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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@hansrudel5462

Жыл бұрын

The mosquito its a better choice...

@robertstevens1537

Жыл бұрын

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

@marcwilliams2929

Жыл бұрын

Gosh, that is one deadly mossie

@ronaldfinkelstein6335

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

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

Жыл бұрын

The mossie is amazing

@nickjung7394

Жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@Nastyswimmer

Жыл бұрын

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

@user-en9zo2ol4z

Жыл бұрын

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

@bradschoeck1526

Жыл бұрын

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.

@user-en9zo2ol4z

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

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.

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

@prowlus

Жыл бұрын

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

@WolfeSaber9933

Жыл бұрын

The A-10 had a better gun

@TeenWithACarrotIDK

Жыл бұрын

@@WolfeSaber9933 ok

@TeenWithACarrotIDK

Жыл бұрын

@@WolfeSaber9933 I think everyone knows that.

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

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.

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!!!

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

@williamzk9083

Жыл бұрын

Different 6 pounder I think?

@samrodian919

Жыл бұрын

@@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 KZread about this and footage of the gun firing from the ground and the recoil rocking the aircraft backwards.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

@gort8203

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

@AirwayZombie

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

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.

Thx, nice video!

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

an other british heart is bleeding (:-)

@JohnSmith-bx8zb

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelpielorz9283 what exactly do you mean

@matiastorres1510

10 ай бұрын

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

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

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

Жыл бұрын

Ever heard of the A-10 Warthog?

@pandoranbias1622

Жыл бұрын

@@MaverickAus 410 mph top speed

@the7A7dude

Жыл бұрын

​@@MaverickAus completely different era

@MaverickAus

Жыл бұрын

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

@Quadrenaro

Жыл бұрын

@@MaverickAus The A-10 is obsolete.

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

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

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

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

Nice bike BTW

@brookeshenfield7156

Жыл бұрын

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

@timbrwolf1121

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

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

@TeenWithACarrotIDK

Жыл бұрын

Wrong comment.

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

Interesting!

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

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

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").

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

Remarkable resemblance to some strike drones of our time interestingly

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 🤷

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.

The forerunner to the A10!

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.

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

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

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

@pluemas

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@anthonyxuereb792

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

It looks like a WW2 version of the A10 Warthog.

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

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.

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

Fantastic video nontheless, you won a subscriber

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

A british Sturmovich right?

The first attempt to make what became the A-10

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

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

@TeenWithACarrotIDK

Жыл бұрын

“That’s the neat part, you don’t.”

@RonGardener4142

Жыл бұрын

This may be why Martin Baker developed the ejector seat!

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

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

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

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.

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

@sandervanderkammen9230

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@williamzk9083

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

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

@TeenWithACarrotIDK

Жыл бұрын

A death trap.

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

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.

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

Didn't realise Farmers could be so scary !

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.

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?

Isn't this the British version of the German Hs-129 Ju-88P with 7.5cm tank Cannon attached to them. If used against a Bomber one or two shots would really destroy them a single hit of those should destroy a Fighter plane unless it's the F-47 Thunderbolt which has the armor of a heavy bomber but agility of a fighter aircraft

@jazzb97

Жыл бұрын

A 75mm would still only take 1 hit to take down a p47 it would just be harder to hit

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.

Hurricane MkIID not MkIIB(12 0.303Brownings)

damn, they put 40mm guns on hawker hurricanes?

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

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

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

It bears a vague resemblance to A10 warthog

Prop driven A-10......

dad of the A10 ;)

a vintage A10

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

A-10 Wart Hog The early years .

I just think its neat

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.

Looks like a Bayraktar TB2 except for having a pilot.

Why not just modify a p thirty eight

This plane looks like a flying head on collision.

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