I love how they work the Iran Hostage Crisis in with this mock USSR thing. And the actors that play the parts being interviewed actually Look like real people saying real things. A really good movie.
@damiion666 the events in the movie show that the war didnt start until the soviets invaded through the north sea, the blockade battle doesnt officially count as the start of the war. so my point was that the war was Conventional until Soshkin symbolically detonated a nuke in the north sea, and the US Strategic Missile and Bomber Commands went into full alert, making Soshkin believe that nuclear war was imminent.
the war wouldnt have gone nuclear had soshkin not escalated.
Add in the inevitable uprisings in Poland, Finland, the Ukraine, the Muslim dominated south, and the lack of real, effective industrialization to support the logistics the massive Soviet war machine would have required, and it would have been a nightmare for the Soviets.
You are absolutely right in this regard. Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Lithuanians, etc. had absolutely no wish to fight for their hated Soviet masters against the West. I suspect that desertions, mutinies, anti-Russian guerilla resistance would have commenced as soon as the war depicited in this film began. This alone would have made it near-impossible for ther Soviets to continue a prolonged offensive against the West while their rear was in chaos.
The only way the Soviets could have won would have been nuclear exchange. The West had so many Force Multipliers in terms of training, equipment, logistics, and operational flexibility, that the Soviets would have lost most of their forces in the first few weeks of the war. On War by James Dunnigan gives the cold hard numbers on the effectiveness of the two forces. Russia was severely outclassed by the West. It would all have hinged on the Battle of the Atlantic.
trololollolol ..theAmericans really think they can beat the Soviets in a war ..well u Americans think about emps, nukes, and guerilla warfare which is the deadliest.. coz the taliban uses it against the us and vietnam did it too ... soo Americans i aam warning u guys oÓNLy rely on sheer military power
@boomerang403 well what about the Soviets in afgahnistan, gurilla warfare is incredibly difficult to fight no matter who you are or what lengths you are willing to go to short of extermination of the whole population of possible gurillas.
its very optimistic soviets advance just 50miles because of fuel what they leave there base with half a tank of petrol, come on soviets against nato, russia would win every time just by shear numbers
Anyhow, as one defecting soviet general said it...a nuclear war would most likely not be the result of 1 nuke, 2 nukes, 3 nukes at a time. It would have been a full scale total nuclear exchange. Soviets already had first strike contingency plans.
In the early 1990's local US commanders had Nuclear launch clearance, wear as today all nuclear launches must be ordered by CiC, or National Military Command
@collguyjoe99 today only President have a launch code and have to be confirm by two high range gov personal. additional every president's have direct lines in case off emergency to communicate with other Presidents or PM's.
end of WWII. And I am sure that many soldiers from the Baltic States, Belorussia, and the the Ukraine still burned with resentment against Stalinist oppression and Russian domination. And not to eager to die in the name of the Great Soviet Cause. Especially if they met serious reverses on the battlefield. Anyone else care to comment on this?
If there had ever been an attack on Western Europe by the Warsaw Pact, I have wondered how much the Soviet effort might have been handicapped by possible unrelibility of it's "allied" troops. I am sure few Poles had any love for the Russians (the documentary even mentions a Polish Resistance). The Hungarians remembering 1956, and the Czechs 1968, would maybe have been unenthusiastic. Or for that matter, even the East Germans-remembering the mass rapes and pillage by the Red Army at the (contd.)
@farmerne at time off cold war most army's , Polish, East Germans etc has only ammunition for 24 hr. Just in case if they turn against Russians. In every Warsaw pact country's Russian army occupied them. ...There was a plan to used but they will never used ballistic nuclear missiles on western Europe. they all will die from radiation.
To the GOOD points being made here on BOTH sides -- YES the US and NATO had, has, and always will have (at least for a while -- China is not a joke) the best technology. And the US is THE ultimate superpower in Nuclear firepower and really..no one can argue. The Soviet ICBMs are in a horrible state of disrepair and are no match..even if they put them all in the air right NOW. But having said THAT I will say THIS: I would never EVER take the Russians lightly; good way to die miserable & confused!
@tabrisangel19 Where do you live. I'll get you directions. We don't want you! You're a little castrated lab-rat 2-bit subhuman non-American BITCH anyway. And exits are conveniently located in Canada, Mexico and the oceans to your East and West PUNK BITCH! By the way BITCH we have 6,142 SLBM (MIRV warhead total) and 1000s of easily re-armed land-based ICBMs and 1000s more we can top a crise-missile with. We can decimate any country we want without breaking a SWEAT. Have a good day PUNK! >:-)
the soviets did have massive reserves within the soviet union, if the first echelon of the assault was able to wear down nato susessfully, those divisions would sweep in
the rusians did have a massively strict and centralized command and control system, for instance in afgan, forward air control officers were restricted in there task of providing close air support by their superiors
if the soviets caught nato by surprise, in 3 weeks time they would have linked up at the English channel, but if NATO would've took a stand, WARPAC troops would have take significant casualties
"Soviets lose control of airspace over Europe"....thank you, I knew NATO forces would ALWAYS win the air war, against their tube-ridden Migs and fat juicy Bison bombers...mmmm Bison...
@sr71ablackbird no really? damn i thought that was real in germany, damn i cant believe how wrong i was that this already happend somewhere else in the world and they were just cropping footage from other war scenes.
Y you know the only thing you need to do to defeat the soviets is to destroy that House out of wood with no defenses from which all operations are being run =BULLSHIT
THE cold war is not over. the US is making air defence systems near Russian borders and Russia is keep making new nuclear warheads to warn the NATO forces. 1 mistake and its over just like the Soviet-US cold war.
The small planetary body is predominantly a Water-world and marginal Earth-ball. Hitler's view: "To the victors belong the lowlands; to the losers the highlands."
Time and space have compressed with advancing technologies. There is no safe place above or below ground in the town-country and suburban-urban areas within seven billion people are competing to inhabit the best real estate.
Major capitals have built underground facilities for conventional aircraft and unconventional missile attacks.
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.
this is so stupid,the airwar would have been first,and would have been won by the allies!any massive soviet troop movement on land and sea would have been seen way ahead by satellites and espionage,a large part of the soviet military was poorly equipped and maintained!every real life fact is being ignored in this docu!
@tommy1973able not realy they may not of had great tech or weapons but it was reliable thats all that matterd and it all depends the russians could win a war against us but they could also loose so we will never know untill it happens
Hmmmmm the west could of won this war and it was called SAC armed with conventional weapons they could have launched a prolonged air campaign against Russian cities.....
The weakness of having no air force left could have been exploited by NATO.
This doesn't make sense at all. If the Soviet air and defences are so centralised then NATO would have immediately have attacked those headquarters and not waited as in this docudrama seems to imply, until they were on the verge of military defeat. NATO has the stealth fighters for a start that can evade detection from any radar system.
@HezbollahSoldier88 BBWWAAHHAA! The FORMER< now EXTINCT Soviet Union!! Their nuclear missiles with have crashed before they left your "motherland".! And you should get out of Hezbollah. Prophecy says you will be eaten by vultures. You're probably a nice person. I would hate to see that happen to you.
@patrikasLTL Its called a spoiling attack. and yes it is possible to make a thrust and be successful against a numerically superior foe. The germans were experts at counter-attacking soviet armies much larger than themselves even towards the end or world war 2 the germans were able to launch local attacks and throw the soviets off balance. any general who believes numbers will make his army superior is due to failure. a mobile doctrine and massed firepower i.e. hundreds of howitzers is one way.
@patrikasLTL no but Supreme Allied Command in Europe in the 80's or SACEUR had plans to play a more active role in western europes defense. part of this included counter-attacking soviet tank formations in the flanks and aerial attacks on their centers of gravity in their rear areas. Also Special forces A-teams would be used to harass soviet supply columns in eastern europe and im sure not everyone in the Eastern bloc wanted the soviets to stay.
@Rimasta1 And lets not forget American troops even attacked chinese positions during the korean war and the chinese not only had many more men to throw away but and fewer supporting arms so that meant they could commit more troops as infantry. they would swarm around u.s. positions with seemingly limitless numbers but as we learned counters for the numerical advantage the u.s. army and the marine corps ATTACKED red chinese army units. and if NATO waits for the soviets to do all the attacking
@Rimasta1 then we may as well just give up because clearly we will leave all of the strategic initiative with the enemy and will eventually have to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. oh and when the Wehrmacht attacked the soviets in operation barbassa the soviet military was easily the largest in the world...and they were outflanked and outgunned by numerically inferior german units. boom in a nut shell.
@Rimasta1 it could be argued that NATO's was wiliness to use tactical nuclear weapons against an invading Soviets army, in itself, deterred them from launching an attack.
The Wehrmacht's attack on 22 ist June 1941, code named Operation Barbarossa, was considerably helped by Stalin' Great Purges of the top generals in the Red Army during the 1930s. If this had not occurred the Soviet Army would not of been outflanked or outgunned by inferior German units, as they were in June 1942.
@Professor6871 possibly but even if that were so it is still likely many of the engagements would have played out in a similar fashion at least in the beginning. although no doubt stalin helped i dont think the soviet military or very many militaries of the day were entirely sure how to use their tanks primarily. the british, french, and the soviets all started the war with better tanks than the reich but the germans knew how to use their panzers to much greater effect.
You geeks are talking about weapons, but the whole premise of the film is flawed so it really doesn't matter. BTW this was shown right after Gerhard Schröder a socialist was elected head of Germany. So to doubt that the way it is written involves some kind of politics from the left is highly questioned. I enjoy war game what if's though being a cold war vet, I would rate this high marks on presentation style but very low marks on the actual execution and reality.
It's likely that after lack of initial complete success, Soviet "allies" would rumble and disintegrate. Especially such underequipped army, as Polish one.
Interesting how this clip describes a Polish Resistance Movement causing severe losses behind the lines to the Soviet forces.
It seems to me that most Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians in the Warsaw Pact forces would have had little love for the Russians; severely crippling the Soviet war effort.
who told you that propaganda shit ? before 1985 Soviets where so far in technology that when the Soviet Union fall you buyed all the scientists and technology but Thank God you didnt get the best of =)
Hahaha its like saying that Germany has the worst cars....thats what your saying..
At SU time there was great technology especially electronic there is a video about who made Stealth... =) *SU of course *
@DJMikaelito Bought all the scientists and technology? Wtf are you talking about? :D In 1980-1990 SU did not contribute a damn thing to the world in electronics. Name one thing if you can come up anything.
Yes, but its not just the US and Russiab who are threatened by Islam, Europe and European descended nations are ay extreme risk, due to low birth rates and ridiculously tolerant immigrant policies.
Agree....soor or letter world war 3 shall happen and it shall be against immigrants and the object will be resources.....that muslim country lack....theyr oil is ending....no water....they dont produce anything....even dubai is a country in air....a default and they will be lost.
As in every fictional movie the US 'ninja' air forces overwhelm the 'enemy'. Yea right against the best AA missiles and fighters it's really fictional and impossible scenario lol. They can beat Saddam's 50 years old tanks and planes (big heroes yea) but I highly doubt that same can happen against a non-export, state of the art planes and AA missiles of USSR at that time ;)
@tbyte Soviet planes weren't exactly "the state of the art"; of course they were really strong, but their radar and electronics instruments weren't on the same level as those of NATO were; besides, the West had better pilots (they were more trained) and E-3A AWACS were WAYYYYYYY better than the Soviet A-50 Mainstays.
@deltadromeuss Actually Russian planes have way better radars even NOW - care to find comparison of F-22 with SU-35 (just google it) ? And then - better trained ? Hahaha don't make me laugh I guess too much US propaganda got into You head. 4-5 Russian (civil and without markings) pilots in the Vietnam war were shooting US pilots down as I smash mosquitoes.
@tbyte MAYBE, in the VIETNAM WAR (that was 46-36 years ago) Soviet pilots (not Russian) fought against American pilots, but now many Russian Air Force's aircraft are forced to the ground due to lack of funds, and also the pilots are not trained as well as the Americans are (they have considerably less flight hours).
@deltadromeuss The movie it not about 'NOW' but 20+ years ago. Plus things change fast. I won't be be surprised if the roles got exchanged in the near future if the things continue the way they do today :)
@tbyte 20 years ago Soviet pilots were quite well trained, but not as much as NATO pilots; besides, they (I'm talking about fighter pilots, not attack aircraft pilots) were trained mostly to execute ground-controlled interceptions, not much in dogfights (though they were quite strong in that kind of air combat, thanks to the R-73 short range infrared-guided missiles; coupled with HMDs they could have been a real menace for West pilots).
"Soviet pilots were quite well trained, but not as much as NATO pilots" where do You pull that kind of crap ? Do You know that soviet pilots have won almost if not every simulated dogfight with NATO pilots ? Even India's pilots (yea google it) did it and their pilots don't have even the half of Russian pilots training. As I said - stop believing to propaganda and make your research before talking :)
@tbyte Even supposing that NATO and Soviet pilots were on the same level, they had different doctrines for aircombat: as I've already said, the Soviet Frontal Aviation relied very much onground control station as warningand control systems, while Western airforces used the E-3s AWACS instead, and they were better than the ground staion incontrolling the fighers during air engagement; furthermore, NATOpilots weremore indipendent thatSoviet pilots(and this would probably have made the difference).
@deltadromeuss First of all Russians have their own AWACS-es - TU-126 (1965), A-50 Shmel (1978) and so on. Then 'more independent' pilots tend to win only on movies featuring Tom Cruise not in the real life situations. Have You been in army ?
@tbyte No, I haven't been in the AIR FORCE; as I've already said, Soviet AWACS weren't comparable with NATO E-3s and E-8s; a fighter squadron that uses tactics strictly based on ground control and that doesn't encourage at least a bit of indipendent action by its pilots, if the contact with the controller is interrupted, can't do much: instead NATO squadrons used strategies based even on the indipendence of their pilots, so, even if their AWACS was shoot down, they could have continued to fight.
@deltadromeuss "that doesn't encourage at least a bit of indipendent action by its pilots" When were You last in the Soviet air force that You are so sure about that ? You are talking about things that You have no idea. The only control 'ground control' have over the pilots in dog fights is the control over opening or not fire in the begging of the battle and that's based on the actual events. You are pretty much saying what you think it was not what evidences show.
@tbyte I'm sure about the fact that Soviet doctrine(for both ground and air war) didn't encourage Eastern soldiers and pilots to take the initiative, or at least it did it very much less than NATO doctrine. Were you in the Soviet Air Force, or (you are Bulgarian, right?) in theAir branche of the Bulgarian People's Army?
In one of your comments, you said tha Indian pilots won against American pilots indogfight: well, it's a bit difficult for an F-15C win against a Su-30MKI, Eagles are quite old.
@deltadromeuss NO ARMY Encourages ANY soldier 'to take initiative' (except the armies that loose wars). That's the whole point of the armies - to listen what your commanders say. Can You imagine Romans creating such an empire if every soldier 'takes initiative' and does what he wants ? :) And no I was not in the air force but neither were You so don't speak as You 'know how it was'. And my father was a Captain BG army so I let me know better :)
@tbyte For "take initiative" I mean adapting, moving and keep fighting even if you have lost contact with your commanding officer, but, overall, I mean trying to do your best to damage enemy forces even if you have already completed your mission; for example, U.S. Marines units are trained to be quite indipendent, and if they have a chance to inflict more dameges to the enemy or gather some intellligence they do it, quickly and well.
you should also add that the F-15s shut off their radar, if the Eagles used their radar they would have seen the Su-MKIs before being detected and then would have had the upper hand...thats why they were told to shut off their radar...but thats the main shortcoming of 90s US aircraft, they're very advanced when it comes to radar & the Soviets knew this & designed their aircraft around a manuerverability advantage
@Blueshirts07 I agree; Flankers are more manouvrable than Eagles, and they have many other advantages in dogfights. However, in a real combat situation involving F-15s and Su-30s, I would bet on the Eagles-as you have said, they have better radars, and they would also have AWACS support, JHMCSs and AIM-9X, that would give them a huge advantage on the enemy.
But I don't think that you realise that it's about mid 1980s - where Eagles were rare, Flankers even more sparsely deployed, but with supreme electronics than F-15. Not to mention NO JHCMS, 9Xs etc.. You all (like verbosen) seem to re-live Gulf Wars - please understand, that most of the equipment involved in this scenario would be GENERATION OLDER THAN F-15s, Su-27s, M-1s, Leo-2s, T-72s... btw: Soviets also had AWACS and similar stuff. Get real people...
@furstenfeldbruck it implies that despite the wide assortment of advanced tactical aircraft that NATO could have used against any Warsaw Pact thrust into western Europe a strong ground force was necessary to fight it out with Russian tanks and infantry. So even though we may control the skies or have some type of air superiority over such a battlefield it would never be enough to stop russian tanks from crossing the Rhine or even reaching Paris. you get it?
That isn't very accurate, tanks have a limited range especially in wars. Without control of the air the Warsaw pact army would have been stopped very easily. Their is a good probably would have stopped in place and waited to regain air control.
@CSATexan and the russians couldnt refeul their tanks and use SAMS to at least interdict NATO strike aircraft? What do you think would happen first, that the russians would runs out of their tens of thousands of tanks or NATO would run out of strike aircraft from attrition due to losses from SAMS and radar directed AA guns. If russian tanks push all the way onto Ramstein air base then what? It would be foolish to wait while on the offensive because you risk losing the initiative and the war.
@CSATexan but it was a joke, one that i cant claim to have thought of. no doubt NATo aircraft would have made their weight felt but i doubt it would have been enough and NATO would most likely have to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. i think the joke means dont bet everything on your air power on stopping the enemy or in other terms, dont put all your marbles in one basket.
Air power wouldn't have had to worry about stopping the soviet Mechanized advance. Only in stopping their supply line. Primarily their fuel supply line.
@CSATexan I think we had more than enough firepower we could have brought to bare if they ever crossed the fulda gap, including A10 warthog soviet tank killers, and we also had tactical nukes in our arsenal.
Perhaps one never knows. But a Soviet advance into Western Europe would have been heavily supported. On the other hand hundred mile long supply lines cannot be defended all the time.
That is easy, the US has a massive aircraft carrier fleet not to mention bases in Greece, Turkey in the south Norway and Denmark in the North. Not to mention that an advance through Western Europe wouldn't be on line stretching from north to South. But in the form of a column or two. This bulge would leave NATO bases north and south of the main avenue of attack and its supply lines.
As for the USSR attacking allied lines. That would require them to fly over NATO airspace well beyond their airstrips. Keep in mind every step forward is a step away from a Soviet Airstrip. The front will move away from them while the front moves towards NATO supply lines. Not to mention that NATO isn't moveing forward they have plenty of supplies in place
NATO DID NOT HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH firepower, hence the repeated warnings about tactical nukes.
And you seem to forget, that these A-10s would be going against relatively modern, massive in size and diversity, layered and integrated Soviet Air Defense system. Having hundreds of enemy planes fighting in the air, bombing their bases.... it would by no means be "free ride" like in Gulf War, not in initial days anyway.
@AnteyPL "Having hundreds of enemy planes fighting in the air, bombing their bases"..Nato would have had air superiority in the end. The west's quality would eventually win over the soviet's quantity. Soviet tanks, especially their T72's, aren't all they were cracked up to be, as seen in 1991. To repeat what CSATexan said...any far reaching soviet advance would have left their supply lines vulnerable. And, if all else failed, tactical nukes were never off the table.
Soviet Air Force was built to contain NATO AF and it would do so long enough, to decide battle on ground.
Just read: whatever gun/tank/icv/rocket/missle/tactical nuke - WarPac had them more and closer.
And what exactly could you have seen about T-72 in 1991 ? Just don't tell about Gulf War - you'll expose yourself to ridicule. Until 1986 WarPac would steamroll NATO in conventinal war. Period. If it had gone nuclear, it would be break even - both sides escalate to strategic level.
@AnteyPL "Soviet Air Force was built to contain NATO AF "...LOL there's a revelation! No shit, so was Nato's whole defense strategy was to bog down the soviet advance. You make it sound like it would have been a walk in the park for them.
"And what exactly could you have seen about T-72 in 1991"...And what relevant tank vs tank experience have we seen from soviet designs, other than the T72 failure? I wasn't thoroughly impressed with the T80 either, just an upgraded T72.
I am no talking about strategy. NATO had better organization and probably better command. What I am trying to tell you, is that due to sheer disparity in numbers and capabilities of equipment and it's prepositioning, WarPac had signifficant advantage. It would be bloody strugle.
Anyway - why nukes ? Because everybody new, that despite good (better tactics), unless Soviets made some catastrophic mistakes, NATO was unable to hold it's own in conventional war until 1986 or so.
@AnteyPL An attacking force needs to have AT LEAST a 3 to 1 ration vs the defender in order to even have a chance of success. The soviet/warsawpact forces barely met this requirement. It's all speculation, but I seriously doubt they could have pushed deep into Nato lines. The burden is still on the attacking force.
@damiion666 The Russian Airforce more likely would defect if they were sent into NATO , Like in Iraq .thats why you dont see drop tanks on there aircraft . Short range only .
@AnteyPL "Anyway - why nukes ? "...You do realize the soviets had several nuclear first strike options on the table as well. This has been common knowledge thanx to spies and soviet high ranking officers defecting.
@AnteyPL Warsaw Pact had short range Nukes . USA had the Persians . France said iif the Russians crossed an inch into Germany they wouldnt Nuke Moscow . Everyone new nukes were going to be used
@damiion666 If they can keep there Pilots from defecting . The mines and barbe wire was to keep them from running away ! I think half of them would just defected , . West was Rich , warsaw was poor . Its obvious to everybody Communisim was failure . like you see in North Korea . people were starving . Russians starving . Dont you remeber ? A Diplomates car was in accident in Moscow and a trunk full of sausage, cheese and wiine caused a riot . Russians were pissed . Long lines for bread,food
@GalaticSpaceHero LOL so true...just look at how many people tried to cross over the berlin wall, including east german border guards! They had a lot to worry about from their soviet bloc allies defecting as soon as they got the chance.
@AnteyPL Russiians were starving, little food no medicine dont you remember. Soviet Union Collapsed! There Pilots wouldnt have alot flying time or drop tanks because they would defect . The Barb wire and mines was to keep there people in. Just like in Cuba, if they would say leave if you want or stay , they would all be on the next boat out !Communism was on big prison.There Prime mminster came over here had his driiver stop at grocery stores and couldnt believe they were stocked with Food/meds
@damiion666 - really? i'm sure you've heard the joke: "two soviet tank commanders are talking inside a Paris coffee shop, their tanks parked outside. One says to the other, "So, who won the air war?"
I was in the air force 1996-2000. F-15 crew chief. I believe that despite the shattering power of my type of jet would have offered in a 3rd World War, the soviets would hammered our German airfbases with conventional ballistic missiles, reducing our main advantage.
@decimated550 This is all merely speculation. I was in the U.S. Army from 1990 - 2000 and have dealt first hand with soviet-made tanks. I am confident we would have stopped them for several reasons. There are other factors an attacking force would have to take into account besides mere troop strength. Defending lines of supply, communications, tactics, and in the end...tactical nukes, which were never off the table, would decimate any large numbers.
@damiion666 - ah,so we were same period in the military, cool. Really, just looking around my airbase, thinking about the poor performance of Patriot against 1991 Scuds, imagining the hail of rockets, i felt kind of vulnerable. More like being careful with my confidence, you know? And as for the ground war, it always seems to me that NATO armies have "lines", while the Sovs had "waves". Hoped those lines held. But I know you Army guys would have turned their lanes of advance into graveyards.
@damiion666 Well that's true but you don't know what your enemy has on his arsenal, for more subcivilized that the Soviets might look you just don't know.
@santoroyerdeantorcha That goes for both sides....we also did not know their inherent weaknesses, and long term loyalty of the other warsaw pact forces.
@damiion666 Problem there my friend is they also had tactical nukes and CAS support. Not to mention both NATO and USSR first conventional targets for strike fighters are each others forward airbases. The skies would also be swarming with air superiority fighters and mobile SAMS would be moving with the Soviet advance. If NATO launched a tactical nuke, the Soviets would show the same kindness, then leading to 2 more, 8 more, 15 more then full scale ICBM launches. Then cold beer a pray.
@randomusernamemygod As I already mentioned in an earlier post...it goes both ways. "swarming with air superiority fighters and mobile SAMS would be moving with the Soviet advance"....sure but NATO also had a plenty of air cover. Also the burden always goes to the attacker as far as over extended supply lines, 3to1 attacker vs defender ratio minimum just to even have a chance, technological inbalances. And in the end if all else failed it would be counter productive to...
@randomusernamemygod ....launch a conventional land invasion if the defender is going to resort to using tatical nukes on the battlefield. All their gains would have been lost. All in all I'm convinced the USSR/Warsaw Pact was more of a paper tiger.
@damiion666 yeah, but use of tactical nuclear weapons would be an unwanted escalation of the conflict. you dont want to turn a conventional war into a nuclear war if you can help it. it is the option that is only there as an absolute end game last resort.
also, you have to remember that the soviets themselves had large numbers of anti tank ground attack aircraft, like the Su 25
@controlusplease1 "but use of tactical nuclear weapons would be an unwanted escalation of the conflict" ...Invading western europe would already be considered an unaccceptable escalation. If it seemed like the soviet/warsaw pact was going to succeed then Nato would have had no other option than to stop them in their tracks with tactical nukes. I think in the end this is why this scenario never happened.
@damiion666 the events in the movie show that the war didnt start until the soviets invaded through the north sea, the blockade battle doesnt officially count as the start of the war. so my point was that the war was Conventional until Soshkin symbolically detonated a nuke in the north sea, and the US Strategic Missile and Bomber Commands went into full alert, making Soshkin believe that nuclear war was imminent.
the war wouldnt have gone nuclear had soshkin not escalated.
Air power wouldn't have had to worry about stopping the soviet Mechanized advance. Only in stopping their supply line. Primarily their fuel supply line.
@Rimasta1 Could you explain the joke (AKA does it mean, that the only way they could have reached the location is if the soviets would have won the conflict in the air?).
@Rimasta1 ive explained this to too many people at too many times over the last six months. if you lack the deductive powers to figure it out then just please drop dead and stop wasting oxygen.
As a result, their doctrine was to keep the battle front off of Soviet territory. They would happily keep it on german soil. Threaten civilian centers and seek a cease fire. They do not have the logistics for a prolonged war. I always believed that we might see tactical nukes, but I did not see it going Strategic. Strategic nukes threaten the homeland and their doctrine is based on keeping the war away from the homeland.
Better here. I nice display of NATO Air Superiority. In 1991, the air defenses of Iraq would be similar to USSR satalite countries. Stealth caused them to shit a brick, because they based threat analysis on its performance in Panama Which sucked bigtime.
Also, Not sure if I would have an advance on a broad front or a narrow penetration to threaten civilian centers. One aspect that is often overlooked of Soviet Doctrin is fear. The men in charge were in the shit of ww2 and saw it all
This documentary is great. And thank goodness this never happened!! And not for nothing, many parts of this movie had storylines and details that were similar to the background storyline of The Day After with the Soviet/East German invasion and US/NATO battling against them, but sadly in The Day After, the Soviet advance was hit with tactical nuclear weapons by NATO and thus the nuclear attack in The Day After ensued.
Over a million men with ancestral roots in the Soviet Union fought together with the German armed forces.[citation needed] Of all eastern volunteers, the Cossacks were allowed to muster the largest single concentration within the German Army.[citation needed] Cossacks had, in fact, been operating as part of the Wehrmacht from virtually the start of Operation Barbarossa.[citation needed] as said by wikipedia. 3 of these divisions were being formed and this excludes waffen ss russian volunteers.
Very Soon Nth Korean forces will invade the disputed islands between Nth & Sth Korea. US , South Korean forces will hit North Korea with full scale military strikes. North Korea will unleash its forces on a full scale strike & Seoul will be striked by a nuclear warhead. US will launch emp bursts against advancing North Korean forces. Chinese forces & US forces will strike each other, Russia,China & the US go to defcon 2, Israel will attack Iran. World War III follows, humanity ceases to exist.
@MrDarrenjwj Lol, just lol. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in at least a few days. Considering the amount of idiocy on Youtube, that's saying something.
@Nater245689 i hope it remains exactly that Nater, Dumb. But the previous South Korean defence minister resigned and was effectively stood down due to his soft approach to the North Korea attack last November. Had the former minister acted on his desires after the attack the Korean penisula would be in the midst of a full scale war. North Korea has nuclear weapons. You can call me a idiot all you want but when conflict does start on the Korean penisula believe me you'll know a massive disaster.
@antred11 doesn't call prediction on gov exercise meeting its call planning what to do "if" after all we all shod do some plans in case of .. tornado, hurricane or any disaster.
Oh boy, whoever made this rubbish is one hell of an optimist if he thinks the Soviet military was so incompetent and weak. Western arrogance and ignorance at it's very best!
I love how they work the Iran Hostage Crisis in with this mock USSR thing. And the actors that play the parts being interviewed actually Look like real people saying real things. A really good movie.
resculptit 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
roboticmehdi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damiion666 the events in the movie show that the war didnt start until the soviets invaded through the north sea, the blockade battle doesnt officially count as the start of the war. so my point was that the war was Conventional until Soshkin symbolically detonated a nuke in the north sea, and the US Strategic Missile and Bomber Commands went into full alert, making Soshkin believe that nuclear war was imminent.
the war wouldnt have gone nuclear had soshkin not escalated.
controlusplease1 1 month ago
Add in the inevitable uprisings in Poland, Finland, the Ukraine, the Muslim dominated south, and the lack of real, effective industrialization to support the logistics the massive Soviet war machine would have required, and it would have been a nightmare for the Soviets.
KellAnderson 1 month ago
@KellAnderson
You are absolutely right in this regard. Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Lithuanians, etc. had absolutely no wish to fight for their hated Soviet masters against the West. I suspect that desertions, mutinies, anti-Russian guerilla resistance would have commenced as soon as the war depicited in this film began. This alone would have made it near-impossible for ther Soviets to continue a prolonged offensive against the West while their rear was in chaos.
cfrait1968 1 month ago
The only way the Soviets could have won would have been nuclear exchange. The West had so many Force Multipliers in terms of training, equipment, logistics, and operational flexibility, that the Soviets would have lost most of their forces in the first few weeks of the war. On War by James Dunnigan gives the cold hard numbers on the effectiveness of the two forces. Russia was severely outclassed by the West. It would all have hinged on the Battle of the Atlantic.
KellAnderson 1 month ago
Oh yeah! Mig 21 leading the charge!! :D
0jrhindo 1 month ago
trololollolol ..theAmericans really think they can beat the Soviets in a war ..well u Americans think about emps, nukes, and guerilla warfare which is the deadliest.. coz the taliban uses it against the us and vietnam did it too ... soo Americans i aam warning u guys oÓNLy rely on sheer military power
boomerang403 1 month ago
@boomerang403 well what about the Soviets in afgahnistan, gurilla warfare is incredibly difficult to fight no matter who you are or what lengths you are willing to go to short of extermination of the whole population of possible gurillas.
matrin2 1 month ago
its very optimistic soviets advance just 50miles because of fuel what they leave there base with half a tank of petrol, come on soviets against nato, russia would win every time just by shear numbers
vmgqie 1 month ago
Anyhow, as one defecting soviet general said it...a nuclear war would most likely not be the result of 1 nuke, 2 nukes, 3 nukes at a time. It would have been a full scale total nuclear exchange. Soviets already had first strike contingency plans.
damiion666 2 months ago
Didnt rocky Solve the cold war ? Or my history is wrong ?
seb2455 2 months ago
@seb2455 This isn't what happened moreover a what if....
Rediahaz 2 months ago
why are these guys wearing m1 helmets in 1990???
SaintsSpecOps 2 months ago
@SaintsSpecOps standard gov issue .
MMP3832 2 months ago
@MMP3832
by this time the PASGT should be replacing these
SaintsSpecOps 2 months ago
In the early 1990's local US commanders had Nuclear launch clearance, wear as today all nuclear launches must be ordered by CiC, or National Military Command
collguyjoe99 3 months ago
@collguyjoe99 today only President have a launch code and have to be confirm by two high range gov personal. additional every president's have direct lines in case off emergency to communicate with other Presidents or PM's.
MMP3832 2 months ago
end of WWII. And I am sure that many soldiers from the Baltic States, Belorussia, and the the Ukraine still burned with resentment against Stalinist oppression and Russian domination. And not to eager to die in the name of the Great Soviet Cause. Especially if they met serious reverses on the battlefield. Anyone else care to comment on this?
farmerne 3 months ago
@farmerne they do die with honors and love to there's respective Country's. ... But who remember them now by name? just uprising.
MMP3832 2 months ago
If there had ever been an attack on Western Europe by the Warsaw Pact, I have wondered how much the Soviet effort might have been handicapped by possible unrelibility of it's "allied" troops. I am sure few Poles had any love for the Russians (the documentary even mentions a Polish Resistance). The Hungarians remembering 1956, and the Czechs 1968, would maybe have been unenthusiastic. Or for that matter, even the East Germans-remembering the mass rapes and pillage by the Red Army at the (contd.)
farmerne 3 months ago 2
@farmerne at time off cold war most army's , Polish, East Germans etc has only ammunition for 24 hr. Just in case if they turn against Russians. In every Warsaw pact country's Russian army occupied them. ...There was a plan to used but they will never used ballistic nuclear missiles on western Europe. they all will die from radiation.
MMP3832 2 months ago
To the GOOD points being made here on BOTH sides -- YES the US and NATO had, has, and always will have (at least for a while -- China is not a joke) the best technology. And the US is THE ultimate superpower in Nuclear firepower and really..no one can argue. The Soviet ICBMs are in a horrible state of disrepair and are no match..even if they put them all in the air right NOW. But having said THAT I will say THIS: I would never EVER take the Russians lightly; good way to die miserable & confused!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago in playlist WORLD WAR III David Seoul Rock Hudson
YOU KNOW WHAT, FUCK THE UNITED STATES!!! I WISH I COULD GO TO THE NEAREST EMBASSY AND RENOUNCE MY CITIZENSHIP. FUCK THE WARMONGERS!!!
tabrisangel19 3 months ago
@tabrisangel19 Where do you live. I'll get you directions. We don't want you! You're a little castrated lab-rat 2-bit subhuman non-American BITCH anyway. And exits are conveniently located in Canada, Mexico and the oceans to your East and West PUNK BITCH! By the way BITCH we have 6,142 SLBM (MIRV warhead total) and 1000s of easily re-armed land-based ICBMs and 1000s more we can top a crise-missile with. We can decimate any country we want without breaking a SWEAT. Have a good day PUNK! >:-)
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago in playlist WORLD WAR III David Seoul Rock Hudson
@ChristopherSaindon That's kind of over the top to kill/destroy one persone! >_>
Rediahaz 2 months ago
@tabrisangel19 well go ahead, renounce your citizenship, no one is stopping you!
randypicklesanchez 3 months ago 2
they should really make a new WW3 movie
marine12324 3 months ago
the soviets did have massive reserves within the soviet union, if the first echelon of the assault was able to wear down nato susessfully, those divisions would sweep in
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
the rusians did have a massively strict and centralized command and control system, for instance in afgan, forward air control officers were restricted in there task of providing close air support by their superiors
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
if the soviets caught nato by surprise, in 3 weeks time they would have linked up at the English channel, but if NATO would've took a stand, WARPAC troops would have take significant casualties
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
I do not like this movie. The truth is on the other part: the communists were the democrats and the capitalists were the motherfuckers.
To be clear for everyvody: communists = good guy
imperialists = the bad guys
radurambo 3 months ago
@radurambo radurambo = idiot.
Oevlisen 3 months ago 7
@Oevlisen and oevlisen = fucking moron
radurambo 3 months ago
@radurambo Great comeback, really just proved my point.
Oevlisen 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Oevlisen Of course, that you are a retard
radurambo 3 months ago
"Soviets lose control of airspace over Europe"....thank you, I knew NATO forces would ALWAYS win the air war, against their tube-ridden Migs and fat juicy Bison bombers...mmmm Bison...
20thcenturyfilmdocs 3 months ago 2
It all seems so real it's scary.
GillsFan91 4 months ago
notice the triple A flack from ground fire towards the sky, footage from Gulf War I
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
@sr71ablackbird no really? damn i thought that was real in germany, damn i cant believe how wrong i was that this already happend somewhere else in the world and they were just cropping footage from other war scenes.
Shibidibo 4 months ago
@Shibidibo lol
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
Y you know the only thing you need to do to defeat the soviets is to destroy that House out of wood with no defenses from which all operations are being run =BULLSHIT
Teranex 4 months ago
THE cold war is not over. the US is making air defence systems near Russian borders and Russia is keep making new nuclear warheads to warn the NATO forces. 1 mistake and its over just like the Soviet-US cold war.
jijdom 5 months ago
The small planetary body is predominantly a Water-world and marginal Earth-ball. Hitler's view: "To the victors belong the lowlands; to the losers the highlands."
Time and space have compressed with advancing technologies. There is no safe place above or below ground in the town-country and suburban-urban areas within seven billion people are competing to inhabit the best real estate.
Major capitals have built underground facilities for conventional aircraft and unconventional missile attacks.
spiritech999 5 months ago
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
this is so stupid,the airwar would have been first,and would have been won by the allies!any massive soviet troop movement on land and sea would have been seen way ahead by satellites and espionage,a large part of the soviet military was poorly equipped and maintained!every real life fact is being ignored in this docu!
tommy1973able 6 months ago
@tommy1973able not realy they may not of had great tech or weapons but it was reliable thats all that matterd and it all depends the russians could win a war against us but they could also loose so we will never know untill it happens
TheBabemonster 5 months ago
Hmmmmm the west could of won this war and it was called SAC armed with conventional weapons they could have launched a prolonged air campaign against Russian cities.....
The weakness of having no air force left could have been exploited by NATO.
Hauntedman1 6 months ago
@Hauntedman1 Indeed. HOWEVER whats to say The soviets didnt have every major city past the wall Loaded for bare with Anti air emplacements.
kurlobe 6 months ago
@kurlobe That is true... A factor I didnt take into consideration.
Hauntedman1 6 months ago
every time i see the scene when naot attacks i hear the song in my head rollin rollin rollin.....
Tomy0791 7 months ago
i like the scene when they attack in poland
Tomy0791 7 months ago
This war this video is talking about never happen its fake
DarkSamurai305 7 months ago
every day i wake up i pray for war with russia
bluebird19271982 7 months ago
@bluebird19271982
i also want a war
DarkSamurai305 7 months ago
@bluebird19271982 youre retarded
moshmeary51 7 months ago
@bluebird19271982 If you like war with Russia so much, and if it happens, then i hope you are the first one to die you stupid little worm
jassumcelik 6 months ago
@jassumcelik
It's okay, people who want war have never experienced it firsthand.
Pyrroline 6 months ago
This doesn't make sense at all. If the Soviet air and defences are so centralised then NATO would have immediately have attacked those headquarters and not waited as in this docudrama seems to imply, until they were on the verge of military defeat. NATO has the stealth fighters for a start that can evade detection from any radar system.
Professor6871 7 months ago
@HezbollahSoldier88 LOL you camel fuckers do know the Slavshit union has been gone for nearly 20 years right?
DaytonaRoadster 7 months ago 2
@HezbollahSoldier88 BBWWAAHHAA! The FORMER< now EXTINCT Soviet Union!! Their nuclear missiles with have crashed before they left your "motherland".! And you should get out of Hezbollah. Prophecy says you will be eaten by vultures. You're probably a nice person. I would hate to see that happen to you.
eflint1 8 months ago
what a stupid propaganda film
BringBackMy9Os 8 months ago
this is one of the worst propaganda movies i've ever seen. of course the americans would never start an attack. bad, bad russians *yawn*
PowerCrumb45 8 months ago
@patrikasLTL Its called a spoiling attack. and yes it is possible to make a thrust and be successful against a numerically superior foe. The germans were experts at counter-attacking soviet armies much larger than themselves even towards the end or world war 2 the germans were able to launch local attacks and throw the soviets off balance. any general who believes numbers will make his army superior is due to failure. a mobile doctrine and massed firepower i.e. hundreds of howitzers is one way.
Rimasta1 8 months ago
this is so un real the soviet have more tanks and planes then natto
urantiruslan 8 months ago
@patrikasLTL no but Supreme Allied Command in Europe in the 80's or SACEUR had plans to play a more active role in western europes defense. part of this included counter-attacking soviet tank formations in the flanks and aerial attacks on their centers of gravity in their rear areas. Also Special forces A-teams would be used to harass soviet supply columns in eastern europe and im sure not everyone in the Eastern bloc wanted the soviets to stay.
Rimasta1 8 months ago 2
@Rimasta1 And lets not forget American troops even attacked chinese positions during the korean war and the chinese not only had many more men to throw away but and fewer supporting arms so that meant they could commit more troops as infantry. they would swarm around u.s. positions with seemingly limitless numbers but as we learned counters for the numerical advantage the u.s. army and the marine corps ATTACKED red chinese army units. and if NATO waits for the soviets to do all the attacking
Rimasta1 8 months ago
@Rimasta1 then we may as well just give up because clearly we will leave all of the strategic initiative with the enemy and will eventually have to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. oh and when the Wehrmacht attacked the soviets in operation barbassa the soviet military was easily the largest in the world...and they were outflanked and outgunned by numerically inferior german units. boom in a nut shell.
Rimasta1 8 months ago
@Rimasta1 it could be argued that NATO's was wiliness to use tactical nuclear weapons against an invading Soviets army, in itself, deterred them from launching an attack.
The Wehrmacht's attack on 22 ist June 1941, code named Operation Barbarossa, was considerably helped by Stalin' Great Purges of the top generals in the Red Army during the 1930s. If this had not occurred the Soviet Army would not of been outflanked or outgunned by inferior German units, as they were in June 1942.
Professor6871 7 months ago
@Professor6871 possibly but even if that were so it is still likely many of the engagements would have played out in a similar fashion at least in the beginning. although no doubt stalin helped i dont think the soviet military or very many militaries of the day were entirely sure how to use their tanks primarily. the british, french, and the soviets all started the war with better tanks than the reich but the germans knew how to use their panzers to much greater effect.
Rimasta1 7 months ago
Explain the American accent on that " German" in the grey and red?
Noodles37UK 9 months ago
You geeks are talking about weapons, but the whole premise of the film is flawed so it really doesn't matter. BTW this was shown right after Gerhard Schröder a socialist was elected head of Germany. So to doubt that the way it is written involves some kind of politics from the left is highly questioned. I enjoy war game what if's though being a cold war vet, I would rate this high marks on presentation style but very low marks on the actual execution and reality.
verbusen 9 months ago
What a lot of nuts...Polish "rezistance" in 1990 ?!
Soviets have more enough reservs to smashed western forces and keeps communications line in Poland.
lerosee 10 months ago
@lerosee
It's likely that after lack of initial complete success, Soviet "allies" would rumble and disintegrate. Especially such underequipped army, as Polish one.
AnteyPL 9 months ago 2
Interesting how this clip describes a Polish Resistance Movement causing severe losses behind the lines to the Soviet forces.
It seems to me that most Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians in the Warsaw Pact forces would have had little love for the Russians; severely crippling the Soviet war effort.
delavalmilker 10 months ago 2
this is not rise of nations people... ><
teddythebenny 10 months ago
Technological Weaknes ? WTF
till 1989-1991 Russia A.K.A Soviet Union had the best technology....there is a video of an american general that says the same with me.
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito The SU was years behind the west in electronic warfare systems.
MrLoLmies 10 months ago
@MrLoLmies
who told you that propaganda shit ? before 1985 Soviets where so far in technology that when the Soviet Union fall you buyed all the scientists and technology but Thank God you didnt get the best of =)
Hahaha its like saying that Germany has the worst cars....thats what your saying..
At SU time there was great technology especially electronic there is a video about who made Stealth... =) *SU of course *
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito Bought all the scientists and technology? Wtf are you talking about? :D In 1980-1990 SU did not contribute a damn thing to the world in electronics. Name one thing if you can come up anything.
MrLoLmies 10 months ago
@MrLoLmies
=) Stealth was MADE IN SU =)
There are facts and videos prooving that my friend.
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito Even supposing that this is true, who was able to use it succesfully in many conflict? The answer is: the Americans.
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss
Hmm Russia and Usa are not enemys people need to understand that....our common enemy is radical shitslam.
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
@DJMikaelito
Yes, but its not just the US and Russiab who are threatened by Islam, Europe and European descended nations are ay extreme risk, due to low birth rates and ridiculously tolerant immigrant policies.
sugarcubicle 10 months ago
@sugarcubicle
Agree....soor or letter world war 3 shall happen and it shall be against immigrants and the object will be resources.....that muslim country lack....theyr oil is ending....no water....they dont produce anything....even dubai is a country in air....a default and they will be lost.
DJMikaelito 10 months ago
As in every fictional movie the US 'ninja' air forces overwhelm the 'enemy'. Yea right against the best AA missiles and fighters it's really fictional and impossible scenario lol. They can beat Saddam's 50 years old tanks and planes (big heroes yea) but I highly doubt that same can happen against a non-export, state of the art planes and AA missiles of USSR at that time ;)
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte Soviet planes weren't exactly "the state of the art"; of course they were really strong, but their radar and electronics instruments weren't on the same level as those of NATO were; besides, the West had better pilots (they were more trained) and E-3A AWACS were WAYYYYYYY better than the Soviet A-50 Mainstays.
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss Actually Russian planes have way better radars even NOW - care to find comparison of F-22 with SU-35 (just google it) ? And then - better trained ? Hahaha don't make me laugh I guess too much US propaganda got into You head. 4-5 Russian (civil and without markings) pilots in the Vietnam war were shooting US pilots down as I smash mosquitoes.
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte MAYBE, in the VIETNAM WAR (that was 46-36 years ago) Soviet pilots (not Russian) fought against American pilots, but now many Russian Air Force's aircraft are forced to the ground due to lack of funds, and also the pilots are not trained as well as the Americans are (they have considerably less flight hours).
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss The movie it not about 'NOW' but 20+ years ago. Plus things change fast. I won't be be surprised if the roles got exchanged in the near future if the things continue the way they do today :)
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte 20 years ago Soviet pilots were quite well trained, but not as much as NATO pilots; besides, they (I'm talking about fighter pilots, not attack aircraft pilots) were trained mostly to execute ground-controlled interceptions, not much in dogfights (though they were quite strong in that kind of air combat, thanks to the R-73 short range infrared-guided missiles; coupled with HMDs they could have been a real menace for West pilots).
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss
"Soviet pilots were quite well trained, but not as much as NATO pilots" where do You pull that kind of crap ? Do You know that soviet pilots have won almost if not every simulated dogfight with NATO pilots ? Even India's pilots (yea google it) did it and their pilots don't have even the half of Russian pilots training. As I said - stop believing to propaganda and make your research before talking :)
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte Even supposing that NATO and Soviet pilots were on the same level, they had different doctrines for aircombat: as I've already said, the Soviet Frontal Aviation relied very much onground control station as warningand control systems, while Western airforces used the E-3s AWACS instead, and they were better than the ground staion incontrolling the fighers during air engagement; furthermore, NATOpilots weremore indipendent thatSoviet pilots(and this would probably have made the difference).
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss First of all Russians have their own AWACS-es - TU-126 (1965), A-50 Shmel (1978) and so on. Then 'more independent' pilots tend to win only on movies featuring Tom Cruise not in the real life situations. Have You been in army ?
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte No, I haven't been in the AIR FORCE; as I've already said, Soviet AWACS weren't comparable with NATO E-3s and E-8s; a fighter squadron that uses tactics strictly based on ground control and that doesn't encourage at least a bit of indipendent action by its pilots, if the contact with the controller is interrupted, can't do much: instead NATO squadrons used strategies based even on the indipendence of their pilots, so, even if their AWACS was shoot down, they could have continued to fight.
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss "that doesn't encourage at least a bit of indipendent action by its pilots" When were You last in the Soviet air force that You are so sure about that ? You are talking about things that You have no idea. The only control 'ground control' have over the pilots in dog fights is the control over opening or not fire in the begging of the battle and that's based on the actual events. You are pretty much saying what you think it was not what evidences show.
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte I'm sure about the fact that Soviet doctrine(for both ground and air war) didn't encourage Eastern soldiers and pilots to take the initiative, or at least it did it very much less than NATO doctrine. Were you in the Soviet Air Force, or (you are Bulgarian, right?) in theAir branche of the Bulgarian People's Army?
In one of your comments, you said tha Indian pilots won against American pilots indogfight: well, it's a bit difficult for an F-15C win against a Su-30MKI, Eagles are quite old.
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss NO ARMY Encourages ANY soldier 'to take initiative' (except the armies that loose wars). That's the whole point of the armies - to listen what your commanders say. Can You imagine Romans creating such an empire if every soldier 'takes initiative' and does what he wants ? :) And no I was not in the air force but neither were You so don't speak as You 'know how it was'. And my father was a Captain BG army so I let me know better :)
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte For "take initiative" I mean adapting, moving and keep fighting even if you have lost contact with your commanding officer, but, overall, I mean trying to do your best to damage enemy forces even if you have already completed your mission; for example, U.S. Marines units are trained to be quite indipendent, and if they have a chance to inflict more dameges to the enemy or gather some intellligence they do it, quickly and well.
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
@deltadromeuss And You judge that Russians were not like that by what ? WWII ? Afghanistan ? Chechnya ? Or western propaganda ?:)
tbyte 10 months ago
@tbyte I judge that Soviet weren't like that by Western propaganda. Are you happy now? :)
deltadromeuss 10 months ago
you should also add that the F-15s shut off their radar, if the Eagles used their radar they would have seen the Su-MKIs before being detected and then would have had the upper hand...thats why they were told to shut off their radar...but thats the main shortcoming of 90s US aircraft, they're very advanced when it comes to radar & the Soviets knew this & designed their aircraft around a manuerverability advantage
Blueshirts07 9 months ago
@Blueshirts07 I agree; Flankers are more manouvrable than Eagles, and they have many other advantages in dogfights. However, in a real combat situation involving F-15s and Su-30s, I would bet on the Eagles-as you have said, they have better radars, and they would also have AWACS support, JHMCSs and AIM-9X, that would give them a huge advantage on the enemy.
deltadromeuss 9 months ago
@deltadromeuss
But I don't think that you realise that it's about mid 1980s - where Eagles were rare, Flankers even more sparsely deployed, but with supreme electronics than F-15. Not to mention NO JHCMS, 9Xs etc.. You all (like verbosen) seem to re-live Gulf Wars - please understand, that most of the equipment involved in this scenario would be GENERATION OLDER THAN F-15s, Su-27s, M-1s, Leo-2s, T-72s... btw: Soviets also had AWACS and similar stuff. Get real people...
AnteyPL 9 months ago
So there's an old joke. Two Soviet tank commanders meet in Paris, one walks over to the other and asks, "who won the air war?"
Rimasta1 10 months ago 17
@Rimasta1
Exactly ! :)
AnteyPL 9 months ago
@Rimasta1 That actually made me laugh. I can just see such a sight taking place, with BOTH of them looking up in the sky as one of them asks it.
kurlobe 6 months ago
@Rimasta1 I don't get it?
e0o9kii 6 months ago
@Rimasta1 i don't understand
furstenfeldbruck 5 months ago
@furstenfeldbruck it implies that despite the wide assortment of advanced tactical aircraft that NATO could have used against any Warsaw Pact thrust into western Europe a strong ground force was necessary to fight it out with Russian tanks and infantry. So even though we may control the skies or have some type of air superiority over such a battlefield it would never be enough to stop russian tanks from crossing the Rhine or even reaching Paris. you get it?
Rimasta1 5 months ago
@Rimasta1 damnnn that's crazy, i didn't know that...and thank you.
furstenfeldbruck 5 months ago
@Rimasta1
That isn't very accurate, tanks have a limited range especially in wars. Without control of the air the Warsaw pact army would have been stopped very easily. Their is a good probably would have stopped in place and waited to regain air control.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@CSATexan and the russians couldnt refeul their tanks and use SAMS to at least interdict NATO strike aircraft? What do you think would happen first, that the russians would runs out of their tens of thousands of tanks or NATO would run out of strike aircraft from attrition due to losses from SAMS and radar directed AA guns. If russian tanks push all the way onto Ramstein air base then what? It would be foolish to wait while on the offensive because you risk losing the initiative and the war.
Rimasta1 5 months ago
@CSATexan but it was a joke, one that i cant claim to have thought of. no doubt NATo aircraft would have made their weight felt but i doubt it would have been enough and NATO would most likely have to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. i think the joke means dont bet everything on your air power on stopping the enemy or in other terms, dont put all your marbles in one basket.
Rimasta1 5 months ago
@Rimasta1
Air power wouldn't have had to worry about stopping the soviet Mechanized advance. Only in stopping their supply line. Primarily their fuel supply line.
CSATexan 5 months ago 11
@CSATexan I think we had more than enough firepower we could have brought to bare if they ever crossed the fulda gap, including A10 warthog soviet tank killers, and we also had tactical nukes in our arsenal.
damiion666 4 months ago 11
@damiion666
Perhaps one never knows. But a Soviet advance into Western Europe would have been heavily supported. On the other hand hundred mile long supply lines cannot be defended all the time.
CSATexan 4 months ago
@CSATexan
And HOW exactly and from WHERE would you attack these "supply lines" ? :)
And the same time - prevent attack on NATO ones ? :)
AnteyPL 4 months ago
@AnteyPL
That is easy, the US has a massive aircraft carrier fleet not to mention bases in Greece, Turkey in the south Norway and Denmark in the North. Not to mention that an advance through Western Europe wouldn't be on line stretching from north to South. But in the form of a column or two. This bulge would leave NATO bases north and south of the main avenue of attack and its supply lines.
CSATexan 4 months ago
@AnteyPL
As for the USSR attacking allied lines. That would require them to fly over NATO airspace well beyond their airstrips. Keep in mind every step forward is a step away from a Soviet Airstrip. The front will move away from them while the front moves towards NATO supply lines. Not to mention that NATO isn't moveing forward they have plenty of supplies in place
CSATexan 4 months ago
@damiion666
NATO DID NOT HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH firepower, hence the repeated warnings about tactical nukes.
And you seem to forget, that these A-10s would be going against relatively modern, massive in size and diversity, layered and integrated Soviet Air Defense system. Having hundreds of enemy planes fighting in the air, bombing their bases.... it would by no means be "free ride" like in Gulf War, not in initial days anyway.
AnteyPL 4 months ago
@AnteyPL "Having hundreds of enemy planes fighting in the air, bombing their bases"..Nato would have had air superiority in the end. The west's quality would eventually win over the soviet's quantity. Soviet tanks, especially their T72's, aren't all they were cracked up to be, as seen in 1991. To repeat what CSATexan said...any far reaching soviet advance would have left their supply lines vulnerable. And, if all else failed, tactical nukes were never off the table.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666
Soviet Air Force was built to contain NATO AF and it would do so long enough, to decide battle on ground.
Just read: whatever gun/tank/icv/rocket/missle/tactical nuke - WarPac had them more and closer.
And what exactly could you have seen about T-72 in 1991 ? Just don't tell about Gulf War - you'll expose yourself to ridicule. Until 1986 WarPac would steamroll NATO in conventinal war. Period. If it had gone nuclear, it would be break even - both sides escalate to strategic level.
AnteyPL 4 months ago
@AnteyPL "Soviet Air Force was built to contain NATO AF "...LOL there's a revelation! No shit, so was Nato's whole defense strategy was to bog down the soviet advance. You make it sound like it would have been a walk in the park for them.
"And what exactly could you have seen about T-72 in 1991"...And what relevant tank vs tank experience have we seen from soviet designs, other than the T72 failure? I wasn't thoroughly impressed with the T80 either, just an upgraded T72.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666
I am no talking about strategy. NATO had better organization and probably better command. What I am trying to tell you, is that due to sheer disparity in numbers and capabilities of equipment and it's prepositioning, WarPac had signifficant advantage. It would be bloody strugle.
Anyway - why nukes ? Because everybody new, that despite good (better tactics), unless Soviets made some catastrophic mistakes, NATO was unable to hold it's own in conventional war until 1986 or so.
AnteyPL 4 months ago
@AnteyPL An attacking force needs to have AT LEAST a 3 to 1 ration vs the defender in order to even have a chance of success. The soviet/warsawpact forces barely met this requirement. It's all speculation, but I seriously doubt they could have pushed deep into Nato lines. The burden is still on the attacking force.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666 The Russian Airforce more likely would defect if they were sent into NATO , Like in Iraq .thats why you dont see drop tanks on there aircraft . Short range only .
GalaticSpaceHero 4 months ago
@AnteyPL "Anyway - why nukes ? "...You do realize the soviets had several nuclear first strike options on the table as well. This has been common knowledge thanx to spies and soviet high ranking officers defecting.
damiion666 4 months ago
@damiion666
I realize it all to well and I am trying to explain it to people who state that "NATO would won cause they had nukes".
AnteyPL 4 months ago
@AnteyPL Warsaw Pact had short range Nukes . USA had the Persians . France said iif the Russians crossed an inch into Germany they wouldnt Nuke Moscow . Everyone new nukes were going to be used
GalaticSpaceHero 4 months ago
@damiion666 If they can keep there Pilots from defecting . The mines and barbe wire was to keep them from running away ! I think half of them would just defected , . West was Rich , warsaw was poor . Its obvious to everybody Communisim was failure . like you see in North Korea . people were starving . Russians starving . Dont you remeber ? A Diplomates car was in accident in Moscow and a trunk full of sausage, cheese and wiine caused a riot . Russians were pissed . Long lines for bread,food
GalaticSpaceHero 4 months ago 3
@GalaticSpaceHero LOL so true...just look at how many people tried to cross over the berlin wall, including east german border guards! They had a lot to worry about from their soviet bloc allies defecting as soon as they got the chance.
damiion666 4 months ago 2
@AnteyPL Russiians were starving, little food no medicine dont you remember. Soviet Union Collapsed! There Pilots wouldnt have alot flying time or drop tanks because they would defect . The Barb wire and mines was to keep there people in. Just like in Cuba, if they would say leave if you want or stay , they would all be on the next boat out !Communism was on big prison.There Prime mminster came over here had his driiver stop at grocery stores and couldnt believe they were stocked with Food/meds
GalaticSpaceHero 4 months ago 2
@damiion666 - really? i'm sure you've heard the joke: "two soviet tank commanders are talking inside a Paris coffee shop, their tanks parked outside. One says to the other, "So, who won the air war?"
I was in the air force 1996-2000. F-15 crew chief. I believe that despite the shattering power of my type of jet would have offered in a 3rd World War, the soviets would hammered our German airfbases with conventional ballistic missiles, reducing our main advantage.
decimated550 3 months ago
@decimated550 This is all merely speculation. I was in the U.S. Army from 1990 - 2000 and have dealt first hand with soviet-made tanks. I am confident we would have stopped them for several reasons. There are other factors an attacking force would have to take into account besides mere troop strength. Defending lines of supply, communications, tactics, and in the end...tactical nukes, which were never off the table, would decimate any large numbers.
damiion666 3 months ago
@damiion666 - ah,so we were same period in the military, cool. Really, just looking around my airbase, thinking about the poor performance of Patriot against 1991 Scuds, imagining the hail of rockets, i felt kind of vulnerable. More like being careful with my confidence, you know? And as for the ground war, it always seems to me that NATO armies have "lines", while the Sovs had "waves". Hoped those lines held. But I know you Army guys would have turned their lanes of advance into graveyards.
decimated550 3 months ago
@damiion666 Well that's true but you don't know what your enemy has on his arsenal, for more subcivilized that the Soviets might look you just don't know.
santoroyerdeantorcha 3 months ago
@santoroyerdeantorcha That goes for both sides....we also did not know their inherent weaknesses, and long term loyalty of the other warsaw pact forces.
damiion666 3 months ago
@damiion666 Problem there my friend is they also had tactical nukes and CAS support. Not to mention both NATO and USSR first conventional targets for strike fighters are each others forward airbases. The skies would also be swarming with air superiority fighters and mobile SAMS would be moving with the Soviet advance. If NATO launched a tactical nuke, the Soviets would show the same kindness, then leading to 2 more, 8 more, 15 more then full scale ICBM launches. Then cold beer a pray.
randomusernamemygod 2 months ago
@randomusernamemygod As I already mentioned in an earlier post...it goes both ways. "swarming with air superiority fighters and mobile SAMS would be moving with the Soviet advance"....sure but NATO also had a plenty of air cover. Also the burden always goes to the attacker as far as over extended supply lines, 3to1 attacker vs defender ratio minimum just to even have a chance, technological inbalances. And in the end if all else failed it would be counter productive to...
damiion666 2 months ago
@randomusernamemygod ....launch a conventional land invasion if the defender is going to resort to using tatical nukes on the battlefield. All their gains would have been lost. All in all I'm convinced the USSR/Warsaw Pact was more of a paper tiger.
damiion666 2 months ago
@damiion666 yeah, but use of tactical nuclear weapons would be an unwanted escalation of the conflict. you dont want to turn a conventional war into a nuclear war if you can help it. it is the option that is only there as an absolute end game last resort.
also, you have to remember that the soviets themselves had large numbers of anti tank ground attack aircraft, like the Su 25
controlusplease1 1 month ago in playlist World War 3 The Movie
@controlusplease1 "but use of tactical nuclear weapons would be an unwanted escalation of the conflict" ...Invading western europe would already be considered an unaccceptable escalation. If it seemed like the soviet/warsaw pact was going to succeed then Nato would have had no other option than to stop them in their tracks with tactical nukes. I think in the end this is why this scenario never happened.
damiion666 1 month ago
@damiion666 the events in the movie show that the war didnt start until the soviets invaded through the north sea, the blockade battle doesnt officially count as the start of the war. so my point was that the war was Conventional until Soshkin symbolically detonated a nuke in the north sea, and the US Strategic Missile and Bomber Commands went into full alert, making Soshkin believe that nuclear war was imminent.
the war wouldnt have gone nuclear had soshkin not escalated.
controlusplease1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rimasta1
Air power wouldn't have had to worry about stopping the soviet Mechanized advance. Only in stopping their supply line. Primarily their fuel supply line.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@Rimasta1 - i read that one long ago, and as a former member of the USAF (96-00) i nonetheless found it quite funny
decimated550 4 months ago
@Rimasta1 Could you explain the joke (AKA does it mean, that the only way they could have reached the location is if the soviets would have won the conflict in the air?).
Teranex 4 months ago
@Rimasta1 ive explained this to too many people at too many times over the last six months. if you lack the deductive powers to figure it out then just please drop dead and stop wasting oxygen.
Rimasta1 4 months ago
As a result, their doctrine was to keep the battle front off of Soviet territory. They would happily keep it on german soil. Threaten civilian centers and seek a cease fire. They do not have the logistics for a prolonged war. I always believed that we might see tactical nukes, but I did not see it going Strategic. Strategic nukes threaten the homeland and their doctrine is based on keeping the war away from the homeland.
grognaurd 11 months ago
Better here. I nice display of NATO Air Superiority. In 1991, the air defenses of Iraq would be similar to USSR satalite countries. Stealth caused them to shit a brick, because they based threat analysis on its performance in Panama Which sucked bigtime.
Also, Not sure if I would have an advance on a broad front or a narrow penetration to threaten civilian centers. One aspect that is often overlooked of Soviet Doctrin is fear. The men in charge were in the shit of ww2 and saw it all
grognaurd 11 months ago
Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project way before Truman did.
JJnnaatt 11 months ago
Damn! Hamburg looks like Iraq! LOL!
MagnetoMasterOfEvil 11 months ago
This documentary is great. And thank goodness this never happened!! And not for nothing, many parts of this movie had storylines and details that were similar to the background storyline of The Day After with the Soviet/East German invasion and US/NATO battling against them, but sadly in The Day After, the Soviet advance was hit with tactical nuclear weapons by NATO and thus the nuclear attack in The Day After ensued.
MNRRConductor2006 1 year ago
Over a million men with ancestral roots in the Soviet Union fought together with the German armed forces.[citation needed] Of all eastern volunteers, the Cossacks were allowed to muster the largest single concentration within the German Army.[citation needed] Cossacks had, in fact, been operating as part of the Wehrmacht from virtually the start of Operation Barbarossa.[citation needed] as said by wikipedia. 3 of these divisions were being formed and this excludes waffen ss russian volunteers.
BlitzoftheReich 1 year ago
This is not propaganda. This is a movie about what would happen if the Berlin Wall never fell.
CoreyStudios2000 1 year ago
Very Soon Nth Korean forces will invade the disputed islands between Nth & Sth Korea. US , South Korean forces will hit North Korea with full scale military strikes. North Korea will unleash its forces on a full scale strike & Seoul will be striked by a nuclear warhead. US will launch emp bursts against advancing North Korean forces. Chinese forces & US forces will strike each other, Russia,China & the US go to defcon 2, Israel will attack Iran. World War III follows, humanity ceases to exist.
MrDarrenjwj 1 year ago
@MrDarrenjwj Lol, just lol. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in at least a few days. Considering the amount of idiocy on Youtube, that's saying something.
Nater245689 1 year ago
@Nater245689 i hope it remains exactly that Nater, Dumb. But the previous South Korean defence minister resigned and was effectively stood down due to his soft approach to the North Korea attack last November. Had the former minister acted on his desires after the attack the Korean penisula would be in the midst of a full scale war. North Korea has nuclear weapons. You can call me a idiot all you want but when conflict does start on the Korean penisula believe me you'll know a massive disaster.
MrDarrenjwj 1 year ago
@MrDarrenjwj When you guys make such bold predictions, are you never afraid of making a complete fool of yourselves?
antred11 2 months ago
@antred11 doesn't call prediction on gov exercise meeting its call planning what to do "if" after all we all shod do some plans in case of .. tornado, hurricane or any disaster.
MMP3832 2 months ago
Oh boy, whoever made this rubbish is one hell of an optimist if he thinks the Soviet military was so incompetent and weak. Western arrogance and ignorance at it's very best!
bossmastercheif 1 year ago
@bossmastercheif that's because it was...
BlitzoftheReich 1 year ago
@BlitzoftheReich funny, i expected u Germans to know better ;)
bossmastercheif 1 year ago