Air Power 1914-2019 - How to rule the Sky

How to rule the sky! This video provides a fundamental understanding of Air Power and its 4 primary roles: control of the sky, intelligence & awareness, attack and mobility. Providing examples from the First and Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Six Days War, Desert Storm, the US Invasion of Panama and Iraq (2003). It also discusses the limitations of Air Power, drones, satellites, the OODA Loop and Trenchard Model.
Disclaimer: I received a complementary copy of Olsen, John Andreas (ed.): Airpower Applied. U.S., NATO, and Israeli Combat Experience. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, Maryland, US, 2017 from Naval Institute Press.
www.usni.org/press/books/airp...
Special thanks to vonKickass for improving the Thumbnail.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Olsen, John Andreas (ed.): Airpower Applied. U.S., NATO, and Israeli Combat Experience. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, Maryland, US, 2017.
Disclaimer: I received a complementary copy of this book for content production by Naval Institute Press.
www.usni.org/press/books/airp...
Ledwidge, Frank: Aerial Warfare. The Battle for the Skies. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018
Air Warfare. An International Encyclopedia. ABC CLIO: Santa Barbara, California, US. 2002
Gray, Peter: Air Warfare. History, Theory and Practice. Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2016.
Overy, Richard: The Bombing War. Europe 1939-1945. Allen Lane: London, UK, 2013.
Bergström, Christer: The Battle of Britain. An Epic Conflict revisited. Casemate UK: Oxford, UK, 2015
Higham, Robin (ed.); Harris, Stephen J. (ed.): Why Air Forces Fail. The Anatomy of Defeat. The University Press of Kentucky: Kentucky, USA, 2006.
Creveld, Martin van; Canby, Steven L.; Brower, Kenneth S.: Air Power and Maneuver Warfare. Air University Press: Alabama, US, 1994.
Jones, David R.: From Disaster to Recovery: Russia’s Air Forces in the Two World Wars. In: Higham & Harris: Why Air Forces Fail
Greenwood, John T.: Soviet Frontal Aviation during the Great Patriotic War, 1941-45. In: Russian Aviation and Air Power in the Twentieth Century
Kennett, Lee: The First Air War 1914-1918
www.airuniversity.af.edu/Port...
#AirPower #AerialWarfare #HowToRuleTheSky

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal: paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv

[@PanzerFaustFurious]

15:25 is capitalism different in this case?

[@old_guard2431]

There are, what? 2,000 pages or so in the sources? Brought to KZbin in a coherent and balanced 20-minute video. Well done.

[@hpholland]

MHV is university level quality.

[@robertclarkefeltham5112]

Old_Guard nah it’s like 70 jdp mod

[@dannyye62]

“Increase in stealth abilities” Circle pops up showing nothing Keep up the cool work!

[@astratan2238]

'The perfect video title for my interests doesn't exi-' MHV: *Hold my Schnapps*

[@HistoryGameV]

He doesn't drink alcohol, so rather tea...but yeah. xD

[@fredricknietzsche7316]

Beer is German also.

[@pestilencetheplague7646]

Yeah pretty much

[@VentiVonOsterreich]

Air warfare turns warfare from a tabletop chess board to a 3D board

[@RealCadde]

And it's gone all 4D with the cyber theatre.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

And space. Despite it being 3D, there's no really a up or down anymore. Well we haven't got THAT far yet but its going to be complicated when war needs to take in to consideration of orbital mechanics. That'll be the most unique physical form of combat yet since engagements would be strictly limited by the intersects of two orbits combined with the speed limit of radio communication and radars.

[@bvailcards44]

@@RealCadde I'm not sure i can even comprehend this shit anymore lmao

[@tovrobi5097]

@Girom Christian Calica, 3D chess.

[@tinytinkertank7425]

Well you also had tunnel warfare. Both in medieval times with digging under castle walls and in World War I under enemy fortifications and trenches to blow them up from below.

[@quartersense]

20:18 "Speaking of skill..." Me: *Hovering over timeline , expecting a skillshare ad* " Let's look at the Ooda Loop " Me: *Oh*

[@Chironex_Fleckeri]

Someone send this to Paradox

[@theleva7]

Because you can never have enough things to micromanage. After all, that's why we play their games.

[@xxxm981]

@@theleva7 Because i really wanna have the ability from HOI3 back, that i can just let half my airfleet bomb that once specific target i want

[@TheTruePopeFrancis]

1.7 dlc air rework confirmed?

[@madwolf0966]

Shhhh you just spoiled the next dlc!

[@supernovasbot3608]

Oh crap now we have to wait another years for a major update

[@TheLPN05Fan]

1WW: Turn Turn Turn... 2WW: Be Capable of everything... After 2WW: They feel the need for Speed Early Cold War: WW2 but Faster Late cold war till today: RANGE RANGE RANGE! Today and upcoming: !

[@michaelscott-joynt3215]

Day After Tomorrow: Or: How I learned to stop worrying about enemy air forces and love the laser.

[@bluemountain4181]

2020s: Stealth, stealth, stealth

[@KorianHUN]

@@bluemountain4181 they are starting to give up on that.

[@arya31ful]

2050 : Cold war but invisible

[@PS-nf3xw]

2019, cost,cost,cost

[@ryklatortuga4146]

Glad that my underground Volcanic Island base can produce an effect anti Aircraft ash cloud. Best £200,000,000 I ever spent - and with such a nice view of the Caribbean too.

[@wideyxyz2271]

I live on the Island just across the bay..Hello neighbour come over for a few beers and a BBQ sometime!

[@Graymenn]

@@wideyxyz2271 wait till he fires up the volcano, you wont feel so neighborly after

[@jameson1239]

Hey man can I come I’m getting sick of the idiots

[@looinrims]

I’m impressed it was only 200 million

[@JimJohnson777]

"There is nothing more expensive than a second rate air force." Sir John Hackett, "The Third World War: The Untold Story" (I think that's the source)

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

I attended a lecture once on the costs of the three World Wars. The guy had a chart showing the gigantic jumps in spending for WWI, WWII and WWIII. He pointed to the spike in spending for WWI and said "we didn't spend the money so we had to fight the war." He pointed to the spike in spending for WWII and said "we didn't spend the money so we had to fight the war." He pointed to the spike in spending for WWIII and said "we did spend the money so we didn't have to fight the war." .

[@adambane1719]

@@BobSmith-dk8nw Yeah, well... its coming now !

[@ImRezaF]

Thank you MHV for reminding me, an aspiring future dictator, to use my air power right. I shall never forget this lesson.

[@anonviewerciv]

"Air Power rests at the apex of the first triad of victory, for it combines Mobility, Flexibility, and Initiative." -Colonel Corazon Santiago, Spartan Battle Manual 9:00 I feel Interdiction and Strategic Bombardment kind of blur together. 14:24 The empty circle is a nice touch.

[@tinytinkertank7425]

Jeez is that from the Alpha Centaury game? That's an old reference :D I loved that game, 1.5 decades ago.

[@Zaemon037]

"I haven't given up on strategic bombing yet." Dude, you are the best.

[@conoromeara6108]

The research and production quality of your videos always amazes me. This is some top quality content spanning an incredibly nuanced and complicated topic. The conciseness of the script and the ease with which it can be understood is frankly, just incredible. Keep up the great work!

[@commander31able60]

NKPA food shortages in 1950 were so severe they're still experiencing them now. talk about efficient interdiction.

[@Jupiter__001_]

I laughed at the last gag about "soft power"... You rock man!

[@lietkynes81]

soft PAWer :3

[@sako5751]

That last line with the pets was very cool :D

[@jelmargerritsen]

Another force multiplier for air superiority that I didn't hear you mention is the ratio of successful interceptions against unsuccessful ones. During the Battle of Britain, the UK had a very effective interception network (the Dowding system) with a 90-100% success rate in steering RAF planes to their airborne targets, whereas Germany did not, meaning Luftwaffe planes would often return without having encountered the enemy.

[@obelic71]

There is also an unwritten 5th role of airpower. Moral boosting of troops abroad whatever branche they are from. We as mechanics stashed booze and other stuff in fighter aircraft. The C130's and KDC10 were heavily inspected for counterband. And yes a F16 is capable of transporting beerkegs, strong liquer and smokes.😎

[@roygrutchfield5715]

Air Power is always limited by weather, and until recently weather included night. If you can not fly, or can not see, or can not deliver , you have limited Air Power .

[@bluedog843]

“It could be manned, unmanned, It could be nanobots” Nanobots... I T S N A N O M A C H I N E S S O N

[@gabrielbosanfontes996]

One of your best video so far!

[@flix1717]

Damn! I watched so many videos from you and now I felt its about time to tell you, that you got such amazing content!! Really really sick , keep doing what youre doing!

[@EMM7291]

Can you talk about space warfare especially for ASAT weapon

[@EstellammaSS]

If you mean anti-satellite weapons, just no. A few more of them blew up and we will lose all of them, and space would be inaccessible

[@treyebillups8602]

Graff_Zitel The Kessler Syndrome is a bitch.

[@RaderizDorret]

A hard-kill ASAT weapon would be a weapon of last resort due to the risk of inducing Kessler Syndrome. Better would be to use jamming or laser dazzling to disable a satellite, even if only for a short bit of time. Or make the satellites expend propellant to alter their orbits and thus kill their service life and force them into bad positions for surveillance. Another option would be denial and deception by way of using decoys the satellites can't readily distinguish from the real thing when it comes to units under surveillance.

[@legoeasycompany]

Logistics always wins

[@raptor4916]

The western roman empire would like a word

[@nks406]

Logistics allow you to fight so its pretty important, but you need good tactics too.

[@RouGeZH]

Reducing success in warfare to one single factor is the key to be always defeated.

[@grundergesellscahftmkii6196]

@@raptor4916 German army in the eastern front need to talk to you.

[@raptor4916]

@@RouGeZH this is it exactly

[@CaptainMustanG4089]

Again, another amazing video with fantastic sources!

[@samiam5557]

Well researched and presented excellently!

[@TheOfficial007]

This was really good. Understanding the capabilities in all aspects is fine but taking them and defining them distinctly as 4 major roles that air power can play is very much instrumental to knowing the capabilities and limits of air power on a world wide stage.

[@1320crusier]

Its all about that OODA loop ;)

[@TheStugbit]

Another interesting point about the air war in Vietnam that maybe could be added here, was the Soviet Navy placing some of it's vessels in the major port city of Haiphong in North Vietnam. This led to the creation of an air exclusive zone over the harbor during the war. Lately in modern air combat, geopolitics are taking some deal of direct influence in the outcome of the air combat effects during wars and military actions.

[@SirAntoniousBlock]

I use that tactic in Civilisation if I want to obstruct an attack by another Civ that I'm not at war with on a 3rd party.

[@papageitaucher618]

Welcome to two tausend and nineteen!

[@jamesandrewmcnamara2303]

I appreciate your erudite analysis. Thanks!

[@speed7exc]

That stealth icon tho...

[@elstevobevo]

Love the bit about the pets!

[@bodasactra]

These are fun. Good work.

[@Sophocles13]

Your points at 5:44 about the lack of persistence in aircraft is especially intriguing. Classically, this is why Infantry is so important in the field of combat in it's ability to hold ground. I'm curious as to how drones with their massive increase in persistence will affect this dynamic in future conflicts.

[@hippiemcfake6364]

This video covers quite a lot of ground and contains a lot of interesting stuff. One aspect which i think might have been important would have been the use of airpower outside of long conflicts. I.e. Israel striking weapons depots and nuclear facilities. While you also mentioned attacking airfields and aircraft on the ground, if wonder whether cratering runways might worth mentioning, too.

[@gennaroita1690]

19:13 i have my notebook ready :D

[@ghrey8282]

Pretty good synopsis, thanks.

[@MESOHIPPUS]

Well pointed at the end. Min 19;22

[@genetagomori4491]

Brilliant!

[@frederickthegreatpodcast382]

The US invasion of Panama should have been called Operation Just Because

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

Just Cause and just because are the same thing ! Just (Be)Cause, if you understand what i mean... 😁👌

[@NoNameAtAll2]

Just as any other US invasion

[@CrazyNikel]

Aw look at you haters. You're so embarrassingly ignorant you don't even know about the previous 5000 years of invasions from all sorts of nations and peoples. Get some education *I'm embarrassed for you.* Hehehe

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

@@CrazyNikel Well none of tyem invaded the USA, while the USA pn tye other hand seems to invaded every country in its reach ! Americas history is full of wars ! Heck, they were even founded by a war !!! 😂😂😂

[@AyedYoutube]

@@miniaturejayhawk8702 literally every nation is founded by war, idiot.

[@wideyxyz2271]

Nice work...

[@SinOfAugust]

Hey, Naval Institute shoutout!

[@The_Viscount]

I seem to recall the British decided to target ball bearing factories. Ball bearings were needed to build complex moving machines. That means large engine parts, manufacturing equipment, turret drives, factory machines, mining equipment and more. It took time, but the results did show over an extended period. I don't have sources at the moment though, so take with Jingles brand salt.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

MHV: Speaking of skills Me: Fuck Skill Share! I can’t beli- MHV: Lets have a look at the OODA loop. Me: I feel like I dodged a bullet!

[@thomasvandevelde8157]

´For those aspiring dictators that are watching, it´s time to bring out the notepad´ Wahahahaha :-D

[@photosynthesis69]

Hey I’m a big fan of your videos been watching for over a year. I would consider supporting people like you or TIK on Patreon or whatever but broke student rn. I wanted to know if you would do a video about the air wars during the invasion of France? I know you have talked about French tanks or maybe some other things involving the battle of France, but i don’t recall ever hearing much about the French Air Force during ww2. Like I feel like just from watching these videos I’ve learned so much and could name units from both sides. For example : British spitfire or German panzer / Stuka dive bomber the Japanese misubishi zero..... BUT, for some reason I don’t know anything about what fighters (if any) the French were using in WW2. If you see this please find a way to work this in to one of your videos

[@erictaylor5462]

2:30 It should be noted that this was possible because the Arabs would place their aircraft into protective missions at sun up, but they would then all land at the same time every morning to all eat breakfast. The Soviet advisers begged them not to do this, but the Arabs wouldn't listen. The Israelis simply timed their attack to take place when all the pilots were eating breakfast.

[@christopherg2347]

Okay. The way you describe it, I have to think of "Asterix in Britain". "From now on we will only do Offensive Operations during teatime. And during weekends, we will double our efforts!" Of course the war happened in 67. The film was from 86, about 20 years later. So I guess the war was the inspiration?

[@erictaylor5462]

@@christopherg2347 Don't know. Just an example of extremely poor judgment. Read your Sun Tzu people.

[@christopherg2347]

@@erictaylor5462 Ah yes, the part of not having the enemy know what you do when. Really important.

[@Artemis-zt7pb]

Love the Rainbow Dash there. Probably was more a reference to the War Thunder event, but still, it's super awesome.

[@thethirdman225]

If you can find it, a worthwhile read is _"The Bekaa Valley Air Battle, June, 1982; Lessons Mislearned?"_ by CIC Matthew Hurley. This was that notorious battle between Israel and Syria which resulted in the loss of something like 82 Syrian aircraft against six Israeli. Long touted as a victory of Western technology of Soviet era equipment, there is a lot more to it than that. What it highlighted was the necessity for training and the dominance of the electronic battlespace. In the latter, the critical areas were C3 and jamming. At the height of the battle, the Syrian aircraft had their radars blinded by relentless Israeli jamming and they could not communicate even between individual flights because all their communication channels were being jammed. They formed a Luftbery Circle and were simply shot out of the sky. The Israelis were using the latest US F-15 and F-16 fighters but with the electronic advantage they had, they could have been using anything that could fly and carry a missile. Also, I think it's worth remembering that the coalition victory in the 1991 Persian Gulf war has been overstated. The coalition strike forces were tailor made to defeat an enemy using the Soviet model. This has led to some rather dangerous assumptions by modern observers and this has found its way into arguments about the value of stealth, the practices using it and the overall effectiveness.

[@DavidJohnson-qk5zt]

Where do you find the silhouette graphics? Do you make them yourself, and if so, what program do you use?

[@blizzardpancakes7982]

Good to know

[@ChaplainDMK]

5:12 doesnt it seem a bit illogical to differentiate ubiquity and reach which in essence are in practical sense the same - a plane can fly straight because it can ignore most obstacles, ground units could do the same if they weren't blocked by hills, rivers, mountains, cliffs, cities, muddy terrain etc.. Reach would make more sense to me in the actual range aspect of aircraft, which could outrange any land vehicle. For example even the "short range" Bf109s had a range of around 800 kilometers, while an average tank of the era would be lucky to crack 200-300 kilometers, while strategic bombers like the B-17 could fly for 3000 kilometers, and marine patrol flying boats could do 5000-6000 kilometers. And this also goes in combination with the fact that airplanes dont really need to avoid much so they can actually go to a location 3000 kilometers away, while a ground vehicle will have to take a less direct route to bypass obstacles, decreasing it's "pure" range.

[@tonyduncan9852]

Huge Trenchard. CORRECT.

[@aaronseet2738]

I like the icon for stealth.

[@danos5181]

Thank you for another great video. Just wondering why the Soviet air Force did not develop interdiction strategies and capabilities on the Eastern front during WWII?

[@Angryp0nY]

More efficient to improve the tactical situation on the ground for the field armies than it is to try to waste men and material on bombing factories. The Allies were already playing that stupid game

[@ArcturusOTE]

@@Angryp0nY Well it ain't stupid from the perspective of Western strategists but I suppose you can't play the same game on different fronts with different rules

[@danos5181]

@@Angryp0nY If the Soviets could have bombed the vast German supply lines across the Russian steep they would entered all their battles with a big advantage.

[@MouldMadeMind]

@@danos5181 it wad just not worht it

[@mensch1066]

"So in a way strategic bombing is like socialism" - HAHAHA!!! Very nice. Also, this is a very well organized video. The camo on the models looks good too.

[@emeryhenry1849]

I would argue it has been done correctly (strategic bombing, not socialism) it just requires a big enough bomb. I'm referring to atomic bombing of Japan and the bombings leading up to it, which did force them into surrendering (but that was really only the big two). So it could be done, not that it should be done.

[@michaelstodovski2219]

That's such a *dry joke.* Very niche, unfunny and dumb. And conveys no meaningful message. MHV should know better in my opinion than to introduce politics to where it's absolutely not needed.

[@relph3867]

@@michaelstodovski2219 Damn, chill sometimes man... you must be a wonder at parties

[@michaelstodovski2219]

@@relph3867 I'm pretty good at parties thank you very much... I'm not sure how my comment is indicative of what kind of a person I am :P

[@relph3867]

@@michaelstodovski2219 Well the guy is just adding some comedy into a video that could be stale for some people otherwise, why should he "know better," let the man do what he wants. We clearly found it funny.

[@timsullivan4566]

VERY helpful - answering quite a few questions that I (an aspiring dictator), have pondered over the years. It prompts me to suggest a related subject for your consideration: in the absence of an air force, how effectively can an enemy's air supremacy be restricted using only ground-based anti-aircraft defenses? For example, what if a small nation were able to AFFORD a modern (albeit modestly sized) air force, but realizing it could not long survive against a much larger force, decided instead to devote the identical level of resources and energy to develop a dense network of aerial defenses backed by a massive stockpile of ordinance? In sufficient volume, could this overcome even the most high-tech counter-measures of attacking aircraft? My dreams of despotism depend now entirely on you!

[@glynwelshkarelian3489]

Just don't start a fight with the USA. At least not for a few years anyway. You're best off avoiding a fight with Russia and China; and the UK and France until they collapse into a new dark age (see USA above). If you are Pakistan just remember what's happened every time you've started something wi India. Beyond that: an airforce will bankrupt your country, and screw up all your decision making.

[@looinrims]

You don’t

[@Airking090]

problem: if you dont have a way to shoot down a missile you probably wont stop it after it's been launched. now try shooting down a bomber plane that can hit a target from 20km away. i hope you got really good flak cannons

[@k6151960]

While there are great advances in strategy and tactics for airpower, still, the greatest advancement is due to new technologies such as materials for engines and airframes.

[@ericfranzen4548]

I didn’t expect to see rainbow Dash at the end nice little easteregg

[@logicalspartan]

As usual your presentations are amazing. Note the Allied strategic bombing failed in the first two steps you listed, until 1945 they did not have air supremacy and they did not have good intelligence.

[@edwardblair4096]

When discussing the "mobility" role, why did you not mention paratroop deployment?

[@squishy024]

19:21 Pegasi are the six-generation of combat air fighters confirmed

[@jeffreyhuang3814]

Did you know: Any time you fly a plane of any kind, something breaks. This includes passenger airlines. It is impossible to fix everything before the next flight because everything is constantly degrading. So there are guidelines of how many broken parts you can have, which varies with each system. This means, every plane you have ever flown on has a long list of broken things...

[@gogogomes7025]

For what i can gather from playing command modern naval/air operations, in a modern operation it's all about who sees first, if you can detect your enemy before he detects you, you can shot him first just like Ham did.

[@scipioafricanus6417]

But most importantly, Desert Power!

[@LAHFaust]

I've heard the Fremen are masters of desert power...

[@dcikaruga]

Have you read Guilo Douhet's book 'Command of the Air'? He's was one of the pioneers of strategic bombing.

[@MadSpectro7]

Your four unique qualities of air power are really just one, namely Ubuquity, but allow me to sort the four qualities by cause and effect: height > reach > speed > ubiquity. Height is at the root of air power's effectiveness. Height contributes to reach while also contributing to speed both directly and indirectly by contributing to reach. This combination of the benefits of height, reach and speed defines the ubiquity of air power.

[@Uranprojekt]

I’m surprised that there was no mention during the mobility/logistics section of the first large scale airlift in history - the use of Junkers Ju-52s to transport the Spanish Army of Africa from Morocco to Spain in July-August, 1936. I would have thought that the near-daily transport flights that transported some 8,000 Moroccan and Spanish troops, along with their equipment and artillery, might have gotten a mention... Regardless, it was a good, informative video.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah good point, I remember now that it was very crucial and important, I think I might have mentioned it at some point in one video, but I completely forgot about it when I was working on this one. Then again, when I recently edited a podcast from last summer, I was like "wtf, I didn't know that I knew that stuff back then already".

[@sciencetube4574]

I like your stealth symbol :)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

probably my best :D

[@willimeister2553]

Hello, Bismarck

[@OntologicalQuandry]

Any reason why you chose HMS Hood as the battleship at the outset of this video?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

it is a battlecruiser and mostly since I want to have a fair balance of equipment from all sides. The Swordfish didn't fit and the Royal Navy is very important. Of course, it comes also down to the fact that I have a nice "model" of the Hood.

[@OntologicalQuandry]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized...and it had such a spectacular end. Good stuff, as usual.

[@harrisonmaxwell7772]

Können Sie ein Video über die Art der Panzerabbrüche machen? Was zerstörte sie zum Beispiel, wie groß wäre der Schaden, um sie aus dem Kampf zu entfernen, Crew-Lässigkeiten, wie übliche Bazookas gegen Panzerabwehrwaffen eingesetzt wurden, wie üblich waren AT-Geschütze, außer? Ich habe kürzlich abonniert und liebe die Details, die deine Videos enthalten! Du bist der beste!!! Haben Sie einen guten Tag!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

danke, I have a video on what "killed" the most tanks in WW2. It covers quite some of the stuff you are asking: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWanlIxuidKCpqM

[@lutherburgsvik6849]

Does anyone know what the icon that appears at 19:22 on the right hand side is supposed to represent? Is it the icon of a well known gamer or youtuber? Cheers.

[@strandededucation622]

It's a my Little pony that can fly. Dunno what it meana

[@shidder_mutt]

Luther Burgsvik WT meme

[@Artemis-zt7pb]

It's probably a reference to a War Thunder April Fools' joke long ago where they introduced ponies and MHV's way of celebrating April Fools' along with the other jokes in the video (a day late but still). Or it could be that he's a fellow brony putting in a nod and wink to the fandom, which would make make him at least 20% cooler in my eyes

[@lutherburgsvik6849]

@@Artemis-zt7pb War Thunder and My Little Pony... now that I didn't expect. What a bizarre pairing up.

[@michaelthayer5351]

Air power alone can not achieve war aims. Libya seems to be a good demonstration that Air Power alone, while it can be militarily effective, can lead to extremely unfavorable political consequences if it is overly relied on. NATO air power was vitally important in helping the rebels topple Gaddafi in 2011, but due to the lack of unified ground forces to fill the power vacuum the rival rebel factions fell into internecine fighting. Had there been NATO ground troops as well to act as a nucleus of stability Libya might not be in a second Civil War now. But that is just speculation on my part.

[@satannstuff]

There was no way any of the leaders of NATO members would have been able to sell the idea of a ground invasion of Libya to their respective countries, it just wasn't going to happen after that huge mess in Iraq still fresh in everyone's minds.

[@Juanito_Peligroso]

I cant never click those thumbnails.

[@juanzulu2755]

What means "Udaloop"?

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

Spend large on all of its inputs: fuel, light metals, and the cream of humanity -- simple when you think about it.

[@FiauraTheTankGirlGamer]

This can't believe he's a brony too ;) 19:31

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I am not a brony.

[@mcbroccoli1277]

6:37 Istar like Istari ? Gandalf and the other Wizards did the same tasks

[@mechaman7818]

Thrust vectoring owns the sky!

[@sevenproxies4255]

Insurgents, guerilla fighters, call them whatever you like, rely on support from a civilian population and civilian production. They can keep going as long as there are farmers plying their trade in the land. The farmers doesn't necessarily have to be friendly towards the insurgents, since the insurgents can always just take crops from farmers to help the insurgent war effort. I think a necessary aspect to combating insurgent threat is to compel farmers to relocated and either secure or destroy their farmland. Strategically speaking, there has to be a budget for compensating farmers for their losses in a campaign against insurgents. Either just by buying them out of their land, or at least guarantee that their property rights will be restored after the war is over. Insurgents rarely ever farm themselves. So even just getting farmers to leave their farms and not growing crops would damage the war effort for the insurgents.

[@nottoday3817]

The thing is: this is a huge toll on the economy. What you say has been applied before, it's called scorched earth. And it was highly effective in middle ages, up to WW2 on the eastern front. However, you have big problems: -take farmers from their land and move them where? And feed/pay them with what? -destroy farms, and what will you use to feed your population? -farms are no longer of such importance. They can just buy or capture food en-gross. Keeping an insurgent force with some tuna cans looted from regional supply depot is fairly easy

[@simwish6921]

It has worked tho, in Peru there was a kind of civil war which was communist guerrilla vs government. The moment the government got the support of and cooperated with the farmers (by helping the farmers out and promising stuff, etc) the guerrillas started losing ground. Imo its not only a matter of supplies and food by popular support too as insurgencies depend a lot on it.

[@sevenproxies4255]

@@nottoday3817 1. You move them to refugee camps, temporarily. 2. It stands to reason that farms that feed guerilla insurgents are not supplying your own population with any substantial amount of food as it is. So those particular farms are already lost. Also to safeguard against the misuse of grown food: that's what food banks and depots are for. 3. No, they can't just buy or capture food en-gross. If insurgents in the past could, they wouldn't have to resort to gathering support from or strong arm farmers into giving them food. Also, proper supply depots are defensible structures. A guerilla force is not just waltzing in there taking whatever they feel like without opposition.

[@papastalin6700]

Xaxaxaxaxa you can never beat po2 komrade

[@chana-ms2cq]

"So in a way strategic bombing is like socialism, nobody so far has successfully conducted strategic bombing in a way that has led to the promised results, although I must add, I haven't given up on strategic bombing yet." Priceless.

[@Perichron]

15:32 lmfao spot on

[@esbenandersen5706]

You say that no viable use of strategic bombing has been developed, but I think that's overlooking the counterfactual of nuclear weapon strategic bombing campaigns: Decisionmakers the world over have recognised the enourmous strength of (nuclear) strategic bombing and, in order to avoid it being used against themselves, have vowed never to use those weapons aggressively again. The threat of a strategic bombing campaign kept superpowers in check for half a century and counting. In that sense, by 1945 strategic bombing had in an instant become so powerful that the threat of retaliation with strategic bombing was deterrent enough against its use.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

> You say that no viable use of strategic bombing has been developed no, I don't. I say that the theoretical promises and capabilities so far have practically not lead to the promised outcomes.

[@purplespeckledappleeater8738]

The Vietcong had supply depots in caves, as well as huge underground tunnel networks with even more facilities. No, I mean the Ho Chi Minh Trail utilized caves or natural cavern systems so that they didn't have to lug theirs supplies across the entire system. The US was successful at attacking convoys on the trail and that's why the Vietcong had to move into Cambodia and Laos and set up secret facilities, which acted like bases inside caves and tunnel networks. The way the Ho Chi Minh Trail was explained in the video sounds misleading and is not the way the vets of the war explain the Ho Chi Minh Trail .

[@sol2544]

why did your first sentence have umulauts over the 'A's?

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

15:39 mate, you know your audience

[@zoompt-lm5xw]

Indeed

[@NaCk210]

disgusting

[@michaelstodovski2219]

What audience is that?

[@THEBARTMANOPS]

@@michaelstodovski2219 an audience with an average IQ bigger than the sea coast line of Hungary.

[@thomas.02]

Your comments on why socialism and strategic bombing are more similar than we think is exactly the reason I love this channel so much

[@Raz.C]

RE Close Air Support: It's kinda funny that in WWII, the Soviets were the only 'team' that really went in for Close Air Support. No other 'team' really gave it a look in. 20, 30 years later, Egypt and the arab countries were under Soviet sway and Israel was in the american sphere of influence. You THINK that the Soviets would have impressed upon their underlings the importance of Close Air Support and you'd THINK that the americans (having had little experience in this) wouldn't have taught/ trained the Israelis in this doctrine at all. However, somehow, these wires got crossed and from 56 onwards, the Israelis focused almost exclusively on close air support and interdiction while Israel's enemies seemed at a loss as to how to use aircraft in warfare...

[@jameson1239]

I mean nazi Germany developed the JU-87 for close air support and a key component of there combined arms blitzkreig was close air support

[@thearisen7301]

That shot at socialism was good.

[@lingbon3543]

How much of a factor were amphetamines and other stimulants on the Luftwaffe's ability to run FOUR sorties a day on average? That sounds like an impossible workload. Obviously never flew a stuka over France but it's got to be more tiring than, say, a football practice and it would be insane to do four of those a day for any kind of prolonged stretch.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I don't know, but one issue is that it seems that some of the stimulants are blown out of proportion, nearly everyone goes for one book that has some really un-reflected dodgy statements in it see here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/paOTaXSCgpashdU I guess you haven't done bootcamp, well I did during national service. What I learned at that time is, that the limits my mind told me "before" were rather low and keep in mind, this was just bootcamp, no war, nothing. The campaign in France also was very short as well. Also pilots then and now, were/are usually "hand picked", a few thousand flying personnel, whereas the ground troops were in the millions.

[@MetoFulcurm]

2:08 I think the propeller planes will come back in case of total war. The jets are too expensive to mass produce.

[@TheMegaPingasMobile]

What do you mean by "total war"? There's been plenty of big wars since the introduction of jets, nobody uses propeller planes anymore except maybe for some niche support role

[@Horseshoecrabwarrior]

In the first 4 seconds, the English captions spell "warfare" as "wärfäre" for some reason

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

probably my own subtitles were I make these jokes :)

[@Horseshoecrabwarrior]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Oh, hah! I was thinking that the auto-captioning software heard your accent and overreacted. But hey, you've gotta have fun. Keep it up!

[@jager6863]

Thank you for the always excellent videos, I always learn something from the topics you present. So here are some thoughts of mine for what they are worth: United States and British Strategic Bombing in WW2 were a failure, as German War production continued to increase as the war went on. It was only the physical occupation by ground troops of the enemy factories that eventually lead to a sharp drop in production numbers. Although much was made of the supposed effects of bombing on the population's morale, neither the Germans, nor the Japanese will to fight was broken as a result of the bombings. In contrast, when planes and bombs were targeted in France, before, during and after D-Day, the ability of German troops to resist the Allied Advance was severely impacted and perhaps was a much better use of men and material, in contrast to high attitude strategic bombing over Germany. Only the German U-Boat arm had higher causalities than the American strategic bombers crews. I think the appropriate role for air power in a strategic sense is to simply murder the enemy's population, men, woman and children. Any survivors simply become a burden on the living, who then have to devote time and resources to caring for them. I think we can see the value of this in the German raid on Coventry when the Luftwaffe dropped 500 tons of high explosive, 30,000 incendiaries and 50 landmines. Half of the homes (43,000) in the city where destroy and many more than the official total of around 600 died. We also see similar devastation in Japan when the U.S. switched to low attitude fire bombing and of course in Dresden where 25,000 civilians died from fire bombing. In Vietnam, the U.S. could have fire bombed all of the major cities and killed large numbers of civilians and created a huge crisis for the Vietnamese Government and their allies. In addition, after burning the capitol, Hanoi, the United States could have targeted the Dams, effectively drowning the survivors of the fire bombing. Politics prevented this course of action, that could have lead to victory or at least a faster conclusion to the fighting. The Ho Chi Min trail had a beginning, with supplies coming in via ship and via rail. Attacking the supplies and war materials in these areas makes sense, as they are easy to spot and are concentrated in one place. Again politics made this solution unavailable. Interestingly when the United States did finally use naval mines to target ships in North Vietnam, this had a political effect. more so than any bombing campaign. The classic photos of the "Peoples Porters" moving rice on modified bicycles, neglects to tell you that half of that rice was used to feed the porter himself, which is why the majority of tonnage was moved by trucks and rail, when possible. Destroying roads, fuel, bridges and cities, cripples the ability to supply the troops in the field. I agree that using air power against Guerrillas is dubious, however the key to winning a Guerrilla War for a Western Country, is illustrated in the Malayan Emergency where the British prevailed. The other path to victory is to kill the civilian population en-mass and replace them with your own colonists, which we see from the time of the Romans to the conquest of the Native American peoples and Tibet. It is only restraint and the lack of will that prevents countries from achieving victory over enemy populations, by destroying those populations.

[@thesweatleaf]

Sorry dude, but you may have missed the point on Rolling Thunder. This was not an interdiction campaign per se, but there was one concurrent to Rolling Thunder.

[@Melvorgazh]

Make a hybrid Battleship-Zeppelin 😛

[@alexChabakphotography]

Is it just me or did you get a pewDiePie G fuel add ?