200-Foot-Wide All-Wood Cargo Glider: Junkers Ju 322 Mammut

In this video, we talk about the Junkers Ju 322 Mammut, an all-wood cargo glider (that looks like a manta-ray) intended to carry medium tanks like the Panzer IV and Panzer III, along with artillery pieces like the 8.8cm Flak. We talk about both the Ju 322 and its sister projects, the Messerschmitt Me 321 and the Me 323 Gigant, and why such massive gliders were made in the first plane. We discuss how each glider performed in testing and what ended up happening to each of them.

[@feynthefallen]

Well, the glider couldn't move two tanks, but at least two tanks could move the glider. Not a total loss then.

[@DrivermanO]

I read about this plane years ago in a book called "The Worlds Worst Aircraft". The strange thing was that Junkers, who had a history of building all metal aircraft (Ju 52 etc) were instructed to build their glider from wood. Messerschmitt were instructed to build theirs in metal which wasn't their forte either! When they loaded the first tank into the Ju322, it fell straight through the floor. Not good. And when the 3 Me110s - known as the Troika - were hitched up, the tow ropes pulled the tail off one, and they all crashed. Brilliant German planning at work!

[@thetinoshow6719]

The first 50 years of flight was incredibly fascinating. Good or bad ideas were all something to be learned from.

[@lucaskoring4500]

Truly. Weird and wacky designs proving totally worthless, or absolutely amazing

[@Veldtian1]

This isn't a bad idea, Burnelli proved it.

[@perrydowd9285]

Congrats on the 10 000 subs. Yours is the only channel on KZbin that can take a not-so-good WWII transport and make a viewer want to give it a big hug. Night night, great big manta ray in the sky.

[@raypurchase801]

LUFTWAFFE: "Can you design a weird aircraft for us?" GERMAN AVIATION INDUSTRY: "That's what we're best at".

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

Thank you so much for covering this plane it's one of my favorite glider designs and while it is sort of goofy it really looks amazing I love the overall look of it being a tailed flying wing

[@JGCR59]

Hugo Junkers himself (by then deceased) always had a thing for flying or blended wing construction. His first ever patent was for a flying wing aircraft before WW1, it was filed under the "mixed/humor" category at the Patent Office

[@christopherneufelt8971]

Hi. I didn't know that, but actually, there are unclassified categories for patents (I know, I have one in propulsion) in order to assign the patent at least a number and typically when the technology patented is not filling any existed technology then the patent office can introduce the patent to future perspectives or speculative sciences. However as far I know it is highly unlikely for a patent today to get to these areas, since they are closely monitored for potentially financial fraud among others.

[@crazytrain7114]

The G32 was quite a successful blended wing with a tail boom as an 'airliner' and did see sevice in WWII

[@ADIRINK]

Congrats on the 10K, I found about you about a week ago and have been binge watching all your stuff since. I gotta admit, even watching when I should be working 😅. I just like that you actually put in effort and do research about so many aircraft. You just really struck my niche which is experimental or concept war era aircraft. Wish you all the best and hoping to see you grow, you deserve it.

[@kirknewton100]

Never heard of this particular aircraft (glider). Thank you.

[@eivindlunde7772]

One of the reasons they powered the Me 323 was that they used French Gnome Rhone engines, which was not in demand by Luftwaffe. The same engines that sealed the fate of the Henschel Hs 129, which was originally meant to use the BMW 801 and thus ended up very underpowered with the much weaker French engines.

[@IntrospectorGeneral]

After the German occupation of France the Gnome Rhone company was ordered to produce the BMW 801 in its factories which were then pounded by the RAF. The Gnome Rhone production rate of the BMW 801 was about one third of the number ordered by the Germans.

[@Melchersson]

How many people have aimed at becoming fighter pilots and end up as simple cargo pilots. 6 out of 10 pilots end up flying cargo, it doesn't follow the backstabbed but fair thing called wokeness? Genuine "wokeness" is not what you think? Let me explain, take 10 pilots with 5 Caucasians, 3 black and 2 Asian pilots. Lets say the 5 Caucasian pilots are the best pilots in this case, the 2 Asian pilots are below the average and the black pilots perform not so well in aircraft simulators. Lets say you hire Caucasians? WRONG! You have to take into account that the systemical suppression of black people and perhaps the black pilots and Asian pilots perform better after 200 more flight hours? The ones who hire the Caucasians, are fueling institutional race hate! Germany had very few black or even Asian pilots, why?

[@Balrog2005]

@@IntrospectorGeneral And there were a lot of sabotages, like in nearly all industrial sites of France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc... that the germans ordered to produce for them. There is the well know story that the famous Browning GP-35 pistol made by the FN in Belgium during german occupation was noturiously quite unreliable despite that the ones made in Canada at the same time (the Hi-power) being very good.

[@eivindlunde7772]

@@Melchersson ????

[@jamesberry3230]

@@Melchersson Germany had very few black and Asian pilots because there were very few blacks and Asians in the German population: also you don't say how many hours of training each has , if all have the same number of training hours to begin with then you go with the Caucasian pilots even if the others can reach the same standards after another 200 hours training, it is not cost effective in man power or money to wait and if you don't and send the less train into combat your just wasting people who could be used else where

[@patrickcardon1643]

Congratulations for the 10K! Well deserved!

[@iainb1577]

Happy 10k. You have a really cool delivery style. Great stuff. Keep it up.

[@johnlewan1114]

Congratulations on 10k. You have a unique channel and great content. Absolutely the coolest logo!

[@shuffleB]

Great video "essay", "report", "show", whatever it's called, it was informative and fun to watch.

[@dereksollows9783]

Thanks for the presentation. So many experimental types have been overlooked by history that history repeats itself. The evolution of the C-5 Galaxy suffered the same experience as the Junkers 322. With an 'intended' payload of 150 tons it was determined that carrying two Abrams 60 ton tanks would lead to early failure of the airframe and thus the actual payload was limited to include only one Abrams. More of this kind of material please.

[@Free-Bodge79]

Really like this channel. Thanks for bringing all this info to us. Much appreciated sir. ! luv and respect from the UK sides.👍💛👊

[@spotgabby]

Your 10,000 subs are more than well deserved and I’m glad to be counted among them. Thank you for your research and delivery. As far as towing the plane went, if they had problems with the JU 90, I wonder why they didn’t use a “Troika-schlepp” (triple-tow) as they did with other gigantic gliders.

[@lomax343]

The problem with the troika schlepp was that it was almost suicidally dangerous. There was one training exercise when a Me 321, carrying a company of panzergrenadiers, was towed off the ground by the Me 110s. All four aircraft crashed, killing everyone on board. The idea was quickly shelved, and a powered version of the Me 321 was put into development.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

I'm so happy you feel that way about manta rays.

[@someguy8443]

Thank you for introducing me to such an interesting niche of history. Never was that interested in history, or planes for that matter, but somehow the combination is fascinating to me.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Since Hugo Junkers experimented with flying wing designs in the 20s, the Manta ray look makes sense.

[@sejembalm]

The history of airmobile military vehicles is quite interesting, from small Cushman Airborne Scooters, to light airmobile artillery, to comically tiny airborne tanks like the US M22 Locust Airmobile Tank that only weighed 7.4 tons (16,400 lbs.) that were actually dropped behind German lines in Operation Varsity on March 1945 by British Hamilcar Mark I gliders that also transported light Tetrarch tanks during Operation Tonga, the British airborne landings in Normandy in June 1944.

[@Marce159951]

Congratulations for the 10k !

[@oscarolie5743]

I think the offset cockpit was because it would be in the way of turreted armour inside, not the doors...

[@pennycarvalho1223]

Actually the earlier models of panzer 3 and 4 were under 20tons, however they would quickly climb over the limit specially when larger cannons and more armor was added

[@MH5XXXX]

Interesting videos

[@mliittsc63]

Looks like Vincent Burnelli design. The US had a prototype glider called the XCG-16 that was a flying wing with a twin boom. The center section between the booms was an airfoil, rather than a fuselage, and was remarkably thick (6 or 8 feet at maximum), so the payload and passengers rode inside what was essentially the center of the flying wing. Always amazes me when things like the floor caving in happens. Did the engineers not know about the tank carrying requirement? ground pressure data for tanks wasn't available? Didn't know the strength of the flooring materials? Did they just randomly choose materials?

[@ptonpc]

Congratulations on your 10k

[@Liberator74]

Very interesting technology - new to me! 🧐

[@fishyerik]

I think the main idea behind military glider transports is that they are considered expendable. If the probability that even proper powered transport planes makes it back is low, it can be better to use planes that are intended to be expendable to begin with. Not necessarily officially intended for single use, but there's no other real reason for making military gliders than high probability of loss, at least not good enough to make it worth the effort of developing and the inconvenience of use. Making gliders doesn't make it possible to make higher performing aircraft than powered aircraft. The towing plane or planes needs to provide the glider with all the potential energy it needs, while also powering itself or their selves. The are other real potential benefits, but compared to being able to keep powered planes from being lost all other benefits combined are not even significant in most situations.

[@obsidianjane4413]

This. The concept, all around at the time, was that the transports had to be as cheap and expendable as possible because they would be used to land troops and equipment right onto their objectives. See the landings on Fort Eben-Emael for how this was what they intended.

[@TheCatZ0mbie]

I love your content

[@acersalman8258]

beautiful ❤

[@kcstafford2784]

you earned my subscribsciption...thanks

[@lomax343]

Another reason why the Germans went for heavy gliders rather than large powered transport aircraft was because the former could carry a larger payload. Engines and fuel were heavy, which meant that the cargo capacity was seriously reduced. The Me 321 glider could carry 20,000 kg (enough for an early production Panzer III - though by 1940 the need for more armour pushed it beyond this weight). The powered Me 323 could only carry 12,000 kg, though it's total take-off weight was about the same.

[@simonjones3863]

Good vid. ++

[@phaasch]

And where exactly in south east England would these behemoths be expected to land? Apart from the airfields, which presumably by the time of Sealion would be cratered wrecks, the South Downs and Weald aren't exactly flat, and the fields small, ringed with trees and hedges. It would have been interesting.

[@JamesThomas-gg6il]

Hitler: just get them there, figure out where to land after.

[@owensomers8572]

Allied gliders, although smaller, had the same issues during the Normandy landings, with hedgerows and stone walls wreaking havoc.

[@i-a-g-r-e-e-----f-----jo--b]

I remember reading about the congressman or men dying in the glider accident in the USA during WW2. Crazy stuff. I remember watching footage of 3 Me110s towing a Gigant and crashing but cant find that video now. The Gigant was fully loaded with troops too.

[@KR4FTW3RK]

Absolutely mental way to get a glider into the air.

[@lesliereissner4711]

The Troika-Schlepp!

[@pontuswendt2486]

AMAZINGNES!!!

[@lusoverse8710]

I wonder if wake vortices from the towing plane were causing that spiral instability.

[@billt6116]

Imagine what would happen when a cargo strapped down chain snaps on takeoff. The glider, The tank inside of it, , And likely the tow craft as well. YEOUCH!

[@YouTube_user3333]

I hate dronescapes. This channel is awesome. Sub’d 👍

[@normg2242]

Interesting background picture - it shows an Italian Macchi plane. Must have been from before the time when the Italians moved over to the allied forces...

[@melgillham462]

Very interesting early lifting body design. Wonder what the gliding coefficient was? Heavy lift puts a whole other dynamic on it though.

[@anon_y_mousse]

I agree with you, manta rays are the airplanes of the sea.

[@jtjames79]

Baron von Richthofen made war pretty glamorous.

[@houstonceng]

The reason you would build gliders rather than powered aircraft is that they can carry more cargo weight since they don’t have to carry the weight of engines or fuel for them. Also, for an invasion, similar to D Day, the aircraft is used as a one-way trip, so the allies used gliders to carry vehicles and troops.

[@towgod7985]

If the JU 322 glider was climbing faster than the JU 90 towplane and raising it's tail, the glider pilot was out of position. That has nothing to do with the aircraft and has killed some towpilots.

[@aabumble9954]

Hay could your next video maybe be about the DINFIA IA-38?

[@manfredschilly4642]

Troop-carrying or cargo sailers had first proved their worth in Belgium (Fort Eben Emael). Therefore, large gliders (Me 321 and Ju322) were commissioned so that airborne troops could transport heavy weapons to the scene of operations. Presumably for missions in England and Russia. The loss of a glider (whether DFS 230, Me 321 or Airspeed Horsa) was not as expensive as the loss of a Ju 52, Ju 90 or DC 3. The invasion of England was canceled and Russia did not require major airborne operations. But the Wehrmacht needed transport volume. So Messerschmitt redesigned the Me 321 for engine operation to become the Me323. Regarding the Ju 322 as a design, the fuselage was too short, which led to instability. It was also tail-heavy, which made it impossible to increase the size of the fin. The incorrect payload calculation was due to this, Junkers was a pioneer in metal aircraft construction and had no experience with wooden aircraft.

[@charlesmurphy5644]

4:04 They are the flying wing of the sea.

[@tomperkins5657]

How'd you like to be the test pilot on that behemoth glider?

[@johnshufflebottom7907]

The Russians tried a similar idea, a large pair of biplane wings and tail unit mounted on struts that was bolted to a light tank, controls inside the tank which took of and landed on its own tracks, explosive bolts separated the wings upon landing, it was only flown a few times being almost impossible to control.

[@hughie522]

I'd assumed that (like assault gliders) the idea was to land them in a warzone and effectively abandon them. That's why they were made of less expensive materials and had no expensive parts like engines.

[@chriskortan1530]

The appeal of the glider is that they are semi-disposable. You can send them into unsecured areas or at least ones with no existing airfield. Your "valuable" transport tow aircraft is put at less risk. At the time, the glider could deliver heavier cargo than just parachutes. There is the additional element of surprise as with any airborne operation. While delivering tanks to your airborne troops would be great, it was overreach. All sides tried it: the Russians with their flying tanks, the US and UK creating special light tanks. The technology wasn't yet there.

[@annoyingbstard9407]

And never was.

[@chriskortan1530]

@@annoyingbstard9407 that is incorrect. Although not glider borne, LAPES was developed in the mid 1960's that successfully delivered all manner of heavy items without an airfield. Additionally the Sheridan could be airdropped, although with as much as a 25% loss rate(from what I've read). The Sheridan and other light vehicles such as the Ontos, M56 Scorpion from the 1950's were airdroppable. This of course requires the military not succumbing to feature creep and wanting airdroppable main battle tanks. On that you are correct on, they are not easily air transported.

[@annoyingbstard9407]

@@chriskortan1530 Starting off with “although not glider borne” is an excellent way of highlighting use of gliders. 😂

[@Veldtian1]

They could've had a giant BWB/ lifting body mega transport 100 years before they're now projected to become the norm.

[@Sierra-Golf-19]

For those that ask. Why not give it engines? Simple answer...... Engines = more weight = less cargo capacity, Fuel for engines = even more weight = even less cargo capacity.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

But the engines and fuel have to go somewhere. All a glider does is require two separate airplanes, two separate designs, two separate crews.

[@sejembalm]

An interesting airmobile vehicle was the 1953 16,000 lb. US M56 Scorpion unarmored self-propelled anti-tank gun on a light tank chassis, which was armed with a 90mm M54 gun with a simple blast shield, and an unprotected crew compartment. It was discovered more efficient to transport light Jeeps armed with anti-tank rockets or just drop off cases of missiles, bazookas and rockets for the airborne infantry as transporting tanks takes up a lot of special resources and is a logistical hassle. M56 Scorpion video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGOvYmaAfaaGi5o

[@towgod7985]

What's with the "big L" on the right side of the screen @ 1:42?

[@howardchambers9679]

Are you any relation to the Lock Picking Lawyer?

[@lesliereissner4711]

Just a bad idea all around and of course unless you have uncontested air superiority giant cargo gliders are very vulnerable and then you have the whole problem of a return flight. I saw a program about a group of ME-323s on their way to Crete (I believe) and were jumped by RAF fighters that just strafed everyone on board as the things had no armour anywhere.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Sealion depended on the Luftwaffe securing air supremacy over GB so if it had actually occurred then that wouldn't have been a problem. The whole point of the gliders is there isn't a return trip. That is why they don't have engines. Just like the Allied gliders, they were expendable vehicles designed to put their troops down in strategic positions.

[@t3rr411]

What happened to having a cockpit!?

[@Einwetok]

Sounds like the same issue Hughes had building the Hercules, his government wouldn't release enough aluminum to build it as intended.

[@richmorg8196]

Looks like a Heinkel bomer without the front dom

[@matthiaskreuz9812]

Isn´t it funny? The British had the same idea in 1940, building cheap wooden airframes without engines to transport troops, materiel and small tanks across the english channel. Hengist, Horsa, Hotspur, and Hamilcar. Sound familiar? And they used them. On D-Day!!!

[@robertmiller7921]

I think I made one of those in TotK

[@samhklm]

der Teufelsrochen

[@jonowens460]

Looks like my Sisters Beaver😮😂❤❤❤

[@MrSheckstr]

If the glider wont give tanks, do we still have to say you’re welcome?

[@fredbecker607]

Hi dad

[@jebise1126]

i dont know... it was said that wood comes with many problems especially needing very skilled workers.

[@eebydeeby69420]

Do stuff like the coal powered p13a

[@dalel3608]

Should have put engines on where the machine gun nubs were.

[@johnstubbe3113]

Wood is 25% to 30% lighter that aluminum.

[@owensomers8572]

Is it though?

[@aazz9676]

Who thought a mere 3 rifle caliber MGs would provide anywhere near a useful defense?

[@fugu4163]

I cant understand why the germans didnt consider to send their stuff to britain with ships instead?

[@esmenhamaire6398]

They hadn't expected to need to invade Britain at all, and certainly didnt have a Navy capable of doing so. The idea was to starve Britain into submission with U-boats and cripple its industry with air attacks. The slight problem there was that the U-boats hadn't been given enough priority in production, and the Luftwaffe was primarily designed to give close air support to the Germany army. When Britain stubbornly refused to come to terms after the Fall of France, the Germans rounded up every barge they could (which seriously affected riverine cargo transport in Europe for a while) and planned to launch the German army across the Channel in those. With hindsight, the odds would have been very much against them had they attempted an invasion of Britain with such inadequate logistics support, but , well, The Germans had already startled the world in overruning France so rapidly, so the threat of a German invasion of Britain seemed a very real possibility at the time.

[@bulldozer99]

WOW!!! 200 FOOOOOOOOT!!!! One feet more and it could have been a 2001 FOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!

[@pwood5733]

Ohhhhhhhhh not another oh merry can

[@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn]

Well since you asked, it’s not going well. Not at all.

[@swedichboy1000]

6:47 :[]

[@FINNIUSORION]

imagine if the Germans had an equivalent to our American palmer board. a program that simplifies and unified American production and development. the waste in the third Reich was astounding do to simultaneous mirror development programs. dozens and dozens of programs developing the exact same use specific items.

[@LarsAgerbk]

1:50 Hitler never intended to invade Britain. Operation Sea Lion was a ruse to keep the Soviet union at ease.

[@apokalipsx25]

1:36 Damn. A misseed opportunity to insert a meme with a man saying " biger, Biger, BIGer, BIGER, *BIGER* !!! "

[@rjk69]

Can you show your maths to convert 20,000kg to over 7,000 gallons of fuel?

[@b43xoit]

Fuel is less dense than water, but let's start with roughly the density of water for a first cut at a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The volume of a kg of water is about a liter, so about a quart. So if fuel were water, you would be looking at about 5k gal. But fuel is less dense; also, a liter is more than a quart, so those factors might account for the addt'l 2k gal.

[@dyc1013]

too much apparatus for a single flight

[@PunkinsSan]

Making nazi Galaxy glider is very odd thing to hear about it

[@tremainetreerat5176]

Did you mean the creation of a hypothetical galaxy that is imbued with national socialist ideology, which for reasons not yet understood, facilitates the realization of this impressively impractical glider? I'll admit that the topic wasn't on my radar when I woke up!

[@thomasmcqueeney6877]

Part of history

[@gusgus-yp6qh]

just a project plane nothing

[@loveoldmovies]

Given the scale of his ambitions and the size of war he got himself into, of course he needed a massive plane capable of transporting tanks and other heavy loads. Trusting such a purpose to be carried out by glider aircraft made of wood was a compromise and folly. Of course such aircraft, whatever their design, would have to be powered. The excuse that there weren't enough engines available sounds pretty lame, The sensible thing to do would have been to greatly expand the output of the producers of aircraft engines! He walked into what at first was a continental war, but he was never fully equipped for global war. He lacked the equipment and output to fight the world with.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

I think you're forgetting that Germany had some serious issues with raw materials supply, and that the German economy was on a peace-time basis until, IIRC, some time in 1941. This was because of a combination of incorrect expectations - the war ended up being far longer than anticipated - and politics. Hitler didn't want the German people to suffer the restrictions required for a war-time economy, particularly after the German experience of WW1. His idea was that the German people would enjoy a nice peacetime life, with all the peacetime luxuries, whilst any suffering would be done by non-Germans. France and Britains tendency to allow Hitler to get away with his ambition early on (anschluss with Austria, annexation of the Sudentland, etc) encouraged Hitler to invade Poland and France about 3 years before the German armed forces expected, as he expected nothing but disapproving noises from the politicians of France and Britain, and no military consequences. The lack of significant military response to the invasion of Poland appeared to have proven him correct, and the Russian Army's abysmal showing in the Winter War against Finland just confirmed his belief that the Soviet Army would prove easy to beat. Even so, the invasion of France caused Hitler a lot of anxiety, due to France and Britain having superior numbers and equipment at least as good as that of the Reich. He expected a tough fight, and wasn't at all prepared for the speed of the advance of the German Army against a foe in the same class as them. What neither side realised prior to the campaign against France in 1940 was that the German Army had much superior doctrine to that of Britain and France, better command and control, unity of command, and tactics based upon the sucessful infiltration and bypass enemy strongpoints methods used in WW1 by the German Stosstruppen. With France falling so quickly, Hitler expected the British to come to terms soon, despite the failure of the Luftwaffe to render the RAF combat ineffective. And so he decided to invade Russia the next year. It was only the failure to defeat the Russians within a few weeks that made Hitler realise that, like it or not, the German economy would have to go onto a war-time footing. And that's why the Germans couldn't produce enough engines rapidly enough to power projects like the Gigant and Mammut, because German industry wasn't expecting to need to produce sufficient equipment to replace the losses involved in a long war, and they were hardly going to expand their factories at great expense for a demand that wasn't expected to come into existence.

[@JB-rt4mx]

Please stop the Ai robot voice

[@tremainetreerat5176]

The whole issue of transport-glider-giantism is one of many incurable Luftwaffe ailments, ultimately stemming from the same root--the death of General Walter Wever in an accident in 1936.