I wonder how heavy that thing is. I assume it has to be at least 100 pounds, which makes that guy pretty impressive. I guess they develop certain muscles, like we did in the service. I got out of USMC bootcamp weighing 135 pounds, but had no problem throwing a full seabag over my shoulder and trotting along like it was nothing.
I’ll be honest Rex, I spent way too long of a time analyzing all the photos in this video to make sure you didn’t accidentally use a picture of a Ki-51. Excellent video as always! Cheers!
While designed by the same team that produced the Ki-30 and the resemblance is close, three things will immediately tell you the difference: the most noticeable, no bomb bay so it was a low-wing design; low wing meant a shorter landing gear; a much shorter cockpit and canopy.
@@kevindolin4315 the main point of difference that I look for is the location of the pitot tube and aerial. On the Ki-30 it’s located on the starboard wing whereas on the Ki-51 it is in approximately the same spot but instead, it’s mounted on the port wing. From a quick glance, only one picture in the video showed it on the port wing but the canopy length indicated that it was a Ki-30 and it was just the photo that was mirrored.
My grandfather fought in the Phillipines army during the final months of Bataan and he told stories of how the Japanese army dive bombers hit most positions that put up any resistance and obliterated it, the whole force of about 17 would hit it, rearm and come back up. Great video
I think you were a bit harsh on the Kawasaki Ki-32. It was the last type of bomber to use a liquid cooled engine (LCE). Yes, it did have its problems with the engine, but that gives you an opportunity to talk about the problems the Japanese had with LCEs in general. The Ki-32 was liked by its aircrews for its maneuverability, superior to the Ki-30's. By its ground crews, not so much due to the much greater complexity of an LCE compared to a radial. It also had an internal bomb bay and even with its fixed landing gear was faster than the Fairey Battle with its retractable gear. It took part in bombing operations leading to the surrender of Hong Kong. It was one of the types that brought Japanese aviation on a par with Western nations. Surely it deserves a video of its own.
I found this type of aircraft due to Taff in Exile’s playthrough of war on the sea: centrifugal offensive. They were decent at attacking freighters and light-bomb-pinging destroyers, not much else. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity!
Why a single forward firing in one of the wings? I never understand that. There were types like Bristol Blenheim, Fairey Battle, and this Mitsubishi Ki-30 just for quick examples.
I agree. But it was probably a compromise. One is better than none. And it likely came down to weight. Of course it begs the question, how did they balance the weight in the other wing?🐿
If you hadn't already noticed .. it was a bomber ..not a fighter .. as per your other examples ... More then likely even having just 1 gun allows it to strafe a target on the ground ... Would you want to be a squaddy out in the open with one of these bearing down on you ..shooting you up with its machine gun ..... I think not
And now more seriously... I like the way you just use metric measures. What did the Japanese at this time use for measure - imperial, metric or something else? I love that their cars are still right hand drive - handy if you like a Bongo or Frendee - but the speedometer is always in KPH.
G'day Belay that...! Young fella, m' lad, He be 'Strayan(!) {Cnut...!} ; Not "Brutisch" At Awl..., D' y' no' See, That, there, then...(?) ! It sticks out, mate ; Like the Balls on a Dog...(!). Just(ifiably ?) sayin'... Such is life, Have a good one..... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
2:08 TIL the Japanese made tiny aerial bombs that are only 15kg. A modern 155mm projectile weighs 47kg and the WW2 M1 105mm weighs 19kg. Might as well use artillery at this point
It's a shame that we don't have at least one surviving example in a museum somewhere. If I was a multi-billionaire like the donor class, I wouldn't spend my money on social engineering experiments and crap like that, I'd go into the jungle, finding the wrecks of old fighters and restoring them to at least display quality. My other hobby would be to restore the battleship Texas to floating and fighting trim. Maybe even do wacky things like building an all new Bismarck, Titanic, Tirpitz, Hood, etc.
@@oxcart4172 Starvation and cancer research always needs more effort and money and it's true that neither are in great supply thanks to certain political figures. However, if I had to choose between becoming a new world order official or some ultra-rich nerd doing stuff like what I mentioned in my OP, I'd rather go for the latter. The short argument would be "which would you prefer: giant robots or nukes? I'm a man of culture, so giant robots it is.
It struck me the same way at first. I think he thinks that if they were more successful and famous, or notorious, some might have been preserved, which makes sense. Nobody cared enough about them.
4:50 the gun in the flexible mount looks like a 7.7 mm Type 89 Dual flexible machine gun, possibly the weirdest machine gun used in WW2. Incidentally 7.7 semi rimmed type 89 is different in case size and rim from the Imperial Japanese Navy cartridge and indeed weapons - the IJN had standard Type 92 flexible mounting gun, which were effectively Lewis guns still cambered for British 303 (7.7mm) and the fixed 7.7 mm naval calibre aircraft machine gun was a Vickers D or E derivative.
I think its to have a free undisturbed airflow into the Pitot tube and no interference with different airflow near or infront of the wings. Sry my engl. is to bad to explain it .
