The Red Army Air Force in the First Days of Operation Barbarossa
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- The Red Army Air Force (VVS) was totally unprepared to resist the largest land invasion force in history. When Operation Barbarossa launched on the 22nd of June 1941, many of the Soviet planes were destroyed on their airfields, and those that get up into the air had severe disadvantages against the Luftwaffe. In this video, we'll explore some of the reasons why.
I'm neither defending nor praising either the Soviet Union or the Third Reich in this video; merely explaining the history and the perceptions some have on the events of the past does not mean I support what happened. This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Want to ask a question? Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos. Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
If you like Stalingrad, you may also enjoy historian Anton Joly's UA-cam channel "Stalingrad Battle Data". Link: / @armageddon4145
Here’s some other videos you may be interested in -
Soviet "War-Winning" Tanks in 1941? • Soviet "War-Winning" T...
The State of Soviet Artillery on the Eve of Operation Barbarossa WW2 • The State of Soviet Ar...
Why You NEED to Think Critically | Suvorov and Keitel's "Preemptive Strike" 1941 Idea • Why You NEED to Think ...
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 • The REAL Reason why Hi...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
My video titled “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it”
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
My video titled "History Theory: What is History? No seriously, what is it?" • [Out of Date, see desc...
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do. #ww2 #RedArmyAirForce
This is the first time I’ve done a specific video on the air war. What do you think? Want me to do more? Or should I “stick to tanks”?
Still not sure on a date with Stalingrad, but the map is almost done so I will let you know. If you like Stalingrad, you should check out and subscribe to Anton Joly's UA-cam channel - "Stalingrad Battle Data". Link: ua-cam.com/channels/Ik1QDvITjPOCsIRGGpSasA.html
*Sources*
Drabkin, A. "The Red Air Force at War: Barbarossa and the Retreat to Moscow." Pen&Sword, Kindle 2007.
Glantz, D. “Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War.” University Press of Kansas, 1998.
Glantz, D. “Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943.” University Press of Kansas, 2005.
Glantz, D. & House, J. “When Titan’s Clashed.” University Press of Kansas, 2015.
Overy, R. “Russia’s War.” Penguin Group, 1999.
Hayward, J. “Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler’s Defeat in the East 1942-1943.” University Press of Kansas, 1998.
Hill, A. "British Lend Lease Aid and the Soviet War Effort, June 1941 June 1942." Article from The Journal of Military History,Vol. 71, No. 3 (Jul., 2007), pp. 773-808.
Liedtke, G. “Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943.” Helion & Company LTD, 2016.
Suvorov, V. "Icebreaker. Who Started the Second World War?" PL UK Publishing, Kindle 2012. (this book is not recommending reading)
van Tuyll, H. "Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945." Greenwood Press, 1989.
A full list of all my WW2 and related books can be found here docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for watching!
I'm just waiting for the map to be finished (next week or so), then I'll be editing it and releasing it. So we're talking a handful of weeks (say 3 or 4). I just can't give a specific date at the moment. Then I'm doing it in seasons, so the first season has 3 videos, which will take us from the 21st of July 1942 to the 31st of July 1942. I'll then need some time to get the second season ready, which covers the early August 1942 period. Third season is (probably) late August 1942, and so on... No idea how long it will take to finish the whole thing.
Yes, any topic on eastern front is good. I vote yes for airwar coverage.
Sturmoviks please. Chieftan Military History Visualized and Mark Felton are all doing tanks already and so is Lindy Beige as well as the British History Museum. In contrast few people are covering the air war in the east in English.
Yes please but before you do... please invest in Christer Bergtrom's Red Star/ Black Cross series and specific campaign titles, as well as Bernad/ Karlenko/ Roba's work on Odessa...
Air power had a massive impact on the course of the war, helping attacks and defence. They don't call it combined arms for nothing.
My grand-grand father actually died as a Soviet pilot in the first few weeks of the war. It's quite interesting to learn about his circumstances in his last days.
My grandfather was a motorcycle courier during Operation Barbarossa. I wouldn't be surprised if they saw each other from a distance 😳 in all cases, RIP
@@omega0195 Thank you Omega for the link. However I can safely state that Igor Bunich is a fabricator. There was no way for Stalin/Soviet Union to prepare and invade Western Europe and there are many reasons as to why I think it's a fabrication, but I am going to list only a couple
1- Franklin D. Roosevelt inherited a pile of _human manur_ from his predecessor, the Great Depression. Roosevelt was a great and pragmatic gentleman president, he needed to fix the _problem_ and fix the very ugly economic mess. Note that during the late 1920s through the late 1930s most of Stalin’s Five Years Plans were successful but some were abandoned because he knew they will fail and waste resources, still the Russian economy was developed and Russia’s economy at that time was second only to that of the USA. As I mentioned earlier Roosevelt was a pragmatic and a reasonable president who’s highest priority was for the US economy to pick up and grow, he put aside all ideologies, was the first to recognize Soviet Russia in 1933 with the promise from Stalin to not pursue with the International Communism, *The Comintern,* which was the brain child of Trotsky, and of which Stalin completed the dissolution in 1943, *he kept his promise to Roosevelt.* The USSR then became the biggest market for the American Industry. Europe was impoverished by the devastation of WW1.
2- Stalin was trying to avoid war with Germany, because he knew that the USSR was not ready for a colossal war, he wanted all the resources to be dedicated to his Five Years Plans, thus the war industry was of a less priority. Immediately after the rise of Hitler and the Nazi regime, Stalin government was quick to ring the alarm bells of danger and to propose a defensive, anti-Nazi alliance to France and Britain, these two ignored the warning, perhaps because they both lost during the Russian Civil war of the 1920s, and perhaps also because they were still weakened by the devastation of World War 1, additionally the USA in the mid-1930s implemented the Neutrality Acts,. Later he had no choice but sign the Non-Aggression pact with Nazi Germany, again because he knew Russia was not ready, and remember that during the Great Purge, he arrested many experienced Military officers who he suspected were counter-revolutionaries, he practically beheaded the great Russian army, later on after Operation Barbarossa he reinstated many of them, true he was a brutal dictator, but he also was intelligent and pragmatic. He also needed a buffer and invaded part of Poland after the Nazi started the invasion in 1939, and also because about a year earlier France and England without shame handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler , which by the way Poland participated in its dismemberment. What was Stalin’s choice ?
So how could Stalin have prepared for the invasion of Western Europe and at the same time upsetting his most precious economic partner, the United State of America? He could not afford that foolishness, and a very dangerous one at that. Makes no sense.
Thank you reading and please excuse my mediocre English, I am writing from what I remember studying, and not copying and pasting from other sources.
Omega 01
If you’d have watched the video you’d know this is nonsense
Omega 01 watch the video you’re commenting on. That’s my argument
@@brahim119 Your English is fine. Well written.
Average 15 hours for a pilot in the first 3 months of Barbarossa?? That's absolutely bonkers.
RAF fighter pilots averaged between 200 hours before they were actually given an opportunity to participate in combat (in 1940). Later in the war, in 1943-1945, that number would slowly rise up to over 300 flight hours.
For American pilots, the numbers were very similar. Early in the war American pilots completed training at around 200 hours, and as the war went on, would graduate training with 300-350 hours.
The Luftwaffe was an opposite story throughout the war. In 1941 the average new pilot had about 200 flight hours, but eventually reduced to only about 100 in 1944-1945 (mainly because Germany didn't have the petrol to spare on training, especially high grade aviation fuel).
For Soviet pilots to be going into the air with only 15 hours (and that's just an average, I'm sure there were some with less than 10), flying 1933 polikarpov biplanes without proper radio and instruments against far superior Luftwaffe tactics, pilots, and technolgy... it just boggles my mind. I'm sure the luftwaffe had a solid portion of pilots with 700+ plus hours on their side.
Oh most definitely did the Germans have those. Plus those with an actual combat experience and a command that actually knew what they were doing.
And the only reason Germany decreased flying times was the oil crisis.
American numbers also meant slightly different things than other nation's since their training hours before Pearl were divided between different planes. It wasn't until they joined the war in earnest that this practice was stopped.
@@trololobochum Yes. Some of them might have had more hours under their belt. It is the combination of all the aspects listed that really made the initial stages of Germany's invasion of the USSR such a slaughter for the VVS.
Where do you have that BS from! The average pilot had 9-10 hours on a spitfire.many where shot down on their first combat sortie!There is a nice series,how a pilot could fly a Spit after 9 hours!
Well the Soviet’s didn’t lose the winter war they just won with heavy loses
What period? The whole era of the Soviet union?
@@mhx6437 Afghanistan is a good question... its hard to find english videos and movies (even if based on a book, like 9th company, only good russian movie I know) but the situation for the Soviet Army was really bad I would say.. the enemy got stronger with every additional poppy plant, every gun paid by the US/Saudis and every trained soldier which entered Afghanistan from an training Camp in Pakistan...
it was an de-facto retreat, I saw/heard that in some movies/documentaries etc. that during the last days the soviet army had deals at important places (brigdes to the SU, I think one to Turkmenistan and Tajikistan was very important but mountains and the way to these bridges was really an perfect ambush location and the soviets continued to move in convois, so they paid some guerilla groups for a retreat without fight, some of the few sources/movies/docus say...not everyone who accepted the deal really didn't attack but those who attacked had small chances against the groups they had to fight later...
the soviet army was not able to continue the air-escorts, as they lost many jet-fighters and helicopter gunships since 1985, and in 1986 things got really bad... but also the convois were really a deadly thing, its no shame as the UK, Soviets, US/UK/UN again tried and failed to really win the war, I mean there is no real reason... maybe the large rare earths reserves there get important one day...for smartphones or e-cars accumulators?
@@KilonBerlin the war was too costly to keep going, they withdrew due to this.
Lost the bodycount; won the territory.
@@Contagious93812 especially in the polish-soviet war in 1920 or in the german-russo war in 1917, LOL
13% losses by accident actually seems pretty good when you compare that to the overall numbers for the U.S. losses. "The U.S. suffered 52,173 aircrew combat losses. But another 25,844 died in accidents. More than half of these died in the continental U.S. The U.S. lost 65,164 planes during the war, but only 22,948 in combat. There were 21,583 lost due to accidents in the U.S., and another 20,633 lost in accidents overseas." (data from Army Air Forces Statistical Digest of WW2)
what were they doing in those training drills that were so frequent that they couldn't comprehend a real alarm but didn't know their planes, how to fly them or how to use their radios??
1. In training you are flying operational planes. Then your airfield is bombed, operational plains are gone. You have to fly planes from reserves aka broken ones.
2. Amount of new planes was tiny and they had just arrived.
3. Only minority of planes were equipped with radio anyway.
4. And finally major shocker: army, being a large group of people, is full of negligence and laziness.
@@matrixnorm6672 that is so true
This question blows this video. I have same question, because this speech about regular aviatroops
@@matrixnorm6672 good version
@TEXOCMOTP речь идёт в том числе о ветеранах Испании
Those pilots knew they didn't stand a chance. Yet they got into those planes. And desperately rammed them in mid air. Think about the balls on those guys!
And will you cover the Pacific Theatre?
I will get to the Pacific Theatre at some point, but not sure when. Probably after Stalingrad
@slovene ball - they are absolutely interesting. It's just I can't do everything at once! Must specialize on a few things at a time, and the Eastern Front + North Africa + the Third Reich economy + Patron Q&As have got most of my attention at the moment. Would love to cover the island hopping campaign, plus the Philippines Campaign of 1941-2
Pilots on both sides were really ballsy. Hungarian pilots of the 101st Home Air Defence Fighter Wing probably felt the same when they were scarmbled against the raids of the 15th air force. (~30 bf109s vs 2-300 bombers + escort)
Balls? Are you delusional? They went up cause they didn't have a choice, either die standing up or die on your knees by Stalin's thugs of the nkvd!
Battle storm of stalingrad, 1 to 3 weeks away. CANT WAIT TIK. HOPE ITS NEXT WEEK. GREAT JOB ON THESE VIDEOS TIK.
It's not going to be next week - more likely 3 weeks. But I can't say for certain yet. The map is almost done!
Your videos are great, keep puncturing those "Wehrmacht Superiority" myths.
@@ericlefevre7741 *The blessing of Manstein*
There is one big advantage to all of those aircraft that the Soviets had without any crews. When fighting on the defensive any crew that bails out immediately becomes available again if you have a plane to put them in. Likewise planes blown up on the ground usually don't involve injuries to the crew. So while the Soviets couldn't have more planes in the air then they had crews, the extra aircraft could go a long way to making up combat losses and offering a second ride for pilots who's aircraft were down for maintenance. Not as good as an aircraft with a properly trained crew, but still substantially better than nothing.
That's what the first assumption usually is. But vehicles/planes in reserve usually mean they need some fixing before they become operable again.
Hi TIK, just wanted to say Thank You for inspiring me to start my own UA-cam channel!
I'm a big history buff and creators like yourself inspired me to make a hobby of my passion for history!
I'm now your 16th subscriber :)
sjeeshus..couldnt you pick a nicer topic...? "the feeling of getting consumed by the plague"..yuck.
I do celebrate bringers of new content..but this...brrrr.
@StahlBlitz Thanks for being my 50th sub! :D
National Spirit: *State Of Chock*
Air superiority mission efficiency -25%
Aircraft: attack-30% defense -40%
Will be removed: *July 22nd 1941*
If you're one of the approximately 5 people on *earth* that gets the reference, congratulations. If not, I apologize for bleeding your eyes out.
Newer saw that one, always invaded Germany first in HoI 4.
@@nerowulfee9210 I don't think it's vanilla
Nicely done TIK. All that cramming for the upcoming stalingrad series, will be well worth it. Everything you do is quality. Thanks bro
Finaly numbers that make sense . Thank you again from Brasil .
I appreciate the time you take to break down the numbers from the raw ones, so many seem to rely on to make blanket statements. It makes little deference to have 20k aircraft if the majority are not modern, have no pilots are not available or even armed with a viable weapon.
Even not modern aeroplane can do the job in situation when there are no other aeroplanes. Se for example Henshel 123 or Hs 129, using obsolete equipment by design.
It's not like Soviet Union was all peaceful, unicorns and rainbows. It was the opposite, they were as aggressive as Nazi Germany, only ended up on winning side, which sets up a narration.
Soviet approach during war preparations was simply stupid, quantity was put above quality, and everything had to be right on paper. Which resulted with crews tired with constant alarms, underequipped or damaged planes, lack of low level initiative.
Which didn't interfere much during Winter War, invasion of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and part of Romania.
This was a great analytical piece challenging the stats on paper and revealing how stats alone are often misleading. Good show!
Should be able to watch this on lunch break or after work. I do appreciate the bibliography up front. I don’t see anything wrong with a focus on the air war. It helped determine the ground war, your video on Brody highlights that.
I was considering doing the Battle of Britain and the Atlantic, both of which I could do in great detail since I'll have access to the British sources
TIK I’d be for that. I could help if need be; I know a bit about the Atlantic for my job.
@@TheImperatorKnight if you're doing anything on the Battle of the Atlantic I highly reccomend Clay Blair's two books on it. Interesting conclusions totally at odds with the popular view on the war
The annihilation of the Red Air Force in the first days of Operation Barbarossa was actually a blessing in disguise for the Soviet Union. With their obsolete aircraft destroyed they were forced to rebuild from scratch with brand new warplanes that were a match for those of the Luftwaffe.
This is just silly, Truth is the old Soviet Union was horribly mismanaged in every facet and it managed to remain so till it's collapse.
Yes, dropping atomic bombs on Japan was also a blessing in disguise. Now they have McDonalds.
Many aircraft were supplied by the USA. One type was the Bell P-39 Airacobra. It was used to great effect by the top Soviet ace.
@@stephenarling1667From what I've read, the P-39 had better armament & performance than anything the Soviets started with, but I'm not sure that it equalled the performance of the German fighters. Did this Soviet ace get the majority of his 'kills' against German bombers & dive bombers?
@@derekbaker3279 Can't say what type enemy aircraft comprised the majority of his kills, but he apparently did take down 109s and 190s as well as 87s. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pokryshkin
I've stopped watching TV at dinner and just watch your (and a few other channel's) videos. Once I move out for Uni, I certainly hope to be able to support you on Patreon :D
A student needs all the pennies they can get, so don't be going hungry just to send a dollar my way
@@TheImperatorKnight With the way the UK is going atm. Going hungry will be the least of our worries.
It's not just the UK. Deutsche Bank is on the brink, and all the central banks are interlinked. The Federal Reserve has just started printing more money (QE or "Dollar intervention" as they're now calling it, although they haven't announced it). In my opinion, Brexit is being postponed until the crisis hits so that they can use that as an excuse for why the economy has collapsed, but the economy is already collapsing.
usdebtclock.org/
usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html (just look at the UK debt... And people wonder why the world economy is at a stand still. Only way out is to hyperinflate the currency supply.)
@@TheImperatorKnight A damn shame, still not even technically able to vote in the (inevitable) general election despite the stakes. Here's hoping it doesn't descend into anarchy before I can move somewhere else.
@@TheImperatorKnight hyperinflation would work, a rapidly growing population (and thus economy) would work but without natural population growth that means importing new taxpayers, that in the UK has fueled xenophobia and Brexit is a consequence. What I don't understand is the generational divide in the UK over Brexit, young people voting for more competition in the jobs market and thus lower wages and higher house prices, whereas the old voted for lower asset prices, lower house prices higher costs for services they use currently or will soon rely on (care assistants, nurses etc.). I wish I had a crystal ball.
Another excellent video. Thank you for all the time and effort that you put into researching and presenting these videos. No matter the subject I know that any video Tik makes will be informative and well done! Thank you again for all your time and effort!!
Glantz is the man!
Agreed!
When he’s not introducing fictional comment as to Stalin's expression or state of mind without reference to any attested authority.
Haslam, Jonathan. "Book Review: David M. Glantz, Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942." The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 4 (October, 2000), 1426-1428.
He might be fluent in Russian. Glantz still pushes his own wheel barrow.
@@varovaro1967 What evidence is there to disprove Glantz's statements re: Stalin's state of mind ?
Derek Baker He just makes up things about Stalin that are nowhere to be found.... phrases, thoughts, etc. The rest: battles, fronts, units, etc is never under suspicion....
The I-16 is the cutest aeroplane of all time! Cute cute cute! 😫
Looks more like a clown plane to me. Pair of stubby short wings, big fat nose. Looked better as a bi-plane than a monoplane.
What was its manouverability and weaponry? Did you check?
@@andrejsygur It's like the P-26 in that respect
Cute has very limited tactical utility.
Did you see the plane it was based off?:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gee_Bee_Model_R
Essentially, it went catastrophically wrong for the Red Air Force
In a nutshell
As did pretty much everything else in the Soviet system until they had their backs to the wall. Once the war was over it took only 45 years to produce total wreckage again. Socialism at work.
B A or just manpower in general, and if you have enough of it
@B A Yes, I don't think a Western nation could have survived all the hardships and suffering like Russia did.
Another brilliant analysis of the Russo-German war TIK. Keep them coming mate - your insight is all encompassing.
I think that, all in all, this i your best video. You speak rarely, the images are very well synchronized with the text, the information is very clear and not too abundant, the entire video is easy to follow. Sincerly, I consider it your best video, not because of the subject, but because of the way you did it.
Great thanks! Looking forward to watching the next one
" Soviet Union attacked Finland and lost."
Umm, what?
Where's TIK and what did you you do to him? :)
USSR didn’t take over Finland 🇫🇮 completely. The latter was still potent during the war and help Germany 🇩🇪.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact allowed the Soviets to annex Finland. They aimed to do that, just like they did with the Baltic States. But the FInns resisted, and in the end they failed to take Finland, and got battered taking the ground they did. I'd say that failing to annex Finland was a loss overall.
@B A Except strategic positions desired by USSR were taken. Most of the Finish army was depleted. And Finland asked for peace. I would declare that a win. A costly, bloody victory and a total disaster on tactical level, but a win on strategic level.
@@nottoday3817 Pyrrhic victory
@@jussim.konttinen4981
Only if the side that won can't afford it.
Even the new Soviet fighters preformed very poorly, with LaGGs being overweight, under-powered and made out of wood in order to save strategic resources, MiGs were supposed to be high altitude fighters but were mostly employed at low altitudes where their performance was poor and YaKs being extremely unreliable due to poor numerous bugs that didnt get discovered because Soviet pilots were flying them enough before the war.
LaGG was not overwight it was designed for a 1150 HP engine , but what came off the production line had only 1050 HP. MiG became MiG because of the same plane , it was designed by Polikarpov who would not finish design and stalled until he got the engine rating he wanted , for stalling he got demoted and sent to oversee a construction of an aircraft factory in some hell hole. Mikoyan and Gurevich finished the design.
From what I have read, starting in 1943, the Soviet fighter planes were similar in armament & performance to the BF-109 & FW-190.. In fact, one of the advantages Soviet pilots had in a dogfight (esp. when flying the La5) was that the heavier FW-190 could not pull out of a dive as quickly as the Soviet fighters.
At that point old LaGGs were no longer in service, replaced by much better La5s based on the same aircraft so its not surprising.
@@atanasijesimic4651 You are correct. I didn't use the right name for the Soviets' excellent new fighter. I will correct my error by changing the name to the La5. Thanks.
@@atanasijesimic4651 In 1943 LaGG-3 of late series was still in service. ( 60+ series )
Very good! Love it the content, so more please .
Good video as usual TIK
YES DADDY YES!
🤢
This reminds me of MacArthur in the Philippines. He to was reorganizing and caught completely by surprise.
This was very interesting. I don't think you should "stick to tanks." The air war was just as important. And what I especially look forward to with your videos are the insights into economics and logistics.
Great job as usual. I would love a similar episode (possibly more than one) on the French air force leading up to the war.
Very good vidéo ! Please go on speaking about the air battle in the russian front .
Greetings from France and thank you for your job !
AWESOME! This is the first time somebody takes the time to explain to me why the VVS took so heavy loses in the begining of the war! I would LOVE if you stick up to this subjet. Im kinda tired of tanks...Even in the Internet is hard to find a beliavable source on numbers. And it gets darker when it comes to soviet aircrafts. I was about to make a post about wich was the soviet fighter with the best kill ratio on my FB group... But i had to drop that idea since i found literally NOTHING in the net. Lagg 3, La 5, La 7, mig 3, Yak 3, 7 or 9... P-40, hurricane, spitfire, aircobra or kingcobra... Nothing. Did the soviets counts targets destroyed on the ground as an air kill? Nothing. Who was in charge of form new tactics? Where the new pilots were trained by the time of the battle of stalingrad started? If most of the fight took place below 6000mts, where the new Yakovlev and Lavochkin airplanes became stronger, why the Luftwaffe didn't send their machines higher than that? NOTHING AT ALL! Please TIK! You are my only hope!!!!
Thats not true - this has been researched by dozens of credible historians. Not our fault you cant use Google properly
Good review of the early days. Impressed by the comments of the Red Air Force pilots. It would be great if you had the time and resources to be able to talk about the quantitative and qualitative improvements the Red Air Force underwent during the war. I understand that Stalin, by January 1944, had a very powerful air force that was a pretty good match against the Luftwaffe. Also, not to change the subject but, glory to the Red Army and Red Army Air Force (VVS). The toughest bravest soldiers on the planet. With the deepest respects -- from the United States.
Please keep up the excellent work.
As a side note, Hangar is pronounced as HANG-ar. You are doing splendid work.
Please please please make a video about General Sikorsky, his view on war and his death. And yes dont stick with tanks. Add navy and air too, but more important add intelligence/not so well known details of WW II. Thanks :)
This was a good video and I would like to see more, though if you could keep them tied into the areas you are already covering (eastern front and North Africa) that would help with the big picture.
Great video ! Glad you covered this subject......100k subs soon......button on its way : )
Thank you for the research, Tik!
This helps explain something I remember from study ages ago. The Bell P-39 Airacobra was popular with Soviet pilots, it is estimated that 4,700 were supplied to the reds. Soviet pilots interviewed listed why they liked this aircraft so much, "it had an accurate compass, a radio, a full complement of instruments ergonomically arrayed, excellent pilot protection relative to glass and armor for the cockpit and behind the seat. "
After Tik's breakdown, it's clear that the Soviet models early in the war were lacking in just about everything. I think the P-39's stats were some of the best in the war....it's mission was "protection of the airspace above ground troop operations" attacking bombers, stukas and older/slower German fighters.
Another eye opener....Cheers TIK
Well, 13% is not that much.
AmericanF4u corsair loses in WWII:
By aerial combat: 189
By enemy ground and shipboard anti-aircraft fire: 349
Operational losses during combat missions: 230
Operational losses during non-combat flights: 692
Destroyed aboard ships or on the ground: 164
I was thinking a long similar lines . The number of AC written off in flying accidents in WW2 is staggering on all sides .
Very good video indeed!
Brilliant! Thank you
Thank you for your job!!
Interesting video, is the Axis number operational or deployed aircraft? As you well know, everyone had trouble with accidents and keeping aircraft operational, and the Luftwaffe was no exception (although they had a lot of valuable experience).
And even if the numbers of modern aircraft were in favor of the Soviets, the U.K. had great success against the Italian Air Force in the early days of the war despite being outnumbered by striking first and hard. The Soviets were in a similar situation, not expecting a war while their enemy had prepared plans against them for some time.
I’m sure the upcoming series will give the Soviets a chance at revenge in the air ...
The difference was that the British fighters were equal or superior in quality to the more numerous Italian fighters, while the Soviets had virtually no fighters that were remotely as good as the German's BF-109 & FW-190.
Superb job TIK.
excellent , yes , I wish you do more about air force , especialy Red Army air force and how bad or good is real ratio between Luftwaffe and Red Army air force VVS, when they introduce more modern models of aircrafts. ( 1942-1945). Thanks
"I'm neither defending nor praising either the Soviet Union or the Third Reich in this video; merely explaining the history and the perceptions some have on the events of the past does not mean I support what happened. This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made." I am very sad you must write this...
I like the look at another side of the war - it's easy to forget about airpower when looking just at the division maps, and it can paint an inaccurate picture of the situation on the ground without examining it.
Good and interesting video. Small criticism: At the end of the video you are ensuring only the operational fully crewed combat aircraft are counted on the Soviet side (5937 planes). I agree that this is the correct approach, however as long as you don't indicate whether you used the same approach regarding the 4920 planes on the Axis side you are not making a reasonable comparison..
I would love a video on how the makeup of the Soviet Air Force's planes changed throughout the war. Would be interesting to see what portion of planes at any given time were foreign and domestic.
I liked the video, though I'm not that into planes. So, you did a great video, as usual.
keep doing the air war over the soviet union because it is a little know element of the great patriotic war. the air battles over stalingrad and kursk are a start... thanks for the video.
You conclude that given the Soviet airforce situation there was no Soviet intended attack on Germany. But how do you the assess the fact that the modern airfield were in range of Germn artillery directly at the border ? Wouldn' t this be a clear indication of an offensive allocation of troops ?
The USSR had the strict view that Soviet territory was inviolable and that any war would be fought on enemy territory. This political view mandated a completely forward defense to keep an attacker from penetrating any distance. That this in no way matched up to contemporary or historical reality made no impression on Stalinist era Russia.
The Axis advance was so rapid that airfields were soon brought into range of the guns. It must also be remembered that planes of the era, and especially Soviet planes at that time, were very short-ranged. They had to be very close up to the front to be able to operate effectively.
In 1941 the USSR was indeed massing and preparing its forces to attack Germany, but that preparation was a long, long way from complete. Stalin knew that war with Germany was inevitable, but as the vid stated anticipated it being in 1942 or even later. In addition the Soviets seem to have been prepared to let Germany strike first, fight an initial defensive battle, then once the enemy attack was blunted go over to a decisive offensive. Like they would do at Kursk in 1943, only on their frontiers instead of the middle of the country.
@@gamebook727 Might all be, but installing massively equipped airfields in just 20km distance to enemy border even in a defensive strategy does not make any sense. As my grandfather was Feldwebel and reported masses of tanks still unloaded on railwaggons directly behind the border I anyway have a different prejudice to this topic. Besides what was not mentioned in this video -and this was the main reason Soviet planes were not equipped with radio - is that they were (in 1941) designed to attack groundtargets, so destroying enemy airfields but not to engage in dockfights, which again indicates an offenive rather a defenseive strategy.
All those forward airfields were for when the anticipated Soviet offensive rolled into Germany and crushed the reactionary enemies of communism. The Soviets did fully intend to invade Germany, just not in 1941, although that's only because they were busy dramatically expanding and equipping their armed forces. The scale of Soviet rearmament in the few years prior to Barbarossa was staggering, with defense taking up a large proportion of the budget. Huge sums were spent on things like heavy artillery for shattering enemy defenses and a long-range heavy bomber force began to be formed (they did do a few missions into Germany in the first few days of the war). The only question was which of the two maniacal tyrants would consider themselves ready to strike first, and that turned out to be Hitler.
Soviet practise in keeping everything right up front when they weren't imminently about to attack may seem idiotic to you or me, and indeed it was, but blithering stupidity was the order of the day in the Stalinist USSR. Soviet generals at times advocated withdrawing into the depths of the country during a major war to evade encirclement and stretch out enemy supply lines, but that was considered unacceptable defeatist talk. Keeping your formations in an attack posture when you really should be disposing them for defense was a frequent and terrible failing of the Red Army in 1941, leading to such disasters as the Battle of Vyaz'ma.
@@gamebook727 with this comment I can more or less agree. A question left but not directly related to this video but to the TIK series on the Eastern front would be what alternative to a preemptive strike Germany would have had in such a scenario. My assumption is if Hitler had not invaded the Soviets neither would have ithe Soviets but blackmailed Germany in such a strong and stronger position for more concessions like Finland and Romania. Once Romania would have been taken Germany would have been unable to wage war any further (oil shortage) and would have had to fulfill all soviet wishes.
Which is a remarkably similar position to what Japan ended up in in the course of 1941 in relation to the USA, and that also provoked her to a surprise all-out attack. Really both the USSR and the USA should have seen what was coming. Neither Germany nor Japan was going to just supinely lie there and be strangled.
Soviet ambitions I think were essentially unlimited. It was part of their ideology to export their revolution and political system. Stalin's 'socialism in one country' policy was only ever a temporary expedient. The Soviet invasion of western Europe was not planned for 1941, it had actually been in effect since 1939 when the Red Army invaded Poland, followed by Finland, the Baltic states and Romania. In 1941 the Red Army was just pausing to gather its strength and get in position for its biggest offensive yet. By that point though the Germans were at the end of their tether with the Soviets despite not having finished with Britain, they knew they had to attack now or they might never be able to attack at all. The bizarre nature of the wartime Allies is shown by the fact that until just before the start of Operation Barbarossa Britain regarded the USSR as an enemy. Not just because it was an ally to Nazi Germany, but in its own right for all its barbarous and tyrannical actions.
True Soviet intentions were amply demonstrated when they were finally able to push the Germans out of their territory in 1944 and invade central Europe. They imposed a brutal military occupation on central Europe, and then even when the war ended refused to leave or recognize the freedom and independence of the nations there. Britain and America expected Soviet participation in the occupation of Germany and political and territorial adjustments in their favor in central Europe, but the naked imperialism that was carried out caught them by surprise. It was madness for the USSR to occupy and control such a huge area, it prevented them from fully demobilizing their vast armies and required them to endlessly subsidize the communist regimes they installed. The economy of the USSR could in no way pay for all this and it beggared the Soviet peoples. I have heard that the average Soviet citizen ate less meat per year in the 1980's than the citizens of the Russian Empire did in 1913.
Very good dissection to reveal to real operational strength and weaknesses
The numbers dont lie
USSR didn't lost the Winter War. It was Finland that lost 20% of its territory, including Viborg -the second largest city in Finland at that time. Our losses were higher, but affordable.
Excellent research & communication of the data & anecdotes TIK ! (as usual.)
To answer your question: While you already have your hands full with your massive Stalingrad project, it would be great if you explored the airwar again (down the road).
e.g. We already know that the Germans started out being superior to the Western Allies & Soviets in combined-arms warfare, and it certainly was crucially important in their conquest of the western parts of continental Europe. It would be interesting to find out how their combined-arms tactical strategies evolved from what they did in France to their strategies in 1941/42 & how well their tactical strategies worked during that period.
e.g. Also, I am curious if the Germans' lack of fuel, logistics, repairs, spare parts, weather, etc. were as much of a hindrance to the Luftwaffe in 1941/42 as it was for the ground forces?
e.g. Furthermore, for both the Soviets & Axis, tank-busting became an important part of the air war, so it's evolution & impact intrgues me.
e.g. Last, details re: how the Soviets took control of the skies during 1943 & began to implement combined-arms warfare, plus the impact of the 'new Soviet airforce' would be greatly appreciated.
...BUT only after you've given yourself a well-deserved break after researching & producing what will be an epic Battlestorm series about Stalingrad. :)
You need to check you sources mate, the USSR won in the Winter War, sure it was a very costly victory but eventually Finland sued for peace after a major breakthrough was achieved in the Mannerheim line and Soviet troops seized Viipuri (Vyborg)
Finnish Air Force was also able to keep up air superiority during the whole duration of attack phase in Karelia (with 550 planes). Main bomber was Bristol Blenheim and main fighter plane Brwester Buffalo. I don't know if its telling, but it really suprised me.
Well done sir.
Good vid.
And to add for the numbers. 5,937 VVS planes IF you count a ratio of 1:1 for the crews. Bombers need a larger contingent, ect.
I've started reading Absolute War by Bellamy. Have you read it? Is it worth the read?
I only got it recently and haven't had time to dive into it, so I can't say yet, sorry :)
Okay, no worries. I'll just have to find out.
You could let me know!
Will do.
8:42 same joystick that I use to play War Thunder lol. I fly USA, France, and Italy though.
10:10 That radio point does sound pretty bad, honestly because it kind of is, but this point can let people deflect just how horribly the soviets had prepared. Due to complicated science, and a shortage of radio knowledge, the Japanese Empire managed to fight the air war over Henderson Field and related battles without being able to get their radios working well. However, the Japanese navy pilots were able to conduct dynamic, skilled fights off the backs of being trained and skilled (though they did loose plenty of efficiency by not being able to use the radios)
Finally someone talkin about Red Army Air Force. Big YAY
@slovene ball yeah that would be great
Maybe NAVY next :3
Soviets got peace conditions on their terms in Winter War, they had achieved their goals. Of course they lost many man. But it didn't seems what they lost it
Yes, more about the air wars
On the WWII channel Indy said that only 2,225 Luftwaffe aircraft were combat operational (not 3,900). Forgot the source but you can easily check it out.
An interesting overview of the complete chaos in the Soviet airforce. The germans really did take them by surprise
Hi TIK, one minor mistake by either you or your scource. It's the I-16 that was named ''coffin'' (lately in the war Lagg-3 will take over this nickname), not the I-15. I-16 was very unstable in flight and required a loot of concentration/experience from it's pilot.
Thanks!
Fascinating
A great job TIK! Can you made same video about axis to Soviet tanks? You can use Dmitry Shein and Andrey Ulanov book "Poryadok v tankovykh voiskakh?" ("An order in Tank troops?") book (in russian of course)
TIK, I hear you using the Moskva accent turning the 'o' into 'a'. I get that with Olga (from Moskva) calling the Socionist Victor Gulenko Gulenka. I call him Gulenko. Actually, I call him Dr Victor Gulenko when I've introduced him. ;)
I don't dispute your findings in general. But respectfully ask how many of the German aircraft were combat aircraft, since you subtracted them from the Soviet total. Eg the Fieseler Storch mentioned in your account was a short-ranged recon aircraft, with little to no armament. Are those counted as combat aircraft? I just wonder because you seemed to subtract none from the Axis total but many from the Soviet, seemingly skewing your odds calculation. How modern were the Hungarian & Romanian planes? I honestly dont know so asking you. I believe the Italians had very good fighters, though light on armaments. Not sure about their bombers though. Just my only doubts about your feature. Keep up the great work!
Its a very good video. More would be nice, but the Battlestorm videos are best. Though i dont think many historians agree that Finland won the winter war. If you read about the last days for the finns, and the desperate attempts to get a armistice, i think you also would agree with them TIK.
#Question
Hello, I have a question.
My hypotese is that aviation has decisive for victory or defeat role in WW2. Who wins skies wins all.
What's your opinion - its true or not?
well air superiority was a big factor, because that means your troops have air support, and that the enemy troops supplies is being attacked, and infantry can't move in a large group without being shot at or bomb and any larger vehicles had to be extremely careful and maybe only move at night or in places with lots of cover like a forest so they did not get bombed to all hell, so yes air superiority is a great thing
@@theredhunter4997 , and also i think that in MOST cases ONLY air superiority can break through front and so on (tank & motorized go to breach, aviation strike to enemy logistic, BUT first aviation is NECESSARY for win). Without aviation WW2 was a replica of trench war WW1 and its a war of attrition = long trench war, there Allies win 100%. But germans invented new strategy and their war success rise from 0% and they decide to risk.
Aviation was not support unit, it can support, but basicly its a most important forces with task to win battles(breaches) & operations(paralizing enemy logistic) & war(strategic bombing). Its MAIN attacking force. Tank is supporting unit :) - it must run in operation space, it must do initiative and encycling, not front fight or breach (exept in rare cases)
It was a hi-tech techological war. For example, Infantry units was a 90%+ of all troops of all countries, but infantry dosnt win anything!
(sorry for my english)
you sir, know your stuff ! thank you
Luvvit mate. Móre!
Hows the monetization going?
All my videos automatically get put to limited monetization upon upload. The Fascist Corporation also decided to manually confirm limited monetization on my all-in-one Courland video (and numerous others). Some topics are fine, but the very nature of talking about WW2 means I will be mentioning things like "Hitler" and "The Third Reich", which YT doesn't like.
I've also heard that they judge you on your comments section, and have deleted channels due to bad comments in the comment section. I can't possibly police my comments section, and I'm against the idea anyway since it goes against the principle of free speech. So I'm quite fearful of the future of my channel if I'm honest.
then how could they effectively fought Japanese in khalkin goal?? or spanish civil war? or winter war in finland or polish war ? i am clueless
Well they did well until meet one of the best armies of the world at this time
They simply fought against armies with an airforce even weaker than their own.
Pretty good video. I have always been a huge aviation nut 😁
I throttled the speed up to 1.25 and it's more listenable.
Brilliant
I-16 were slower than Bf109, so they were not able to run from them, or quit the fight when it suited them. And they only had machine guns, and germans had cannons.
Does the maths include the bits of the luftwaffe sitting at the bottom of the English channel?
Also, although I can't go through literature being away from library at the moment, but from memory I believe that about half of all aircraft losses by the USAF and a little less in RAF were caused during training and other non-combat missions. So by that parameter VVS wasn't really all that outrageous.
You make military history amazing. What’s is your LinkedIn account sir so I can connect with you. John Keegan, David Glantz etc are amazing but it’s UA-cam that does a better job at explaining anything. Books take time. For example, I read just 3 books for my Masters dissertation and they took me over a week to do it! UA-cam promotes books. Your video on Manstein’s fluid defence got me interested in your channel. Shrinking markets! Keep making military history cool 😎.
Does Floatplanes Heinkel He 115, Junkers Ju 52s, Fieseler FI-156 Storch and so on count as combat aircrafts ?? I find it odd that you compare, and only subtract sovjet none combat airplanes. So if we subtract the none combat German Airplanes we land around the number 3500 not 5000 ( axis partners included, but I havent looked at their contributions )
Well done, TIK!
my favorite historical trivia? Sturmoviks on CAP! lololol can't outmaneuver but maybe can take a hit ...or ten. I don't think Stukas were ever used on CAP but at least once Val's were. (SBDs often were but they were actually designed for that unlike Strumoviks and Vals...)
Il-2 can actually outmanuver quite few things at low speeds it was designed for , due to that there even was a project for a low altitude fighter based on it.
TIK Dude your channel and you are a breath of fresh air. Finally a WW2 buff that talks about the things that no one talks about in an educated manner. Nice not to see another rehash of “anti it’s the nazis” history channel. You Just state facts. Subbed.
About russian air war, there is an war autobiography of Alexander Pokryshkin, one of the finest russian pilot during the war (three times Hero of the Soviet Union), who is worth to read, even if, sadly, it exists only a french translation from it, sold only in DDR during the 70'. It's a really fun reading since he was kinda... "rash", and got yelled a lot from the bolchevik administration, and almost got purged because of his dispute with his chiefs about how he has to fly and fight. Oh, and his first shot of the war was against a russian bomber he mistook with a german one, but shhh, they just had to do an emergency landing and almost died... Shit happens :D
Sadly, it only exist a french translation from the russian original version, I dont think it exists an english translation since the french one was made for the french children who were sent to pioner/red scout campement in DDR by parents from the french communist party
You can read it in Serbian language too, it was printed in Belgrade in late 1940s in 10.000 copies. The title is Pilot lovac - Fighter pilot.
The Winter War wasn't a loss for the Soviet Union, not in strategic terms. The Soviets pretty much got what they wanted. Its just that their performance was embarrassingly poor for most of the conflict.
A question: wtf the pilots were doing during these often exercises on Sundays, if they were not allowed to fly?
Aside from the fact that TIK uses some quite questionable sources and produces some questionable data. ( read Boikov on lend lease planes they were utter garbage and were reducing units combat effectiveness ) The favorite soviet bullshit drill is testing how fast would you be ready for combat in case of sudden attack , so basically alarm and you are timed how long does it take you to be ready for combat.
@@ivanmonahhov2314 This explains alot, thx. But I didn't quite get you about lend lease planes. As far as I remember most of them were p-39 airacobras and p-40 kittihawks, which would be a godsend compared to i-16s, let alone i-15s. And to add to it, all of them were equipped with radios. Could you please elaborate, since I couldn't find anything by this boikov guy?
@@seba7142 Mostly P-39 Aircobras. This Boikov ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 who shot down by different sources 8-18 german planes. He also wrote a book about his unit militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/boykov_pm/index.html . That book is dry as hell and very boring read as it consists of " We 18 LA-5FN took off airfield X at Y hours and headed there to escort 12 Il-2 , on the way over Z at H hours we encoutered 12 Me-109 escorting 8 FW-190 , Il-2 dropped the bombs and dogfight ensued La-5 engaged Me-109 and Il-2 dropped their loads and engaged FW-190 which did not drop their bombs etc ... He served from 1942 and they recieved P-39 late in the war which were delivered by arctic convoys with cooling system filled by summer oil and the cooling system was obliterated when oil froze and technicians had to gather silver from near by villages to rebuild the cooling system.
FTL Drive activated as soon as I saw the notification
5:33 Ive read that I-15 and I-16 planes were dangerous to pilot, just like the Gee Bee racing plane that it was based off. So in some part it was a deign flaw of this short plane, not the state of the red airforce.
So did the axis have 4929 combat aircraft in total?