well... if this would really happen, USSR would clean Western europe of any forces in a matter of days. NATO would only win if it would use tactical nuclear weapons.. you cannot stop such huge ammount of tanks, divisions as USSR had, even in the dying days of the 90's.. But, any propaganda will do right?)) NATO to the rescue.. murdering civilians since 1990.. Latest victim, Libya, tomorrow Syria, Iran.. super freedom right?)) West, be careful .. or you will be toasted by Russia and China!
@BluestyleY Actually, while the Soviet Union had huge numbers, most of them where of low quality conscripts using old equipment without the spare parts to keep them running. On top of that, most of the officers were corrupt, and didn't perform the training exercises required, instead filling out the paperwork as if they had, and calling it good. The Soviet supply line system also required the cannibalization of broken down weapons and machines instead of repair.
@BluestyleY While there were fewer troops in the Western armies, they had better training, commanders who actually did their jobs most of the time, far better equipment, combined arms training, and better communications. Because of the smaller numbers, the West concentrated on Force Multipliers.
@BluestyleY In addition to the differences in training, logistics, operational styles, and equipment quality, the West had a professional NCO corps. The Soviets choose NCO's almost at random out of the conscript classes. After four years, the NCO's would be released and go home. This meant officers had to do most of the work, and the loss of an officer was a huge blow.
@BluestyleY In the West, NCO's were professionals who had been trained for the position and did most of the work in terms of leading and running the army, with the officers giving directions. The NCO's are also trained in basic small unit tactics, and have massive levels of experience for their younger officers to fall back on, which allows the NCO's to take over a small unit if the officers are dead or too badly wounded to maintain command.
@BluestyleY Now, let's look at how the Soviets deal with civlians vs. how NATO does so. In Afghanistan and their own home countries, the Soviets would round up dissenters and have them shot. In Saigon, the North Vietnamese culled any and all political dissidents who were unable to escape to the US or Japan. Meanwhile, NATO goes out of its way to avoid killing civilians via the use of smart weaponry and smaller explosives to avoid collateral damage as much as possible.
so, this is 1989-1990, right ? where's the F-117 while all this is happening ? after all, it was first used during Panama, way before this is even to take place ?
@ timestamp 8:57 it appears to be what is called a JP-233 Runway denial munition, (used by Great Brittan) which contains 210 cratering bomblets & 215 delayed-fused mines-making runway repair extremely hazardous-, where would Russia &/or East Germany get those at ? if they were one of GB's own munitions ?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Get ready America..this is a depiction of what is to come here. Not by the Soviet Union, or any other government but our own. We already have thousands of U.N. equiptment and; along with our own military, troops stationed here in America. All of this is varifiable through your own research because you will not believe me. The current Administration and those in-line with his desires, are going to bring this country down. OBAMA IS OUR LAST PRESIDENT - COUNT ON IT! Wake-up America! Peace.
If the Third World War were to be fought conventionally, the U.S.S.R and Warsaw Pac forces would of won. Because they would simply overun NATO forces, in which would lead to nuclear war.
The Warsaw forces used the same tactics that Saddam used in Desert Storm. Not to mention that every time they opened a gate thousands of Eastern Europeans ran to the west.
Looking back at history, the Allies would have cut the war saw pact to pieces.
@CSATexan Well, first of all Iraq had outdated old military soviet doctrine, second of all soviets were possibly going to make a surprise attack on NATO radar and communication baes along with airbases to completely paralze NATO forces Soviet Union and Warsaw Pac had sufficient forces and logisitcs to launch an attack like that sinmotaniosly.
Iraq wasn't that outdated, even with their best Soviet Made tanks they where unable to slow down the coalitions advance.
The best the Warsaw pact could have positively have gotten away with was perhaps isolating Northern NATO allies likes Denmark and Norway. They would not have been able to build up a force large enough to quickly overwhelm West Germany.
Actually, they had such force already pre-deployed in Gremany and Poland.
And yes, Iraq 1. had outdated equpiment and small numbers of relatively modern designs, but export versions 2. (or it should be 1) had poorly trained and commanded army 3. had no air defence 4. was faced with force that was supposed to go against entire Warsaw Pact.
The M1 Abram has been the US main battle tank since 1980. While there have been some updates, the same tank would have faced the same Soviet tanks that they faced in Iraq. Even at their best their is no way the Soviets were going to steam roll over the US
Not to mention that the Soviet force in Germany would not have been enough, anything in Poland would still have to move a few hundred miles.
By no means. First of all, USSR never approved export of T-64s, T-80s and advanced variants of T-72. Here's the rule: Soviet T-72 -> other WP T-72 ->>> export T-72. In early '80 there were too few M-1s, all carrying 105 mm guns and old ammunition. Not to mention superior training to Iraqis and fact, that on that theatre, Soviet arms would operate under doctrine and environment that they were designed to. Having air defence umbrella, naval support....
The point is that the soviets would never have gotten that umbrella nor would they have had much naval support.
Keep in mind in order to achieve victory the Soviets would have to march all the way across Western Europe. All NATO had to do was slow them down as US and Canadian supplies arrived. Historically speaking this has always been a problem in European warfare.
The point is, that - reminiscent to experiences of WW II - Soviets invested heavily in muliti-layer anti-air and anti-tank defence. They have alredy had it ! Baltic fleet would wipe and NATO would fight hard in Atlantic. Soviet air force was good and numerous enough to contain western AF for some time, though at terrible expense. And remember - don't measure up western metrics to Soviets. For them, 40% losses were part of plan, as long as goal was accomplished.
Also, take note: USSR didn' t have to worry about shipping troops and supplies overseas. WarPac main deficiency was 1) inferior startegic command structure (that's why Soviets assumed that they will be fighting alone in Germany) 2) since late '80s - stagnant economy and decilining maintenance standards (already examplified by Poland in 1981) 3) massive, but vaulnerable mobilisation scheme which would problably failed in scenario it was designed for - recovery after surprise attack.
I agree that the USSR didn't have to worry about shipping over seas but they did have to worry about shipping them from their bases. NATO has demonstrated time and again the ability to gain air superiority. The long haul from the USSR across dubious regions would tax their air defense systems which would be committed to the battle ground.
I think their best bet would have been to provoke NATO to attack them and suck our troops into a sort of Eastern Front disaster.
NATO would be hard pressed to maintain air superiority (not to be confused with air dominance) over Germany and I still submitt, that WarPac had just enough air force and air defence to contain NATO AF just long enough to decide the land battle. And remember, that WarPac 'order of Battle' was just like you are describing - waste units in Eastern Germany to stop surprise attack by NATO, than counterattack with Northern Army Group from Poland and take entire Germany...
The Nations of the NATO alliance are formed in such a way that such an attack would be flanked by NATO air bases both in the North and South. Even if the front was the 600 odd miles from the baltic to the Med. No matter what they are already at a disadvantage.
And Germany could loose every battle, retreat every time with the same thing happening in France. And NATO could still strike from Denmark or Italy.
You don't honestly assume, that fighting would be limited to Germany and staunch "push-to-the-Channel" ? While each of three-four Theaters of War (or what soviets called it) were relatively independent, it would be unlikely that when attack happens in one, others smiply seat and do nothing. In very modest scenario you'd have fight from Persian Gulf to Pole. And no, NATO wasn't numerous enough to try "flanking" you propose.
At which time we are at the same spot as before. The Soviets would have to move massive forces to stage such an attack. And the US was monitoring every move made by the soviets.
By the early 80s US spy satellites would have known of any such troop build up. It would only give the US more time to mobilize for the war.
At which time we are at the same spot as before. The Soviets would have to move massive forces to stage such an attack. And the US was monitoring every move made by the soviets.
By the early 80s US spy satellites would have known of any such troop build up. It would only give the US more time to mobilize for the war.
The biggest problem faced by Soviets would have been that NATO had the ability to launch a counter attack from either Norway or Italy. ( I assume Greece would fall fast) They would have to force an attack on these nations in order to thin out any NATO response.
That would require massive armies with extremely long supply likes. Which NATO would attack constantly.
@nucleartactician look at the intake there big the F-15 intakes are like medium size and plus look at the nose cone of the aircraft im pretty sure its a MiG-25 Foxbat
@Norderstedter29 by the way that MiG in 5:24 was actually a MiG-27 DJ the MiG-23 flogger is only met for air attack not ground attack The MiG-27 DJ has a completely different nose cone in order to target enemy ground forces
A major aerodrome air strike would catch the other side off guard only if no combat had happened before. But since the war had allready been rajing and everyone is on full alert, susch actions with susch a sucsess are hardly possible from either side.
Anyone looking for realistic WW3 alternate history should read "The Third World War" and "The Third World War, The Untold Story" by Gen Sir John Hackett.
The Sovs would have overrun NATO before Reforger was completed. US forces would have been fighting in Belgium, the Netherlands and France, not Germany. However, NATO would not have waited for the Warsaw Pact to just roll through. NATO would have used superior air power to weaken WP forces before the ground war started.
@vvsignin1 Folowing the arab-israeli wars experience NATO changes it's strategy in the early 80-s, hoping to defeat the superior soviet force in a daring blitzkrieg maneuver. So we don't know how would this turn out, sovs were also planing a blitzkrieg.
I intedent to write about mid-eighties with that equipment proportion. And while I think that since, say 1986 odds were bit in favour of NATO, don't forget that most of M-1s had 105mm gun back then and all tanks - west and east - mostly very poor munitions. And - however it may sound - I think SU might have had better chance against NATO without "allies", due to differences in equipment and training, severe ones at that time.
I'm sorry but that feint from the north was obvious. Agree with other posters, not enough people with military backgrounds were involved with this. Still interesting though.
I really think you armchair generals should relax and read some history. About operations that were impossible, impractical or whatever... unrealistic. Actually, while I could dispute every of details of this story, I think that overall look and feel nicely describes one of feasible scenarios.
@AnteyPL Thank you, i didn't want to look at the comments cause i knew there would be some prick saying the standard line "Well actually, let me educate you". Hate those scum bags, now I'm no Google Professor, or arm chair general. But I have always had the sense that it takes one moron to start a war, one mistake, one random chance. This feels real while watching it, like CSA, loved that, too many Arm Chair Pattons commenting, almost ruins it. But this is still good.
@AnteyPL I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but the only thing I read is history. The book I'm grinding through right now is an analysis of Russian military strategy in Europe during the 20th century. So please don't just assume that I don't know my shit (although this being YT, fair assumption to make). I don't think anything in the movie is impossible, and most of the movie is downright plausible. But the assault on NATO's left flank is so obviously diversionary- give NATO more credit.
With movie's limitations - single continous story, easily understandable for average viewer, not even a hobbyst, I think authors made good job, catching the imporant points (especially about supplies, combat readiness etc). Also, remember, that " NATO's left flank" would be quite imporant in most of Soviet scenarios: absorbing initial first strike from West and then massivelly counterattack.
I also think, however not very plausible, scenario where WP advances West from Czechoslovakia on south and through Dennmark / Northern Germany on the north, would cause signifficant trouble for NATO - any counterattack on WP flanks would expose them in a centre...
Sorry just had to post another point. NATO's air force is SURPRISED? Hello, they have had a build up for 5 weeks and are at high alert. This is losing all credibility to somehow give the Soviets some kind of parity. Bottom line, they didn't invade because they were TOAST if they did and they were smart enough to know that.Also, if they wanted to give this real credibility have it made during CLINTON as if the USSR survived in the mid 1990's, that I could believe more.This was made in 1998
@verbusen Lol yea i realize that...but so far I'm still enjoying this "what-if" alternate history scenario of the cold war turning hot. Can't wait to see the rest of it.
It's simplified scenario, all right. However, you - and authors - seriously underestimate Soviet Air Defence and sheer numbers; NATO air force would die on ground, overwhelmed by numbers. Soviet Air Force was designed and dedicated to CONTAIN western AF at expense of it's existance. Such as Baltic Fleet. To provide "free ride" for massive land forces.
BTW: history is full of wars not supposed to happen and operations considered unthinkable by armchair generals...
It's simplified scenario, all right. However, you - and authors - seriously underestimate Soviet Air Defence and sheer numbers; NATO air force would die on ground, overwhelmed by numbers. Soviet Air Force was designed and dedicated to CONTAIN western AF at expense of it's existance. Same for Baltic Fleet. To provide "free ride" for massive land forces.
BTW: history is full of wars not supposed to happen and operations considered unthinkable by armchair generals...
LOL, they are rehashing WW2 and WW1 battle plans. OMG NATO never saw that happening! What do you think Generals do in peace? They have WAR GAMES! Also, hello...the Scandinavian countries (along with West Germany) have outstanding submarine and anti submarine forces, this naval invasion would have died a horrible death on the water. Don't believe me? Check out Jane's Fighting ships they EXPORT subs! This show was written by non military people. the politics and military scenarios are flawed.
I was a part of NATO centag support with 97th sig bn. I was a section chief of a very, very secure communication section. This was the reason we, us, w.germany, england, the rest of nato spent all the time in the field (wintex, reforger, and all other training operations inorder to let the ussr and warsaw pact nations..this shit will not be tolerated!!! Every time we went on alert, we drew all crypto key list and live ammo.
The Soviet soldiers of the Baltic Sea Fleet are armed with AKMs chambered in the 7.62x39mm round, and this is supposed to occur in 1990. This would indicate that the first assaulting Soviet forces were given sub-standard and older equipment. I would imagine the tanks, planes, and other equipment of the first waves would be substandard as well. This conforms to what I've read about Soviet battle plans. They were going to sacrifice their allies, Poles, East Germans, etc. to break NATO down.
@Sleepy1988 That makes sense.. In 1990 there was a only about 400 T-80Us, with most in the rear near Moscow. I think about 500 T-80Bvs were forward deployed with IFV consisting of BMP-2s. These eliet forces would have been used to pour through weakend zones made by the Poles etc.. I doubt that the Poles etc would have eagerly engaged Nato forces.
You are joking, right ? In 1990 there were THOUSANDS of T-80s and untill mid-80's almost none M1s and Leo-2s in western service.... finally, there was no need for T-80 against basically M-60 and Leo-1s...
You are joking, right ? In 1990 there were THOUSANDS of T-80s and untill mid-80's almost none M1s and Leo-2s in western service.... finally, there was no need for T-80 against basically M-60 and Leo-1s...
And as of Poles - you are really out of you know, reason. In that time, NATO equaled Germany. Germany equaled Enemy. East German Army would be more of concern - one of Soviet plans envisaged DISARMING NVA in first days of war :-)
@AnteyPL No I am not. There were thousands of T-80Bs but only a handfull of T-80U/UDs and T-80Bvs by the break up in the FSU. By say 1985 there were about 2000 m1s and 500 IPM1s and. There were about 1100 Leo-2s by this time and probably less then 400 challenger 1s.
As for the Poles, I suspect there were plenty who were angery at Germany, but from my encounters they were not fond of the Russians either and resented the whole situation.
I think people are mishearing the radio broadcast, the reporter says 1500 Soviet Casualties, not 15000! Compared to 1000 Nato casualties that isn't an extreme amount more (most likely due to Nato guerilla tactics.) So that's heavy losses on both sides right there.
@DJMikaelito actually they mention multiple times that the allies lost 1000s of men and they were beaten back several times.....at 5:36 you hear the reporter saying "casualties are heavy on BOTH sides"
good bubble gum for the brain. It has a nice documentary feel to it. But, the military choices are, well, umm... pretty much suck. So, suspend disbelieve, relax and pop some corn. I second SJF WW3 book. Or "Warday" if you want a post America after a limited nuclear exchange.
Some of these interviews gave me the impression that nuclear war hadn't not happened in the end. But then they were used at the end, very confusing that. There would of been any interviews because were'd all be dead. That side of it didn't make any sense at all. I think Sir John French's book WW3 written during the 80s, is much better with this countrefactual stuff on WW3. If you going to have mock interviews then nukes wouldn't have been used by either side in a massive way.
This film way over estimates Soviet military capabilities. The Warsaw Pact was totaly unreliable. The biggest threat was from the shear number of Soviet ground forces but they would be tied up just keeping their own allies in check.
There's no overstatement; actually, well into '80s WarPac enjoyed both quantitive and - believie it, or not - qualitative advantage over NATO. The issue of reliability and dependability on allies - in such scenario - is nicely demonstrated in this document.
@AnteyPL - " qualitative advantage"? Really? Soviet hardware is not as inferior as it has often thought to be? Even with the Soviet policy of "Quantity has a quality of its own:
Yes. Really - until Leopard 2's and M1s entered service in sufficient numbers, it was M-60 / Leo-1 against T-72s, T-64s and early T-80. In artillery and armour Soviets (read: Soviets, not WarPac) had both qualitative and quantitive advantage on European Theatre.
@AnteyPL correct but you fail to realize that the M1 had the cannon the leo 2 had M1s outgunned a T72 but we did have in numbers the apache and cobra helicopters both designed to deal with the supierer number of tanks air power is where its at bro without control of the skies u cannot win and the allies did have better aircraft
Nope - M1s initially were fitted with license built 105 mm L7 and for all guns (100/105 mm 120/125 mm) both sides fielded several improved generations of ammunition. How many of the Apaches were available to NATO and how they would fare against multi layered GBAD of typical soviet division ? Also, WarPac AF, though arguably worse suited for air dominance, was strong enough to contain NATO AF for reasonable time and allow Army Aviation to support Ground Forces.
Would you mind giving some examples of how the Warsaw Pact was superior? Personally, I haven't looked much at Cold War warfare (I'm more interested in post-Cold War), and I wasn't born until after the Cold War, so I don't know anything about whether or not NATO or the Warsaw Pact had superiority -- so I would find it interesting (and educational) to hear your facts on the matter.
[part 1/ of ] You have to remember one thing: as cleverly pointed in this program, and learned by Israeli actual experience, _modern_ war attrites latest equipment in unmeasureablly high rate. So outcome depends more on initial conditions, rather than on technology or manufacturing capability.
@AnteyPL Warsaw pact troops would not be motivated to sacrifise their lives for the communist hell they lived in. East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, all had their democratic revolutions crushed by soviet tanks. Poland wanted to be western, but had to pay lip service to the soviets. The soviets were outwardly strong, but they were led by incompetent officers, their equipment sucked and had no infrastructure. Ex. 1st chechen war. Western Europe actually had balls back then too. Unlike now.
@tecumseh1175 Had the soviet union still existed in 1994, i think it would have fared slightly better in the first chechen war. But declining funding in the aftermath of the fall of the soviet union led to lower standards and morale for soldier and officer alike. Nonetheless, i otherwise agree with what you say.
@tecumseh1175 That is a very accurate comment! One thing I'll say for each side. The US and NATO: Always had the technological edge and had a DEVASTATING edge when it came to SLBMs (still 6,142 warheads -- MIRVs DoD #s), ICBMs, and rearmable cruise missiles (dual-use weapon i.e. the "hacksaw"). One thing I would ALWAYS keep in my mind (as a US soldier, officer, political leader, etc..) however is just how many countries underestimated the Russians and died miserable and confused. Good posts!
Let's say - take rougly begining of 1980s. As I said in later 1980 tides turned. First F-16s were not capable of using radar guided BVR missiles; no problem for MiG-29.
WarPac was usually superior in artilery (missles - anti-ship, rockets- both strategic such as SS-18 or tactical like SS-23 Spider also varied types of MLRS, guns) and tank armour. On the other hand, WarPac tanks had worse crew protection and aoutolader limited efficeiency of ammo.
@ThePinkFloydian1995 - Well we're used to looking at this time period with Russia having sold off most of its equipment and letting its equipment fall into disarray. So Russia of the 1990s (esp like...95-99) was seen as backward militarily. But they had plenty of nukes, conventional missile-nukes, far outnumbered the allies in terms of tanks and APC and personnel. The Warsaw Pact also trained a huge portion of its populace as reserves. It was a more martial society....
...The West with its liberal society wasn't as prepared man-for-man as the Eastern countries were. To be sure America had some amazing pilots and equipment, but for one thing the East had the benefit of fighting on contiguous home-territory. Most of the Western power would've been non-european: British/America/Australia/South Africa (yes they would've answered the call gladly and have been accepted).
This kind of pressure was exactly the sort of thing the Red-establishment was built 2 thrive on
Why don't the Russians capture West Berlin? Every general during the Cold war knew that West Berlin could not be defended against a Soviet attack! A 1000 NATO casualties to 15000 Soviet?! I get the feeling that this documentary is a little bit biased...
@macconnell100 It was always assumed that at some point the Fulda Gap would play a role in any Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion. The lowland terrain lends itself too well to a full scale invasion, Frankfurt is located there along with what used to be Rhein Main AFB before it closed in 1999. The U.S. Army's V Corps and the Soviet's 8th Guards Army which were both tasked with covering the area typically were among the first to get new equipment.
Which might have been wrong assumption - one ridden with German concept of "Schwerpunkt"; Soviets, according to Deep Operation concept would most probably have not done that this way.
The Fulda Gap was always believed to be the prime area for an invasion during World War 3. I seriously doubt that NATO would be fooled by a 'distraction'...
By 1989, Western aircraft were completely superior in avionics and weapons systems. The Soviet's advantage held in maneuverability and design of the air craft. So 20% shot down rate is seriously unlikely.
@bartscheller maybe but about 15-17 resent of the air craft would have been shot down any way.
the bomber version of the MiG-23 which is called MiG-23BN, the SU-17/24/25 and the MiG-27 are not as maneuverabile and are most likely to be hit by SAM's or AAA guns.
Hmmm, I refuse to believe that after having already been in a state of war for several days, NATO air forces would still get caught with their pants down in the face of attacking WarPac air forces.
@wvd1979 Not a chance in hell. They could have insert some special operation teams here and there, but any large scale invasion of the U.S. was completely beyond their means. Even if they could manage to get past the U.S. Navy (never ever) they'd still lack the transport capacities and amphibious capabilities to land and support an army of any size on American soil. Of course none of this matters a damn since it would all have ended in nuclear armageddon anyway.
@wvd1979 Would have been tough, probably impossible. The Soviets best chance would have been to make a surprise strike across the Bering Strait into Alaska, trouble with that is that the US spy satellites would spot a troop buildup in Siberia very easily and very far in advance. It would have been hard for the USSR to explain why 50 red army divisions were moved to far eastern siberia along with huge numbers of transport ships and assault ships... maneuvers?.. yeah right, not buying that
the crises in this movie or the cold war in reality ?
in this movie a German journalist interviewed the soviet leader, were the soviet leader used this opportunity to threaten the west, the NATO however but it's rocet forces on high alert.
@om996jo i'm talking about film.. in real cold war also russians started it first by defaulting Yalta conference agreements, and increasing armaments instead of reducing them. btw i believe soviet's cutting supply route to west berlin was the start of crisis.. after that's done, allies HAVE TO RESPOND..
@knightryderrwn: The Soviet had vehicle mounted tactical nukes in Cuba during the Cuba crisis and the usage of tactical nukes was part of most war plans by both sides. The Soviets didn't expect to get through the Fulda gap without them, NATO was certain to need them to prevent the Soviets from reinforcing faster than being able to ship over the Atlantic.
@ColonelHess Well in the end, no one wins. But yes, the Western forces prove to be superior after being forced back for a short time. This is mostly correct, the USSR in 1989 was starting to lag behind the West pretty badly.
01:35 Der Fuhrer 20 April 1945
Kelly14UK 2 months ago
well... if this would really happen, USSR would clean Western europe of any forces in a matter of days. NATO would only win if it would use tactical nuclear weapons.. you cannot stop such huge ammount of tanks, divisions as USSR had, even in the dying days of the 90's.. But, any propaganda will do right?)) NATO to the rescue.. murdering civilians since 1990.. Latest victim, Libya, tomorrow Syria, Iran.. super freedom right?)) West, be careful .. or you will be toasted by Russia and China!
BluestyleY 2 months ago
@BluestyleY Actually, while the Soviet Union had huge numbers, most of them where of low quality conscripts using old equipment without the spare parts to keep them running. On top of that, most of the officers were corrupt, and didn't perform the training exercises required, instead filling out the paperwork as if they had, and calling it good. The Soviet supply line system also required the cannibalization of broken down weapons and machines instead of repair.
KellAnderson 1 month ago 3
@BluestyleY While there were fewer troops in the Western armies, they had better training, commanders who actually did their jobs most of the time, far better equipment, combined arms training, and better communications. Because of the smaller numbers, the West concentrated on Force Multipliers.
KellAnderson 1 month ago
@BluestyleY In addition to the differences in training, logistics, operational styles, and equipment quality, the West had a professional NCO corps. The Soviets choose NCO's almost at random out of the conscript classes. After four years, the NCO's would be released and go home. This meant officers had to do most of the work, and the loss of an officer was a huge blow.
KellAnderson 1 month ago
@BluestyleY In the West, NCO's were professionals who had been trained for the position and did most of the work in terms of leading and running the army, with the officers giving directions. The NCO's are also trained in basic small unit tactics, and have massive levels of experience for their younger officers to fall back on, which allows the NCO's to take over a small unit if the officers are dead or too badly wounded to maintain command.
KellAnderson 1 month ago 2
@BluestyleY Now, let's look at how the Soviets deal with civlians vs. how NATO does so. In Afghanistan and their own home countries, the Soviets would round up dissenters and have them shot. In Saigon, the North Vietnamese culled any and all political dissidents who were unable to escape to the US or Japan. Meanwhile, NATO goes out of its way to avoid killing civilians via the use of smart weaponry and smaller explosives to avoid collateral damage as much as possible.
KellAnderson 1 month ago 2
Give me a few pints of Vodka, I won't need no "basic training!"
Fantome1989 2 months ago
USA are so desperate to win a war, so they have to make them up... No doubt , they are the winners of movie wars. THAT IS IT!!!
preto230 2 months ago
@preto230 No.
AmericanAirlinesRule 2 months ago
@preto230 You're an idiot...
prg1972a 2 months ago
Pause at 1:41 soldier is picking his nose. lol
CrazedNovaProduction 3 months ago
Nice tank drifting!
BlindShorty11 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ColdWarWarriors 2
Bush I & Bush II - shame of humanity
radurambo 3 months ago
I like the use of the Khe San footage on the air base attack...good job there.
20thcenturyfilmdocs 3 months ago
so, this is 1989-1990, right ? where's the F-117 while all this is happening ? after all, it was first used during Panama, way before this is even to take place ?
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
@ timestamp 8:57 it appears to be what is called a JP-233 Runway denial munition, (used by Great Brittan) which contains 210 cratering bomblets & 215 delayed-fused mines-making runway repair extremely hazardous-, where would Russia &/or East Germany get those at ? if they were one of GB's own munitions ?
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
3:40 Fail trooper. XD
nucleartactician 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Get ready America..this is a depiction of what is to come here. Not by the Soviet Union, or any other government but our own. We already have thousands of U.N. equiptment and; along with our own military, troops stationed here in America. All of this is varifiable through your own research because you will not believe me. The current Administration and those in-line with his desires, are going to bring this country down. OBAMA IS OUR LAST PRESIDENT - COUNT ON IT! Wake-up America! Peace.
hopenchrist777 5 months ago
@hopenchrist777 fucktard
TheConsigliereNYC 5 months ago
Thumbs up if you wish all of this had actually happened
buttercremehonda 5 months ago
If the Third World War were to be fought conventionally, the U.S.S.R and Warsaw Pac forces would of won. Because they would simply overun NATO forces, in which would lead to nuclear war.
MrEricenriquez 5 months ago
@MrEricenriquez
The Warsaw forces used the same tactics that Saddam used in Desert Storm. Not to mention that every time they opened a gate thousands of Eastern Europeans ran to the west.
Looking back at history, the Allies would have cut the war saw pact to pieces.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@CSATexan Well, first of all Iraq had outdated old military soviet doctrine, second of all soviets were possibly going to make a surprise attack on NATO radar and communication baes along with airbases to completely paralze NATO forces Soviet Union and Warsaw Pac had sufficient forces and logisitcs to launch an attack like that sinmotaniosly.
MrEricenriquez 5 months ago
@MrEricenriquez
Iraq wasn't that outdated, even with their best Soviet Made tanks they where unable to slow down the coalitions advance.
The best the Warsaw pact could have positively have gotten away with was perhaps isolating Northern NATO allies likes Denmark and Norway. They would not have been able to build up a force large enough to quickly overwhelm West Germany.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@CSATexan
Actually, they had such force already pre-deployed in Gremany and Poland.
And yes, Iraq 1. had outdated equpiment and small numbers of relatively modern designs, but export versions 2. (or it should be 1) had poorly trained and commanded army 3. had no air defence 4. was faced with force that was supposed to go against entire Warsaw Pact.
AnteyPL 5 months ago
@AnteyPL
The M1 Abram has been the US main battle tank since 1980. While there have been some updates, the same tank would have faced the same Soviet tanks that they faced in Iraq. Even at their best their is no way the Soviets were going to steam roll over the US
Not to mention that the Soviet force in Germany would not have been enough, anything in Poland would still have to move a few hundred miles.
Once at best isolating N NATO nations.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@CSATexan
By no means. First of all, USSR never approved export of T-64s, T-80s and advanced variants of T-72. Here's the rule: Soviet T-72 -> other WP T-72 ->>> export T-72. In early '80 there were too few M-1s, all carrying 105 mm guns and old ammunition. Not to mention superior training to Iraqis and fact, that on that theatre, Soviet arms would operate under doctrine and environment that they were designed to. Having air defence umbrella, naval support....
AnteyPL 5 months ago
@AnteyPL
The point is that the soviets would never have gotten that umbrella nor would they have had much naval support.
Keep in mind in order to achieve victory the Soviets would have to march all the way across Western Europe. All NATO had to do was slow them down as US and Canadian supplies arrived. Historically speaking this has always been a problem in European warfare.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@CSATexan
The point is, that - reminiscent to experiences of WW II - Soviets invested heavily in muliti-layer anti-air and anti-tank defence. They have alredy had it ! Baltic fleet would wipe and NATO would fight hard in Atlantic. Soviet air force was good and numerous enough to contain western AF for some time, though at terrible expense. And remember - don't measure up western metrics to Soviets. For them, 40% losses were part of plan, as long as goal was accomplished.
AnteyPL 5 months ago
@CSATexan
Also, take note: USSR didn' t have to worry about shipping troops and supplies overseas. WarPac main deficiency was 1) inferior startegic command structure (that's why Soviets assumed that they will be fighting alone in Germany) 2) since late '80s - stagnant economy and decilining maintenance standards (already examplified by Poland in 1981) 3) massive, but vaulnerable mobilisation scheme which would problably failed in scenario it was designed for - recovery after surprise attack.
AnteyPL 5 months ago
@AnteyPL
I agree that the USSR didn't have to worry about shipping over seas but they did have to worry about shipping them from their bases. NATO has demonstrated time and again the ability to gain air superiority. The long haul from the USSR across dubious regions would tax their air defense systems which would be committed to the battle ground.
I think their best bet would have been to provoke NATO to attack them and suck our troops into a sort of Eastern Front disaster.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@CSATexan
NATO would be hard pressed to maintain air superiority (not to be confused with air dominance) over Germany and I still submitt, that WarPac had just enough air force and air defence to contain NATO AF just long enough to decide the land battle. And remember, that WarPac 'order of Battle' was just like you are describing - waste units in Eastern Germany to stop surprise attack by NATO, than counterattack with Northern Army Group from Poland and take entire Germany...
AnteyPL 5 months ago
@AnteyPL
The Nations of the NATO alliance are formed in such a way that such an attack would be flanked by NATO air bases both in the North and South. Even if the front was the 600 odd miles from the baltic to the Med. No matter what they are already at a disadvantage.
And Germany could loose every battle, retreat every time with the same thing happening in France. And NATO could still strike from Denmark or Italy.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@CSATexan
You don't honestly assume, that fighting would be limited to Germany and staunch "push-to-the-Channel" ? While each of three-four Theaters of War (or what soviets called it) were relatively independent, it would be unlikely that when attack happens in one, others smiply seat and do nothing. In very modest scenario you'd have fight from Persian Gulf to Pole. And no, NATO wasn't numerous enough to try "flanking" you propose.
AnteyPL 5 months ago
@AnteyPL
At which time we are at the same spot as before. The Soviets would have to move massive forces to stage such an attack. And the US was monitoring every move made by the soviets.
By the early 80s US spy satellites would have known of any such troop build up. It would only give the US more time to mobilize for the war.
CSATexan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnteyPL
At which time we are at the same spot as before. The Soviets would have to move massive forces to stage such an attack. And the US was monitoring every move made by the soviets.
By the early 80s US spy satellites would have known of any such troop build up. It would only give the US more time to mobilize for the war.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@AnteyPL
The biggest problem faced by Soviets would have been that NATO had the ability to launch a counter attack from either Norway or Italy. ( I assume Greece would fall fast) They would have to force an attack on these nations in order to thin out any NATO response.
That would require massive armies with extremely long supply likes. Which NATO would attack constantly.
CSATexan 5 months ago
Is it just me or does the soldier in 4:47 look demon possessed as he puts his helmet on?
hrdknox2000 6 months ago
@hrdknox2000: Yeah, it's just you. =p
JohnnyDart76 3 months ago
@youtubadraqon2 He said 1,500 not 15,000
metalrocker627 6 months ago
the death ratio was a little exegerated,warsaw 15,000 dead and nato 1,000???
youtubadragon2 7 months ago
@youtubadragon2 It is a western based documentary
sumrandomguy3 6 months ago
wtf this never happen
DarkSamurai305 7 months ago
@DarkSamurai305 Its FICTION ! This just shows what could have happened if the Cold War didnt end the way it did..
wwwiiable 6 months ago
They used to say they arn't bats, there bandits.
107Ryebread 7 months ago
was that a MiG-25 Foxbat? 0:11
livedarkness1 7 months ago 18
@livedarkness1
Yes, looks like one
Terrorkarel 7 months ago
@livedarkness1 looks to me to be an F-15
timmy322 6 months ago
@livedarkness1 there is a MiG-25 or MiG-31 @8:08
timmy322 6 months ago
@timmy322 its MiG-25 cause look at the engine nozzle
livedarkness1 6 months ago
@livedarkness1 thats what i thought.
9214cleat 6 months ago
Comment removed
nucleartactician 5 months ago
@livedarkness1 Seems like so. The wing and tail profiles don't look like F-15s.
nucleartactician 5 months ago
@nucleartactician look at the intake there big the F-15 intakes are like medium size and plus look at the nose cone of the aircraft im pretty sure its a MiG-25 Foxbat
livedarkness1 5 months ago
@livedarkness1
No, F-15C Eagle
Norderstedter29 5 months ago
Tornado at 04:21
F-104G Super Starfigter at 04:40
F-4 Phantom II at 04:50
MiG-23 at 05:24
Hind at 07:31
MiG-25 Foxbat at 08:09
Su-17 Fitter at 08:33
C-123 Provider (Con Air ;-) at 09:30
Norderstedter29 5 months ago
@Norderstedter29 kool i think the F-4 was one of the most deadliest fighters
livedarkness1 5 months ago
@Norderstedter29 by the way that MiG in 5:24 was actually a MiG-27 DJ the MiG-23 flogger is only met for air attack not ground attack The MiG-27 DJ has a completely different nose cone in order to target enemy ground forces
livedarkness1 5 months ago
@livedarkness1
Yes.
Myles0Harcourt 4 months ago
@livedarkness1 yes.
DRekkali 4 months ago
@livedarkness1 looked more like f15 it was on a alied side
janak19771977 4 months ago
@janak19771977 no, it's a mig-25. watch closely the shape of the wings.
DrN0s 3 months ago
@DrN0s well if you think so...
janak19771977 3 months ago
Comment removed
WildBillKelso1 3 months ago
@livedarkness1 Looks like it.
AmericanAirlinesRule 2 months ago 3
@AmericanAirlinesRule
No doubt about it. That’s a Mig 25.
UvadupDisco 2 months ago
Is David Macallum the narrater
692ALBANNACH 7 months ago
A major aerodrome air strike would catch the other side off guard only if no combat had happened before. But since the war had allready been rajing and everyone is on full alert, susch actions with susch a sucsess are hardly possible from either side.
ORKSIZDABEST 7 months ago
lol at the guy falling out of the helicopter into the water
MegaPatrick1997 8 months ago 9
Anyone looking for realistic WW3 alternate history should read "The Third World War" and "The Third World War, The Untold Story" by Gen Sir John Hackett.
missile742 8 months ago
i find this video difficult to masterubate to.
gainer2420 8 months ago
@gainer2420 you didn't even spell it right..
zulok1337 8 months ago
The Sovs would have overrun NATO before Reforger was completed. US forces would have been fighting in Belgium, the Netherlands and France, not Germany. However, NATO would not have waited for the Warsaw Pact to just roll through. NATO would have used superior air power to weaken WP forces before the ground war started.
vvsignin1 8 months ago 2
@vvsignin1 Folowing the arab-israeli wars experience NATO changes it's strategy in the early 80-s, hoping to defeat the superior soviet force in a daring blitzkrieg maneuver. So we don't know how would this turn out, sovs were also planing a blitzkrieg.
ORKSIZDABEST 7 months ago
@EasyEs
I intedent to write about mid-eighties with that equipment proportion. And while I think that since, say 1986 odds were bit in favour of NATO, don't forget that most of M-1s had 105mm gun back then and all tanks - west and east - mostly very poor munitions. And - however it may sound - I think SU might have had better chance against NATO without "allies", due to differences in equipment and training, severe ones at that time.
AnteyPL 9 months ago
I'm sorry but that feint from the north was obvious. Agree with other posters, not enough people with military backgrounds were involved with this. Still interesting though.
blindthrall 9 months ago
@blindthrall
I really think you armchair generals should relax and read some history. About operations that were impossible, impractical or whatever... unrealistic. Actually, while I could dispute every of details of this story, I think that overall look and feel nicely describes one of feasible scenarios.
AnteyPL 9 months ago
@AnteyPL Thank you, i didn't want to look at the comments cause i knew there would be some prick saying the standard line "Well actually, let me educate you". Hate those scum bags, now I'm no Google Professor, or arm chair general. But I have always had the sense that it takes one moron to start a war, one mistake, one random chance. This feels real while watching it, like CSA, loved that, too many Arm Chair Pattons commenting, almost ruins it. But this is still good.
GrundySolomon 9 months ago
@AnteyPL I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but the only thing I read is history. The book I'm grinding through right now is an analysis of Russian military strategy in Europe during the 20th century. So please don't just assume that I don't know my shit (although this being YT, fair assumption to make). I don't think anything in the movie is impossible, and most of the movie is downright plausible. But the assault on NATO's left flank is so obviously diversionary- give NATO more credit.
blindthrall 8 months ago
@blindthrall
With movie's limitations - single continous story, easily understandable for average viewer, not even a hobbyst, I think authors made good job, catching the imporant points (especially about supplies, combat readiness etc). Also, remember, that " NATO's left flank" would be quite imporant in most of Soviet scenarios: absorbing initial first strike from West and then massivelly counterattack.
AnteyPL 8 months ago
@blindthrall
I also think, however not very plausible, scenario where WP advances West from Czechoslovakia on south and through Dennmark / Northern Germany on the north, would cause signifficant trouble for NATO - any counterattack on WP flanks would expose them in a centre...
AnteyPL 8 months ago
So I take it Italia 90's on hold ?
Noodles37UK 9 months ago
Sorry just had to post another point. NATO's air force is SURPRISED? Hello, they have had a build up for 5 weeks and are at high alert. This is losing all credibility to somehow give the Soviets some kind of parity. Bottom line, they didn't invade because they were TOAST if they did and they were smart enough to know that.Also, if they wanted to give this real credibility have it made during CLINTON as if the USSR survived in the mid 1990's, that I could believe more.This was made in 1998
verbusen 9 months ago
@verbusen Lol yea i realize that...but so far I'm still enjoying this "what-if" alternate history scenario of the cold war turning hot. Can't wait to see the rest of it.
damiion666 9 months ago
@verbusen
It's simplified scenario, all right. However, you - and authors - seriously underestimate Soviet Air Defence and sheer numbers; NATO air force would die on ground, overwhelmed by numbers. Soviet Air Force was designed and dedicated to CONTAIN western AF at expense of it's existance. Such as Baltic Fleet. To provide "free ride" for massive land forces.
BTW: history is full of wars not supposed to happen and operations considered unthinkable by armchair generals...
AnteyPL 9 months ago
@verbusen
It's simplified scenario, all right. However, you - and authors - seriously underestimate Soviet Air Defence and sheer numbers; NATO air force would die on ground, overwhelmed by numbers. Soviet Air Force was designed and dedicated to CONTAIN western AF at expense of it's existance. Same for Baltic Fleet. To provide "free ride" for massive land forces.
BTW: history is full of wars not supposed to happen and operations considered unthinkable by armchair generals...
AnteyPL 9 months ago
LOL, they are rehashing WW2 and WW1 battle plans. OMG NATO never saw that happening! What do you think Generals do in peace? They have WAR GAMES! Also, hello...the Scandinavian countries (along with West Germany) have outstanding submarine and anti submarine forces, this naval invasion would have died a horrible death on the water. Don't believe me? Check out Jane's Fighting ships they EXPORT subs! This show was written by non military people. the politics and military scenarios are flawed.
verbusen 9 months ago
I was a part of NATO centag support with 97th sig bn. I was a section chief of a very, very secure communication section. This was the reason we, us, w.germany, england, the rest of nato spent all the time in the field (wintex, reforger, and all other training operations inorder to let the ussr and warsaw pact nations..this shit will not be tolerated!!! Every time we went on alert, we drew all crypto key list and live ammo.
tobytowboat 9 months ago
at 5:51 it looks like the AMX-30 (amended to misile transported). But in reality, someone just tell the model exate.
Tireur1983 10 months ago
The Soviet soldiers of the Baltic Sea Fleet are armed with AKMs chambered in the 7.62x39mm round, and this is supposed to occur in 1990. This would indicate that the first assaulting Soviet forces were given sub-standard and older equipment. I would imagine the tanks, planes, and other equipment of the first waves would be substandard as well. This conforms to what I've read about Soviet battle plans. They were going to sacrifice their allies, Poles, East Germans, etc. to break NATO down.
Sleepy1988 10 months ago
@Sleepy1988 That makes sense.. In 1990 there was a only about 400 T-80Us, with most in the rear near Moscow. I think about 500 T-80Bvs were forward deployed with IFV consisting of BMP-2s. These eliet forces would have been used to pour through weakend zones made by the Poles etc.. I doubt that the Poles etc would have eagerly engaged Nato forces.
EasyEs 10 months ago
@EasyEs
You are joking, right ? In 1990 there were THOUSANDS of T-80s and untill mid-80's almost none M1s and Leo-2s in western service.... finally, there was no need for T-80 against basically M-60 and Leo-1s...
AnteyPL 9 months ago
@EasyEs
You are joking, right ? In 1990 there were THOUSANDS of T-80s and untill mid-80's almost none M1s and Leo-2s in western service.... finally, there was no need for T-80 against basically M-60 and Leo-1s...
And as of Poles - you are really out of you know, reason. In that time, NATO equaled Germany. Germany equaled Enemy. East German Army would be more of concern - one of Soviet plans envisaged DISARMING NVA in first days of war :-)
AnteyPL 9 months ago
@AnteyPL No I am not. There were thousands of T-80Bs but only a handfull of T-80U/UDs and T-80Bvs by the break up in the FSU. By say 1985 there were about 2000 m1s and 500 IPM1s and. There were about 1100 Leo-2s by this time and probably less then 400 challenger 1s.
As for the Poles, I suspect there were plenty who were angery at Germany, but from my encounters they were not fond of the Russians either and resented the whole situation.
EasyEs 9 months ago
I think people are mishearing the radio broadcast, the reporter says 1500 Soviet Casualties, not 15000! Compared to 1000 Nato casualties that isn't an extreme amount more (most likely due to Nato guerilla tactics.) So that's heavy losses on both sides right there.
Standuble 10 months ago
Im so sick about american propagnda like they never loose many soldiers but enemy does....wtf i dont know how stupid people believe that shit.
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito actually they mention multiple times that the allies lost 1000s of men and they were beaten back several times.....at 5:36 you hear the reporter saying "casualties are heavy on BOTH sides"
Blueshirts07 10 months ago
good bubble gum for the brain. It has a nice documentary feel to it. But, the military choices are, well, umm... pretty much suck. So, suspend disbelieve, relax and pop some corn. I second SJF WW3 book. Or "Warday" if you want a post America after a limited nuclear exchange.
grognaurd 11 months ago
@grognaurd
I agree, but note - in many wars the unbelievable or irrational scenarios became actual reality.
AnteyPL 10 months ago
Some of these interviews gave me the impression that nuclear war hadn't not happened in the end. But then they were used at the end, very confusing that. There would of been any interviews because were'd all be dead. That side of it didn't make any sense at all. I think Sir John French's book WW3 written during the 80s, is much better with this countrefactual stuff on WW3. If you going to have mock interviews then nukes wouldn't have been used by either side in a massive way.
Professor6871 1 year ago
it took me a while to realize this wasnt real!
MrGreatMonkey 1 year ago
@MrGreatMonkey That's a bit silly wasn't it.
Professor6871 1 year ago
This film way over estimates Soviet military capabilities. The Warsaw Pact was totaly unreliable. The biggest threat was from the shear number of Soviet ground forces but they would be tied up just keeping their own allies in check.
rallyone 1 year ago
@rallyone
There's no overstatement; actually, well into '80s WarPac enjoyed both quantitive and - believie it, or not - qualitative advantage over NATO. The issue of reliability and dependability on allies - in such scenario - is nicely demonstrated in this document.
AnteyPL 10 months ago 7
@AnteyPL - " qualitative advantage"? Really? Soviet hardware is not as inferior as it has often thought to be? Even with the Soviet policy of "Quantity has a quality of its own:
CrimsonGuard1992 6 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992
Yes. Really - until Leopard 2's and M1s entered service in sufficient numbers, it was M-60 / Leo-1 against T-72s, T-64s and early T-80. In artillery and armour Soviets (read: Soviets, not WarPac) had both qualitative and quantitive advantage on European Theatre.
AnteyPL 6 months ago
@AnteyPL correct but you fail to realize that the M1 had the cannon the leo 2 had M1s outgunned a T72 but we did have in numbers the apache and cobra helicopters both designed to deal with the supierer number of tanks air power is where its at bro without control of the skies u cannot win and the allies did have better aircraft
jitterbug8136 6 months ago
@jitterbug8136
Nope - M1s initially were fitted with license built 105 mm L7 and for all guns (100/105 mm 120/125 mm) both sides fielded several improved generations of ammunition. How many of the Apaches were available to NATO and how they would fare against multi layered GBAD of typical soviet division ? Also, WarPac AF, though arguably worse suited for air dominance, was strong enough to contain NATO AF for reasonable time and allow Army Aviation to support Ground Forces.
AnteyPL 6 months ago
@AnteyPL In the British Army Infantry, the main weapon used would be just an Old Carl gustav, MILAN was for support units
MRWALKER500000 5 months ago
@AnteyPL
Would you mind giving some examples of how the Warsaw Pact was superior? Personally, I haven't looked much at Cold War warfare (I'm more interested in post-Cold War), and I wasn't born until after the Cold War, so I don't know anything about whether or not NATO or the Warsaw Pact had superiority -- so I would find it interesting (and educational) to hear your facts on the matter.
ThePinkFloydian1995 4 months ago
@ThePinkFloydian1995
[part 1/ of ] You have to remember one thing: as cleverly pointed in this program, and learned by Israeli actual experience, _modern_ war attrites latest equipment in unmeasureablly high rate. So outcome depends more on initial conditions, rather than on technology or manufacturing capability.
AnteyPL 4 months ago
@AnteyPL Warsaw pact troops would not be motivated to sacrifise their lives for the communist hell they lived in. East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, all had their democratic revolutions crushed by soviet tanks. Poland wanted to be western, but had to pay lip service to the soviets. The soviets were outwardly strong, but they were led by incompetent officers, their equipment sucked and had no infrastructure. Ex. 1st chechen war. Western Europe actually had balls back then too. Unlike now.
tecumseh1175 3 months ago
@tecumseh1175 Had the soviet union still existed in 1994, i think it would have fared slightly better in the first chechen war. But declining funding in the aftermath of the fall of the soviet union led to lower standards and morale for soldier and officer alike. Nonetheless, i otherwise agree with what you say.
BVargas78 3 months ago
@tecumseh1175
You are clearly imagining things therfore get along with your wishful thinking (about equipment and training).
Warsaw Pact had two weaknesses: mobilisation scheme nad strategic command structure.
Not to mention, that you forget that those "Chechens" were actually trained in Soviet Armed forces and were using soviet equipment.
AnteyPL 3 months ago
@tecumseh1175 That is a very accurate comment! One thing I'll say for each side. The US and NATO: Always had the technological edge and had a DEVASTATING edge when it came to SLBMs (still 6,142 warheads -- MIRVs DoD #s), ICBMs, and rearmable cruise missiles (dual-use weapon i.e. the "hacksaw"). One thing I would ALWAYS keep in my mind (as a US soldier, officer, political leader, etc..) however is just how many countries underestimated the Russians and died miserable and confused. Good posts!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago in playlist Looking Glass
@ThePinkFloydian1995
Let's say - take rougly begining of 1980s. As I said in later 1980 tides turned. First F-16s were not capable of using radar guided BVR missiles; no problem for MiG-29.
WarPac was usually superior in artilery (missles - anti-ship, rockets- both strategic such as SS-18 or tactical like SS-23 Spider also varied types of MLRS, guns) and tank armour. On the other hand, WarPac tanks had worse crew protection and aoutolader limited efficeiency of ammo.
AnteyPL 4 months ago
@ThePinkFloydian1995 - Well we're used to looking at this time period with Russia having sold off most of its equipment and letting its equipment fall into disarray. So Russia of the 1990s (esp like...95-99) was seen as backward militarily. But they had plenty of nukes, conventional missile-nukes, far outnumbered the allies in terms of tanks and APC and personnel. The Warsaw Pact also trained a huge portion of its populace as reserves. It was a more martial society....
willyrobinson 4 months ago
...The West with its liberal society wasn't as prepared man-for-man as the Eastern countries were. To be sure America had some amazing pilots and equipment, but for one thing the East had the benefit of fighting on contiguous home-territory. Most of the Western power would've been non-european: British/America/Australia/South Africa (yes they would've answered the call gladly and have been accepted).
This kind of pressure was exactly the sort of thing the Red-establishment was built 2 thrive on
willyrobinson 4 months ago
where the hell is Israel in this? we gave them enough money
adamant623 1 year ago 4
@adamant623 Well the Americans caused the nuclear war in the end so the Israelis didn't have too start it judging this docu drama.
Professor6871 1 year ago
An excellent point!
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL an excellent point!
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
Why don't the Russians capture West Berlin? Every general during the Cold war knew that West Berlin could not be defended against a Soviet attack! A 1000 NATO casualties to 15000 Soviet?! I get the feeling that this documentary is a little bit biased...
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif Actually its 1500 soviets dead. Still is a bit biased though :/ .
FlashProduktions 1 year ago
@FlashProduktions right, my bad.
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif
Where is israel???? they should help us?
adamant623 1 year ago
@adamant623 why, as soon as they sent troops, the arab nations would take the chance to attack them
DaytonaRoadster 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL Your right, not only that it showed the Soviets having few forces and retreating straight away. What rubbish!
EL20078 1 year ago
Ahh... Fulda. Now that makes sense.
macconnell100 1 year ago
@macconnell100 It was always assumed that at some point the Fulda Gap would play a role in any Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion. The lowland terrain lends itself too well to a full scale invasion, Frankfurt is located there along with what used to be Rhein Main AFB before it closed in 1999. The U.S. Army's V Corps and the Soviet's 8th Guards Army which were both tasked with covering the area typically were among the first to get new equipment.
Schone23666 1 year ago
@Schone23666
Which might have been wrong assumption - one ridden with German concept of "Schwerpunkt"; Soviets, according to Deep Operation concept would most probably have not done that this way.
AnteyPL 1 year ago
I could see the seaborne invasion of Denmark as a diversion, but not a realistic main thrust. Impractical.
macconnell100 1 year ago
I find it unrealistic that the Warsaw Pact lost. Both sides were way too big to be beaten.
06hurdwp 1 year ago
@06hurdwp
well the movie isn't over yet.
nero91 1 year ago
@06hurdwp
true :)
om996jo 1 year ago
The Fulda Gap was always believed to be the prime area for an invasion during World War 3. I seriously doubt that NATO would be fooled by a 'distraction'...
bartscheller 1 year ago
@bartscheller
well they could launch an attack through the Dresden area and cut Germany in half.
om996jo 1 year ago
20% of the attacking air force is shot down?
By 1989, Western aircraft were completely superior in avionics and weapons systems. The Soviet's advantage held in maneuverability and design of the air craft. So 20% shot down rate is seriously unlikely.
bartscheller 1 year ago
@bartscheller maybe but about 15-17 resent of the air craft would have been shot down any way.
the bomber version of the MiG-23 which is called MiG-23BN, the SU-17/24/25 and the MiG-27 are not as maneuverabile and are most likely to be hit by SAM's or AAA guns.
om996jo 1 year ago
6 Divisions? hahaha I think the Warsaw pact had more than that!
EL20078 1 year ago
@EL20078 no 1 said that this was all the Warsaw pact got ....
MrIIFish 1 year ago
it is fucking frighting.
antonyvt 1 year ago
Hmmm, I refuse to believe that after having already been in a state of war for several days, NATO air forces would still get caught with their pants down in the face of attacking WarPac air forces.
antred11 1 year ago
the tank crewman at 4:57 looks drunk :)
om996jo 1 year ago
I wonder if Russia could have invaded the continental U.S. at all? I'm sure they had some theoretical scenerio for it.
wvd1979 1 year ago
@wvd1979 Not a chance in hell. They could have insert some special operation teams here and there, but any large scale invasion of the U.S. was completely beyond their means. Even if they could manage to get past the U.S. Navy (never ever) they'd still lack the transport capacities and amphibious capabilities to land and support an army of any size on American soil. Of course none of this matters a damn since it would all have ended in nuclear armageddon anyway.
antred11 1 year ago
@wvd1979 Would have been tough, probably impossible. The Soviets best chance would have been to make a surprise strike across the Bering Strait into Alaska, trouble with that is that the US spy satellites would spot a troop buildup in Siberia very easily and very far in advance. It would have been hard for the USSR to explain why 50 red army divisions were moved to far eastern siberia along with huge numbers of transport ships and assault ships... maneuvers?.. yeah right, not buying that
PhatFarm60 1 year ago
@wvd1979 The 1984 movie 'Red Dawn' was not entirely based upon fiction. There was knowledge by the CIA that this was how North America could fall.
peppercar 1 year ago
US, UK and other NATO forces should attack Afghan like this...
1234567loading 1 year ago
Russia was very powerful at that time?
1234567loading 1 year ago
Epic Tragedy with out hope
infokemp 1 year ago
rofl at 3:35 a soldier fail jumps.
ColdBeets 1 year ago
@ColdBeets
hahaha :) lol
hope he didn't break any thing lol XD :)
om996jo 1 year ago
8:46 lol
om996jo 1 year ago
the strange thing about US films that they show the US as a country with smart leader ship.
in western movies the US always has a smart plan while the Russians deploy their armies randomly.
but this movie is surprisingly fair and and shows both the USSR and the US as equals in power and planing.
I slut who made this video and I wish to meet ham to lern from him :)
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo btw twas quite foolish of Soviets to have started the crisis in the first place..
bkthambugala 1 year ago
@bkthambugala
the crises in this movie or the cold war in reality ?
in this movie a German journalist interviewed the soviet leader, were the soviet leader used this opportunity to threaten the west, the NATO however but it's rocet forces on high alert.
so it's not clear who started the crises :(
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo i'm talking about film.. in real cold war also russians started it first by defaulting Yalta conference agreements, and increasing armaments instead of reducing them. btw i believe soviet's cutting supply route to west berlin was the start of crisis.. after that's done, allies HAVE TO RESPOND..
bkthambugala 1 year ago
@bkthambugala
yes this event prbably launched the crisis, however NATO's respond was highly unrecomended in my opinion.
om996jo 1 year ago
@om996jo The movie is made in Germany and because we saw both sides of the iron courtain we know both tactics
MrRammsteinKicksAss 1 year ago
16k soviet troops dead...only over 1k nato troops dead....
khoihq 1 year ago
@knightryderrwn: The Soviet had vehicle mounted tactical nukes in Cuba during the Cuba crisis and the usage of tactical nukes was part of most war plans by both sides. The Soviets didn't expect to get through the Fulda gap without them, NATO was certain to need them to prevent the Soviets from reinforcing faster than being able to ship over the Atlantic.
kMondrakken 1 year ago
@kMondrakken,
True.
knightryderrwn 1 year ago
I have so far only found this one video but let me guess, the west wins hands down and the soviets are shown to be a failing old regime?
ColonelHess 1 year ago
@ColonelHess Well in the end, no one wins. But yes, the Western forces prove to be superior after being forced back for a short time. This is mostly correct, the USSR in 1989 was starting to lag behind the West pretty badly.
PhatFarm60 1 year ago