Who won the Air Battle over Kursk 1943?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2019
- Get your Germany Army Panzer Regulation: igg.me/at/hdv
------
Big thank you to Bernhard from MHV and Dr. Roman Töppel for this interview.
MHV Channel: / militaryhistory
- Patreon: / milavhistory
- PayPal: www.paypal.me/BismarckYT
⚜ Find Me On Social Media ⚜
- Twitter: / milavhistory
- Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Facebook: / militaryaviationhistory
⚜ Sources ⚜
Dr. Roman Töppel
#Interview #Kursk
Get your Germany Army Panzer Regulation: igg.me/at/hdv
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those interested in Dr. Töppel's book: amzn.to/2osNBeq
Military Aviation History Hmm that link doesn’t quite work for me...
Now it does! Thanks for pointing it out
@@MilitaryAviationHistory any chance you could expand the amount of signed copies? I would have loved to have gotten one.
i have already purchase the book. I am so glad someone translate a document about german panzers
@@laportonorth1516 I plan on buying it as well, just thought it would be cool to have their autographs in it. :-) Then again I do live in Germany so maybe I might get a chance to have them sign it at a later date anyway. Oh what the heck! Ordered!
correct me if I'm wrong but in the previous year's battles over Kuban Peninsula the red air force had achieved effective parity...the problem at Kursk was that rapid expansion of the air force had introduced large numbers of green pilots who had not learned to apply lessons from previous campaigns....the Royal Canadian Navy had the same problem in the battle of the Atlantic...rapid expansion of a small coastal defense force into a deep water navy meant a LOT of mistakes in tactics
J & B Wills thanks for this addition.
@@randallturner9094 Well I think that depends very much on the particular campaign and more importantly the year...plus, the allies had air dominance on the western front not parity so of course it was far more dangerous...were losses on the eastern front 'minimal'? No for non combat losses were high due to rough operating conditions...the Russian weather and landscape wore down the units sent there...as for combat losses I have never found a source that said those were minimal either...kill ratios may have remained somewhat favorable but the Russians had a lot more planes to waste...plus it seems those ratios were dropping as the war progressed... it is true though that it was the Americans who really laid waste to the Luftwaffe
Lol, when he said “uh you can read something...my book!” 😂😂😂
I'm actually going to get his book on Kursk soon based on the last video with him in. It's sad that the air war part is lacking but I've found that myself reading books on Kursk thought I do recall reading something about air attacks but nothing really detailed. It would be nice to read something with all the pieces put together. :-)
@@richardwales9674 what confuses me is where is he getting the info for his book? Other books, or the official Soviet and German accounts which are probably already cited in many books
Basically in my mind it's like remaking and remake of a remake of a remake... what hasn't been said? Unless new information has come out
I'd be much more interested in topics less covered, manchurian campaign, halbe, courland, Brody
@@BOB-wx3fq I've since read the book and I found it interesting. A lot of books on Kursk look at the German attack with a cursory look at the subsequent Soviet Offensive. He counts both as the battle of Kursk because the Soviets are always going to launch their offensive.
I would like a good account of Khalkhin Gol and the Manchurian Campaign as well.
;O) The Biggest Cheesey-ist Grin I have. Yes, we settled down to watch the presentation. So, another Big Thank you must go to Bernhard and Dr Töppel for their input (it was a good deal more informative than many agenda-pushing insights). Dear RUclips, Bis and those like him are your bread and butter .. please reward them for their efforts (you know you should).
Thanks Leonhamm!
This is a topic I had wondered about. Thanx for covering it, if even briefly. I could have watched an hour long doc on it and still not have gotten the meat of it as well as you have explained it. You two work together very well.
Woot Woot!
Woot!
Woot der focke?
Wonderful presentation, thank you so much.
THAT OPENING.
Flashbacks to watching a british professor narrating a 70s documentary. Brilliant.
i found it stupid, unnecessary and condencending
I'm buying the book from Dr. Toeppel. Thank you for the recommendation.
Very nice to hear your talk about Kursk. Your fresh look at it is inspiring as objective and impartial. Kursk is a very complicated story. This was battle fought on land and in air on a horrendous scale which was never matched ever again -before or after . And men who knew about it died in it. That was the most sad part of it that this story consumed in its fire so many young men both Germans and Russians. The only hope is that future generations will learn from it and respect it and never repeat it again.
Saw the thumbnail and instantly thought. "Ohhhh interesting." Good work sir.
Success!
Thanks!
It is amazing how Bismarck even changes his speech pattern when he dresses up to be Bernhard.
He fools me everytime!
Nice one..very good
Seeing Bismarcks new video that just released:INSTASATISFACTION
This time i feel to criticize the video.. Initial numbers of fighter, assault aircraft, bombers, anti aircraft guns on both sides at the beginning at the battle? at which point did the Germans pull out units and in what numbers? at which point did the Soviets bring in units an in what numbers? ratios at each phase? aces present in the battle? when did the soviets change tactics? overall numbers of losses and remaining aircraft end of battle? This channel usually produces in depth detailed videos.. Not this one..
You might want to watch this video again. The point is made a few times that there is not much information to go on.
@@rwspop Which in itself is odd don't you think? That kinda logistical paperwork usually has some kind of entry or two, usually like a small binder with all that relevant information (or perhaps a book or box of files?) and yet there isn't much to go on? really? on neither side?
Nikolaï Klepikov vs Gerhard Barkhorn was an air duel I would've like to see...
The question I have is how effective the German and Soviet aircraft were in actually influencing battles on the ground? Relative aircraft losses were irrelevant if the aircraft were not actually destroying targets on the ground. I am getting the distinct impression that in most cases aircraft on both sides were ineffectual in the East, very similar to what happened in WWI. Lots of smoke, explosions but not necessarily targets being destroyed.
No - I haven't watched the programme yet, the ad is still running .. but I've up-thumbed it anyway - because it's from Bis (and all my family settle down to enjoy his productions). Cheers!
Who won the air battle over Kursk?
It reminds me of the old cold war joke - Two Soviet Generals meet in a cafe in Paris and one asks the other "BTW, do you know who won the air war?"
I don't get it
@@NoNameAtAll2 me too
@@alfa99121 I suppose that point is, that air power is not decisive factor. There is old military saying - nothing is conqured until infantryman put a foot on it. So two soviet generals in PARIS, say that it does not matter who won in air.
@@AB8511 good point
AB8511 Now reach london, ohhh.....
now thats going to be an exellent book, im going to have to put it to the top of my list.whenever ive gone to munster when we head to my dads old garrison town i fall head over heels for some of the book but my german isnt good enough to read full on technical books.
I wonder what was the proportion of Sovket aircraft losses during battle of Kursk, what percentage was lost to ground fire?
Please do a series on the Bell UH-1
I have an affinity for the UH-1B 'Heavy Hog'
@Bismarck, your presentation skills go from strength to strength. Have you been taking lessons, or perhaps training by an online training site. If the latter, they might think of sponsoring you.
Hey Ted, thanks. No training though, might just be practice.
I have to compliment Dr Toppel on his command of English. I am glad to see the younger generation of Germans learning and commenting on WW2.
I agree. Instead of burying their heads in shame, its nice to see them taking an active interest and sharing with us.
That sneaky subtle Schokakola in the background ; >
So much to learn about the most twisted and clouded time of the worlds' history, WWII.
good interview about a subject few know or even care about i lived in germany as a kid in early 50 s and saw a lot of destruction and hungry people and lots of amputees and burned men also so many orphans that would not smile
Hey - I'm working on a film production that would potentially involve using prototype WW2 aircraft that never went into production, as a sort of alternate history piece.
Do you have a favourite prototype that never made it into full production OR do you have your own designs? Perhaps a mashup of your favourite bits of a few aircraft?
Let me know your thoughts!
Germany certainly "won" the Battle of Kursk in the same sense as they won the naval Battle of Skagerak (Jutland) in an earlier conflict. However, possession and control of territory, resources and populations is generally what wars are fought over so both battles are usually credited against the Germans.
Christopher Lawrence is publishing a new book about the Kursk air battles, this September.
He was made to rule the Planes over the Battlefields.
To teach about war machine
To rule the skies and teach us History!
The teacher of the skies!
The Bismarck and the Aviation History!
2000 cites and 50 thousand tons of material...
Fox You are you talking about bombing of Germany?
Ned Steven I know. It was a joke
Nice video. Equipment not faulty but the microphone was not placed correctly and whenever the interviewer moved his shoulder/arm the mic hit the tie. Try to notice this.
I'll pass it on, thanks!
Nice. But how about the effectiveness of both sides in attacking ground forces?
Concerning the Russians firing with everything, there was this joke made by a german Luftwaffe officer, who said that the russians shot with everything they had, flak, machine cannons, Mgs, rifles, Pistols, and that they would've probably even thrown the Horse's Shoes at them, if they could've got them off the horses fast enough! ;)
And as the old theorem goes, the better the jokes, the shittier the situation! ;)
"Je besser die Witze, desto beschissener die Situation!"
I also like that he brings up the tactics, and how they affect air combat, because those are the key thing in air combat.
It's also what limits the realism of most modern combat Flight sims the most, everybody uses german tactics! ;) :P
Well not quite, we actually use a mish-mash of german, british, us and soviet tactics all adapted to suit our needs best.
No one would really think to use the original british tactics with the 4 Vic Formations in line astern, because history has shown how vulnerable they are, especially if it's a tight Vic formation.
You don't have time to do anything but keep position in those, only the leader can really scan for threats and attack. It's also flown in Welded wing.
Not to speak of the Firing Area Attacks, those weren't really used IRL and no one would in flight sims.
Instead nearly everyone flies either the loose Rotte und Schwarm, or section and flight system of the germans, or they fly the combat spread of the US Air ARms (USAF, US Navy or USMC), together with either double attack or loose duece.
What that does is reduce the differences between the Air Forces to the differences between the aircraft, and then the advantage the germans have early war for example are not that great.
I mean the 109 and Spitfire are pretty evenly matched, with the Spitfire a bit better at high altitude........but this great aircraft was hamstrung by the bad tactics the British used.
Same for most Soviet aircraft............
But that's the thing, no one wants to discuss tactics, because admitting that the enemy had better tactics means that the enemy themselves was superior to one's own party.
Contrast that with a story of beating a superiorly armed foe, that had all the advantages, and your own side overcoming all the odds to beat him.
That is a much more uplifting
Even post WW2, nearly no one flies full soviet doctrine, because it is a) pretty limiting, and b) for the longest time we didn't have the capabilities in a combat flight sim. As that doctrine needs a fully working IADS with working GCI to be used.
So all Virtual pilots, even those flying the russian fighters are still using mainly western doctrine.
As for why most combat was low level at the eastern front, because that's where the targets were! ;)
The soviet Air Force did nearly no strategic Bombing campaign, so they mainly did CAS (Close Air Support) and interdiction, usually against smaller targets, often moving ones, where accuracy and the PK (Probability of Kill) was enhanced by a short bomb fall time.
Droping a bomb at a Tank from 8,000 metres , gives it a long time to evade the bomb, aside from it increasing the circular error point and the little problem of actually seeing the Tank.
They tend to be camouflaged, or a low visibility colour, and they are rather small.
(Also the Army camps and ammo or fuel dumps are also small and usually well camouflaged, making them hard to see, even if they can't run.)
Compare this with the targets the western Allies mainly attacked prior to D-Day, mostly strategic Targets like cities, and factories. Also later on Railyards.
All of those are rather large area targets, that can be easily spotted from high altitude and they don't run away.
So you can attack them from high altitude, which also gives you much better range, necessary for attacking deep into Germany from Britain.
It also keeps you out of range of most of the AAA, reducing the number of guns shooting at you reduces the risk of getting shot down, especially for large and rather unmaneuverable aircraft like Bombers, especially heavy ones.
Also the Luftwaffe had a weakspot at high altitude, as they didn't really have engines that were good at high altitude, so 8,000 metres and above.
At least compared to the Allies....... ;) so context and perspective matters, a lot. ;)
From a soviet point of view, the germans were better at high altitude, while from a western allied one they were inferior.
And that problem had shown itself even in the early war, as the Spitfire was faster and could climb better at altitudes above 5,000 metres.
Especially if one compares the Mil power vs. the War Emergency settings. (Ok Mil power might not be 100% appropriate, as it's a jet term meaning full power without afterburners/reheat. What I define it as in this context is the maximum power setting that can be used in combat for a longer time than the WEP, which is often limited to a few minutes.)
This only got worse by 1943, when the best aircraft for killing bombers, due to high firepower and strong construction, the FW-190 had a significanly worse high altitude performance than the Spitfire or the P-51.
Same goes for the 109, which was better at altitude, but had significantly worse firepower than the FW-190.
So going high had all the advantages for the allies, less chance of hit, better range, therefore better bomb load, and catching the enemy at their worst performance altitude, with only a reduction accuracy that was neglible when it came to their targets and purposes.
And since fighters have to go where their targets are, the attacking aircraft mentioned here, that's why they went high on the western front and low on the eastern! ;)
G'day,
How much did you charge her when you taught your Grandmother to suck Eggs ?
Try telling us something which we don't know...perhaps.
Oh, and by the way..., regarding the RAF Fighter Command, in 1939-40...; part 1) there was no such thing as a "Firing Area Attack"..., but they DID train in performing what they called FIGHTING Area Attacks, which involved attempting to attack tight-packed formations of Bombers with tightly-formating Vics of THREE, & whole Squadrons flying together and firing on their Leader's Radioed Command...., there were a whole set of numbered choreographed Area Attacks, which Fighter Command had spent a decade dreaming-up, and practicing with Camera-Guns against Bombers plodding along straight & level in the way the RAF Doctrine required them to do.
The Fighting Area Attacks were indeed used In Real Life..., however they didn't work out at all well - except from the Luftwaffe's point of view, so the RAF Squadrons generally only tried the Area Attack doctrine the once or twice before abandoning it at the Squadron Level.
Because each Squadron was commanded by people who'd spent years practicing the Area Attacks, and because the macerated Fighter Command Squadrons were constantly withdrawn to rest & re-equip & reform (& rethink tactics), they were being replaced by new fresh Squadrons of Combat Virgins being commanded by Officers all trained in the old Fighting Area Attacks...
So, the RAF managed to learn, relearn, and re-re-re-learn the same lesson with each fresh Squadron posted into 11 Group from wherever they'd been previously stationed in Scotland practising with old Textbooks & wrongheaded ideas.
I know that it's a work of fiction, but to gain a good feel for what went on..., try finding a copy of,
"Piece Of Cake.."
by Derek Robinson.
It goes a very long way towards capturing RAF Fighter Command's first year of WW-2.
Such is Life.
Have a good one.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot And might you have a good one as well..........;)
As for the high vs. low altitude, that was in regards to a question that another commenter had on this thread.
Goes by the name of jaikumar848
, and this was partially a response to him.
Only I did not reply to his comment directly like Callum Hitchock and Nikola Kalezić did.
While most of us know what is what in regards to air combat, occasionally we get someone new who might not now.
BTW. you'd be surprised how many people at university level do not know anything about air combat, the application of air power and the problems with it....being essentially air combat and air power illiterates....and I don't mean just student level but professors as well.
Another thing for which the good Prof is to be recommended. Especially as he is from Germany where that is a huge problem.....
Hence why I went into such detail about it, as a lot of people whose only exposure to airpower is the modern one, tend to not "get" the very basic problems at the heart of the application of air power in the 1940's.
You'd be surprised at how much that seems obvious to us as combat flight simmers, isn't to the average public or sadly even academics, who aren't specialized in warfare or air warfare.
So Not knowing his Level of knowledge in the topic I thought, better explain it in too much Detail than too little.
And sorry for getting the first part of the attack "tactic" messed up, but it's good to see that you still understood it, so the point got across. ;)
It's also mentioned in Osprey's Battle of Britain by Kate Moore.
On page 92, where George Unwin mentions it as "Fighter Command Attack No. 1".
So it is not mentioned by name per se, but you can recognize it by the context very well.
Another mention of it is by Al Deere, who is quoted in Osprey's Duel 5, Spitfire vs Bf109 Battle of Britain, on Page 61, 62, 63.
As it was a more off the cuff respsonse, I did not consult the books before...hence messing that up. Mea Culpa.
If you want something fun to read about Malta, a bit later, read T.F. Neil's "Onward to Malta".
He does focus on the ridiculous things in war, so you get that and some combat as well.
I found one of the issues in Ta'Qali, in the museum shop, a few years back, but I have been unable to find his "Gun Button to Fire" which deals with the BoB.
BTW. I can only recommend that museum shop as they have some pretty rare stuff like a reprint of the original war time report on the battle of Britain as well as those books.
That report is an interesting read, if one keeps in mind it's context.
@@LupusAries
Cool,
No worries...
However, I'm not a "Combat Flight Simmer..."
I merely grew up with a bigger Biggles Fetish than average, to the point where what I soloed at 17 (in 1978) finished up in a Transport Museum - because the Wright Brothers had a better Aeroplane in 1903...; to see it, title-search YT for,
"The 8Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout...; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !"
And in my case, having aquired a little Hairygoplane and flown it - all the personal ambition to enlist to take the Queen's Shilling for training to kill strangers because the National Honour required me so to do..., well it all faded away once I realised that I could then go flying without having to play Waaauugh(!) games or kill strangers.
So I got on with life.
Between 1980-84 I nursed 2,000 Veterans of every Military Adventure in which Oz participated from 1914 to 1984, for an average of 10 days per veteran.... ; I worked it out during a boring night shift during my 3rd year.
And in 1992 when I was finished flight-testing my 22 Hp Ultralight Motor-Glider, I attempted a downwind Take-off which broke my Ankle & concussed me...., since then I haven't yet begun to rebuild my 2nd Aeroplane - but I still have it, in it's Aeroplane Trailer, in case I ever have too much spare time & Money to put it off any longer.
At this point, declining to rebuild my Aeroplane makes me quite happy not to have been using it to emit burnt Fossil Carbon to the Atmosphere.
You might enjoy checking out my "Personal Aeroplanology" Playlist (?).
Where I come from, I'm both the Fool On The Hill, and the local Mad Scientist..., and I know a lot of obscure things about Aeroplanes ; somebody has to do if, why not me ?
Such is Life,
Have a good one
;-p
Ciao !
I live in Freiburg. If you wanna visit the archive again within the next half year I'd be happy to host you for a couple days in exchange for spending an evening or two with you over a couple beers.
is there an audio book version of the book?
God I hope TIK does Zitadel/Kursk after Stalingrad!
Can you help me find data about Luftwaffe losses during battle of Kursk from AA guns?
Is it true that, Soviet AA guns above 37mm were not allowed to fire on planes?(They were to be used only for anti-tank activities?)
Helluva question! Never thought about it, being a backwater affair and all.
When you going to put more inside the cockpit videos
Do more videos with Bo!
What a FANTASTIC quality!!! If you love WWII :...
TIL that the soviet army and US navy had the same attitude to anti-air fire :P.
Thank you for your instructive and enthusiastic videos. I just discovered them today and was very pleased with your insights, and the occasional flash of humour. However, you need to *focus correctly*. Get a book on cinematography, it looks sadly amateur when the subject (e.g. you is "soft"). Otherwise, I look forward to your next productions.
Is it true that ,unlike western front dogfight on Eastern front were taking at low altitude? But why ?
in the west there was an emphasis on high altitude bombing missions whereas in the east there was an emphasis on low altitude close air support and tactical interdiction so the fighters where basically fighting where the fight was
There were no fleets of strategic 4 engined bombers flying high above Eastern front (not counting few dozen Soviet heavy Pe-8 bombers or high flying recon aircraft). Priority was given to escorting ground attack aircraft like Ju-87 and IL-2 to their targets, while medium bombers like He-111,Ju-88,Il-4 and somewhat light Pe-2 flew at medium altitudes (rarely over 4 km).In 1941-2 red army had high altitude interceptor MIG-3,but turned out that it was pretty much useless for anything beyond PVO (protiv vozdušnaja oborona=anti air defense)or intercepting high flying recon aircraft, because of it's engine being worse at low altitude.Simply put, tactical,not strategic bombing was part of everyday air combat on Eastern front.
@@kaletovhangar In Pacific Japanese were facing altitude problem as US fighter had high altitude advantage and they were using zoom and boom against zeros ,as zeros were only good at low altitude . Germans could also use that zoom and boom against Soviet with their me-109 ..?
@@hitchy98 A high altitude plane can intercept low altitude fighters just like US used against Japanese. .. high altitude planes were useless on eastern front ??
@@jaikumar848 Yes, but there is certain problem with flying too high to actually attack low flying ground attack aircraft, like control stiffening and possible breaking of aircraft due to too much speed picked up in the dive,so there is no sense to climb to 7 km just to destroy your aircraft in diving on IL-2s flying few hundred meters above the ground.
Were the German fighters more vulnerable to fire on the bottom of the aircraft? I imagine if they were adapted to dog fighting most of their protection would be from the front and rear.
Generally fighters of all nations, when given armour, the standard would be to protect from the back first, then the front, then side and below. Most fighters did not get the latter, unless for special conversions. Look up my armour videos on the channel for more info
Germans had Radar during the battle. Russians didnt.
I have always thought that it was at the Battle of Kursk that the Russians gained Air superiority on the Eastern Front ( through sheer material numbers) but did not realise the disproportionate casualty figures.
What Soviet fighters were common in this battle?
Can anyone else see in the window reflection a cartoon-y image of a man with a big moustache?
That's a huge stretch.
I feel the Air war of Kursk played a significant role in exposing the German Heartland to Allied bombing, more than Window one feels clean weather and significant Luftwaffe units saving Models Army near Orel allowed the British to Freely Bomb Hamburg.
Can someone answer if the Hamburg Bombings resulted in Luftwaffe's units moving away from the Eastern front. I ask this since after Kursk the Red army moved into Ukraine big time while Allied Bombers suffered much higher casualties to the extent Americans had to abandon daylight bombing by Oct-43 due to losses. They could resume these again only with P-51 Mustang fighter escorts in Mar-44
Hello there umm i have a rather odd and rather challanging request can you do a video on the YB 40 Flying fortress?
so if soviets used everything including rifles to defend against german aircraft what would the probably of a rifle hitting and would the average rifle bullet do anything?
yes, they would do something: Annoy the pilot. Back in the days, one had to control the plane at the same time as flying it. This takes lots of concentration. If you get peppered with bullets, even if its just the annoying sound, the psychological stress is big.
@@nottoday3817 ah ok so if you didnt end up with led you still were shook up by the near miss thanks for replie
Doesn't this contradict what Dr Toppel said earlier, that no German forces were pulled away due to the landings in the Mediterranean?
Question here, when the Soviets improved their scort tactics and used fighters at a higher altitude, did they use a diferent model or were they using the same fighters that they were using at low altitude? My assumption is that they swapped from yaks to LA's but I would like to hear if anyone has some information.
Sir is it possible to add english captions. RUclips ones are not really accurate and my english not enough to understand what you are saying
German army panzer regulation. A book explaining how to go about losing to everyone except the French, Yugoslavians and Greeks? :)
Luftwaffe was a shop window air force nothing in reserve. Attrition is a viable tactic especially when you have cheap and cheerful aircraft and unlimited crews and your opponent does not and has poor serviceability rates and limited numbers of single-engined fighters. I believe these types of attritional battles had been taboo for Germany since Verdun but contrary to doctrine both on land and in the air they insisted in participating and losing them. In 2019 the Russians appear to have lost Kursk and retreated in a westerly direction to the safety of the Dnieper to cross it by the 22nd September 1943. Numerous sources it seems are now available to back this up.
I always wondered about the air battle over Kursk. The air war is always the highest of the "high ground" and I'm surprised the Germans lost air superiority so quickly, given their advantages in training and fighter technology.
to be honest I'm surprised the Russian air force was still making these kinds of mistakes in 1943..
Germans: we won every batlle against russia.
Russians: did we teleported our troops into berlin??? hhaahahahhaahha nice to see that germans cant get over it even today
deep knowledge, useful information.
Who won the Air Battle over Kursk 1943?
Well, at first the Germans shot down 300 aircraft.
And then?
And then, well, the Soviets got a superiority ... And also air defense! Read my book! I can write! Letters aaand words! *awkward smile*
I disagree with the highest loses germans suffered due anti air fire Than actual fighters. The most loses which couldn't be explained, were written off by Anti air fire from the ground. Which was mostly actual fighter attacks from the rear as always that brought the planes Down. You Fly in airplane, a Lot of stress is going on and At some point you hear a loud peng while being strapped in the belts. You are going down or ditch it, end of the Story. And you Tell everyone that flak got you.
Infact it was an enemy ace or Veteran that bounced you and broke off the Moment you got shot.
Funny question really, as Kursk is still part of Russia, why do we keep on asking these questions about the past, as if we could change it, and then forgetting the present we should actually take part in. Came to think about it, even teenager can do more.
Unless we understand the past we will never be ready for the future . So many lessons from war apply to peacetime every day life and politics in general. Here is a good lesson. In order to motivate soldiers one has to instill hatred of the enemy. Hatred leads to contempt. Contempt breeds arrogance. Arrogance leads to pride and underestimation of the enemy. Which leads to failure. Moral of the story. Seek peaceful solutions to problems between people. Stay at home. In your personal home and national home.
The German aviators had had WAY more training.
And still lost...
They also had a lot more experience.
R.A.A.R
I like how you are fake reading a book when the camera happens to come on..lol
'Actually', the chapter on the Spey engine was worth another read ;)
BnZ all day!
Also, das hätte ich gerne wieder auf Deutsch als die beide Herren sowieso Deutsch sind.
Very brief ponytail alert.
LOL, this is an old Army joke.
Two WW2 Generals are having drinks, one German, one Russian.
One says to the other "So, who won the air war?"
Perhaps the soviets lost a thousand aircraft on the first day, and the Germans lost only three.
This would fit with the popular history of the eastern front.
Also, keeping in tune with WW2 history generally, it was the British who actually won the air battle at Kursk.
So how did the Soviets achieve air superiority after losing more planes than the Germans?
supply more..
1:12 yo not making fun of you, love your vids bro, but there was a battle of "coors" in WW2? Did the Lites or the normal coors win? 😂
Who won, depending how you judge it. Looking at effectiveness and quality the Germans like the panzer battles, the Germans won. The problem was the numbers, the Russians didn’t care about human lives and had more planes to throw into the fight.
"But muh K/D ratio!" - pro-axis internet historians.
Don't tell them about Africa. They'll got nuts when they see how badly their precious Luftwaffe lost there.
The Germans lost the air battle at Kursk! They failed to find the answer for the combination of Il-2 + Yak-1b. Why? Because the Il-2s flew so low that they could not be hit from below, and from the upper side, they were exposed to machine-gun fire from the Il-2 itself, and because of the deceleration to shoot the primary targets (Il-2), the Me-109G lost speed advantage over Yak-1b. In fact the victims were Yak-1b and Il-2 were doing their job. And then the La-5 and Aircobra did the job. It seems to me that this tactic in the Pacific was called the "Tench weave" and was used by Americans against the superiority of the Zero aircraft, but never underestimate the Russians. Most likely they came to the same conclusions already in the conception of the Il-2 aircraft. In the end, who wants to act as an expert? Without a serious knowledge of Russian and Cyrillic handwritten and not barely read the name of the Russian author and do it wrong. Shame! My dear experts, the people at Ubisoft knew all this when they designed the notorious and now outdated IL-2 Sturmovik game, and they certainly had the real insider Russian literature that is unreadable to you. So play Il-2 Sturmovik, sit down to think ....
so if germany won in russia what do you or anybody else think would have been the outcome of the world?
No change. US ended up with nukes.
Gorbač, Begstrom, Zamulin, Lopuxovskyj you can be fluent in russian (like I am) and have lots of books (like I do) that are not known outside of Russia (often even in Russia itself!) but it is all like a blured dream, everybody talks completly different numbers, different dates and times nothing seems similiar as if everybody was talking about different war both land battle and air battle. In my opinion I believe that Kursk was epic dissaster for Russian air force (and land forces too btw) maybe even worse than 10 vs 450. Just simple fact - there is practicaly no known survivor of Kurs Air battle from Russia. Pokryshkin, Kozhedub, Rečkalov, Glinkas etc. no famous russian ace fought in that battle. Othervice they would be dead... Also as it was found after ww2 Gen. Novikov (russian af chieff) and Schaxurin (minister of aircraft industry) knowingly let russian industry to deliver aircraft that had horrible life threatening production deficiencies especially at the time of preparation for the Kursk battle. For this they went to prisson in 1946 btw. Still mistery...
Kozhedub shot down his first aircraft (Ju-87) at Kursk ( the second on the next day and two more Me-109s on July 9).
Yeah, what a disaster it was, the Germans running to the Dnieper never to gain any initiative at the Eastern front again.
simplicius You are right I confused Kozhedub start with Kuban. Dissaster it was in my opinion becouse of enormous losses of people (as almost in all operations in WWII) in some sence Russia never recovered from them practicaly untill today. It very sadly is dying off contry.
@D L Dear troll, even Freiser had to admit that at Kursk the Luftwaffe for the first time couldn't fulfill her objectives nor ensure air supremacy over the battlefield. Of course, he justified that with a fairy tail that the Soviets engaged 6000 aircraft there, while the real advantage in numbers was much smaller, around 2000 vs 2600.
And never again the Luftwaffe was able to gain any superiority ever, except locally in a short time period.
Regarding your myths that the USSR was able to throw entire armies into their deaths, the Soviets pretty fast lost control over 70 million population (that was forced to work for the Germans to survive) , leaving them with a base of around 120 million. Germany in that period had 90 million, including Volksdeutsche and without their Axis allies fighting at the Eastern front. Not to mention the millions of slaves that they used and intentionally starved to death many of those untermensh ( the Jews and the Slavs).
Who stopped the Germans to mobilize more soldiers?
And regarding military losses, if we exclude those millions of PoWs that the Germans killed in their concentration camps, the military losses are pretty close even if there are no reliable sources for the German losses in 1945, they simply stopped counting, nor there is any data for the SS , etc...
@@ivanrohal7489 They recovered pretty well, you just have to look at the demographics. What they barely recovered from is the collapse of the Soviet Union. The same disaster hit all of Eastern Europe and you should be familiar with that very well (you're Slovak I assume) and they are experiencing an echo from that disaster right now.
why Messerschmitts were strafing... they are not supposed to do that... not designed for that... yes that is why ground fire destroyed more planes that soviet vvs... Had they been doing their job, Soviet VVS would have claimed more...
were they afraid to fly in their element of 4000-6000 meters because of VVS(soviet air forces), or
Stukas were no longer good, because benefits of dive attacks were limited and Germans had to utilize fighter planes for strafing attacks. Or were Germans forced to LEARN from the Soviets the benefits of strafing, AND not making a single dive and leaving the battlefield?
Where were Messers, when Soviet PE-2 twin engine dive bombers were mixing Wehrmacht with the soil they so desperately lusted after?
The funny thing is that Germans are not yet over NAZI propaganda...Not after 80 yrs... Their war accounts are at best schizophrenic.. even historians... They always claim winning for a short time and discarding the elephants in the rooms... Claiming victories everywhere they can even after the Red Flag was placed on Reichstag. In reality though, even Barbarossa was a disaster for Germany... From day one Wehrmacht started failing at achieving their pre-calculated objectives. Wehrmacht was reporting captured civilians as POWs to fill gaps in German statistics to keep Hitler from ranting. German statistics are also the stuff of which German legends are made...up...
@@remalm3670 no, not on the battlefield... Many argue that is why they started ww2
@@remalm3670 Well, that's because most people claim that WW1 ended with the Armistice on 11.11.1918. However, it's called an Armistice not a peace treaty for a reason. In 1919 the Western Armies were marching through Germany, conquering more and more land.
@D L I am not Russian...was just born in USSR.... don't care about Katyn...it is irrelevant to the topic of discussion... by the way did you find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no? Not yet... still searching? OUtsourced to ISIS? Goood.. In Nazi statistics we trust... which were mostly destroyed before capitulation... Russians maybe cleaning their stats... that's because they have them you moron... and germany doesn't ... because they destroyed most of it before capitulation, what was left was taken by Americans,,, then what was useless was returned back to German archives.
what they have is neo aryan myths and legends ... of John Wicks of the Skies... who somehow lost it all, because Stalin's human waves zerg rushed the skies too..
In the first days of the air battle over kursk the German fighter pilots feasted on Russian planes. Its amazing the German command took there air superiority and sacrificed it.
Jesus Loves You
do u guys really GET OFF FLING FAKE AIRPLANES????????????
Please get shirt microphones. It sounds like you both are speaking in a tin can.
Not realistic. Thumb down.
What would be realistic in your view?
@@youraveragescotsman7119 Soviets won Kursk.
@@stephenjacks8196
Yes, they did.
That doesn't mean that they entirely won the Air War.
Thick foreign accents difficult to understand.