What The Germans Learned About Soviet Air Support

HAPPY 1 YEAR BIRTHDAY DISCOUNTS! Get 15%-10% OFF until May 5th, 2024 at militaryhistorygroup.com/
Soviet Air Support during World War 2 - lets dive into a translated original manual and see what it says!
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Partner Discounts -
Naval Institute Press: 25% off with "MILAVHIS" at www.usni.org/press/books
Mortons: 10% off with "MAH10" at www.mortonsbooks.co.uk
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
German Military Archive: Various (serious inquiries contact me).
Hardesty, Von and Ilya Grinberg (2012) Red Phoenix Rising - The Soviet Air Force in World War 2, University Press of Kansas.
Sterret, James (2007) Soviet Air force Theory 1918-1945, Soviet (Russian) Military Theory and Practice, Routledge.
O'Neill, Mark (2002) "The Soviet Air Force, 1917 - 1991, Palgrave.
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Soviet Air Power
00:24 - Origins of Soviet-Russian Air Support
01:47 - Primary Sources of Video
03:26 - How to Air Support
04:31 - Air Support Organization
08:02 - Community Sponsoring
09:00 - Wargaming Air Support
15:30 - Soviet Military and Operations
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

I noticed as I watched the video again after some time away doing other things (90% was done in Feb), that I should have emphasised that this comes from an *air perspective* with abstract animations getting the main points across that are in *original air focused document* . If I was to make this video from a broader perspective - cool idea btw - I would place more emphasis on exploring deep battle in its entirety. Let's pick that up next time

[@centurymemes1208]

who was behind the bob semple tank? it was walpole!

[@matchesburn]

Is there any chance you could do a video on American air support for ground forces in the future?

[@michalandrejmolnar3715]

Could you do a video on supplying F-18s from Canada, Australia, Switzerland and Finland?

[@GARDENER42]

A similar video on 2nd Tactical Air Force would be appreciated.

[@konstantinriumin2657]

Soviets be like: Attention all pilots! please don't fly into 1 morbillion gun barrage we are about to fire. Thanks for you attention!

[@darthcalanil5333]

I would love more about soviet air doctrine, planes and aviation in general. The air war in the east isn't talked about enough.

[@vaudevillian7]

Seconded

[@user-yb6qs5wu8t]

I don't know if I can put it here but there is a channel it calls *tactics media* it s all in Russian, there are a lot of pro and not historians talk about Ww2, all based on archives, if you can add a translated I am sure you ll be interested.

[@jonseilim4321]

@@user-yb6qs5wu8t Thank you!

[@user-ou9qd9no5n]

90% of german air power been on western front

[@simonfejta3434]

I would recommend you to read all new books from series “Black cross Red star”, they dont talk that much about tactics, but explain overall air war over Eastern front in detail

[@yankeepapa304]

...As a Marine infantryman from the late 1960s, I am hardly a specialist in matters of air power...though I obviously have a greater interest in Close Air Support. From what I gathered more that half a century ago, initially, when a ground unit was in need of all the support that it could get from both artillery and air assets, there was a fear that the former would pose a threat to the latter, and so often the attempt was made to "rotate" their missions...which often became a mess. . ... Later, the impression was that it was not as big a danger as initially feared, and less consideration was allotted to the issue. I'm 75 now, and haven't yet heard an unbiased firm determination.. YP

[@StPaul76]

My grandfather got strafed by one of these in -44.. He and his friend did not like it one bit.. Grandpa said :"..after that bastard had done three runs on us.. there were two brand new ditches on the meadow.. :D

[@herptek]

If they both came from that intact anyway then all is good that ends well.

[@ifv2089]

Isn't it wild to think that's pretty much it in a few years there will be no more veterans of World War Two.

[@StPaul76]

@@herptek Yes they came uninjured for somehow.. Their gear was full of small shrapnel holes.. My grandpa had his hat petforated, his buddy had his boot heel shot to shit.. They were both practically deaf and had soiled themselves.. The Il-2 Sturmovik as a ground attack plane had it's 23mm cannons pointed straight forward, to move the ditches, unlike a fighter plane with a concentrated point of impact. The pilot took aim and let it rock but the cannons just carved the meadow up both sides of these two characters.. If it wasn't so I would not be writing this to you my friend.. :D

[@herptek]

@@StPaul76 I don't see such stories as very light hearted topics. Which front was this on?

[@StPaul76]

@@herptek In Syväri/Svir river during the continuation war between us Finns and the Soviets. My grandfather served in the JR-8/infantry regiment 8 in East Karelia between 1941-1944 until he was severely wounded in an artillery barrage. And for a side note.. Question my personal history once again and I will Not fight Vanya but You.. ;)

[@UncleJoeLITE]

There must be so much still buried in the archives, digitising the lot will take a very long time if Australia's efforts are a guide. Thanks Chris, this & stuff like the Nebelwerfer v Katyusha efforts are extremely interesting to me. May I ask if it's better for you if we watch it here or on Patreon? Danke aus Australien.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

You can watch here or on Patreon, whatever is most convenient for you. There is no adverse effect either way, thanks for asking :)

[@IvanTre]

There might be, but the Taiwan war us expected within 8-10 years, and the archives aren't H-bomb proof. We're never going to learn it..

07:57 ish. The East Germany NVA Luftwaffe also doesnt seem to have had dedicated reconissance aircraft for most of its existence. As far as I read every Pilot was supposed to report on what he saw during his combat mission after returning, or over radio during a mission. Great Video, as always :) 11:59 An ex East German Mil Mi 24 Pilot told me at an event at the MHM Dresden that they had one officer come to them with an idear that they should fly "under" under a artillerie creeping barrage that would have been timed in such a way that it would move forward at the speed of the helicopters. I think it was meant to fascilitate a breaking into the rear of enemy forces for the attack helicopters. The old Heli Pilot told me that they werent that impressed with the idear and said: Nein Danke

[@peyiots]

Well researched and analytical. Well done.

[@kcampmeister-yx5lm]

Great archive find and great video! Would be nice to see some photos of the document, just to further emphasize the research work you put into this.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Makes me wonder how many other gems like this are in the archives. Then I wonder what Russians who can read the original think of this German English summary. Then ...

[@UncleJoeLITE]

I'm thinking of Anton Joly to do that, he is pretty expert at Soviet archives & speaks solid German too.

[@pRahvi0]

I wonder if the originals are available. Or even preserved.

[@Itoyokofan]

@@pRahvi0 You can read all these Russian documents free of charge on their digital platform, which exists for a decade already. And the manual were available long before that. The Soviet aviation doctrine in 1944 is substantially different from 1941, for example. With IL-2 / WOT / WT games the community of online researchers in Russia grew orders of magnitude from the livejournal times in early 2000s, so the amount of information duged out is vast. Plus the majority of the serious Russian armchair researchers know German (and everyone can read English), so it's a bad tone to even start an argument without bringing original documents from both sides. Which is why it's so funny to watch videos like this, where people get so proud of reading even one document from the Russian side and are amased that it's not like what German generals wrote in their memoirs at all.

[@garysarratt1]

Great work, Bismarck, I really enjoyed it!

[@HvH909]

Another outstanding presentation. Thank You!

[@cannonfodder4376]

The things I learn from you from your archive trips.... a shame so much of modern history docs never bother to do such first hand research. Informative Chris.

[@JohnSmith-jj2yd]

Golden rule of land operations: If you don't own it you're at the mercy of he who does. The difference between having TACON/OPCON of an asset at your level of command (whatever that may be) and having to effectively beg for it at command conferences is huge. This is why seemingly inefficient organisational structures that push assets lower, or duplicate responsibilities (Army aviation is a prime example) is actually really important in practise. This applies whether it is begging for a single UAV at battalion level, through to fast jet support at the JTFHQ level (only to be told 'Nah, got to maintain crew rest ratios...' by the air force LO)

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

A very insightful and informed analysis. It's fascinating how modern Russian military tactics are often rooted in a legacy that stretches back to WW2.

[@VunderGuy]

Acting like that's a special thing when that's true for literally every modern army worth anything.

[@wkelly3053]

Sorry, not related, but would you consider doing a piece on Australia’s air assets in the Vietnam War? Until recently, I had no idea that Australia was involved at all, but apparently it was quite a big deal, both in the air and on the ground. Thanks🙂.

[@keithad6485]

Retired Aussie Armoured Corps soldier here, perhaps check out Battle of Long Tan (recent movie made about it -Danger Close) and Battle of Balmoral and Battle of Coral.

[@dimassalazar906]

Australia has been by America's side in many places. Love for the Aussies!

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

There was a movie. Let me think, what it was called THE ODD ANGRY SHOT 1979

[@jayklink851]

Speaking of flight artillery flight paths and CAS, in War Thunder (ground RB) I've been nailed by an artillery shell at approximately 2k. Only the one time, but that 152mm or 155mm blew my P-63 to smithereens.

[@MrLBPug]

Ah yes, War Thunder, that historically accurate combat simulator 😆

[@jayklink851]

@@MrLBPug LOL. I always got a kick when players criticized some feature for not being historically accurate.

[@lastguy8613]

Thankyou for your service

[@jayklink851]

@@lastguy8613 lol

[@culturevulture3382]

Love those primary sources!

[@VukNS1987]

Thaks man. Respect.

[@JRSimoes]

First off great video as always!! I have always supported you guys by purchasing all your books. I have every one in English. Unfortunately my german is extremely rough and out of practice. I see some books that only have german versions. Any chance you guys are working on translations into English for those? Keep up the great work!

[@TheGranicd]

We did see video where pair of Su25 flew right over Grad when firing and almost get hit. So that attention to arty fire is not misplaced.

[@anachronisticon]

It's ironic. Interdiction might be seen as the more low hanging fruit in terms of soft skinned vehicles etc. but CAS requires more skill to avoid friendly fire and knowledge of exact enemy locations. In some ways the focus on CAS over interdiction might have required greater skill, at the expense of greater risk to it's pilots.

[@gort8203]

CAS requires much more skill and coordination. The majority of the air support provided in WWII was not CAS as most people think of it today from watching movies. Interdiction, armed reconnaissance, and mass strikes on enemy formations beyond the range of friendly artillery was a much safer and more productive use of airpower in support of ground forces. Safer for the ground forces, not just the pilots.

[@anachronisticon]

@@gort8203 Any tips on where to read more about this?

[@gort8203]

@@anachronisticon Unfortunately it's not possible to remember where I've read about specific subjects over the last 60 years. I will say that one of the more informative books I read recently is CARL A SPAATZ & AIR WAR (SMITHSONIAN HISTORY OF AVIATION AND SPACEFLIGHT SERIES) It's out of print, but I snagged a used copy on Amazon for about $8. It is a US government book so it is also available for free download online. But I enjoyed turning the pages of this thick volume. Lots of information about managing the air war in Europe and North Africa. Before that I read Winged Victory by Geoffrey Perret, which was pretty good.

[@gort8203]

@@anachronisticon Here's one that just came to mind: American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: USAAF Jabos in the MTO and ETO (Schiffer Military History )

[@45johngalt]

I really appreciate your content vs that of others who constantly make false and outright incorrect statements purely for click bait and to drive "engagement" by baiting people to correct said errors by replying.

[@duwop544]

Congratulations on improving your accent, your V's especially have improved greatly. Knowing what sounds to improve on is key, right? As an American I focused on getting rid of nasal R's and A's. Germans no longer guess me for an Ami, first guess is usually Dutch, maybe because I'm tall? Anyway, keep up the good work.

[@bdleo300]

Interesting video

[@delta5297]

If you're an Il-2 pilot or an A-10 pilot, is it more worthwhile to go after enemy tanks, or IFVs, or artillery, or supply vehicles?

[@iansysoev9462]

Whatever higher-ups tell you to go after

[@nracryz8231]

oooooh I want those books

[@momosgarage]

Although not directly connected to the Ilyushin IL-2 with 37mm cannons, and your earlier video on the B-25 with a 75mm cannon, however, in regards to operational durability, why wasn’t the MiG-23 able to be structurally strengthened, so as to be capable of firing the 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 rotary cannon, and the 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 autocannon? Especially noting the history of success with cannon armaments on the IL-2.

[@karoltakisobie6638]

There were few gun pods designed for su-17,mig-23/27 and other planes. They were used in Afghanistan and later in Chechnyan wars. Last pictures of them I've seen were mounted under su-25 .

[@19Koty96]

? The 23 did use the GSh-23 though, that was its integral gun from the day 1. And the 27 was strenghtened to use the -6-30.

[@angrybirder9983]

The MiG-27 was tried/used with the GSh-6-30 and firing the gun had a tendency to break the plane.

[@19Koty96]

@@angrybirder9983 in testing, in service this was shown to not be the case, exactly because of strenghtening the structure; plus it was not really breaking the plane, just a couple looser components

[@angrybirder9983]

@@19Koty96 Maybe I worded it badly. It broke several components, but not the entire airframe. Still, it broke too much stuff to be useful.

[@user-wd2iy9bc7y]

I emember reading what Erich Hartmann said about this aircraft, you had to almost fill your windscreen and be close to do any real damage.

[@quint3ssent1a]

Most insane shit is that after successful usage of attack aircraft in WW2, both Soviets and USA completely abandoned the idea because "duh, muh fighters gonna do all the work by themselves". Later down the line they realized that "maybe a specialized aircraft for attacking ground targets would be alright..." and started their SU-25 and A-10 program... after going without real attack crafts for 20 years!

[@user-if4zv5nj5m]

Well, before the late 70s a future war was seen as a nuclear ww3 apocalypse, and dropping a small nuke from a fighter/light bomber does the job better than a conventional attacker can do anyways

[@frankbarnwell____]

Thanks Chris for answering a very interesting and important aspect I'd never thought to ask about. The USSR's not getting into strategic bombing as the USA and UK. Not even striking slightly further behind German lines at rail hubs or logistics arteries, and such.

[@raymondclark1785]

Last night i stumbled onto The Pilot on Prime which featured this plane

[@user-mv6ld4xn9u]

i liked this video a lot because i played il2 very much

[@mrvn000]

Old, but incredible.

[@simondancaster8334]

Excellent as always! There’s a lot of debate as to how effective close air support actually was during WW2 but there’s no doubting the psychological effect. I’ve heard there was a very low accuracy rate especially for the Soviets.

[@101jir]

I would imagine there are trade offs, as with anything. Interdiction offers a target rich environment without friendlies. CAS presumably has the benefits of infantry to spot and force routing/hiding forces to surrender, as well as a greater psychological impact.

[@simondancaster8334]

@@101jir Yes. General disruption also behind the frontline is a difficult factor to quantify but no doubt an important one. Cheers

[@knutdergroe9757]

This also shows why the U.S.S.R. likes the P39/P63.

[@Klovaneer]

If this is about the 37mm it was only good for shooting at bombers, being quite low velocity. AFAIK Cobras were exclusively used for air superiority, not even escort. Soviets loved them for comfy smoke-free cockpits with great visibility, good takeoff and landing characteristics (they flew from really rough airfields) and overall build quality. They happily took anything but spits and hurricanes weren't as well suited for the eastern front and thus never got the same appreciation.

[@matchesburn]

I know the "37mm Airacobra/Kingcobra were tank busters" thing is a popular myth, but it wasn't. For starters, IIRC, this has to do with a mistranslation. Secondly, the Soviets had barely any 37mm AP ammunition. The vast, vast majority of it was HE and only HE. It's not to say they didn't have any, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to HE. Third, we know from the pilots themselves that they favored the 37mm because it was great against German bombers and heavy fighters like the BF110. Fourth, the gun itself even with AP ammunition would not have done well against most tanks. Yes, if you came down almost vertically you'd probably get pen with AP rounds. Which they didn't have much of. People keep equating it to the likes of the Ju-87G and the like with its BK 3.7 cannon which WAS used for tank busting... without realizing that the BK 3.7 fired 37x263mm rounds while the M4 cannon in the 'Cobras fired a 37×145mm. Much more anemic round. And the Germans had APCR tungsten-core ammunition for their 37mm which was a much more potent cartridge. Not comparable.

[@gort8203]

No it doesn't. Russian use of the P-39 as a tank buster is just another internet myth.

[@Klovaneer]

Ah, people are probably mixing it up with NS-37 that was planned to be tank-busting but ended up great against small ships.

[@MrLBPug]

'Fighter cover for ground units' as mentioned by Soviet documents was air-to-air, not air-to-ground. As others already mentioned, the 37mm cannons in the P-39 and the P-63 weren't suited for air-to-ground work anyway, for a myriad of reasons. Of course the 'Cobras could carry bombs if needed, but the VVS used them purely as fighters most of the time. They were well-suited for the air-to-air combat circumstances on the Eastern Front, which took place at low to medium altitude and were well-liked by the Soviet fighter pilots.

[@gordonwallin2368]

Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.

[@discordia013]

3:26 Should have been the thumbnail.

[@richardlesperance8259]

I always thought that they were all about numbers and overkill! More so than tactics!

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you Christoph. Concise and to the point, as usual. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿. P.S. The French word ‘route’ is correctly pronounced the same way in English. Remember … the Yanks comprise considerably less than 50% of the English speaking population of the world😁! Rout is a noun and-in my trade of carpentry-a verb. P.P.S. When our Engineer Squadron carried out Military Demolition Training, sometimes as part of Civil Aid tasks, we had to coordinate with our Air Traffic Control authority-I lose track of governmental renamings-so that they could advise aircraft pilots to stay above a certain altitude, in that area, during the allocated training period.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Thanks! I will endeavor to remember the correct pronunciation.

[@mrcat5508]

Yeah but we comprise 100% of the ‘murican speaking world.

[@umjackd]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory I wouldn't get too hung up on the pronunciation of "route," since both pronunciations are technically valid. However, the pronunciation of "rout" is not variable, and it's better to keep things clear so there's no misunderstanding based on homophones.

[@Russia-bullies]

As WW2 Eastern Front air superiority was at best contentious & at worst with the Axis powers,the Soviets seldom tasked units to be far into enemy areas.

[@njg26.gustav12]

Interesting

[@jjp_nl]

Were these ideas about the use of airpower and how they were supposed to work in concert with the ground forces already in place at the start of the war against the USSR (Barbarossa '41)? Or did the the ideas about how to effectively use airpower against the invading German armies undergo radical changes in the wake of the initial string of defeats of 1941-1942 and Soviet Air Force suffering badly.

[@unwokeneuropean3590]

I will always be fascinated by ww2 German and Soviet machines and tactics.

[@davidbrennan660]

Good video……..this break down in era field security will be investigated by SMERCh.

[@babboon5764]

*Always expect the Unexpected ........ if you're going to watch this channel* Unusual & very interesting - And as you emphasis, a great antidote to the jingoistic dogma 'Russia just swamps folk'

[@brealistic3542]

The Germans actually did an effective job of keeping the Soviet air force in check till the end. More then a few German Generals and commanders that served in the East found out that wasn't the casein the West after the British and American close in Fighter bomber units tore their units pieces. The only way passed divisions could service is heavily camouflage their units and only move at night. This was never the case in Russia.

[@SkylerinAmarillo]

It’s surprising you didn’t know that commanders assign artillery and aircraft their own air space to operate in. That is very common and one of the first things artillery officers and close air support officers learn.

[@DiggingForFacts]

There is the question of "why is that one of the first things artillery and CAS officers learn nowadays". Considering that the Soviet Union is portrayed in popular history as being capable of little more than throwing shit at the wall until it crumbles, seeing an in-depth look at how CAS was structured and planned our was enlightening in multiple ways.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Chris: WHY did they do that? 😉

[@althesmith]

I think on some level the Soviets decided it was better to lose men and machines in destroying equipment on the tactical level, which also destroyed crews of artillery/tanks etc. than to lose them in strategic bombing which had very uncertain results especially with protected factories.

[@user-if4zv5nj5m]

Also strategic bombing is extremely expensive, both in term of money invested and production capabilities required. Ussr simply couldn't afford a strategic bombing force of any significant size

[@althesmith]

@@user-if4zv5nj5m I agree. Only the USA and Great Britain- with the support of its Commonwealth nations- had the factories and workforce available for large scale strategic aircraft production and the material and fuel resources. Germany was playing a losing game in that regard by the end of 1940 and completely screwed themselves over in resources when they attacked the USSR in 1941.

[@scootergeorge7089]

More relevant would be, what the Soviet Airforce learned from the Luftwaffe about close air support.

[@davecasler]

Please reexamine your audio processing chain. Your audio sounds muffled. Needs to be crisper and have more high frequencies.

[@MrGreatGeorge]

Taktikkommentar

[@Ailasher]

The biggest loss of meaning in translation, is the example of the quote “Quantity over Quality”. This is simply not true in the original. In fact, this quote makes no sense at all, due to the loss of the original sense where “at a certain point, the quantitative level shifts to a qualitatively different level”, as “Quantity goes to Quality”.

[@scottsuttan2123]

it's funny that both German and Russian used Airforce to enhance the army were as the US fought for place aka no getting along😢

[@andrewallen9993]

The Germans learned that the soviets were a damn sight better at it than the luftwaffe.

[@greatndit]

according to western historian version , written by german historian based on the magically found diary of a german soldier . soviet IL-2 did not have any impact on the war at all , they were always destroyed by german fighter and AA, and never hit german ground target. however the soviet is keep making IL-2 untill 50.000 unit and they were all destroyed by german and never hit a single ground target . german get bored of the war and they lose the war

[@f1aziz]

Germans got trashed, Red Army hoisted Soviet flag on Bundestag. Who cares what the losers have to say.

[@julianmhall]

I don't know about the Soviet air force, but correct me if I'm wrong AFAIK the Luftwaffe had no /strategic/ ability and were only envisaged as a /tactical/ support for the army. Hence they struggled over long distances like the Eastern Front and over Britain.

[@wdsmauglir4683]

Subtle Russian engineering, as usual. Bolt together a ground attack aircraft which is essentially a tank with wings. No frills, just functional.

[@MsZeeZed]

14:45 - that’s something that seems unchanged from by Soviet to Russian Army forces. Not considering enemy airforces may try to interdict larger Front-level supply depots 50km+ from the front. It been clear in Ukraine that Russian Army logistics wasn’t prepared for Ukrainian Airforces capable of precision strikes that deep. Once the “Plan” had suppressed air interdiction at that range minimal or ineffective air-defence operated at these locations. Once Ukraine’s AF had enough US supplied limited range GMLRS stocks (range 84 km) they began destroying these sites. When they had longer range NATO missiles, some air launched and larger domestic drones they targeted the railhead dumps. Lack of Russian palletization, inadequate air-defense and good intelligence combined with unexpected precision showed this method of local / temporary air superiority is no match for high accuracy strategic strikes. The VKS are performing to plan, Army logistics are very efficiently moving supplies 1,000 km by rail, but in the occupied territories the amount of small truck transfer (more trucks than they have), manual loading and inadequate air cover over massive multiple fronts is causing problems. Basically an inadequately equipped Russian Federation Army is falling short trying to execute a massive Soviet Combined Arms support plan.

[@herptek]

If the VKS is performing to plan, then it must be a pretty bad plan. The unavoidable impression I have gotten so far is that they can't play a decisive role in the ongoing war.

[@kalebthehistorian5928]

Considering recent events, I would argue the opposite. Besides, Ukraine hardly even has an airforce at this point, and they've run out of ammunition to the point they are unable to stop the Russians from moving forward while Russian CAS and artillery crush any and all attempts at defence. As for what you've mentioned, these strikes were purely for PR to encourage Western support. Sure, they achieved minor success, but I refuse to take the Ukrainians at their word, considering all the things they've lied about.

[@herptek]

If the VKS is performing to plan, it must have been a pretty bad plan.

[@herptek]

@@kalebthehistorian5928 The Russians are notorious for always lying about everything.

[@1986tessie]

CAS is king.

[@gort8203]

I thought artillery was the king of battle. High intensity warfare between heavy forces is different than counterinsurgency type operations. CAS targets enemy units in close proximity to friendly units, and is a tertiary role for supporting air power. Gaining air superiority is primary, followed by air support in the form of interdiction and strikes against enemy formations before they can engage friendly forces. When those priorities are well in hand airpower can supplement artillery by engaging enemy units in contact with friendly forces. Airpower is most productively used against targets beyond artillery range when such targets are available.

[@1986tessie]

@@gort8203 it's just a hoi4 slogan. Though I have heard artillery referred to as Queen of the battlefield.

[@gort8203]

@@1986tessie Infantry is the queen of the battlefield.

[@1986tessie]

@@gort8203 I stand corrected.

[@hlynnkeith9334]

@@gort8203 Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science? Really, everything you wrote was spot on, true, and accurate.

[@noelblack8159]

ok

[@eeroaitamaa2012]

Tuosta nopeasti puhutusta englanninkielestä ei saa mitään selvää, kuin vain yksittäisiä sanoja. Onneksi mun poikani neuvoi, miten siihen saa tekstityksen.

[@jmullner76]

Why? Because that is the tech tree they went down in Hearts of Iron 4.

[@SpaceGhost1701]

Talking to the camera like it is actually your audience and is capable of interacting with you isn't good for your mental health. There have been studies.

[@19Koty96]

Quote them.

[@JamesHGroffSr]

This guy really adds a lot of drama?Solds like its all WESTERN propaganda.Whats he trying out for an acting debut????????????

[@mrcat5508]

Wow only 2k views, fell off.

[@MozTS]

Go woke get broke

[@mrcat5508]

It’s a joke guys, it was only posted 1 hour after the video

[@Keckegenkai]

please stop it with the silly playing on the lens thing you do in the intro

[@MrLBPug]

Do it better yourse... O, wait 😆

[@isenbull2242]

For those who think they know about the military strategy and tactics of the command of the Red Army - there is not and there was no strategy and tactics. The law of force was applied - the more soldiers, the better. Losses were not taken into account at all. And this also applied to aviation - airplanes were built from plywood and steel. More pieces are better.

[@Stakan79]

Very controversial airplane. (I think it’s total garbage). Underpowered, crappy visibility forward and down (so important for an attack plane), small payload (Underpowered), bad gun sights, no bomb sight, can’t dive bomb.

[@Klovaneer]

The only other armored/assault plane of WW2 was Hs.129, now that actually deserves being called garbage.

[@Stakan79]

@@Klovaneer 129 is way more fitting aircraft for the ground attack role though. Twin aircooled engines, sloping down nose, cabin moved forward as much as possible.

[@Klovaneer]

@@Stakan79 And yet it's much more sluggish. Engines are unarmored, impede side visibility and thick windscreen pillars hammer it even further. It was bad enough that Ju 87 G was developed to take it's place, on already outdated platform.

[@Stakan79]

@@Klovaneer did they give pilots Iron cross for just 10 combat missions? On Il-2 they did:)

[@Klovaneer]

@@Stakan79 what

[@carlwillows712]

The way you've been starting your videos recently with a random unnecessary closeup/ checking focus etc is really off putting to me. I get that it's for stylistic reasons but it just comes across as sloppy and unprofessional to me, which given the serious subject matter of your videos, is very jarring.

[@p51cMustangFUYTGIVEMEBACK]

what they learned is that they start coming and they dont stop coming.

[@Platterpussy]

This guy is outstanding. German depth.