appearance of Yak-9T FW-190 pilots started to evade head on attacks on Yaks.
This is a very good point. I even thought of touching it briefly in this video. If you take, let's say, top-10 Soviet aces, most of them scored the majority of their victories while flying Cobras. I think only 1 or 2 (can't check it right now) flew Yaks through all the war: Vorozheykin and Glinka (I'm not sure, though). And I remember for sure Vorozheykin flew Yak-9T at some point. However, don't quote me on this. I'm going to need to check it later :). Anyways, I decided to keep it for another video. But you are absolutely right about the love for Cobra in the Soviet Air Force.
@@PaperSkiesAviation The main difference between the cannons is that the US built one had considerably lower muzzle velocity. It still had enough recoil to pose serious problems in operation. I have a hard time imagining why the russians put so much propellent in that cartridge. Even after the war the new version they put out had less propellent but still probably more by half again what would have been reasonable. The whole point to using (bomb)shells is that you don't need to rely on velocity to generage power. Get the shell on target, doesn't matter if it hits hard or touches down gently, the shell does the work once it gets to the target. The rational reason to put more propellent in a round like that is to get more range, but clearly the round was effective at many times the range it could be effectively used in combat, at least mounted in an airplane. What were they thinking? Was this because the same round was used in ground based AA guns? Were any of them actually effective at greater ranges?
@@laughingdaffodils5450 The Soviets did lots of wacky things due to their EXTREME top down management practices. The engineers would come up with an idea, then almost every manager and director above them would add their own (frequently ill conceived and unfounded) part to the idea that by the time it went into production and use, it might have only been 40% the engineering of the original design and then everything else was added later by various officials. Mostly it was a disastrous process, but that’s where the idea of using a wildly over-powered cannon round certainly came from.
I remember reading somewhere that they removed the canons as soon as they received the planes. That much like the Yak, the 37mm wasn't useable. I think they liked the plane for other reasons.
I love your channel I just discovered it a few weeks ago, great videos great history, you have really high production value with great delivery style. Thx for your
I really enjoyed this video, thanks. I recently bought a kit of the Yak 9T/K as I haven't built one before and I was intrigued by the massive cannon it carried. I didn't know anything about it's use or capabilities but I do now thanks to your research, glad I wasn't born in the USSR during the thirties and forties!
Their paranoia was justified considered that even a marshal like Tukhachevisky was negotiating with the Germans, and everyone knew it, even the Japanese.
Nice vid dude. It seems like being anywhere near Stalin was hazardous to your health and your families health and probably your friends health too . Glad it's not like that in Russia now ... oh wait.
Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent. You needed to be just competent enough to carry out orders, and have enough sense to know when to die in combat.
@@slappy8941 Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent, or if one of your close friends was either, or if one of your family was either, or if your neighbor told the police you weren't a good communist, or that a family member wasn't a good communist, or... Wait... Yeah maybe he was *a fucking monster and we need to accept that*.
I loved the Yak 9 as a fighter in the Combat Flight Simulator IL-2 Forgotten Battles ! There was something so satisfying about blowing the wings right off an enemy plane with just a hit or two ! 😝 Great job with your video and research again mate!
Apparently tank-busting aircraft in WW2 were... somewhat exaggerated in their performance. In fact, tank-busting aircraft weren't that much of a thing unless they had PGMs. In which case they could absolutely demolish tanks.
even though its a classic example of an engineers dream and an end users nightmare, i love bonking german planes with high explosive rounds of the yak 9t in il2. i hope they model the flaws more accurately (especially the tailspin one)
In other nation, having bad performance at work, or produce bellow expectations only cause risk to career, in Soviet, with codification of вредительство as crime it even risk one's life. I don't think it can accurately being translated into "treason" because its not that simple.
Basically "вредитель" is close in meaning to "parasite", basically standing for a person wasting the resources and time on useless concepts, possibly with the goal of hurting or stalling the overall development of the project or a whole branch.
Randomly watching this as RUclips's algorithm suggested it to me, not really that interested in the subject but have been blown away by the editing in this video. Really good stuff!
Excellent presentation. It makes one think about what might have happened if Russia had gone into Capitalism. Some very brilliant engineers and weapons designers would have, in all likelihood, have had much greater budgets and less recriminations in failure of prototypes. Seeing design come to fruition without fear would have produced some game-changing weaponry.
Maybe, it's an interesting idea at least. You could sort of spin post-Gorbachev Russia as sort of like this, and it's hard to tell if strictly the capitalist aspect has been beneficial since then, but I'm guessing you meant in the interwar era through the end of WWII specifically. I guess, what I'd be interested to see would be how this would affect Russia or any given country more broadly, or even with more varieties of economic and government systems. Say, suppose FDR was challenged in Supreme Court for going against (until then) implied term limits; would the New Deal have gone through, would social security exist, or how different would it be? Would people be more or less aware and receptive of how socialist his economic policies were, and how would that affect recovery from the Depression and how the Lost Generation and Silent Generation's culture evolved? Or for airplanes, would the Canadian Avro Arrow have seen service if Britain hadn't nationalized and merged its aeronautic companies as much, or say if it nationalized them but allowed them to be independent, or would that saturate their R&D with even more half finished projects cancelled for going over-budget? Or maybe if there were just a few more manned space crashes, ICBM tech might not have come as far and bomber-intercept aircraft could still have more of a role? I'm not sure, you made me think though, so that was neat. Anyway, I hope you have a nice day, and stay safe y'all.
@@KekusMagnus They already were in USSR. IT wasn't uncommon for scientists or engineers to work a second low skilled job such as janitor to meet their ends.
Engineering with out room for extensive failure isn't engineering at all. It's a miracle they got anything done..... One of the most solid engineering sayings "fail fast".
Pointless from the Russian side. It a gun that have, low velocity, low rate of fire, but a high explosive shell, that is superior to take out heavy bombers, but suboptimal against everything else. A 30mm shell could crippel a heavy bomber with 1-2 hits, but you needed 20 hits by a 20mm shell to crippel a heavy bomber.
And now we have an aircraft in wide use that's main gun produces so much recoil that after only a few seconds of firing it can knock itself out of the sky.
As I had to look it up - it seems the vague consensus on the difference between a machine gun and a cannon is that a machine gun fires inert bullets (slugs) while a cannon fires explosive rounds (shells). The former puts a hole in your wing you leg it for base, the latter removes the wing and you die horribly. Although plenty of sources suggest it's all about calibre and others that some machine guns can fire both types of rounds. :/ @Paper Skies - care to clarify your use of the words?
Machine guns and cannons (in this case autocannons) both fall under the broad category of "gun" Machine guns tend to be 50 caliber, 12.7mm or less, (although the Soviets did have a 14mm machine gun) and primarily fire solid bullets (although high explosive and incendiary rounds for them do exist.) Autocannons tend to be 20mm and up, (although Germany did have a 15mm autocannon,) and normally fire shells of some description, (although solid armor piercing rounds for them are also a thing.)
One standard is that anything bigger than .50 Caliber (12.7mm) is a cannon. Of course, that is the US opinion for legal reasons and even rifle caliber weapons can fire explosive ammunition. Just not very explosive.
The difference between a gun and a canon is rather arbitrary. Some people consider just the calibre, some the types of bullets. Most people nowadays consider canons to start at 20 mm.
A "machine gun" is a gun that operates "full auto" - it cycles by machine, without a human needing to work the action or trigger each shot individually. As far as I can recall every gun mounted on a production airplane since WWI has been a machine gun - it wouldn't make sense to use anything else. A cannon is a gun designed to fire shells rather than bullets, just as you say. Cannons a few centuries back were several inches in diameter minimum, but better explosives decreased the requirement quite a bit. Today we generally figure 20mm, though there were some 15mm attempts they were marginal. There have been .50 cal (12.7mm) HE rounds but the amount of explosive that can be packed is minimal and no one's designing a .50 cal with the intention of it being used primarily to deliver HE, therefore the .50 cal is not considered a cannon. The terms as defined are not mutually exclusive - a fully automatic weapon designed to fire shells would be both a machine gun and a cannon - however as machine gun is so commonly used to refer to .50 cal and smaller weapons, a device which is both a machine gun and a cannon will usually be referred to as an "auto-cannon" instead. The thing that strikes me as oddest about this soviet 37mm is the high velocity of the load. The whole point to a cannon is that with a shell you don't need kinetic energy to do the damage, you only need enough propellent to get the shell on target then you rely on the payload to do the damage. Postwar the NS-37 was replaced by the N-37, with 1/4th less muzzle velocity and a lower rate of fire, and that was a step in the right direction, but it was still overpowered for the application. They could have settled for less than half that velocity, greatly reducing the recoil problems and permitting more ammo to be carried in the same space, with little if any loss of effectiveness for air combat at
You forget a very important aspect of velocity: flight time. The shorter the time is between the gun being fired and the projectile reaching the point of aim, the less less distance movement of the target has to be taken into account.
You missed another time when the gun was actually used to great extent. War Thunder, where Yak-9T finally had its moment to shine. Arcade battles' skies were filled with these planes mounted with 1 hit kill fridge launchers.
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
I feel like there's about a 90% chance that Glukharev was informing on his bosses. Being accused of espionage and just being transferred especially, since that comes off as a 'well yes he's spying but it's on behalf of us, so he's not in trouble, he's just going to look at another guy'
Yep, he's a narc for sure.
Given his apparent Teflon coating, I would say he was a definite teachers pet. Probably Beria's.
Actually, that was something of a norm in communist countries.
@@marko8640 Yes, the fast track to success and security was being a finger pointer and lick spittle.
@@davidwoods7408 probably not Beria as he didn’t come into a powerful position until 1939.
That NS-37 is like one of those Cards Against Humanity moments
"Either the card is so bad there is no point in using it or so good that you CAN'T use it"
I've never played that game, only heard about it, and I can't believe there is the possibility of the latter. Or does it depend on your company?
Well, they made one even bigger. One with a 45mm cannon. It was so bad, that you had to shoot it while going at least about 240 mph or you’ll risk stalling from the recoil which slowed your plane a lot. It would also shake the whole plane once shot, and the 45mm Yak usually had to be escorted by 2 Yak-3’s in sorties.
@@XOceaNX I've been playing it since 2016, but thanks for spreading the word anyway. :-D
@@SenkaBandit War Thunder changed how ground AI works, the 45mm can't pen anything since 1.5x, now it's worse
@@XOceaNX War Thunder's 9T is only useful against large bombers
When I was a teenager I was very interested in the history of the Russian/Soviet aviation and space program, but as it was the 1980's information was damn hard to come by and what information I could get was unreliable.
I love your channel and the 15 year old me from the past is very much enjoying it.
The opposite was when I was growing up in 1980s Czechoslovakia. Soviet and Czechoslovakian stuff everywhere, but very little about western or German stuff. They even suppressed the fact that western part of Czechoslovakia was liberated by US Army. So I got to know only after 1989. Bit crazy :)
I’m glad to see someone else who grew up before me that enjoys the same things. Very cool shit. I like the old Soviet stuff, too, since it was much easier to see American military and aviation stuff as a kid since it’s kinda pushed on you with Call of Duty and stuff. I have some old cold-war era watches, one with radium in the hands (I never wear it and keep it put away - it still glows!) and I thoroughly enjoy games like War Thunder, modded Kerbal Space Program, and DCS.
The Yak-9T ended up being very effective against light ships in the black sea though. At shorter ranges it was also incredibly effective against bombers, though the Germans just didn't have many of those. If they had access to better gunsights it would have been a lot more effective in general but that was not the case until after the war, which is part of why the Mig-15 had more success despite using a worse version of the gun (though with a higher fire rate).
It's everyone's favorite meme-plane in warthunder, so at least it has that
I will say that the Germans did build 14,000 Ju-88 Bombers so the "not many Bombers" quote might be wrong...
@@johnmurphy5689
14,000 is actually very small especially considering that they fought on 3 fronts (Western Europe, Russia and Africa) plus their manufacturing capabilities were crippled due to constant Allied bombings so replenishing them or even basic maintenance and repair was very difficult to do so seeing those 14,000 on the Eastern front alone is just daydreaming.
Similar to the 'tank killer rockets'. The Brits shot a a stationary tank with their best, and hit it with one rocket out of 67 fired , for only superficial damage. The American decision to go with heavy machine guns (and a LOT of them, because 'Merica), and use them againt fighters and everything that wasn't armored like a tank worked out better.
fuck this plane in WT yes
@@lamwen03 it's much heavier tho
I loved the Tarantino-like introductions for Glukhaev and Yakovlev. That was just brilliant!
Just wait till the Yak-9K with the 45 mm guns comes, shoots one time, stops mid air and crashes into the ground 😂
Yak-9k with a BT5 cannon
hehe 71 mm pen
@@kellerplayz1570 NS-45 is the BT5 cannon but remodeled for planes??
@ Pretty it isnt. It is most likely NS-37 but for 45mm shells.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 that's more of the like of what I've heard
TE PILLÉ
My most obvious take away from this yet again excellent film is, that in the west you were fired when unsuccessful at your job, while in the east you were fired upon for the same reason.
One involves less lead than the other
Mostly just under Stalin.
The guy was literally as bad as Hitler... The USSR tried hard to clean up the mess he made and salvage what Lenin had created. But it was a perpetual uphill battle.
The only guy who actually delivered was the one who kept his job tho.
If crazy how fast and how much turnout there was, at least it seemed to be stat and result based.
Fired... Fired upon??? Da, second is interactive and therefore more fun.
@@yum9918 Nah he just knew something good was coming and wanted the glory for himself. As they never changed the blueprints. Although why is a mystery, as he'd get paid no matter what. Maybe a better Dacha was on the cards for each victim he claimed.
Great episode, I really enjoyed the format and historical background information. It's good you make these quality videos for the world.
Somehow it looses the whole LaGG-3-34 built in 1941
I hope you and all you family stay safe in these terrible times , & I'm glad your mother is well out of the Russian invasion . And thank you for coming back with another well researched video despite having lots of other calls on you time . I'd fire up the old line about .."it would not be " but that seems inappropriate in the current climate. Stay safe .
Is he Ukrainian?
what?
how do u know about his family and mother?
friends?
It's not a Russian Invasion when America helped overthrow Ukraine in 2014.
Joe biden even admitted he's been starting wars recently, he admitted to committing high Treason.
So glad that you uploaded a video😁 I don't know where you are, but hopefully you are not affected too much by the current war
He is East European
@@thefiveeights4665 hes Ukrainian
He's in Canada
Hello boyos
Hello boyos
The murder and repression of Tukachevsky's family (shown on a table at 8:10') is simply staggering.
It's really cool that the stock footage used actually has something to do with what he's talking about at the time rather than just random stuff just thrown in there like other RUclips channels do
The Yak-9T actually has a very big and noticeable difference to previous Yak-9 models: the cooler intake under the engine. It is specifically this modification, which German Airforce instructed pilots to look out for, and if noted, preferably not engage (!), as the engagement would be too dangerous.
Strange that it was missed in the video, although it was a German source where I got that from (am a German, was studying history)
Not true, Both Yak-9 sans suffix and Yak-9T had identical oil cooling intakes underneath the nose. German pilots were instructed in 1944 to avoid dogfights with Yak fighters WITHOUT oil coolers underneath the nose. The Yak in question there is the Yak-3, although same was true for the Yak-9U which appeared at the same time with the VK-107 engine. Neither of these have anything to do with the Yak-9T.
@@alankucar8025 Correct
@@alankucar8025Unless the Yak-9UT (a Yak-9U with the NS-37 of the Yak-9T) was actually made, but I'm not to sure about that.
I applaud your skill at providing just the right amount of background information and context to make understanding the relationship Yak-9T and the NS-37 concise and comprehensible in such a relatively short video. Thank you very much for your efforts.
Top notch editing on this one. :D
Thank you!
@@PaperSkiesAviation why didnt you mention LaGG-3-34 ?
@@PaperSkiesAviation I personally enjoy your sense of humor quite a bit, and noticed this video shared it less than usual. Hope you're okay bro. Take care...
Finally new content. I love your style.
5:04 please tell me that is a real photo. It is just so comically oversized that it looks fake.
Very well done as usual. You can really tell the amount of effort you put into these videos.
That is a real 12" recoilless rifle on a destroyer. The Engels (ex-Desna) was fitted with a 305 mm (12 in) recoilless rifle for testing in 1934.
No need for turret, now make gun so big she hang off side of boat comrade
Hehe, imagine a world where that sort of thing became normal! But that ridiculous size is part of the appeal of recoilless guns - mounting guns of immense caliber onto smaller hulls, chassis, or airframes.
@@secularist1 Aren’t those essentially monitors?
@@banzeyegaming2234 Monitors are generally considered coastal/harbor defense vessels with oversized guns. They have the full size guns of a ship bigger than themselves but its so much weight they sacrifice speed, range and handling to the extent they're rarely ever oceangoing. That wouldn't be true with using a recoil-less version. You could mount that big gun with no more weight than would be present with the standard smaller guns typically fitted.
The bonus of a recoil-less rifle is that since you don't have to contain all the force from that larger shell they can be really light. Perfect example of that is the M67 76mm recoil-less rifle that the US used vs a regular M1 76mm Tank gun. The M67 clocks in at 37.5 lbs (17 kg) empty while the M1 weighs 1,141 lbs (517.55 kg) in comparison. You have larger shells that waste a lot of powder in exchange for having a significantly lighter gun itself. The downside of course being that the guns have an immense back blast that you have to be careful of.
19:44; what an amazing piece of film. The Yaks in the foreground with an American B-17 in the background. Finding both at the same airfield, on purpose, is pretty amazing.
Happened more often than you might think. Many missions launched from the UK or Italy ended up in Russia. Look up Operation Frantic, and see if you can find Geust and Petrov's book "Lend Lease Aircraft in Russia" for more. The USSR ended up with a couple of dozen B-17s, though they weren't actually lend-lease. They also had B-24s and a few Lancasters.
First video I've seen talking more specifically about older Soviet warbirds. Fascinating stuff! Great scriptwriting and delivery man, keep it up.
It’s a crime that you are not verified
Good content.
Welcome to 2022 Paper Skies Guy, here's to another year of fantastic videos.
It's nice to see a new video from you, although these are very difficult times for you and your family. Thank you. I sincerely hope your family is safe and secure and notably that your father is safe as well. i salute his courage.
Love your content and presentation. This is the first time I've sign up to a service like Curiosity and I'm looking forward to your content on Nebula. Thanks for your effort.
In the game "Secret Weapons Over Normandy" you could install a 57mm cannon pod to almost any plane once you unlocked it. You could drop tanks, destroyers, and even carriers down with it. Strapping that gun to the belly of a F4F Wildcat is as ridiculous as you might think, but oh so effective in game.
the use of archive footage in this video is truly phenomenal.
It's a miracle they ever managed to design a can opener under these conditions.
There was another attempt to mount a 37mm cannon on a fighter prior to Yak-9T. LaGG-3 had it in 1941-2. Not because it was needed but because Shpitalny wanted to see one more of his guns adopted and heavily lobbied that.
It had same problems: low probability to hit a tank, insufficient penetration/damage, lack of armor on a plane that is supposed to dive through AA and the heavy cannon made LaGG-3 even worse dogfighter (it already wasn't stellar).
On the other hand, the cannon showed itself very well against bombers because it had longer range than machineguns (thus allowing to fire from beyond tail gunner's range) and even one hit desintegrated the plane. During combat trials LaGG-3 with 37mm cannon shot down 13 and damged 4 more planes in 4 combat encounters.
In WT it's the plane they gave for free in events
Also, the engineer's (the 'L' part) preferred engine wasn't the one that he wanted. The end result was completely unreliable and underpowered as a result.
The American p39, widely used by the Soviets, also used a 37mm cannon.
@@kaichodesuwa inferior in every metric, but maybe better because of more ammo and doesn’t send the plane out of control when it fires.
Yak-9T was not useless. Before it came out, fw-190 pilots ususally engaged yaks in head-on attacks because of yak's relatively poor aament. After several dozen 190s suddenly exploded in the air they were forced to abandon this tactic against all yaks
Allow my American self to say, that at 3:55, that flying Soviet star is a beautiful work of formation flying. Kudos to the Soviet air force.
Beautiful, but useless.
@@anzaca1 The Flying V formation we often see in movies is just as bad. Practicality need not enter the parade airbox.
@@anzaca1 WWI and WWII were waged entirely based on propaganda. Definitely not useless.
Ah yes...nothing like an arrest and execution on flimsy charges to end a weapons or technology project in the USSR.
Also love that you always tell these stories from a far closer perspective than many people could having family born in the former USSR and your father having been a pilot! That´s why you focus on people and topics other channels rarely do.
Hope you and your family can stay safe in this insane times!
Hey, just so you know, you make really good videos, and I'm here as a random. I just notice, in the few videos I've watched, besides the obviously extensive information you research to write these, the pacing and format of the videos is very good. For example, you introduce the next main sub-topic of the story (in this case the plane's unique gun system), then we go back like, multiple decades sometimes, and it's immediately clear why we are where/when we are in relation to where we just came from.
You just set that up well, and then in seeming to tangent, continue to lead us through a the story while also providing so much context for that sub-topic we're heading back towards. It's just subtle but very impressive, and I wanted to point it out for everyone.
P.S. Oh, and you have a great voice and accent for narration :P It's nice to listen to.
Reminds me of the A-10 and that one test where it had to shoot down 12 tanks, being able to swoop down at them as many times as it needed, while they didn't move, it only managed to make 3 immobile, and it was said that all 3 of those could be made to work by the next day, it was hilarious
After the blood and guts of the crew were mopped out, sure. The thing is in the field, being three tanks short will lose your battle. Part of knocking equipment out in warfare is not letting the enemy recover/fix the device. Thinking that test is a complete failure is the flawed thinking of non-combat personnel and committee thinking. It's like general Burton's crusade against the Bradley.. he didn't know his independent test failures were useless because he tested for roles and situations that weren't what the weapon was supposed to do.
@@markdombrovan8849 no u
@@danielescobar7618 wouldnt it be better to use 12 smart bombs instead? It would certainly be the… smarter… method.
@@Ben-mw9vz a-10 can carry those and loiter nearby/maneuver quickly enough to save lives on the ground. Then it can land at an improvised airfield nearby for reload from a herc and do it again, and that's what other bombers/ground attack can't do. Strike eagles and bombers don't lend themselves well to spontaneous missions like close air support, or would need a spotter drone in the area.
Well this was really a known weakness of the GAU-8, insufficient armour penetration to reliably kill modern tanks.
In those days the A-10's chief anti tank weapon was the AGM-65 missile, which remains able to kill any tank with a single hit.
The cannon was, to tell the truth, rather redundant from the start. SPAAG systems like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka make going low and close enough for a strafing run in a plane as slow as the A-10 practically suicidal.
Came for the airplane history, stayed for the stories of Soviet wackiness and insanity
Your storytelling is excellent, followed by the great editing. Nice job, bingeable channel!
I used to love flying the Yak 9T in Aces High 2. Great competitive online game. Anyway I digress... it was like throwing softballs at the enemy, the trajectory was insane and lining up didnt always work with the low round count you had, but when you got used to the gun it was amazing. Single round impact fighter destruction, two to three well aimed shots on a bomber wing and it was out. Huge fun, especially if vox was open and you got to hear someone berate you as they went down haha.
I remember watching an episode of "Wings of the Red Star" on the History Channel many years ago, where they had a WWII Soviet pilot talking about the P-39, and he mentioned how much he loved the 37mm cannon it had; you got in close -- 50 yards or less -- and all it took was one round to destroy almost any aircraft. Kind of an interesting commentary, comparing his version of 'close' to the way most British and US fighters had the collimation set for their wing-mounted guns.
Hello Paper Skies, I just wanted to say that nobody on RUclips does exactly what you do, as well as you do. I hope that you and your family are safe during these dangerous times. And when you are able, we are all eagerly awaiting another excellently researched and interesting video from you-- but no pressure, you obviously have to take care of the things that matter most first.
You can't beat the quality of these
I'm sure you're aware but thought I'd point out for prosperity the Yak-9 was derived from the Yak-UTI and has a tandem two seat planform. The cockpit wasn't moved back, they used the rear placement for it, where normally on the Yak-9 variants the front placement is used for the cockpit. The reason for the Yak-9 was simply to make use of tooling and production which had been improvised on a large scale to convert Yak-UTI trainers into the Yak-7 combat variant of the trainer. The Yak-9 was basically this aircraft redeveloped as a purpose built fighter upon the same planform, mainly the panelling is different although some late Yak-7 are in every respect identical to an early Yak-9 except for the cowling machine gun, a lighter ShKAS instead of a heavy Beresin, showing it is a converted trainer. You couldn't visually tell them apart at that stage, it was actually the Yak-7 which introduced the bubble canopy and cut down rear fuselage, but earlier production is just a blanked over second crew position and is obviously a converted two seater.
It was an emergency measure to convert the Yak-UTI into the Yak-7 and then ramp production of it alongside the Yak-1 and as far as I know one of the factors which led to this was being a little more stable and easier to fly, the Yak-1 was extremely nimble but noted for its ability to become a handful for a novice pilot, by contrast the Yak-7 was noted for being very easy to fly for novices and a stable gun platform, a bit like the British Hurricane's reputation in the RAF as compared to the Spitfire, different but still very good. Simply, the Yak-1 was the thoroughbred and the Yak-7 the converted trainer with a blanked out rear position. Production of the Yak-7 was ramped so that thousands as a fighter, instead of dozens as a trainer were built and could be instantly produced. The Yak-9 is basically a refinement built as a fighter from scratch, but is the same aircraft built on the same planform with the same tooling.
The stroke of genius about the Yak-9 was Yakovlev realising its heritage provided an opportunity to create the first multirole fighter type, in a sense. The airframe would not be imbalanced by use of the original rear crew position for heavy internal equipment like extra fuel tanks or bombs, such as in the Yak-9B and Yak-9D. Alternatively the cockpit could be moved to the rear position and give room for extra armament or larger armament in the front, again without impacting the flight characteristics in any significant way which is something you certainly couldn't do with a Yak-1.
You could fit a Nudelman into a Yak-1, you could move the cockpit back a bit to accommodate it, but you would run into CoG issues you don't get with the Yak-9 and it would probably be unflyable. You could also put an extra auxiliary fuel tank in the rear fuselage of a Yak-1 just like a Mustang and vastly increase its range but would run into the same trouble as the Mustang with flight instability and manoeuvring restrictions until the tank is used up, again you don't have this problem at all with the Yak-9 as it was designed originally for a second crew position. You can have bombs behind the cockpit in a bay, extra fuel, or move the cockpit back and put a giant cannon in the front and they didn't give it any handling problems. And you could do it all on the same production line with the same aircraft and never delay a constant supply of deliveries to the field. They're all simple modifications upon the same planform.
With all that in mind, at that point Stalin probably would've given Yakovlev a headjob. Favouritism is an odd word however, being favoured by a dictator is like being licked by a tiger.
Love this format! Healthy mix of comedy and information :) Keep it up!
In WWII the best way for an aircraft to stop a tank was to take out its logistic support.
well unfortunately if the tank was at the frontline and already shooting at your buddies or logistic support could not be destroyed or tampered with, this was the most reliable weapon. even if logistics are destroyed, there is still a tank driving around
"...my streaming service,Nebula"
No,comrade. Our.
This video is absolutely fantastic. History, story telling, production.
Hey bud, where you been? Hope you're doing OK. Weird to see such a talented artist like yourself just disappear, how it doesn't have to do with the war. Anyway just wishing you the best if you see this!
6:14 "Arrest / Execute Engineer (Optional)" This would be hilarious if it wasn't true. Very well researched video.
so incredibly fun in war thunder tho. for some spaghetti code reason the first shot is always 100% exactly where your pipper is, and then after that it starts deflecting. so its super satisfying going headon with a p47 doing one click and watching the trajectory of the round land right on the upper part of the engine and knocking it out instantly.
Awesome history. Thank you.
8:13 Did it come to your mind that maybe Glukharev was the one behind the demise of the people around him? He was probably connected to some other official or KGB, and fed them information about those guys the whole time.
EDIT: I now read more comments here and apparently I can promote myself to the rank of Captain Obvious.
Every time I learn about the soviet union I'm amazed at how it managed to have such of a wealth of talented people despite executing so many of them for various silly reasons.
Perhaps watching the guy next door get killed, pushes you to be ingenious.
they're talented because if they're not, to the gulag they go
Think about talented people in our country. Some go to machine shops, some to wafer fabrication, some to making TVs, or cars, or water skis, chemical manufacture, food, advertising, the stock exchanges and so many other places you'd go silly before you named them all. I think the Soviets had a similar amount of geniuses at one point in time. But they killed a huge number of their creative and scientific minds, and it only seems like they had a huge pool to draw on in the military because these smart people were not being used in other places.
Consider how many genuinely intelligent people there are in the real estate business, or in cutting edge dental technology, or in any of the many many mature industries that America had which the Soviets either did not have, or had in a very demure state. Soviets could hardly keep up with America in war technology, but even to do that they fell behind in a thousand other little industries.
A guy like Steve Jobs, building new phones with spare parts he bummed off of engineers, and turning that into a business, would have had a much more difficult time getting off the ground in the USSR. And some people, if they don't have that opening, wither away, and their genius never blooms.
Can you imagine what the YAK-9T would do to morale on the German side? It's a plane that looks like any other plane, but hits so hard that one hit is almost certainly a kill shot, and occasionally can be used at ranges that are outside what you normally consider dangerously close (ie: needs to be actively watched so they don't line up a shot) That'd be a *terrifying* thing to know about when you're out and flying sorties, it's like being an infantryman who knows the enemy is fond of using snipers and has no idea if or when one of those soldiers they see off in the distance is gonna come out with one of those anti-tank sniper rifles instead of a normal combat rifle.
Air-cobra also got 37mm canon and germans by the end of the war had 30mm mk108 canon, so YAK-9T was not a surprise
Well you first need proper pilots in these planes to affect the morale of the enemy.
@@miskatonic6210 as been said above Yak-9T was almost indistinguishable from other Yak-9 modifications on the decision making distance (to engage head on or not) and was capable of bringing any enemy fighter down with just single hit. It was a fact that after appearance of Yak-9T FW-190 pilots started to evade head on attacks on Yaks.
thanks for this amazing content . You bring a context ,to the table ,witch is as important
No wonder the Soviets loved the P39 Airacobra / P63 King Cobra with their M4 37mm cannon shooting through the spinner.
This is a very good point. I even thought of touching it briefly in this video. If you take, let's say, top-10 Soviet aces, most of them scored the majority of their victories while flying Cobras. I think only 1 or 2 (can't check it right now) flew Yaks through all the war: Vorozheykin and Glinka (I'm not sure, though). And I remember for sure Vorozheykin flew Yak-9T at some point. However, don't quote me on this. I'm going to need to check it later :).
Anyways, I decided to keep it for another video. But you are absolutely right about the love for Cobra in the Soviet Air Force.
@@PaperSkiesAviation The main difference between the cannons is that the US built one had considerably lower muzzle velocity. It still had enough recoil to pose serious problems in operation. I have a hard time imagining why the russians put so much propellent in that cartridge. Even after the war the new version they put out had less propellent but still probably more by half again what would have been reasonable. The whole point to using (bomb)shells is that you don't need to rely on velocity to generage power. Get the shell on target, doesn't matter if it hits hard or touches down gently, the shell does the work once it gets to the target. The rational reason to put more propellent in a round like that is to get more range, but clearly the round was effective at many times the range it could be effectively used in combat, at least mounted in an airplane. What were they thinking? Was this because the same round was used in ground based AA guns? Were any of them actually effective at greater ranges?
@@laughingdaffodils5450
The Soviets did lots of wacky things due to their EXTREME top down management practices.
The engineers would come up with an idea, then almost every manager and director above them would add their own (frequently ill conceived and unfounded) part to the idea that by the time it went into production and use, it might have only been 40% the engineering of the original design and then everything else was added later by various officials.
Mostly it was a disastrous process, but that’s where the idea of using a wildly over-powered cannon round certainly came from.
I remember reading somewhere that they removed the canons as soon as they received the planes. That much like the Yak, the 37mm wasn't useable.
I think they liked the plane for other reasons.
@@FOX11GUY it was dismounted rarely, mostly due to logistics troubles with ammunition.
I love your channel I just discovered it a few weeks ago, great videos great history, you have really high production value with great delivery style.
Thx for your
That ship recoilless is hilarious
Thank you for the video, hope you're safe, everything considered.
As usual with your videos, this one was excellent.
Yak-9: pew pew pew
Yak-9T: Surprise, dirtbags!
If found this to be an excellent video. It was informative and had some good humor included while giving us the story.
Amazing quality video. Gonna be watching regularly now for sure!
I think this is one of your best videos yet. Super tight editing and script! The segment about Glukharev's career was awesome. Keep at it dude!
This is an excellent documentary.
amazing video as always
You are a fantastic story teller.
Excellent! So good I had to watch it twice.
Very good video!
The Mig 25 had a similar issue. It was perfectly developed for a role that was not necessary.
I really enjoyed this video, thanks. I recently bought a kit of the Yak 9T/K as I haven't built one before and I was intrigued by the massive cannon it carried. I didn't know anything about it's use or capabilities but I do now thanks to your research, glad I wasn't born in the USSR during the thirties and forties!
"Fighter"
"Armed with two 76mm cannons"
Holy shit. You're putting 3 inch guns on a light fighter?
Love your channel.
Was fun using it in WT arcade battles back in 2014 tho..
Thank you for your documentaries, and all the best to you and your family!
Glukharev must’ve been very annoyed, not fearful by the transfers.
Most likely Glukharev was sabotaging his colleague's work & reporting them as conspirators to their superiors!
The PTB-23, I knew exactly what would happen when I first say the name in the vid. (the gun is useable in War Thunder, in the I-301, prototype LaGG-3)
Really makes you wonder how much more effective the Soviets could have been in so many areas if there wasn't all the backstabbing and paranoia.
ONE USA is quite bad enough, tah very much.
@@stevewatson6839 I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure how that comment has anything to do with what I said.
even then the real difficulty of engineering is manufacturing.
@@airmanfpv964 "Oh that's a wonderful design! Now, how do we build it?"
Their paranoia was justified considered that even a marshal like Tukhachevisky was negotiating with the Germans, and everyone knew it, even the Japanese.
I don't know if it was on purpose, but that Glukharev portrait and that darn knowing smirk is just perfect.
@ 07:49. That Spitfire B wing, what a shame. Imagine what that would be worth now, even with the resulting damage...
Another awesome video!
Fantastic video! Thanks for covering these almost unknown topics in the west! 👍
I was craving another one of these videos, and this hit the spot. Aw yiss.
Nice vid dude. It seems like being anywhere near Stalin was hazardous to your health and your families health and probably your friends health too . Glad it's not like that in Russia now ... oh wait.
Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent. You needed to be just competent enough to carry out orders, and have enough sense to know when to die in combat.
@@slappy8941 ...or if you were breathing air on any day of the week ending in y.
@@slappy8941 Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent, or if one of your close friends was either, or if one of your family was either, or if your neighbor told the police you weren't a good communist, or that a family member wasn't a good communist, or... Wait... Yeah maybe he was *a fucking monster and we need to accept that*.
@@maximsavage Nice one)
@@slappy8941 Stalin rewarded only the most competent people in the central comitee
Excellent video! Rare photos!
I loved the Yak 9 as a fighter in the Combat Flight Simulator IL-2 Forgotten Battles ! There was something so satisfying about blowing the wings right off an enemy plane with just a hit or two ! 😝
Great job with your video and research again mate!
Your video is top👌 as always! Welcome back 😉
"I'm sorry but he can't have a meeting with you at the moment because he has been executed."
I hope you are well Paper Skies!
I do so love your productions :) All the best to you mon amie!
Could you possibly put together a Video dedicated to the Soviet "BEAR"?
Next to the B-52, I have always been fascinated with the "BEAR"!
I can't pass-up a video that might contain the kind of ruthless pwnage promised by this title.
6:41 I mean, he did develop ineffective weapons that caused harm to the USSR.
As an engineer who has seen politics I have to say that killing influencial guys with bad ideas has appeal.
@@0MoTheG I agree
Apparently tank-busting aircraft in WW2 were... somewhat exaggerated in their performance.
In fact, tank-busting aircraft weren't that much of a thing unless they had PGMs. In which case they could absolutely demolish tanks.
Fantastic video and I loved the Communist Engineering Cycle slide at 6:12
Hi Paper Skies! Just letting you know I miss your videos, real pieces of art! Hope you are doing well and wish you the best!
even though its a classic example of an engineers dream and an end users nightmare, i love bonking german planes with high explosive rounds of the yak 9t in il2. i hope they model the flaws more accurately (especially the tailspin one)
In other nation, having bad performance at work, or produce bellow expectations only cause risk to career, in Soviet, with codification of вредительство as crime it even risk one's life.
I don't think it can accurately being translated into "treason" because its not that simple.
And dont forget having your entire family sent to gulag
Basically "вредитель" is close in meaning to "parasite", basically standing for a person wasting the resources and time on useless concepts, possibly with the goal of hurting or stalling the overall development of the project or a whole branch.
Randomly watching this as RUclips's algorithm suggested it to me, not really that interested in the subject but have been blown away by the editing in this video. Really good stuff!
Id really recommand his Booze video.
In War Thunder, the Yak-9T is hard to use as the NS-37 is quite inaccurate, but when it hits, the enemy airplane disintegrates into pieces.
i love the moment when i got only 2 clips of the NS-37 but able to bring down a vertical looping BF-110
You know gaming isn't reality right ?
the one in 9T/9K is ok to shoot in single shots at 500ish meters, and the one on jets is basically an automatic shotgun
@@snowflakemelter1172 Gaming is a part of reality....it's the part that is gaming.
@@chonqmonk games not reality, the clue is that the makers of the games have never had any experince of the weapons they write into the games.
Excellent presentation. It makes one think about what might have happened if Russia had gone into Capitalism. Some very brilliant engineers and weapons designers would have, in all likelihood, have had much greater budgets and less recriminations in failure of prototypes. Seeing design come to fruition without fear would have produced some game-changing weaponry.
Maybe, it's an interesting idea at least. You could sort of spin post-Gorbachev Russia as sort of like this, and it's hard to tell if strictly the capitalist aspect has been beneficial since then, but I'm guessing you meant in the interwar era through the end of WWII specifically. I guess, what I'd be interested to see would be how this would affect Russia or any given country more broadly, or even with more varieties of economic and government systems. Say, suppose FDR was challenged in Supreme Court for going against (until then) implied term limits; would the New Deal have gone through, would social security exist, or how different would it be? Would people be more or less aware and receptive of how socialist his economic policies were, and how would that affect recovery from the Depression and how the Lost Generation and Silent Generation's culture evolved? Or for airplanes, would the Canadian Avro Arrow have seen service if Britain hadn't nationalized and merged its aeronautic companies as much, or say if it nationalized them but allowed them to be independent, or would that saturate their R&D with even more half finished projects cancelled for going over-budget? Or maybe if there were just a few more manned space crashes, ICBM tech might not have come as far and bomber-intercept aircraft could still have more of a role? I'm not sure, you made me think though, so that was neat. Anyway, I hope you have a nice day, and stay safe y'all.
Seems like the communist system would've worked fine if they just stopped shooting their best engineers.
in that case most potential russian engineers would be starving beggars or working on farms
Yeah, engineers in the US had the advantage of learning from their mistakes and improving on them.
@@KekusMagnus They already were in USSR. IT wasn't uncommon for scientists or engineers to work a second low skilled job such as janitor to meet their ends.
Engineering with out room for extensive failure isn't engineering at all. It's a miracle they got anything done..... One of the most solid engineering sayings "fail fast".
Could you do a video on the german use of the 30mm on BF-109s, and what the soviets thought of them?
Pointless from the Russian side. It a gun that have, low velocity, low rate of fire, but a high explosive shell, that is superior to take out heavy bombers, but suboptimal against everything else. A 30mm shell could crippel a heavy bomber with 1-2 hits, but you needed 20 hits by a 20mm shell to crippel a heavy bomber.
And now we have an aircraft in wide use that's main gun produces so much recoil that after only a few seconds of firing it can knock itself out of the sky.
As I had to look it up - it seems the vague consensus on the difference between a machine gun and a cannon is that a machine gun fires inert bullets (slugs) while a cannon fires explosive rounds (shells). The former puts a hole in your wing you leg it for base, the latter removes the wing and you die horribly.
Although plenty of sources suggest it's all about calibre and others that some machine guns can fire both types of rounds. :/
@Paper Skies - care to clarify your use of the words?
Machine guns and cannons (in this case autocannons) both fall under the broad category of "gun"
Machine guns tend to be 50 caliber, 12.7mm or less, (although the Soviets did have a 14mm machine gun) and primarily fire solid bullets (although high explosive and incendiary rounds for them do exist.)
Autocannons tend to be 20mm and up, (although Germany did have a 15mm autocannon,) and normally fire shells of some description, (although solid armor piercing rounds for them are also a thing.)
One standard is that anything bigger than .50 Caliber (12.7mm) is a cannon. Of course, that is the US opinion for legal reasons and even rifle caliber weapons can fire explosive ammunition. Just not very explosive.
The difference between a gun and a canon is rather arbitrary. Some people consider just the calibre, some the types of bullets.
Most people nowadays consider canons to start at 20 mm.
A "machine gun" is a gun that operates "full auto" - it cycles by machine, without a human needing to work the action or trigger each shot individually. As far as I can recall every gun mounted on a production airplane since WWI has been a machine gun - it wouldn't make sense to use anything else.
A cannon is a gun designed to fire shells rather than bullets, just as you say. Cannons a few centuries back were several inches in diameter minimum, but better explosives decreased the requirement quite a bit. Today we generally figure 20mm, though there were some 15mm attempts they were marginal. There have been .50 cal (12.7mm) HE rounds but the amount of explosive that can be packed is minimal and no one's designing a .50 cal with the intention of it being used primarily to deliver HE, therefore the .50 cal is not considered a cannon. The terms as defined are not mutually exclusive - a fully automatic weapon designed to fire shells would be both a machine gun and a cannon - however as machine gun is so commonly used to refer to .50 cal and smaller weapons, a device which is both a machine gun and a cannon will usually be referred to as an "auto-cannon" instead.
The thing that strikes me as oddest about this soviet 37mm is the high velocity of the load. The whole point to a cannon is that with a shell you don't need kinetic energy to do the damage, you only need enough propellent to get the shell on target then you rely on the payload to do the damage.
Postwar the NS-37 was replaced by the N-37, with 1/4th less muzzle velocity and a lower rate of fire, and that was a step in the right direction, but it was still overpowered for the application. They could have settled for less than half that velocity, greatly reducing the recoil problems and permitting more ammo to be carried in the same space, with little if any loss of effectiveness for air combat at
You forget a very important aspect of velocity: flight time. The shorter the time is between the gun being fired and the projectile reaching the point of aim, the less less distance movement of the target has to be taken into account.
It is interesting that the test range where the gun is being fired looks identical to the one used in the video about the 30mm gatling in the MiG-27.
You missed another time when the gun was actually used to great extent. War Thunder, where Yak-9T finally had its moment to shine. Arcade battles' skies were filled with these planes mounted with 1 hit kill fridge launchers.