I feel like there's about a 90% chance that Glukharev was informing on his bosses. Being accused of espionage and just being transferred especially, since that comes off as a 'well yes he's spying but it's on behalf of us, so he's not in trouble, he's just going to look at another guy'
That NS-37 is like one of those Cards Against Humanity moments "Either the card is so bad there is no point in using it or so good that you CAN'T use it"
Well, they made one even bigger. One with a 45mm cannon. It was so bad, that you had to shoot it while going at least about 240 mph or you’ll risk stalling from the recoil which slowed your plane a lot. It would also shake the whole plane once shot, and the 45mm Yak usually had to be escorted by 2 Yak-3’s in sorties.
When I was a teenager I was very interested in the history of the Russian/Soviet aviation and space program, but as it was the 1980's information was damn hard to come by and what information I could get was unreliable. I love your channel and the 15 year old me from the past is very much enjoying it.
The opposite was when I was growing up in 1980s Czechoslovakia. Soviet and Czechoslovakian stuff everywhere, but very little about western or German stuff. They even suppressed the fact that western part of Czechoslovakia was liberated by US Army. So I got to know only after 1989. Bit crazy :)
I’m glad to see someone else who grew up before me that enjoys the same things. Very cool shit. I like the old Soviet stuff, too, since it was much easier to see American military and aviation stuff as a kid since it’s kinda pushed on you with Call of Duty and stuff. I have some old cold-war era watches, one with radium in the hands (I never wear it and keep it put away - it still glows!) and I thoroughly enjoy games like War Thunder, modded Kerbal Space Program, and DCS.
The Yak-9T ended up being very effective against light ships in the black sea though. At shorter ranges it was also incredibly effective against bombers, though the Germans just didn't have many of those. If they had access to better gunsights it would have been a lot more effective in general but that was not the case until after the war, which is part of why the Mig-15 had more success despite using a worse version of the gun (though with a higher fire rate). It's everyone's favorite meme-plane in warthunder, so at least it has that
@@johnmurphy5689 14,000 is actually very small especially considering that they fought on 3 fronts (Western Europe, Russia and Africa) plus their manufacturing capabilities were crippled due to constant Allied bombings so replenishing them or even basic maintenance and repair was very difficult to do so seeing those 14,000 on the Eastern front alone is just daydreaming.
Similar to the 'tank killer rockets'. The Brits shot a a stationary tank with their best, and hit it with one rocket out of 67 fired , for only superficial damage. The American decision to go with heavy machine guns (and a LOT of them, because 'Merica), and use them againt fighters and everything that wasn't armored like a tank worked out better.
My most obvious take away from this yet again excellent film is, that in the west you were fired when unsuccessful at your job, while in the east you were fired upon for the same reason.
Mostly just under Stalin. The guy was literally as bad as Hitler... The USSR tried hard to clean up the mess he made and salvage what Lenin had created. But it was a perpetual uphill battle.
The only guy who actually delivered was the one who kept his job tho. If crazy how fast and how much turnout there was, at least it seemed to be stat and result based.
@@yum9918 Nah he just knew something good was coming and wanted the glory for himself. As they never changed the blueprints. Although why is a mystery, as he'd get paid no matter what. Maybe a better Dacha was on the cards for each victim he claimed.
I applaud your skill at providing just the right amount of background information and context to make understanding the relationship Yak-9T and the NS-37 concise and comprehensible in such a relatively short video. Thank you very much for your efforts.
19:44; what an amazing piece of film. The Yaks in the foreground with an American B-17 in the background. Finding both at the same airfield, on purpose, is pretty amazing.
Happened more often than you might think. Many missions launched from the UK or Italy ended up in Russia. Look up Operation Frantic, and see if you can find Geust and Petrov's book "Lend Lease Aircraft in Russia" for more. The USSR ended up with a couple of dozen B-17s, though they weren't actually lend-lease. They also had B-24s and a few Lancasters.
The Yak-9T actually has a very big and noticeable difference to previous Yak-9 models: the cooler intake under the engine. It is specifically this modification, which German Airforce instructed pilots to look out for, and if noted, preferably not engage (!), as the engagement would be too dangerous. Strange that it was missed in the video, although it was a German source where I got that from (am a German, was studying history)
Not true, Both Yak-9 sans suffix and Yak-9T had identical oil cooling intakes underneath the nose. German pilots were instructed in 1944 to avoid dogfights with Yak fighters WITHOUT oil coolers underneath the nose. The Yak in question there is the Yak-3, although same was true for the Yak-9U which appeared at the same time with the VK-107 engine. Neither of these have anything to do with the Yak-9T.
It's nice to see a new video from you, although these are very difficult times for you and your family. Thank you. I sincerely hope your family is safe and secure and notably that your father is safe as well. i salute his courage.
It's really cool that the stock footage used actually has something to do with what he's talking about at the time rather than just random stuff just thrown in there like other TH-cam channels do
@@PaperSkiesAviation I personally enjoy your sense of humor quite a bit, and noticed this video shared it less than usual. Hope you're okay bro. Take care...
In the game "Secret Weapons Over Normandy" you could install a 57mm cannon pod to almost any plane once you unlocked it. You could drop tanks, destroyers, and even carriers down with it. Strapping that gun to the belly of a F4F Wildcat is as ridiculous as you might think, but oh so effective in game.
Hey, just so you know, you make really good videos, and I'm here as a random. I just notice, in the few videos I've watched, besides the obviously extensive information you research to write these, the pacing and format of the videos is very good. For example, you introduce the next main sub-topic of the story (in this case the plane's unique gun system), then we go back like, multiple decades sometimes, and it's immediately clear why we are where/when we are in relation to where we just came from. You just set that up well, and then in seeming to tangent, continue to lead us through a the story while also providing so much context for that sub-topic we're heading back towards. It's just subtle but very impressive, and I wanted to point it out for everyone. P.S. Oh, and you have a great voice and accent for narration :P It's nice to listen to.
Love your content and presentation. This is the first time I've sign up to a service like Curiosity and I'm looking forward to your content on Nebula. Thanks for your effort.
5:04 please tell me that is a real photo. It is just so comically oversized that it looks fake. Very well done as usual. You can really tell the amount of effort you put into these videos.
Hehe, imagine a world where that sort of thing became normal! But that ridiculous size is part of the appeal of recoilless guns - mounting guns of immense caliber onto smaller hulls, chassis, or airframes.
@@banzeyegaming2234 Monitors are generally considered coastal/harbor defense vessels with oversized guns. They have the full size guns of a ship bigger than themselves but its so much weight they sacrifice speed, range and handling to the extent they're rarely ever oceangoing. That wouldn't be true with using a recoil-less version. You could mount that big gun with no more weight than would be present with the standard smaller guns typically fitted. The bonus of a recoil-less rifle is that since you don't have to contain all the force from that larger shell they can be really light. Perfect example of that is the M67 76mm recoil-less rifle that the US used vs a regular M1 76mm Tank gun. The M67 clocks in at 37.5 lbs (17 kg) empty while the M1 weighs 1,141 lbs (517.55 kg) in comparison. You have larger shells that waste a lot of powder in exchange for having a significantly lighter gun itself. The downside of course being that the guns have an immense back blast that you have to be careful of.
Hey bud, where you been? Hope you're doing OK. Weird to see such a talented artist like yourself just disappear, how it doesn't have to do with the war. Anyway just wishing you the best if you see this!
Hello Paper Skies, I just wanted to say that nobody on TH-cam does exactly what you do, as well as you do. I hope that you and your family are safe during these dangerous times. And when you are able, we are all eagerly awaiting another excellently researched and interesting video from you-- but no pressure, you obviously have to take care of the things that matter most first.
Ah yes...nothing like an arrest and execution on flimsy charges to end a weapons or technology project in the USSR. Also love that you always tell these stories from a far closer perspective than many people could having family born in the former USSR and your father having been a pilot! That´s why you focus on people and topics other channels rarely do. Hope you and your family can stay safe in this insane times!
There was another attempt to mount a 37mm cannon on a fighter prior to Yak-9T. LaGG-3 had it in 1941-2. Not because it was needed but because Shpitalny wanted to see one more of his guns adopted and heavily lobbied that. It had same problems: low probability to hit a tank, insufficient penetration/damage, lack of armor on a plane that is supposed to dive through AA and the heavy cannon made LaGG-3 even worse dogfighter (it already wasn't stellar). On the other hand, the cannon showed itself very well against bombers because it had longer range than machineguns (thus allowing to fire from beyond tail gunner's range) and even one hit desintegrated the plane. During combat trials LaGG-3 with 37mm cannon shot down 13 and damged 4 more planes in 4 combat encounters.
Also, the engineer's (the 'L' part) preferred engine wasn't the one that he wanted. The end result was completely unreliable and underpowered as a result.
I'm sure you're aware but thought I'd point out for prosperity the Yak-9 was derived from the Yak-UTI and has a tandem two seat planform. The cockpit wasn't moved back, they used the rear placement for it, where normally on the Yak-9 variants the front placement is used for the cockpit. The reason for the Yak-9 was simply to make use of tooling and production which had been improvised on a large scale to convert Yak-UTI trainers into the Yak-7 combat variant of the trainer. The Yak-9 was basically this aircraft redeveloped as a purpose built fighter upon the same planform, mainly the panelling is different although some late Yak-7 are in every respect identical to an early Yak-9 except for the cowling machine gun, a lighter ShKAS instead of a heavy Beresin, showing it is a converted trainer. You couldn't visually tell them apart at that stage, it was actually the Yak-7 which introduced the bubble canopy and cut down rear fuselage, but earlier production is just a blanked over second crew position and is obviously a converted two seater. It was an emergency measure to convert the Yak-UTI into the Yak-7 and then ramp production of it alongside the Yak-1 and as far as I know one of the factors which led to this was being a little more stable and easier to fly, the Yak-1 was extremely nimble but noted for its ability to become a handful for a novice pilot, by contrast the Yak-7 was noted for being very easy to fly for novices and a stable gun platform, a bit like the British Hurricane's reputation in the RAF as compared to the Spitfire, different but still very good. Simply, the Yak-1 was the thoroughbred and the Yak-7 the converted trainer with a blanked out rear position. Production of the Yak-7 was ramped so that thousands as a fighter, instead of dozens as a trainer were built and could be instantly produced. The Yak-9 is basically a refinement built as a fighter from scratch, but is the same aircraft built on the same planform with the same tooling. The stroke of genius about the Yak-9 was Yakovlev realising its heritage provided an opportunity to create the first multirole fighter type, in a sense. The airframe would not be imbalanced by use of the original rear crew position for heavy internal equipment like extra fuel tanks or bombs, such as in the Yak-9B and Yak-9D. Alternatively the cockpit could be moved to the rear position and give room for extra armament or larger armament in the front, again without impacting the flight characteristics in any significant way which is something you certainly couldn't do with a Yak-1. You could fit a Nudelman into a Yak-1, you could move the cockpit back a bit to accommodate it, but you would run into CoG issues you don't get with the Yak-9 and it would probably be unflyable. You could also put an extra auxiliary fuel tank in the rear fuselage of a Yak-1 just like a Mustang and vastly increase its range but would run into the same trouble as the Mustang with flight instability and manoeuvring restrictions until the tank is used up, again you don't have this problem at all with the Yak-9 as it was designed originally for a second crew position. You can have bombs behind the cockpit in a bay, extra fuel, or move the cockpit back and put a giant cannon in the front and they didn't give it any handling problems. And you could do it all on the same production line with the same aircraft and never delay a constant supply of deliveries to the field. They're all simple modifications upon the same planform. With all that in mind, at that point Stalin probably would've given Yakovlev a headjob. Favouritism is an odd word however, being favoured by a dictator is like being licked by a tiger.
I used to love flying the Yak 9T in Aces High 2. Great competitive online game. Anyway I digress... it was like throwing softballs at the enemy, the trajectory was insane and lining up didnt always work with the low round count you had, but when you got used to the gun it was amazing. Single round impact fighter destruction, two to three well aimed shots on a bomber wing and it was out. Huge fun, especially if vox was open and you got to hear someone berate you as they went down haha.
I remember watching an episode of "Wings of the Red Star" on the History Channel many years ago, where they had a WWII Soviet pilot talking about the P-39, and he mentioned how much he loved the 37mm cannon it had; you got in close -- 50 yards or less -- and all it took was one round to destroy almost any aircraft. Kind of an interesting commentary, comparing his version of 'close' to the way most British and US fighters had the collimation set for their wing-mounted guns.
Every time I learn about the soviet union I'm amazed at how it managed to have such of a wealth of talented people despite executing so many of them for various silly reasons.
Think about talented people in our country. Some go to machine shops, some to wafer fabrication, some to making TVs, or cars, or water skis, chemical manufacture, food, advertising, the stock exchanges and so many other places you'd go silly before you named them all. I think the Soviets had a similar amount of geniuses at one point in time. But they killed a huge number of their creative and scientific minds, and it only seems like they had a huge pool to draw on in the military because these smart people were not being used in other places. Consider how many genuinely intelligent people there are in the real estate business, or in cutting edge dental technology, or in any of the many many mature industries that America had which the Soviets either did not have, or had in a very demure state. Soviets could hardly keep up with America in war technology, but even to do that they fell behind in a thousand other little industries. A guy like Steve Jobs, building new phones with spare parts he bummed off of engineers, and turning that into a business, would have had a much more difficult time getting off the ground in the USSR. And some people, if they don't have that opening, wither away, and their genius never blooms.
Yak-9T was not useless. Before it came out, fw-190 pilots ususally engaged yaks in head-on attacks because of yak's relatively poor aament. After several dozen 190s suddenly exploded in the air they were forced to abandon this tactic against all yaks
so incredibly fun in war thunder tho. for some spaghetti code reason the first shot is always 100% exactly where your pipper is, and then after that it starts deflecting. so its super satisfying going headon with a p47 doing one click and watching the trajectory of the round land right on the upper part of the engine and knocking it out instantly.
I really enjoyed this video, thanks. I recently bought a kit of the Yak 9T/K as I haven't built one before and I was intrigued by the massive cannon it carried. I didn't know anything about it's use or capabilities but I do now thanks to your research, glad I wasn't born in the USSR during the thirties and forties!
8:13 Did it come to your mind that maybe Glukharev was the one behind the demise of the people around him? He was probably connected to some other official or KGB, and fed them information about those guys the whole time. EDIT: I now read more comments here and apparently I can promote myself to the rank of Captain Obvious.
well unfortunately if the tank was at the frontline and already shooting at your buddies or logistic support could not be destroyed or tampered with, this was the most reliable weapon. even if logistics are destroyed, there is still a tank driving around
Reminds me of the A-10 and that one test where it had to shoot down 12 tanks, being able to swoop down at them as many times as it needed, while they didn't move, it only managed to make 3 immobile, and it was said that all 3 of those could be made to work by the next day, it was hilarious
After the blood and guts of the crew were mopped out, sure. The thing is in the field, being three tanks short will lose your battle. Part of knocking equipment out in warfare is not letting the enemy recover/fix the device. Thinking that test is a complete failure is the flawed thinking of non-combat personnel and committee thinking. It's like general Burton's crusade against the Bradley.. he didn't know his independent test failures were useless because he tested for roles and situations that weren't what the weapon was supposed to do.
@@Ben-mw9vz a-10 can carry those and loiter nearby/maneuver quickly enough to save lives on the ground. Then it can land at an improvised airfield nearby for reload from a herc and do it again, and that's what other bombers/ground attack can't do. Strike eagles and bombers don't lend themselves well to spontaneous missions like close air support, or would need a spotter drone in the area.
Well this was really a known weakness of the GAU-8, insufficient armour penetration to reliably kill modern tanks. In those days the A-10's chief anti tank weapon was the AGM-65 missile, which remains able to kill any tank with a single hit. The cannon was, to tell the truth, rather redundant from the start. SPAAG systems like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka make going low and close enough for a strafing run in a plane as slow as the A-10 practically suicidal.
I love your channel I just discovered it a few weeks ago, great videos great history, you have really high production value with great delivery style. Thx for your
Randomly watching this as TH-cam's algorithm suggested it to me, not really that interested in the subject but have been blown away by the editing in this video. Really good stuff!
Their paranoia was justified considered that even a marshal like Tukhachevisky was negotiating with the Germans, and everyone knew it, even the Japanese.
And now we have an aircraft in wide use that's main gun produces so much recoil that after only a few seconds of firing it can knock itself out of the sky.
Engineering with out room for extensive failure isn't engineering at all. It's a miracle they got anything done..... One of the most solid engineering sayings "fail fast".
Can you imagine what the YAK-9T would do to morale on the German side? It's a plane that looks like any other plane, but hits so hard that one hit is almost certainly a kill shot, and occasionally can be used at ranges that are outside what you normally consider dangerously close (ie: needs to be actively watched so they don't line up a shot) That'd be a *terrifying* thing to know about when you're out and flying sorties, it's like being an infantryman who knows the enemy is fond of using snipers and has no idea if or when one of those soldiers they see off in the distance is gonna come out with one of those anti-tank sniper rifles instead of a normal combat rifle.
@@miskatonic6210 as been said above Yak-9T was almost indistinguishable from other Yak-9 modifications on the decision making distance (to engage head on or not) and was capable of bringing any enemy fighter down with just single hit. It was a fact that after appearance of Yak-9T FW-190 pilots started to evade head on attacks on Yaks.
This is a very good point. I even thought of touching it briefly in this video. If you take, let's say, top-10 Soviet aces, most of them scored the majority of their victories while flying Cobras. I think only 1 or 2 (can't check it right now) flew Yaks through all the war: Vorozheykin and Glinka (I'm not sure, though). And I remember for sure Vorozheykin flew Yak-9T at some point. However, don't quote me on this. I'm going to need to check it later :). Anyways, I decided to keep it for another video. But you are absolutely right about the love for Cobra in the Soviet Air Force.
@@PaperSkiesAviation The main difference between the cannons is that the US built one had considerably lower muzzle velocity. It still had enough recoil to pose serious problems in operation. I have a hard time imagining why the russians put so much propellent in that cartridge. Even after the war the new version they put out had less propellent but still probably more by half again what would have been reasonable. The whole point to using (bomb)shells is that you don't need to rely on velocity to generage power. Get the shell on target, doesn't matter if it hits hard or touches down gently, the shell does the work once it gets to the target. The rational reason to put more propellent in a round like that is to get more range, but clearly the round was effective at many times the range it could be effectively used in combat, at least mounted in an airplane. What were they thinking? Was this because the same round was used in ground based AA guns? Were any of them actually effective at greater ranges?
@@laughingdaffodils5450 The Soviets did lots of wacky things due to their EXTREME top down management practices. The engineers would come up with an idea, then almost every manager and director above them would add their own (frequently ill conceived and unfounded) part to the idea that by the time it went into production and use, it might have only been 40% the engineering of the original design and then everything else was added later by various officials. Mostly it was a disastrous process, but that’s where the idea of using a wildly over-powered cannon round certainly came from.
I remember reading somewhere that they removed the canons as soon as they received the planes. That much like the Yak, the 37mm wasn't useable. I think they liked the plane for other reasons.
Apparently tank-busting aircraft in WW2 were... somewhat exaggerated in their performance. In fact, tank-busting aircraft weren't that much of a thing unless they had PGMs. In which case they could absolutely demolish tanks.
Not sure why I clicked, but I found here the best aircraft documentary of hundreds I have seen! So incredibly detailed of the f***ed up Soviet system where brilliant designers are ripped off after being sent to their graves! And even snuck in Rokossovsky somehow....One thousand thumbs up!
Nice vid dude. It seems like being anywhere near Stalin was hazardous to your health and your families health and probably your friends health too . Glad it's not like that in Russia now ... oh wait.
Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent. You needed to be just competent enough to carry out orders, and have enough sense to know when to die in combat.
@@slappy8941 Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent, or if one of your close friends was either, or if one of your family was either, or if your neighbor told the police you weren't a good communist, or that a family member wasn't a good communist, or... Wait... Yeah maybe he was *a fucking monster and we need to accept that*.
In other nation, having bad performance at work, or produce bellow expectations only cause risk to career, in Soviet, with codification of вредительство as crime it even risk one's life. I don't think it can accurately being translated into "treason" because its not that simple.
Basically "вредитель" is close in meaning to "parasite", basically standing for a person wasting the resources and time on useless concepts, possibly with the goal of hurting or stalling the overall development of the project or a whole branch.
PROBLEM with narrative at 16:30…a false statement or implication that an ATTACK on a tank would only succeed 6.7% of the time. This is false. The statistic actually demonstrates that 6.7% of ROUNDS FIRED would hit the target. This is not an historically poor ratio of rounds fired/hits, even in modern day strike aircraft of even for ground-based automatic weapons, and does NOT translate to directly to success or failure of the attack itself (pk). Other than this pivotal yet false (or at least poorly stated) implication, I have found the video thoroughly entertaining and informative.
ROUNDS FIRED would hit the target - that's exactly what I was talking about - hitting the tank. And if you throw such things as "false", please, provide the facts that your arguments are based on. Otherwise my answer to such "experts" is always - "f*ck off". Sorry, but if you are straightforward with your statement, I'm very straightforward with my answer. It's always your choice how to start a conversation. With those in-flight tests, by the way, one of the test-pilots captain Kravchenko in 7 flights managed to get 2% hits in a single tank and 6% hit of the tank column. 6% of hitting a TANK COLUMN. Next, I chose the biggest number of 6.7% which is a HEAVY tank size target. But hitting is not destroying/damaging the tank. So, in reality you should consider only numbers for light and medium tanks. And even with those - during the WHOLE period of tests they (maj. Zvonarev, capt. Kravcenko) made various type of in-flight firing tests and out of 288 shots in all tests they scored only 31 hit. Of which only 5 were - armor penetration. So if you speak about the efficience, you should take 5 out of 288. 5/288 - 1,73%. Out of those 5 penetrations: 4 were 10 mm upper armor of the Pz.38 (t), and 1 (one) - of a 16 mm armor of the Pz.III. And that's all. Is this a "poor historical efficiency" or not, considering it was 1943 already?
So if you say "ATTACK on a tank would only succeed 6.7% of the time. This is false." - in fact you are right. Since it will not "succeed" with such a ratio. It will be way way less than 6.7%
That was absolutely fascinating. I had assumed that War Thunder oversold the capabilities of the Yak-9T and the 9K in game. Just not by how very much. I can’t blame them, after all its a game. But learning of the reality is always more interesting.
Excellent presentation. It makes one think about what might have happened if Russia had gone into Capitalism. Some very brilliant engineers and weapons designers would have, in all likelihood, have had much greater budgets and less recriminations in failure of prototypes. Seeing design come to fruition without fear would have produced some game-changing weaponry.
Maybe, it's an interesting idea at least. You could sort of spin post-Gorbachev Russia as sort of like this, and it's hard to tell if strictly the capitalist aspect has been beneficial since then, but I'm guessing you meant in the interwar era through the end of WWII specifically. I guess, what I'd be interested to see would be how this would affect Russia or any given country more broadly, or even with more varieties of economic and government systems. Say, suppose FDR was challenged in Supreme Court for going against (until then) implied term limits; would the New Deal have gone through, would social security exist, or how different would it be? Would people be more or less aware and receptive of how socialist his economic policies were, and how would that affect recovery from the Depression and how the Lost Generation and Silent Generation's culture evolved? Or for airplanes, would the Canadian Avro Arrow have seen service if Britain hadn't nationalized and merged its aeronautic companies as much, or say if it nationalized them but allowed them to be independent, or would that saturate their R&D with even more half finished projects cancelled for going over-budget? Or maybe if there were just a few more manned space crashes, ICBM tech might not have come as far and bomber-intercept aircraft could still have more of a role? I'm not sure, you made me think though, so that was neat. Anyway, I hope you have a nice day, and stay safe y'all.
@@KekusMagnus They already were in USSR. IT wasn't uncommon for scientists or engineers to work a second low skilled job such as janitor to meet their ends.
This makes the Soviets liking the P-39 even clearer, but I think the 37 it used was mostly HE firing (the gun was made as a bomber killer). Having the engine midships for balance and better gun sights (and some other guns)I wonder if the P-39 was preferred if you could get one. Also, I know the Imperial Russian air Force got some "pulpit" SPADs during WWI. Did they get any of the Variants (VIII and XIV if I remember right) that mounted a 37 mm hand-loaded gun through the spinner? (and used a gear system to drive the propeller). That seems to have been the first fighter with "big gun". Did the recoiless project get far enough to show how much propellant such a system would use? As I recall, this is what got the German recoiless guns discontinued.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any head to head comparison of Yak-9T and P-39, only these of average Yaks and Cobras. Usually the latter are described to be less agile in turns, but similar or somewhat better in verticals. Combine that with the description of Yak-9T being a heavier and worse-performing Yak (sometimes escorted during bomber interception by standard Yak-7B, Yak-9 or Yak-1B fighters for cover) and you might get a picture of both aircrafts being similar in a turn, but with Airacobra having an advantage in vertical maneuvers (and being able to survive more hits on average)
![Polikarpov I-16 "Ishak" | The Revolutionary Russian Fighter [Aircraft Overview #12]](/img/n.gif)
I feel like there's about a 90% chance that Glukharev was informing on his bosses. Being accused of espionage and just being transferred especially, since that comes off as a 'well yes he's spying but it's on behalf of us, so he's not in trouble, he's just going to look at another guy'
Yep, he's a narc for sure.
Given his apparent Teflon coating, I would say he was a definite teachers pet. Probably Beria's.
Actually, that was something of a norm in communist countries.
@@marko8640 Yes, the fast track to success and security was being a finger pointer and lick spittle.
@@davidwoods7408 probably not Beria as he didn’t come into a powerful position until 1939.
That NS-37 is like one of those Cards Against Humanity moments
"Either the card is so bad there is no point in using it or so good that you CAN'T use it"
I've never played that game, only heard about it, and I can't believe there is the possibility of the latter. Or does it depend on your company?
Well, they made one even bigger. One with a 45mm cannon. It was so bad, that you had to shoot it while going at least about 240 mph or you’ll risk stalling from the recoil which slowed your plane a lot. It would also shake the whole plane once shot, and the 45mm Yak usually had to be escorted by 2 Yak-3’s in sorties.
@@XOceaNX I've been playing it since 2016, but thanks for spreading the word anyway. :-D
@@SenkaBandit War Thunder changed how ground AI works, the 45mm can't pen anything since 1.5x, now it's worse
@@XOceaNX War Thunder's 9T is only useful against large bombers
When I was a teenager I was very interested in the history of the Russian/Soviet aviation and space program, but as it was the 1980's information was damn hard to come by and what information I could get was unreliable.
I love your channel and the 15 year old me from the past is very much enjoying it.
The opposite was when I was growing up in 1980s Czechoslovakia. Soviet and Czechoslovakian stuff everywhere, but very little about western or German stuff. They even suppressed the fact that western part of Czechoslovakia was liberated by US Army. So I got to know only after 1989. Bit crazy :)
I’m glad to see someone else who grew up before me that enjoys the same things. Very cool shit. I like the old Soviet stuff, too, since it was much easier to see American military and aviation stuff as a kid since it’s kinda pushed on you with Call of Duty and stuff. I have some old cold-war era watches, one with radium in the hands (I never wear it and keep it put away - it still glows!) and I thoroughly enjoy games like War Thunder, modded Kerbal Space Program, and DCS.
The Yak-9T ended up being very effective against light ships in the black sea though. At shorter ranges it was also incredibly effective against bombers, though the Germans just didn't have many of those. If they had access to better gunsights it would have been a lot more effective in general but that was not the case until after the war, which is part of why the Mig-15 had more success despite using a worse version of the gun (though with a higher fire rate).
It's everyone's favorite meme-plane in warthunder, so at least it has that
I will say that the Germans did build 14,000 Ju-88 Bombers so the "not many Bombers" quote might be wrong...
@@johnmurphy5689
14,000 is actually very small especially considering that they fought on 3 fronts (Western Europe, Russia and Africa) plus their manufacturing capabilities were crippled due to constant Allied bombings so replenishing them or even basic maintenance and repair was very difficult to do so seeing those 14,000 on the Eastern front alone is just daydreaming.
Similar to the 'tank killer rockets'. The Brits shot a a stationary tank with their best, and hit it with one rocket out of 67 fired , for only superficial damage. The American decision to go with heavy machine guns (and a LOT of them, because 'Merica), and use them againt fighters and everything that wasn't armored like a tank worked out better.
fuck this plane in WT yes
@@lamwen03 it's much heavier tho
My most obvious take away from this yet again excellent film is, that in the west you were fired when unsuccessful at your job, while in the east you were fired upon for the same reason.
One involves less lead than the other
Mostly just under Stalin.
The guy was literally as bad as Hitler... The USSR tried hard to clean up the mess he made and salvage what Lenin had created. But it was a perpetual uphill battle.
The only guy who actually delivered was the one who kept his job tho.
If crazy how fast and how much turnout there was, at least it seemed to be stat and result based.
Fired... Fired upon??? Da, second is interactive and therefore more fun.
@@yum9918 Nah he just knew something good was coming and wanted the glory for himself. As they never changed the blueprints. Although why is a mystery, as he'd get paid no matter what. Maybe a better Dacha was on the cards for each victim he claimed.
I loved the Tarantino-like introductions for Glukhaev and Yakovlev. That was just brilliant!
Great episode, I really enjoyed the format and historical background information. It's good you make these quality videos for the world.
Somehow it looses the whole LaGG-3-34 built in 1941
Just wait till the Yak-9K with the 45 mm guns comes, shoots one time, stops mid air and crashes into the ground 😂
Yak-9k with a BT5 cannon
hehe 71 mm pen
@@kellerplayz1570 NS-45 is the BT5 cannon but remodeled for planes??
@ Pretty it isnt. It is most likely NS-37 but for 45mm shells.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 that's more of the like of what I've heard
TE PILLÉ
I applaud your skill at providing just the right amount of background information and context to make understanding the relationship Yak-9T and the NS-37 concise and comprehensible in such a relatively short video. Thank you very much for your efforts.
19:44; what an amazing piece of film. The Yaks in the foreground with an American B-17 in the background. Finding both at the same airfield, on purpose, is pretty amazing.
Happened more often than you might think. Many missions launched from the UK or Italy ended up in Russia. Look up Operation Frantic, and see if you can find Geust and Petrov's book "Lend Lease Aircraft in Russia" for more. The USSR ended up with a couple of dozen B-17s, though they weren't actually lend-lease. They also had B-24s and a few Lancasters.
So glad that you uploaded a video😁 I don't know where you are, but hopefully you are not affected too much by the current war
He is East European
@@thefiveeights4665 hes Ukrainian
He's in Canada
Hello boyos
Hello boyos
The Yak-9T actually has a very big and noticeable difference to previous Yak-9 models: the cooler intake under the engine. It is specifically this modification, which German Airforce instructed pilots to look out for, and if noted, preferably not engage (!), as the engagement would be too dangerous.
Strange that it was missed in the video, although it was a German source where I got that from (am a German, was studying history)
Not true, Both Yak-9 sans suffix and Yak-9T had identical oil cooling intakes underneath the nose. German pilots were instructed in 1944 to avoid dogfights with Yak fighters WITHOUT oil coolers underneath the nose. The Yak in question there is the Yak-3, although same was true for the Yak-9U which appeared at the same time with the VK-107 engine. Neither of these have anything to do with the Yak-9T.
@@alankucar8025 Correct
@@alankucar8025Unless the Yak-9UT (a Yak-9U with the NS-37 of the Yak-9T) was actually made, but I'm not to sure about that.
It's nice to see a new video from you, although these are very difficult times for you and your family. Thank you. I sincerely hope your family is safe and secure and notably that your father is safe as well. i salute his courage.
It's really cool that the stock footage used actually has something to do with what he's talking about at the time rather than just random stuff just thrown in there like other TH-cam channels do
Finally new content. I love your style.
Top notch editing on this one. :D
Thank you!
@@PaperSkiesAviation why didnt you mention LaGG-3-34 ?
@@PaperSkiesAviation I personally enjoy your sense of humor quite a bit, and noticed this video shared it less than usual. Hope you're okay bro. Take care...
In the game "Secret Weapons Over Normandy" you could install a 57mm cannon pod to almost any plane once you unlocked it. You could drop tanks, destroyers, and even carriers down with it. Strapping that gun to the belly of a F4F Wildcat is as ridiculous as you might think, but oh so effective in game.
the use of archive footage in this video is truly phenomenal.
Hey, just so you know, you make really good videos, and I'm here as a random. I just notice, in the few videos I've watched, besides the obviously extensive information you research to write these, the pacing and format of the videos is very good. For example, you introduce the next main sub-topic of the story (in this case the plane's unique gun system), then we go back like, multiple decades sometimes, and it's immediately clear why we are where/when we are in relation to where we just came from.
You just set that up well, and then in seeming to tangent, continue to lead us through a the story while also providing so much context for that sub-topic we're heading back towards. It's just subtle but very impressive, and I wanted to point it out for everyone.
P.S. Oh, and you have a great voice and accent for narration :P It's nice to listen to.
First video I've seen talking more specifically about older Soviet warbirds. Fascinating stuff! Great scriptwriting and delivery man, keep it up.
It’s a crime that you are not verified
Good content.
Love your content and presentation. This is the first time I've sign up to a service like Curiosity and I'm looking forward to your content on Nebula. Thanks for your effort.
5:04 please tell me that is a real photo. It is just so comically oversized that it looks fake.
Very well done as usual. You can really tell the amount of effort you put into these videos.
That is a real 12" recoilless rifle on a destroyer. The Engels (ex-Desna) was fitted with a 305 mm (12 in) recoilless rifle for testing in 1934.
No need for turret, now make gun so big she hang off side of boat comrade
Hehe, imagine a world where that sort of thing became normal! But that ridiculous size is part of the appeal of recoilless guns - mounting guns of immense caliber onto smaller hulls, chassis, or airframes.
@@secularist1 Aren’t those essentially monitors?
@@banzeyegaming2234 Monitors are generally considered coastal/harbor defense vessels with oversized guns. They have the full size guns of a ship bigger than themselves but its so much weight they sacrifice speed, range and handling to the extent they're rarely ever oceangoing. That wouldn't be true with using a recoil-less version. You could mount that big gun with no more weight than would be present with the standard smaller guns typically fitted.
The bonus of a recoil-less rifle is that since you don't have to contain all the force from that larger shell they can be really light. Perfect example of that is the M67 76mm recoil-less rifle that the US used vs a regular M1 76mm Tank gun. The M67 clocks in at 37.5 lbs (17 kg) empty while the M1 weighs 1,141 lbs (517.55 kg) in comparison. You have larger shells that waste a lot of powder in exchange for having a significantly lighter gun itself. The downside of course being that the guns have an immense back blast that you have to be careful of.
Came for the airplane history, stayed for the stories of Soviet wackiness and insanity
The murder and repression of Tukachevsky's family (shown on a table at 8:10') is simply staggering.
Welcome to 2022 Paper Skies Guy, here's to another year of fantastic videos.
It's a miracle they ever managed to design a can opener under these conditions.
Hey bud, where you been? Hope you're doing OK. Weird to see such a talented artist like yourself just disappear, how it doesn't have to do with the war. Anyway just wishing you the best if you see this!
Hello Paper Skies, I just wanted to say that nobody on TH-cam does exactly what you do, as well as you do. I hope that you and your family are safe during these dangerous times. And when you are able, we are all eagerly awaiting another excellently researched and interesting video from you-- but no pressure, you obviously have to take care of the things that matter most first.
Ah yes...nothing like an arrest and execution on flimsy charges to end a weapons or technology project in the USSR.
Also love that you always tell these stories from a far closer perspective than many people could having family born in the former USSR and your father having been a pilot! That´s why you focus on people and topics other channels rarely do.
Hope you and your family can stay safe in this insane times!
Thanks
There was another attempt to mount a 37mm cannon on a fighter prior to Yak-9T. LaGG-3 had it in 1941-2. Not because it was needed but because Shpitalny wanted to see one more of his guns adopted and heavily lobbied that.
It had same problems: low probability to hit a tank, insufficient penetration/damage, lack of armor on a plane that is supposed to dive through AA and the heavy cannon made LaGG-3 even worse dogfighter (it already wasn't stellar).
On the other hand, the cannon showed itself very well against bombers because it had longer range than machineguns (thus allowing to fire from beyond tail gunner's range) and even one hit desintegrated the plane. During combat trials LaGG-3 with 37mm cannon shot down 13 and damged 4 more planes in 4 combat encounters.
In WT it's the plane they gave for free in events
Also, the engineer's (the 'L' part) preferred engine wasn't the one that he wanted. The end result was completely unreliable and underpowered as a result.
The American p39, widely used by the Soviets, also used a 37mm cannon.
@@kaichodesuwa inferior in every metric, but maybe better because of more ammo and doesn’t send the plane out of control when it fires.
I'm sure you're aware but thought I'd point out for prosperity the Yak-9 was derived from the Yak-UTI and has a tandem two seat planform. The cockpit wasn't moved back, they used the rear placement for it, where normally on the Yak-9 variants the front placement is used for the cockpit. The reason for the Yak-9 was simply to make use of tooling and production which had been improvised on a large scale to convert Yak-UTI trainers into the Yak-7 combat variant of the trainer. The Yak-9 was basically this aircraft redeveloped as a purpose built fighter upon the same planform, mainly the panelling is different although some late Yak-7 are in every respect identical to an early Yak-9 except for the cowling machine gun, a lighter ShKAS instead of a heavy Beresin, showing it is a converted trainer. You couldn't visually tell them apart at that stage, it was actually the Yak-7 which introduced the bubble canopy and cut down rear fuselage, but earlier production is just a blanked over second crew position and is obviously a converted two seater.
It was an emergency measure to convert the Yak-UTI into the Yak-7 and then ramp production of it alongside the Yak-1 and as far as I know one of the factors which led to this was being a little more stable and easier to fly, the Yak-1 was extremely nimble but noted for its ability to become a handful for a novice pilot, by contrast the Yak-7 was noted for being very easy to fly for novices and a stable gun platform, a bit like the British Hurricane's reputation in the RAF as compared to the Spitfire, different but still very good. Simply, the Yak-1 was the thoroughbred and the Yak-7 the converted trainer with a blanked out rear position. Production of the Yak-7 was ramped so that thousands as a fighter, instead of dozens as a trainer were built and could be instantly produced. The Yak-9 is basically a refinement built as a fighter from scratch, but is the same aircraft built on the same planform with the same tooling.
The stroke of genius about the Yak-9 was Yakovlev realising its heritage provided an opportunity to create the first multirole fighter type, in a sense. The airframe would not be imbalanced by use of the original rear crew position for heavy internal equipment like extra fuel tanks or bombs, such as in the Yak-9B and Yak-9D. Alternatively the cockpit could be moved to the rear position and give room for extra armament or larger armament in the front, again without impacting the flight characteristics in any significant way which is something you certainly couldn't do with a Yak-1.
You could fit a Nudelman into a Yak-1, you could move the cockpit back a bit to accommodate it, but you would run into CoG issues you don't get with the Yak-9 and it would probably be unflyable. You could also put an extra auxiliary fuel tank in the rear fuselage of a Yak-1 just like a Mustang and vastly increase its range but would run into the same trouble as the Mustang with flight instability and manoeuvring restrictions until the tank is used up, again you don't have this problem at all with the Yak-9 as it was designed originally for a second crew position. You can have bombs behind the cockpit in a bay, extra fuel, or move the cockpit back and put a giant cannon in the front and they didn't give it any handling problems. And you could do it all on the same production line with the same aircraft and never delay a constant supply of deliveries to the field. They're all simple modifications upon the same planform.
With all that in mind, at that point Stalin probably would've given Yakovlev a headjob. Favouritism is an odd word however, being favoured by a dictator is like being licked by a tiger.
I used to love flying the Yak 9T in Aces High 2. Great competitive online game. Anyway I digress... it was like throwing softballs at the enemy, the trajectory was insane and lining up didnt always work with the low round count you had, but when you got used to the gun it was amazing. Single round impact fighter destruction, two to three well aimed shots on a bomber wing and it was out. Huge fun, especially if vox was open and you got to hear someone berate you as they went down haha.
I remember watching an episode of "Wings of the Red Star" on the History Channel many years ago, where they had a WWII Soviet pilot talking about the P-39, and he mentioned how much he loved the 37mm cannon it had; you got in close -- 50 yards or less -- and all it took was one round to destroy almost any aircraft. Kind of an interesting commentary, comparing his version of 'close' to the way most British and US fighters had the collimation set for their wing-mounted guns.
Your storytelling is excellent, followed by the great editing. Nice job, bingeable channel!
You can't beat the quality of these
Every time I learn about the soviet union I'm amazed at how it managed to have such of a wealth of talented people despite executing so many of them for various silly reasons.
Perhaps watching the guy next door get killed, pushes you to be ingenious.
they're talented because if they're not, to the gulag they go
Think about talented people in our country. Some go to machine shops, some to wafer fabrication, some to making TVs, or cars, or water skis, chemical manufacture, food, advertising, the stock exchanges and so many other places you'd go silly before you named them all. I think the Soviets had a similar amount of geniuses at one point in time. But they killed a huge number of their creative and scientific minds, and it only seems like they had a huge pool to draw on in the military because these smart people were not being used in other places.
Consider how many genuinely intelligent people there are in the real estate business, or in cutting edge dental technology, or in any of the many many mature industries that America had which the Soviets either did not have, or had in a very demure state. Soviets could hardly keep up with America in war technology, but even to do that they fell behind in a thousand other little industries.
A guy like Steve Jobs, building new phones with spare parts he bummed off of engineers, and turning that into a business, would have had a much more difficult time getting off the ground in the USSR. And some people, if they don't have that opening, wither away, and their genius never blooms.
Allow my American self to say, that at 3:55, that flying Soviet star is a beautiful work of formation flying. Kudos to the Soviet air force.
Beautiful, but useless.
@@anzaca1 The Flying V formation we often see in movies is just as bad. Practicality need not enter the parade airbox.
@@anzaca1 WWI and WWII were waged entirely based on propaganda. Definitely not useless.
Yak-9T was not useless. Before it came out, fw-190 pilots ususally engaged yaks in head-on attacks because of yak's relatively poor aament. After several dozen 190s suddenly exploded in the air they were forced to abandon this tactic against all yaks
Love this format! Healthy mix of comedy and information :) Keep it up!
"...my streaming service,Nebula"
No,comrade. Our.
so incredibly fun in war thunder tho. for some spaghetti code reason the first shot is always 100% exactly where your pipper is, and then after that it starts deflecting. so its super satisfying going headon with a p47 doing one click and watching the trajectory of the round land right on the upper part of the engine and knocking it out instantly.
I really enjoyed this video, thanks. I recently bought a kit of the Yak 9T/K as I haven't built one before and I was intrigued by the massive cannon it carried. I didn't know anything about it's use or capabilities but I do now thanks to your research, glad I wasn't born in the USSR during the thirties and forties!
8:13 Did it come to your mind that maybe Glukharev was the one behind the demise of the people around him? He was probably connected to some other official or KGB, and fed them information about those guys the whole time.
EDIT: I now read more comments here and apparently I can promote myself to the rank of Captain Obvious.
"I'm sorry but he can't have a meeting with you at the moment because he has been executed."
If found this to be an excellent video. It was informative and had some good humor included while giving us the story.
This video is absolutely fantastic. History, story telling, production.
In WWII the best way for an aircraft to stop a tank was to take out its logistic support.
well unfortunately if the tank was at the frontline and already shooting at your buddies or logistic support could not be destroyed or tampered with, this was the most reliable weapon. even if logistics are destroyed, there is still a tank driving around
I don't know if it was on purpose, but that Glukharev portrait and that darn knowing smirk is just perfect.
Reminds me of the A-10 and that one test where it had to shoot down 12 tanks, being able to swoop down at them as many times as it needed, while they didn't move, it only managed to make 3 immobile, and it was said that all 3 of those could be made to work by the next day, it was hilarious
After the blood and guts of the crew were mopped out, sure. The thing is in the field, being three tanks short will lose your battle. Part of knocking equipment out in warfare is not letting the enemy recover/fix the device. Thinking that test is a complete failure is the flawed thinking of non-combat personnel and committee thinking. It's like general Burton's crusade against the Bradley.. he didn't know his independent test failures were useless because he tested for roles and situations that weren't what the weapon was supposed to do.
@@markdombrovan8849 no u
@@danielescobar7618 wouldnt it be better to use 12 smart bombs instead? It would certainly be the… smarter… method.
@@Ben-mw9vz a-10 can carry those and loiter nearby/maneuver quickly enough to save lives on the ground. Then it can land at an improvised airfield nearby for reload from a herc and do it again, and that's what other bombers/ground attack can't do. Strike eagles and bombers don't lend themselves well to spontaneous missions like close air support, or would need a spotter drone in the area.
Well this was really a known weakness of the GAU-8, insufficient armour penetration to reliably kill modern tanks.
In those days the A-10's chief anti tank weapon was the AGM-65 missile, which remains able to kill any tank with a single hit.
The cannon was, to tell the truth, rather redundant from the start. SPAAG systems like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka make going low and close enough for a strafing run in a plane as slow as the A-10 practically suicidal.
I love your channel I just discovered it a few weeks ago, great videos great history, you have really high production value with great delivery style.
Thx for your
As usual with your videos, this one was excellent.
thanks for this amazing content . You bring a context ,to the table ,witch is as important
6:14 "Arrest / Execute Engineer (Optional)" This would be hilarious if it wasn't true. Very well researched video.
Randomly watching this as TH-cam's algorithm suggested it to me, not really that interested in the subject but have been blown away by the editing in this video. Really good stuff!
Id really recommand his Booze video.
I often wonder how quickly the Soviet Union could have defeated the Axis if Stalin had not killed nearly everyone who was fighting for him.
The Mig 25 had a similar issue. It was perfectly developed for a role that was not necessary.
Amazing quality video. Gonna be watching regularly now for sure!
"Fighter"
"Armed with two 76mm cannons"
Holy shit. You're putting 3 inch guns on a light fighter?
Thank you for the video, hope you're safe, everything considered.
Really makes you wonder how much more effective the Soviets could have been in so many areas if there wasn't all the backstabbing and paranoia.
ONE USA is quite bad enough, tah very much.
@@stevewatson6839 I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure how that comment has anything to do with what I said.
even then the real difficulty of engineering is manufacturing.
@@airmanfpv964 "Oh that's a wonderful design! Now, how do we build it?"
Their paranoia was justified considered that even a marshal like Tukhachevisky was negotiating with the Germans, and everyone knew it, even the Japanese.
I hope you are well Paper Skies!
I do so love your productions :) All the best to you mon amie!
Awesome history. Thank you.
And now we have an aircraft in wide use that's main gun produces so much recoil that after only a few seconds of firing it can knock itself out of the sky.
Excellent video as always!
I can't pass-up a video that might contain the kind of ruthless pwnage promised by this title.
That ship recoilless is hilarious
Thank you for your documentaries, and all the best to you and your family!
Yak-9: pew pew pew
Yak-9T: Surprise, dirtbags!
Was fun using it in WT arcade battles back in 2014 tho..
Just wanted to say I hope all is well and that your amazing documentaries will continue to grace YT for years to come
Glukharev was definitely a rat. No way he survives 3 different design teams getting purged unless he was an informant or secretly Beria’s best friend.
And beria didnt really do the friendship thing
Engineering with out room for extensive failure isn't engineering at all. It's a miracle they got anything done..... One of the most solid engineering sayings "fail fast".
Can you imagine what the YAK-9T would do to morale on the German side? It's a plane that looks like any other plane, but hits so hard that one hit is almost certainly a kill shot, and occasionally can be used at ranges that are outside what you normally consider dangerously close (ie: needs to be actively watched so they don't line up a shot) That'd be a *terrifying* thing to know about when you're out and flying sorties, it's like being an infantryman who knows the enemy is fond of using snipers and has no idea if or when one of those soldiers they see off in the distance is gonna come out with one of those anti-tank sniper rifles instead of a normal combat rifle.
Air-cobra also got 37mm canon and germans by the end of the war had 30mm mk108 canon, so YAK-9T was not a surprise
Well you first need proper pilots in these planes to affect the morale of the enemy.
@@miskatonic6210 as been said above Yak-9T was almost indistinguishable from other Yak-9 modifications on the decision making distance (to engage head on or not) and was capable of bringing any enemy fighter down with just single hit. It was a fact that after appearance of Yak-9T FW-190 pilots started to evade head on attacks on Yaks.
It is interesting that the test range where the gun is being fired looks identical to the one used in the video about the 30mm gatling in the MiG-27.
No wonder the Soviets loved the P39 Airacobra / P63 King Cobra with their M4 37mm cannon shooting through the spinner.
This is a very good point. I even thought of touching it briefly in this video. If you take, let's say, top-10 Soviet aces, most of them scored the majority of their victories while flying Cobras. I think only 1 or 2 (can't check it right now) flew Yaks through all the war: Vorozheykin and Glinka (I'm not sure, though). And I remember for sure Vorozheykin flew Yak-9T at some point. However, don't quote me on this. I'm going to need to check it later :).
Anyways, I decided to keep it for another video. But you are absolutely right about the love for Cobra in the Soviet Air Force.
@@PaperSkiesAviation The main difference between the cannons is that the US built one had considerably lower muzzle velocity. It still had enough recoil to pose serious problems in operation. I have a hard time imagining why the russians put so much propellent in that cartridge. Even after the war the new version they put out had less propellent but still probably more by half again what would have been reasonable. The whole point to using (bomb)shells is that you don't need to rely on velocity to generage power. Get the shell on target, doesn't matter if it hits hard or touches down gently, the shell does the work once it gets to the target. The rational reason to put more propellent in a round like that is to get more range, but clearly the round was effective at many times the range it could be effectively used in combat, at least mounted in an airplane. What were they thinking? Was this because the same round was used in ground based AA guns? Were any of them actually effective at greater ranges?
@@laughingdaffodils5450
The Soviets did lots of wacky things due to their EXTREME top down management practices.
The engineers would come up with an idea, then almost every manager and director above them would add their own (frequently ill conceived and unfounded) part to the idea that by the time it went into production and use, it might have only been 40% the engineering of the original design and then everything else was added later by various officials.
Mostly it was a disastrous process, but that’s where the idea of using a wildly over-powered cannon round certainly came from.
I remember reading somewhere that they removed the canons as soon as they received the planes. That much like the Yak, the 37mm wasn't useable.
I think they liked the plane for other reasons.
@@FOX11GUY it was dismounted rarely, mostly due to logistics troubles with ammunition.
Your video is top👌 as always! Welcome back 😉
6:41 I mean, he did develop ineffective weapons that caused harm to the USSR.
As an engineer who has seen politics I have to say that killing influencial guys with bad ideas has appeal.
@@0MoTheG I agree
Apparently tank-busting aircraft in WW2 were... somewhat exaggerated in their performance.
In fact, tank-busting aircraft weren't that much of a thing unless they had PGMs. In which case they could absolutely demolish tanks.
I think this is one of your best videos yet. Super tight editing and script! The segment about Glukharev's career was awesome. Keep at it dude!
Not sure why I clicked, but I found here the best aircraft documentary of hundreds I have seen! So incredibly detailed of the f***ed up Soviet system where brilliant designers are ripped off after being sent to their graves! And even snuck in Rokossovsky somehow....One thousand thumbs up!
@ 07:49. That Spitfire B wing, what a shame. Imagine what that would be worth now, even with the resulting damage...
I was craving another one of these videos, and this hit the spot. Aw yiss.
You are a fantastic story teller.
Hi Paper Skies! Just letting you know I miss your videos, real pieces of art! Hope you are doing well and wish you the best!
Glukharev must’ve been very annoyed, not fearful by the transfers.
Most likely Glukharev was sabotaging his colleague's work & reporting them as conspirators to their superiors!
Excellent! So good I had to watch it twice.
Fantastic video and I loved the Communist Engineering Cycle slide at 6:12
Nice vid dude. It seems like being anywhere near Stalin was hazardous to your health and your families health and probably your friends health too . Glad it's not like that in Russia now ... oh wait.
Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent. You needed to be just competent enough to carry out orders, and have enough sense to know when to die in combat.
@@slappy8941 ...or if you were breathing air on any day of the week ending in y.
@@slappy8941 Stalin was only dangerous if you were incompetent, or too competent, or if one of your close friends was either, or if one of your family was either, or if your neighbor told the police you weren't a good communist, or that a family member wasn't a good communist, or... Wait... Yeah maybe he was *a fucking monster and we need to accept that*.
@@maximsavage Nice one)
@@slappy8941 Stalin rewarded only the most competent people in the central comitee
best and most informative video i never knew i needed. thanks for all the side tangents and people explained along the way!
In other nation, having bad performance at work, or produce bellow expectations only cause risk to career, in Soviet, with codification of вредительство as crime it even risk one's life.
I don't think it can accurately being translated into "treason" because its not that simple.
And dont forget having your entire family sent to gulag
Basically "вредитель" is close in meaning to "parasite", basically standing for a person wasting the resources and time on useless concepts, possibly with the goal of hurting or stalling the overall development of the project or a whole branch.
The PTB-23, I knew exactly what would happen when I first say the name in the vid. (the gun is useable in War Thunder, in the I-301, prototype LaGG-3)
Could you possibly put together a Video dedicated to the Soviet "BEAR"?
Next to the B-52, I have always been fascinated with the "BEAR"!
PROBLEM with narrative at 16:30…a false statement or implication that an ATTACK on a tank would only succeed 6.7% of the time. This is false. The statistic actually demonstrates that 6.7% of ROUNDS FIRED would hit the target. This is not an historically poor ratio of rounds fired/hits, even in modern day strike aircraft of even for ground-based automatic weapons, and does NOT translate to directly to success or failure of the attack itself (pk). Other than this pivotal yet false (or at least poorly stated) implication, I have found the video thoroughly entertaining and informative.
ROUNDS FIRED would hit the target - that's exactly what I was talking about - hitting the tank. And if you throw such things as "false", please, provide the facts that your arguments are based on. Otherwise my answer to such "experts" is always - "f*ck off". Sorry, but if you are straightforward with your statement, I'm very straightforward with my answer. It's always your choice how to start a conversation.
With those in-flight tests, by the way, one of the test-pilots captain Kravchenko in 7 flights managed to get 2% hits in a single tank and 6% hit of the tank column. 6% of hitting a TANK COLUMN.
Next, I chose the biggest number of 6.7% which is a HEAVY tank size target. But hitting is not destroying/damaging the tank. So, in reality you should consider only numbers for light and medium tanks. And even with those - during the WHOLE period of tests they (maj. Zvonarev, capt. Kravcenko) made various type of in-flight firing tests and out of 288 shots in all tests they scored only 31 hit. Of which only 5 were - armor penetration. So if you speak about the efficience, you should take 5 out of 288. 5/288 - 1,73%.
Out of those 5 penetrations: 4 were 10 mm upper armor of the Pz.38 (t), and 1 (one) - of a 16 mm armor of the Pz.III. And that's all. Is this a "poor historical efficiency" or not, considering it was 1943 already?
So if you say "ATTACK on a tank would only succeed 6.7% of the time. This is false." - in fact you are right. Since it will not "succeed" with such a ratio. It will be way way less than 6.7%
Respect
You have a great style for delivering information. Also, watched today so ad money goes to relief efforts in Ukraine, as you told us.
That was absolutely fascinating. I had assumed that War Thunder oversold the capabilities of the Yak-9T and the 9K in game. Just not by how very much. I can’t blame them, after all its a game. But learning of the reality is always more interesting.
Fantastic video! Thanks for covering these almost unknown topics in the west! 👍
Amazing video as always.
Excellent presentation. It makes one think about what might have happened if Russia had gone into Capitalism. Some very brilliant engineers and weapons designers would have, in all likelihood, have had much greater budgets and less recriminations in failure of prototypes. Seeing design come to fruition without fear would have produced some game-changing weaponry.
Maybe, it's an interesting idea at least. You could sort of spin post-Gorbachev Russia as sort of like this, and it's hard to tell if strictly the capitalist aspect has been beneficial since then, but I'm guessing you meant in the interwar era through the end of WWII specifically. I guess, what I'd be interested to see would be how this would affect Russia or any given country more broadly, or even with more varieties of economic and government systems. Say, suppose FDR was challenged in Supreme Court for going against (until then) implied term limits; would the New Deal have gone through, would social security exist, or how different would it be? Would people be more or less aware and receptive of how socialist his economic policies were, and how would that affect recovery from the Depression and how the Lost Generation and Silent Generation's culture evolved? Or for airplanes, would the Canadian Avro Arrow have seen service if Britain hadn't nationalized and merged its aeronautic companies as much, or say if it nationalized them but allowed them to be independent, or would that saturate their R&D with even more half finished projects cancelled for going over-budget? Or maybe if there were just a few more manned space crashes, ICBM tech might not have come as far and bomber-intercept aircraft could still have more of a role? I'm not sure, you made me think though, so that was neat. Anyway, I hope you have a nice day, and stay safe y'all.
Seems like the communist system would've worked fine if they just stopped shooting their best engineers.
in that case most potential russian engineers would be starving beggars or working on farms
Yeah, engineers in the US had the advantage of learning from their mistakes and improving on them.
@@KekusMagnus They already were in USSR. IT wasn't uncommon for scientists or engineers to work a second low skilled job such as janitor to meet their ends.
Excellent video! Rare photos!
This makes the Soviets liking the P-39 even clearer, but I think the 37 it used was mostly HE firing (the gun was made as a bomber killer). Having the engine midships for balance and better gun sights (and some other guns)I wonder if the P-39 was preferred if you could get one.
Also, I know the Imperial Russian air Force got some "pulpit" SPADs during WWI. Did they get any of the Variants (VIII and XIV if I remember right) that mounted a 37 mm hand-loaded gun through the spinner? (and used a gear system to drive the propeller). That seems to have been the first fighter with "big gun".
Did the recoiless project get far enough to show how much propellant such a system would use? As I recall, this is what got the German recoiless guns discontinued.
i think you need alot more propellent to get the same stats with recoilless...
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any head to head comparison of Yak-9T and P-39, only these of average Yaks and Cobras.
Usually the latter are described to be less agile in turns, but similar or somewhat better in verticals.
Combine that with the description of Yak-9T being a heavier and worse-performing Yak (sometimes escorted during bomber interception by standard Yak-7B, Yak-9 or Yak-1B fighters for cover) and you might get a picture of both aircrafts being similar in a turn, but with Airacobra having an advantage in vertical maneuvers (and being able to survive more hits on average)