Martin-Baker Tankbuster: The Failed Flying Tank Destroyer

[@commandingjudgedredd1841]

Just when you think you've seen all the obscure aircraft of WW2, and the 'what could have been types', another few new ones always come along. Very interesting video, indeed.

[@kiliandrilltzsch8272]

especially when you think the germans had all the wierd ones and then the allies bring up the most goofy ah ah planes

[@thebritishengineer8027]

You do realise that this became a reality in the MK18 Tsetse Mosquito. The 57mm was a Molins gun modified for the plane that included a 23 round clip and able to fire a staggering 55 rounds a minute. Just to be clear here, this is an anti tank gun round not something you can put in your pocket. Lethal against U-Boats, however Tony Philips scored a hit on the engine of a JU-88 violently removing the engine block from the wing.

[@garyburns2831]

And Typhoon and Tempest expensive and gap filled harsh realities of war

[@hansrudel5462]

The mosquito its a better choice...

[@robertstevens1537]

was just going to type that when I say your comment. Excellent points.

[@marcwilliams2929]

Gosh, that is one deadly mossie

[@ronaldfinkelstein6335]

I always wondered why the RAF didn't use the Mk.XVIII in a tank busting role. The 6 pounder could kill a King Tiger, from above.

[@Nastyswimmer]

Martin-Baker was one of the first companies to work on developing ejection seats, beginning in 1934. James Martin (the British one, not the American) stepped up development in 1942 when his business partner Valentine Baker was killed whilst test-flying the MB-3, so the company was well ahead of the game when the Air Ministry finally showed an interest.

[@orenwolfe6506]

The 'American' Martin? Are you thinking of Glenn Martin?

[@Nastyswimmer]

@@orenwolfe6506 That's the one - sorry, I was meaning the American Martin, not the American James Martin

[@Steven-p4j]

So few people realise that it was tragedy and grief which drove the development of this life-saving technology. Thank you Sir.

[@bradschoeck1526]

The MB5 could’ve been one of the most impressive piston powered fighters of this era, had its production been accelerated, instead of retarded by Martin constantly implementing his tweaks and minor changes in pursuit of perfection. Which I do believe he actually achieved, albeit after the jet engine became a feasible power plant.

[@Steven-p4j]

@@bradschoeck1526 True, the obsessive hunt for perfection has destroyed many things prematurely.

[@applejack4225]

You forgot the Mosquito fighter bomber, which excelled at being both, although could not carry the same weight of bombs as the Lancaster. Nevertheless, probably the most versatile plane in the war.

[@marcwilliams2929]

The mossie is amazing

[@nickjung7394]

Wasn't the bomb load only slightly less than a B17's?

[@russell4495]

It's so odd looking that it could be made by Blackburn

[@KevTheImpaler]

Not sure I entirely buy your thesis. The F4U Corsair was a superb fighter and useful as a fighter bomber. The B29 may have been a specialised heavy bomber, but so was the B24 Liberator and that proved a very versatile machine.

[@Otokichi786]

Martin-Baker Tankbuster: "Hey, let's make a flying Aardvark!" (ONLY a 57mm cannon!?)

[@prowlus]

The me-410 had a similar gun in its u4 version

[@WolfeSaber9933]

The A-10 had a better gun

[@TeenWithACarrotIDK]

@@WolfeSaber9933 ok

[@TeenWithACarrotIDK]

@@WolfeSaber9933 I think everyone knows that.

[@CRT_sRGB]

Building a whole aircraft around a gun... the A-10 comparisons are inevitable.

[@paulbeesley8283]

The Martin-Baker ejector seat, was developed because one of the partners (I forget if it was Martin or Baker,) was killed when test flying that model you mentioned at the end of the video.

[@Riccardo_Silva]

When i stumbled upon your channel a couple of days ago you had about 675 subs. They already grew up to a little more than 1K. Well done! Martin-Baker is today practically synonimous of ejecting seats...not a little feat!!!

[@gort8203]

Although it may not have been intended by the author, this video does a good job at illustrating why the A-10 is a misallocation of resources. It is also a slow single-role one-trick-pony, and USAF needs more versatile aircraft that can perform multiple roles, just as the RAF did in WWII.

[@Theogenerang]

The B29 featured at the start is an example of how one design for one role can morph into many roles. The basic layout went on to serve in reconnaissance, weather ship, rescue, air tanker, freighter, passenger aircraft, X plane mothership and any other role requiring a large platform with good altitude and range capabilities. Its basic design served in non combat roles for longer than it did in actual combat. At the end of the day, in my experience, all we want is a capable wing and capable engines with flexibility for modification and expansion. Its a rule that has held true from the DH9 to the F15.

[@stickiedmin6508]

It's quite curious, isn't it, that so many of the most famously versatile aircraft throughout history were originally designed for much more limited roles? In comparison, projects that attempt to build such versatility into the design right from the start often struggle to do so. It would be interesting to directly compare the way that designs like the Superfortress or the Mosquito originated, developed and evolved, to those that have famously struggled to reach their wider and more diverse design goals, with the F-35 being an obvious example. It seems strange that a design like the C-130 - a plane so endlessly useful and capable that variants will probably still be in active service a hundred years from now - could have come from the exact same place as the F-35. The F-35 is certainly more than capable of doing the things it was designed to do, but nobody could deny that the design process ended up being *_painfully_* complicated and difficult, not to mention expensive. It would be fascinating to examine all the reasons why such projects panned out so differently.

[@xXBisquitsXx]

I'm willingly to bet that one of the major reasons the B-29 went on to fill so many roles for so long isn't necessarily because it was especially flexible but due to the insanely large numbers of them built. They may have been designed for a specific role but this made them cheap and easy to produce so when you no longer need them or have something better then why not convert them to be used in auxiliary roles, would be cheaper and faster then designing new aircraft that might be better at the role if it's not necessary. whereas the aircraft that are designed to be multi functional tend to be expensive and time consuming to produce and require a lot of maintenance so is not worth converting like the simpler designs are. Your unlikely to see a F-16 or F-35 used in auxiliary roles due to their expense and complexity.

[@ronaldfinkelstein6335]

The 6 pounder gun was eventually put into the Mosquito Mk. XVIII, and used as an anti-shipping aircraft..

[@williamzk9083]

Different 6 pounder I think?

[@samrodian919]

@@williamzk9083 yes, it was a Mohlins 57 mm quick firing anti tank gun modified by Mohlins to take a 23 round basket of shells and could fire at a stagering 55 rounds a minute. Yes minute! Just over a second a round. There is a video on KZbin about this and footage of the gun firing from the ground and the recoil rocking the aircraft backwards.

[@roykliffen9674]

This failure didn't make Martin-Baker switch to ejection seats, but rather the death of one of its founders - Valentine Baker - in a crash in a Martin-Baker MB3 prototype fighter. The death of his partner - and friend - shocked James Martin to the core and he decided to turn his attention more to pilot's safety.

[@gort8203]

The F4U and P-47 were not designed as fighter-bombers, they were designed as fighters. They were not compromised to be good at ground attack as well as air attack, they were meant to be the best they could be at air attack. All fighters have air-to-ground capability and these two just had more than average due to their overall excellence. For some time Alexander Kartveli resisted the Army's desire to modify the P-47 with underwing pylons because he couldn't bear to corrupt the beautiful low drag form of the plane.

[@stevenpowell1991]

The P=47 and F-4U are two of my favorite planes. Both were actually better fighters than the other options we had(such as the Mustang and Hellcat), but they both wound up in the attack role because aircraft like the Mustang weren't heavily armored enough to operate down low.

[@gort8203]

@@stevenpowell1991 They were both great planes. But none of these planes were armored for protection from ground fire. They were designed as fighters and their armor was oriented to protect the pilot from fire coming from the rear and the front. See page 7 of the F4U pilots manual for a depiction of the armor protection. The P-47 training manual depicts protection from the same angles. The armor is not the reason these aircraft did a lot of ground attack. The P-47 did a lot of ground attack because after the long-range P-51 became available in numbers the P-47 was reassigned from the 8th Air Force to the 9th Air Force. It's role change from escort of strategic bombers to air superiority over the battlefield and ground attack, which included offensive and defensive counter air, interdiction, armed reconnaissance, and direct support of ground operations. The F4U did a lot of ground attack because the Navy initially deemed it unsuitable for carrier operations, so it was operated mostly from land bases by the Marines. The Marine Air is all about supporting the Marines on the ground. If the Hellcat had been the plane the Navy found unsuitable for carrier ops the Marines would have been issued the Hellcat instead. It was not due to a difference in armor protection. The P-51 did plenty of ground attack in WWII as well as Korea. All fighters do ground attack when they are not needed for or have become obsolete for air-to-air missions.

[@kentl7228]

I feel the P47 was a better ground attack thank the IL-2. At least the P47 wasn't fighter fodder.

[@gort8203]

@@kentl7228 Interesting that the low and slow dedicated ground attack aircraft could have been less effective in its role than the fast high-altitude fighter that was not armored against ground fire. Yet A-10 fanboys insist we still need a dedicated low and slow armored ground attack aircraft for modern combat.

[@kentl7228]

@@gort8203 Agreed. In Afghanistan the A10 is ok. In a hotter AA zone like Ukraine, it would be toast. It's better to be quicker and not seen at all.

[@johnjephcote7636]

At least the Typhoon and then the Tempest proved to be very effective ground attack a/c.

[@stevejohnson7132]

I realize this is quite a stretch but it kind of reminds me of the A-10 Thunderbolt or Warthog.

[@AirwayZombie]

Not a stretch at all. Big gun meant to kill armored vehicles in a vulnerable slow moving aircraft. The RAF was smart enough to see the limitations of this Martin Baker aircraft and not build it. Politics lead USAF to build the A-10 and they have been stuck with it ever since.

[@hatac]

The fact that the Russian equivalent the Ilyushin Il-2 Stormovik worked in the role is interesting. Thanks to field modifications that became standard it was able to wipeout whole tank formations. It had defenses and was rigged to drop bomblets in large numbers.

[@MrTerrymiff]

I find it bizarre that the chapter labelled 'history' (2:30) shows the aircraft in D-Day stripes when the design concept hit the scrap heap two years prior to that event.

[@tsr207]

Interesting video - spoke to a Typhoon years ago who said the rocket projectiles would go straight through the skin of the armoured cars - the exhaust would take out the crew though ! Glad Martin Baker went on to make ejection seats !

[@3ducs]

You spoke to a Typhoon? That must've been an interesting conversation.

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

The uk designed 6lb anti tank gun was used by the US Army in WW2, it also fired HE shells. Also someone stuck a 6ld gun in the front of a Mossie. A U.K. 2 seat twin engine bomber that could carry a bomb load of 4000 lbs to Berlin or the same payload as a B17 to Berlin

[@killergames391]

B-17's could carry up to 10,000 pounds of ordinance utilizing external bomb racks and 8000 pounds of bombs internally. 4000 pounds were preferred in B-17s to berlin as the USAAC was doing daylight bombing raids and combat damages were expected. Not trying to dis the Mossie, but some context is needed for the B-17s

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

@@killergames391 10,000 but not to Berlin at the speed that a Mosquito did. Even the 4 engined Handley Page Halifax B mk 111 V1 could carry more bomb load at over 300 MPH

[@michaelpielorz9283]

an other british heart is bleeding (:-)

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

@@michaelpielorz9283 what exactly do you mean

[@matiastorres1510]

Holy shit more British cope about the mossie. It's literally not comparable to the B-17. It's just not.

[@DickHolman]

There's something very A10 about this. I suppose building a plane around a BFG demands certain design constraints. :)

[@paulqueripel3493]

The picture at 2:33 really looks like they've put the tail on the front of another plane's fuselage , turned the cockpit round and made the whole thing fly in reverse.

[@teodor9975]

Though a bit silly thought. I always imagined an alternative variant of it as an interceptor. Removing the armour, enlarge the fuselage to include retractable gear and weapons. A 6 pounder and 4 machine gun MB Interceptor would look very cool Give it thinner and more streamlined wings and that could seriously become a very competitive design

[@DIREWOLFx75]

Your basic assumption is wrong. Specialist ground attack aircraft, even BAD ones, had enough success that they would easily have been well worth building some. The Il-2, the He-129, the cannonarmed Stuka... The MB TD seems to have taken the armor up part of the concept much too far, but the idea overall is absolutely viable and possibly even quite good. And ground attack aircraft are not supposed to be superfast, in fact if they are, they are WORSE at their primary job as higher speed makes it harder to effectively hit their ground targets. Even today, we still have the A-10 and Su-25 filling this role of armored, VERY hard to shoot down ground attack aircraft.

[@USAACbrat]

The variations of the B-25 and other twins were effective as bombers, anti-ship raiders, ground support is at odds with your descriptions.

[@bruceinoz8002]

Martin Baker were a creative lot. Check out the MB-5 "super-fighter".

[@pandoranbias1622]

The issue with making a dedicated tank-buster is that in order for it to be truly capable of it's job it needs to be so big and heavy that it becomes easy to take down.

[@MaverickAus]

Ever heard of the A-10 Warthog?

[@pandoranbias1622]

@@MaverickAus 410 mph top speed

[@the7A7dude]

​@@MaverickAus completely different era

[@MaverickAus]

@@the7A7dude Really? OMG I never would have known, thank god you are here with valuable advice for the unknowing.

[@Quadrenaro]

@@MaverickAus The A-10 is obsolete.

[@williamzk9083]

Aircraft maximum speeds should always be quoted at the relevant altitude. 280mph at sea level is quite fast.

[@retired3437]

Terrific video I must find more of your very understandable explanations for the non engineer ,well done.

[@brookeshenfield7156]

Aloha! A terrific video once again! This is an interesting plane concept. The RAF design request was issued with surprising foresight and this response was certainly innovative. As with many planes of this period, the constraints of engine choices dictated many design choices. A 2,000+ hp engine would have allowed for a larger plane with retractable gear, maybe a couple Brownings or 20mm and some more speed. Imagine this plane with a Napier Sabre or a Rolls-Royce Eagle… The Russians would have loved it!

[@timbrwolf1121]

I can't help but think that this would have been very effective in an alternate timeline where other aircraft had not been created for the role. Seems like it would be very hard to shoot down from the perspective of those being attacked on the ground. The armored cone shape and narrow wing roots mean it would have deflected all but a direct hit from ground fire.

[@timbrwolf1121]

Nice bike BTW

[@brookeshenfield7156]

@@timbrwolf1121 I have never ridden a more perfect bike than the ‘99 Thunderbird Sport. I owned three.

[@timbrwolf1121]

@@brookeshenfield7156 I'm still riding an 07 BMW f650GS single. I want an Indian Scout though. How many miles have you put on the thunderbird?

[@brookeshenfield7156]

@@timbrwolf1121 Respect for the thumper rider here. I’ve been through three (two reds and a yellow), putting about 150k on all three. I’ve had other bikes, but it fits me best.

[@eskeline]

this is the most bizarre aircraft i have ever seen, it looks like someone grabbed a spitfire and ripped it apart and then told a baby to try and put it back together and then after stuck a big ol gun in the nose

[@holdernewtshesrearin5471]

Looks like they just flipped a hurricane fuselage around backwards, lopped off it's tail, added a flat rectangular wing, twin boons and a stabilizer and pointed the cockpit backwards.

[@LezDentz]

It looks like the ancestor of two very different aircraft, the A10 Warthog and the OV-10 Bronco.

[@martinpepperell8424]

The forerunner to the A10!

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

Remarkable resemblance to some strike drones of our time interestingly

[@superjuca55]

Just reorder the P-39, see if it's possible to put a bigger gun in the nose and up armor it. No problem with lack of high altitude performance since it's a tank buster, and still fast and maneverable enough to defend itself. But I guess they wanted a british aircraft.

[@blippedyblop]

Hurricanes (Mk II) of No.6 Squadron were fitted with 40mm anti-tank guns in the campaign in North Africa to a great deal of success, wreaking havoc amongst German mechanised units. Thus earning the squadron nickname ("The Flying Can-Openers").

[@stevenjones5191]

Eeeeexcept....relatively slow, pretty much a sitting duck with-out air-superiority, relatively massive, built around an outrageously huge gun, twin tails, and solely intended to go after armored vehicles …looks an awful lot like an A-10 and that's been pretty successful. Maybe Martin-Baker were ahead of their time.

[@crabby7668]

Looks like the body was put in back to front. Interesting video

[@TeenWithACarrotIDK]

Wrong comment.

[@that_fritz_guy5918]

something that is bothering me more and more is that (not all of course) historical infotainment channels are using imperial units. I understand that for some topics that is how the technical documents just are however I would like to have the metric conversion at least displayed on the screen. With the whole world except for 3 1/2 countries using SI units in everyday life saying the B-29 had a maximum payload of 22,000lb doesn't give me anything to compare it to. The videos are still interesting and informative regardless of this fact and I hope I didn't come off too whiny, I'm just trying to give constructive criticism.

[@tedsmith6137]

It looks like the model at 6:30 has a multi barrel mini gun in the nose, rather than a 57mm cannon.

[@Hamsta180]

Replace the piston engine with a jet and you get a de Havilland Vampire?

[@jjock3239]

The Lancaster was in service long before the B-29, and although it was not pressurized, it could carry the Grand Slam bomb, which weighed 22,000 lbs.

[@Steven-p4j]

Perhaps curiously, the Martin Baker company, used a Gloster Meteor for nearly 50 years in their testing of injector seats. It was obviously a twin seater, which allowed for a far higher test at speed than was possible with other more expensive aircraft. I say curiously because it was the same aircraft which doomed their fast super prop.

[@tomwotton9]

I think I see the problem………in the thumbnail it’s facing the wrong way. Love Tom

[@Damian-03x3]

Pretty nice video but it would be a lot easier to understand if it included the correct measuremnt system units too.

[@donn7261]

Needs to look up the real history of the ejection seat. It was a personal mission, not the government.

[@stuartjakl]

It’s funny that he uses an example of two the best fighters of World War II, the Corsair and the P47. The P47 being the fastest, propeller fighter plane during the war out of any country, allied or axis alike. Both planes can match any fighter and have the kill numbers to prove it. It also happens they made excellent ground attack planes. Anyway, not really great examples for your argument.

[@russellmoore1533]

It looks like a WW2 version of the A10 Warthog.

[@garrymartin6474]

Not surprised it never got further than a set of drawings !

[@marvinmauldin4361]

A problem with a gun this big is that when fired, the pilot feels as though the aircraft has disconcertingly stopped in midair, possibly interfering with everything else he has to concentrate on.

[@alexlupsor5484]

The GERMAN design of the “German American bomber” was an example for the RAF. Should Bomber Command have adapted the ideas of the German, this was very possible and would have increased the performance of the Lancaster. This design would include two additional Merlin’s added too the appropriate length of the wings. Lord Chadwick would be adding the necessary extensions starting from the first inboard engine out to the next additional Merlins would then start a 35 degree angle from the outer portion of the middle necell, through the third engine neicell to the wing tip. With this addition of two engines, increase of wing area to increase lift, the lengthening of the fuselage would be needed with the planning left to Lord Chadwick. The # of Lancs would be limited to a # of Lancs completed, along with parts and spares for two complete squadrons. The # of ship sets along with spare parts would be estimated between 105- 110 complete ship sets and then would replace and renew # 617 squadron and # 09 squadron with required parts and spares. Barns Wallis wished to build a bomber that would carry the GrandSlam and Tallboy, to reach the altitude of 30 - 40,000 ft. This was the optimum altitude needed to drop the GrandSlam earthquake bomb so it would do the maxim damage that was intended. Just a little history that possibly could have happened. Hold your heads high for Mr Barns Wallis is TRULY a genus who did shorten the war. The boggling Germans might have been inspired to build such a plane. With the extra fuel tanks in the wings, along with the extra height of the bombers, the oil that Germany desperately needed would have been destroyed without any loss by flak or fighter interception. Now that would have been a beautiful sight, like angels singing to the heavens. Man I would have loved it … Forever in His service

[@ChrisSmith-lo2kp]

MB5 would've been a great aircraft but was scrapped due to war's end and advent of jet propulsion - also MB pioneered ejection seat techology

[@chrisanderson6204]

The Corsair had upwards of a 10:1 kill ratio. Pretty effective fighter, I'd say

[@andrewdking]

Probably little known, but a couple of our employees were ex Martin Baker. One recalls that the boss Mr Martin needed a bone joint replacement which was then in its infancy. His employees designed and made one in titanium which was fitted. May have been a first. May be a load of boxxox 🤷

[@anthonyxuereb792]

The wing reminds me of the simple balsa wood and tissue wing (I say wing because it was one piece) of the flying model planes way back when.

[@1982nsu]

I made those planes too! The tricky part was to mist the tissue covered wings and fuselage without tearing it.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

@@1982nsu The good ol' days for sure.

[@JustDarrenJ]

At 270 mph, it was not a whole lot slower than the best tankbuster ever, the A-10 Warthog. It might've proven very effective, against tanks, trucks, shipping, with it's incredible armored protection.

[@xXBisquitsXx]

According to google the A-10 warthogs top speed is 420-460 MPH, hard to know as i'm sure the US gov would rather keep people guessing but a lot faster then 270mph

[@bobbyduke777]

If they put more effort into that it would have been a early warthog.

[@drlong08]

@4:10 the model maker decided a 30mm rotary cannon would be a good option.

[@peteregan3862]

A-10 great for that role today, but bot in peer to peer warefare as everyone on the ground has missiles.

[@raypurchase801]

MARTIN BAKER: "Let's make a tank-buster!" HAWKERS: "You mean like the Typhoon and the Tempest?"

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

MARTIN BAKER: _"Let's take development money from the Ministry... and line our own pockets with it!"_

[@mroilcat]

Old fart here...I had an uncle (drank himself to death as did his brother, a B17 pilot) that flew a P47 over France and the low countries, taking out tanks and mobile artillery. But his specialty were trains. He explained his tacti's: Go after engine head on to slow/stop the train Make a loop and attack from back to front with gun, then attack from the sides with rockets for harder targets. He even was credited with 3 fighter kills, but he considered them more or less an afterthought and just an opportunity. He died young at about 45, and his brother died at around 50-55.

[@konradhenrykowicz1859]

Failed like any other II ww attempt to create a tank buster. By that time it was impossible to. The first platform that succesfully utilized large calibre cannon was the MiG-15

[@jamesrose1460]

The first attempt to make what became the A-10

[@williamroberts1819]

For the longest time the only reference to this design for me was the Unicraft model kit. I've never built it but I'm sure it sucks.

[@1joshjosh1]

Interesting!

[@simonwood1402]

It's a "Buyraktar" with a pilot at the controls! 🇹🇷 so it did go into service after all 😉

[@ordocash1004]

Thx, nice video!

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

Sometimes, an aircraft just looks right. This one, not so much. Had I not been familiar with the look of the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog), I would have thought the designers mad.

[@Pimthrow]

The design idea totally makes sense. Wonder why there has not been a back propeller ground attack vehicle in ww2.

[@pluemas]

There was! The Swedish Saab 21 is a pusher. Most countries didn't adopt it because of the complexity of the need for ejection seats.

[@clivehales1919]

Didn't realise Farmers could be so scary !

[@leonardopinhel1219]

The lost link between the Stuka and the A-10 🤣

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Big problem with big guns on planes to do AT work. Not effective enough to make it worthwhile to do a whole new design around it. Generally, very inefficient. Don't even start in about A-10s or tank kills until you have finished reading. Tests conducted during WWII showed that against a tank sized target, the best results that could he achieved with a slow firing 57mm gun were about 7% hits, at best. That's 1 out of 14 shells. Given limited ammo capacity of large rounds, a sortie could very well be wasted with no results achieved. And that 7% was against immobile targets, with top rate test pilots, conducted under ideal conditions. Yes, there were tanks killed by aircraft during that war. A lot of them. Mostly by bombs. Rockets were all reputation, not results, and most gun kills were by 30mm or smaller guns with a high rate of fire allowing hits to be reliably achieved, resulting in mobility or mission kills as opposed to actually destroying a tank. The Stuka and the Hurricane looked impressive with their 37mm/40mm guns under each wing, but they were put to shame by Il-2s with 23mm and Hs-129s with 30mm when it came to hits scored and effectiveness of sorties. As for the A-10/GAU-8, has anybody actually researched the trials of that combo? The results are available on line, and they are pathetic. There was actually very little live fire testing of the A-10 against acquired Soviet tanks before it was selected for service, and it didn't do all that great on a test range against immobile targets. Even though it is 30mm with a high rate of fire and a tremendously large ammo supply. And the Gulf War? A-10s got most of their tank kills with Maverick missiles, not the gun. What plane got the most tank kills in the Gulf War? The F-111, which didn't even have a gun. Yes, A-10s got some gun kills, but not enough to make it worth the number of Hogs shot down or damaged when they closed to gun range. No doubt it is the most effective large-gun-on-an-armored-plane design ever built, and yet it still wasn't all that combat effective as a gun platform to make it worthwhile. It is awesome as a close support aircraft because that is what it was actually designed for, but not the god almighty tank killer its overinflated rep makes it out to be.

[@unclenogbad1509]

By all accounts (though not having even a prototype to judge by) it would almost certainly have been able to do the job, but with nowhere near the usefulness to justify wartime investment. It probably came out of the fact that Britain was clearly woefully lacking in decent tank tech, which we paid the price for in the Battle for France. They did, however, put that gun on a hurricane (and possibly on tempests) which certainly proved effective in infantry support post-D-day. So, for my money, a might-have-been that never was going to.

[@sailingbrewer]

Dude A-10 can only do one thing. Close ground support up to heavy tanks. They are loved and arguably the most in demand aircraft during the last +20 year conflict

[@SirEpifire]

"No we have P38 Lightning at home" P38 Lightning at home 😅

[@longrider42]

Um, both the B-25 and B-26 Bombers where both good at other roles. Such as Ground Attack, not just bombing.

[@hekatoncheiros208]

Anybody remember the extraordinary Diemert Defender? I think Bob Diemert must have drawn some inspiration from this.

[@samgunn12]

Is no one going to mention that it’s a backwards Hurricane with a dirty great cannon sticking out of the back of the fuselage?

[@lancaster5077]

Martin Baker still fly a Gloster Meteor for testing ejector seats. So alls well that ends well.

[@Ass_of_Amalek]

damn, they put 40mm guns on hawker hurricanes?

[@alessiodecarolis]

The concept wasn't flawed, only the project was too "naive", too heavy, fixed undercarriage, no defensive weapons. Fairchild had a better outcome with the A10, similar request, but waay better results

[@KevTheImpaler]

Does not seem all that different in concept from the American A10 Warthog tank buster in concept: slow, heavily armed, heavily armoured, single purpose. Not all that different from the Russian Il-2 Sturmovik, which played a very important part in the war. The allies did have air supremacy and fighter cover during the Normandy landings and later stages of the war. The MB Tankbuster might have done its job better than the Typhoon, which failed in its primary purpose.

[@BG-me3pc]

A-10 Wart Hog The early years .

[@baystgrp]

How does the pilot avoid that huge propeller if he has to leave the aircraft?

[@TeenWithACarrotIDK]

“That’s the neat part, you don’t.”

[@RonGardener4142]

This may be why Martin Baker developed the ejector seat!

[@sabrekai8706]

Interesting design but the non retractable gear completely queers the deal.

[@psymons9133]

Interesting, wasn't aware that a B29 could carry ALMOST as heavy a payload as a Lancaster

[@williamzk9083]

US Amazon II and Samson bombs both weighed 25,000lbs and were dropped by B-29 on Germany in 1946 as part of evaluation exercises in deep ground penetration.

[@harlech2]

Does anyone else see the fuselage as a backwards facing plane?

[@dylanmilne6683]

First 2.5 minutes of the video was a total waste. The example of a B-29 as inflexible when it was used for so many different roles - weather monitoring, photo recon, air sea rescue, AEW, aerial refuelling, engine testing etc. Saying it was only good as a bomber is a lie. A picture of a Wespe like it wasn't a desperately needed weapon and itself an offshoot of the Pz.II which was a very versatile basis for many vehicles. Mischaracterization of P-47 and Corsair as being dedicated fighter bombers and not fighters which could serve in the fighter bomber role. Filler content.

[@Solsys2007]

I was looking for a comment about the Wespe, thank you for that, and I agree with your other points as well.

[@burningbarnavit]

Why are your images sooooo dark?

[@ta192utube]

Replace the 57mm with a honkin' big gatling type weapon, and what does that remind you of?

[@TeenWithACarrotIDK]

A death trap.

[@FlorinSutu]

Where the Western Allies failed, the Germans succeeded: Their Ju-87 fitted with two 37mm Rheinmetall-Borsig BK3,7 anti-tank cannons, firing shells with tungsten/wolfram core, destroyed hundreds of Soviet tanks.

[@roelantverhoeven371]

dad of the A10 ;)

[@prowlus]

A british Sturmovich right?

[@tomeickhorst6787]

Looks like they chipped the tail off of a spitfire and spun it around backwards with a pusher prop stubby wings and the double tail

[@javierpatag3609]

Am very fond of weird aircraft designs. Just from the thumbnail: I

[@patrickskelton3610]

Hurricane MkIID not MkIIB(12 0.303Brownings)

[@Strommel1]

It bears a vague resemblance to A10 warthog

[@victorboucher675]

USA had the B-25G, 75mm ...