The WW2 Aircraft that Totally Fooled the Luftwaffe

[@tomcarr1358]

Very interesting to see so many pictures and sequences from the archives.

[@philwhelan3854]

Spitfire and Hurricane pilots used to call Stukas a turkey shoot . Shooting them down is no big deal in the greater scheme . 109’s and FW190’s is class though

[@robertx8020]

True but the StuKa was a divebomber not a fighter and most light bombers will have a tough time against a fighter and 2) The StuKa was an old plane (1935) so it's no wonder

[@GraemeS-pk9cz]

Stukas were always vulnerable to any kind of fighters. They could only be operated effectively under conditions in which the Luftwaffe was able to achieve air superiority such as during the French campaign. The front in the East was vast, and the Germans were consequently able to achieve local air superiority, and conduct surprise raids into spaces not covered by Soviet fighters, until quite late in the war. So, dedicated ground attack aircraft could be usefully employed there throughout the war. Aircraft such as the FW 190, or Thunderbolt, were fighters pressed into the ground attack role (ie fighter-bombers). They had a much better survivability than a ground attack dive bomber such as the Stuka, but they were not able to bomb with the same degree of precision.

[@RussianThunderrr]

-- If Stuka are unescorted like in a Battle of Britain, then sure, give cover like JG-52 and hard terrain for pilots to comeback to their front line, in case they got shut down, and ... case in point H.U. Rudel who turned himself in American 408th FW that flew P-47s.

[@RussianThunderrr]

-- Even US made this mistake thinking "Flying Fortress" could take care off itself without fighter escort - that proved to be a costly mistake!

[@talon0863]

Some guys, Lavochkin and Gorbunov worked on their own, unofficially to improve the LaGG-3 into the La-5. Design work was conducted in a small hut beside an airfield in early 1942. Stalin had gotten all pissed and canceled those guys because the LaGG was too slow and heavy against the ME 109s.

[@davewright8206]

8:22 only time stuka would have ariel supremacy would be if no enemy aircraft were around , points deducted for over dramatisation

[@proteusnz99]

The Japanese did the same thing to covert the Ki-61 to the Ki-100 (forced, the factory couldn’t make enough of the licensed DB601). Likewise the British converted the Tempest from the H-layout Sabre to the Bristol Centaurus radial. It’s a pity the Centaurus wasn’t available for the Typhoon as radials seem to be a more sensible option for the ground attack mission.

[@icewaterslim7260]

Both Kawasaki and Aichi had trouble with the long crankshaft and line boring mains on the lisence built V12 DB 601 with the military draft for the Sino-Japanese war stripping them of good machinists as soon or sooner than they could hold tolerance. They were used to radials in Japan. The IJN wanted to put the Kinzei in the Yokosuka D4Y dive Bomber even before Aichi's and Kawasaki's motor plants were put out of the their misery by B29s. The FW 190 was Takeo Doi's model for designing the cowling for the radial. Looks like he was understanding aerial rule functions, looking at the transition of cowling to slim fuselage over the wing. Might've been a factor in it's dive speed, imo. About 20% or more of the initial batch of Ki61's being air-ferried from Clark Feild to Rabaul to Wewak west New Guinea didn't make it with loose drive train being the likely factor. The Kenzai was lighter and had more HP resulting in a Ki100 -Tony with its performance envelope in the vertical as well as in diving with it's 3 wing spars. Running level with the latest upr]gaded Allied fighters will be caught

[@markgranger5791]

My mom flying a Cessna, firing out the window could shot down an unescorted stuka. The plane made a rep for itself early in the war catching airforces on the ground. They did not do so well in the Battle of Britian

[@विनितकुमार-य5ढ]

It does get a back gunner with dual 30 cal so not exacty

[@franktreppiedi2208]

Even w the rear gunner, the Stuka was easy meat for most Western fighters and got it's ass handed to it in the Battle Britain​@विनितकुमार-य5ढ

[@विनितकुमार-य5ढ]

@franktreppiedi2208 all that aside a cesena still couldn't do shit to a stuka

[@RussianThunderrr]

wrote: "My mom flying a Cessna, firing out the window could shot down an unescorted stuka. The plane made a rep for itself early in the war catching airforces on the ground. They did not do so well in the Battle of Britian" -- I know brave couch warrior talk... The truth of the matter almost any Cessna with propeller would be a sitting duck even vs. heavy armored and armed with 37mm auto "Bird Kanons". Its amazing how many people don't know that in the battle of Britain Ju-87 did not have an escort, unlike over Eastern Front(including Battle of Kursk). Thinking that Attack class aircraft = Fighter aircraft in performance.

[@markr.1984]

The LA-5 came out well before mid-1943 as he says. The LA-5FN version came out then but the earlier LA-5 and LA-5F models were out by early 1943. The 5F was introduced late in the Stalingrad battle in February '43. While the regular LA-5 was flying in 1942, possibly as early as August.

[@Damoinion]

Given the complexity of the control systems, would that indicate that the top Soviet La-5 pilots were even better than the top pilots with more integrated systems?

[@peceed]

Yes, they were better at controlling the levers. Unfortunately, when fighting to the death, style points are meaningless.

[@jackx4311]

A crucial point was made by English aircraft designer, Henry Folland, to the effect that, in wartime, equipment doesn't have to be perfect; "It just has to be *good enough."* For examples; the Lee-Enfield rifle, the Hawker Typhoon, the Willys Jeep, the S-160 locomotive, the Liberty ship, and the Firefly tank.

[@ericvanlede481]

@jackx4311 English way but it seems to me that it's only valid when you are able to overproduce your enemy. Thing that GB was absolutely unable to even dream of ! She had to call for US assistance ! Furthermore in mid 41 GB was broke .. all her values expended. It was then the US start with the Lend-lease. But GB had to reimburse all ! And it ended around year 2000 !

[@timgosling6189]

I never thought the La-5 had an ejector seat! Didn't Horovetz just bale out? It was all going so well but then you had to reword something. I'd also like to know more about Horovets. I can't find him in any list of Soviet aces, for which he would qualify if he shot down 8 Stukas, or as a recipient of the Hero of The Soviet Union. Source? Yak isn't an acronym. Your 'Y.A.K.' is actually just a contraction of 'Yakovlev', the company named for its founder Алекса́ндр Я́ковлев, ie Alexandr Yakovlev. And I must have missed how this aircraft 'Fooled The Luftwaffe'. Edit: Thanks to a comment I've traced 'Horovets'. The pilot was Аляксандр Канстанцінавіч Гaрaвец, Aleksandr Konstantinovich Gorovets, credited with 9 kills, including a ramming, on July 6 1943. I think it was mis-spelled/mis-translated in the source and went unchecked in the script here.

[@tarapita]

Horovets' story is a fairytale by soviet propaganda department. All pieces are in place - hero attacks alone with no radio, kills all enemies and when returning victorious, dies. (So are 99% of soviet wartales) And La-5 competing for air superiority with Ju 87? Whatever...

[@piotrolszowkawujekpiotrek5384]

Be careful with such Russian stories. A lot of them is not verified. Traditionally Russian pilots destroyed two times more german airplanes than german have in this place... And german army don't known about such horrible losses...

[@johncarlaw8633]

" Source?" Not much. Some with a few details but different. Google "A.K. Horowitz" Ju-87 not talked about much , so "legendary"? Skilled and brave, but not actually talked about much. By Google anyway. Perhaps by another name or mostly in Russian? E.g. From 2016, 'War History Online' The Development of the Soviet Union’s La-5 Fighter in WWII "A new Lavochkin in the hands of a skilled Soviet pilot was as deadly as anything on the battlefield. *Some such exploits have become legendary*. One A.K. Horowitz, for example, is believed to have shot down nine German planes in a La-5 during a single battle, though only six were confirmed (two Ju-87s, two Ju-88s, and two FW-190s). Later that same day, Horowitz was killed in a battle against four enemy fighters. He was posthumously awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union" Don't know where the rest came from, I wondered how we knew he apparently rammed a plane and further details if he died immediately after. So not enough confirmed kills and then died perhaps on another sortie. If he was a deputy commander and survived with some skill until Kursk I would expect some other history before 9 in one go.

[@timgosling6189]

@@johncarlaw8633 Thanks. It's just odd that he's not recorded anywhere as either an ace or as a Hero Of The Soviet Union. I wonder if this was a bit of propaganda?

[@vertik7]

@@timgosling6189 Google is not good for search like this. A. K. Horovetc (Горовец) is very famous and a Hero of Soviet Union. Even Russian version of Wikipedia has him with a picture. USSR had a lot of aces of WW 2, but they are mostly unknown in the west. And there are movies and books about them and lots of websites, but of course in Russian. The most known aces are Kozhedub and Pokryshkin. But there were other aces like Maresyev, who flew without legs and Devyataev who escaped German's pow camp using their plane.

[@бабай-ж3м]

На самом деле двигатель Ла5 управлялся очень легко. У пилота были дополнительные органы управления качеством топливовоздушной смеси, заслонками радиаторов, и шагом винта. У немцев это всё было автоматизировано, и по этому немец так и не понял всей важности и разнообразия в управлении двигателем. Вот сравните, современные пилоты спортивных машин не любят автоматизацию в управлении автомобилем, и настроек в кабине пилота тоже много. Так же пилоты Ла5 могли настраивать двигатель в разные режимы в бою, пилот мог при пикировании закрыть все заслонки радиаторов в ручную, и лететь быстрее, и дать шаг винта на 100%, хоть и двигатель будет перегреваться, это даст значительные преимущество в бою, а механики после боя всё починят. Пилот делал всё это автоматически, потому что много летали, и опыт большой. Пилота это в критические ситуации не напрягало. У немца такой возможности не было. Так же по мемуарам аса, летавшего на Ла5фн Виталия Попкова, трофейный bf109g6 Ему не понравился , у Него 2 штук было.) У Советов это было преимущество, а не недостаток.

[@RussianThunderrr]

написал: "Так же пилоты Ла5 могли настраивать двигатель в разные режимы в бою, пилот мог при пикировании закрыть все заслонки радиаторов в ручную, и лететь быстрее, и дать шаг винта на 100%, хоть и двигатель будет перегреваться, это даст значительные преимущество в бою, а механики после боя всё починят. Пилот делал всё это автоматически, потому что много летали, и опыт большой. Пилота это в критические ситуации не напрягало. У немца такой возможности не было." -- В автоматических пропеллерах тоже есть "ручное" управление например на взлёт или отказ двигателя. Там гавернором винт управляет довольно эфективно.

[@lateralg3169]

Well done! can you go on to the 7 and 9?

[@globalpilot76]

Great documentary. Well researched well presented Love what you’re doing

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Nice recognition of the La-5 on the eastern front. We must remember the effects of battles on the other two fronts on the german LW that increasingly thinned out their numbers in the east. Malta, North Africa, Italy, and of course the ETO required more and more LW aircraft and logistics. Stalin was forceful in demanding more allied offensives on those other two fronts.

[@rabtter]

A nitpick at about 3:00, it was the M-25 that was a licensed version of the nine cylinder Wright R-1820 Cyclone Then came the ASh-62 which was an M-25 with some changes. The ASh-82 in the La-5 was patterned after but not identical to the 14 cylinder Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone, displacement was about 90 cubic inches less.

[@nickmitsialis]

And another bit of Trivia on the ASh-82: there are folks who are trying to custom make FW190s (and/or restoring old FWs found rusting away somewhere); they're finding that the ASh-82 is a pretty decent replacement for the BMW 801, and there seem to be plenty of them available.

[@stephengibbs4372]

Even if you corner a rabbit it will come out fighting . The russians had to learn quickly and managed it, at a huge cost though.

[@rabidmidgeecosse1336]

Nothing teaches you faster than losing, its an old trusim that the loser always learns more than the winner.

[@Preciouspink]

Any details on the prop hub area? Was it an aero consideration or what controlled engine cooling? The fuel injection variant curious about this.. not common for early allied engine designs..yes?

[@johnking6252]

One of the leading designers was " no longer with the program" .... Soviet efficiency! 👍 Sounds like the development and production of all the other combatants. 👍 Thx.

[@MDzmitry]

Pretty much so. Gudkov came up with Gu-82 (LaGG-3 with M-82 engine) half a year earlier than Lavochkin did, with first test flights occurring in September of 1941. Lavochkin though ignored him, awaiting the promised M-107 inline engine to arrive, and Lavochkin (unlike Gudkov) had backing from the officials, including Shakhurin.

[@allenhoffmann9080]

top scoring allied ace Ivan Kozhedub flew it

[@Cuccos19]

I wonder if there would be a mock dogfight between really contemporary Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters, the Yak-9 or the La-5 / La-5FN would be the winner? 12:16 I know both aircraft's engine kept the pilots on their toes, as they had no automatic controls like the German ones (German fighters could be handeled with simply the throttle, the Russian ones had to controll with a number of switches and levers - propeller pitch, cooling shutters, mixture, supercharger gear shift, etc.).

[@SamuraiCP2020]

Brilliant accurately told story. Спасибо!

[@PepeLepew-rm9ft]

Is that 20mm cannon on lavochkin 5 licenced from Hispano Suiza , British used same on Beaufighter and other later war aircraft? In essence following Germans ,no more carburettors and small calibre MGS

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

Junkers Ju-87... aerial supermacy? Something is wrong with that connection. The Stuka could only operate under aerial cover of it's own fighters. It was a very accurate bomber, but usually an easy target for enemy fighters.

[@jackx4311]

That's why they were pulled out of the Battle of Britain very early on. Dive bombing was a simple way to achieve very accurate bombing, but once they went into that dive, they were sitting ducks. Even on their way to and from the targets, they were hopeless. RAF pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew a captured Stuka after the war, and was appalled at its lumbering and sluggish handling - expressing no surprise at the losses suffered by the Stukas unless they had rock solid fighter support.

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

@jackx4311 I know, that's why it surprised me to hear the connection. It's not that the Ju-87 performed any better anywhere else. With fighter performance and armament improving during the course of the war one could say that the heyday of the Stuka was it's time in Spanish civil war and the fall of Poland and France, where it only encountered weak or disorganised opposition. Even on the eastern front where the Luftwaffe was in far stronger position it was suffering a lot. Even the Shturmoviks presented a credible threats to them in spite of their sluggishnes.

[@alexanderleo8947]

In a combat situation, the Ju-87 could not even hit the ship.

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

@@alexanderleo8947 It could and did, provided there wasn't heavy fighter cover.

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@jackx4311 wrote" :That's why they were pulled out of the Battle of Britain very early on. Dive bombing was a simple way to achieve very accurate bombing, but once they went into that dive, they were sitting ducks. ... and was appalled at its lumbering and sluggish handling - expressing no surprise at the losses suffered by the Stukas unless they had rock solid fighter support." Point 1. Attack aircraft is slightly armored to give a little protection to pilot from ground fire. Essentially its an armored bomber, not a fighter, and just like a bomber it needs an fighter escort cover. Some "experts" thought even flying "fortresses" would not need a fighter escort, but thought a very costly lessons time and again. Point 2. Eric 'Winkle' Brown was not a dive bomber, right? Who was the most famous dive bomber pilot? Was it H.U. Rudel? And what aircraft he preferred over FW-190(including Dora variant), that's right his beloved "Kite" Ju-87 Stuka, that he turn himself in to Americans on May8th, 1945, his FW-190 that day was flown by someone else.

[@DK-sc4gn]

It was the American radial engine that was responsible for the improved performance!!!

[@auro1986]

how many of aircrafts did you paint as per their colour theme?

[@MDzmitry]

I honestly feel irritated by how much people praise Lavochkin as "the underdog, forced to create a good fighter while oppressed by Stalin and forced out of production by Yakovlev" while failing to mention why Gudkov was no longer part of the designer team. That was because he came up with Gu-82, a LaGG-3 with M-82 engine. Sounds familiar? And he created it half a year earlier than Lavochkin did his La-5. The whole story ended when Lavochkin simply declined Gudkov from entering the factory, since he didn't like the idea of Gu-82 and was waiting for M-107 inline engine to arrive "asap" (as if Yakovlev's fighters weren't capable of fitting it, too). And Gudkov didn't have the same political backing as Lavochkin, so his messages and test pilots' reports were primarily ignored.

[@kingfonk1937]

Wondering why you say Yakovkev as Y.A.K. (why-aye-kay.) In Cyrillic alphabet Yakovlev is abbreviated as "Як" where the letter "Я" is pronounced "ya" You can just say Yak

[@Nellis202]

And all this plane’s accomplishments were made using radial engines ! Truly remarkable !

[@danieleyre8913]

What is wrong with radial engines?

[@Nellis202]

@@danieleyre8913 The better fighter planes of the war did not employ radial engines. Spitfires Mustang p51 Me109. I’m not a technical expert, but I should imagine there was a reason for it. I could be wrong though.

[@danieleyre8913]

@@Nellis202 What absolute utter rubbish. Anglo-centric twaddle. FW 190 Ki-84 F4U N1K-J F6F La-5 & La-7 P-47 Ki-100 A6M (at least during 1942) And what could have been with the I-180 or I-185 So no. Having an in-line or radial engine had nothing to do with whether a fighter was one of the better fighters or not. That was mostly determined by the airframe. And the Bf 109 was NOT one of the better fighters at all, it’s only the most produced because the Germans failed to develop any successor for it and kept it in service well past when it should have been retired.

[@FlatOutMatt]

@@Nellis202F4U Corsair has entered the chat

[@robertthomas3777]

Even looks good. That’s some engine too.

[@haroldgardiner1966]

Funny how the in line early versions looked much like Spitfires!

[@olliekp3707]

The stukas had nothing to do with air superiority. The stuka is a ground attack aircraft that needs to be protected by me109s.

[@metalmadsen]

Lagg 5 Saw action in late 1942

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

The Wright R1820 was a 9 cylinder radial NOT 14 cylinder, that was the PW R1830 !!! !

[@Kroggnagch]

These guys regularly downed me in War Thunder. Hearing about the twin 20mm cannons, now I get why lol Edit: seriously a plane that deserves respect.

[@drmoss_ca]

Eject?

[@christopherrobinson7541]

Bale out.

[@drmoss_ca]

@@christopherrobinson7541 Exactly.

[@talon0863]

It had a canopy that was impossible to open at speeds over 350 km/h. Furthermore, poor engine compartment insulation allowed exhaust gas to enter the cockpit; in response, pilots frequently ignored orders by flying with open canopies

[@oheebatch_algorytmu]

​@@talon0863like typhoon...

[@johnforsyth7987]

The La-5 was a good aircraft. It's main shortcoming was that it was lightly armed. It only had two 20 MM cannons that shot through the propellor. Which reduced its rate of fire. It also did not have much armor to protect the pilot.

[@karelvicha8902]

The armament was pretty good. Weapons which are in the fuselage actually shoot where you were aiming, unlike wing mounted guns. Also 20mm cannons were vastly superior to machineguns which some countries were still using.

[@AndrejMazak]

all soviet wwii fighters had poor armament. most combinations were 20mm +1x12,7 or +2x7,62 or 2x20mm at radial lavochkins. Mig-3 had 1x12,7 + 2x7,62. Polikarpovs had many variants but they were obsolete these times.

[@AndrejMazak]

@@karelvicha8902 neviem ci proti stihacom nebol lepsi americky system s 4 az 8x12,7

[@karelvicha8902]

two 20mm cannons in fuselage , which means shooting where are you aiming and with explosive ammunition are much better than full wing of useless machineguns.@@AndrejMazak

[@Nellis202]

@@AndrejMazak Just like Italian fighter planes I guess 😮

[@clearcreek69]

Impressive plane

[@iWhiteout]

Me thinking the LaGG’s were good in war thunder back when I was low tier🤡🤡

[@kenrobba5831]

Well the P-39 was no small contender; Stalin did like heaping any credit outside sphere of influence.

[@johnhanson5943]

The advantages of back-engineering British, German and US pre-existing types.

[@Charles-k9g5y]

All countries do that.

[@kevinvilmont6061]

I have no idea if it’s correct, but that Russian sounds perfect.

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

Absolutely correct. Kingfonk offered a good explanation.

[@MichaelMcKinnon-do5ev]

The Lavochkin fighters were fine fighters, capable of fighting anything the Luftwaffe, Regia Aeronautica, or even the Japanese could field at the time they appeared and were some of the finest fighters the Voenno Vozdushnie Sily ((VVS apologies if I misspelled it although no disrespect intended) could field although early on in Operation Barbarossa the VVS pilots were poorly trained because they fielded at that time some of the finest fighters they had during WWII (Yak-1, Yak-3, MiG-1, MiG-3, LaGG-3, and even the Polikarpov (one of the spellings I've seen although I never knew whether or not it was correct) I-16 and I-15 (bka I-152 and I-153)

[@basdeogurupersad2342]

When you are surrounded by countries that detest your existence you gotta be on your toes no wonder they are great chess players and have the best ballerinas world class.

[@trevormccarthy9019]

Uhh. What ? Surrounded by who ?

[@klausschwabshubris]

@@trevormccarthy9019 you

[@bryangeake5826]

Russia has a westerly approach that threatens their capital, but are not in any way surrounded. Putin wants greater strategic depth to ensure 1. a modern army is much further away than the current NATO boundary is and 2. the resourses of the central and eastern European countries to be under a Russian sphere of influence. Then he thinks Russia will surivive the rest of the 21st Centurry intact, given that they are a rapidly aging demographic.

[@tesmith47]

do you mean historically, or because of the modern american bribes and bullying???

[@bryangeake5826]

@@tesmith47 The USA is not bullying Russian, it does compete with it. Putin views the world through a conspiratorial lens. When Romania (and other eastern European states) applies to join NATO (or the EU) he thinks its beacuse the USA/EU have bribed them, not that its their choice to look west rather than east after the failure of the USSR to be anythig like the success its communist ideology tried to achieve.

[@colinmartin2921]

The problem with assessing Russian fighters is that the Russian pilots had very poor training compared to their German adversaries, a situation that was reversed late in the war.

[@Янус_Ырт]

La-5 was first made in 1942 and peak of their use was in late 1942 - early 1944, so Luftwaffe was still strong and soviets also stopped the Blitzkrieg, so they could train pilots properly

[@davidrudd9846]

I guess the 15,000 American fighters and bombers had nothing to do saving Stalin's ass. Soviet propaganda never mentioned the P-39 aerocobras P-40 Warhawks the B-20 or the B-25 bombers LOL

[@sturdevantphotography5726]

American propaganda never mentions how the Red Army and the Soviet air force tore the guts out of the German's ability to wage war does it? They faced MUCH greater numbers of German troops than the US did

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

Britian had sent hurricane fighters early on.

[@alexpishvanov736]

You are misinformed. At least American Cobras and British Hurricanes are well covered by Russian WWII historiography and pilots memoirs. Especially Cobras. Yes, B-20 and B-25 are less known and have less mentions. Same as P-40. Because the number delivered is significantly less than Cobras. Nevertheless aviation fans know and appreciate the impact of those brilliant aircrafts to our joint victory.

[@ivannovorolnik5054]

trust me, they have been mentioned. been there :-) second best soviet fighter pilot Pokryskin got most of kills on Kobra and he writes accordingly about in his biography - published way back in 70´s. they did not hide it, actually there was a story about plastic model competition where some hyperactive commie complained about lack of soviet types (because most of kits was import from west and local producer was not up to task fast enough) so they overnight repainted and remarked some kits to lend lease soviet cammo :-) trust me, a lot of officers colonel + rank after war wrote memoires, lot of them went published in Breznev era so if you dig you will definitely find some writen by Boston or Mitchell pilots too

[@waskoNzoo]

@@EllieMaes-Grandad and Spitfires

[@neletg]

Actually the aircraft that totally fooled the Luftwaffe was the Mosquito.

[@davidcolley7714]

Nonsense. Just plywood trash

[@heaven-is-real]

@@davidcolley7714 faster than YOUR airplane

[@gregorysaugustine5236]

​@@davidcolley7714wasn't La-5, the topic of this video also partly made of plywood too? The same with the yak series.

[@gregbrown8503]

@@davidcolley7714 You are of course joking. That is possibly the most unserious comment I have yet to see even here on KZbin. Just in case anyone fell for it, the Mosquito was without any doubt whatsoever one of if not the most versatile, effective aircraft of WW2. When introduced, it literally could not be caught.

[@jamesferguson2353]

ok cretin@@davidcolley7714

[@marvwatkins7029]

If Horovitz died in his mission, how do they know all the details if this flight and fight?

[@johnbaker1256]

From other pilots in his unit? From reports by ground troops?

[@abcdef-qk6jf]

He invented the black box just in time for the show down...

[@albertobenevenuto77]

It was just Russian propaganda as they used to do today.

[@JSFGuy]

The early post today.

[@rafabankowski7737]

not may can spell Ławoczkin correctly, kudos!

[@NoelBarry-om9ms]

Well , they underestimated Ukraine.

[@jackx4311]

Didn't they, just!

[@hariszark7396]

Ah...the La -5. My favourite fighter aircraft from the Russian side.

[@allwinds3786]

Sort of opposite of the US P40 Warhawk story in reverse.

[@paddy1952]

Eject? Not from an La-5.

[@Chiller11]

What swung the air war in favour of the Soviets were the 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces.

[@yak55dvr39]

I am sorry, but I must question the accuracy of your statement. Don’t get me wrong, the efforts of the US Army Air Forces were extremely significant and served the "Coup de Grace" to the Luftwaffe. The draining of resources from the eastern front to counter the 8th Air Force was a significant aid to the VVS. However, after the battle of Stalingrad ending Feb 1943 and the battle of Kursk ending in July 1943, on the eastern front the back of the Luftwaffe had been effectively broken and they were in a losing, catch-up defensive posture in opposing the VVS from then on. Contrast that with the 8th Air Force's attempt to obtain air superiority over Europe during the air attacks on Schweinfurt in August and October 1943. The 8th Air Force almost had a mutiny on its hands after those battles. They pretty much had their asses handed to them. Luckily, they got their act together, and through the leadership of the newly appointed General Dolittle, the 8th was able to gain air superiority over Europe in the early part of 1944. Bottom line, could the VVS have defeated Germany without the efforts of the US Army Airforce? Very good question and can probably be debated forever. However, when comparing the relative strength and development of German vs Soviet forces after Stalingrad and Kursk, it probably would have been very close, but I wouldn’t be so quick to sell the VVS and the Red Army short. They proved themselves at Stalingrad and Kursk before the US Army Air Force had significantly contributed to the war effort.

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

Yak55 nailed the historic reality nicely. 80% of the ETO conflict was fought by the Soviets. Allied aid proved of immense help in both military machines and factory build ups. But, the battles the Soviets fought destroyed the German war machine. This reality runs counter to our nationalistic culture propaganda. War mythologies rarely stand up to scrutiny.

[@alexanderleo8947]

Approximately 85-87% of the Wehrmacht and its allies were destroyed by the Soviet Union. 75% of the Luftwaffe pilots were lost on the Eastern Front. Lend-Lease for the USSR amounted to 4% of its production. The Soviet Union also sent "Reverse Lend-Lease".

[@FlyingPastilla]

Why say "Y-A-K 7" when it's short for Yakovlev ? Makes no sense

[@SchoolforHackers]

AI voice.

[@klausschwabshubris]

Moral of the story, don’t underestimate the Russians.

[@Steve-gc5nt]

Or worse still, overestimate them.

[@klausschwabshubris]

@@Steve-gc5nt propaganda works on both sides, all we have is a choice of which lies we find less credible.

[@geedubb-q1u]

@@Steve-gc5nt..ask Zelinsky since he’s now drafting senior males to die on the front lines.

[@daveanderson3805]

Yup, that's what the Wehrmacht did, they underestimated the Russians. Didn't learn their lesson until Stalingrad. By then it was too late.

[@alanwayte432]

Moral is don’t underestimate the Ukraine’s

[@MatthewLawrence.]

It’s impossible to underestimate Russia, because they always perform below expectations

[@spina93]

No more in the name = no more in the project, that means sent to die in the gulag

[@MDzmitry]

A bit better than that: Gudkov came up with Gu-82 (La-5, but less polished and in September of 1941), was quite literally ghosted by Lavochkin for it and Lavochkin's supporters among the officials stalled the beginning of Gu-82's production. Then Lavochkin got cornered, thus forced to adopt M-82, and half a year after Gu-82 Lavochkin's La-5 made its first flight, with the "remarkable improvement" of 27 kmph maximum speed. That is considering that Gudkov had to remotorize a random serial LaGG-3, meanwhile Lavochkin was already (and later on, too) known for his aircraft struggling to meet the performance reached during test flights.

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

Strangely designers out of favor were imprisoned along with their staff and continued to design under the oppressive eyes of Sov authorities.

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

The whole Soviet Army was not ready given Stalin’s purge of the Generals right before the war.

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

The purge was one of Hitler's intelligence bureau's successes.

[@klaus-peterborn1370]

1943 half of the Luftwaffe fighter pilots are send back for homedefence, did ypu think that had no influence?

[@Charles-k9g5y]

Everything that happen in all areas had influence on all other areas.

[@AndrejMazak]

maybe ur right about numbers but there is much more you didnt consider

[@Charles-k9g5y]

@@AndrejMazak -- like what?

[@Charles-k9g5y]

@@AndrejMazak -- like what?

[@steveshoemaker6347]

🇺🇸👍👍👍👍

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

Michael was probably enjoying a working holiday hauling birch logs in a gulag.

[@ericvanlede481]

It must be emphasise that the quantum leap in quality and performance was due to allied (essentially us assistance ! The Soviet receive plans of planes engine, better kérosène, radios, explosives and lots of aluminium to produce the cover plates of the fuselage and tail ! Without this assistance we can wonder if the Soviets would have been able to go so fast in the reconquest ?

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

Ericvanlede481 & bona fides complete engines too. When it’s not entire planes P39s, P47s, A20s, B25s …

[@alexanderleo8947]

Lend-Lease for the USSR amounted to 4% of its production. The Soviet Union also sent "Reverse Lend-Lease".

[@bobwilson758]

For the ruzzian ace’s bravery , his ma was sent a sack of taters ! 😂. WTF ?

[@AndyFromBeaverton]

In the clouds, the La-5 was no match for its opponents.

[@Kevin-mx1vi]

But on the Russian front, most air combat took place below 10,000 feet, where the German fighters had no advantage.

[@AndrejMazak]

and on the ground for tanks

[@danielreichert2025]

Never underestimate industrial might of a cornered nation 😝

[@r.ladaria135]

In 1943 around the 80% of the LW was in the ETO and North Africa ... etc.

[@simonrichards6739]

If a spitfire and Hurricane had a Russian baby!

[@AndrejMazak]

sorry go to eye doctor. Spitfire babies accordig to look are yaks

[@dougclem7711]

I see a few AIR COBRA influences.

[@MDzmitry]

Sorry, but not even close. They're quite literally different in every aspect imaginable except for both being monoplanes.

[@hepphopp5948]

Sturmovick

[@daveanderson3805]

Wasn't that plane still used by communist forces during the Korean war?

[@MrDdaland]

By the time of Korra. Most were La-7 or La-9. All looked very similar though

[@achimotto-vs2lb]

you dont fool no one

[@jamesragus1577]

Complimentary algorithm enhancement comment!

[@tesmith47]

why would a russian pilot land on a german field?????

[@gregbrown8503]

Out of fuel, damage, shit navigation?

[@abcdef-qk6jf]

Lack of landing gear cocktails or the opposite.

[@alexanderleo8947]

He destroyed the ninth plane by ramming it. In doing so, he damaged the propeller of his La-5 plane.

[@Cornel1001]

LA-3 was build with engines of Su-2. Su-2 engines were available with thousands all over CCCP , long time before 1941 ! The engine had almost 2000 HP, while the Me109 in 1941 had 1150 ! Develped in record time ? All military hardware of soviets were devloped before war, long tim before war, in same cases like 10 years. T34 mean tank developed in 1934. KV1/KV2 cannot be developed in 1 year, or 5 there you will need 10 years at list.

[@paulring4267]

Looks like a British Spitfire

[@hujack3747]

La-5 was indeed a great improvement to the VVS but still significantly inferior to German aircrafts

[@DB-jc5ns]

First!

[@marlboro9tibike]

In the rest of the world, you are in the program. IN SOVIET RUSSIA, the program is in you!

[@claudiomarcelosilva1087]

As an historian it always apalls how Westerners and East Asians too keep doing this very same mistake over and over. I find that Russian roughness makes many people be outright racist about them and their "lack of manners and sophistication and knowledge".

[@loneranger5349]

Americans so far ahead of Russia they should have just bought from America the Hellcats and Corsair could manhandle Germany

[@Charles-k9g5y]

How would you have got enough from USA to Russia?

[@mwbright]

American fighters were geared for high altitude combat, whereas on the Eastern Front, most air combat was between a few thousand and ten thousand feet. Our P-40's were far better suited for the Eastern Front, which was a fighter the US considered the least effective plane in its inventory.

[@Charles-k9g5y]

@@mwbright -- yes but you couldn’t have gotten enough to Russia to do any good.

[@AndrejMazak]

why europeans consider americans as stupid

[@MakerBoyOldBoy]

MWBright got it right. The Soviets had totally a low altitude tactical air force. No heavy bomber force. They countered the German combined offense with their own version. The P-40s sent over were worn out. The Sovs tried to shoehorn stronger engines into the tired airframes, but no go. P-40s had limited success. The clear Allied winner was the P-39. US Army mandated low altitude fighter it was loved by all who flew it, but excelled with Sov pilots who battled successfully with huge kill scores the same aircraft and pilots the European Allies had difficulty handling with 1/2 to 1/3 the kill scores. I suspect which never been discussed in print that the Luftwaffe airframes weren't designed for low altitude fighting and handled better at higher altitudes. Perhaps a tech mismatch. The P-39 was a decisive airframe which accomplished more victories than many more advanced later Allied models. It is one of the Best airframes of that conflict.

[@mariak6852]

Another Soviet propaganda lie. To shoot 8 planes this hero would have to land twice, to reload ammunition. Or did he throw stones at them?

[@Charles-k9g5y]

One German pilot shot down 18 Russian planes in one day.

[@alexanderleo8947]

@@Charles-k9g5y If you mean Erich Rudorffer, most of his victories are fiction. As are the victories of Luftwaffe expert Erich Hartmann. Especially his three hundredth victory. Which in reality took place in a recording studio, from where the radio broadcast was conducted.

[@adolfopapini1656]

Russia rewriting history,as usual.

[@hughwilson-gm9bw]

And how are they doing that? The la5 and la7 were amongst the best fighters of ww2!

[@stevenstoll2016]

Improved by a copied American engine.

[@jimdavison4077]

All the mispronounced words make for an annoying video. Shame as the information is interesting.

[@bruceparker9353]

US designed engine? Yep.

[@ntabile]

The LAGG-3 looks like a US airplane. Was it a Lend lease one?

[@Turloghan]

Do You understand what You see? No, IT was a totally russian project.

[@AndrejMazak]

yes and yaks looks like smaller spitfire, they are from GB. but where were mig-3s from?

[@ntabile]

A P-40 Warhawk.

[@Turloghan]

​@@AndrejMazak MiG - 3 was a stolen Polikarpov projekt I - 200. It happened when Polikarpov was in Germany at visit over Germans airplane factories and construction teams, before war (when USSR and Germany were Allied after Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) in 1940. Artiom Mikoyan (lead young airplane constructor) had uncle(or brother) Anastas Mikoyan, who was a very important person in Stalins favor( he was accountable for all foreign trade translations) . When Stalin ordered a competition for new fighter plane, Anastas did some moves to make new construction team for Artiom, and because of lack of time , they simply get airplane I-200 project from Polikarpov with few engineers also (IT was easy , cause they spread rumors about possible execution of Polikarpov, cause he was a Christian Man, a thing absolutely disgusted by soviet reality) , than they renamed this project mamę to MiG, (first was -1 , than -3) , and they started to build prototype. When Polikarpov come back from Germany, he ground his team dismantled, workplace and factory taken by Yakovlew😏. That how MiG beaurou was established.

[@jeremypayler6631]

How many thousands were tortured to develope and build it ...never underestimate their animal instincts

[@sturdevantphotography5726]

You could just say thanks for taking on 200 divisions of front-line German troops and doing the heavy lifting against Germany, you sound like the animal in this scenario, a racist one at that

[@jeremypayler6631]

@@sturdevantphotography5726 using Georgian ,Ukrainian and poles as cannon fodder ...animals and calous.

[@MC-nb6jx]

@@sturdevantphotography5726… Here comes the “racist” insult🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️ The more it’s thrown around the more it loses meaning🙄🙄

[@talon0863]

Some guys, Lavochkin and Gorbunov worked on their own, unofficially to improve the LaGG-3 into the La-5. Design work was conducted in a small hut beside an airfield in early 1942. Stalin had gotten all pissed and canceled those guys because the LaGG was too slow and heavy against the ME 109s

[@sturdevantphotography5726]

@@jeremypayler6631 The US just used 400,000 Ukrainians as cannon fodder to make their political donors rich, knowing they couldn't win, so much for America's 'animal instincts'

[@stevebohlin7245]

Very nice CW patriotic propaganda

[@janrobertbos]

...skilled airman from ork country and sober?...hard to find...

[@klausschwabshubris]

Western propaganda victim above 👆

[@jamesmckay9966]

WHY DO YOU SPEAK LIKE YOU ARE OUT OF BREATH. EXTREMELY DISTRACTING.

[@billgiles3261]

it was an American engineer which made it what it was.

[@m0rvidusm0rvidus18]

I love the laughable hero story of 'Horovets', which was no doubt written by propaganda minster Bernstein himself. Horowitz, which was likely this pilot's actual name, who came to Russia to bless it with Bolshevism, did nothing special at all. He was in an La-5 fighter and shot down dive bombers. Even 30's fighters would do that with ease. Then he obviously made a pilot error and damaged his plane (and they rewrote it as a senseless ram attack) before being destroyed by some FW-190s.

[@toddhazzard1562]

Russia has been around for over 1,000 years. They Ain't Going Nowhere...

[@Steve-gc5nt]

They sure aren't going far though.

[@klausschwabshubris]

@@Steve-gc5nt why would the Russians move forward when the Ukrainians are helping them accomplish their stated goals ?

[@trevormccarthy9019]

Down the sewer again

[@klausschwabshubris]

@@trevormccarthy9019 did your baby mommy fail to carry another one of your sperm cells ?

[@toddhazzard1562]

@@trevormccarthy9019 with them, being around as long as Their Nation has been here; It's Historically been a rollercoaster CLUSTERFUCK.

[@geldoncupi1]

Referring to war documents Lavochkin was a very bad aircraft. Very bad engines that poisoned the pilots. Oil leaking was a big problem. It leaked so much that blinded pilot view and gases were all entered inside the cockpit by poisoning the pilot that had to fly with the cockpit glass open but even that wasn’t enough, they even piloted these planes with the head side out. In this channel I see, the information is not important, especially when it comes to slur the Germans. It’s boring !