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.
@LarsAgerbk
4 ай бұрын
you mentioned ww2, Korea and Vietnam. What about Afghanistan?
@johnd2058
4 ай бұрын
Thanks for the Afghan fill-in, sir.
@carkawalakhatulistiwa
4 ай бұрын
Afganistan and irak
@zaco-km3su
4 ай бұрын
Desant can mean paratroopers too.
@johnd2058
4 ай бұрын
@@zaco-km3su I think he covered that, although I would have said 'aerial insertions'.
@onogrirwin
4 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.
@WALTERBROADDUS
4 ай бұрын
🤔 could you expand on that one?
@johnkole953
4 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.
@WALTERBROADDUS
4 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.
@matthewgibbs6886
4 ай бұрын
only money the grift must continue
@cactuslietuva
4 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
@cesargonzalez4146
4 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.
@ibubezi7685
4 ай бұрын
5.000, in total.
@leme5639
3 ай бұрын
@@ibubezi7685 5000 in 20 years.
@sage5296
3 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
@Appletank8
3 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.
@agsystems8220
Ай бұрын
Has the US ever conducted an operation overseas without crashing at least 1 helicopter?
@sae1095hc
4 ай бұрын
A continent-sized country that has 2 million square kilometers of swamp will be irresistibly drawn to choppahs.
@carmenschumann826
4 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.
@steezydan8543
4 ай бұрын
@@carmenschumann826 OP's question is non-sensical from the get-go. Do you really need helicopters patrolling every square inch of friendly territory?
@grizwoldphantasia5005
4 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?
@obsidianjane4413
4 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.
@WALTERBROADDUS
4 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.
@gregoryschmitz2131
4 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.
@WALTERBROADDUS
4 ай бұрын
@@gregoryschmitz2131 Those the C27s the Coast Guard wound up with?
@grizwoldphantasia5005
4 ай бұрын
@@gregoryschmitz2131 And the A-10, same thing. Air Force pilots want to zoom around, not drop things in the mud
@thiefsleef6752
4 ай бұрын
The Ka-52 played a significant role in stopping Ukrainian armored columns during the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive
@AlexLee-dc2vb
4 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
@thiefsleef6752
4 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
@markusdegenhardt8678
4 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.livingston
4 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.
@samsungtap4183
4 ай бұрын
Stand off munitions !
@geodkyt
4 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.
@ycplum7062
4 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.
@kenon6968
4 ай бұрын
That's a very interesting analysis, thanks
@malithaw
4 ай бұрын
Great analysis
@viniciusmv7727
4 ай бұрын
Very good point
@williamzk9083
4 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.
@bigblue6917
4 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.
@rudboypaintbrawl
4 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
@billywoods3337
4 ай бұрын
SABA - Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft
@bigblue6917
4 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.
@bigblue6917
4 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
@jnievele
4 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.
@iwantyourcookiesnow
Ай бұрын
Woke up at 3:30am to pee. Can’t sleep. Learning about Russian helicopters.
@TWhite-uw5dl
4 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.
@9and7
4 ай бұрын
Well said.
@ChucksSEADnDEAD
4 ай бұрын
Their losses are crippling. It's Russia. Not the economic powerhouse that is the US.
@dusanbolek8004
4 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.
@carkawalakhatulistiwa
4 ай бұрын
@@dusanbolek8004 I don't even see Ukraine using helicopters these days.
@phoenix211245
4 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.
@thomasfsan
4 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.
@stupidburp
4 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.
@carmenschumann826
4 ай бұрын
. . . until now it are always (some) people who are aware of something - NOT RU !!!
@JG-xm8jy
4 ай бұрын
Exactly, this idiot made a while video and just blubbered without saying anything meaningful😂😂
@jerryle379
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
@spiff1003
4 ай бұрын
The answer is a question.... Why should they? When in war, you do not omit any asset unless they are extremely vulnerable.
@TheVigilante2000
4 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.
@zaco-km3su
4 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.
@asavelakuse6865
4 ай бұрын
Helicopters did help last year during the starting stages of the Ukrainian counteroffensive last year
@rick7424
4 ай бұрын
True.
@skitidet4302
4 ай бұрын
Offensive*
@michaelmclaughlin4889
4 ай бұрын
@@skitidet4302 no he was right counteroffensive
@skitidet4302
4 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.
@Naptosis
4 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.
@sidharthcs2110
4 ай бұрын
As if everyone else is not using them
@obsidianjane4413
4 ай бұрын
This was my take as well.
@marek9784
4 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.
@DiggingForFacts
4 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.
@atomica0914
4 ай бұрын
@@marek9784US lost dozens in Iraq and hundreds in Vietnam
@ashifabedin
4 ай бұрын
@@atomica0914 During the Vietnam War, the United States military lost at least 5,195 helicopters to combat or accidents
@swingingbunny3550
4 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.
@joelgrosschmidt5507
4 ай бұрын
The Hind looks exactly like a helicopter the bad guys would have
@joelgrosschmidt5507
4 ай бұрын
@YellowLab-rb6xn I love how it looks. It doesn’t look like friend
@RipRLeeErmey
4 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.
@uroskostic8570
4 ай бұрын
Unlike Apache and Comanche,names of native tribes that US government have exterminated.
@ali-haider5788
4 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
@dzonikg
3 ай бұрын
For me is most bad ass looking helicopter ever
@jakob7693
4 ай бұрын
"WWWWWHHHHHHHAAAAAATTTTT MILITARY USES HELICOPTERS??????😱"
@class.C
4 ай бұрын
"russia has a lot of helicopters! Thats actually a bad thing!"
@ali-haider5788
4 ай бұрын
@@class.Cwhy ?
@gaborrajnai6213
4 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.
@GrahamCStrouse
4 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.
@bobsemple9341
4 ай бұрын
@@GrahamCStrouseno proof of this claim obviously since it's pure cope. Embarrassing
@bobjones-bt9bh
4 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.
@brigadgeneralvoid2508
4 ай бұрын
@@GrahamCStrouse It works well enough if the enemy doesn't either
@perkl1234
4 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.
@orlock20
4 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.
@DENISKALIMULIN
3 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
@davidbrennan660
4 ай бұрын
Doctrine.😊
@onetwo5155
4 ай бұрын
First thought too, but I had to press "play" regardless.
@valentinrblr205
3 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.
@Axonteer
4 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.
@Klovaneer
4 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.
@Axonteer
4 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?
@robertkeaney9905
4 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.
@wdavis7655
3 ай бұрын
The list of helicopter advantages at 2:16 pretty much answers why Russia uses them.
@DanOBrien-q1g
4 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
@joeswift403
2 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
@davidgab4448
4 ай бұрын
I strongly suggest Perun's video on the use of helicopters in the Ukraine.
@pRahvi0
4 ай бұрын
"Helicopter is the bully of a battle field" or something along those lines
@Astorath_the_Grim
4 ай бұрын
Nah
@scotsbillhicks
4 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.
@angeurbain6129
4 ай бұрын
The question in itself is wrong. It should insteadL why for Russia using helicopters still make sense.
@Astorath_the_Grim
4 ай бұрын
Sounds too neutral. Gotta make it sound anti Russian for the KZitem algorithm.
@TheNinjaDC
4 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.
@wogelson
4 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?
@chrisstrebor
4 ай бұрын
This is interesting if true, they already had a tonn of air defense systems before the war eh?
@chrisstrebor
4 ай бұрын
This is interesting if true, they already had a tonn of air defense systems before the war eh?
@philognosis6409
4 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-bt9bh
4 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.
@wyne9145
4 ай бұрын
@@philognosis6409 You Forgot Greece which have Bigger conscript armed force compared to pre war Ukraine
@ashifabedin
4 ай бұрын
During the Vietnam War, the United States military lost at least 5,195 helicopters to combat or accidents
@orlock20
4 ай бұрын
300 of them were from hitting the only telephone line in the country.
@SergyMilitaryRankings
4 ай бұрын
Yeah, people love to bring up Iraq but forget how badly USAF got it in Viet
@andrew.lanc3r
4 ай бұрын
The number is 5607, and almost 10,000 if inlcuding fixed wing aircraft. Either way that's a huge number
@SergyMilitaryRankings
4 ай бұрын
@@andrew.lanc3r yeah Vietnam had incredibly well layered defensive networks of AA guns. Mobile and easily hidden and moved
@MAHORAGADAOPPSTOPPA
4 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.
@guitaristteacobouy
4 ай бұрын
Mystic Shovels❤
@cliveashleyhamilton
4 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
@jonny-b4954
4 ай бұрын
Why would they? They've only lost 5% of them. Unless they became ineffective.
@Erik_Arnqvist
3 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
@Girder3
4 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
@jbroskito
4 ай бұрын
No idea when I followed this channel but glad I did. Excellent analysis
@meldarion8038
4 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. 👍
@tubeuaccount
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.
@antongara6077
4 ай бұрын
don't know if it is mistake or just illustration of mi8, but there are belarusian mi8 from 10:22
@forbeginnersandbeyond6089
4 ай бұрын
This is similar to the Vietnam war. The US relied on helicopters mostly.
@carmenschumann826
4 ай бұрын
@@gort8203 UA ? or do you mean RU ?
@naphatveraphong2735
4 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).
@TheBizziniss
3 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.
@davidjernigan8161
4 ай бұрын
Russia uses helicopter as manpad absorbers.
@lt.manch1016
4 ай бұрын
cry
@herptek
4 ай бұрын
@@lt.manch1016Manpad absorber is the best use of helicopters.
@sweetio
4 ай бұрын
Cope
@mikeck4609
4 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
@herptek
4 ай бұрын
@@sweetio Might be the Russians who have to resort to coping strategies.
@ammoniawilder4451
4 ай бұрын
You use what you got and you make it work.
@ImtheHitcher
4 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.
@VikingTeddy
4 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...
@lanceroparaca1413
4 ай бұрын
Something that you're not covering in your video is the attacks on the airbases.
@surelyyoujokemeinfailure7531
4 ай бұрын
In other words .. ATACMS has entered the chat.
@highlands
4 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.
@robertkeaney9905
4 ай бұрын
He passed through Indo China while he was traveling from India to China. So, yes. But also no.
@TomatoFettuccini
4 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.
@torinthewild
4 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.
@ethanyeung6216
3 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.
@EarlCorgi
3 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.
@cleanerben9636
4 ай бұрын
the way I always thought of late-cold war Soviet/Russian choppers is that they are a flying BMP
@dimimurik3970
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.
@matsv201
4 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.
@TheGreatAmphibian
4 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.
@Punisher9419
4 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.
@TheGreatAmphibian
4 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.
@matsv201
4 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.
@matsv201
4 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.
@jonesy279
4 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.
@jonesy279
4 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.”
@Yosemite_Sam
3 ай бұрын
Very thoughtful video and the comments are very interesting and informative. Great channel. Cheers from OZ
@hedgehog3180
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.
@dabootvv
4 ай бұрын
the doctrine sounds a lot like the german blitzing, where their mechanized troops tried to penetrate as deep as possible
@Ailasher
4 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.
@murderouskitten2577
4 ай бұрын
in short , russia uses helicopters the same as germans used stukas - mobile artilery
@trikyy7238
4 ай бұрын
Soviet doctrine, strategy, and tactics: HULK SMASH Russian doctrine, strategy, and tactics: same but drunk
@CuriousCyclist
4 ай бұрын
I've just discovered your channel. Really good content. Keep it up.
@zJoriz
4 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.
@gviehmann
4 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.
@zJoriz
4 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 ;)
@user-lq2nu6cn7y
3 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!
@Hellfr4g
2 ай бұрын
probably the most important point... if u wanna operate anywere within siberia outside from airports, thats pretty much the only viable way
@jamesdelrogers542
4 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
@nigelgarrett7970
4 ай бұрын
I think that the ka 50 has an ejection seat too.
@uthoshantm
2 ай бұрын
100 helicopters in 30 months equates to about 3.33 per month.
@cobra7250
4 ай бұрын
It seems to me that helicopters are very easily defeated with drone missiles, and anti-aircraft missiles.
@bagamut
4 ай бұрын
Russia is the only country in the world to equip helicopters with manpad missile suppression system, extremely efficient
@thekinginyellow1744
4 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.
@jparbiter1972
Ай бұрын
The Aligator is an endangered species in Russia
@jeffhedrich3551
4 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+
@dapeach06
3 ай бұрын
That was 49-69 years ago, depending on when you're talking about
@jeffhedrich3551
3 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.
@DCresident123
3 ай бұрын
He is getting desperate for views i guess
@jeffhedrich3551
3 ай бұрын
@@DCresident123 maybe. I’m waiting for the next title, why Russia can’t break its dependency on bullets.
@DCresident123
3 ай бұрын
@@jeffhedrich3551 nah it will be shovels lol
@weeznaz8195
4 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.
@typxxilps
4 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.
@geoffreywinfield7980
4 ай бұрын
I'd like to know more about the ex - Soviet chopper with contra-rotating props, and why this is not more common, please.
@ivanstepanovic1327
4 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...
@marcm.
4 ай бұрын
So basically Georgia needs to keep good air defenses, specifically Sam's, and be aware of any relocation of helicopters to its northern border.... What a world we live in
@Statueshop297
4 ай бұрын
Any country needs to be careful of its neighbours and keep a watch on what they are up to.
@AlexandarIvanov-uz2sl
4 ай бұрын
Russia doesn't smash the wall, she flattens it.
@ChucksSEADnDEAD
4 ай бұрын
Russia trips on its own shoelaces.
@wm9346
4 ай бұрын
The only thing a helicopter can’t do is go Mach.
@ycplum7062
4 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.
@Allan_aka_RocKITEman
4 ай бұрын
Great video, Chris...👍
@MrZombiekiller23
4 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_
4 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.
@Teh0X
4 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.
@merocaine
4 ай бұрын
Strange title
@Russia-bullies
3 ай бұрын
Helicopters are more expensive to fly & have a lower ceiling compared to other aircraft.
@TyrannoJoris_Rex
4 ай бұрын
4:09 Mi-4 Hound?
@tsugumorihoney2288
4 ай бұрын
Who stopped used them? Russia continue to use them, if you have no videos, or see helicopters rush A as in first days, it doesn't mean Russia stopped use it, it still used all the time
@romanberkutov2592
4 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
@TacoSallust
4 ай бұрын
Sounds similar to American helicopter doctrine with our air assault units.
@gort8203
4 ай бұрын
@MrLBPug So I guess people can't criticize Hollywood movies they dislike if they have never made one themselves? And if you haven't been elected to Congress or the presidency you can't criticize their actions either? You have a keen intellect.
@PortmanRd
4 ай бұрын
So many (supposed) problems with the Russian military, and yet....
@Jartran72
3 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.
@tony62188
3 ай бұрын
And yet what? Yet they’ve been fought to a stalemate by a much smaller country that has no advantages over them?
@tomriley5790
4 ай бұрын
Long list of things helicopters can do - but they can't if they're being shot down by decent air defence.
@AudieHolland
4 ай бұрын
I thought using loads of helicopters was 'strong country syndrome.' We use choppers because we can.
@richardcarellano
4 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
@Statueshop297
4 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.
@sagunsingh7415
4 ай бұрын
Not doing particularly well.
@CyberSystemOverload
4 ай бұрын
I'm amazed these machines can even buzz around like this. Relatively slow, noisy clattering things, ready to be shredded by AAA and SAMs. Would be awesome to see a deep dive into how well Mi28 and KA-50 have performed in real combat. No doubt countries with large helicopter fleets are watching very closely.
@DasVadderr
3 ай бұрын
One reason for them to invest so much into helicopters might also be the geography of the Soviet Union. The NATO countries of middle and western Europe are rather small with sufficient ground-level infrastructure such as railway and highways. The US may be a huge country but it has a well developed net of small, middle and large airports and airfields of military, public, commercial or even private nature. The underdeveloped but gigantic block of the Union where a large portion of the population didn´t even have access to cars was obviously different and without proper runways, railway or roads, the helicopter often is your only choice. Civilian helicopters were/are far more common than for example in middle Europe. The invasion of Afghanistan also made heavy use of helicopters. The locals had basically no air presence at all and no infrastructure to support one if needed. The Soviets were unable to land their big transports like the Il-76 on most runways and constructing new ones was rather time consuming or not worth the effort in the afghan desert. But again, when you don´t have proper runways, the helicopter is your best friend, especially when dealing with an enemy that has no fighter jets to intercept your helicopters. Afghanistan and Western Germany then or Ukraine, Poland and Sweden now: All just right at the Soviet/Russian border, well inside helicopter reach. A Mi-8 would have been able to reach the harbour of Hamburg within just 30 minutes if it started from Schwerin.
@dougiedrever7168
4 ай бұрын
100 helicopters lost? shit theyve lost about 45 ka52s confirmed, stick in the 20-30 % of the others "gone technical" thats half of all they have for the whole country, and ability to build 4-5 an year if they could get the foreign tech they need
@bobsemple9341
4 ай бұрын
No sources of course. U people don't believe in those
@dougiedrever7168
4 ай бұрын
@@bobsemple9341 UK Ministry of Defense data was cited to suggest that as many as 39 Ka-52s might have been lost in the early part of the Russian invasion-amounting to a quarter of the Russian fleet of Alligators.26 Feb 2024
@bobsemple9341
4 ай бұрын
@@dougiedrever7168 so a party with direct ties to the conflict and heavily biased towards Ukraine. Why do u present them as if they have value?
@dougiedrever7168
4 ай бұрын
@@bobsemple9341 prove me wrong then
@bobsemple9341
4 ай бұрын
@@dougiedrever7168 that's not how this works. If you were smart you'd know that. Clearly not. Prive ur claims. You've been told
@gertandersen3609
4 ай бұрын
I have been studying true KZitem interviews about Rhodesian Fire Force tactics, which worked very well for the Rhodesian army in COIN operations, one must remember that the Rhodesian standing army was never more than ca 8000 men(10% white). And the Soviet helicopter doctrine seems to be a direct copy/paste. Except Fire Force doctrine was limited to its main tool the Alouette III ability to operate in altitudes(carrying capacity/fuel). A lot of Soviet/East German officer's was based in Zambia.
@galkrizmanic1748
4 ай бұрын
Is it just me or does this video states very obvious things and repeats it a few times? There are however quite a few important problems with helicopters in modern peer to peer battlefield as one in Ukraine. Firstly reconnaissance, traditionally important role of helicopters has been replaced by drones. Secondly airspace has become a lot less permissive. Meaning that any mission over or close enemy where ordinary infantry units are equipped with modern MANPDS might have high chance of losing the aircraft. Might be worth it in short mobile war. In war like in Ukraine you will lose entire fleet in due course if you keep flying those missions. Third, special for Russia in Ukraine. Front is mostly sable, fort lines are very well dug in and defended in depth. Helicopter transport (most of the fleet probably) is much less valuable. And lastly helicopters are really expensive. Attack helicopter costs about 5-10x to buy and operate as the tank. Probably closer on upper level of this range. Question than is: “Are helicopters best use of the resources? Do they provide a function that can’t be performed by something else?” For tanks it seems that even if they are more vulnerable than they use to be, they can’t be easily replaced as mobile directly fire support to the infantry. They enable infantry to attack fortified positions. No tanks and manoeuvre becomes very difficult. With helicopters in very much dependents on geography. If you are Russia with 22 000 km of land borders of course you need helicopters. And if you have them and you get yourself in nasty war, of course you’re going to use them on the front. And it you are US army, expecting to be periodically in war on other side of the world, than yes also you want helicopters for transport, fighting guerrilla fighters and other stuff. But what if you are European country that now wants to boost your army for deterrence and possible war with Russia? Do you want to invest your money in a large fleet of attack helicopters and maybe put together air assault units? Or you rather use drones for reconnaissance and attack and invest in big pile of ammunition and let say long range precision strike capability? Or better still SEAD/DEAD capabilities for your air force. It seems to me that in particular attack helicopters (that also do reconnaissance) are not something that provides best bang for your buck in a lot of situations. Of course everyone is still going to have midsized transport helicopters, for disaster relief and SAR if not for something else.
@joshualoganhoi4
4 ай бұрын
Absolute NAFOid title. "Hmm, Russia has a lot of helicopters, how can I spin this negatively? Oh, I know, they're addicted to using Helicopters! "Why can't Russia stop using Helicopters?". What's next, why can't the Americans stop using Aircraft Carriers? Helicopters are extremely useful, which you point out excellently just over 2 minutes into the video. Extremely odd way to spin it in the title.
@edward9674
4 ай бұрын
THat's a pretty far fetched assessment of a title that is phrased pretty normally.
@BrettBaker-uk4te
4 ай бұрын
Click bait is life.
@joshualoganhoi4
4 ай бұрын
@@edward9674 Far fetched my arse.
@joshualoganhoi4
4 ай бұрын
@@BrettBaker-uk4te Literally.
@casparkwong2524
4 ай бұрын
Because the pretext is Russian helicopters suffer heavy losses up till today, yet they still play a pivotal role in the Russian doctrine. It is the same scenario with people asking why tanks are still relevant despite them being extremely vulnerable. For your suggestion of ‘Why can’t the American stop using aircraft carriers’, as far as I know none of the US carriers are sunk or even damaged in operations, hence it wouldn’t make much sense.
@RUINERx117
3 ай бұрын
Did I miss something? What vehicle was invented to replace the helicopter? Why is it that Russia can't stop using them?
Пікірлер: 1,1 М.