@@glennpettersson9002 Short answer? Lack of availability. The German R4M rockets were primarily anti-aircraft weapons... variants with armour-piercing warheads ("Panzerblitz") were planned (and possibly tested) but never entered service.
Wood used correctly was the "Carbon fiber" of WWII. Look at the US PT boat and the Mosquito. The use of wood composite was stronger and lighter than metal.
Bismarcks armor was half inch (13mm) woodan reinforced wood which was as strong as 320 millimeters of steel i swear. She had special woodan armor everywhere. She could lift out of the water in strong seas as she was that light.
The original motivation was to reduce consumption of strategic materials. In that regard, the Mosquito was a failure. It required large quantities of scarce high grade lumber shipped from around the world on scarce shipping capacity. Glued together using scarce adhesive by skilled labor whose production capacity was not expandable. The resulting airplane was of such high performance that thus could be overlooked. The XP-77 wasn't a resource hog, but also didn't have the needed performance.
The B-25 Mitchell twin engine bomber. Had a 75mm cannon mounted in the nose, but it also had the same recoil system, as it did on the ground. And it was a barge killing machine, in the South Pacific.
@@alanpennie the 75mm also was a failure as hitting the target with any degree of accuracy was impossible. the Ju88 vesrsion was abandoned for the same reason, also because the Mg101 and Mg103 proved more the enough lethal against soviet equipment. Fragmentation bombs ad Mg151/Mg13 in combination also was wells uited to deal with softer targets. The plane flew well, and it was a fantastic asset in Russia: at Kursk, a single staffel of Hs129 relentlessly attacking for almost 6 hours, literally routed an entire division of Soviet tanks that was on the verge of encircling the left German flank.
@@longrider42 No the 75 mm M5 cannon when mounted in the B25 was in a long recoiling, low recoil stress, mount compared to that when the M5 was mounted in the M-24 light Tank . The few M5 mounted in the M-24 could be distinguished by a redundant collar 3/4 along the chase, this was the main thing that was eliminated when the M6 gun was manufactured - but only the M5 could be fitted in the B-25. Unlike the HS 126 when fitted with the 75 that fitted to the B-25 was fairly effective - but that was in the Pacific theatre were level of A/A was generally a lot less, than even against the Soviets. Significantly the British mounted the 6pdr Mk V a similar but marginally harder recoiling weapon to the 75 mm M5 in the far lighter Mosquito. but they discontinued the use after 3 inch rocket projectiles came into service.
The aircraft was at the forefront of aviation technology. It has a gyroscopic electronic yaw damper that used a rate gyro to operate rudder trim to damp out yaw. This technology is absolutely essential in jets and in particular swept wing aircraft. In the Hs-129 the yaw damper brought under control the yaw due to the heavy Armour.
British aircraft designers in WW2 considered all factors for their engines: radial v in-line? new design v older design? high altitude v low altitude? They considered all these factors and then thought: F--- it - stick in a Merlin and we can't go wrong ;-)
That disclaimer at 14:09 is why I trust your honesty, whereas I've started to unsubscribe from other channels that put any old footage or video game renders or outright AI and represent that it's original and correct. 👍
We are fortunate that them krouts spent so much effort on all sorts of different sizes of weapons, planes, vehicles & such... trying to get ammo, spare parts & people with the knowledge to operate & or repair really created a nightmare for those tasked with getting things done.
All that Work with Good Fighter Jets Godbless The Predictable and limited Logistics Routes They took Most Jets were Destroyed before even having a Chance to See Combat Sad loss of Art Fairly Good Ending considering who lost
I always wonders why so many variants and weapons types and the machining needed for all those different parts while the Allies streamlined and standardized many components
Despite the wacky aspects of the plane it is still one of my favorites....probably because its wacky and unique in concept. Everyone tried big gun on big plane but only the hs129 was big gun small plane
Hs-129B was actually well-liked. Had some effort been put into developing the 14M engine, by German engineers, perhaps the Achilles heel, insufficient power, could have been overcome, rendering a truly formidable ground attack a/c. This would have required a lot of commitment early on, in order to have the solution in time to actually alter the Eastern Front tactical situation.
Quite a few potentially excellent and useful designs were ruined by assigning to them poor or older generation engines. The Focke-Wulf 187, the Ju 252 (which became the Ju 352 when the Jumo 211 was swapped out for BMW 323) and of course the Hs 129. The Luftwaffe had an engine problem in that while the DB601 and Jumo 211 were excellent engines they were in short supply by the time they were in good supply they were too weak and the BMW 801 became the new want to have engine. Assigning so many DB601 to the Me 110 instead of Fw 187 was a mistake.
@@williamzk9083Agreed. The FW187 was a great plane that as well as being a great heavy fighter could have been (something groan worthy coming!) Kurt Tank's tank buster! 😅
@@williamzk9083 I think BMW 801 was entirely too much engine for the 129's airframe--too much power, too much diameter, weight and fuel consumption. But an engine the ~size of the 14M, with power in the 1,000-1400 range, ideally around 1,200, and concommitant wider chord props, would have been transformative. Admittedly a tall order, given the lead time required to essentially remake that diminutive 14 cyl engine. I believe the French had an upgrade project in the works, making about 900 hp, but I don't think the French had any incentive to help the German war effort.
@@josephstabile9154 The Hs 129 was a little too small to begin, the gun sight couldn’t fit in the cockpit and was outside. With a little upscaling would have greatly helped the design carry heavy weapons. I was thinking of the BMW Bramo 323 with 1000hp and 1200hp with MW50. The 14m would be better due to lower drag. The key is to have an engine that is in plentiful supply by 1940.
The B-17 was not outdated, it was just not capable of defending itself. As soon as long range fighters became available, things got much better. As for the P-40, it saw action through out the war. Specially in the South Pacific. Its problem was a lack of multi stage turbo super charges. But it was still a good rugged aircraft.
@@JulianGarcia-mc3cc None of the bombers of the war (or beyond) were capable of consistently holding their own against interceptors. As far as self defense capacity goes, the B-17 was among the best of the period, surpassed only by the B-29. In heavy bomber all-around capability the situation is the same; B-29 on top, followed by the B-17 and B-24. The RAF bombers predominantly operated at night in part because of their ineffective armament, though it should be noted that the Lancaster, Stirling, and Halifax had significantly higher payload capacities compared to the B-17 and B-24. The B-17 was rendered obsolescent by the production of large numbers of B-29 and the end of the war, which made the maintenance of large numbers of planes expensive and unnecessary.
I built a sick 1/32 model of one of these by zoukei mura, with a brass barrel for the 75mm. It was a fantastic build, and the plane itself is such an odd but cool shape.
I've always wondered why the Argus used those finned spinners. Since they'd be robbing power from the engine, otherwise, there must be a purpose to them
IIRC they were a fairly novel self-contained propeller pitch-control mechanism. Instead of tapping off pressurized oil from the engine to actuate the pitch servo, the Argus propellers used the finned nose of the spinner as a sort of windmill, using the differential speed between the prop and the finned section to drive the pitch control mechanism.
Not going to comment on accuracy, but this video was well paced and presented and I found it very interesting, well done! One thing I noticed in the pics was the wide range of styles of the "camo" finish used. You could build a model with any finish you liked and it'd be prototypical.
First of all, congratulations for your beautiful videos. Incredible how the whole work (the historical presentation as well your narration) is wonderful! I'd like to add that (I don't know exactly why) I got 'touched' by this particular video (the Hs 129). In really, perhaps because it is great to hear that the WWII planes were not only 'thoroughbreds'
I’ve read a few books on German air vs. antitank tactics. The way the HS 129 and JU 87 where are used would be the circle behind the tank formation and hit the tank at the rear. The obvious benefit was of hitting thinner armor, but a huge benefit was if the airplane was struck at least it’s heading towards its own lines and the chances of a pilot avoiding capture and surviving significantly increased.
Underpowered for most of its life. The Argus engines worked OK for the Fw-189 observation planes but the Hs-129 was a lot heavier. The Gnome-Rhone was …adequate, (though the counter rotation feature was helpful for a twin-engined type, but probably caused logistics roblems) but rather over sensitive to dirt and grit, deploying it to dirt fields in Russia or North Africa …. (Unlike the Hs-123 which coped with Russia quite well) Part of the control issue might have been the ridiculously short control stick in a very cramped cockpit (the engine instruments were on the inner face of the nacelles, and the gunsight was external) giving the pilot very little leverage. While the Hs-129B-3 with the PAK 75 was impressive, only about 12 were built.
9:58 In case you're wondering about the fins on the Argus 410's spinner, that part of a wind-driven generator intended to supply DC current to the variable prop pitch mechanism.
The Glorious Duck was the name the Wermacht gave it. Stuka Rudel used the Hs-129 and Ju-87G as inspiration for the A-10 Warthog when he was a technical advisor to Fairchild Republic in the 70s.
The b3 variant with that 75mm cannon looks so ridiculous that it could be one of these fantasy weapons out of an action movie. I can imagine that the airframe would simply disintegrate after it fired ten rounds.
I can confirm on the small gun/ big bullet question. When visiting the states, a friend there let me shoot through his gun collection. One of them was a tiny Derringer pistol loaded with .45 long colt ammunition. The tip of the bullets was at the end of the barrel, while the grip was shorter than my hand. I had a bruise on my hand for about a week.
As much as heavier guns suck to carry around a lot (there's a reason many service rifles moved to polymers) it really helps "slow down" the recoil, like catching a kicked soccer ball rather than a pitched baseball. Neither is nice but one I can *do*.
On the subject of small-arms "power" and more specifically, recoil, mentioned from the little tangent at the end of the video: While the Mosin in 7.62x54r may not be the most powerful round out there, if you fired it in an unmodified Mosin with the steel butt-plate, it's still on the higher end of what most people consider tolerable felt recoil. I can shoot a Mosin pretty well, but it will leave a bit of a bruise after more than a handful of rounds.
From what I understand, Ju 87 and Hs 129 tactics and performance were studied intensely, before the design of the A-10 began. They even held a conference concerning the design, where Hans-Ulrich Rudel was invited! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
YT hasn't yet "scrubbed" off all those spicy crosses on tails yet. It's hilarious that people play little games with history, isn't it? Great informational video, as usual. So glad there are others so interested in warbirds.
A number of years ago, I built a 1/6 scale R/C model of this aircraft. Had all the bells n' whistles (retracts, scratchbuilt full cockpit, etc). Powered by a pair of Zenoah G-38's. Flew pretty well, too!
There is something ironically about a heavily armed (a variant of Pak 40!!) and heavy armored plane with super weak engines. You can really see that the designers had to come up with solutions to make it work, like external gauges due to cramped cockpit.
Thanks for this. I've always had a soft spot for Henschel's aircraft, despite their lack of attention, with most Luftwaffe enthusiasts. Since you've done this post, maybe you could do one about the Henschel Hs123. That aircraft saw service up to 1944 in the ground attack role, DESPITE it's obsolescence.
TY-good job on the beloved geek of the LW line up. Bit not mentioned...the French Gnome Rhone engines were said to have had bad batches by resistence tampering at the factory. I also liked the even weirder FW 189 version , just needs a periscope in the armor for landing/take offs ;)
I kitbashed the 75mm bordkannonen Hs-129B3 from the Hasegawa 1/48 kit and the gun pod from the dog 5h@t AMT kit in 2001. It pissed me off when Hasegawa tooled a B3 kit a few years later. It's still in It's case in a diorama in my living room to this day... ❤
The plane was not underpowered, for what it was supposed to do. The problem, the real one, was the wear down of those engines as the planes was delivered to Tunisia without sand filters, despite a full depot being full of those in france! It was a similar experience of the Bread BA65 in Africa which had engines so wore down to be almost unable to take off in the hot weather. As the plane got in Russia it did much better: it was not a dog fighter but it was not meant to be. It was slightly slower then a Sturmovik bu it was able to hug the ground as no other plane, often frustrating the enemies trying get on it's tail It also was not uncommon that the Hs129 hit the turret of a tank it was shooting with the tail, but none was lost that way. By 1944 being low become too dangerous, and due to lack of air cover by fighter screens, the HS129 become too vulnerable so it was replaced by the Fw190, which was better suited to defend itself. This being said the Fw was never able to be as effective ans the Hs and the Stuka against armoured targets.
I can think of a 4th category for the discount bin. It may be the last few of a now discontinued item. They needed the shelf space for the new item so it goes into the bargain bin to make room.
Great video, well researched! Henschel was actually quite a large company, their main business being making locomotives (Steam engines). But I imagine that their aero division was not that big.
"pocketsized .50 caliber" Nah, worse, MUCH worse. There has actually been made .50 cal revolvers, you handle them right or you break your wrists on firing, but they still actually work better than you would expect. However, the BIG problem with the 75mm cannon was having only 12 rounds of ammo... Oh, and the competition actually also included the Blohm und Voss-141, the most epically nonsymmetrical plane of the war.
@@obsidianjane4413 Some do actually. I've fired one. Totally absurd and almost uncontrollable because even with the recoil damping system, it just made the recoil weirdly slow and drawn out. The point however was that the 75mm cannon, its recoil was so bad that if the aircraft emptied its magazine too quickly, it could literally crash from lack of airspeed.
The french radial engines by Gnome Rhone were also used on the Messerschmitt Gigant transport plane they were not bad, very good engines in fact! But germans did not have the right tools for overhaul and so they sucked when used by the Germans.
Henschel's solution to the lack of instrument panel space was to put engine data dials on each engine nacelle. These were reproduced as decals in the model kits.
*_Designing and developing_* an engine, intended for low-demand, sounds like a project to keep a father-in-law's factory financed. I'd have liked a lot more about that Argus As 410 engine project. In the event of war, using resources to make a "low demand" engine sounds 'shady' (presumably the needs of civil aviation have shrunk, making it "lowest demand"). Interesting video. However, would you please add 'chapters' to make it easier to review parts? Best Wishes. ☮
The Zoukei-Moura kits of this chonk are amazeballs. Too bad I don't have the time or money for one. I've got a Hasegawa and a Hobby 2000 kit in 1/48 on my Shelves of Shame...
4:12 me who has worked on steel , wood and aluminium trawlers ......... Wood does have alot going for it I'd rate it much higher than Aluminium and not far if not equal to steel upto a certain size , eventually you're going to want steel . However this is probably the opposite of what you'd want on an aircraft
Never understood why the RLM/Luftwaffe couldn’t get their act together on the Hs 129! I'm wondering what other engines could have been more effectively utilised.....I always thought the BMW 132Dc radial (660 kW/880 hp) might have been a good choice, given that many of the aircraft that used it were either obsolete, approaching obsolescence or phased out. Regards
There were prototypes and considerations to either use the Jumo 211, the BMW 901 or the italian Isotta Fraschini Delta engines on it. I guess the demand for the german engines for other planes was too large and the italian engines too rare.
This plane's nickname (Duck) is a double-edged sword. One is that it looks like a duck with the shape and color of the nose and the second is that it literally is a sitting duck to enemy fire. At least as far as I know it
Most attackers were sitting ducks against enemy fighters and are to this day. Pilots were more conserned by enemy flak than fighters due to hs-129 being pretty difficult to spot and engage on extremely low altidutdes by enemy fighters.
Always found this such an appealing & good looking little aircraft... but glad I never had to fight a war in it! ( especially with that nuts 75mm strapped to it!) seems a silly & not untypical waste of resources as per a lot of German ww2 production 😉
The variable pitch mechanism was powered by that spinner. Most variable pitch propellers were powered by engine oil pressure. This was an odd concept that was on all Argus powered aircraft and stayed on the HS129 when re-engined.
The combined production of the Merlin was 168,086, not counting the 9000 produced that were the Meteor version for tanks (which makes it 177,068 - so more than the R1830?).
Like to see more of that scene at 22:55. A model diorama artist could spend many hours on all that.😊. You can bet if the plane had ANY mechanical, that 75mm cannon is gone. Kursk. Hey!! Do Kursk!! Lots of Cool Logo A/C there.
The (in)famous Brewster Buffalo runs into the same story. They used a somewhat weaker and older engine compared to what Grumman put in their prototype wildcat. In prototype form, the F2A actually did better than the future wildcat, but when actual military fittings like armor, weapons, and self-sealing tanks were added - performance dropped off sharply. Thus the F4 proves to be the carrier plane of choice. (Though the Finns found it quite good, when you removed the extra weight needed for the navy.)
Hs.129 B-2 early and maybe B-1 (or something near at that) have MK101 with 30 shells, in rare case can have 6 shells. B-2 middle and late have MK103 with 100 shells. Also exist one (or two, can't remember) experimental B-0 with 77mm SG113. Oher 14-15 planes B-0 with standart weapons.
If I ever get my Dream of World War 2 Transformers toys.. I'd like ones of these with the 70mm cannon to be one of them as it would make a lovely rifle for the robot mode too. & looks nice with something like a Stukka.
The Germans are extremely innovative and had to make do with much less resources than the all lies, that is basically what lost them the war overwhelming numerical superiority in men and materials!
The high unit price, low payload, and comparatively short range led the Airforce prefer the B24, especially in Asia. At the end of the war there was a certain overflow of unused B-17's.
@alanpennie Cooperate Army Aircorps preferred the B-24 because it was cheaper to build and had a larger payload. The crews preferred the B-17 because it could take more punishment. But as you say, both are not great.
Its OG Duke Nukem 1 and 2 or nothing😅 also good vid. I had no idea about the 189C and Gods almighty what a death trap! They ruined a perfectly good plane
I remember reading that the Germans tried using the French made Gnome 14M radial on a FW 189. But it crashed on its first flight. From what I have read. This was not a popular engine with the pilots who used this engine. They were very prone to break downs.
The French Gnome Rhone engines were often screwed by the resistance where possible.....I don't blame them, and it is often missed when these engines come up in discussion . Tells you the real av buffs from newbish research, but it's an OK mistake.
The Hs 129 ,with 2 poor engines, should have tested with 4 low powered engines - 2 engines per narcel ,in a pusher and puller configuration. That might have worked ????? maybe The large 75mm cannon needed recoil springs so to not effect the flight of the 129.
Just today I had the displeasure of seeing a new post on the WT subreddit talking about the gun jettison system. So many braindead armchair experts claimed the system was dumb or useless for a variety of nonsensical reasons...
Firing that that ginormous 7.5 cm Pak from that plane must have been quite the experience.
lol the plane stopped or went backwards when fired!! Still a cool looking plane
Does beg the question, why not rockets?
@@glennpettersson9002 Short answer? Lack of availability.
The German R4M rockets were primarily anti-aircraft weapons... variants with armour-piercing warheads ("Panzerblitz") were planned (and possibly tested) but never entered service.
Wood used correctly was the "Carbon fiber" of WWII. Look at the US PT boat and the Mosquito. The use of wood composite was stronger and lighter than metal.
Later in the war FW190D had wooden props
Bismarcks armor was half inch (13mm) woodan reinforced wood which was as strong as 320 millimeters of steel i swear.
She had special woodan armor everywhere. She could lift out of the water in strong seas as she was that light.
Stronger then metal... Riiiiight
The original motivation was to reduce consumption of strategic materials. In that regard, the Mosquito was a failure. It required large quantities of scarce high grade lumber shipped from around the world on scarce shipping capacity. Glued together using scarce adhesive by skilled labor whose production capacity was not expandable. The resulting airplane was of such high performance that thus could be overlooked.
The XP-77 wasn't a resource hog, but also didn't have the needed performance.
no it wasnt, it was wood, not carbon fibre
Plane barely flies...
Engineers: Let's mount 75mm canon on it
The B-25 Mitchell twin engine bomber. Had a 75mm cannon mounted in the nose, but it also had the same recoil system, as it did on the ground. And it was a barge killing machine, in the South Pacific.
"engineers"..... or.. some dude called ,Pappy Gunn. 😅🎉😊
At least they only made a couple of dozen of that type.
@@alanpennie the 75mm also was a failure as hitting the target with any degree of accuracy was impossible. the Ju88 vesrsion was abandoned for the same reason, also because the Mg101 and Mg103 proved more the enough lethal against soviet equipment. Fragmentation bombs ad Mg151/Mg13 in combination also was wells uited to deal with softer targets.
The plane flew well, and it was a fantastic asset in Russia: at Kursk, a single staffel of Hs129 relentlessly attacking for almost 6 hours, literally routed an entire division of Soviet tanks that was on the verge of encircling the left German flank.
@@longrider42 No the 75 mm M5 cannon when mounted in the B25 was in a long recoiling, low recoil stress, mount compared to that when the M5 was mounted in the M-24 light Tank . The few M5 mounted in the M-24 could be distinguished by a redundant collar 3/4 along the chase, this was the main thing that was eliminated when the M6 gun was manufactured - but only the M5 could be fitted in the B-25. Unlike the HS 126 when fitted with the 75 that fitted to the B-25 was fairly effective - but that was in the Pacific theatre were level of A/A was generally a lot less, than even against the Soviets.
Significantly the British mounted the 6pdr Mk V a similar but marginally harder recoiling weapon to the 75 mm M5 in the far lighter Mosquito. but they discontinued the use after 3 inch rocket projectiles came into service.
No matter how bad it was historically, I will always love the duck.
The aircraft was at the forefront of aviation technology. It has a gyroscopic electronic yaw damper that used a rate gyro to operate rudder trim to damp out yaw. This technology is absolutely essential in jets and in particular swept wing aircraft. In the Hs-129 the yaw damper brought under control the yaw due to the heavy Armour.
It’s quite Adorable
@@williamzk9083I don’t Understand most of that
But if True
Great Write
It wasn't that bad historically.
It was actually very good.
British aircraft designers in WW2 considered all factors for their engines: radial v in-line? new design v older design? high altitude v low altitude? They considered all these factors and then thought: F--- it - stick in a Merlin and we can't go wrong ;-)
Or a Hercules if you wanted radial.
Ahh.. the Duck. It was a panzer quacker…
(with apologies to Squire)..
'can opener' was her nickname :)
I particularly enjoy the quack of the great Bavarian duck.
We have tank destroyer at home...
*(Cannon Fires)* QUACK!
That disclaimer at 14:09 is why I trust your honesty, whereas I've started to unsubscribe from other channels that put any old footage or video game renders or outright AI and represent that it's original and correct. 👍
We are fortunate that them krouts spent so much effort on all sorts of different sizes of weapons, planes, vehicles & such... trying to get ammo, spare parts & people with the knowledge to operate & or repair really created a nightmare for those tasked with getting things done.
All that Work with Good Fighter Jets
Godbless The Predictable and limited Logistics Routes They took
Most Jets were Destroyed before even having a Chance to See Combat
Sad loss of Art
Fairly Good Ending considering who lost
Oh,you forgot the mish-mash of cars the Wermacht acuired.
AND tanks,and track.
I always wonders why so many variants and weapons types and the machining needed for all those different parts while the Allies streamlined and standardized many components
It's amazing this aircraft did so well on such underpowered engines
Despite the wacky aspects of the plane it is still one of my favorites....probably because its wacky and unique in concept. Everyone tried big gun on big plane but only the hs129 was big gun small plane
Great video, as usual. Appreciate all the nerdy little details.
Heh, Bf-110 also had external gauges on the engines. Nothing new under the Luftwaffe! 🙂
He-111 did too.
works...
I recall Pontiac doing something similar, with fender mounted gauges.
Hs-129B was actually well-liked. Had some effort been put into developing the 14M engine, by German engineers, perhaps the Achilles heel, insufficient power, could have been overcome, rendering a truly formidable ground attack a/c. This would have required a lot of commitment early on, in order to have the solution in time to actually alter the Eastern Front tactical situation.
Quite a few potentially excellent and useful designs were ruined by assigning to them poor or older generation engines. The Focke-Wulf 187, the Ju 252 (which became the Ju 352 when the Jumo 211 was swapped out for BMW 323) and of course the Hs 129.
The Luftwaffe had an engine problem in that while the DB601 and Jumo 211 were excellent engines they were in short supply by the time they were in good supply they were too weak and the BMW 801 became the new want to have engine. Assigning so many DB601 to the Me 110 instead of Fw 187 was a mistake.
@@williamzk9083I don’t Know most of those
But if You’re not Lying
Incredible Write:
@@williamzk9083Agreed. The FW187 was a great plane that as well as being a great heavy fighter could have been (something groan worthy coming!) Kurt Tank's tank buster! 😅
@@williamzk9083 I think BMW 801 was entirely too much engine for the 129's airframe--too much power, too much diameter, weight and fuel consumption. But an engine the ~size of the 14M, with power in the 1,000-1400 range, ideally around 1,200, and concommitant wider chord props, would have been transformative. Admittedly a tall order, given the lead time required to essentially remake that diminutive 14 cyl engine.
I believe the French had an upgrade project in the works, making about 900 hp, but I don't think the French had any incentive to help the German war effort.
@@josephstabile9154 The Hs 129 was a little too small to begin, the gun sight couldn’t fit in the cockpit and was outside. With a little upscaling would have greatly helped the design carry heavy weapons. I was thinking of the BMW Bramo 323 with 1000hp and 1200hp with MW50. The 14m would be better due to lower drag. The key is to have an engine that is in plentiful supply by 1940.
Designing a plane around a specific engine was then and still today, very common.
The B-17 was not outdated, it was just not capable of defending itself. As soon as long range fighters became available, things got much better. As for the P-40, it saw action through out the war. Specially in the South Pacific. Its problem was a lack of multi stage turbo super charges. But it was still a good rugged aircraft.
I'm not saying the b17 was bad or anything but doesn't that make it outdated?
Something can be outdated and still perform good under certain circumstances
@@JulianGarcia-mc3cc
None of the bombers of the war (or beyond) were capable of consistently holding their own against interceptors. As far as self defense capacity goes, the B-17 was among the best of the period, surpassed only by the B-29. In heavy bomber all-around capability the situation is the same; B-29 on top, followed by the B-17 and B-24. The RAF bombers predominantly operated at night in part because of their ineffective armament, though it should be noted that the Lancaster, Stirling, and Halifax had significantly higher payload capacities compared to the B-17 and B-24.
The B-17 was rendered obsolescent by the production of large numbers of B-29 and the end of the war, which made the maintenance of large numbers of planes expensive and unnecessary.
@@sharky9075 Like the Fairey Swordfish
Compared to a B29 the 17 was outdated but certainly not junk.
I built a sick 1/32 model of one of these by zoukei mura, with a brass barrel for the 75mm. It was a fantastic build, and the plane itself is such an odd but cool shape.
I've always wondered why the Argus used those finned spinners. Since they'd be robbing power from the engine, otherwise, there must be a purpose to them
IIRC they were a fairly novel self-contained propeller pitch-control mechanism. Instead of tapping off pressurized oil from the engine to actuate the pitch servo, the Argus propellers used the finned nose of the spinner as a sort of windmill, using the differential speed between the prop and the finned section to drive the pitch control mechanism.
@@driftertankwild.
Not going to comment on accuracy, but this video was well paced and presented and I found it very interesting, well done! One thing I noticed in the pics was the wide range of styles of the "camo" finish used. You could build a model with any finish you liked and it'd be prototypical.
First of all, congratulations for your beautiful videos. Incredible how the whole work (the historical presentation as well your narration) is wonderful!
I'd like to add that (I don't know exactly why) I got 'touched' by this particular video (the Hs 129). In really, perhaps because it is great to hear that the WWII planes were not only 'thoroughbreds'
I’ve read a few books on German air vs. antitank tactics. The way the HS 129 and JU 87 where are used would be the circle behind the tank formation and hit the tank at the rear. The obvious benefit was of hitting thinner armor, but a huge benefit was if the airplane was struck at least it’s heading towards its own lines and the chances of a pilot avoiding capture and surviving significantly increased.
Underpowered for most of its life. The Argus engines worked OK for the Fw-189 observation planes but the Hs-129 was a lot heavier. The Gnome-Rhone was …adequate, (though the counter rotation feature was helpful for a twin-engined type, but probably caused logistics roblems) but rather over sensitive to dirt and grit, deploying it to dirt fields in Russia or North Africa …. (Unlike the Hs-123 which coped with Russia quite well)
Part of the control issue might have been the ridiculously short control stick in a very cramped cockpit (the engine instruments were on the inner face of the nacelles, and the gunsight was external) giving the pilot very little leverage.
While the Hs-129B-3 with the PAK 75 was impressive, only about 12 were built.
9:58 In case you're wondering about the fins on the Argus 410's spinner, that part of a wind-driven generator intended to supply DC current to the variable prop pitch mechanism.
The armored fuselage and bullet-resistant one-piece canopy of the Hs-129 was ahead of its time.
The Glorious Duck was the name the Wermacht gave it. Stuka Rudel used the Hs-129 and Ju-87G as inspiration for the A-10 Warthog when he was a technical advisor to Fairchild Republic in the 70s.
The b3 variant with that 75mm cannon looks so ridiculous that it could be one of these fantasy weapons out of an action movie.
I can imagine that the airframe would simply disintegrate after it fired ten rounds.
I can confirm on the small gun/ big bullet question. When visiting the states, a friend there let me shoot through his gun collection. One of them was a tiny Derringer pistol loaded with .45 long colt ammunition. The tip of the bullets was at the end of the barrel, while the grip was shorter than my hand. I had a bruise on my hand for about a week.
As much as heavier guns suck to carry around a lot (there's a reason many service rifles moved to polymers) it really helps "slow down" the recoil, like catching a kicked soccer ball rather than a pitched baseball. Neither is nice but one I can *do*.
What were the vanes on the spinners of the earlier engines for?
Variable pitch for prop blades.
Good video. I was always a fan of the HS-129 inspire of its shortcomings.
On the subject of small-arms "power" and more specifically, recoil, mentioned from the little tangent at the end of the video:
While the Mosin in 7.62x54r may not be the most powerful round out there, if you fired it in an unmodified Mosin with the steel butt-plate, it's still on the higher end of what most people consider tolerable felt recoil. I can shoot a Mosin pretty well, but it will leave a bit of a bruise after more than a handful of rounds.
I really love this plane. I think it's a predecessor to the A-10 along with the P-47 in it's ground attack role.
From what I understand, Ju 87 and Hs 129 tactics and performance were studied intensely, before the design of the A-10 began. They even held a conference concerning the design, where Hans-Ulrich Rudel was invited! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
23:22 I built the model in early 80s. This looks like the box art.
You're right, the airfix hs 129, with the outstanding art of the late Roy Cross. I really hope Airfix release the hs 129 as a vintage classic soon.
YT hasn't yet "scrubbed" off all those spicy crosses on tails yet. It's hilarious that people play little games with history, isn't it?
Great informational video, as usual. So glad there are others so interested in warbirds.
A number of years ago, I built a 1/6 scale R/C model of this aircraft. Had all the bells n' whistles (retracts, scratchbuilt full cockpit, etc). Powered by a pair of Zenoah G-38's. Flew pretty well, too!
Aaah! The Airfix box-art! Classic!
I built an awesome tamiya model of this as a kid. i remember thinking it looked so cool
Me too
It was the first model aircraft I ever built
There is something ironically about a heavily armed (a variant of Pak 40!!) and heavy armored plane with super weak engines. You can really see that the designers had to come up with solutions to make it work, like external gauges due to cramped cockpit.
Really well done and informative video. Thanks for making it! I really appreciate it and enjoy your channel.
Thanks for this. I've always had a soft spot for Henschel's aircraft, despite their lack of attention, with most Luftwaffe enthusiasts. Since you've done this post, maybe you could do one about the Henschel Hs123. That aircraft saw service up to 1944 in the ground attack role, DESPITE it's obsolescence.
TY-good job on the beloved geek of the LW line up. Bit not mentioned...the French Gnome Rhone engines were said to have had bad batches by resistence tampering at the factory.
I also liked the even weirder FW 189 version , just needs a periscope in the armor for landing/take offs ;)
I kitbashed the 75mm bordkannonen Hs-129B3 from the Hasegawa 1/48 kit and the gun pod from the dog 5h@t AMT kit in 2001. It pissed me off when Hasegawa tooled a B3 kit a few years later. It's still in It's case in a diorama in my living room to this day... ❤
Great video
That'd be a job, on the the B1 model variant, having to tap the instrument gauges to unfreeze them.
I recognise the Roy Cross Airfix box art at 23.59.
Such a cool looking plane imo , I built the airfix model when I was a kid , tankbuster
The plane was not underpowered, for what it was supposed to do. The problem, the real one, was the wear down of those engines as the planes was delivered to Tunisia without sand filters, despite a full depot being full of those in france! It was a similar experience of the Bread BA65 in Africa which had engines so wore down to be almost unable to take off in the hot weather.
As the plane got in Russia it did much better: it was not a dog fighter but it was not meant to be. It was slightly slower then a Sturmovik bu it was able to hug the ground as no other plane, often frustrating the enemies trying get on it's tail It also was not uncommon that the Hs129 hit the turret of a tank it was shooting with the tail, but none was lost that way.
By 1944 being low become too dangerous, and due to lack of air cover by fighter screens, the HS129 become too vulnerable so it was replaced by the Fw190, which was better suited to defend itself. This being said the Fw was never able to be as effective ans the Hs and the Stuka against armoured targets.
Remember that they've sent HS-129 into africa but kinda forgot sending antitank ammo for mk101. Germans were pretty shit at logistics
13:21 anyone knows why prop hub has winglets?
Considering the mosquito had two 1200 hp engines the Argus weren’t very buff
I can think of a 4th category for the discount bin. It may be the last few of a now discontinued item. They needed the shelf space for the new item so it goes into the bargain bin to make room.
Well done;
For when you need to unleash the quacken.
Fu-cki-foff is the most hilarious pronunciation of Fockewulf I've ever heard 😂😂😂😂
German dad says it's Fuk -volf , w is always a V in German, like VolksVagen ;)
Also like u videos , i want more , what is next plane ? He219 😅?
Great video, well researched! Henschel was actually quite a large company, their main business being making locomotives (Steam engines). But I imagine that their aero division was not that big.
"pocketsized .50 caliber"
Nah, worse, MUCH worse. There has actually been made .50 cal revolvers, you handle them right or you break your wrists on firing, but they still actually work better than you would expect.
However, the BIG problem with the 75mm cannon was having only 12 rounds of ammo...
Oh, and the competition actually also included the Blohm und Voss-141, the most epically nonsymmetrical plane of the war.
Pocketsized .50 calibers don't normally have long travel recoil systems.
@@obsidianjane4413 Some do actually.
I've fired one.
Totally absurd and almost uncontrollable because even with the recoil damping system, it just made the recoil weirdly slow and drawn out.
The point however was that the 75mm cannon, its recoil was so bad that if the aircraft emptied its magazine too quickly, it could literally crash from lack of airspeed.
Boeing saves money by using fewer bolts on their jets.
Also deleting anyone who has safetly concerns....
Also by deleting anyone who raises safety concerns...
@@lordterra1377 that's the expensive part
@@teehasheestower
It's alot cheaper than grounding all your aircraft and fixing the problems lol
😂😂
The french radial engines by Gnome Rhone were also used on the Messerschmitt Gigant transport plane they were not bad, very good engines in fact! But germans did not have the right tools for overhaul and so they sucked when used by the Germans.
If I remember correctly, the French engines were licensed built versions of the Bristol Jupiter series, which had an outstanding service history.
I read the French Gnome Rhone engines were sometimes screwed by the resistance where possible. I don't blame them if they could.
@@robertsolomielke5134 yes thats right german engineers at Henschel took apart any "Beutemotor" and checked the internals.
Henschel's solution to the lack of instrument panel space was to put engine data dials on each engine nacelle. These were reproduced as decals in the model kits.
When you speak electronics, you referred to what? I want to make clear in my mind what was electronic in analog bord.
*_Designing and developing_* an engine, intended for low-demand, sounds like a project to keep a father-in-law's factory financed. I'd have liked a lot more about that Argus As 410 engine project. In the event of war, using resources to make a "low demand" engine sounds 'shady' (presumably the needs of civil aviation have shrunk, making it "lowest demand").
Interesting video. However, would you please add 'chapters' to make it easier to review parts?
Best Wishes. ☮
The Zoukei-Moura kits of this chonk are amazeballs. Too bad I don't have the time or money for one. I've got a Hasegawa and a Hobby 2000 kit in 1/48 on my Shelves of Shame...
"How do we get them to choose our design?"
"Paint a cool sharks mouth on the front. !"
I'm confused. When I look up the MK 101 cannon it comes up as a 30mm weapon, not 75mm.
It is 30mm. Later aircraft had the 75mm. Very late war.
4:12 me who has worked on steel , wood and aluminium trawlers ......... Wood does have alot going for it I'd rate it much higher than Aluminium and not far if not equal to steel upto a certain size , eventually you're going to want steel . However this is probably the opposite of what you'd want on an aircraft
Never understood why the RLM/Luftwaffe couldn’t get their act together on the Hs 129!
I'm wondering what other engines could have been more effectively utilised.....I always thought the BMW 132Dc radial (660 kW/880 hp) might have been a good choice, given that many of the aircraft that used it were either obsolete, approaching obsolescence or phased out.
Regards
There were prototypes and considerations to either use the Jumo 211, the BMW 901 or the italian Isotta Fraschini Delta engines on it. I guess the demand for the german engines for other planes was too large and the italian engines too rare.
Does War Thunder model the gauges on the engine nacelles?
Yes
Looked at from certain angles at the front, the design can be compared to the modern day Frogfoot which fulfills the same role.
Wonder how many kph it lost whenever the 75 was fired?
This plane's nickname (Duck) is a double-edged sword. One is that it looks like a duck with the shape and color of the nose and the second is that it literally is a sitting duck to enemy fire. At least as far as I know it
Most attackers were sitting ducks against enemy fighters and are to this day. Pilots were more conserned by enemy flak than fighters due to hs-129 being pretty difficult to spot and engage on extremely low altidutdes by enemy fighters.
So... What were the little "fans" on the initial engines?
Always found this such an appealing & good looking little aircraft... but glad I never had to fight a war in it! ( especially with that nuts 75mm strapped to it!) seems a silly & not untypical waste of resources as per a lot of German ww2 production 😉
Opinion of a modeller,Ignition ring on rear making wiring Soo much fun.
can you highlight the back ground picture? great stuff.
Wonder if they could have been used as formation destroyers like the me-410
Anyone know why there are fins on the spinner?
The variable pitch mechanism was powered by that spinner. Most variable pitch propellers were powered by engine oil pressure. This was an odd concept that was on all Argus powered aircraft and stayed on the HS129 when re-engined.
The combined production of the Merlin was 168,086, not counting the 9000 produced that were the Meteor version for tanks (which makes it 177,068 - so more than the R1830?).
I wonder if they used the Cessna Skymaster layout if performance would have been better.
If it's a low demand engine, stop production and change over the assembly line to produce high demand engines.
Yes, I didn't understand that either
Which makes sense on a longer time frame but doesn’t make sense if you’re trying to put out as many planes as possible as fast as possible.
@@elkpants1280
The DB600 series had been in production since the mid 30s. It was an awesome engine from the get go.
The tank armor thickness issue is remedied by attacking from the rear.
T-34s and KV-1s had nearly as thick rear armor as the front.
@@obsidianjane4413 True except T34 was only 30mm rear of turret and 15mm top. And all tanks vulnerable on engine deck.
Like to see more of that scene at 22:55. A model diorama artist could spend many hours on all that.😊. You can bet if the plane had ANY mechanical, that 75mm cannon is gone. Kursk. Hey!! Do Kursk!! Lots of Cool Logo A/C there.
The (in)famous Brewster Buffalo runs into the same story. They used a somewhat weaker and older engine compared to what Grumman put in their prototype wildcat. In prototype form, the F2A actually did better than the future wildcat, but when actual military fittings like armor, weapons, and self-sealing tanks were added - performance dropped off sharply. Thus the F4 proves to be the carrier plane of choice. (Though the Finns found it quite good, when you removed the extra weight needed for the navy.)
Hs.129 B-2 early and maybe B-1 (or something near at that) have MK101 with 30 shells, in rare case can have 6 shells. B-2 middle and late have MK103 with 100 shells. Also exist one (or two, can't remember) experimental B-0 with 77mm SG113. Oher 14-15 planes B-0 with standart weapons.
The prototype looks like a slightly smaller Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke.
If I ever get my Dream of World War 2 Transformers toys.. I'd like ones of these with the 70mm cannon to be one of them as it would make a lovely rifle for the robot mode too. & looks nice with something like a Stukka.
Not to be too picky but your Supply and Demand curve labels are backwards
The Germans are extremely innovative and had to make do with much less resources than the all lies, that is basically what lost them the war overwhelming numerical superiority in men and materials!
Don't forget the hawker hurricane.
The little hole on the nose was the lens of the gun camera.
Somehow twin-blade propellers looks odd on a late 30's design.
So it was some use.
But it wouldn't have been on any front where the enemy had effective fighters.
What are you talking about the B17 was used right up to the end of the war.
The high unit price, low payload, and comparatively short range led the Airforce prefer the B24, especially in Asia. At the end of the war there was a certain overflow of unused B-17's.
@@marcusott2973
The B24 does seem to have been the better of the two.
Though neither was great.
@alanpennie Cooperate Army Aircorps preferred the B-24 because it was cheaper to build and had a larger payload. The crews preferred the B-17 because it could take more punishment.
But as you say, both are not great.
@marcusott2973
Your reading comprension needs work
Its OG Duke Nukem 1 and 2 or nothing😅 also good vid. I had no idea about the 189C and Gods almighty what a death trap! They ruined a perfectly good plane
Germany really hated it to use more than one engine on a plane.
10 MINUTES WOOOO NEW RECORD
Edit: ***10 minutes posted ago
I remember reading that the Germans tried using the French made Gnome 14M radial on a FW 189. But it crashed on its first flight. From what I have read. This was not a popular engine with the pilots who used this engine. They were very prone to break downs.
The French Gnome Rhone engines were often screwed by the resistance where possible.....I don't blame them, and it is often missed when these engines come up in discussion . Tells you the real av buffs from newbish research, but it's an OK mistake.
Even the 37mm autocannon pod was an impressive anti-tank weapon when the Hs-129B2 came out. Sadly, the Russians were on KV-1s and T-34s by then.
Is this the famous "panzer-quacker?"
Oooooo gime a copy of Duke! I want that.
This but with ju288 engines thanks you
The Hs 129 ,with 2 poor engines, should have tested with 4 low powered engines - 2 engines per narcel ,in a pusher and puller configuration. That might have worked ????? maybe The large 75mm cannon needed recoil springs so to not effect the flight of the 129.
German aircraft like to overheat that way
Just today I had the displeasure of seeing a new post on the WT subreddit talking about the gun jettison system. So many braindead armchair experts claimed the system was dumb or useless for a variety of nonsensical reasons...