Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/MAH001 Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days! *Contrary to my show notes I forgot to mention Soviet rotary-wing operations in Afghanistan. Big picture doesn't change but have a quote here:* "[Soviet] Counterinsurgency [CI] forces conducted a variety of ground and heliborne (desant) operations, usually platoon to company size […]. CI forces were normally inserted by helicopter into numerous positions from which they could support the advance of motorised rifle [MR] units, preempt ambushes, and occupy blocking positions [blokirovaniye] […]. They also carried out large and small raids […] supported by ground-attack fixed-wing aircraft and attack helicopters." McMichael, Scott (2002) “The Soviet Afghan War”, in Higham, Robin and Frederick W. Kagan, The Military History of the Soviet Union, Palgrave, p. 268.
@LarsAgerbk7 ай бұрын
you mentioned ww2, Korea and Vietnam. What about Afghanistan?
@johnd20587 ай бұрын
Thanks for the Afghan fill-in, sir.
@carkawalakhatulistiwa7 ай бұрын
Afganistan and irak
@zaco-km3su7 ай бұрын
Desant can mean paratroopers too.
@johnd20587 ай бұрын
@@zaco-km3su I think he covered that, although I would have said 'aerial insertions'.
@onogrirwin7 ай бұрын
The most surprising thing about the Russo-Ukrainian conflict so far is that general public seems to have completely forgotten that war involves casualties.
@WALTERBROADDUS7 ай бұрын
🤔 could you expand on that one?
@johnkole9537 ай бұрын
@@WALTERBROADDUS I think the take away is that the public in the west became very used to the low intensity, precise, counter terror operations in the Middle East. Or the overwhelming advantage that the west had in the Gulf Wars. That western public’s came to expect war to continue being like the past two or three decades, where western militaries might suffer less than a few hundred casualties annually. Now we sit on the sidelines of a near peer war and it is eye opening to see the expense involved both in lives and riches.
@WALTERBROADDUS7 ай бұрын
@@johnkole953 I think it's more folks in the West would not throw away an entire generation on this operation. Both sides have degenerated into attrition Warfare. Also Western people have a political system that would have removed leadership by now.
@matthewgibbs68867 ай бұрын
only money the grift must continue
@cactuslietuva7 ай бұрын
@@johnkole953 the thing is the west isn't fighting directly and doesn't seem to care much about how many Ukrainians lives are lost
@cesargonzalez41467 ай бұрын
For the same reason the Americans didn't gave up on helos after losing more than 1000 during Vietnam, because they're pretty useful.
@ibubezi76857 ай бұрын
5.000, in total.
@leme56397 ай бұрын
@@ibubezi7685 5000 in 20 years.
@sage52966 ай бұрын
Ask not what you can do to the helicopter, but what the helicopter can do to you. Even if it's not invincible, it still does things no other platform can do quite as well
@Appletank86 ай бұрын
No equipment is in invincible, the only criteria is whether it can do what you need it to while it's still usable.
@agsystems82205 ай бұрын
Has the US ever conducted an operation overseas without crashing at least 1 helicopter?
@sae1095hc7 ай бұрын
A continent-sized country that has 2 million square kilometers of swamp will be irresistibly drawn to choppahs.
@carmenschumann8267 ай бұрын
. . . that then amounts to 1 'choppah' per 1500 km² in total and finally to 1 actively usable 'choppah' per 10000 km² for all the many assigned tasks . . .
@@zaco-km3su That depends. Russıans living in Moscow & Saint Petersburg see the rest of the population as goblins living in swampland.
@georgesears29167 ай бұрын
@@zaco-km3su Do they have any jungle? Or have I played too much MGS3...
@thiefsleef67527 ай бұрын
The Ka-52 played a significant role in stopping Ukrainian armored columns during the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive
@AlexLee-dc2vb7 ай бұрын
Is there a reason why Stingers weren’t doing the trick at that time? Edit: guys thank you for the answers but this was literally explained dozens of times a full month ago, you don't need to keep replying
@thiefsleef67527 ай бұрын
@@AlexLee-dc2vb Maybe they were not in range to use manpads but another thing to consider is that the Ka-52 fires long range anti-tank guided missiles so I’m sure the alligators were sitting behind the frontline
@markusdegenhardt86787 ай бұрын
@@AlexLee-dc2vb range was the reason. The russian helicopters flew low above the ground and shot their AT missiles at a range of 10-12 km. Ukraine had no answer to that. But the USA gave Ukraine an answer to the helicopters after the ukrainian offensive had already failed. The answer were ATACMS. They did destroy many russian helicopters on the ground.
@Alan.livingston7 ай бұрын
I think someone said it already but the ukes were short of longer range interceptors and the Russians were able to stand off beyond the range of manpads. As the ukes have shown, it’s much easier to dictate the terms of the engagement when you are defending.
@samsungtap41837 ай бұрын
Stand off munitions !
@grizwoldphantasia50057 ай бұрын
My memory of US army helicopters is that when the air force split off from the army in 1947, they wanted to control all aviation assets, including aircraft carriers and ground support. The navy stopped their part of it, and the army managed to retain support of very small aircraft and helicopters, because all the air force really wanted was bombers and fighters. Thus one reason the army turned to helicopters so much during the Korean War (1950-3) and Vietnam War (1965-1972) was because it was all they were allowed to have, and to everybody's surprise, helicopters turned out to be pretty darned useful, especially once they started using turbine power instead of air-cooled radials left over from WW II. How much of this is true, in the practical sense? If the army had kept ground support planes and small transports, would helicopter usage have been slower? And how much of other countries' helicopter usage was influenced by the US army's success with the Huey and other early turbine helicopters?
@obsidianjane44137 ай бұрын
"it was all they were allowed to have" That isn't really true. Because the Army was/is able to get fixed wing aircraft whenever there was a valid mission requirement for it. What the Nat. Sec. Act of 47 was designed to prevent was the creation of duplicate and redundant air forces in the DoD. "to everybody's surprise" To no ones surprise. The utility of helicopters was very evident and development of them is almost as old as airplanes.
@WALTERBROADDUS7 ай бұрын
US Army Aviation does have fixed-wing assets. And many of the advances should be credited to the Marine Corps development of tactics and machines.
@gregoryschmitz21317 ай бұрын
Spot on. Remember when the Army fought to get the C-27 fleet? The USAF was not supporting them so the Army wanted them. Then the USAF fought them tooth and nail and the Army said ok, support us then. And then as the USAF could, they could they dumped them. We don't want them and you can't have them.
@WALTERBROADDUS7 ай бұрын
@@gregoryschmitz2131 Those the C27s the Coast Guard wound up with?
@grizwoldphantasia50057 ай бұрын
@@gregoryschmitz2131 And the A-10, same thing. Air Force pilots want to zoom around, not drop things in the mud
@geodkyt7 ай бұрын
A crucial piece of Soviet development of helicopters is actually more *civil* than *military* (although there were strong, related military drivers). Basically, Siberia and the southwestern USSR had (and still have, now under the Russian Federation) very poor transportation infrastructure in most locations. The need for vertical lift heavy transport and STOL transport were critical to being able to exploit the natural resources of these regions. Likewise, the *defense* of these regions heavily drove towards a robust helicopter and STOL capacity. This in turn made incorporating helicopters heavily into defense doctrine *in general* a common sense driver - might as well make a virtue of a requirement, so as to "dual use" the capacity you were going to have to develop and buy anyway - since you need the helos and short field cargo lift to handle stuff in remote regions, it's only logical to incorporate those capabilities into your war plans for Western Europe. Russia inherited a military shaped by Soviet requirements, which is entirely predictable that they'd lean in on areas that outside factors *forced* their Soviet predecessors to develop heavily.
@ycplum70627 ай бұрын
Yep. Resources (to include farmland) in the vast interior of Russia east of the Urals is extremely dispersed such that it does not make economic sense to have significant roadways that needs to be maintained regularly. This is especially true in the permafrost regions that turns into a muddy marsh in the summer. It barely warrants rail lines. However, there are pockets of natural resource wealth. The helicopter is perfect as a means of transport from these pockets to the rail lines when the roadways (which are poor in the best of times) are not passable.
@kenon69687 ай бұрын
That's a very interesting analysis, thanks
@malithaw7 ай бұрын
Great analysis
@viniciusmv77277 ай бұрын
Very good point
@williamzk90837 ай бұрын
I've worked on mine sites in Siberia. Helicopters are generally too expensive. Transport is by Truck during winter using frozen over rivers and lakes. In summer or the thaw nothing gets in or out that way and STOL is used. The Helicopter is useful for establishing the camp.
@bigblue69177 ай бұрын
There was a growing concern during the 1980s that in the event of a war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO that the Soviets would be able to land a very large force of troops support by attack helicopter behind NATO lines so that NATO forces would be caught in a pincer movement between the two. One proposal put forward was for a very agile aircraft which would fly at very low level which would hunt down these helicopters. It would be of canard configuration to improve agility with a turboprop engine mounted at the rear and possibly carrying the M61 Vulcan rotary cannon and a number of air to air missiles. The project was halted when the Soviet Union collapsed.
@rudboypaintbrawl7 ай бұрын
If I remember correctly that project was somewhat inspiration for polish small ground support aircraft PZL - 230 Skorpion en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL-230_Skorpion
@billywoods33377 ай бұрын
SABA - Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft
@bigblue69177 ай бұрын
@@rudboypaintbrawl Thanks. I'd forgotten about the Skorpion. It reminds me somewhat of the Sukhoi Su-35 which first flew about the same time.
@bigblue69177 ай бұрын
@@billywoods3337 That was it. Thanks I was trying to remember that. Well at least the missile made it to service. It would have made a great ground attack aircraft in Afghanistan instead of the A-10. Nothing against the A-10 but it was like using a Rolls Royce for pizza delivery
@jnievele7 ай бұрын
There were various takes at the anti-helicopter role... For example the AlphaJet and Hawk weren't just trainers, in wartime one of their roles would have been hunting helicopters with their gun pods and Sidewinders. Arguably the MBB Lampyridae might have covered that nice as well, as a stealth fighter it would have been far less vulnerable over the FEBA, and it was a bit small for an air superiority fighter.
@iwantyourcookiesnow4 ай бұрын
Woke up at 3:30am to pee. Can’t sleep. Learning about Russian helicopters.
@thomasfsan7 ай бұрын
Should have mentioned that mass air mobility forces the enemy to take a more spread out defensive posture. You have to be ready for attacks basically anywhere, and maintain many small reaction units all over. The threat alone is valuable.
@TWhite-uw5dl7 ай бұрын
Important context to keep in mind is this is a peer to peer war, or LSCO whichever buzzword you want to use. But it’s a very different war from the COIN operations we’re accustomed to, and something NATO planners need to look closely at as we inch closer and closer to a possible hot war in the Indo-Pacific. In Vietnam, the U.S. alone lost 5607 helicopters, and 10,000 aircraft total. We lost 134 in Afghanistan. The VKS’ performance in this war has been underwhelming, however, their losses are far from crippling. And it’s quite likely annual Russian aircraft production is able to keep pace with its current loss rate, which has dramatically decreased since the very kinetic opening days of the war.
@9and77 ай бұрын
Well said.
@ChucksSEADnDEAD7 ай бұрын
Their losses are crippling. It's Russia. Not the economic powerhouse that is the US.
@dusanbolek80047 ай бұрын
Well, that's not entirely true. Not only because Russian aircraft production since the fall of the Soviet Union was not very high to begin with and a lot of production capacity was lost. But also because Russian Air Force is rather untypical in the fact that they rely a lot on planes that are no longer in production or produced in very low numbers. So lot of these losses in Ukraine are very hard or even impossible to replace, because that manufacturing capacity simply doesn't exist anymore. And also it is always not about absolute numbers, but what they mean for the force. Yes, for example over 3.000 Hueys were lost in Vietnam, but more than 16.000 were built and at the end of the war despite the losses US had more Hueys that they had a need for. Which btw was one of the reason for those high numbers of losses, that especially at the end they were considered a surplus, not something that needs to be repaired if it is too much fuss. On the other hand, out of prewar Russian Kamov Ka-52 fleet, probably something around 60 % of prewar capacity has been already lost and such rate of attrition is pretty much crippling for any force.
@carkawalakhatulistiwa7 ай бұрын
@@dusanbolek8004 I don't even see Ukraine using helicopters these days.
@phoenix2112457 ай бұрын
Do note that the VKS is using its most modern forces, while it is quite large, the lost aircraft are pretty much solely the most modern units they have. If we take their pre-war domestic and export deliveries as a baseline, and add say, 40% to that to account for crash production cycles, they have lost about 9-10 years of modern strike helicopter production (ka52, mi28, mi35), and about 5-6 of modern strike/multirole plane (su34). They also lost around 30 CAS (SU25), that's around 4 years for modernization, they no longer produce that airframe. No, they are not keeping up with the losses, but again, they are something they can rebuild. Then again, the announced deliveries of the f35 for 2024/2025 are larger than the entirety of modern Russian fixed wing air force (su35, su34, modernized mig31, mig35). Just to compare the scale we are talking about.
@stupidburp7 ай бұрын
The reason isn't so much due to doctrine as much as war necessity. Russia clearly is aware of the risks of operating helicopters in contested airspace but needs the utility provided by highly mobile firepower. Slow moving or static ground based artillery is now at least as vulnerable near the front lines because of the transparency provided by drones and satellites. Of course a MANPADS can take down a helicopter but a drone can take out a piece of ground equipment too. Russia has a high tolerance for risk and an aggressive war objective, this then leads to using everything available that can provide military utility.
@carmenschumann8267 ай бұрын
. . . until now it are always (some) people who are aware of something - NOT RU !!!
@JG-xm8jy7 ай бұрын
Exactly, this idiot made a while video and just blubbered without saying anything meaningful😂😂
@jerryle3794 ай бұрын
People forgot it a war , you lost your equipment, during Vietnam war the american lost thousands of helicopter , doesn't mean helicopter are shit , it just proved them useful assets in a war
@asavelakuse68657 ай бұрын
Helicopters did help last year during the starting stages of the Ukrainian counteroffensive last year
@rick74247 ай бұрын
True.
@skitidet43027 ай бұрын
Offensive*
@michaelmclaughlin48897 ай бұрын
@@skitidet4302 no he was right counteroffensive
@skitidet43027 ай бұрын
@@michaelmclaughlin4889 If you're going to call it that you need to put it in quotation marks since it's not a counteroffensive, just an offensive. Just because some propagandist thought counteroffensive sounded better doesn't actually make it so.
@Naptosis7 ай бұрын
@@skitidet4302 No. The other person was right and you are incorrect. If someone invades your home and starts ethnically cleansing your family, fighting back counts as a 'counteroffensive'. 'Offensive' moreso describes russia's attempted invasion of Kyiv, at the beginning of russıa's failed attempt at quickly conquering Ukraine.
@sidharthcs21107 ай бұрын
As if everyone else is not using them
@obsidianjane44137 ай бұрын
This was my take as well.
@marek97847 ай бұрын
@@obsidianjane4413 yeah it's very weird, if the US where losing 15% of their helikopters full scale war against a near 🍐 , and they are still are still a positive I'd think it'd be stupid to say that still using them is stupid.
@DiggingForFacts7 ай бұрын
If you're choosing to focus specifically on the why of *one* party doing or using something, you're not automatically assuming nobody else is; it means you're choosing to limit what to talk about so it doesn't bloat beyond your current focus.
@atomic09147 ай бұрын
@@marek9784US lost dozens in Iraq and hundreds in Vietnam
@ashifabedin7 ай бұрын
@@atomic0914 During the Vietnam War, the United States military lost at least 5,195 helicopters to combat or accidents
@spiff10037 ай бұрын
The answer is a question.... Why should they? When in war, you do not omit any asset unless they are extremely vulnerable.
@TheVigilante20007 ай бұрын
Yes, the question is; Why would they do it? High speed air-to-air drones. Kind of like air mines. As is, pretty safe low and behind the lines.
@swingingbunny35507 ай бұрын
if you mentioned Market Garden - one problem was that you can't evaquate the ground forces, it's one way ticket for gliders and patatroops. with helicopter you can do it in relativly ease.
@zaco-km3su7 ай бұрын
The Russians have a branch for airmobile/air assault units and paratroopers. It's not a surprise that they will use helicopters a lot. The Deep Battle concept was developed by the Soviets as a response to the problems of WW1 that the Russian Empire faced. Paratroopers were part of the deep battle doctrine. Thing is that during WW2 the first helicopters were used by the US. The Soviets found out about this and they developed their own helicopters because they thought airmobile/air assault units could be just as useful as paratroopers and maybe that airmobile units could be used when paratroopers can't. The Russians got the Soviet equipment, Soviet military thinking and a whole lot of land. Helicopters have their uses in hilly and mountainous areas.
@gaborrajnai62137 ай бұрын
Yeah, choppers are awesome. Drones are good in these frozen frontline condition, however when the frontline breaks that heavy firepower and airlifting capability will pay dividents.
@GrahamCStrouse7 ай бұрын
Not really. Dedicated attack choppers are nearly useless in the ground attack role unless you have air dominance. This has been true since the ‘80s.
@bobsemple93417 ай бұрын
@@GrahamCStrouseno proof of this claim obviously since it's pure cope. Embarrassing
@bobjones-bt9bh7 ай бұрын
except...it won't. everything that everyone believes about warfare is now bullshit in the age of the FPV. FPVs can stall ANY breakthrough. FFS look at the present major war.
@brigadgeneralvoid25087 ай бұрын
@@GrahamCStrouse It works well enough if the enemy doesn't either
@joelgrosschmidt55077 ай бұрын
The Hind looks exactly like a helicopter the bad guys would have
@joelgrosschmidt55077 ай бұрын
@YellowLab-rb6xn I love how it looks. It doesn’t look like friend
@RipRLeeErmey7 ай бұрын
Probably because so many Western movies used it as a helicopter the bad guys have. Remember: weapons don't have loyalties. Soldiers do.
@uroskostic85707 ай бұрын
Unlike Apache and Comanche,names of native tribes that US government have exterminated.
@ali-haider57887 ай бұрын
They always show it in the hands of bad guys in videos games and movies 😂 Even tho even half of us allies use it its an amazing peice of equipment
@dzonikg7 ай бұрын
For me is most bad ass looking helicopter ever
@perkl12347 ай бұрын
I haven't seen anyone do a realistic analysis on drones against helicopters. The thing is, helicopters are at their most vulnerable in takeoff and landing, ie. the moment they need to drop troops on the target area and get the copters back in air again. Defenders don't want to bombard their own airfield with heavy artillery, SAMs are rare and expensive, you can't tie down troops to defend every possible target in the potential air assault range. What you can do is set up drone storage near the important strategic targets. As soon as you can predict reliably what the target is going to be, send up Lancets and quadcopters. Casualties taken in the first minute of the air assault really sap the attackers strength and decrease their chances of taking and holding their target. It doesn't matter whether it's VDV, their support weapons & ammunition or the copters themselves that get taken out, it's all bad. Jamming that deep in enemy territory is hard and there is no reliable kinetic defense against drones. And this is of course only with the drones we currently have. It doesn't take much to design a barrage balloon-style suicide drone swarm with enough explosives to take copters in descent down. It's just software for existing stuff. If a helo falls as little as 10-15 meters during landing attempt everyone inside is incapacitated for the duration. Assaulting a target becomes much harder if you can't have fire support from gunships or even land directly at the target area.
@orlock207 ай бұрын
Remember it was 50 years between the bi-plane and the F-15. Drone technology is going to increase at an even faster rate as there are already armed drones.
@jakob76937 ай бұрын
"WWWWWHHHHHHHAAAAAATTTTT MILITARY USES HELICOPTERS??????😱"
@class.C7 ай бұрын
"russia has a lot of helicopters! Thats actually a bad thing!"
@ali-haider57887 ай бұрын
@@class.Cwhy ?
@valentinrblr2056 ай бұрын
Currently reading Red Storm Rising. After a failed attack against NATO forces near a German town, the Soviet general concluded that choppers don't fit anymore in missiles saturated battlefields. The book was published in 1986.
@davidbrennan6607 ай бұрын
Doctrine.😊
@onetwo51557 ай бұрын
First thought too, but I had to press "play" regardless.
@DENISKALIMULIN6 ай бұрын
they forgot Afghanistan and the operations that Soviet troops carried out where helicopters became almost everything, the golden era of Soviet special forces
@davidgab44487 ай бұрын
I strongly suggest Perun's video on the use of helicopters in the Ukraine.
@pRahvi07 ай бұрын
"Helicopter is the bully of a battle field" or something along those lines
@Astorath_the_Grim7 ай бұрын
Nah
@scotsbillhicks7 ай бұрын
I remember reading Frank Chadwick’s designer notes. Rotor is to track as track is to foot. The lesson of Arnhem was that airborne operations had to be within range of supporting forces, especially artillery. GSFG was well provided. As with dedicated CAS aircraft there is another advantage to helicopters - proximity to the front line, and the ability to generate sorties. If a helicopter is being maintained and resupplied minutes behind the front line then it can get there quicker.
@DavidE-vc8gy7 ай бұрын
It seems to me that Russia’s doctrine seems to depend, more than competing doctrines, on numerical superiority. The idea of Deep Battle, where one attacks all along the line, looking for weakness, requires you to have enough troops at every point on the line that you can potentially make a breakthrough if the line is weak there. That sounds like a lot of troops, many more than just having a single Schwerpunkt.
@bobjones-bt9bh7 ай бұрын
and US doctrine depends on what...fantasy? Hapless 3rd world nations as opponents? Isn't that what NATO does now? Wars are basically won most often by numerical superiority
@Axonteer7 ай бұрын
I mean it makes sense, if your army is set up to work in a certain way you need to play the game that way else you invest a lot into something you dont use and the other parts of your army take a hit because of that... on the other hand, knowing your army is set up for heavily using helicopters would usually lead to people target that achilles heel.... One thing i wonder, is it easier to train helicopter pilots than jet pilots? I would assume so but i have no clue so i might be dead wrong.
@Klovaneer7 ай бұрын
Both have incredibly high skill ceiling, how russians perceive that is open to discussion but i've seen excellent handling from both Ka-52 and Su-25 pilots. I'd say initial fixed wing aircraft training is easier, a plane innately wants to stay in the air.
@Axonteer7 ай бұрын
@@Klovaneer i hear often that helicopter npilots are cowboys. I didnt believe that until i saw a bell something civilian helo hauling cargo underslung and dong that crane oendulum whip around to perfectly place it without a single correction. So yea there is deffo a high ceiling. I was more curious about the point of getting combat ready, and i guess pure logistics pilots are also differently trained from attack helos?
@robertkeaney99057 ай бұрын
There's a larger pool of civilian helicopter pilots to draw from. Especially in the more far east parts of russia with bad infrastructure where Helicopters are used super heavily.
@-KingOfKhaos7 ай бұрын
It’s really no surprise as rotary aircraft remain one of the most versatile tools in any modern combat forces. However they are only effective mainly when the adversary they are used against is less than a near peer adversary force. For example Russia couldn’t simply use helicopters effectively as a combat force deployment asset against someone like China or the U.S…
@TheGreatAmphibian7 ай бұрын
Every weapon works better against less well-armed opponents…
@Rokaize7 ай бұрын
@@TheGreatAmphibianYeah but especially helicopters. Which are very vulnerable to more advanced gear like manpads.
@Klovaneer7 ай бұрын
@@Rokaize Manpads are middle cold war tech. They can't be produced in a shed but neither can be ZU-23 that get mounted on pickup trucks.
@TheGreatAmphibian7 ай бұрын
@@Rokaize Helos are vulnerable to manpads. Jets are vulnerable to big SAMs like the S300 in the air and ballistic missile strikes on the ground. Tanks to atgm. Artillery to counterbattery. You’re not being realistic. In real wars, all assets are attritted at a horrible rate.
@fridrekr75107 ай бұрын
That’s what I kept thinking throughout the video. When has this actually worked? All the airmobile VDV successes have been sneak attacks before or immediately when hostilities broke out. As soon as the actual war begins, they always turn their paratroopers into glorified infantry.
@ashifabedin7 ай бұрын
During the Vietnam War, the United States military lost at least 5,195 helicopters to combat or accidents
@orlock207 ай бұрын
300 of them were from hitting the only telephone line in the country.
@TheSMR19697 ай бұрын
Yeah, people love to bring up Iraq but forget how badly USAF got it in Viet
@andrew.lanc3r7 ай бұрын
The number is 5607, and almost 10,000 if inlcuding fixed wing aircraft. Either way that's a huge number
@TheSMR19697 ай бұрын
@@andrew.lanc3r yeah Vietnam had incredibly well layered defensive networks of AA guns. Mobile and easily hidden and moved
@RAIDENCHEEKS7 ай бұрын
Thinking about it while Russia has only 50.000 confirmed casualities in ukraine ( around same as vietnam, my source is bbc mediazona. ) Russia has only lost what 500 aircraft? ( including fixed wing & helicopters ) and for a nation with such a well developed and advanced anti air system using s300s and patriot systems, I argue thats pretty good. Also ka50s and ka52s are amazing with real survival systems, such as a ejection seat which I think all western helicopters need.
@DanOBrien-q1g7 ай бұрын
So basically Russian tactics are good they just have to practice them more .The Russians build sold choppers . the Mi-8 has done great service in many countries .. reliable.. high lift..good payload .Always impressed with the Kamov helicopter and variants too which redirects power wasted in conventional helicopters for torque compensation to driving another main rotor albeit with more complexity .These choppers get 20% more lift for the same power . Its also a safer chopper to dismount from as the rear rotor is a real hazard .Choppers can swing around suddenly and collect troops with the rear rotor and so on . Also they are prone to breaking off and once that rear rotor is lost so is the chopper...and crew . The Kamov alligator blows the rotors off and allows crew to eject .. impressive ..works too
@jbroskito7 ай бұрын
No idea when I followed this channel but glad I did. Excellent analysis
@angeurbain61297 ай бұрын
The question in itself is wrong. It should insteadL why for Russia using helicopters still make sense.
@Astorath_the_Grim7 ай бұрын
Sounds too neutral. Gotta make it sound anti Russian for the KZbin algorithm.
@joeswift4035 ай бұрын
I'm surprised you didn't mention the use of helicopters in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, this made huge use of mobile troops and was where they developed much of their approach to warfare
@Girder37 ай бұрын
To add a bit of background to Soviet doctrinal use of helicopters, apparently the Soviets were initially very critical and somewhat dismissive of the American's usage of helicopters in Vietnam. Reportedly it took a few years for them to warm up to the concept of dedicated attack helicopters. I could have sworn that I read a source that more outlined Soviet attitudes towards helicopters/attack helicopters in somewhere, maybe even a translated Soviet journal article, but I can't remember where. The one source I do remember is: Culhane, Kevin V. (1977). Student research report- The Soviet attack helicopter
@Erik_Arnqvist6 ай бұрын
Just like with tanks, there are still things that helicopters can do that nothing else can do a sufficient degree. So just like tanks, they are killable but still valuable. Every modern military still uses and will continue to use helicopters
@guitaristteacobouy7 ай бұрын
Mystic Shovels❤
@wdavis76556 ай бұрын
The list of helicopter advantages at 2:16 pretty much answers why Russia uses them.
@antongara60777 ай бұрын
don't know if it is mistake or just illustration of mi8, but there are belarusian mi8 from 10:22
@TheBizziniss6 ай бұрын
Attrition is a thing in war. It would be nice if we didn’t lose any equipment in combat but the reality is that isn’t the reality. The question is does it have great usefulness that makes it worth the cost of replacing the equipment when it is destroyed. Helicopters certainly do.
@MakintheMeats7 ай бұрын
The distribution of Manpads is making it so that the russian helicopter force is increasingly becoming a rear line support and transport corps
@MrZlocktar7 ай бұрын
Manpads rarely pose such threat to modern helicopters like Ka-52, the avionics and EWar on this helicopter is a state of the art, and the fact that not even tail hit can stop it, is a major component of survivability under fire from Manpads. The number of lost Ka-52 is extremely low when you compare it with how many flights they do. If manpads would be as effective as people think they are, then Ka-52 wouldn't be a living legend to the point that "every helicopter in Ukraine is considered as Ka-52". Something to consider.
@bobsemple93417 ай бұрын
No proof obviously
@Yosemite_Sam6 ай бұрын
Very thoughtful video and the comments are very interesting and informative. Great channel. Cheers from OZ
@naphatveraphong27357 ай бұрын
It is not just the Russians who can't stop using helicopters. One of my friend also cannot stop using helicopters; despite him 'the pilot' being more dangerous to the helicopter than the enemy's missile. He brought us countless defeats in squad and rising storms 2; and never giving up his dream of becoming the one true pilot (he is actually trying his best).
@tubeuaccount4 ай бұрын
Just about general/historical helicopter doctrine, what occurred to me is that making light infantry air mobile, even with gunships, doesn’t stop them being light infantry.
@highlands7 ай бұрын
Had to watch this twice because I knew TinTin never went to Vietnam but then lost confidence and had to spend 10 minutes researching in order to repair the fabric of my universe.
@robertkeaney99057 ай бұрын
He passed through Indo China while he was traveling from India to China. So, yes. But also no.
@josephluscavage81627 ай бұрын
When your agricultural land is the least productive of all major producers you never accumulate the excess capital to invest in an internal highway system. This leads to the Russians dependency on rail to move everything from their short crop of spring wheat to troops. Helos are their "rapid" mode of transportation. Need to transport oil engineers to a rig in Siberia or put out a fire on the tundra it's the only thing going to get it there in a reasonable time when your country covers 11 time zones. It' has been only within recent times that the Russians have fielded "specialized" rotor craft. From the beginning they have all had those Russian qualities of being simple to operate/repair, cargo capable, rough/hardy design with the ability to land on rough airfields. We have all seen that the "dreams" of Russian "deep strike/penetration" not materialize. Just because you have the capabilities on paper to do something (in this case an "air envelopment") does not mean your army can. In fact, they have devolved into using tactics seen in WW2. Their army has always been an artillery army, supplied by rail (rail units are attached to every maneuver BN). You fire tens of thousands of shells a day, move forward as little as yards and then do it again the next day and the next day. Look at all of Russia major conflicts, the first year is always a shitshow (the Russians have been invaded 50 times in their history) and then one of two things happen. They adapt or in cases of invasion of the motherland their weather degrades the attacking forces allowing the Russians time to adapt and push them back.
@robinharwood50447 ай бұрын
“the first year is always a shitshow ”. This seems to be the case for most militaries in a long war, when they discover (a) what worked in the exercises doesn’t work as well when the enemy are seriously shooting back, and (b) the enemy forces are just as confused, so they don’t react the way you expected.
@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю7 ай бұрын
So, what about Crimean, Russ-Jap, Finland and Afghan war as minimum?
@arsic0947 ай бұрын
That last point is absolute BS. Russian climate is as detrimental to a Russian infantryman as it is to any invader. It was Russians who degraded Napoleon, not the weather. The same goes for Germans.
@jgw99907 ай бұрын
@@robinharwood5044 That's an incorrect generalisation. While there is a learning curve, the sheer incompetence of Russia is in a league of its own.
@jgw99907 ай бұрын
@@ВладиславВладислав-и4юCrimea required the A team of Britain and France fighting Russia. The Japanese war was being fought away from Russia's main base of strength, while Russia spans out to Asia, most the population, economy and military are in Europe. The war in Finland happened after Stalin had killed all the competent officers
@TheNinjaDC7 ай бұрын
The problem with offensive helo tactics is the proliferation of manpads and anti helo equipment. Yes, jets have to deal with AA too, but the kind of systems used to shoot down jets is limited in numbers but covering a wide area. Making it easy to know the general area of danger which you can use in your plans. You can't hide a S400 or Patriot behind a bush. You can however hide manpads in lots of bushes. Made in mass, they can be carefully spread across the front line for hundreds of miles. Meaning a helo will almost always be at risk while on the offense hovering into a surprise manpad trap. This is why offensives with helos are so costly now.
@ImtheHitcher7 ай бұрын
Seems like those soviet air assualts are outdated now just due to information technology The successful examples of the past (Czechia, Afghan) worked due to the inability of the enemy to react but today we knew about the air assault on hostomel before it even got there, videos of helos charging towards it were online before they had even landed! News had picked up all the IL's taking off to follow up whilst they were still in Russia.
@VikingTeddy7 ай бұрын
Some of the desantniks were even bragging about the upcoming operation on socmed days before it started. And that shit has continued throughout the war. Absolutely no opsec. We heard about all those gathering areas and AHAs that got bombed just by tracking cellphones. And though Russia has tried to stamp it out, conscripts keep using their phones where they're not supposed to...
@CuriousCyclist7 ай бұрын
I've just discovered your channel. Really good content. Keep it up.
@TysoniusRex7 ай бұрын
So…how would Russia’s helicopter forces and tactics fare against a peer adversary, such as NATO? They seem to have a mixed track record in Ukraine.
@jsimmons99697 ай бұрын
Ukraine is a peer adversary. They are nato trained and equipped and now have more modern combat experience than any nato army.
@surelyyoujokemeinfailure75317 ай бұрын
@@jsimmons9969 But they still have older or Soviet-era stuff. Not Apache helicopters or A10 ground assault aircraft or, god forbid, something like the AC-130 gunship. Or F15s for that matter. Nor have they spent years using these things in joint exercises with NATO nations.
@bobsemple93417 ай бұрын
N a10 and ac130 would be useless on this war. We all see how uneducated u are on the topic by bringing them up
@surelyyoujokemeinfailure75317 ай бұрын
@@bobsemple9341 Is this a lame Z-bot attempt to call those two models useless?
@bobsemple93417 ай бұрын
@@surelyyoujokemeinfailure7531 I'm a bot for being smarter then you, jesus. Yes. Both are useless in a peer to peer war. This is common sense. Why are u struggling?
@user-lq2nu6cn7y7 ай бұрын
Loved the content, I think your vids will be more palatable if you utilized cuts so that stutters, restatements, and many other things can be removed making your presentation look much more professional especially for a complex subject like military history. Keep up the good work please!
@jonny-b49547 ай бұрын
Why would they? They've only lost 5% of them. Unless they became ineffective.
@cliveashleyhamilton7 ай бұрын
your speaking tempo is native level speed, you must have to speak English at work or something because if anything you are speaking quickly even for natives. As someone who can speak no foreign languages I think this is very impressive
@wogelson7 ай бұрын
My question: why is losing 100 helicopters in over 100 weeks in a very damn intense combat against a country that had Europe's largest air defense network BEFORE they received western air defenses such a bad result?
@chrisstrebor7 ай бұрын
This is interesting if true, they already had a tonn of air defense systems before the war eh?
@chrisstrebor7 ай бұрын
This is interesting if true, they already had a tonn of air defense systems before the war eh?
@philognosis64097 ай бұрын
@@chrisstrebor Yes actually and officially so. More generally the buildup from 2014 means that in 2022 Ukraine had greater military capabilities than all of NATO countries except the United States and Turkey.
@bobjones-bt9bh7 ай бұрын
the notion that the AFU was weak or 2nd rate- they'd have stomped any army in NATO including the USA, who could not have stomached the casualties. largest and best equipped army in Europe for the past 2 years.
@wyne91457 ай бұрын
@@philognosis6409 You Forgot Greece which have Bigger conscript armed force compared to pre war Ukraine
@ammoniawilder44517 ай бұрын
You use what you got and you make it work.
@torinthewild7 ай бұрын
How is this even a question? Helicopters are extremely useful and versatile in both civilian and military sectors. Why does Russia still use computers? Why does Russia still use drones? Why do Russians still eat food? We can ask stupid questions all day.
@ethanyeung62166 ай бұрын
...it is a valid question, because what it actually means is "How necessary is the speed and responsiveness of helicopter-based fires to the Russian way of war, and for what reasons have cheaper and less vulnerable systems been unable to fulfill the same role?" While helicopters are generally useful for militaries, some armies have more or less focus on them. South Korea, for instance, has a more defensive doctrine, so they stress land-based artillery more than attack helicopters. They still have the copters, but the war they'd need to fight requires fewer of them.
@Allan_aka_RocKITEman7 ай бұрын
Great video, Chris...👍
@matsv2017 ай бұрын
What is strange to me is that IFV all don´t have some simple low power radar just to check if there are copters around. Something like the bofors 40mm would be pretty dangerous to a Hind. But as it is now (as we seen in Ukraine). a chopper can be hovering just a few km away and they troops on the ground not have a clue its even there. Stingers is all well and good, but they are typically mostly usefull when either its to late, or if you just happen to spot a chopper passing.
@TheGreatAmphibian7 ай бұрын
For one thing, a radar is a terrific beacon for missiles to home in on or to alert artillery. For another, helos spend a lot of their time hiding behind stuff where radar won’t see them. Then add in maintenance and limited space and weight carrying capacity.
@Punisher94197 ай бұрын
@@TheGreatAmphibian You also have the problem that autocannons lik ea 40mm doesn't have the range to target a helicopter 10km or more away where it can still engage you.
@TheGreatAmphibian7 ай бұрын
@@Punisher9419 Well, yes. To be honest I didn’t bother reading past the first sentence - I assumed the radar would be used to trigger countermeasures like smoke, etc.
@matsv2017 ай бұрын
@@TheGreatAmphibian I would say you are totally wrong about that. There are loads of wide band low power radar that would be incredibly hard to use for targeting. A modern solid state radar is incredibly light, take barley any space and are basically maintenance free. So i would say you are wrong on all points. Those radar system are already implemented in a host of addon equipment. Archer for example got 3 of them. one for the self defens pod, one artillery radar and one outbound radar.
@matsv2017 ай бұрын
@@Punisher9419 The attacks is barley ever.. or pretty much non existent on those distances. Most attacks are in 2-3 km distances, and at a top 5. Even if the radar wouldn´t see the helicopter(that it most likely would due to the rotor basically being a radar reflector), it would still the the incoming missiles, being able to engage them, and then also figure out there origin and engage the place of origin.. Also worth saying that the 40mm shells exist in a smart version that prefragment before intercepting the target.
@davidewing90886 ай бұрын
I have always loved your perspective.
@jamesdelrogers5427 ай бұрын
Russia has always built very good helicopters , It's kind of a conundrum They're so vulnerable to shoulder fired weapons But at the same time. Their ability to fly low and hug the train Protects them from more robust surface air missiles And radar systems , Something that there fixed wing aircraft are highly vulnerable to Particularly if those missiles are supplied by nato . The k a fifty two the only helicopter with an ejection seat , Brilliant
@nigelgarrett79707 ай бұрын
I think that the ka 50 has an ejection seat too.
@forbeginnersandbeyond60897 ай бұрын
This is similar to the Vietnam war. The US relied on helicopters mostly.
@carmenschumann8267 ай бұрын
@@gort8203 UA ? or do you mean RU ?
@dabootvv7 ай бұрын
the doctrine sounds a lot like the german blitzing, where their mechanized troops tried to penetrate as deep as possible
@Ailasher7 ай бұрын
Because all modern land doctrine derives from WWI, in which the use of already relatively modern but not yet mobile, artillery led to positional stalemate. We can trace if not whole evolution here but at least one of the critical points: WWI: 1. Creating operational stalemate through the use of concentrated artillery fire against attacking forces. Infantry also gained increased resilience through the widespread introduction of automatic weapons (machine guns). 2. As a response to this: attempts at even greater concentration of firepower, but not in the form of more or less dispersed means of offense and defense, but by creating localized points of stress in the offense with tanks, hand machine guns, and special assault squads. WWII: 1. Actual development of solutions to positional stalemate in WWI. Development of not separate local means, but whole military doctrines based on these means. 2. The final transformation of positional warfare into "motor warfare". Advantage is given to those units that have increased mobility while maintaining firepower relative to more "traditional" types of army units. Mechanization of infantry and artillery: infantry carriers and various types of self-propelled platforms for artillery. Post WWII: 1. An attempt at greater interaction between air power and infantry. Not only in terms of coordinating strikes, but also in giving infantry even greater mobility while maintaining both strike and defensive capabilities. 2. Even greater development of technical means of coordination and control of troops. Greater reduce response between an event and the need to react to that event.
@hedgehog31804 ай бұрын
4:53 Can't believe that there's a heli with the official NATO designation of Hormone, makes it seem like the Su-75 Femboy isn't that far fetched.
@meldarion80387 ай бұрын
A bit of an odd title for the video, a few minutes in you list all the roles helicopters are capable of fulfilling. So why would they stop using them? Other than that minor complaint another good video. 👍
@adog31294 ай бұрын
your mic is really cool-looking
@romanberkutov25927 ай бұрын
1)Вертолеты вооружены ракетами на 15 км, изделие 305 ЛМУР там теле наведение, чтобы в форточку залетало 2)Вертолеты вооружены вихрями и атаками для борьбы с тяжелой техникой, что мы увидели в огромном количестве во время украинского "контрнаступления" 3)Вертолеты работают как средство поражения врага по территории и как активная поддержка пехоты, например при штурме городов 4)современные ка52, ка52м, ми28 вооружены бортовыми системами для борьбы с пво врага, в сети хватает роликов, как ракеты пзрк пролетают мимо вертолетов 5)Вертолеты учувствуют в боях против дронов. Ми 28 сбивали беспилотники на подлете к Москве, видео тоже есть, вертолеты уничтожают безэкипажные катера на Черном море, роликов тоже полно 6)Вертолеты занимаются эвакуацией летчиков, или доставкой спецназа 7)вертолеты - дешевле самолетов, как в производстве, так и в обслуживании
@EarlCorgi6 ай бұрын
Helicopters are always high loss assets. In the Vietnam war the U.S. lost 5,607 helicopters. Many air crew Medal of Honor awardees from the Vietnam war were helicopter air crew for good reason. I was a helicopter repairer that spent two years in Iraq and in the two years I spent there I can say that I personally saw four helicopters either written off and bombed in place or packed up in a C5 and sent back to the states because they were damaged beyond our capability to repair them. One of them was actual battle damage, a UH60 struck by an IED an enterprising insurgent had placed on top of a telephone pole because he noticed the helicopters always flew over poles, not between them. Given the intensity of the conflict in Ukraine I’m honestly surprised they’ve only lost 100 so far.
@typxxilps7 ай бұрын
Helicopters are the close air support of the spearheads of any assault. They have to prepare the advance and clear those streets cause you need to keep the speed and momentum on your side. Have you ever seen a column of cars on a red light ? If everyone slows starts to drive when the red light turns into green you are much faster than watching on the brake lights of the car just in front of you. No one should be able to stop the spearhead to keep that rolling and all the following units too. That is the key point in any breakthrough deep penetration attack which Helicopters can provide and jets just rather limited cause they are flying too fast to recognice and identify targets.
@sorover1116 ай бұрын
Great episode !
@davidjernigan81617 ай бұрын
Russia uses helicopter as manpad absorbers.
@lt.manch10167 ай бұрын
cry
@herptek7 ай бұрын
@@lt.manch1016Manpad absorber is the best use of helicopters.
@sweetio7 ай бұрын
Cope
@mikeck46097 ай бұрын
Exactly, just as Russian infantry serve as a mechanism to drain the enemy of small arms ammunition, Russian helicopters appear to be designed to attrite western manpads
@herptek7 ай бұрын
@@sweetio Might be the Russians who have to resort to coping strategies.
@TomatoFettuccini7 ай бұрын
Russia keeps using helicopters because only helicopters can do helicopter things. They are an incredibly useful and flexible asset with unique abilities. It's not the helicopters' fault that Russia has extremely poor doctrine and absolute lack of concern for loss of life and materiel.
@MrZombiekiller237 ай бұрын
No matter the cope, we all saw Russia change its helicopter doctrine to a way more successful one. From 2023 on, theyve been losing multitudes less down to single digits per month now. They used their choppers to crush the Ukrainian armored counter offensive so bad Ukraine gave up on using leopards after losing 30% of their whole stockpile in a few days. Keep coping like its Berlin 45'🤦
@brad_1388_7 ай бұрын
They aren’t losing them anymore because they aren’t flying aggressive sorties you clown. Hiding behind the horizon, at treetop level, waiting for the enemy to come to you isn’t something to brag about. Their rotary wing fleet has been completely defanged, and is unable to provide any meaningful support for the constant failed attacks the Russians have made every other week, for the last year.
@cleanerben96367 ай бұрын
the way I always thought of late-cold war Soviet/Russian choppers is that they are a flying BMP
@garypowell90717 ай бұрын
One big problem, as in Afghanistan, MANPADS have mostly neutralized Russian frontline helicopter operations. That is why we mostly only see helicopters lobbing unguided rockets from far behind the frontlines. Air assault operations are almost unknown since Hostomel. The entire Russian doctrine for helicopter operations has been turned on its head. In addition, as we have seen recently Russian helicopter bases near the frontlines are susceptible to ATACM strikes. Pulling these bases back out of range further decreases the effectiveness of helicopter support operations. I also question how much of their stated air fleet, like much of the rest of their air forces, are actually operational. For example, I have seen reports that half of their KA-52s have been destroyed. Like the rest of the Russian military, their helicopter fleet is likely to have severe maintenance issues. The Mi-8 and MI-24 is old and parts availability may be an issue.
@Rokaize7 ай бұрын
Manpads didn’t neutralize helicopters. They accounted for a small percentage of helicopter losses in Afghanistan. In fact, the war was halfway over by the time manpads came into the country. They certainly changed things. But helicopters were still completely vital to the Soviets in Afghanistan even with stingers around
@Klovaneer7 ай бұрын
MANPADS were a bitch but they didn't impact helicopters in afghanistan nearly as bad as FPV drones have AFVs in ukraine. And there wasn't a single front in afghanistan, helicopters were vital to countering insurgencies. Their last afghanistan operation, Magistral, heavily relied on helicopter infantry insertion on strategic heights. Hostomel has failed because the logistic train from belarus got mauled, they underappreciated the force needed to escort it basically running trucks naked. Everything after that is pure speculation like with them running out of missiles every month.
@brunsheimmasterbaitwilfrie28117 ай бұрын
At the begining of the war there was this Ukrainian oligarch getting arrested for treason and I recall part of the accusation was, that one of his factories produced vital parts of Russian helicopters and he kept delivering after the war started. I would really like to know, whether they run on their last set of spares or if they found substitutes.
@Klovaneer7 ай бұрын
@@brunsheimmasterbaitwilfrie2811 That would probably be Motor-sich that produced helicopter turbines but russians have long since pulled that back to Klimov plant which is the original developer of engines in question. In 2014 actually.
@brunsheimmasterbaitwilfrie28117 ай бұрын
@@Klovaneer Thx!
@dimimurik39704 ай бұрын
Nice, thank you! Well, the Soviet/Russian doctrine is nothing new. The German Wehrmacht had similar concepts. The Allies in the WW2 wanted to implement these concepts on the D-Day and later on in the air landing operation in Holland... Helicopters became basically a replacement for the ground-attack planes from the WW2 like IL-2 or Ju-87 (Stuka). As for the "deep operations" in Ukraine, you see that the lack of training, mass incompetence and lack of resources on a strategic level on the Russian side limited the helicopters to a very shy combat machine firing from large distances and never crossing the front line. Likely, nobody can see now "cavalry charges" made deep into the Ukrainian territory.
@ycplum70627 ай бұрын
The US has always focused on precision, from our close air support to our artillery (traditional and missiles). That is not the case with the Soviets. Artillery was almost always against targets of mass and the Soviets did not put much of an emphasis on precision air support. [Now I am wondering if the Soviets even did close air support with fixed wing aircraft - with teh exception of the Su-25.] In many ways, Soviet (and now Russian) helicopters served the same purpose as the German Stukas in providing close and immediate infantry (or mechanized) fire support during advances.
@MrLBPug7 ай бұрын
Stukas provided tactical bombing support, not close air support. The Ju 87 wasn't even ideally suited for the latter role. Russian use of (attack) helicopters is much more akin to the use of the IL-2 ground attack aircraft by the Soviet air force during WW2. See Chris's video about that subject which he posted recently.
@joblo3417 ай бұрын
The unguided 70mm missiles we see helicopters (and aircraft) zooming up to launch, then peel off spraying decoy flares. How accurate are they? Can they hit something being aimed at, or are the mostly "spray and pray"?
@bbirda12877 ай бұрын
Russian tactics are very much spray and pray, or massed fires to level cities regardless of collateral damage. The unguided missiles on the Ukrainian side are more due to lack of availability of alternatives; US Forces would rain Hellfires. Lack of air superiority on all sides making air operations risky is also a big factor.
@gwtpictgwtpict42147 ай бұрын
I think it's somewhere in the middle? GPS etc lets you know where you are in relation to your target so not too difficult to calculate a firing solution to dump your rockets into a target grid square. Maybe WWII levels of accuracy?
@jsimmons99697 ай бұрын
I wondered that myself until i saw a thermal video of the impacts. Its about the spread and accuracy of cluster munitions. Maybe 200 meter spread. Granted the pilot got everything else right.
@robertkeaney99057 ай бұрын
They are targeting defensive positions to make the defenders duck, while their infantry advance. It's like aiming at an barn door with a shot gun loaded with bird shot.
@richardcarellano7 ай бұрын
Post WWII, the West returned to its roots and built up anti-insurgent, colonialist military forces. Russia never abandoned its history and continued to develop and field armies fit for mass-scale land battles
@Statueshop2977 ай бұрын
I don’t think that is correct. The western forces still have what’s required to fight a land war and to do other missions as required. Now there may be a case to say a large land war was not expected as nobody thought a full scale invasion of a country in Europe would happen.
@sagunsingh74157 ай бұрын
Not doing particularly well.
@weeznaz81957 ай бұрын
Helicopters, and tanks, won’t be discontinued until a clear and obvious replacement becomes available. Battleships weren’t phased out because they could be sunk, they were phased out because for the same raw materials and fewer crew you could build an aircraft carrier and destroyer bs just a battleship. I don’t think helicopters will be phased out until human bodies no longer need to be transported in and out of the battlefield.
@ivanstepanovic13277 ай бұрын
Ummmmm... Pretty much every army in the world use helicopters, for the same reasons. Don't see anything special or different to any army... Americans used them in every invasion: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam... In most of them against an opponent who doesn't have any meaningful air defense...
@Miamcoline7 ай бұрын
Very helpful thank you!
@mosu244 ай бұрын
It is cute seeing how a western guy tries to understand and to put logic behind Russian mentality and actions. The short answer is "because they have them". Russia is using helicopters because it has them. Right now they'd prefer to have extra btr3 s rather than helicopter but if they have them they will use them. Same reason they use anything that will perceivebly give them any edge, 80 yr old tanks or troop transports, Chinese bikes and so on. Pretty much the only time they used the copters the way it was supposed to was in the first month of the invasion. There is no 4d chess here at play, there is no doctrinal or otherwise reason. But yeah, I always have fun listening to western guys trying to shape Russian decisions or actions through some logical or rational lense.
@kencollins63247 ай бұрын
In the mid 1980's the West changed doctrine completely. They went towards using NGO's, financial systems, sanctions, political/military coups, assassinations, large drones, special forces and propaganda to achieve their goals. This approach reduced military casualties and can almost completely hidden from their citizens. The last European/US/NATO Divisional level exercise was OP Lionheart in 1984. Unfortunately this change of approach has led to the absolute atrophy of Western Militaries (excluding USA), to the extent that most of the EU nations don't have Armies, but rather, very small boutique militaries. If it came to a conventional conflict RIGHT NOW today, Russia would crush Europe completely. It would be a humiliating defeat. Lucky for Europe, it's clear that Russia does not want war with Europe.
@Axterix137 ай бұрын
That's pretty laughable. There is a conventional conflict going on right now, and Russia can't even quickly take Ukraine quickly, without NATO even being truly serious about supplying weapons, let alone troops. And the former WARSAW Pact countries that are now part of NATO aren't the slackers the western half of NATO is. Nor are the Fins or Swedes. And if you back up the determination of those countries to not ever again be under the Russian boot, with the air might of modern NATO planes, it would not be pretty for Russia. Which is why Russia doesn't want a war in Europe. It isn't the USSR. It's a country trying to pretend it is still as might as the USSR, without the industrial or economic capacity to be such.
@trikyy72387 ай бұрын
Soviet doctrine, strategy, and tactics: HULK SMASH Russian doctrine, strategy, and tactics: same but drunk
@SK-ik9mc7 ай бұрын
Let’s not forget KA-52’s proficient usage of ATGMs against Ukrainian armour has been significantly especially last summer and it’s still used allot today. another thing is the cruise missile Izdeliye 305 used every day against targets in Ukraine
@zJoriz7 ай бұрын
One detail, Chris... as far as I know it's "facilitate", not "faciliate". According to Google Translate, Germany does not use the word "fazilitieren", but "fazilitierung" apparently does exist.
@gviehmann7 ай бұрын
"Fazilitieren" reminds me of the old german aristocrats who spoke "Kauderwelsch" (a mixture of French and German) instead of today's widespread Denglish. It wouldn't be used by a radio speaker or TV moderator.
@zJoriz7 ай бұрын
@@gviehmann Ah, with a z. Makes more sense! "Mixture of French and German and Denglish" is a pretty apt description of my own language btw ;)
@flotterotto44916 ай бұрын
The better question would be: Why are they still using tanks which get blown up/destroyed so easily be cheap drones?
@AlexandarIvanov-uz2sl7 ай бұрын
Russia doesn't smash the wall, she flattens it.
@ChucksSEADnDEAD7 ай бұрын
Russia trips on its own shoelaces.
@jonesy2797 ай бұрын
I haven’t watched yet, but I think I know the answer. Is it because choppers are cool? I think choppers are pretty cool.
@jonesy2797 ай бұрын
Side note, whenever I look at the cockpit of a Mi-8 I always think “hmm, is there anyway we can get more switches in here? I feel like we need more switches.”
@Isaac-muntz7 ай бұрын
Don't really understand what's the point of this video since helicopters are also weapons of war
@MrLBPug7 ай бұрын
Okay. Now go play outside like mommy told you.
@Isaac-muntz7 ай бұрын
@@MrLBPug Is that suppose to be an insult my dude ☠️
@DCresident1236 ай бұрын
views...
@ianlewis93176 ай бұрын
so your Bismarck from bo time gaming right?
@klobiforpresident22545 ай бұрын
Yes, he is.
@cobra72507 ай бұрын
It seems to me that helicopters are very easily defeated with drone missiles, and anti-aircraft missiles.
@bagamut7 ай бұрын
Russia is the only country in the world to equip helicopters with manpad missile suppression system, extremely efficient
@thekinginyellow17447 ай бұрын
Proper deployment of Helicopters means they must show up unexpectedly. Of course, that's a basic tenet of war fighting: If you can surprise your opponent, that's half the battle.
@robertfarrow42567 ай бұрын
Vkery very great analysis.
@PortmanRd7 ай бұрын
So many (supposed) problems with the Russian military, and yet....
@Jartran726 ай бұрын
and yet what? And yet they keep failing taking more than a square kilometer per month. Only many more centuries to go I guess.. With already unsustainable losses both in manpower and equiptment loss. Oh and they are losing newly taken grond around Kharkiv again. And yet? And yet they are failing just like we expect. No army in this world (except other incomperetent armies) would accept such insane losses for such little success. In fact no strategic success at all. That black sea fleet is almost completely destroyed/withdrawn.
@tony621886 ай бұрын
And yet what? Yet they’ve been fought to a stalemate by a much smaller country that has no advantages over them?
@Teh0X7 ай бұрын
In 2020 Finnish Defence Forces released a conscript training video where an invading nation tries a Hostomel like airfield capture operation. However this was not at all a trick they just recently figured out. Static defences had already been placed on some airfields to fire at landing aircraft since late 1960s.
@TyrannoJoris_Rex7 ай бұрын
4:09 Mi-4 Hound?
@lanceroparaca14137 ай бұрын
Something that you're not covering in your video is the attacks on the airbases.
@surelyyoujokemeinfailure75317 ай бұрын
In other words .. ATACMS has entered the chat.
@jeffhedrich35517 ай бұрын
What a ridiculous title. As if other powers wouldn’t use helicopters the same way. How many helicopters did the USA lose in Vietnam? 5600+
@dapeach066 ай бұрын
That was 49-69 years ago, depending on when you're talking about
@jeffhedrich35516 ай бұрын
@@dapeach06 why does that matter? Armies still use artillery. There’s no substitute for a helicopter. If there was nobody would buy helicopters.
@DCresident1236 ай бұрын
He is getting desperate for views i guess
@jeffhedrich35516 ай бұрын
@@DCresident123 maybe. I’m waiting for the next title, why Russia can’t break its dependency on bullets.
@DCresident1236 ай бұрын
@@jeffhedrich3551 nah it will be shovels lol
@mcchuggernaut93787 ай бұрын
Helicopters are wonderfully versatile, but used wrong are also a huge potential liability. They are (in terms of modern warfare) a slow, fat target that isn't particularly stealthy and couldn't hope to stand up against good A.A. or a conventional fighter aircraft, even most out-dated and bad ones. And with the advent of modern VTOL fighters, their place on the battlefield is shrinking. Yes, the U.S. has some highly specialized, sneaky helicopters, but those are a very special case, with a lot of variables unknown, and aren't something you will encounter on a standard battlefield as of now, or probably for several decades, at which point they will likely be phased out in favor of superior platforms that will have been developed.
@robertkeaney99057 ай бұрын
Helicopters won't be replaced for one reason. Land Mines. We found out in Afghanistan that large V-Tol aircraft, and heavy lift helicopters will set off landmines when they get too close to them. Due to the amount of downward thrust they create. So you need light helicopters for air lift operations in contested heavily mind areas. As long as fuckers are burying mines in the ground, you're gonna need helicopters to lift your wounded out.
@mcchuggernaut93787 ай бұрын
@@robertkeaney9905 Interesting... are you military, or did you get this info from second-hand, because I really don't know how to confirm it as true, otherwise. I can also see some holes in it: If VTOL or large helo downforce is enough to set off these mines, why not just hit the LZ with a rocket or other small explosive first before landing there. Seems prudent doctrine. It would detonate anything there safely at range that just wash pressure would set off. And it isn't like the enemy won't know you are coming in a noisy helo or VTOL, so stealth isn't an issue. Nor is hitting your own troops, as they never sit on the extraction area, but instead come to it. Finally, if the downforce from a hovering large helo or VTOL is enough to set off a mine, then so would incoming infantry coming to board your aircraft - so this makes little sense. Just clear the LZ with a small explosive, and then extract with any size vertical landing aircraft you want. Unless the area you are forced to land is tiny enough to require a very small helo to fit, in which case you would need that special vehicle, mines or no mines, but that's a very specific and unusual circumstance. So no, the helicopter will not be entirely phased out, not saying it will be. But it will become more and more limited instead of a viable air superiority platform, or even as a general workhorse aircraft or cargo lifter.
@robertkeaney99057 ай бұрын
@@mcchuggernaut9378 Non military, just a contractor. "Just clear the LZ with a small explosive, and then extract with any size vertical landing aircraft you want." That's an option, but that doesn't work if you are going in to evacuate soldiers in an area with mines via hoist extraction. Because you don't know how big of an explosion you'll get from that.