The worst airborne operations in history


History keeps a memory of many feats of naval and airborne assault forces of both our country and other states. But not always naval and airborne landing operations ended successfully. Failures were not so rare either, not due to the fault of ordinary soldiers and officers, but because of a combination of objective factors and mistakes in planning the landings.


I will present a variant of the three worst landing operations.

Operation Market Garden


On September 17, 1944, Operation Market Garden, better known as the Dutch Operation, began. It became the largest airborne operation in history, carried out by parachute landing.

The command of the US and British forces hoped to bypass the so-called Siegfried Line (a military fortification system built in the late 1930s in Nazi Germany - approx. "Military Review") and go to industrial areas of Germany. Units of British and American troops were involved in the operation. In total, 1344 transport aircraft, 1851 airborne gliders, 1240 fighters, 1113 bombers took part in the operation. Airborne units with a total number of 34 soldiers and officers managed to land on German rear. Such a powerful airborne landing of the enemy was a complete surprise for the Germans.

However, since the British paratroopers landed 10 km from the main goal of the operation - the bridge over the Rhine at Arnhem, they lost the main advantage over the enemy - the effect of surprise. Failures of radio stations led to the loss of communication between units. The situation on the next day did not correct the landing of the second part of the landing: by this time the Wehrmacht had already sent impressive reinforcements to Arnhem.

As a result, most of the British 1st Airborne Division, only about 7000 people, was captured by the enemy. The total losses of the allies amounted to 13 people in the British forces, 398 people in the American troops and 4118 people in the Polish formations. The Germans lost about 378 thousand people killed and 2 thousand people wounded.


The main objective of the operation, which was to create a corridor for the invasion of Allied forces from the north-western direction, was never achieved, and huge losses proved the erroneousness of such large-scale operations by parachuting.

Dnieper airborne operation


The infamous "Bukrinsky landing" was one of the largest airborne operations of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. The operation was carried out from September 24 to November 28, 1943 to help the troops of the Voronezh Front in crossing the Dnieper. The task was assigned to the 1st, 3rd and 5th airborne brigades, combined for this in the airborne corps under the command of the Deputy Commander of the Airborne Forces of the Red Army, Major General Ivan Ivanovich Zatevakhin.

Shortcomings and errors in planning the operation and the organization of the landing cost the Soviet paratroopers very expensive. Some of the aircraft were not able to land at all and returned to the airfields, the other was attacked by German anti-aircraft artillery. Therefore, only 4575 paratroopers managed to be "thrown out", including 3050 from the 3rd Airborne Brigade and 1525 from the 5th Airborne Brigade. Another 2017 people, as well as all artillery and landing mortars, were not thrown away.

Separated groups of paratroopers operated in the Kanevsky forest area and had no connection with the front command. Nevertheless, the commander of the 5th brigade, Lieutenant Colonel P.M. Sidorchuk, managed to unite about 1200 soldiers and officers into a combined brigade and get in touch with the partisans, and then with the 52nd army.

I note that the first airborne assault conducted by the Voronezh Font on September 24 failed, causing massive unnecessary casualties. This happened not only through the fault of Comrade. Violinously, but also through the fault of Comrade Yuriev (pseudonym G.K. Zhukov - approx. "Military Review") and comrade Vatutin, who were supposed to control the preparation and organization of the landing,

- described the results of the operation, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

The Supreme could be understood: of the 4,5 soldiers and officers who had landed, the casualties amounted to 3,5, and the goal of the operation was never achieved. However, to the credit of our paratroopers, it is worth noting that, having landed behind enemy lines, they pulled significant German forces onto themselves and inflicted great damage on them.

Operation "Jubilee"


Naval landing operations during the Second World War were also not always successful. So, the very bad consequences were caused by the unsuccessful landing of the Canadian forces during Operation Anniversary on August 19, 1942.

The command of the Allied forces set the task to land on the French coast of the English Channel and capture the city of Dieppe. British landing ships escorted by destroyers and gunboats left the south coast of England. The main part of the landing was the Canadian infantry with the support of the British marines.


Canadian soldiers captured by the Germans

On August 19 at 4:50 a.m. Canadians landed on the coast attacked 2 German artillery batteries. Canadians counted on the effect of surprise. But in Bernevall and Pua, German troops were alerted an hour earlier, due to a shootout in the coastal zone. The only accomplished task in the end was the capture of the coastal battery of Warengville. Nevertheless, at 05:20, the Canadian infantry launched an assault on Dieppe (a city in Normandy - a commentary on the information-analytical portal Military Review), but the Germans managed to repulse the first wave of the assault on the city.

Main part tanks the landing was destroyed by coastal artillery fire and strikes aviation from the air, and six tanks, which nevertheless managed to break through, were destroyed already in the city itself. Major General John Roberts, commander of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, who commanded the landing, was forced to order a retreat. The losses of the Canadian army were impressive: 3367 soldiers and officers killed and captured, another 550 lost the British. To General Roberts, the failure at Dieppe was worth the job.

If we talk about airborne operations, then according to the results of the Second World War, most countries of the world refused to conduct large-scale operations with the landing of paratroopers using parachutes. As a result, during subsequent landing operations during the hostilities in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other countries, such losses and failures were avoided. However, mistakes also occurred decades after the Second World War. Why is there one failed special operation of the US Armed Forces in Mogadishu, about which so much has been written.
Author:
Photos used:
https://en.wikipedia.org
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

190 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. The leader of the Redskins 18 May 2020 10: 05 New
    • 40
    • 6
    +34
    And why does the author not call the Kerch landing operation of 1941-1942? Or does he believe that it can be attributed to successful?
    With losses of 42 people and the subsequent retreat?
    1. pmkemcity 18 May 2020 10: 51 New
      • 11
      • 3
      +8
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      And why does the author not call the Kerch landing operation of 1941-1942? Or does he believe that it can be attributed to successful?
      With losses of 42 people and the subsequent retreat?

      It depends on what is called a "landing operation." If the landing itself is unquestionable, I would even say it is an extraordinary success.
    2. Sidor Amenpodestovich 18 May 2020 11: 06 New
      • 16
      • 4
      +12
      Because the author writes:
      I will present a variant of the three worst landing operations.

      Triples. Threes of the author.
      Imagine yours where the Kerch operation can occupy at least first place, at least all three.
      And to discuss the author’s choice is a strange lesson.
    3. Normal ok 18 May 2020 11: 13 New
      • 4
      • 5
      -1
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      And why does the author not call the Kerch landing operation of 1941-1942? Or does he believe that it can be attributed to successful?
      With losses of 42 people and the subsequent retreat?

      Of course, analytically is a failure. But, - this is our grief, I do not want to raise this topic.
      1. Serg65 19 May 2020 11: 16 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Normal ok
        nalytically is a failure.

        The failure of the Kerch-Feodosia operation? However!
    4. Kronos 18 May 2020 12: 35 New
      • 5
      • 6
      -1
      Because they generally disrupted the capture of Sevastopol in 1941, complicating the situation of the Germans
      1. Yuri Guliy 18 May 2020 14: 48 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Sevastopol DROPPED largely due to failure (defeat) near Kerch. This is the point of view of my fought relatives of Sevastopol.
        1. ccsr 18 May 2020 18: 35 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Yuri Guliy
          Sevastopol DROPPED largely due to failure (defeat) near Kerch. This is the point of view of my fought relatives of Sevastopol.

          Unfortunately, the fate of Sevastopol was a foregone conclusion, even if our troops had not been defeated near Kerch. A summer attack on the Caucasus would still lead to the fact that the troops from near Kerch would have to be evacuated, and they could not provide any help to Sevastopol.
          1. Serg65 19 May 2020 11: 24 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            Unfortunately, the fate of Sevastopol was a foregone conclusion.

            A moot point!
            Quote: ccsr
            A summer attack on the Caucasus would still lead to the fact that troops from near Kerch would have to be evacuated

            These are just fantasies, well, let's fantasize .. Kozlov and Mehlis work in unison, the rate changes Oktyabrsky’s alarmist, at least to Yumashev, the Crimean Front’s troops go to the isthmus threatening the right flank of Army Group South .... how would things develop in the future?
            1. ccsr 19 May 2020 11: 44 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              troops of the Crimean front go to the isthmus threatening the right flank of Army Group South .... how would things develop in the future?

              The supply of such troops under the domination of German aviation would be extremely difficult in the summer of 1942 due to the relief of the Crimea. And given the Germans' offensive in the Caucasus, even through the Kerch Strait, we would not be able to supply anything to such a group of troops, and they would simply be crushed as a result of the lack of supplies of weapons, ammunition and other rear supplies.
              1. Serg65 19 May 2020 12: 07 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Quote: ccsr
                The supply of such troops under the dominance of German aviation would be extremely difficult in the summer of 1942 due to the relief of Crimea

                However, with the same relief of the Red Army, it was possible to create the Barvenkovo ​​group!
                This is not the problem, having muddied a major operation, having saturated the front with troops, the Stavka, considering this section as secondary, appoints Kozlov, who has no combat experience in the modern war, as the commander, sends Mehlis to help him, does not change the ever-trying to escape from Sevastopol Oktyabrsky. As a result, the successful landing operation turned into a complete mess ended in complete defeat! The defeat of the Crimean Front and the unsuccessful Kharkov operation are links of one chain!
                1. ccsr 19 May 2020 13: 38 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: Serg65
                  However, with the same relief of the Red Army, it was possible to create the Barvenkovo ​​group!

                  It is ridiculous to compare the protection of the largest industrial region and the defense of the desert Crimea, where there was no serious production. Yes, and the steppe Crimea is very different from the forest-steppes of the Kharkov region - I tell you this because I often traveled along the Moscow-Simferopol highway.
                  Quote: Serg65
                  This is not the problem, having muddied a major operation, having saturated the front with troops, the Stavka, considering this section as secondary, appoints Kozlov, who has no combat experience in the modern war, as the commander, sends Mehlis to help him, does not change the ever-trying to escape from Sevastopol Oktyabrsky.

                  I would not want to be in the place of those people who fought and planned operations in 1941-1942. - the Germans’ strike was too strong, but we suffered such losses that we still couldn’t competently organize operations of the Bagration type.
                  Quote: Serg65
                  The defeat of the Crimean Front and the unsuccessful Kharkov operation are links of one chain!

                  You can’t argue with this, with a little clarification - the Mehlis could not be sent there, it would be better for someone from the General Staff, rather than a political worker. Maybe the defeat of the Crimean Front was not.
            2. Alexey RA 19 May 2020 17: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              Kozlov and Mehlis work in unison, the rate changes Oktyabrsky’s alarmist, at least to Yumashev, the troops of the Crimean Front go to the isthmus threatening the right flank of Army Group South

              The troops of the Crimean Front are bogged down in battles - just like they did in real life.
              Before the well-known disaster, the Crimean Front tried to advance three times - and as a result achieved only insignificant successes, while losing tanks that were so badly knocked out by Mehlis.
              ... for the entire duration of the battles from February 27 to April 12, 1942, the Crimean Front irretrievably lost 14 KV out of 66 arrived on the Kerch Peninsula, 6 out of 20 T-34s, 110 T-26s out of 320, 51 T-60s out of 150.

              In total, from April 9 to 11, the troops of the Crimean Front lost 119 tanks, including 35 KV. So the replenishment received at the end of March with heavy tanks was knocked out. The knocking out of tanks quickly made the continuation of the offensive unpromising.
              © Isaev
              1. Serg65 20 May 2020 08: 42 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                hi Welcome Alex!
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The troops of the Crimean Front are bogged down in battles - just like they did in real life.

                A number of mistakes made in January 42nd disastrously affected the fate of the Crimean Front. Theodosius at that time was the main supply port. An important port is not covered by air defense at all !!! That is why Kozlov lost Theodosius!
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Crimean Front troops mired in battle

                I’m far from the General Staff and I don’t understand why, having 14 divisions, 199 tanks, the front on February 27 begins an offensive in the north of Ak-Monai positions? After all, the offensive in the south could well be supported by the fleet! Yes, there exists an uncomfortable fashion show between the swamp and the lake, but it was from this area that May 8 Manstein struck a fatal blow. Kozlov was carried away by frontal attacks on the Koy-Asan fortified site.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                In total, from April 9 to 11, the troops of the Crimean Front lost 119 tanks, including 35 KV

                On March 20, the Germans also suffered heavy losses in tanks ..
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Krymfront front tried to advance three times

                So I say .. not a war but a Marlezon ballet!
        2. Ham
          Ham 21 May 2020 11: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          if not for the Kerch operation, Sevastopol would have fallen much earlier
    5. Serg65 19 May 2020 11: 14 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Or does he believe that it can be attributed to successful?
      With losses of 42 people and the subsequent retreat?

      And why is it unsuccessful? Losses and retreats are not due to the landing operation!
    6. geologist 20 May 2020 22: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It is unclear what kind of Kerch landing operation 1941-42. are you talking about ?. If about Kerch-Feodosia, then it is one of the most successful in the history of the Red Army. The landing party to Feodossia crushed the garrison and cut off the German infantry division. In Kerch, at first they suffered losses, but then after a couple of days the strait froze and the troops calmly crossed the ice. The entire Kerch Peninsula quickly fell into our hands. The operation was attended by 40 thousand people. Landing with losses of 42 thousand. It defies explanation. A further disaster, when a huge group of 3 armies of a quarter of a million were already concentrated on the peninsula, is not related to the landing.
  3. svp67 18 May 2020 10: 05 New
    • 25
    • 1
    +24
    The author touched upon such a sore subject that it is even difficult to talk about it. In any case, our Vyazemsky landing operation cannot be called a success either, let alone naval landings in the Baltic Sea in the 41st year, when time after time they landed assault forces, actually for slaughter ... bitterly recall, very bitterly, as a great setback on the Black sea. But this is our story. And we must remember this and know at what cost we got the VICTORY in the 45th
  4. Octopus 18 May 2020 10: 21 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    Something the author again freaks out.

    What does Mogadishu have to do with it? Where is Mogadishu, where are the paratroopers?
    1. Alex_You 18 May 2020 11: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Octopus
      Something the author again freaks out.

      What does Mogadishu have to do with it? Where is Mogadishu, where are the paratroopers?


      Landing (French descente - descent) [1], the term in the military affairs of Russia has the following meanings:

      troops (forces) intended for landing (ejection) from carriers to perform certain tasks;
      landing (ejection) of a battle group from a vehicle onto the territory occupied by the enemy to inflict a “dagger” strike in order to bypass fortifications;
      the name of the operation, which consists in the landing (ejection) of troops (forces);
      colloquial name of the Airborne Forces of Russia.
    2. ccsr 18 May 2020 12: 37 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Octopus
      Something the author again freaks out.

      What does Mogadishu have to do with it? Where is Mogadishu, where are the paratroopers?

      Of course, the author is weird - only the great "theorists" like the author of the article, who does not even understand that the scale of such military operations are incomparable, can confuse the airborne operation of airborne forces with operations of special forces.
  5. Romey 18 May 2020 10: 25 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The first Japanese landing party on Wake Atoll can also be completely disastrous. The only fact in the entire war that the sea landing was reflected when landing on the beach.
  6. basmach 18 May 2020 10: 27 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    Almost any landing operation is a failure. The problem, first of all, is not in the landing. The problem is in further supply. Without which any landing is doomed. And the enemy, if he is more or less comparable in strength and capabilities, will do everything to block the transport corridors. Therefore, any landing, no matter how well thought out the operation, is doomed.
    1. Normal ok 18 May 2020 11: 19 New
      • 12
      • 2
      +10
      Quote: basmach
      Almost any landing operation is a failure. The problem, first of all, is not in the landing. The problem is in further supply. Without which any landing is doomed. And the enemy, if he is more or less comparable in strength and capabilities, will do everything to block the transport corridors. Therefore, any landing, no matter how well thought out the operation, is doomed.

      There was a successful naval landing in 1941, near Odessa, with. Grigoryevka. Successful, not by loss, but by completing a task. German large-caliber guns were captured, and the raid of Odessa ceased to be fired.
      https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-zen_doc/167204/pub_5aa0eef75f49678b91df75cd_5aa13d0e8309054127208085/scale_1200
    2. ccsr 18 May 2020 18: 47 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: basmach
      Therefore, any landing, no matter how well thought out the operation, is doomed.

      The Kerch-Eltigen landing of 1943 can be considered not so disastrous. Even the remnants of the landing force from the Eltigen area that broke into Kerch were then evacuated - our ships were able to get to the city embankment through minefields that were opened by intelligence, which confirms that everything was thought out and taken into account. And already the second part of the landing north of Kerch in general fought on the captured bridgehead for several months, until the complete liberation of the city. And they not only fettered the German units, which could not be transferred to Ukraine after our autumn offensive, but also later freed the Crimea, because we had a bridgehead for the offensive in the eastern part of the peninsula.
      1. basmach 18 May 2020 23: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The Germans in the Black Sea had virtually no fleet. Only this allowed these operations to be carried out more or less successfully. Well, I wrote that it was a failure in the event of an adequate opposition by the enemy. Read carefully.
        1. ccsr 19 May 2020 11: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: basmach
          The Germans in the Black Sea had virtually no fleet.

          They had the dominance of aviation in this region, and therefore they did not need a large fleet there. Moreover, they had at their disposal high-speed landing barges with quite powerful weapons, which allowed them to carry out many transportation and patrols in the shallow part of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of ​​Azov.
          Quote: basmach
          Only this allowed these operations to be carried out more or less successfully. Well, I wrote that it was a failure in the event of an adequate opposition by the enemy.

          Our warships could not enter the Kerch Strait because of the shallow water, but the German landing barges caused great damage to our paratroopers, as they easily destroyed our crossing facilities.
          1. basmach 19 May 2020 15: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Aviation at night could not do anything, as well as landing barges. The Black Sea Fleet lacked torpedo boats, destroyers, Pike. T. E vessels with shallow draft. And at 43, the Germans did not have total air superiority. . Therefore, the student could hold on. They even really could not mine approaches. Unlike the Baltic. A good example is Hanko. The base from the peninsula had to be evacuated due to the inability to supply. Read the evacuation story and see the losses. And it was almost at the end of autumn, non-flying weather, short daylight hours.
            1. ccsr 19 May 2020 18: 46 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: basmach
              Aviation at night could not do anything, as well as landing barges.

              V.F. Gladkov writes about something completely different:
              The Germans blocked the landing from land, from the sea and from the air.
              It was just beginning to get dark - and eight to ten fascist landing barges appeared on the sea horizon. They did not let a single vessel go to the bridgehead, and in the morning they turned around in front of Eltigen and opened fire
              This was done with German pedantry: every morning for 10 - 15 minutes shells and lines of heavy machine guns rained down on us from the sea.
              .... The results of the naval blockade were soon felt by everyone on the bridgehead: ammunition was running out, there was not enough food, All food once a day - 100 grams of crackers, a can of canned food for two, a mug of boiled water.


              Quote: basmach
              And at 43, the Germans did not have total air superiority.

              There was no total, but nevertheless it was difficult for us to organize support for the landing from the air:
              Taman tried to establish supplies for the airborne division using Ilyushin-2; airplanes. Nothing succeeded. Firstly, “silt” had a high speed, and bags of food and ammunition rarely fell on our little “piglet”; more often - to the enemy or at sea; secondly, the enemy immediately installed a large number of anti-aircraft artillery, which, with its fire, blocked the way for airplanes.
              And only thanks to Po-2 from the light-bomber regiment, it was possible at least somehow at night to establish a discharge of cargo for the landing.

              Quote: basmach
              Read the evacuation story and see the losses.

              I studied it and know pretty well what the results of the entire landing operation according to the assessment of the German command had:
              After the defeat of the enemy on the Kerch Peninsula, in the German headquarters documents, an informational [17] newsletter "On Soviet-Russian Landing in the Eltigen Region on November 235 - December 1, 10" was found. It has interesting admissions.
              The conclusions of the German staff: “The Eltigen operation was well prepared, and it could be carried out in accordance with the developed plan, well thought out in all details, but the lack of interaction between the land and naval forces paralyzed success. The operation clearly showed the stability of all the commanders and the readiness of the troops to go to overcome any difficulties. Propaganda activities (dropping leaflets from the air, propaganda shells, intensive use of radio) were unsuccessful, although they were designed for insufficiently supplied paratroopers. The Bolshevik ideology firmly took root among the commanders of the Red Army, and the propaganda of the present successes of the Soviet offensive prompted them to achieve new successes ... The landing once again showed the exceptional ability to use our positions, quickly dig into the ground. The bombs, anti-tank mines, etc., of the landing party were mostly of German origin, i.e., trophy (how proud our engineer would be if he could read these words! - V. G.) The provision of weapons and especially communications was good. ”
    3. Alf
      Alf 18 May 2020 19: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: basmach
      Therefore, any landing, no matter how well thought out the operation, is doomed.

      The landing will fulfill its task in two cases.
      1. If the purpose of the landing is to burn and blow up everything that you can reach and dump at a pace, while the "receiving side" is in a frenzied state.
      2. If on the second or third day a powerful offensive of their ground forces begins. Then the success of the landing is guaranteed.
      In other cases, the landing is doomed.
    4. boris epstein 19 May 2020 10: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A successful airborne operation of the Nazis on the Belgian fort Eben-Emael: 180 paratroopers captured the fort, covering the bridge. The garrison of the fort is more than 1000 people. Successful, albeit with heavy losses, but according to the mission, the airborne operation in Crete, where the British troops were defeated and forced to surrender, outnumbered the landing forces. Successful airborne operations of the Soviet paratroopers and operations of the Marines during the defeat of the Japanese Kwantung army in 1945. Successful amphibious landing operations of the Soviet Marines in the North (Victor Leonov), on Malaya Zemlya (Caesar Kunikov), on the Danube in 1944. And the problem is not only in supply, but also in interaction with regular troops. In Operation Market Garden, the problem was that regular Anglo-American troops were unable to complete the task and make their way to join the landing. Yes, and with Kerch itself, the landing operation was successful. The bridgehead was captured and expanded, and troops with heavy military equipment were deployed on the bridgehead. And then there was no longer a landing operation, but the actions of the ground forces. The incompetent leadership of the Kerch Front (DT Kozlov) led to defeat.
      1. ccsr 19 May 2020 11: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: boris epstein
        Yes, and with Kerch itself, the landing operation was carried out successfully. The bridgehead was captured and expanded, and troops with heavy military equipment were deployed on the bridgehead.

        I agree - it really was a successful landing.
        Quote: boris epstein
        And then there was no longer a landing operation, but the actions of the ground forces. The incompetent leadership of the Kerch Front (DT Kozlov) led to defeat.

        And here you are wrong, because there was the Crimean Front, not Kerch, and what is most unpleasant, you dump everything only on Kozlov. Although it has long been established that it was the Mehlis with its thoughtless orders that led to the disorganization of the front, which led to terrible losses:
        In addition to the obvious miscalculations in terms of the preparation of defense and command and control of troops in the conditions of a modern war of maneuver, the front commander, Lieutenant General Kozlov, as well as his commanders, was adversely affected by the presence of a representative of Mehlis’s stakes at the front. The fear of the high authorities behind him and the memory of the 1937 year largely hampered the initiatives of the Soviet command.


        https://topwar.ru/5817-katastrofa-krymskogo-fronta-1942-god.html
        I think that you hardly knew about the role of the Mehlis in this tragedy - this has already been discussed more than once.
  7. Catfish 18 May 2020 10: 32 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    I do not understand why this article was written at all. Everything that is stated in it has long been known to everyone who is interested in the history of World War II. If you already write about such operations, you need a detailed analysis of them, and not a simple listing of the number of paratroopers, killed and prisoners. Everything is superficial and does not cause any interest. negative
  8. knn54 18 May 2020 10: 36 New
    • 4
    • 8
    -4
    The failure of the "Ballerin Goering" during the landing on Crete.
    And almost no successful airborne operations of the Red Army during the Second World War.
    1. Catfish 18 May 2020 13: 27 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      And what was the failure of the Luftwaffe paratroopers? The losses were, of course, colossal, but they performed the task, unlike the paratroopers in the above operations.
      1. knn54 18 May 2020 20: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        After the BIG losses, the Germans did not dare to use the paratroopers But it could have happened with Malta. Moreover, the British fleet was badly battered.
        1. Catfish 18 May 2020 21: 21 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Nicholas hi You are right, the British fleet was battered, but ... it WAS and it dominated the Mediterranean Sea, but the Germans could not cope with it alone, there was no Tizengauzen for every British battleship in Germany. You know the Italians yourself, you couldn’t take it into account, so it’s unlikely that the Germans would succeed with Malta. For the British, if the Germans captured the island, a full star would have come to this theater of operations, and to prevent this, they would have thrown everything on the scales.
  9. Andrey VOV 18 May 2020 10: 43 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    I myself have been the Airborne Forces and did not serve in the Marine Corps and it may be pathetic .. but how could 7000 !!! thousand armed paratroopers be surrendered ?? ours, despite the losses, continued to fight until the last in the year 43 and before that ... destroying the enemy and fettering his actions .. and do not say that they say we have a forest and partisans, but in Europe, cities and more ...
    1. Aaron Zawi 18 May 2020 13: 06 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      I myself have been the Airborne Forces and did not serve in the Marine Corps and it may be pathetic .. but how could 7000 !!! thousand armed paratroopers be surrendered ?? ours, despite the losses, continued to fight until the last in the year 43 and before that ... destroying the enemy and fettering his actions .. and do not say that they say we have a forest and partisans, but in Europe, cities and more ...

      They surrounded and began to shoot with tanks and artillery. Without ammunition, the paratroopers simply had no opportunity to defend themselves.
      1. Catfish 18 May 2020 13: 31 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Aron, good afternoon. hi
        But how did the Fritz in Crete deal with British tanks in the same situation? Or were there no tanks?
        1. Aaron Zawi 18 May 2020 13: 39 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Sea Cat
          Aron, good afternoon. hi
          But how did the Fritz in Crete deal with British tanks in the same situation? Or were there no tanks?

          And how many tanks were there? request
          1. Catfish 18 May 2020 13: 42 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            I knew Hiba ... I would know, I didn’t ask. However, I know that the Fritz have no serious anti-tank weapons. Well, when transport workers were able to receive airfields, then something appeared, and before that?
          2. Catfish 18 May 2020 13: 55 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            So, digging into the net, I found this: "From armored vehicles there were 16 old Cruiser MkIs, 16 light Mark VIBs, 9 medium tanks Matilda IIA of the 7th Royal Tank Regiment and the 4th Hussar Regiment of His Majesty." Not the "light in the window", of course, but the Germans didn’t have that either. request

            Judging by this photo, the armored vehicles that existed did not serve their owners for too long.
            British "Bren-Carrier" under the ass of a soldier in a German helmet. laughing
            1. tlauicol 18 May 2020 16: 54 New
              • 0
              • 5
              -5
              Yes, there half of the tanks were faulty, and the other half broke down on the road or in battle, shooting armor-piercing shells at paratroopers. There were no fraudulent ones. The Germans really had no one to fight with. How they managed to suffer such losses - I don’t know! Apparently talent
              1. Catfish 18 May 2020 18: 33 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                It is a pity that it was not you who planned this operation, then they would have had no losses at all. But what can you do, they are stupid, and the soldiers are bad, and they don’t know how to fight at all.
                One is left to wonder how it was they who managed to seize the floor of Europe and drown us from the Volga. AND?
                1. tlauicol 18 May 2020 19: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 3
                  -3
                  Very simple. Abandoned the mass landing. Wiser by getting on the head
              2. Alf
                Alf 18 May 2020 19: 37 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Tlauicol
                How they managed to suffer such losses - I don’t know!

                One part of the landing was thrown directly over the positions of the English battalion. The British could only point their weapons up ... And if we recall what Had the "Student Boys" were armed precisely at the time of landing ...
          3. hohol95 18 May 2020 16: 57 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Let's go to WikiWiki -
            The Allied tank forces consisted of 9 Matilda IIA infantry tanks of the B squadron of the 7th Royal Tank Regiment and 16 Mark VIB light tanks of the S squadron of the 4th Hussar Regiment of His Majesty. Like most British tanks of the time, Matilda’s 40-mm guns had mostly armor-piercing shells in their ammunition that were ineffective against infantry.
            Tanks had a number of technical problems. Their engines were worn out and could not be restored with the resources available in Crete. Because of this, most of the tanks were used as bunkers at strategic defense points. Many of the British tanks were not lost in battle, but on the march due to the difficult operating conditions in the highlands..
    2. NEOZ 18 May 2020 13: 14 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      maybe albeit pathetic .. but how could they surrender 7000 !!! thousand armed paratroopers ??

      how the same 350000 surrendered soldiers near Kiev in 1941 ....
  10. samarin1969 18 May 2020 10: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Expected to hear about the "Mercury" ... Ditch the elite units on the secondary theater ... this is a dubious "victory".
    1. Ryazan87 18 May 2020 12: 15 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      The Germans involved in the operation "Mercury" 22 thousand people. The total losses of those killed, drowned, wounded and missing - 6 thousand, about 27%, while, of course, some of the wounded later returned to duty. In addition, a significant part of the losses fell on mountain shooters, and not on paratroopers. To "ditch" is far away. More serious were losses in transport aircraft.
      By the way, the Allies lost about 16 thousand people.
      So, “Mercury” is more likely an example of a unique victory with the use of landing on a ready-made enemy.
      1. tlauicol 18 May 2020 13: 38 New
        • 1
        • 6
        -5
        Victory over whom? Over one anti-aircraft battery and a dozen malfunctioning tanks with AP shells in the ammunition? And with the absolute and sole domination of aviation. This is a Goliath's victory over David, and the Goliath was left without legs.
        1. Engineer 18 May 2020 19: 23 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          In fairness, mention the EKB Mediterranean Fleet. And he won))
          The Allies had a stronger grouping on the island by the nominal number of bayonets
          1. Liam 18 May 2020 19: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            After Crete, the Germans did not even try more landing operations. It cost too much
            1. Engineer 18 May 2020 19: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Undoubtedly
              But....
              1. parachute operations are in principle very costly
              2. priorities have changed
              1. Liam 18 May 2020 19: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Parachute operations in WWII showed their inefficiency on all sides and since then (80 years) no one has carried out or planned them
                1. Engineer 18 May 2020 19: 45 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  By the criterion of loss-achievement?
                  And I really argue. laughing
                  But Crete is a German victory. Though formally (by results), even by points (by losses)
                  1. Liam 18 May 2020 19: 53 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Well, the Germans both world wars almost all battles won on points but in the end, two disasters)
                    Crete itself was strategically hopeless and the British waved their hands quite easily. The true equilibrium point in the Mediterranean was Malta. And there the Germans did not break off)
                    1. Engineer 18 May 2020 19: 57 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      So who is arguing?
                      I would only correct that the operation Mercury is not strategic, and therefore, to a large extent justified.
                      There the question is two or three weeks of good weather "donated" to the USSR. But this is speculation though.
                      1. Liam 18 May 2020 20: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Engineer
                        There is a question in two or three weeks of good weather "donated" to the USSR

                        Directive 20 (Marita) - December 13, 1940; Directive 21 (Barbarossa) - December 18, 1940. Nobody gave anything to anyone)
                      2. Engineer 18 May 2020 20: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I also think that I didn’t give it, which means all the more useless movement for the Germans.)
                      3. Liam 18 May 2020 20: 21 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Operation Marita served as a cover for the transfer of Wehrmacht troops to the East, and not for any operational and strategic goals. And by the way, it brilliantly played its main role.
                        And the paratroopers in the attack on the USSR were not planned, so the Germans tried to take what was badly lying with the British, so that they would hang around. Well, at the same time, they created an additional smoke screen for Stalin. They say that all our plans are against the British at the moment
    2. Alf
      Alf 18 May 2020 19: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Victory over whom? Over one anti-aircraft battery and a dozen malfunctioning tanks with AP shells in the ammunition?

      4000 "green devils" destroyed and captured 32 Anglo-Greek troops.
      1. Engineer 18 May 2020 19: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You still have enough
        Sturgeon should be cut) At times. The number of fishermen increase. Also at times
        1. Alf
          Alf 18 May 2020 20: 03 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Engineer
          You still have enough

          Yes you are right. Quoted from memory.
          But there were 38 thousand allies there.

          Gans

          Total losses amounted to
          1. Engineer 18 May 2020 20: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Pak in the book The Battle of Crete writes that they exported 16 thousand. 10-11 thousand were captured. Several hundred escaped after evacuation on improvised means.
            The discrepancy with Vika is noticeable. But still, I am inclined to believe that most of the Britons were saved.
            1. Alf
              Alf 18 May 2020 20: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              Pak in the book The Battle of Crete writes that they exported 16 thousand. 10-11 thousand were captured. Several hundred escaped after evacuation on improvised means.
              The discrepancy with Vika is noticeable. But still, I am inclined to believe that most of the Britons were saved.

              I will not argue, this topic is not a pro.
  • pmkemcity 18 May 2020 10: 49 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The worst airborne operations in history

    ... During the first attack in 1274, the Mongol-Korean fleet operated with a combined crew of up to 23-37 [1] thousand people. The Mongols easily defeated the Japanese troops on the islands of Tsushima and Iki and devastated them. Then they approached the island of Kyushu and launched an attack, which included shelling from flamethrowing guns. However, the typhoon began, in addition, Commander-in-Chief Liu died, as a result of which the Mongols were forced to retreat
    In 1281, two Mongolian-Korean-Chinese fleets - from Korea and from South China - sailed to Kyushu Island. The fleet reached 100 people. The first to arrive was a small eastern fleet, which the Japanese were able to repel. Then the main fleet sailed from the south, but the repeated history of the typhoon destroyed most of the conquerors' fleet [000].
    1. Kronos 18 May 2020 12: 39 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      This natural disaster is more likely to defeat the Spanish invincible armada and then the English
      1. pmkemcity 18 May 2020 13: 07 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Kronos
        This is a natural disaster.

        Weather analysis, timing, location selection. No one has canceled this.
        An armada with a stretch can be called a landing operation (they themselves do not know what they want).

        In this case, Midway is more indicative - a failure, a failure, not only of the operation, but of the whole war. We had very unsuccessful landings on some islands of the Kuril Ridge, only heroism and sacrifice, no other words.
        The Dardanelles operation was very unsuccessful, but the landing itself went off with a bang (the buttons are sewn tight, I have no complaints about the buttons).
    2. Catfish 18 May 2020 13: 36 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Airborne operations and the Mongol-Korean-Chinese fleet of 1281. However, everything is very interesting with spatio-temporal relationships. As in the army joke: "Digging from the fence to lunch." smile
      1. pmkemcity 19 May 2020 07: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Sea Cat
        everything is very interesting for you with spatio-temporal relations

        So the author then swung - The worst landing operations in history! Why are we worse? If we already speak on the merits of the question, that is, on the "History" of Herodotus, on the Greco-Persian wars, then there are also examples of both "successful" and "failed" landing operations - landing on Euboea and taking Eritrea and then the Marathon, forcing Helispont and Salamis.
        1. Catfish 19 May 2020 08: 30 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          So the author then swung - The worst landing operations in history! Why are we worse?

          No, well, if you really dance from the very "comprehensive" title of the author, then you are absolutely right. We are no worse, and even if we dig into the whole history of mankind ... it can come up there, that it can (sorry for the tautology) and you should not dig. Although interesting. hi
          As the hero of one book was there: "I wanted to find out the truth. I found out! Now the question is, how will I continue to live with her ?!" smile drinks
          1. pmkemcity 19 May 2020 08: 33 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Sea Cat
            "I wanted to know the truth. I recognized her! Now the question is, how will I continue to live with her ?!"

            That's for sure! Now either the author will have to read Herodotus, or we will pass the exam.
            1. Catfish 19 May 2020 08: 44 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Well, it’s better that the author of Herodotus reads better, but we will somehow live without the exam. smile
  • 7,62h54 18 May 2020 11: 10 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Analysis of the worst operations carried out superficially. Who made this rating?
    1. NEOZ 18 May 2020 13: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: 7,62x54
      Who made this rating?

      author!!!!!!
  • Lopatov 18 May 2020 11: 13 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Firstly, the Market Garden failed not because of the “fallacy of conducting such large-scale operations by parachuting,” but because of the ground forces. who simply could not maintain the pace that the hyper-optimistic staff officers imposed on them.

    Secondly, the landing on Dieppe completely completed its task. Churchill wanted to prove to both Stalin and Roosevelt that he was landing in Europe to open a second front too early. And actually proved it. Sacrificing Canadian "meat". Traditionally.
    1. Aaron Zawi 18 May 2020 13: 12 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      .
      Secondly, the landing on Dieppe completely completed its task. Churchill wanted to prove to both Stalin and Roosevelt that he was landing in Europe to open a second front too early. And actually proved it. Sacrificing Canadian "meat". Traditionally.

      And what is he wrong? Even judging by the Norman operation 44 years after the defeat of the Axis Countries in Africa, the withdrawal of the Italian fleet from the war, the Allies took two months to gather strength and break out into the operational space. And in 1942 the Germans would grind the invading army.
      1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 13: 34 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        And what is he wrong?

        Of course I was not mistaken.
        Millions of Soviet citizens were supposed to die, weakening the German war machine. And weakening the Soviet Union, which, according to Churchill, was supposed to improve Britain’s position in the post-war "pie section"
        1. Aaron Zawi 18 May 2020 13: 38 New
          • 6
          • 7
          -1
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          And what is he wrong?

          Of course I was not mistaken.
          Millions of Soviet citizens were supposed to die, weakening the German war machine. And weakening the Soviet Union, which, according to Churchill, was supposed to improve Britain’s position in the post-war "pie section"

          But did Soviet citizens fight for Great Britain or for their homeland?
          1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 13: 41 New
            • 7
            • 5
            +2
            Quote: Aaron Zawi
            A Soviet citizen except for Britain

            Including the UK.

            I do not think that the British would be able to sit out on their island after losing the USSR or a separate peace.

            Soviet citizens essentially fought for the whole of Europe.
            1. Octopus 18 May 2020 14: 16 New
              • 7
              • 3
              +4
              Quote: Spade
              Including the UK.

              Excuse me, but did Soviet citizens attack Germany to protect Great Britain? Or did they still have a little choice, to fight for Britain or, I do not know, for Sweden?
              1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 14: 43 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                Quote: Octopus
                Excuse me, but did Soviet citizens attack Germany to protect Great Britain?

                They were ready to do it. Moreover, they demanded that Great Britain and France ensure the possibility of such an attack.
                But ... Remind me how it ended? Honestly, I have little faith in the fact that Britain and France "could not persuade Poland"
                1. Octopus 18 May 2020 15: 04 New
                  • 8
                  • 10
                  -2
                  Quote: Spade
                  They were ready to do it.

                  Seriously?

                  LK "Soviet Russia" was laid down in the summer of 40, already after the surrender of France, for the war with Germany?
                  Quote: Spade
                  Moreover, they demanded that Great Britain and France ensure the possibility of such an attack.

                  It seems the possibility of such an attack Comrade. Molotov and Mr. Ribentrop provided without Britain.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Honestly, I have little faith in the fact that Britain and France "could not persuade Poland"

                  Are you talking about the 38th year when the USSR proposed England and France to agree to the occupation of Poland in connection with German-Czechoslovak contradictions? Or about the 39th year, when the USSR proposed that Britain and France agree to the occupation of Poland in connection with German-Polish contradictions? Indeed, what could Poland not like about this?
                  1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 15: 13 New
                    • 6
                    • 2
                    +4
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Seriously?

                    Absolutely.

                    Quote: Octopus
                    It seems the possibility of such an attack Comrade. Molotov and Mr. Ribentrop provided without Britain.

                    ... after agreeing with Britain and France failed.
                    You already agree, otherwise it looks ugly

                    Quote: Octopus
                    Are you talking about the 38th year when the USSR proposed England and France to agree to the occupation of Poland

                    Well, it's even too much for Russophobia.
                    Even in a lie it is necessary to observe at least some framework. So that there is no doubt about your adequacy.

                    You definitely do not pass such a test.
                    And I am not interested in discussing your exuberant fantasies.
                    1. Octopus 18 May 2020 20: 37 New
                      • 3
                      • 5
                      -2
                      Quote: Spade
                      after an agreement with Britain and France failed.
                      You already agree, otherwise it looks ugly

                      The occupation of Poland?

                      At that time, it was possible to agree only with the German side. The same was agreed with the English and mainly the American side in February 45th.
                      Quote: Spade
                      Well, it's even too much for Russophobia.

                      In fact, these are exactly the proposals of Stalin that are meant by “help from Czechoslovakia” during the Sudeten crisis. Ask where the Sudetenland is and what territories the Red Army should have occupied in order to conduct military operations there with anyone.
                      1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 21: 18 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        In fact, these are exactly the proposals of Stalin that are meant by “help from Czechoslovakia” during the Sudeten crisis. Ask where the Sudetenland is and what territories the Red Army should have occupied in order to conduct military operations there with anyone.

                        When Poland in 1938 lied that “the Soviets require occupation”, it could still be understood. After all, Poland was going to participate in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia together with Germany, therefore, it did its best to prevent the interference of the USSR ..

                        But when someone tries to lie about it now ... I find such a person clearly inadequate. Type of those. who, in all seriousness, wears foil caps laughing laughing laughing
                      2. Octopus 18 May 2020 21: 26 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        When Poland in 1938 lied that “the Soviets require occupation”, it could still be understood.

                        Sure. Just Poland about the young republic of workers and peasants understood everything correctly.
                        Quote: Spade
                        I think such a person is clearly inadequate.

                        Seriously? You will not believe it, but Soviet / Russian troops were in Poland from 1939-1941 and 1944-1993.
                      3. Lopatov 18 May 2020 21: 40 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Sure. Just Poland about the young republic of workers and peasants understood everything correctly.

                        Just judged by herself.
                        She bit off a piece of all her neighbors. From Lithuania, from Belarus, from Ukraine, from Germany, from Czechoslovakia ... Well-aimed "Hyena of Europe" appeared in vain ...

                        And now they have already agreed with the Germans to tear Czechoslovakia (these nonsense considered Germany an ally, this is after she chopped off Upper Silesia laughing Apparently, they believed that Germany would forgive for the sake of hypertrophied Polish Russophobia laughing laughing laughing )

                        And here the "Soviets" are trying to protect Czechoslovakia, to deprive Poland of its inalienable right to rob a neighbor ... So the Poles had to lie. For the sake of Nazi Germany and for the acquisition of Zaolzie

                        With them it is clear, they had a reason.
                        But why are you lying? And why do you think that they will believe in this game?
                      4. Octopus 18 May 2020 21: 49 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Accurate "Hyena of Europe" did not appear in vain ...

                        Yes, Churchill was able to say beautifully.
                        Quote: Spade
                        From Lithuania, from Belarus, from Ukraine, from Germany, from Czechoslovakia.

                        It is funny, but all of the listed countries, except Belarus, maintained their independence exactly until the moment when the people's power came there. But Poland somehow survived, more or less.
                        Quote: Spade
                        (These nonsense considered Germany an ally

                        What an irony.
                        They are not the last.
                        Quote: Spade
                        And why do you think that they will believe in this game?

                        Well, not everyone is happy with your version that the USSR was going to take this and fight with Germany in the middle of Europe through 2 countries, in some strange way. Here, all the same, one must be too deep in the alternative reality of the Comintern / Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.
            2. ccsr 18 May 2020 18: 54 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: Octopus
              LK "Soviet Russia" was laid down in the summer of 40, already after the surrender of France, for the war with Germany?

              To lay the ship in 1940, it must first be designed two or three years earlier, and at least plan the budget in 1939, so that it had money to start construction. So to tie its construction to the surrender of France will not work - its construction was planned long before that.
              1. Octopus 18 May 2020 20: 40 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                so that to tie its construction to the surrender of France will not work - its construction was planned long before that.

                I am very far from the idea that the USSR planned to fight with Great Britain precisely in the summer of the 40th.

                He began to do this in the late 20s, with a "military alert" of the 27th year.
                1. ccsr 19 May 2020 11: 07 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  He began to do this in the late 20s, with a "military alert" of the 27th year.

                  This is all frivolous - even then we couldn’t really feed ourselves, which is why we had to engage in collectivization and planning five-year plans.
                2. Octopus 19 May 2020 11: 29 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  we then even couldn’t really feed ourselves, which is why we had to engage in collectivization and planning five-year plans.

                  It turned out very funny, but to collectivization and five-year plans with food began to gradually improve. Actually, both collectivization and industrialization are only components of the militarization of the USSR, which began in connection with the events mentioned.
                3. ccsr 19 May 2020 11: 54 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Actually, both collectivization and industrialization are only components of the militarization of the USSR, which began in connection with the events mentioned.

                  So the West did not hide its desire to destroy the USSR - we had no choice.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  It turned out to be very funny, but before collectivization and five-year plans with food, it began to gradually improve.

                  It can be said at a stretch that it began to improve - we were forced to spend gold on the purchase of equipment for the industrialization of the country, and not get it through the sale of food from agricultural raw materials.
                4. Octopus 19 May 2020 12: 13 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  So the West did not hide its desire to destroy the USSR - we had no choice.

                  You see, you lied a little.
                  The West helped the Bolsheviks to survive in the early 20s by limiting the claims of Eastern European created by the Germans (few remember, but the Curzon line initially limited Poland to the East, not the RSFSR to the West), sent food in the 20s, and in the 30s built factories in the USSR.

                  The West did not know and did not want to know with whom it was dealing.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  we were forced to spend gold on the purchase of equipment for the industrialization of the country, and not to receive it through the sale of food agricultural raw materials.

                  You are absolutely right. With food, it began to improve until things more important than food appeared in the native party and government. Notice, until the Reich another 5 years.
                5. ccsr 19 May 2020 13: 31 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Octopus
                  You see, you lied a little.

                  Not much and lied - it was so.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  The West helped the Bolsheviks survive in the early 20s by limiting the claims of Eastern European created by the Germans

                  Yes, there was such a mess in the early 20s, which is not excluded that due to proletarian revolutions, we would have new republics within the USSR. So you can draw the West to anything, but not in the desire to help the Bolsheviks.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  The West did not know and did not want to know with whom it was dealing.

                  They paid with gold, so they didn’t care - the main profit. By the way, advanced technologies were not transferred to us then, even for money.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  Notice, until the Reich another 5 years.

                  The Bolsheviks were not so naive, and understood where Europe was going - Mussolini already became the prime minister in 1922, and we well remembered the intervention. So they all correctly foresaw - they knew that war could not be avoided, for which I would like to say thank you to the Bolsheviks and comrade Stalin in the first place.
                6. Octopus 19 May 2020 13: 43 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Not much and lied - it was so.

                  )))
                  Quote: ccsr
                  So you can draw the West to anything, but not in the desire to help the Bolsheviks.

                  Naturally, there was no desire for the Bolsheviks. The Entente finished off with Germany, drenched puppet regimes. Or those whom she considered such.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  They paid with gold, so they didn’t care

                  Yes, the grimaces of capitalism.

                  What did you say there?
                  Quote: ccsr
                  The West did not hide its desire to destroy the USSR

                  Deeply sick people.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  The Bolsheviks were not so naive, and understood where Europe was going

                  In the 27th they understood, in the summer of the 41st they did not understand. Although Europe has come much closer, it seems.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Yes, and we well remembered the intervention

                  The intervention, I recall, was carried out mainly by the Germans. The Soviet government traditionally forgets about them.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  war cannot be avoided, for which thanks to the Bolsheviks and comrade Stalin in the first place.

                  You are absolutely right.
  • boris epstein 19 May 2020 11: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    There was no talk of any occupation of Poland. I propose for reading two volumes of the collection "Documents and materials on the eve of World War II." The USSR requested the CORRIDORS under British-French-Polish control to pass the Red Army to the Polish-German border. The Soviet proposals were beneficial to the West. In the event of an attack on a country with which England and France have an agreement on military assistance, the USSR exposes 2% of the troops available to England and France attacked by the country. In the case of an attack on England or France, the USSR exposes 75% of the troops available to England and France . In the event of a German attack on the USSR, England and France expose 100% of the troops available to the USSR. And while the delegation from the USSR was led by the People’s Commissar of Defense Voroshilov, then the commandant of the port and the retired general led the delegations from England and France, which suggests that England and France were not going to conclude an agreement on the anti-Hitler coalition from the very beginning. About Soviet battleships. At first, they were planning to build 75 battleships: “Soviet Union,” “Soviet Russia”, “Soviet Ukraine” and “Soviet Belarus.” But then it turned out that 4 did not pull and decided to focus on one, “Soviet Union”. And they didn’t have time to finish building. It should have been ready by December 4. In addition to it, destroyers of the “Fire” type, cruisers of the “Komsomolets” type, submarines, minesweepers were standing on the stocks. A serial production of T-1942 and KV, IL-34 was prepared , Pe-2, new artillery, Redut radars ... But the five-year rearmament was supposed to end in December 2. Why battleships were needed? And who said that they should definitely stay on the Black Sea? The northern fleet of the USSR was very weak.
    1. Octopus 19 May 2020 11: 34 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: boris epstein
      The USSR requested CORRIDORS under British-French-Polish control for the Red Army to pass to the Polish-German border

      )))
      About Anglo-Franco-Polish control - this is, of course, trolling. If the Anglo-Franks had so much free power to provide control also for the Red Army, then why would they then have a Red Army.

      And about the corridors, whoever would believe, but not Poland. She had not forgotten the previous corridors yet. Also, by the way, were planned for Germany.

      Quote: boris epstein
      Why were battleships needed? And who said that they should definitely stay on the Black Sea? The northern fleet of the USSR was very weak.

      Why did the USSR need as many battleships as Britain and the United States, with the double size of each ship, you wanted to say.
  • Aaron Zawi 18 May 2020 14: 18 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    A Soviet citizen except for Britain

    Including the UK.

    I do not think that the British would be able to sit out on their island after losing the USSR or a separate peace.

    Soviet citizens essentially fought for the whole of Europe.

    And why from June 40 to June 1941, our ancestors did not fight for Britain in the most difficult time for the British? Maybe because the leadership of the USSR at that time did not give a damn about WB problems? And then you can say that with their courage the British deprived Germany of hope for a quick victory and forced them to start a war on two fronts.
    1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 14: 40 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      And why from June 40 to June 1941, our ancestors did not fight for Britain

      Because Britain itself did not want this.
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Maybe because the leadership of the USSR at that time did not give a damn about WB problems?

      Judging by the fact that it was Moscow, back in March 39, who proposed convening a conference with the aim of forming an alliance opposing Germany, the Soviet leadership did not care.
      But the British themselves then called such a conference "premature"
    2. apro 18 May 2020 14: 44 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      And why from June 40 to June 1941, our ancestors did not fight for Britain

      And why did Britain abandon the alliance against Hitler in 1939?
    3. ccsr 18 May 2020 18: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      And why from June 40 to June 1941, our ancestors did not fight for Britain in the most difficult time for the British?

      And we had a treaty with Germany, exactly the same as Great Britain had previously concluded with Hitler, and which was terminated after the British declared war over the attack on Poland.
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Maybe because the leadership of the USSR at that time did not give a damn about WB problems?

      Of course, our leadership didn’t give a damn after the AiF refused in the summer of 1939 to conclude an agreement with the USSR to oppose Hitler.
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      And then you can say that with their courage the British deprived Germany of hope for a quick victory and forced them to start a war on two fronts.

      Have you heard anything about a strange war? Where is the courage?
    4. bk0010 18 May 2020 21: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And why from June 40 to June 1941, our ancestors did not fight for Britain in the most difficult time for the British?
      Let me remind you that in 1940 Britain and France were preparing to attack the USSR, and Germany prevented this war by occupying France.
  • Kronos 18 May 2020 14: 57 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    The Nazis could not land in Britain at the peak of their capabilities in 1940 - their aircraft lost to the British and the fleet could not provide a landing
    1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 14: 58 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Kronos
      The Nazis could not land in Britain at the peak of their capabilities in 1940

      "Peak of opportunity ???"
      Oh well.... laughing
      1. Kronos 18 May 2020 14: 59 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        Yes, at the peak when the Germans could concentrate all their forces, all the more so since they defeated France, which means England was left alone with them
        1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 15: 06 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Kronos
          Yes, at the peak when the Germans could concentrate all their forces, all the more so since they defeated France, which means England was left alone with them

          And then what happened, for example, in the summer of 1942?
          Already not a "peak"?
          laughing

          And now imagine what Germany would have been by 1942-1943 if the Barbarossa plan had been a success
      2. Aaron Zawi 18 May 2020 15: 05 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: Kronos
        The Nazis could not land in Britain at the peak of their capabilities in 1940

        "Peak of opportunity ???"
        Oh well.... laughing

        And what is wrong?
  • Alf
    Alf 18 May 2020 19: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Firstly, the Market Garden failed not because of the “fallacy of conducting such large-scale operations by parachuting,” but because of the ground forces. who simply could not maintain the pace that the hyper-optimistic staff officers imposed on them.

    Well, yes, yes .. Especially if you do not take into account the moment when the local Resistance reported the presence of an SS tank division near Arnhem. And with anti-tank weapons, the paratroopers of all countries and peoples have always been not so hot.
    1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 20: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yes, everything was so ... super-optimistic.
      And the failure of the operation is associated with planning. And not with the use of paratroopers for "vertical coverage"
      1. Alf
        Alf 18 May 2020 20: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Spade
        And not with the use of paratroopers for "vertical coverage"

        This is yes. Not for nothing that the idea passes through the film, we’ll land, beat Jerry and end the war by Christmas.
  • Strashila 18 May 2020 11: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    "The shortcomings and errors in planning the operation and the organization of the landing cost the Soviet paratroopers very expensive." As I recall, German agents worked there.
  • apro 18 May 2020 11: 56 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Airborne assault forces by many military men seem like a miracle weapon ... but only against a weakened one or no enemy at all. Normal ground forces are capable of destroying paratroopers easily enough. not succeed against a full-fledged opponent.
    The only airborne operation of the paratroopers that ended in victory was Crete, where the green devils demonstrated how to make a strategic landing. Nobody has managed to repeat this today.
    1. Ryazan87 18 May 2020 12: 18 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      The main thing is not to tell our paratroopers, otherwise they still seem to dream of landing by entire divisions.
      1. Catfish 18 May 2020 13: 40 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Nikita, hi better not to tell or land. smile
    2. Doctor 18 May 2020 13: 24 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Airborne assault. Many military men seem miraculous weapons ... but only against the weakened

      Yes, even against the weakened one.
      Who would think of throwing a massive airborne assault in Syria? And if it comes, then how it can end.

      Even in Crimea they recently threw it out after ... laughing
    3. GUSAR 18 May 2020 17: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Crete a successful operation? Truth? Well, successful in general, of course, but it was Pyrroova's victory. According to the present successful landing on the forts of Eben-Emael in Belgium
  • fa2998 18 May 2020 12: 11 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The Germans in Crete completed the combat mission, but after Crete, after huge losses, they did NOT throw MORE landing parties.
    And the Americans “liberated” the Aleutians — they spent a bunch of ammunition, the dead and wounded were ONLY JAPANESES THERE WAS NOT. A wonderful operation. request hi hi
    1. Petrik66 18 May 2020 13: 29 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      The Americans, besides Aleut, carried out many successful operations during the Second World War, but I would stop at the Incheon operation. There they showed us how to land troops. Koreans - Koreans, but the fact of enchanting pro..ba and our military advisers is clear. The enemy must be respected.
      1. fa2998 18 May 2020 18: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Petrik66
        had many successful operations

        I am well acquainted with military history. But an article about unsuccessful operations, and comments on them. hi
  • Petrik66 18 May 2020 12: 12 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    There are two polar opinions: 1. paratroopers - cyborgs from the animated screensaver for "Serving the Fatherland", spitting a helicopter and spitting a barrel at the adversary’s tank. 2. funnel sucking out of the infantry potential best soldiers. Where is the truth? Judging by the adoption of conventional tanks by the Airborne Forces, it’s closer to opinion 2. But some comrades here write about the Kerch Theodosius operation, so this is a very erroneous view of sofa murzics. Thanks to this operation, the first storm of Sevastopol was disrupted, time was won, Defeat of the Crimean Front in 42g. It has nothing to do with the landing operation. If you read the stories of Field Marshal Manstein about how the close corporal Adik got under his feet and interfered with the realization of the great intentions of the Dzhigit, he was very serious about the landing.
    1. ccsr 18 May 2020 12: 43 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Petrik66
      But some comrades here write about the Kerch Theodosian operation, so this is a very erroneous view of sofa murziks. Thanks to this operation, the first storm of Sevastopol was disrupted, time was won, Defeat of the Crimean Front in 42g. It has nothing to do with the landing operation.

      Absolutely correct assessment - just this operation was so successful that the Germans left Kerch in such a hurry that they abandoned almost all of their property, and even some prisoners were taken by surprise and did not show resistance. Moreover, they retreated almost a hundred kilometers - for Theodosius, because they were afraid to be cut off from the main troops. And these were the best parts of the Wehrmacht - it was still only 1941, and they did not have huge losses, and they knew how to fight. That is what a successful MARINE landing in the right places means, which refutes the opinion that they did not know how to fight at the beginning of the war.
  • Doctor 18 May 2020 13: 33 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Although clumsy, the article raises an important topic - the possibility of using massive airborne assault forces in modern warfare.
    The experience of military operations shows that even in the conditions of air defense of past years this is not rational.
    Now it’s probably completely pointless, if only to land from high altitudes, with oxygen. But where will they be carried and how then to gather.
    Not to mention the cost of training such a large number of paratroopers.

    This, of course, does not cancel the DRG dispatch of special forces in special conditions (night time), but this is a piece of goods.
    Then ccsr wrote correctly:
    Of course, the author is weird - only the great "theorists" like the author of the article, who does not even understand that the scale of such military operations are incomparable, can confuse the airborne operation of airborne forces with operations of special forces.
  • aglet 18 May 2020 15: 55 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: knn54
    The failure of the "Ballerin Goering" during the landing on Crete.
    And almost no successful airborne operations of the Red Army during the Second World War.

    Germans did capture Crete. and our landing, even air, even sea, ended in complete setbacks. not one landing operation of the Red Army was successful, not one. especially Vyazemskaya, and Dnieper, and Kerch, and all-complete failure.
  • aglet 18 May 2020 15: 57 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: pmkemcity
    It depends on what is called a "landing operation." If the landing itself is unquestionable, I would even say, extreme success

    and what was the purpose of this operation, just to land or something else?
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 06 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    And how many tanks were there?

    yes no matter how much. tank, against the lightly armed infantryman- wunderwaffe
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 09 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: samarin1969
    ..this is a dubious "victory"

    nonetheless victory. and the landing, in fact, is imprisoned for one attack, despite the losses
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 10 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Tlauicol
    This is Goliath’s victory over David,

    but victory
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 13 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Sea Cat
    Airborne operations and the Mongol-Korean-Chinese fleet of 1281

    who cares? airborne landing, marines, mongols on ships, the main thing is the goal
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 17 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Soviet citizens essentially fought for the whole of Europe

    which together with the Wehrmacht destroyed the Soviet Union. Soviet citizens fought with all of Europe
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Honestly, I have little faith in the fact that the UK and France

    nevertheless, Soviet citizens could not defend France; Poland did not allow them. and no England could persuade him to Poland
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 22 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    Are you talking about the 38th year when the USSR proposed England and France to agree to the occupation of Poland in connection with German-Czechoslovak contradictions? Or about the 39th year, when the USSR proposed that Britain and France agree to the occupation of Poland in connection with German-Polish contradictions?

    and you have facts, or did you come up with it now?
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    LK "Soviet Russia" was laid down in the summer of 40, already after the surrender of France, for the war with Germany?

    it was laid down according to the fleet development plan, no matter what. I recall that at that time the whole west was an enemy of the USSR
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 29 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    And what is wrong?

    in the year 40, the Wehrmacht was a weak army, about the same as it was wobbling now, because they could only defeat the Poles and French, those still warriors
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Strashila
    very expensive for the Soviet paratroopers. ", as far as I remember, German agents worked there.

    are you sure? not the commanders of the red army? but Stalin showed the marshal victory, did not know, then
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Ryazanets87
    dream of landings in whole divisions

    our paratroopers have only dreams, they didn’t do anything else, and they won’t do anything
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 34 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: fa2998
    And the Aleutians "freed

    if only Aleuts
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 40 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Petrik66
    There they showed us how to land troops

    And How ? yes, the Americans successfully captured ichon. but compare the forces of Amers and Koreans, weapons, means of landing. This is about how to fight with the tribes, in which the Americans are still strong. because they no longer fought with anyone, as an adult
    1. Korax71 18 May 2020 19: 01 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Why did the Ichkhon operation displease you? It’s not the fault of the mattresses that the command of the SK troops concentrated about 90% of their forces on the Busan bridgehead. That the Americans were able to use all their advantages, prepare and carry out the landing with fairly small forces in a not very convenient place, develop success with a fairly small losses, it’s a sin to blame for this. how interesting are you comparing wassat maybe then on the side of North Korea and China, and the USSR can be counted? arms supplies, training of personnel, etc.
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 51 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Petrik66
    The Kerch Theodosian operation is written, so this is a very erroneous view of sofa murziks

    do you actually know what was there? Yes, it was conceived very seriously, but then, as always. And Sevastopol could not be released by this landing, it was impossible to go 300 km along enemy positions without support. the paratroopers fought bravely, but they were abandoned without supplies, the wounded were not evacuated, the ammunition was not brought back, and the result of the operation was extremely unsuccessful. the landing without supply and support of the main forces has no chance. so they had no chance
    1. Petrik66 18 May 2020 18: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, I didn’t plan this operation, and also, I didn’t participate in my childhood, so I’m not quite up to date. It is very nice how you in an extremely intelligible form explained to me the essence of the operation.
      ".... landing without supply and support of the main forces has no chance." - this quote, I am sure it is necessary to insert a red line in the textbook for the top command staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Petrik66
    If you read the stories of Field Marshal Manstein

    yes, at first he was somewhat alarmed, but then he took action and calmed down
    1. Petrik66 18 May 2020 18: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Thank. Your comment is a balm for a heart wounded by doubt.
  • aglet 18 May 2020 16: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    that the Germans in such a hurry left Kerch

    But what then did the landing beyond the mountain of Mithridates not pass? didn’t keep up with the Germans?
    1. Petrik66 18 May 2020 18: 47 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      18 comments about the landing? You do not like paratroopers? At the wrong time at VDNH they approached the fountain?
    2. ccsr 18 May 2020 19: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: aglet
      But what then did the landing beyond the mountain of Mithridates not pass? didn’t keep up with the Germans?

      You confuse the Kerch-Theodosian landing of 1941 and the Kerch-Eltigen landing of 1943 - these are two different operations. By the way, where did you get the idea that the landing of 1943 was unsuccessful if the landing in the north of Kerch fought on the captured bridgehead for several months, until the liberation of the city. And the supply of ammunition and the evacuation of the wounded there all the time took place - at least read Gladkov, then you will find out why the Eltigen paratroopers could not get through the city to the north of Kerch and requested an evacuation.
      1. aglet 19 May 2020 10: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        the purpose of the landing was the capture of Kerch and the liberation of Crimea, the capture of Kerch, and not a bridgehead. the goal was not fulfilled, therefore, the landing was unsuccessful. and the capture of the bridgehead is what happened, but was not planned
        1. ccsr 19 May 2020 11: 49 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: aglet
          the purpose of the landing was the capture of Kerch and the liberation of Crimea, the capture of Kerch, and not a bridgehead.

          The main purpose of the landing was to divert German troops to the Crimea in order to prevent them from being transferred to the right-bank Ukraine, as there began the largest offensive of our troops to liberate Kiev and crossing the Dnieper.

          Quote: aglet
          the goal was not fulfilled, therefore, the landing was unsuccessful. and the capture of the bridgehead is what happened, but was not planned

          I don’t know where you got such information from, but Gladkov received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union precisely for this operation, which means that the command considered it successful:
          Colonel V.F. Gladkov distinguished himself in November-December 1943 during the Kerch-Eltigen landing operation. On the night of November 1, 1943, his division crossed the Strait of Kerch on ships of the Black Sea Fleet and seized a bridgehead in the vicinity of the village of Eltigen [5]. Gladkov himself was not landed that night - his boat returned to the base due to damage from German artillery fire, but he demanded to immediately bring him to his fighters and a specially dedicated boat landed on the bridgehead a few hours later. For 36 days, the division heroically defended the bridgehead. In the early days, the division reflected the attacks of the German-Romanian forces and expanded the bridgehead, but then the enemy managed to block the division from land and from the sea. The delivery of reinforcements by sea ceased, only single boats with heavy losses broke through the sea blockade, and the amount of cargo delivered by aircraft was clearly insufficient. Having concentrated additional forces and tightened the assault guns, the German-Romanian troops launched an offensive on December 3. For three days, the division defended itself heroically, with heavy losses and depletion of ammunition, it was on the verge of destruction. In this situation, on the night of December 7, 1943, Colonel Gladkov organized a breakthrough. Depleted people, many wounded, broke through the encirclement, overcame several tens of kilometers over the night, broke into Kerch and captured the fortified area on Mount Mithridates. There, for another three days, they waged an unequal battle and were evacuated by ships of the Black Sea Fleet on December 10 [6]. Even during the battle, the division commander and over 30 of its soldiers and commanders were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
          By a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of November 17, 1943, for the exemplary command of the division and personal courage and heroism shown to Colonel Vasily Fedorovich Gladkov, he was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union with the award of the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star medal
          (No. 2180).
    3. geologist 21 May 2020 17: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The landing party passed 100 km from Kerch towards the Old Crimea. The Germans draped so that they were removed from office
      and later shot the commander of the Igneg corps.
  • fa2998 18 May 2020 18: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Petrik66
    somewhere closer to opinion 2

    I’m also closer to opinion 2. Before the war, the USSR created a bunch of Airborne Corps. They took the best. OSOVIAHIM prepared tens of thousands of paratroopers (even the towers stood in recreation parks) -Well, where are the strategic operations with such resources? They fought as infantry (of course, good infantry) . hi
    1. geologist 21 May 2020 17: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Elite units have won many battles. Divisions of paratroopers fettered the Germans in Stalingrad, the guards armored brigades fought well near Moscow. When a couple of guards mechanized corps appeared on the Finnish front, Mannerheim was impressed ... "Now I understand how the Russians beat the Germans," he noted in his memoirs. Paratroopers do not have to jump. They are good in defense and offensive.
  • Operator 18 May 2020 18: 55 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    our ancestors

    Do not cling on - ours, not yours.
    1. agond 18 May 2020 21: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Petrik66
      landing without supply and support of the main forces has no chance. "- this quote, I am sure it is necessary to insert a red line in the textbook for the top command staff of the RF Armed Forces.

      The landing force does not always have to be thrown behind enemy lines, it can be thrown, or rather thrown to participate in attacks from its territory
      1. riwas 19 May 2020 04: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        On October 3, 1941, two airborne brigades with a total number of 6 thousand people were transferred by airplanes, with landings at the aerodromes in Orel and Optukh. to delay the advance of the Germans in Moscow. "Patching holes" in defense. The prototype of the forces of rapid deployment.
        Another "patching holes". In February 1942, to help the 29th Army, 400 troops with a supply of food and ammunition were thrown into its battle formations.
  • sen
    sen 19 May 2020 04: 33 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In May 1941, Germany carried out the largest airborne operation "Mercury" to capture the island of Crete. The island was defended by about 40 thousand soldiers and officers of the British Crown. The victory was hard for the Germans. Only paratroopers died, more than 4 thousand. The British suffered even greater losses - they were able to evacuate only 16,5 thousand of their people and 2 thousand Greeks. Hitler considered such losses unacceptable and banned the conduct of large-scale airborne operations.
    Subsequently, the German Airborne Forces were used as elite infantry and for the acquisition of sabotage and reconnaissance units. At the beginning of the war with the USSR, these paratroopers, often dressed in Soviet uniforms (often the NKVD) and with Soviet weapons, successfully conducted an aircraft landing, seized bridges, carried out reconnaissance, destroyed headquarters, destroyed communications, etc.
  • sen
    sen 19 May 2020 04: 38 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Dnieper airborne operation

    Quote from the book of Starinov I.G. "Notes of a saboteur" (Almanac "Pennant", M., 1997):
    "In early October, while working in the headquarters, I heard loud voices in the reception room. The door opened. The officer on duty barely managed to say:" To you, the commander of the airborne forces, General Zatevakhin ... "
    The appearance in the partisan headquarters of the commander of the airborne troops was in itself an extraordinary event, and the extremely tense, excited look of I.I. Zatevakhina said without words: something extraordinary happened ...
    - Help out! Hope only for partisans! Zatevakhin said that on September 25th, the landing of troops began on the right-bank areas of the Cherkasy region in order to create an attack group of Soviet troops behind two enemy infantry and one tank divisions west of the so-called Bukrinsky bridgehead. In some cases, the landing was unsuccessful, many paratroopers were at the disposal of the Nazi forces, some of the groups died, others either fought hard battles with the Nazis or dispersed. Communication with them is lost.
    - Are there partisans in those areas? asked Zatevakhin.
    “Of course, Comrade General.”
    - Do you keep in touch with them?
    - Hold it.
    - Can I do something for our guys? Find and gather dispersed groups, support, contact them? ... "
    According to the testimony of the participants, the landing party suffered heavy losses from the actions of enemy dive bombers.
  • riwas 19 May 2020 04: 48 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    According to the results of the experience of using the Airborne Forces in the Second World War, the best results were achieved:
    1. When the enemy did not have enough strength to resist, or he preferred to surrender to avoid casualties and destruction.
    2. When the main enemy forces were occupied by repelling the offensive by the ground forces or (or rather "and") the landing of the sea landing.
    3. When actions take place on their territory (help from the population, knowledge of the area, purely psychologically - houses and walls help) or on the territory of a friendly country.
    4. When landing in the rear of the retreating enemy, - weak resistance of the enemy.
    5. With a small depth of landing and a short residence time in the rear (lower risks), especially in combination with clause 2 or clause 4.
    6. When air superiority is won. On the one hand, landing troops are protected in flight (in transport planes), when landing and on the ground from enemy aviation, and on the other hand, their own aviation actively "works" for landing, striking the enemy’s ground forces.
    9. Under favorable weather conditions. In the bad - often there is a large scatter of paratroopers or their removal to the side, for example, in the open sea, which leads to large casualties (Crete, Sicily). But the weather forecast is still unreliable. Again, you have to wait for good weather, but the war does not wait.
    10. At the closed theater of military operations (theater of operations): forest, jungle, etc. Good conditions for covert landing operations, but difficult for the effective use of heavy equipment and aircraft by the enemy. Although, of course, the landing on such a theater is problematic.
    11. And the main thing. When using small reconnaissance and sabotage groups instead of conducting large parachute-landing operations. The larger the target, the easier it is for the enemy to detect and destroy it with "heavy" means of ground forces and aviation. Well, and the landing, by virtue of its specificity, can oppose this with only light weapons.
  • aglet 19 May 2020 09: 32 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Petrik66
    18 comments about the landing? You do not like paratroopers? At the wrong time at VDNH they approached the fountain?

    there were absolutely no problems, I didn’t bathe anyone in the fountains, I was completely indifferent to the paratroopers. I don’t like the puffed glory of the airborne assault forces and the past, and especially the present. the airborne assault, in the form in which it was thought, now has no chance of implementation, the completely useless type of troops, but the costs of it. one paratrooper of three, or even five foot soldiers, is worth the money, of course. and you know how to count well, apparently, you can count up to a hundred, and read something, for example, about all kinds of landing operations, about Kerch, for example
  • aglet 19 May 2020 10: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: ccsr
    that the 1943 landing was unsuccessful

    I know that there were two Kerch landings, and they were unsuccessful. which of them do you mean? if the landing of 1943, then you should know that "Despite the overall superiority of the Black Sea Fleet and the Azov Flotilla over individual naval units of Germany and Italy, based in Crimea, the German command was able to provide almost complete sea blockade of Eltigen landing, focusing on this site superior forces. " that is, the sending of the wounded, and the delivery of ammunition, were under a very big question- "starting from November 3, the transportation of troops, equipment and ammunition to the Eltigen bridgehead began to continuously decrease and by November 9 they stopped completely. As a result, there was not enough equipment and ammunition, among the paratroopers began a famine. " this is to the issue of supply. Now about the purpose of the landing, the goal was the capture of Kerch and the further liberation of Crimea. Well, that is, the capture and retention of Kerch, if they were planning to free Crimea. But they could only go to the outskirts of Kerch, where they consolidated. "Unable to provide assistance to the landing, the Soviet command on December 11 evacuated it on the ships of the Azov military flotilla, taking out 1440 people in two days." About 10 thousand people took part in the Elting assault. The Kerch assault achieved great success, was able to seize the bridgehead, but he could not take Kerch either. Kerch landing is approximately 75 thousand people. so, the landing target was not achieved
  • aglet 19 May 2020 10: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Petrik66
    It’s very nice how you explained the essence of the operation to me in an extremely intelligible way

    contact.
    "... the landing without supply and support of the main forces has no chance." - this quote, I am sure it is necessary to insert a red line in the textbook for the top command staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation "
    I'm glad you could understand it
  • aglet 19 May 2020 10: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: agond
    The landing force does not always have to be thrown behind enemy lines, it can be thrown, or rather thrown to participate in attacks from its territory

    Well, yes, to land an airborne division with means of reinforcing in the rear of their troops a couple of hundred kilometers elsewhere? it will be cheaper to take each paratrooper by taxi. and the troops were already transferred to other places, to strengthen the attack, but on a steam train or car
  • Vikxnumx 19 May 2020 10: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And why the operation "Cottage" (Kyska island) was not considered by the authors?
    https://topwar.ru/30266-operaciya-kottedzh-samyy-kureznyy-amerikanskiy-proval-v-istorii.html
    1. agond 19 May 2020 19: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      Well, yes, to land an airborne division with means of reinforcing in the rear of their troops a couple of hundred kilometers elsewhere? it will be cheaper to take each paratrooper by taxi.

      You can land your landing on your island, in case of threat of an enemy landing on it.
      1. agond 19 May 2020 19: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But it’s interesting what will happen if the airborne troops give pack animals, then the mobility and autonomy of the thrown landing will increase dramatically, recall Kovpak’s detachment, because they were on horses. Instead of a single jeep weighing 1.8 tons, you can take 4 horses of 450 kg each, or 2 camels, they do not need feed and water. and if necessary a pack animal can be eaten, unlike a jeep. The truth remains the unresolved question of how the animal will descend by parachute, you can prevent horses from being placed in light cases, this will protect them from injury when landing. By the way, there may be interesting experiments with mountain goats as a pack animal
  • aglet 20 May 2020 13: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    I don’t know where you got such information from, but Gladkov received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union precisely for this operation, which means that the command considered it successful

    "After landing, the landing was to strike in convergent directions and take possession of the ports of Kerch and Kamysh-Burun" - this is the purpose of the landing, according to the plan approved by the Headquarters.
    Gladkov commanded one of the airborne divisions, in a secondary direction, maybe he commanded well, although only 1440 people were evacuated, out of 9500. To inspire personnel, during the landing, 39 people were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. but the landing, in general, was commanded by General Petrov, he was not awarded, the title of Hero Petrov received after the war. it can be seen that his leadership was dissatisfied with him, since the landing party did not reach
    1. ccsr 21 May 2020 19: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: aglet
      Gladkov commanded one of the landing divisions, in a secondary direction,

      Firstly, this direction was originally planned as the main thing - you just can’t imagine the terrain to the south of Kerch and north of it. That is why distracting landings were planned both in the strait and from the Sea of ​​Azov. But in the end it turned out that it was possible to gain a foothold in the north of Kerch, but the Eltigen landing could not expand the bridgehead and its supply was extremely difficult. Secondly, the landing north of Kerch expanded its foothold and, as a result, the Germans could not destroy it, so there is no reason to talk about the failure of the entire operation, because the offensive in Ukraine was considered more important than in the Crimea.
      Quote: aglet
      commanded by General Petrov, he was not awarded, the title of Hero Petrov received after the war.

      Then not all the front or army commanders gave the Hero of the Soviet Soz - it was still only 1943 when they were planning the landing, that's why they did not reward it, since in 1944-1945
  • aglet 20 May 2020 13: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: agond
    You can land your landing on your island, in case of threat of an enemy landing on it.

    we have only one such island, Sakhalin, and there are enough troops there. and if you know about the threat of capture by the enemy, it’s easier, faster and cheaper to transport troops on a ship, and even easier to gouge the landing means with aircraft and missiles. airborne assault is very vulnerable before and during landing. and it’s not by a wave of a magic wand that it lands, it needs to be prepared, and a lot of factors hindering, from weather to aviation and enemy air defense, should be taken into account.
    1. agond 20 May 2020 20: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aglet
      we have only one such island, sakhalin

      Even in summer you still need to be able to get to any island of the Kuril ridge by sea, and if the weather is bad, and in winter, and even to Kamchatka by land, not by train or car, only from an airplane by parachute.
  • aglet 21 May 2020 16: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: agond
    and if the weather is bad

    and if the weather is bad, then where does the parachute? and to Kamchatka, on a ship, and to Chukotka too
  • aglet 21 May 2020 16: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    On March 20, the Germans also suffered heavy losses in tanks.

    were there German tanks? the Germans didn’t use trophies out of a good life. "Therefore, Manstein decided to use trophy heavy tanks. At least 8 KB tanks captured in good condition on the Kerch Peninsula were sent to Sevastopol. The 224th separate tank battalion was brought there from France. equipped with heavy French V-2 tanks (17 tanks in total, 12 of them in flamethrower version).
    The armor of the V-2 and KB tanks (75 mm forehead and turret) was not taken by the Soviet 45 mm anti-tank guns and 76 mm field guns, and 76 mm divisional guns (F-22 and SPM) could only hit them with successful hits. It is curious that the Germans for successful actions near Sevastopol dubbed KB "Sevastopol tank".
    In addition, two battalions (No. 190 and No. 197) of assault guns, that is, 75 mm self-propelled guns on the chassis of the T-3 tank, participated in the battles for Sevastopol. "
    judging by these numbers, however
  • aglet 21 May 2020 17: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: geologist
    . Landing with losses of 42 thousand. It defies explanation.

    “During the operation, the total losses of the Soviet troops amounted to 41 935 people, of which 32 453 people were irretrievable: those killed, drowned, frozen and missing; 9482 people - ambulances, 35 tanks, 133 guns and mortars.
    There is no exact data on German losses. E. von Manstein in his memoirs "Lost Victories" refers to the figure of about 10 people. "
    1. geologist 21 May 2020 18: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The landing operation was carried out within 4 days from December 26 to 30. Shponek quickly within 2 days retreated to the mountains. From whom could such losses be received if German troops swiftly draped off the peninsula? It is clear that the sailors in Kerch went on machine guns and lost many in the water, but not the hull. Lost 5 transports from aviation, but these are not Atlantic superliners. I think the troops suffered losses after the landing operation in repelling the counter-attack of Manstein, which followed immediately. He writes that there was some delay, but this is not confirmed by one of the participants in the landing. Our paratrooper notes that Theodossia was taken by the morning of 30, and local adolescents provided great help for orientation and intelligence. Then they began to pursue the enemy towards the hills of Koktebel and the Old Crimea. Suddenly, they were hit by fresh motorized infantry, which marched in columns from the west. Heavy oncoming battles began in the mountains, but this is no longer an amphibious operation. This was the first successful Allied landing operation in World War II. Of course, the Germans were head and shoulders superior to our unfired soldiers and commanders, but they left the peninsula.
  • geologist 21 May 2020 19: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As for the unsuccessful landings on the Kerch Peninsula, they were countless. My uncle lived in a war on a farm near a town in the region of the former Italian agricultural commune. All houses were destroyed, they lived in a dugout, starving. Sometimes it was possible, as if by chance, to drive a cow into a mud volcano, after which it was slaughtered and made a little meat gain. In the mud lake (salsa), the Germans drowned the tank due to sloppiness. According to his stories, the paratroopers attacked Kerch from the north of the Sea of ​​Azov continuously for a month. Every morning, shooting started and a crowd of Romanians rushed towards the city, burdened with suitcases and mattresses. Near the railway embankment, Romanians threw their belongings in the beam of the Bulganachka River and then draped lightly. Then the marines of the paratroopers appeared, who were pressed in the steppe with machine guns with a high railway. embankments. After lunch, at the same time, things appeared that were intensively bombing sailors because Bagerovsky airfield was not far from 20 km. Then, after the bombing and mortar shelling, German infantry appeared, reinforced by tanks and by the evening the battle was quiet, rolling back to the north.
  • Edvagan 22 May 2020 10: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, the American operation "Cottage" can still be considered the record holder for failure. During the storming of the Kiska island in 1943, more than 300 people were killed and wounded by the Americans, an American destroyer was blown up, and there were no Japanese soldiers on the Kiska island ... all losses during the assault on an EMPTY island. Even Wikipedia has an article about this.
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Firstly, this direction was originally planned as the main

    in the "main" direction - 9500 people, in the secondary - 75000 people, where is the logic?
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    so there’s no reason to talk about the failure of the whole operation

    may be. but the landing party did not reach the goal, respectively, the operation was partially completed, i.e., unsuccessfully
    1. geologist 23 May 2020 07: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The landing objectives have been reached since EXEMPTED THE WHOLE KERCHEN PENINSULA
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Then not all the commanders of the fronts or armies gave the Hero of the Soviet Soz - it was still only 1943

    here is just one example- "By decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of October 17, 1943, for high organizational skills in crossing the Dnieper and for personal heroism, Lieutenant General Chernyakhovsky Ivan Danilovich was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union"
  • aglet 22 May 2020 12: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: geologist
    Heavy oncoming battles in the mountains began, but this is no longer an amphibious operation

    and what? if landing forces participated in these battles, what is it called? or, in your opinion, the landing only? was the purpose of the landing?
    1. geologist 23 May 2020 07: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The purpose of the landing is to create conditions for a convenient and safe landing of forces of 44 and 51 armies in the number of 82 thousand soldiers and heavy breakthrough equipment. This task has been completed. Alas, these forces could not yet take Berlin.
  • aglet 23 May 2020 10: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: geologist
    The purpose of the landing is to create conditions for a convenient and safe landing of forces of 44 and 51 armies in the number of 82 thousand soldiers and heavy breakthrough equipment

    “On December 7, the Supreme High Command set the command of the Transcaucasian Front (the commander - D. T. Kozlov, the chief of staff - F. I. Tolbukhin) to prepare and carry out an amphibious operation for two weeks mastery Kerch Peninsula. The plan of the operation, compiled by Tolbukhin, was to simultaneously surround and destroy the enemy’s Kerch grouping by simultaneously landing the 51st and 44th armies in the Kerch region and in the Feodosiya port. In the future, it was supposed to develop the offensive inland, release Sevastopol and completely liberate the Crimea "
    51 and 44 armies were precisely the landing forces. and the goal was to capture the Kerch Peninsula, the goal was not achieved, therefore ...
  • aglet 23 May 2020 10: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: geologist
    The landing objectives have been reached since EXEMPTED THE WHOLE KERCHEN PENINSULA

    when? right during the landing operation, or a little later, in May 1944?
    1. geologist 23 May 2020 12: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You are confusing, it seems the Crimean peninsula with Kerch, which ends exactly near Feodossia, believe me as a geologist. The landing task is completed.
  • aglet 23 May 2020 12: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: geologist
    The landing task is completed.

    Well, when was the Kerch Peninsula liberated? answer me as a geologist to a geologist. during that landing, or all the same then?
    1. geologist 23 May 2020 12: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      During the Kerch-Feodossky operation 1941-42. About 1944 and the liberation of Sevastopol, I also know a little because personal tragedy of our family is connected with these events. On the Count's Quay of the city, my maternal uncle, a lieutenant, commander of a mortar platoon firing squad, was seriously wounded. He is buried in a mass grave for officers for three near Sevastopol. Officers were buried separately from the soldiers and easier to find.
  • aglet 24 May 2020 12: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: geologist
    During the Kerch-Feodoss operation 1941-42

    are you sure? "The fighting on the Kerch Peninsula yielded virtually no results, excluding losses on each side. One can speculatively assume that since the German command was forced to withdraw two infantry divisions from Sevastopol, the impact on the encircled city was weakened. But it should be borne in mind that on December 30, 1941, the German command ordered the cessation of the attack on Sevastopol.
    The whole front of the Crimean Front took part in the hostilities on the Kerch Peninsula, numbering 181 people by the beginning of the operation. Over the period of the operation, irretrievable losses amounted to 680 people (43%), sanitary 248 people, the total losses amounted to 23,8 people. Daily losses amounted to 67 people. "This is about 091. But they were released a little later, in mid-May 110.
  • raif 28 May 2020 08: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why was it necessary to drag an operation here into Mogadishu? there was no mass, parachute emissions or landing from the sea, etc. going to kick the States again?