Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/RexsHangar Follow the link to download the game to get a premium tank, aircraft AND ship, along with a seven day account boost just for downloading. F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
@@Tomyironmane Most of the more successful Soviet tractors were indeed based on American designs. Their basic artillery tractor used in the "Great Patriotic War" was an almost direct copy of a Fordson tracked vehicle. But I'd not go so far as to say their farm tractors were "crappy". In most cases, they were very rugged and reliable, as with the generally bad weather in Russia, they have to be! OTOH, they weren't known for comfort, even though in most cases they were driven by women, simply because the tractor driver wasn't perceived as hard labor.
Drilling holes to stop the propagation of cracks is common in aviation. I do it all the time in restoring antiques but even newer planes use this technique.When I was in the USAF T-38 wings were starting to crack and a program of replacement was started. However, in the planes awaiting new wings were still flown and the mechanics would follow the cracks progress by spraying zinc chromate paint on the cracks and drill new holes as the cracks got longer. These planes were flown until a predetermined number of cracks appeared which triggered grounding and wing replacement. BTW if a wing DID fall off the resulting rapid spin rate would have made the ejection seats bind in their tracks making them useless.
This is indeed correct, I should have followed up by stating that for the TB-3 they just drilled the holes with almost no follow up (most of the time, in latter years they did improve this). I just found the idea of a soviet engineer running around with a hand-drill post-flight to be highly comical.
When I choose to wedge tenons in a sash I'm making I will sometimes drill holes at the ends of the saw kerfs to stop a split developing in the rail. Joiner here...
@@RexsHangar I mean to be fair the idea of a modern day USAF technician running around with a power drill seemingly randomly drilling holes into a jet fighter is even more hilarious to me :D
"Everything possible was done to reduce drag". That's slightly at odds with the design principle of this aircraft which seems to have been: Do everything possible to CREATE drag.
@@Itsjustme-Justme Nope, they had a lot, and not just on account of wing thickness. Their wing and fuselage were built in seven (if I remember correct) big sections in order this plane to be suited for railway transportation - and since quality of fitting was low there were gaps up to half a meter wide (rarely this big though) inbetween It got better through time but still
@@Itsjustme-Justme That's probably because drag got intimidated and decided to bother those other designs that weren't build on the aerodynamic principle of "COME ON IF YER THINK YER HARD ENOUG!!!
Thing is: TB-3 did its bombing from horizontal flight using not the best sight in the world, so accuracy wasn't great. But it could carry much and fly far. And tiny I-16 fighter was capable of precision dive bombing, but suffered from short operational range and low payload. So you take a big TB-3 and attach two small I-16s to it - both with a pair of 250-kg (500-lb) bombs to make yourself a one ton of a long-range precision bombing Thing was dubbed a "Vakhmistrov's circus". Not much fun for romanians, though, cuz some clowns eventually burned their oil refinery
@@gorrugor256 Not ust that, the clown plane TB-3 will vomit out a hilariously large number of I-16 which in turn will vomit out a hilariously large number of 250ib bombs, and then it will crash. With confetti and gladiatorial entry music of course
Andrei,s TB-3 was a step in the right direction,so much potential wrapped in that giant corrugated tin shed, but let down by its crap engines fed on equally crap petrol,. In the late 1920,s early 30,s Russian aero engineering had yet to divorce itself from its agricultural beginnings, clearly evident in the cloning of ex WW 1 Airco DH-4,s, Avro 504,s and other aeronautical rubbish, they happened to pick up. Andrei did not want to be a part of that thinking, so he started on something small, a tidy yet ulitarian fighter, just to get used to working with Mr Junker,s corrugated tin, then a tidy looking single engine two seat biplane light bomber to replace those re cycled DH-4,s,and take on Nikolai Polikarpov,s R-5. His big break came when the Russian Brass hats wanted a decent bomber to equip units of the VVS . Impressed at what Andrei had cooking on the stove, they tossed him a spec for a twin engine bomber the size of a Douglas DC-2. After a good deal of boiling stirring several pots then stoking said stove came up with the TB-1 a really cool looking cantilever twin engine monoplane, yes cats&kittens no excess of struts or wires holding it together like bloody budgie cage,all that in 1925-26.The Brass Hats liked what Andrei cooked up , apart from its tail plane braced by chicken wire,the open cockpits, crude divided tail skid undercarriage and tractor like engines twirling fixed pitch wooden propellers Andrei,s TB-1 was like nothing on earth extremely clean.Despite the crap tractor engines burning petrol you have second thoughts when filling the tank of your lawnmower . It showed decent performance bomb load in the trying conditions a good Siberian winter can offer.
It could not reach anywhere near really cold temperatures - service ceiling was only 3800 meters. That's with new engines, fine gas on a nice summer day. The Aviaarktika variants, built for extreme winter operations, had proper enclosed cockpits and none of this dustbin nonsense.
However, provided that they are shielded on all sides but the rear, they may have been even more comfortable than those positions at the back, which were exposed to the elements at all sides. Looks are not evrythring.
At 14:10, you express disdain for the Soviet method of repairing Aluminum Skin Cracks. The practice of drilling holes at the head of a skin crack, and then fishplating a piece of aluminum over the crack is STILL used today on modern military and commercial aircraft. My father, a Maintenance Instructor for United Air Lines, showed me how it was done. I have personally examined Boeing 747s and 767s where skin cracks have been repaired in this manner. It is, in fact, a form of repair that is approved and certificated by the United States FAA regulations.
Yes, I was structural repair in USAF in 69-73. Stop drilling in certain areas was common and the first repair taught. On top of a B-52 wing there are 2 foot long cracks with several stop drilled spots. If it cracked again, stop drill again. What ever works !
Supposedly Andrei Tuplolev bragged (or rued, depending on POV) that if the Politburo gave him the directive to build a flying bulldozer, he could fashion a big enough set of wings and empennage, and hang enough engines on the beast to get it airborne. The TB-3 is further evidence he did indeed get that directive!
Funny you should mention that, because Tupolev actually did design a flying tank/bulldozer/tractor. Apparently, it had plenty of power, and unsurprisingly was nearly indestructible in and out of the air, but predictably was quite unstable and unmaneuverable.
Finally, my favourite bomber plane! First saw it back in some of the early Il-2 Sturmovik games (ace expansion pack, I believe) and have loved it ever since! It is easy for beginners: open cockpit, fixed gear, slow take off and landings, ability for the gunners to shoot the plane up- uhh, scratch the last one, but it's good! Edit: Wow, Il-2 forgot to model the tiny windows along the fuselage- their model only has the front square ones.
Another crazy experiment they did was to place positions along the wing for soldiers with a small windscreen and handles . The idea was to drop troops without parachutes into deep snow. Flying low and slow they released their grip and slid off the wing. Apparently it worked fairly well with few casualties . Don't know the colour of their Berets , but can guess the colour of their pants.
If you want to insert special forces but lack parachute silk, what can you do? Finnish ski patrols found quite a few soldiers head down in the snow, weighted down by their backpacks.
It never fails to amaze me how long designers working with low-power engines, who knew about aerodynamic efficiency, hung stuff willy-nilly out in the wind stream.
The slower the plane, the less bad it actually was. So with something huge like the TB3, things like the underwing turrets adds surprisingly little air resistance, despite looking like they should be huge breaks.
@@ridhosamudro2199 not as true with aircraft as most other things since they're inherently high tech. The Soviets became much more concerned with rapid cheap production after the Germans invaded but in the 20s and 30s Stalin had delusions of competing with other world powers in the aerospace industry and in related combat fields. This wasnt Stalins only giant impractical bomber and he had paratroopers training when he didnt even have the ability to drop them in behind enemy lines or even transport most of them by air.
@@arthas640 Delusions? He succeeded. Hermann Goering bemoaned the USSR's production capability after visiting one of their aircraft factories that was able to produce a sizeable portion of Germany's entire production. As far as training paratroopers without sufficient airdrop capability goes the USSR was far from the only power that did this.
Not sure if you'll see this, but there's an old documentary series kicking around somewhere on the internet called "wings of russia", I remember that the TB-3 was featured in an episode, with footage to go with it, might be a decent spot to pull footage from for more obscure aircraft. There's even whole episodes dedicated to very early jets and ekranoplans. Great vid as always, amazing to see how y'all have grown :)
I find these oddball, inter-war designs fascinating. They're just experimenting, trying things we know, with the benefit of hindsight, were not going to work. The weak engines didn't help any - at the end of the war a fighter engine had more horsepower than all the engines on this plane combined.
@@GeorgeMonet Why? It did everything it was intended to do, plus a few things it was never designed for, and did its own part to help win World War 2 even though it was hopelessly obsolete by then... what more do you want from a plane?
@@GeorgeMonet It was the first all-metal 4-engined bomber in operational service in the world. It seems silly to look back with the advances made during WW2 and the Cold War but in the 1920s designers didn't really know what they were doing and they weren't going to learn it by drawing on a chalkboard.
Are you saying that full-metal 4-engine bomber was an idea which was not going to work? B-17 and B-29 would strongly disagree with you. For its time this was an innovative and progressive thinking. Don't forget that just 10-15 years before this project began people were flying on what can be described as chairs with paper wings. What did not help was devastation of the country by the revolution and following civil war, otherwise this project would have been completed much earlier and successfully replaced by the end of 1930s with newer designs. But it served its purpose well - moved forward the aircraft engineering school in the USSR, allowed people to get necessary experience and test many ideas. For example, in 1937 another Tupolev's design made non-stop flights from Moscow to Portland and from Moscow to California, and only 25 years after beginning of TB-3 project (i.e. in 1950) both Tupolev and Mikulin (the engine creator) made an extremely successful jet bomber Tu-16.
Drilling cracks is standard repair procedure for many modern aircraft. It' quite common to see a modern cessna or beech with a few drilled out cracks here and there.
Using a stick to check fuel quantity is the preferred method. A watch will tell you fuel remaining. Hard to use a stick while underway. My first airplane didn't have a fuel quantity indicator. Fill it up and fill it again 2 1/2 hours later
Just seeing the thumbnail gives me hard Il-2: FB flashbacks... either the thing as a "flying aircraft carrier" in the Zveno config with 2 I-16s or just those hilarious TB-3 only "dogfights". And it's been 20 years ago already...
We will never have an accurate number of deaths acreddited with the great Society experiment of Lenon, and Stalin. After the first 20 or so million die, counting seems unimportant.
Being a military historian that focuses on mechanized warfare the parasite fighter concept has always intrigued me. From the TB-3 to the Goblin prototypes I always thought it would be a cool idea. In a fictional military story I co-wrote a few years ago we envisioned a very high altitude, very large semi ridged airship that was pretty much a slow flying aircraft carrier.
In the 60's there was a proposal to hang two Folland Gnats under an up powered Vulcan. Each Gnat was to be armed with a couple of free falling nuclear bombs. Basically two manned cruise missiles. Wisely it was not proceeded with.
I have always loved the look of these old aircraft made with the corrugated metal. Maybe you should do a video on how much lift and control suffers or if it's not affected that much at all as far as smooth skin for this Ford facing core gauge skin.
The landing wheels of the Tupolev TB3, do not have a diameter anywhere near 2 meters (metric) or 6 feet ,6 & ¾ inches (imperial), @9:02 you can see centre of the picture men gathered around the landing gear of the aircraft. In the centre of the portside gear is a man in light coloured high boots (roughly up to his mid shin), he stands taller than the wheel. So if his feet are on the ground, and they clearly are in the photograph, add to which, that he is surrounded by other men working as a group on or around this portside gear, and he stands taller than the wheel clearly by his side to his and our left (his back to us) is roughly chest height, then either the wheel is not 2 metres in diameter or he is 7 feet 9 inches tall. I know which I think is most likely. It is my suggestion that the photograph shows an adaption or modification not chronicled or the information is ambiguous or intentionally misleading to throw off spies and agents, who knows. However, the photograph clearly shows that the landing gear wheel is definitely smaller than the man next to it and he certainly is not over 7 feet 6 inches (2.28 metres) tall. Not unless the whole ground crew are exceptionally tall people even less likely. What did Sherlock Holmes reportedly say _"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, _*_however improbable_*_ , must be the truth"._
- I want a plane to drop planes, Mikhail. - You mean a plane that drop bombs, that's a bomber, Pietro. - I know what a bomber is. I want a PLANE that DROP smaller PLANES, with BOMBS inside - Wait, bombs in the bomber, or bombs in the planes that the bomber carries? - Both. - Fair enough
Everytime I see early Tupolevs I'm amazed by how modern their overall geomentry is. Tupolev was top notch back then. Warthunder did a fantastic job with that rendering. I wish one of these bombers was still existing and flying. It had 30% more wingspan than a B-17. It would be a truely majestic sight on airshows.
Nah, that wasn't it. There were experiments of mounting man-sized boxes under R-5's lower wing with a pilot controlled mechanism that turns this box upside down when it's jumping time) Thing was called "Automatical Red Army soldier Ejector" and I'm NOT joking
1. Fanstastic video about a unquie and amazing aircraft. Very good camera work and nice pictures too. 2. Best and cleares Advert for War Thunder I've even seen. Wekk done.
Those “dustbin” gun positions are nuts! How did they get anyone to agree to man them? By giving it to somebody who had an even worse job climbing around inside the wings.
Same method of "recruitment" for the rear gunner on an Il-2 Sturmovik: PUNISHMENT BRIGADES. Get a "volunteer", which actually weren't lacking, as the alternative was to clear minefields while under fire from the Germans or be the lead battalions assaulting their trenches. Give him enough training on how to fire and reload the weapon. Take him to the aircraft, and chain him to his position with NO parachute. If the aircraft gets hit, likely he's the first target for German fighters anyway, so why bother giving a perfectly good 'chute to a dead convict? The "incentive"? A complete PARDON after 25 missions, with restoration of rank and a return to his former unit, assuming that's still intact. Of course, not too many actually SURVIVED 25 missions, so either way, for Soviet Army personnel officers, a "winning combination".
@@selfdo considering these guys were also flight engineers, I'm gonna say probably no... a lot of WW2 bombers had horribly uncomfortable crew positions, and these guys were already obsolete by then. Remember they didn't spend the entire flight in those turrets, they'd only go down there if there was an actual risk of enemy attack.
"The dustin turret could be jettisoned".... Jesus Christ! imagine knowing that as you climbed into it... as if climbing into something like that isn't anxiety inducing enough without knowing that it's literally designed to fall off!
The 76mm cannon armed aircraft was the Grohovskiy G-52. According to published sources, the prototype had the front gun position removed and a 76mm cannon installed. That worked well enough that a more advanced version was trialed with the wing-mounted cannons outboard of the outboard engines; this was not successful. If anyone is interested, I can provide references.
Dynamo-jet cannon (ДРП) of Kurchevsky. The topic ДРП was closed because Kurchevski was a protégé of Marshal Tukhachevsky. Both were shot as enemies of the people.
@@EGORLAZOUSKI Yes, and there is evidence that they were set up by the Germans who were doing everything they could to weaken the USSR before they invaded them.
According to Russian sources, it was used as a day bomber on early stages due to the lack of alternatives and obviously suffered severe losses. As war went on, it switched to a night bombing, at which proved to be quite effective, and here's why: first, crews got long training well before the conflict and where some sort of airforce elite; second, slow speed meant enough time to spot the target in dark and to aim precisely; third it could cruise at speed even lower than stall speed of German fighters, making the interception quite tricky for latter; finally, construction itself proved to be robust and could survive significant damage. It can somehow be compared to Po-2 or Fairey Swordfish, when outdated design was turned to own good. But it couldn't last forever (even Swordfish was finally replaced), and in late 1942 TB-3 switched from combat missions to military and civil air transportation. Thanks for video, great as always!
Fantastic! Love the war thunder graphics to show us the TB-3 in full colour and resolution, as it looked in real life. Definitely adds a cool angle to the videos
At 20:09 your pronunciation of Vhakistrov Zvyeno was pretty good. Your pronunciation of Danube at 21:40 or so was a little strange, as in English the name is usually pronounced DanYOOB.
Now I know where they got the term "parasitic aircraft" from. Some Navy dirigibles had scout biplanes (wheel less) hanging from a trapeze upper wing mount and who can ever forget the Goblin.
Many years ago I heard the story of a man who had just completed rebuilding his glider after major repairs when he noticed a small crack on his canopy. So he got his drill out and carefully drilled each end of the crack. Finished he stood up and his thigh bumped his glider and the crack moved. Moral of the story, make sure it is a crack and not a hair on the surface
Before this video, I'd only ever seen the footage of the paratroopers sliding off the wings, and assumed this aircraft was just some kind of anachronistic joke.
Those wing guns give me nightmares. Imagine being dangled under the wing of a flying barge in an easy-to-jettison metal diaper with no insulation, staring down an enemy fighter.
God I wish Gaijin brought this back into the game, I got gyped back when it was up for an event reward. RNGesus "blessed" me with the hydroplane version of the He. 51B instead
Thank you, a very interesting vid. I always saw them as the next generation following the Sikorsky Ilya Muromet, which I understand is still on display in Russia. That was another interesting "super bomber". Its build depended on whatever engines could be imported from France and later dropped whatever bombs could be scraped together. It mostly survived because it was too valuable to actually be used.
I know this thing from SSI's War in Russia. It is mainly used as a Air Transport to drop supplies like the Ju52 was on the other side. Unlike the 52 though it was still available for bombing missions and it had a fearsome range. Thanks to it the Axis needs to provide air defence as far as Vienna and Ploesti. It was suicide to actually try to hit those targets but the threat was all it took to siphon off valuable 109's. All I'd ever seen of this was a tiny top silhouette (a few pixels across really) and imagined it to be a handsome sleek plane what with that range and bombload. You can imagine my surprise to see it here and behold one of the ugliest planes I've ever seen.
Well, they finally added a tail gunner, which Sikorsky had thought of 20 years earlier on the Ilya Mourometz. I find Russian aviation history endlessly fascinating.
Honestly, I think thick electrical cables were a good thing. The last thing you want is a failure because something is grounding and the cable needs to be thick to take combat damage. I am no expert, but I always use wire of 2 gauges larger than I need.
I suspect that there is some confusion between TB-3 and DB-3. The latter were more numerous, they flew daytime missions, and took the most hits. The far less common TB-3 flew mostly by night, and their losses were accordingly smaller. One TB-3 was shot by flak, another by fighters. All other losses were non-combat accidents.
My grandmother witnessed these things bombing joensuu Back in winter war. She told that their engine sound was like someone was pouring thousands upon thousands of potatoes into a big tin bucket
@@emuthestreamerbtw9393 yeah, well. Her words May sound odd to a modern people bu she grew up in 1930's Finnish countryside. Potatoes drumming a tin vessel is The closest sounds she could Link it to, And tbh at least to me its a very good way of describing it.
So The Soviets are technically the only nation to successfully use the Parasite Fighter concept. The fighters worked, and the mothership worked as well. Unlike the US Airships, where the mothership absolutely sucked, or the Goblin+B36 concept where the Goblin was completely useless.
![A Forgotten Hero of The Pacific War | Vought-Sikorsky OS2U ‘Kingfisher’ [Historical Deep-Dive]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L74LQlzTD84/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/RexsHangar Follow the link to download the game to get a premium tank, aircraft AND ship, along with a seven day account boost just for downloading.
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Stopped playing it, because full of cheaters back then. Uninstalled it and restored the peace of mind.
Son of a bitch can you please shorten your fkn commercials?!
No!
Saying Warthunder can be run on a potato laptop is risky business. I tried to run it on my Dell from 2014, and that did not go well.
This video was far beyond anything I could've imagined when I (and probably others) first requested it many moons ago.
Have always had a soft spot for aircraft that looked like they were made out of farm equipment
Like the Boing 737 ?
More or less most Soviet bombers and transports of that era resemble farm tractors with wings and propellers.
Yeah, but there's a difference between an American tractor and the DC-3, and a crappy Soviet tractor and the TB-3
@@Tomyironmane Most of the more successful Soviet tractors were indeed based on American designs. Their basic artillery tractor used in the "Great Patriotic War" was an almost direct copy of a Fordson tracked vehicle. But I'd not go so far as to say their farm tractors were "crappy". In most cases, they were very rugged and reliable, as with the generally bad weather in Russia, they have to be! OTOH, they weren't known for comfort, even though in most cases they were driven by women, simply because the tractor driver wasn't perceived as hard labor.
I mean they did win the war, the Me 262 did not :)
Drilling holes to stop the propagation of cracks is common in aviation. I do it all the time in restoring antiques but even newer planes use this technique.When I was in the USAF T-38 wings were starting to crack and a program of replacement was started. However, in the planes awaiting new wings were still flown and the mechanics would follow the cracks progress by spraying zinc chromate paint on the cracks and drill new holes as the cracks got longer. These planes were flown until a predetermined number of cracks appeared which triggered grounding and wing replacement. BTW if a wing DID fall off the resulting rapid spin rate would have made the ejection seats bind in their tracks making them useless.
This is indeed correct, I should have followed up by stating that for the TB-3 they just drilled the holes with almost no follow up (most of the time, in latter years they did improve this). I just found the idea of a soviet engineer running around with a hand-drill post-flight to be highly comical.
As a Union Boilermaker Tubewelder we do it quite often ourselves. In my Craft it’s called Killing the Crack.
When I choose to wedge tenons in a sash I'm making I will sometimes drill holes at the ends of the saw kerfs to stop a split developing in the rail.
Joiner here...
@@RexsHangar I mean to be fair the idea of a modern day USAF technician running around with a power drill seemingly randomly drilling holes into a jet fighter is even more hilarious to me :D
@@RexsHangar So, not an actual criticism, just all too typically a snide dig at a piece of Russian engineering.
"Everything possible was done to reduce drag". That's slightly at odds with the design principle of this aircraft which seems to have been: Do everything possible to CREATE drag.
Well, 1,5 meter thick wing also generated enough lift for this plane to be able to take off with FOUR fighters attached
Compared to virtually every other mid 1920's bomber design the early Tupolevs had sigificantly less drag.
Intolerable vibration in the 1920's must be epic...😳
@@Itsjustme-Justme Nope, they had a lot, and not just on account of wing thickness. Their wing and fuselage were built in seven (if I remember correct) big sections in order this plane to be suited for railway transportation - and since quality of fitting was low there were gaps up to half a meter wide (rarely this big though) inbetween
It got better through time but still
@@Itsjustme-Justme That's probably because drag got intimidated and decided to bother those other designs that weren't build on the aerodynamic principle of "COME ON IF YER THINK YER HARD ENOUG!!!
Ah, good ol' TB-3 from my days of playing Il-2 Sturmovik. Extra large, generous bomb load, very stable and totally sitting duck.
The stableness isnt modeled correctly then :D When you look at them formation-flying it seems like every single one is drunk
It's in war thunder too :)
Top Luftwaffe ace Erich Hartmann racked up a good deal of his 352 confirmed kills at the expense of Soviet bombers and transports.
@@PilotAwe I mean... interwar Russians, so they probably _are..._
@@seand.g423 just Russians....there thats enough. Doesnt matter what time period
Thing is: TB-3 did its bombing from horizontal flight using not the best sight in the world, so accuracy wasn't great. But it could carry much and fly far. And tiny I-16 fighter was capable of precision dive bombing, but suffered from short operational range and low payload. So you take a big TB-3 and attach two small I-16s to it - both with a pair of 250-kg (500-lb) bombs to make yourself a one ton of a long-range precision bombing
Thing was dubbed a "Vakhmistrov's circus". Not much fun for romanians, though, cuz some clowns eventually burned their oil refinery
Russian problems require Russian solutions
What happens next with "precision" dive bombers I-16 ? Do they heroically smash in some target on enemy territories :-))
@@gorrugor256 Not ust that, the clown plane TB-3 will vomit out a hilariously large number of I-16 which in turn will vomit out a hilariously large number of 250ib bombs, and then it will crash.
With confetti and gladiatorial entry music of course
@@gorrugor256 They return back to airfied
Andrei,s TB-3 was a step in the right direction,so much potential wrapped in that giant corrugated tin shed, but let down by its crap engines fed on equally crap petrol,. In the late 1920,s early 30,s Russian aero engineering had yet to divorce itself from its agricultural beginnings, clearly evident in the cloning of ex WW 1 Airco DH-4,s, Avro 504,s and other aeronautical rubbish, they happened to pick up. Andrei did not want to be a part of that thinking, so he started on something small, a tidy yet ulitarian fighter, just to get used to working with Mr Junker,s corrugated tin, then a tidy looking single engine two seat biplane light bomber to replace those re cycled DH-4,s,and take on Nikolai Polikarpov,s R-5. His big break came when the Russian Brass hats wanted a decent bomber to equip units of the VVS . Impressed at what Andrei had cooking on the stove, they tossed him a spec for a twin engine bomber the size of a Douglas DC-2. After a good deal of boiling stirring several pots then stoking said stove came up with the TB-1 a really cool looking cantilever twin engine monoplane, yes cats&kittens no excess of struts or wires holding it together like bloody budgie cage,all that in 1925-26.The Brass Hats liked what Andrei cooked up , apart from its tail plane braced by chicken wire,the open cockpits, crude divided tail skid undercarriage and tractor like engines twirling fixed pitch wooden propellers Andrei,s TB-1 was like nothing on earth extremely clean.Despite the crap tractor engines burning petrol you have second thoughts when filling the tank of your lawnmower . It showed decent performance bomb load in the trying conditions a good Siberian winter can offer.
How did this not make it into a Ghibli movie ? This is the most Miyazaki airplane to exist in the real world.
The flying home base for air pirates!
It did! This plane was in “ The Windrise!” and shown in a parade during Jiro visited to Europe!
These crew positions are insane. The crew must have been frozen stiff and the lower wing/dustbin turrets are terrifying.
The gunners probably wouldn't have sat there all the way, only during times when enemy fighter opposition was likely
Yeah, but as Soviet Russians they were used to this sort of thing.
It could not reach anywhere near really cold temperatures - service ceiling was only 3800 meters. That's with new engines, fine gas on a nice summer day.
The Aviaarktika variants, built for extreme winter operations, had proper enclosed cockpits and none of this dustbin nonsense.
However, provided that they are shielded on all sides but the rear, they may have been even more comfortable than those positions at the back, which were exposed to the elements at all sides. Looks are not evrythring.
exposed cockpits and gunner positions were still a very common thing in the 20s and early 30s AFAIK?
At 14:10, you express disdain for the Soviet method of repairing Aluminum Skin Cracks.
The practice of drilling holes at the head of a skin crack, and then fishplating a piece of aluminum over the
crack is STILL used today on modern military and commercial aircraft. My father, a Maintenance Instructor
for United Air Lines, showed me how it was done. I have personally examined Boeing 747s and 767s where
skin cracks have been repaired in this manner. It is, in fact, a form of repair that is approved and certificated
by the United States FAA regulations.
By radius the end of the crack it reliefs the stress and stops further cracking. Yes it is the approved repair
Likely, every aircraft that Rex has ever flown in, had a crack repaired by a drill hole somewhere.
Or...SPEED TAPE! By "Gawd and Sonny Jesus", I shite you not.
Yes, I was structural repair in USAF in 69-73. Stop drilling in certain areas was common and the first repair taught. On top of a B-52 wing there are 2 foot long cracks with several stop drilled spots. If it cracked again, stop drill again. What ever works !
@@straybullitt drill holes and cable ties for me.
Supposedly Andrei Tuplolev bragged (or rued, depending on POV) that if the Politburo gave him the directive to build a flying bulldozer, he could fashion a big enough set of wings and empennage, and hang enough engines on the beast to get it airborne. The TB-3 is further evidence he did indeed get that directive!
Funny you should mention that, because Tupolev actually did design a flying tank/bulldozer/tractor. Apparently, it had plenty of power, and unsurprisingly was nearly indestructible in and out of the air, but predictably was quite unstable and unmaneuverable.
Finally, my favourite bomber plane! First saw it back in some of the early Il-2 Sturmovik games (ace expansion pack, I believe) and have loved it ever since! It is easy for beginners: open cockpit, fixed gear, slow take off and landings, ability for the gunners to shoot the plane up- uhh, scratch the last one, but it's good!
Edit: Wow, Il-2 forgot to model the tiny windows along the fuselage- their model only has the front square ones.
Yes!! The SPB missions were some of the coolest missions I’ve played in that game. Shame they didn’t have a stock campaign entirely dedicated to it
@@Eagle_the_18th mistel mission too
Another crazy experiment they did was to place positions along the wing for soldiers with a small windscreen and handles . The idea was to drop troops without parachutes into deep snow. Flying low and slow they released their grip and slid off the wing. Apparently it worked fairly well with few casualties . Don't know the colour of their Berets , but can guess the colour of their pants.
Did the Ruskies invent bubble wrap too?
If you want to insert special forces but lack parachute silk, what can you do? Finnish ski patrols found quite a few soldiers head down in the snow, weighted down by their backpacks.
!!!!!!!!
@@donreed If you have something intelligent to say , say it .
@@svennoren9047 its because enemy dont see big parachute and guy falling for a pretty long time.
It never fails to amaze me how long designers working with low-power engines, who knew about aerodynamic efficiency, hung stuff willy-nilly out in the wind stream.
The slower the plane, the less bad it actually was. So with something huge like the TB3, things like the underwing turrets adds surprisingly little air resistance, despite looking like they should be huge breaks.
Yep, wind resistance and the drag it causes is geometric not arithmetic...
Well, when building war machines I believe making production and operation easier outranks that concern
@@ridhosamudro2199 not as true with aircraft as most other things since they're inherently high tech. The Soviets became much more concerned with rapid cheap production after the Germans invaded but in the 20s and 30s Stalin had delusions of competing with other world powers in the aerospace industry and in related combat fields. This wasnt Stalins only giant impractical bomber and he had paratroopers training when he didnt even have the ability to drop them in behind enemy lines or even transport most of them by air.
@@arthas640 Delusions? He succeeded. Hermann Goering bemoaned the USSR's production capability after visiting one of their aircraft factories that was able to produce a sizeable portion of Germany's entire production.
As far as training paratroopers without sufficient airdrop capability goes the USSR was far from the only power that did this.
Not sure if you'll see this, but there's an old documentary series kicking around somewhere on the internet called "wings of russia", I remember that the TB-3 was featured in an episode, with footage to go with it, might be a decent spot to pull footage from for more obscure aircraft. There's even whole episodes dedicated to very early jets and ekranoplans. Great vid as always, amazing to see how y'all have grown :)
Wings of the Red Star narrated by Sir Peter Ustanov. 1990's Discovery Channel.
@@kellybreen5526 ruclips.net/video/Jm34OTrKmxc/видео.html Close, but I think is was this, there was definitely a russian narrarator
Yes, yes, there is such a documentary series Wings of Russia, and also the armor of Russia, and the third Of all guns, I advise you to watch
I find these oddball, inter-war designs fascinating. They're just experimenting, trying things we know, with the benefit of hindsight, were not going to work. The weak engines didn't help any - at the end of the war a fighter engine had more horsepower than all the engines on this plane combined.
THis one was a stupid idea even with foresight.
@@GeorgeMonet Why? It did everything it was intended to do, plus a few things it was never designed for, and did its own part to help win World War 2 even though it was hopelessly obsolete by then... what more do you want from a plane?
@@GeorgeMonet It was the first all-metal 4-engined bomber in operational service in the world. It seems silly to look back with the advances made during WW2 and the Cold War but in the 1920s designers didn't really know what they were doing and they weren't going to learn it by drawing on a chalkboard.
Are you saying that full-metal 4-engine bomber was an idea which was not going to work? B-17 and B-29 would strongly disagree with you.
For its time this was an innovative and progressive thinking. Don't forget that just 10-15 years before this project began people were flying on what can be described as chairs with paper wings.
What did not help was devastation of the country by the revolution and following civil war, otherwise this project would have been completed much earlier and successfully replaced by the end of 1930s with newer designs.
But it served its purpose well - moved forward the aircraft engineering school in the USSR, allowed people to get necessary experience and test many ideas. For example, in 1937 another Tupolev's design made non-stop flights from Moscow to Portland and from Moscow to California, and only 25 years after beginning of TB-3 project (i.e. in 1950) both Tupolev and Mikulin (the engine creator) made an extremely successful jet bomber Tu-16.
Drilling cracks is standard repair procedure for many modern aircraft. It' quite common to see a modern cessna or beech with a few drilled out cracks here and there.
It's not a repair and he never said why it was stupid, which is because it doesn't fix the underlying issue, especially on a new airframe.
“The only way to check the fuel was to go into the wing and check the gauge.”
Bro I’d be so anxious flying that beast.
Also: "there were 14 of them", so, maybe once a flight engineer had checked all gauges, already was time to go around and repeat the fuel checks...?
Using a stick to check fuel quantity is the preferred method. A watch will tell you fuel remaining. Hard to use a stick while underway. My first airplane didn't have a fuel quantity indicator. Fill it up and fill it again 2 1/2 hours later
I know that many of us have been waiting for this one, the handy dandy bomber/transport/flying aircraft carrier
Dogfighting with a TB-3 in IL-2 Forgotten Battles on LAN was the most fun I ever had in a video game.
Just seeing the thumbnail gives me hard Il-2: FB flashbacks... either the thing as a "flying aircraft carrier" in the Zveno config with 2 I-16s or just those hilarious TB-3 only "dogfights". And it's been 20 years ago already...
I can’t imagine a more perfect example of “crew be damned” designing. They must have sat up nights to come up with more ways to kill personnel.
Vodka can do wonderful things when designing planes
@@kittehgo Vodka can do wonderful things when...well, doing anything, really xD
This is the Soviet Union we're talking about here
We will never have an accurate number of deaths acreddited with the
great Society experiment of Lenon, and Stalin. After the first 20 or so million die, counting seems unimportant.
Must agree
Being a military historian that focuses on mechanized warfare the parasite fighter concept has always intrigued me. From the TB-3 to the Goblin prototypes I always thought it would be a cool idea. In a fictional military story I co-wrote a few years ago we envisioned a very high altitude, very large semi ridged airship that was pretty much a slow flying aircraft carrier.
I would looove to know more about those deployments in Romania, I never knew the concept ever went into actual combat!
are you familiar with the US Navy's attempts to do this in the 30s? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_F9C_Sparrowhawk
In the 60's there was a proposal to hang two Folland Gnats under an up powered Vulcan. Each Gnat was to be armed with a couple of free falling nuclear bombs. Basically two manned cruise missiles. Wisely it was not proceeded with.
I propose we should build a airworthy full scale replica
I'll ride in one of the dustbins!!!
CORRECTION: AN*
_"...build _*_AN*_*_ air worthy, full scale replica."_
Have to admire any aircrew that climbed into this machine.
I have always loved the look of these old aircraft made with the corrugated metal. Maybe you should do a video on how much lift and control suffers or if it's not affected that much at all as far as smooth skin for this Ford facing core gauge skin.
Ok the thumbnail convinced me!
The landing wheels of the Tupolev TB3, do not have a diameter anywhere near 2 meters (metric) or 6 feet ,6 & ¾ inches (imperial), @9:02 you can see centre of the picture men gathered around the landing gear of the aircraft.
In the centre of the portside gear is a man in light coloured high boots (roughly up to his mid shin), he stands taller than the wheel. So if his feet are on the ground, and they clearly are in the photograph, add to which, that he is surrounded by other men working as a group on or around this portside gear, and he stands taller than the wheel clearly by his side to his and our left (his back to us) is roughly chest height, then either the wheel is not 2 metres in diameter or he is 7 feet 9 inches tall.
I know which I think is most likely.
It is my suggestion that the photograph shows an adaption or modification not chronicled or the information is ambiguous or intentionally misleading to throw off spies and agents, who knows. However, the photograph clearly shows that the landing gear wheel is definitely smaller than the man next to it and he certainly is not over 7 feet 6 inches (2.28 metres) tall.
Not unless the whole ground crew are exceptionally tall people even less likely.
What did Sherlock Holmes reportedly say _"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, _*_however improbable_*_ , must be the truth"._
Although sponsor adverts annoy me, I'm glad your getting them. You deserve it for the work you put in
- I want a plane to drop planes, Mikhail.
- You mean a plane that drop bombs, that's a bomber, Pietro.
- I know what a bomber is. I want a PLANE that DROP smaller PLANES, with BOMBS inside
- Wait, bombs in the bomber, or bombs in the planes that the bomber carries?
- Both.
- Fair enough
I remember years ago seeing film footage of Soviet paras sliding off the wing of this thing.
Everytime I see early Tupolevs I'm amazed by how modern their overall geomentry is. Tupolev was top notch back then.
Warthunder did a fantastic job with that rendering. I wish one of these bombers was still existing and flying. It had 30% more wingspan than a B-17. It would be a truely majestic sight on airshows.
Drilling to stop cracks, standard procedure on the B-52G.
Yes!!!!
Brand new Rex's hanger.!!!
I have a feeling this is going to kick ass! 👍👍👍👍
EDIT: That did kick ass!!
Wonderful Video.
Thanks Rex.
Tupolev TB-3: A Soviet paratrooper's most interesting way to get to the battlefield.;)
Just climb out on the wings, comrade!
The extra-fun slippy slide, now with added friction burn!
Nah, that wasn't it. There were experiments of mounting man-sized boxes under R-5's lower wing with a pilot controlled mechanism that turns this box upside down when it's jumping time)
Thing was called "Automatical Red Army soldier Ejector" and I'm NOT joking
@@sergeireischel1610 they seriously invented drop tubes before Halo was even a thing.
You are a Russian turret gunner. It is -30 degrees. The wind is 40 knots. Then you take off.
This made me laugh so hard
That moment when the soviets invented figureheads for aircraft.
ruclips.net/video/Ba7WGOaXodI/видео.htmlfeature=shared
old aircrafts surely looks more interesting to me than new ones today
1. Fanstastic video about a unquie and amazing aircraft. Very good camera work and nice pictures too.
2. Best and cleares Advert for War Thunder I've even seen.
Wekk done.
Those “dustbin” gun positions are nuts! How did they get anyone to agree to man them? By giving it to somebody who had an even worse job climbing around inside the wings.
In the Soviet Union you man what they tell you to man or you get shot and your family sent to Siberia.
Same method of "recruitment" for the rear gunner on an Il-2 Sturmovik: PUNISHMENT BRIGADES. Get a "volunteer", which actually weren't lacking, as the alternative was to clear minefields while under fire from the Germans or be the lead battalions assaulting their trenches. Give him enough training on how to fire and reload the weapon. Take him to the aircraft, and chain him to his position with NO parachute. If the aircraft gets hit, likely he's the first target for German fighters anyway, so why bother giving a perfectly good 'chute to a dead convict? The "incentive"? A complete PARDON after 25 missions, with restoration of rank and a return to his former unit, assuming that's still intact. Of course, not too many actually SURVIVED 25 missions, so either way, for Soviet Army personnel officers, a "winning combination".
@@selfdo considering these guys were also flight engineers, I'm gonna say probably no... a lot of WW2 bombers had horribly uncomfortable crew positions, and these guys were already obsolete by then. Remember they didn't spend the entire flight in those turrets, they'd only go down there if there was an actual risk of enemy attack.
Do you have any credible source for these claims?
I've 'flown' this on IL2, a little tricky picking up under wing fighters. but quite fun if you can get two others to join in the action.
"The dustin turret could be jettisoned".... Jesus Christ! imagine knowing that as you climbed into it... as if climbing into something like that isn't anxiety inducing enough without knowing that it's literally designed to fall off!
The 76mm cannon armed aircraft was the Grohovskiy G-52. According to published sources, the prototype had the front gun position removed and a 76mm cannon installed. That worked well enough that a more advanced version was trialed with the wing-mounted cannons outboard of the outboard engines; this was not successful. If anyone is interested, I can provide references.
Dynamo-jet cannon (ДРП) of Kurchevsky.
The topic ДРП was closed because Kurchevski was a protégé of Marshal Tukhachevsky.
Both were shot as enemies of the people.
@@EGORLAZOUSKI Yes, and there is evidence that they were set up by the Germans who were doing everything they could to weaken the USSR before they invaded them.
19:18 - 76-mm gun on a plane? That's quite large. I mean, 76 mm was the caliber of the T-34 tank gun, if I remember correctly.
What a monstrosity! Speaking of which, you should cover some of the terrible French designs. Their Bombers were incredibly bizarre!
The SAB AB-20 would be my favourite batshit crazy French design, it makes the TB-3 look like a proper aircraft.
Baguettes with wings
Oh yes, my love, my darling! Beauty and power had been given form in duraluminium and bicycle wheels! I love the TB-3, such an iconic plane!
According to Russian sources, it was used as a day bomber on early stages due to the lack of alternatives and obviously suffered severe losses. As war went on, it switched to a night bombing, at which proved to be quite effective, and here's why: first, crews got long training well before the conflict and where some sort of airforce elite; second, slow speed meant enough time to spot the target in dark and to aim precisely; third it could cruise at speed even lower than stall speed of German fighters, making the interception quite tricky for latter; finally, construction itself proved to be robust and could survive significant damage. It can somehow be compared to Po-2 or Fairey Swordfish, when outdated design was turned to own good. But it couldn't last forever (even Swordfish was finally replaced), and in late 1942 TB-3 switched from combat missions to military and civil air transportation. Thanks for video, great as always!
Fantastic! Love the war thunder graphics to show us the TB-3 in full colour and resolution, as it looked in real life. Definitely adds a cool angle to the videos
11:00 mid-wing, UNDER wing, OPEN seat, machine gun turrets?... ok now I have seen everything... that's bonkies!
At 20:09 your pronunciation of Vhakistrov Zvyeno was pretty good. Your pronunciation of Danube at 21:40 or so was a little strange, as in English the name is usually pronounced DanYOOB.
Yes, my favourite slow Russian bomber in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946.
The nostalgia. ^^
Still remeber the Finish winter map on te onpine servers. Good times indeed.
Il2 1946 is still great, modders keeping it relatively modern to this day
@@obamatraore2339 Swithced to WoT and never looked back.
I miss the force feedback joystick, but K got to play with tanks instead...
I discovered this channel recently and it's so strange to me that a high-quality, documentary-grade channel like this isn't any more popular...
Now I know where they got the term "parasitic aircraft" from. Some Navy dirigibles had scout biplanes (wheel less) hanging from a trapeze upper wing mount and who can ever forget the Goblin.
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for making a video on this. 🧡
Per chance, did you see my comment about this no the TB-1 video?
War Thunder should definitely have a bunch of pre-war vehicles in game
they should do a ww1 event with some pre wars
"And what is my job?"
"You ride on the top of the plane in the very front of nose"
I remember flying this in IL2 Sturmovik. and if im remembering right you coud take the i16's with you.
Ive shot down dozens of these (on Il2) and in fairness the gunners are totally fearless, still firing back all the way down.
".... I wish I could say I was making that up..."
😆😆😆😆
Once again, an excellent and informative video!! Thank you!!
Very informative; thank you!
Accurate precise special effects helped me appreciate this super efficient clean lined masterpiece of engineering. Only ~90 years ago.
The Kallinin K-7, I would consider utterly bonkers considering it had 7 engines
Many years ago I heard the story of a man who had just completed rebuilding his glider after major repairs when he noticed a small crack on his canopy. So he got his drill out and carefully drilled each end of the crack. Finished he stood up and his thigh bumped his glider and the crack moved. Moral of the story, make sure it is a crack and not a hair on the surface
Before this video, I'd only ever seen the footage of the paratroopers sliding off the wings, and assumed this aircraft was just some kind of anachronistic joke.
Fan-fkn-tastic video! I don't believe there are any other videos about the plane this detailed on RUclips 😍
A very interesting bomber for my birthday. I thank you not just this video but all of your contents which made me subscribe to you months ago😀
Drilling holes in an airframe to reduce weight..... That's where the idea for Homer Simpson's technique of "Speed Holes" came from!
German Mistel: Finnaly, A WORTHY OPPONENT!!!!
Those wing guns give me nightmares. Imagine being dangled under the wing of a flying barge in an easy-to-jettison metal diaper with no insulation, staring down an enemy fighter.
God I wish Gaijin brought this back into the game, I got gyped back when it was up for an event reward. RNGesus "blessed" me with the hydroplane version of the He. 51B instead
Thank you, a very interesting vid. I always saw them as the next generation following the Sikorsky Ilya Muromet, which I understand is still on display in Russia. That was another interesting "super bomber". Its build depended on whatever engines could be imported from France and later dropped whatever bombs could be scraped together. It mostly survived because it was too valuable to actually be used.
I know this thing from SSI's War in Russia. It is mainly used as a Air Transport to drop supplies like the Ju52 was on the other side. Unlike the 52 though it was still available for bombing missions and it had a fearsome range. Thanks to it the Axis needs to provide air defence as far as Vienna and Ploesti. It was suicide to actually try to hit those targets but the threat was all it took to siphon off valuable 109's.
All I'd ever seen of this was a tiny top silhouette (a few pixels across really) and imagined it to be a handsome sleek plane what with that range and bombload. You can imagine my surprise to see it here and behold one of the ugliest planes I've ever seen.
I am impressed how much weight and abuse those wire wheels can take
Well, they finally added a tail gunner, which Sikorsky had thought of 20 years earlier on the Ilya Mourometz. I find Russian aviation history endlessly fascinating.
Open cockpits on aircraft based in Siberia ... Russian aviators were some tough characters back in the day.
Excellent stuff bro
I love this channel, thanks dude
Drilling holes at the end of cracks is the standard way to prevent crack propagation.
Rubber Bungies as struts is crazy
When you take in to consideration the date and the fact this is just after ww1,the revolution and civil war .
What a great lump (the Nora Batty of bombers!) but what a great model kit it would make!
So sad that none of these has survived in one piece for us to see
Honestly, I think thick electrical cables were a good thing. The last thing you want is a failure because something is grounding and the cable needs to be thick to take combat damage. I am no expert, but I always use wire of 2 gauges larger than I need.
Problem is that all weight has to come out of the payload, and 1920s aircraft didn't exactly have great weight margins...
@@henrikgiese6316 ah
I want the Tb-3 soooooooo badly...
A stellar presentation! ❤
2:36 Why is the bow gunner pointing his machine gun at the pilots? A Hijacker? Suicidal guy? Suicidal hijacker?
That's not the gunner, that's the political officer.
I mean the Finns shot these down like clay pigeons, but still that's an absolute UNIT of a steampunk plane.
I was thinking steampunk, good description.
Hardly; yet another gross exaggeration
They weren't used in the Winter War, those were DB-3s and SBs
@@JGCR59 looks like the Swede volunteer squadron shot one down 😊
I suspect that there is some confusion between TB-3 and DB-3. The latter were more numerous, they flew daytime missions, and took the most hits. The far less common TB-3 flew mostly by night, and their losses were accordingly smaller. One TB-3 was shot by flak, another by fighters. All other losses were non-combat accidents.
The method of using the TB-3 to deploy paratroopers looks both insane, and a lot of fun.
Can't have been efficient.
Not like paratroopers are efficient
@@phunkracy There's inefficient, and then there's OMG, WTF are you DOING?!
@@lairdcummings9092 that's every failed paratrooper operation. it's either total disaster or a total victory
Kind of like the grab bars on the sides of T-34s for infantry to hitch a ride
@@mcuddy799 it's actually perfectly logical. Would you like to be on a tank that gets pounded by the enemy?
This plane was loads of fun in IL-2 Sturmovik.
For anyone wanting to fly the TB3 in WarThunder it was a one off event vehicle that is almost not obtainable anymore.
Big Sadge.
great vid rex
missing those war thunder videos!
The feller at the front is going to have a hard time shooting fighters down whilst he's shivering.
This plane is also a callable support option in the "Finnish winter war" mod for Rising Storm 2: Vietnam
That's a pleasingly insane aircraft - what a great Airfix kit it would make! (especially with the 'little birds' attached).
Might want to look into some limited run stuff
It actually exists in a Ukrainian box but it's old and expensive
20:32
Idk bout you guys, but the suggestion plane attachments on the bomber itself kinda funny as i kinda see it as a meme.
Always loved the film of the paratroopers sliding off the wing.
Excellent informative style documentary 👍
An excellent video. Very interesting and well put together.
My grandmother witnessed these things bombing joensuu Back in winter war. She told that their engine sound was like someone was pouring thousands upon thousands of potatoes into a big tin bucket
soviets like their potatoes lol
@@emuthestreamerbtw9393 yeah, well. Her words May sound odd to a modern people bu she grew up in 1930's Finnish countryside. Potatoes drumming a tin vessel is The closest sounds she could Link it to, And tbh at least to me its a very good way of describing it.
Would you do a video about the PE 8 Soviet bomber?
So The Soviets are technically the only nation to successfully use the Parasite Fighter concept. The fighters worked, and the mothership worked as well.
Unlike the US Airships, where the mothership absolutely sucked, or the Goblin+B36 concept where the Goblin was completely useless.