How Would the Soviet Army Attack in the Cold War?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 дек 2017
- I have always been fascinated with how Soviet doctrine works when it comes to what would have happened if a full scale attack had actually happened in the Cold War.
In this video we discuss the tactics and doctrine on which the Russian Soviets would have used at that time.
Hope you enjoy!!
Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.com/user?u=3081754
Or check out my PayPal direct link if you wish:
paypal.me/Matsimus
DISCORD IS BACK! Come hang out!
/ discord
Come join me on the biggest waste of time in the world! Facebook:
profile.php?...
I have Twitter…..sadly:
/ matsimusgaming
How Would Soviet Armored Units Attack in the Cold War?
Hope you enjoy everyone :-D I would really appreciate you sharing the video on your own social media and with others. I would love to hit my goal of 60,000 subs before the New Year!! (Highly unlikely but worth a shot!)
Have a Soviet filled day comrades!!
Matsimus Good luck on your 60,000 subs and new year onwards....
alek Rawls
lol I think you overestimate a country that has been in the rebuilding process since world war 2. .. to much propaganda for you .
It’s sad watching the Soviet-Afghan war footage now. If we knew then what we know now we would have secretly armed the Soviets instead of training and arming Bin Laden and helping him organize Al Qaeda a decade and a half before 9/11
Maaaan...Nowdays soviet army will probably can be beaten by NK forces...No joke
I had a SCUD missile battalion stationed at my town (Bolesławiec, Poland) during the cold war. The main tactic from the side of the Warsaw pact armies was tactical nukes and shock/tank armies attacking thru the gaps. From what I know, the Soviets didn't really consider attacking without prior using nukes. They even trained/tested this tactic using real nuclear explosions in Russia. It would be hell.
I remember watching a vid made during the cold war: a Soviet Field Marshall made the statement that nuclear war would be inevitable because "Sooner or later, one side or the other would begin to win." That line has stuck with me for well over 40 years.
Name of video?
I was BMP gunner in soviet era, 1987-1989, first 6 month in in special camp in Chechnya preparing for Afghan war, was lucky enough not to go, troops started withdrawal...
In soviet attack doctrine they were prepared for 70% loss... I know since I was smart soldier with nice handwriting and they used me to fill out war journals.
Kairat1969 damn they really expected to loose entire field armies didn’t they? Do you think the red army and other pact forces would have won a conventional and limited chemical war against NATO in western Germany?
regarding chemical warfare have no idea. But we've been trained with gas masks and always had them on our sides during field training.
Kairat1969 the common think I heard was that Warsaw Pact planned on using Sarin and such to support break throughs either way it would have been a blood fight
70% loss for the the first wave attack regiments or for the whole army groups ?
I ve been around only with officers from my battalion. Don't know abt whole army groups.
The closest of the cold war turning hot was probably in the waters of cuba when a soviet submarine lost comms to moscow. The crew thought maybe moscow had been nuked to the ground and two of the three commanding officers gave a green light for launching a nuclear torpedo at US warship fleet. Only one of the commanders didn’t agree and decided they should wait and they eventually got the comms back up.
It was advised by the Soviet government at that time that if the submarines would lose all communications they would be allowed to make the decision of using nuclear weapons. Only if all commanding officers agreed onboard. Thank god for that one soviet officer onboard that day.
Well there were a time it was even closer, one time the system of a soviet nuke silo or something similar had a computer error and it warned that there were nukes incoming.
The person which had the job of firing the nukes didn't fire them though, cause he didn't think those were real nukes (don't remember the reason), almost any other person would have pressed that button and fired the nukes. Thankfully it wasn't any other person.
Sadly after this he did get fired for not following the orders, even if they were orders which was caused by an error in the system.
I heard same history about american nuke rocket officer, that lost comunication with goverment and need to lounch nuke rockets to USSR according all rules but he had not do it before check all the information thats why nuclear war not started in 1980's
@@Reijvi He didnt do it because he thougth that its weird that 2000+ nukes have been launched all at once at him ,
@@Reijvi if we're talking about same story, the computer showed only 3(iirc) nukes coming, so he thought it was a glitch or smth like that, because it wouldn't make any sense to launch few nukes, if computer glitched to showing few hundreds or thousands he would have definetly fired back
@@nikolanojic6861 It was the exact oposite because if a country launched nukes it would go all in so seeing only one nuke in the radar was a glitch
I was Lead scout of an infantry Ptn during the Cold War era. Saw this video as part of our training [the original footage] amongst other vids including soviet vehicle ID and where to hit them with various AT weapons/Improvised Explosives/Incindiaries. All of us were instructed in the used of MAAWS and LAW man portable AT weapons regardless of our speciality.
Was a frightening and very sobering adversary who we were training to hold [note, not defeat].
I am very glad to say that I now sit next to a bloke who was a Soviet soldier at the same time as when I served - we go to the pub together after work and we've been colleagues and mates for over 20 years now.
"Retreat Hell! We're just attacking in another direction."
Girls und Panzer - Der Film? :)
You are advancing to the Channel?
"Shoot and maneuver backwards."
USSR created one of the first, largest paratrooper forces in the world. Which they then mechanized. The "tactical retreat" is way too optimistic when there are mechanized forces in your rear. "Army Group Center after Operation Bagration" is much more likely outcome.
I don't think so maybe in the early-mid seventies when the Soviets still had the equipment advantage of t-72s vs M-60s/bmp vs m113/Mi-24 hind vs well nothing until the apache. But once the us army modernized in the early 80s with the air land battle doctrine WP forces would've been much more evenly matched
@@andrewfranciscohughes2481 the problem is getting the modern shit there before atlantic wall 2 nuclear boogaloo is build
The Soviets had 7 airborne divisions but could only deploy one at a time whereas the Americans had much more lift capability!
Soviet strategy was pretty simple attach as much firepower to a single platform as possible.
Look at some of their tank armaments for example:
115mm gun
ATGM
2x machine guns
ATGM fired from the gun
Same goes for their IFVs like and APC's
Even their transport helicopters Huey had what 2 machine guns while MI-8 had machine gun and rocket pods and this is when outfited for transport the attack variant of MI-8 had even more shit.
@@greatdude7279 Yeah and hinds are dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=DF2014:Fun&redirect=no to deal with. In afghan they could take a stinger and continue turning mujahadeens into red mist.
Great vid. I read on-line a few years ago a report on soviet armoured doctrine. It made fascinating (and bloody terrifying) reading, and once I understood the overall objectives, the design choices of their vehicles and their tactical use of them all made sense. The main thing was that the soviets assumed it would be a NBC battlefield. Their armoured formations were expecting to cross contaminated areas. Thus the BMP. Their overall plan would be to prevent us from using our nukes by intermingling their forces with ours. NATO commanders would then be faced with a choice: be overrun, or sacrifice their own troops by using nukes. Then be overrun anyway by the soviets second or third echelon forces. (Which is why the soviets had so many tanks, so that the loss of a first echelon would not be a big deal) This is why soviet vehicles were fo focused on speed over armour - so they could get in close to NATO forces. They were less bothered about our tanks and hellfires taking out individual tanks than they were about our nukes taking out their tanks en mass. This is also why they didn't care about their tank guns not being able to depress much, since they were never intended to be used in static hull down positions. Brown trousers reading material for sure.
So, brown trousers is the name of the book? Interesting. might look into it. I was aware of the fact that soviet land forces were meant to fight in a nuclear contaminated area. I believe the most influential event of this decision was not just the development of nuclear missiles, but actually the Korean war, where US used nuclear artillery. So you no longer needed a big plane or a missile to carry the payload. Instead, use massive ammounts of artillery.
Omega Alpha nyet. The Soviets had the Axe Principle, which states that you use your deadliest weapons ( nukes ) at the earliest opportunity.
First Use by Warpac was a given, not a choice to be made.
Source: inside the Soviet Army, Viktor Suvorov.
They'd used the same method to good effect during WWII, most famously in Stalingrad. By getting their lines so close to the Germans, they negated the Germans' air support to a large degree and also kept them constantly under duress, particularly by mounting small snatch raids at night (when the Germans admitted the Soviets had a clear advantage). I believe the PAVN also followed the same school of thought in Vietnam.
Omega Alpha Yes, the full report names was: Soviet offensive armoured operations in the European theatre: why you should crap yourself if you get in its way 😜
Alpha Harald.
Using Viktor Suvorov as a source wont get you far; good for a few technical details and the worse misinformation everywhere else. US/NATO doctrine were based on massive nuclear first strikes long before the Warsaw pact or the Russian nuclear arsenal even existed. Keep reading.
I was stationed in Germany in the 1980's in a nuke unit. Shit was scary back then.
You would have launched.
The Shilka was a terrifying piece of equipment. Seeing that thing live fire was a 'Holy shit' moment
If you think the shilka is bad, what do you think of the Tunguska-M?
@@tomsoki5738 The tunguska isn’t openly used in infantry support like the shilka was and still is to this day in arabia. tunguska is also a lot more expensive to service due to being a lot more advanced with technology and firing control.
I was in a Cavalry Regiment based in Munster in the 80's we had one job which was to slow down the Warsaw pact till Reforger brought in enough reinforcements to hold them. Strategy was an old Russian one of sacrificing the ground and minimise losses for time, Also make the enemy deploy to assault before retreating to the next position to repeat the process. We were there to stall nothing else which means a high rate of losses. Nice video reminds me of the training we got to combat these tactics. cheers
I was based in oxford barrack Munster Germany BFPO 17, D.E in 2006 to 2008,
Am ex Scots guardsman grunts and was right flank warrior company, went on op HERRICK 7, Afghanistan, in 2007, before i got out, loved Germany,
Now am in phase2 training for...2622 squadron RAUXAF Regiment reserve's, just finished phase 1 at raf halton in November past,so that's 2x M.o.d service backgrounds,my CV will have, and cant wait to go on OPERATION Shader, as soon as it comes up, after my training, still go my old service number 25191819,
My father was a tanker in East Germany and he once told me that in an all-out war his tank was expected to survive about 3-4 minutes in combat. Not the best odds if you ask me. Thank god, that never happend.
Then the NATO tanks wouldn't even survive a minute, everbody just repeats the same shit,that Soviet tanks won't even survive 5 minutes as if the odds of NATO tanks,which were worse than Soviet tanks, were better.
if you can find more of these types of vhs tapes during this time period it would be so amazing to see them. This is such a very "real" video that shows how serious this was
So in other words, the Soviets would advance like a massive mechanized insect swarm and Western powers would let soil be conquered by the enemies while doing as much damage as possible so it can then be taken back when the Americans roll in? Sounds about right. Honestly, Soviet equipment, especially in terms of electronic capabilities such as the electronic defenses of the Su-25 and things like the Kornet missile, are very impressive when compared to their Western counterparts. The amphibious ability and mobility of there military vehicles were also pretty good but that isn't surprising considering the Russian Terrain. If the war had happened what would be left of our society and human civilization as a whole would probably be like a Warhammer 40k setting right about now.
My Entropy yes
I had a SCUD missile battalion stationed at my town (Bolesławiec, Poland) during the cold war. The main tactic from the side of the Warsaw pact armies was tactical nukes and shock/tank armies attacking thru the gaps. From what I know, the Soviets didn't really consider attacking without prior using nukes. They even trained/tested this tactic using real nuclear explosions in Russia. It would be hell.
Not that likely, the problem with how the soviets worked any invasion it was to initiate with WMDs (mostly chemical agents) before swarming in. Problem with that it would simply authorize NATO command to unleash the full power of it's (i.e. the US's) tactical nuclear arsenal and we all know how that'll end up.
Any 'conventional' plans were only made for 1950s and 1960s armies, as by that point NATO was pretty much winning the all-important aspect known as the Air Front. The moment that the Soviet Frontal Aviation gets chased off the field, NATO would unleash the full might of it's air corps which means the Red Army is FUCKED as it's air defense will have to stay hidden ala Serbia in order to keep them operational. Hell even the F-117 would put the USSR for a loop and the F-117s would be targeting key command centers which would cause immense problems to the USSR's somewhat rigid command structure in addition to logistic links. All the while the Red Navy won't be able to make an actual dent on the convoys given that their subs were only quiet for the first few months of operation before becoming the nosiest things in the ocean.
Yes, the USSR would make some initial gains but that is after expending the East German, Polish, and other WARSAW PACT meat shields.
Eventually both would run out of modern equipment.Both NATO except US and the Warsaw pact except USSR were underequipped,and underprepared for war.Because both eastern and western european countries avoided the buy the latest or second latest military equipment.The european airforces without the US were far from impressive.And the warsaw pact were relucant to buy T72-s,many still had mostly T-55s
Nope, the US and NATO have one thing that puts the USSR to shame: AWACS and damn good ones. AWACS is an immense force multiplier that pretty much makes it the biggest target but any attempt to target it would be seen miles away.
Served in fulda 1/11ACR 1982-1984
We knew were going to fight a running delay and would be overrun in the end
That must have been a seriously f’ed up situation to be in. Glad you never had to find out for sure.
I assume both sides knew each other strength. I'm glad both sides restrain from creating third world war.
Having been in the Fulda Gap, this brings back some "Interesting" memories. ALLONS!!!
Cav All The Way, Mate!
I was there too, a scout in 3/8 Cav - '85 & '86. Just south of the 11th ACR in Fulda.
2 ACR, 83-85. Toujours Pret
_"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"_
Joshua, War Games.
Game theory implies a different doctrine
Actually, that was not in our power, but in that of a potentially desperate enemy.
Amen
Love the video. I appreciate all the hard work you do on your channel.
4:28 "retreat backwards" well I don't think you'd want to retreat forward ;)
Great video anyways! Very informative.
What if you're flanked and attacked from the back?
You could potentially retreat to the side, letting the spearhead go through to later attack it from the flank or rear.
@@baginatora You're likely encircled if that were the case
Or fake retreat and lure them into an ambush
I was with the 2nd Cav then, and we were trained to pretty much 'die in place', i.e. trade land and lives for time so REFOGER could arrive from Stateside and other countries. Our odds would have been 8-1 optimistically, or 12-1 in reality after massive artillery and air strikes.
We started getting our M1s so we were pretty confident we could kick their T-72 collective asses and such; what we feared most were Hinds as we have very little or no attached anti-air assets. And finally, we all feared the chemical and biological attacks as even I have to admit, the US Army weren't as prepared or trained as well as our Warsaw opposites. We simply didn't do MOPP trainings often or long enough as we should!I am just glad the Cold War didn't turn Hot like many military tech-thriller writers predicted.
Thank you for your service.
My friends who served in Warpac Armies tell me the training mostly taught them that the protective stuff was not going to do much good, apart from slowing down the process of getting killed.
I figured as much. I have examined the WP gas masks and other chemical gears and I didn't envy the poor sods who have to wear them; our own MOPP gears were murderous to work or fight in already, in any length of time but they were still much better in quality than WP gears.
But keep in mind that NATO do not employ chemical or bio weapons but rather use mines as our area denial assets (I personally don't necessary like the idea of minefields but they would have served their purposes). We have much better IR and thermal imaging targeting systems, thus, pretty much we would lay smoke onto oncoming forces and pick them off that way... at least that would have been the plan.I might have mentioned in other threads that I was also the OPFOR officer so I learned and WP small unit tactics (basically armored) so I could train my own troops from what I learned.A cold war turned hot would have been devastating, especially for the civilians! I am just glad history decided we were not that stupid afterall.On a side note, did you know many of the mountain passes, roads and bridges in Germany had manhole-type placements build in, for the purpose of placing explosives thus denying their uses to advancing enemies... much like those large concrete blocks to be drop down and block roads in South Korea?
I was in the 1st/11th stationed in Fulda. Talking about dying in place.
Did you ever had the fear of "if" the russians would backthe iraqs in the gulf war?
Lots and lots of tanks and a shit ton of rocket arty and conventional arty
After initial loses mass attack would become meat grinder for the enemy in full retreat. Worst thing for army to happen is when enemy brakes the lines so fast it ends up in support convoys, then you cant realy mount any defense. I have JNA (Yugoslav national army) officer field manual and it all points out to organized mass attack and break through as primary goal for fighting units to achieve.
true plazmica for all communist block country , just look at vietnam tactict when we attack khmer rough force in cambodia it only took 1 month to fully conquer the cambodia , break through the line with tank / apc inf , then by pass them , let the slower inf clean up the enemy pocket , the khmer rough were so panic that they just start to drop they weapon or start to lost ogarnize didnt do much fighting one they line get breakthought by us , but like any war now day wining and conquer them is easy the problem is to control the gain territory that what happend in afghan , iraq and again in afghan , it took us vietnamese 10 year to buff up the cambodia govt force strong enough to fight back khmer rough befor we can retreat , in afghan the american will need way longer time maybe 30 year +
Agreed.
Inaccurate as fuck tho NATO artillery fires were much more presise and deadly
Soviet missiles would rain down on Antwerp Rotterdam and any other ports and lots of military targets plus Spetznaz attacks on Command and Control targets and personnel.
Love this type of vid!! Thanks for posting
great presentation , very informative , loved it thanks mate .
*When you have more soldiers than the enemy has bullets.*
*URAAAAA*
Potential to win is less than 100%, even if there is no rng. Unless you can kill two birds with one stone, which is unlikely. I would still prepare for their backup
Basically zombie tactics. Pure braindead
US has more people than russia now. But it was the cold war so they have nearly equal
not people, soldiers, ruskis had 3x more
----------"FLY,DIG &DIE"----+
I was fascinated by this topic during time in the TA. The subject prompted many questions to experienced NCOs.
"FLY,DIG &DIE"
This was pretty much the motto of the Territorial Army during the later cold war years.
Upon a sudden Soviet army advance into Europe, TA reservists trained in very basic anti tank warfare armed with the LAW system , would have been parachuted into West Germany to slow down the Soviet advance and buy time for the regulars to mobilise .
Life expectancy was estimated in hours ...not days.
DURING excercise Bright Star during the early 90s, around 70,000 troops from the USA and NATO were involved.
Members of the TA were given the chance to practice and hone in on their point defence skills.
Particularly in their defence of key locations like Dusseldorf airport
For example ,G coy, 51 Highlanders were tasked with defending Dusseldorf airport from the Spetznaz and regular Soviet paratroopers.
My uncle was part of that in the late 80s, dutch army. He told me that the life expectency was 16 minutes upon first contact
The life expectancy for a Swedish pilot was 0.6 sorties. You read that right, 40% wouldn't return from their first sortie. Only 5% were expected to survive 5 sorties, and no pilot would make 15.
Soviet Mig-21 SMT regiment stationed at Tököl, Hungary had about 1.7x loads of AA missiles available, meaning only 70 % would need to reload at best. In the 2000's standing in one of the empty hangars during some car show I recalled that a nuke-equipped Mig-21 SMT used to park in there... It was not a pleasant feeling.
Music videos
That needed to be scary. Would've been the end of civilized society as we know now.
Again... a very informative video, thank you Matt
Very interesting and well made Matsimus!
The cold war era is for some reason the most interesting time in the history of man kind to me.
Interesting video. I was an M1A1 Abrams platoon leader in the US Army First Infantry Division at the tail end of the cold war, and participated in one of the last REFORGERs in 1992. In the late 80s / early 90s, we did a live fire drill called PKB - Platoon Kills Battalion. The estimate was that the ratio of US tanks to Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks worked out to roughly four Abrams (one US platoon) to 31 (one Soviet battalion). The exercise consisted of a platoon live fire in both defensive and offensive engagements, and became a fire discipline, control and distribution exercise for the platoon leader. Certainly, it was stressful enough without the targets firing back, but it certainly raised awareness of the circumstances that would be faced should things go hot.
Excellent, very interesting - Thank you.
Another really interesting video, thanks.
1:37 Urraaahhh!!!
ah to be frontovnik fighting for peace.
Russia is RISING!
Russia will invade NATO
Shiro Fukuroi legit bro for the Komrades!!
Ura
(Loads MG-42)
I spent my childhood expecting this very scenario, followed up by tactical precision nuclear strikes in my homeland ( USA ) to happen at any moment. I completely expected that it was only a matter of time before WWIII. When the Soviet Union Dissolved in 1991 I was quite surprised, I had been resigned to the reality that I would come of age, join the military, and die fighting the Soviets. I'm pleased that did not happen, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have escalated out of control into Nuclear War. Thank you for this video, and all your videos, I enjoy them quite a lot.
I too, am a child of the cold war. Me growing up in Denmark, with Russia right in our backyard, the threat of war, was a clear and present danger, be it nuclear or conventional.
When the images of the Berlin wall came crumbling down on television, I could not believe it, it was so surreal.
That was my feeling too. I was dazed and confused, like wow, what do we do now?
Chris Parsons z
@menckencynic Oh Poor you.
Kinda funny how the people in the "Russian" section of the CIA got fucked over by their country winning against the Russians.
@menckencynic That was kinda harsh there buddy
Love this. An exact year after upload returning to watch. This one is too cool !
And look at that, mate! Over 200% increase in follower base with over 160,000 one year to the day later- Love it. Happy New Years man, I am grateful for all your content!
Amazing video and even better information. Despite the age of the information, I found it very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
In Berlin as a tank SQN our job was to crashout to the bridges and defend...our life expectancy once the balloon went up was....4 minutes...would never got close to the bridges
Please explain more
Great vid. I think something important to remember about the cold war is the overall strategy which drove this doctrine. From the western perspective, we often see the Soviets as hellbent on invading Europe partially because we saw this armored blitz doctrine and partially because it benefited the media and politicians to keep a crisis afoot (still seeing that today). The Soviet’s did the same to there people and had them believing NATO was hellbent on taking their way of life. The Soviet strategy for WW3 was significantly influenced by WW2 and the Napoleonic Wars and their government vowed to not allow a foreign power to occupy ground in Russia proper again. This is why Russia was surrounded by Warsaw pact counties which would act as buffer zones. As for the armored blitz doctrine, it wasn’t created to invade Europe, it was based on the concept of the best defense is an all out offense. Basically if the Soviets would have gotten word the “war” was about to go hot with NATO firing the first shot or if an act of war somewhere involving a Soviet asset would have occurred and Soviets interpreted it as the kick off, this armored blitz into West Germany was the planned offensive defense.
4 years late but god damn have I been looking for content just like this after coming to the end of the Cold War rabbit hole. It’s a blessing to find new content that’s enticing!
This information helps a lot to understan the design of the soviet era vehicules and weapons, many of wich we have already seen in this channel.
Nice thumbsnail.
Gotta love the VHS quality of that era.
I served with 4th squadron 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment 1986-1988. To echo cav1 stlt statement, I believe our mission statement was to survived
for 72 hours till reforger troops (reinforce Germany) could get into the fight. Glad it never happened.
thanks alot for the video sir.. i always watch your videos and love your opinions about the reviews
Good one!
Thanks!
It's lovely how brits underestimated the laser-range-finder equipped T-64's... APDS at 2000m? Over 3000. HEAT as well and HEF in theory at 5000 m.
It wasn't just them and most interestingly was the the west only discovered the existence of the T-64 in 1976 but still misidentified it as the T-72 on deployment to the GSFG ; by the time they understood it's capabilities (and the resulting panic) numerous Soviet shock/guards divisions were equipped with them and as post war testing revealed they were literally a generation ahead of what they would be fighting.
kind of a mute point, you would be hard pressed to find a place in western europe with a line of sight of more than 2 km
Which is why the didn't bother trying and relied on tube launched AT missiles for long range engagements. As per world war II records average engagement ranges were well below 1 km in western& central Europe. Of course at below 1 km engagement ranges coax machine guns have a field day and you had best be sure to kiss your behind goodbye before trying. AS i recall it was the T-80 that actually had a button ( tank commander?) that would swivel the turret to the axis the AT missile was launched on....
Smoothbore guns can't use HESH rounds, whoever wrote that line into the video was an idiot.
There's nothing preventing a smoothbore firing HESH. Nobody has ever bothered developing it, but there's certainly no reason it can't happen. (&, please, don't trot out the "It's got to spin to disperse the pat" routine: That's BS. Travelling at several hundred metres a second does more to disperse the pat on target than spin ever does)
Great video, thanks for upload.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like Warsaw Pact based their military power on cheap and reliable weapon system, that could be massed on the front-line, and easily replaced on loss, while NATO relied on expensive and complicated technologies, that while impressive on technical side, were risky to use. It would be uncomfortably close to reasons, why Germany lost WWII.
It's a bit more nuanced and complicated of a strategy than that but If u still interested I can go more in depth
What an awesome video keep up the cool Cold War stuff
Great job on the in-depth analysis!
+1 sub
I was in ‘88 stationd in Germany with the 41 panserbrigade for the Dutch army they told us with a Rusian attack we would lest 2 a 3 days in the field
You made a great doc 👍🏼
Of course, I understand that in the West they were very afraid of the Soviet group in Europe. But even in this video, which was made in our peacetime, a clear underestimation of the capabilities of the Soviet army is visible.
meh. the soviet are almost alone, the rest of the warsaw pact mostly provide meat. Plus their entire strategy is based on WMDs, which if they use NATO would fire it's nukes and the USSR doesn't exist anymore.
@@me67galaxylife The American allies were just as qualitatively behind the US Army as the Warsaw Treaty countries were behind the GSFG of the USSR, but we will not say that the US was alone? Why do they need WMD in Europe, if a huge concentration of a superior qualitatively and quantitatively grouping of troops will simply sweep away NATO forces in Europe in a matter of weeks? Maximum tactical to destroy the concentration of enemy troops, when their own troops are less vulnerable to such attacks due to the high stake on mobility, speed and lightning strikes. But in the US and pacific WMD is always welcome.
It is very foolish to underestimate the USSR and their allies, this is exactly what I wrote about 2 years ago. Even in our peacetime, this military monster is underestimated, hoping for an easy economic and political victory.
@@Saiga-saiga What ? Now yes norway and denmark was highly behind, you just can't say the same about France, Germany and Britain, especially since they're on the defensive so it's easier for them but even if you still claimed they were behind the US army they're still better than the warsaw pact equivalent.
And no, the USSR will never just sweep nato. They did imagine that in their dream, but it's just not realistic. Their entire plan relied on WMDs and rapid advance, which of course i might question if it would have worked, doesn't matter. The moment one is used, they're fucked. They didn't underestimate it, you are overestimating it.
@@Saiga-saiga The Soviets most feared the Bundeswehr, particularly their Panzer divisions - probably a legacy of their experience in WW2.
GREAT VID MATSIMUS !! 👍👍
Intresting, thanks a lot !
1:04
*Implies that the West would have never attacked the East first. 😆
That would have been physically, geographically and strategically impossible. All of our supplies were held far to the west of us, with little to no resources to effectively move them east during a war. All of our training was for defensive retreat (which allowed for limited offensive actions locally). Never, ever was I aware of any plan for 1st strike, ever!
On the other foot, the military strategical setup in East Germany was wholly offensive, with little to no thought for defensive operations.
I spent 85-89 in Minden as Mechanised Infantry. We were the infantry element of 17/21st Lancers Battlegroup. We we under no illusions about our task. Die slowly enough and hurt Ivan enough to allow Reforger and TA deployment. :)
@Chet Ripley I can confirm ^^
Outstanding presentation Matsimus! Happy New Year too you and your family.
Great stuff!
The US knew the Soviet's European war plans in great detail thanks to a Polish staff officer (Colonel Ryszard Kukliński) who was trained under the Soviet Command school system and wrote numerous Warsaw Pact war games. Kukliński, from 1972 to 1981, gave US intelligence a steady stream of Warsaw Pact info consisting of mission objectives, strategic thinking articles, order of battle, logistical projections, use of nuclear weapons in the European theater, evasion techniques against American spy satellites, anti-aircraft base locations in East Germany/Poland and projected invasion time tables (plus current assessments of front line weapons).
Kukliński was more than a Polish staff officer, he had access to top Soviet military leaders possessing an inside view that no other CIA informant had on the Warsaw Pact.
Kukliński defected in 1981 when he realized that the "game was up". Rumors began to surface that someone had leaked Soviet plans to crack down on the Polish state and demolish the Solidarity movement. Is was Kukliński who leaked it to the US and his superiors were growing suspicious.
Kukliński Defected to the US and was fully debriefed by American Intelligence. He died in 2004 and was buried with full honors in Poland.
Spy Museum Discussion on RUclips: "Saving Ryszard Kukliński"
ruclips.net/video/2n3JAiglG0Y/видео.html
Colonel Ryszard Kuklinski courage, conviction and competency, was worth more then a entire army in the field. Thank you for sharing your knowledge Curling, I'm in awe of this man.
NATO had they're own Kakilnski spy sending warplanning data to the soviet intelligence service for Years. For. Sgt clyde conrad.
Good day Gentlemen!
I used to serve in the Warsaw Packt side!
There were strategic games for dealing with Western Europe..but..only at the map!
Why?
If the WP would have attac..it has a huge superiority in conventional weapons..Tanks,Planes,Ships..etc.. Nobody could have stopped it.In 3 days it would have reached the Rhein and after another 3/5 days the Northsea.No doubt!! BUT..than would began nuclear war with missile striktes from US,GB,etc..and back from CCCP..and that would have been the end of everything.
Nobody.. also in the east would have this... therefore all that was on the map.Pime target was to mentain the Status Quo.
This here very short!
God bless all mankind.. everywhere!
Greetings from Berlin ✌️😎
TRUE
@@ted5567 indeed.. so it was 👋
In 3 days they would reach Spain!
@@pashapasovski5860 there would be no civilization left to speak of after 3 days, so that is unlikely.
@@pashapasovski5860 nah
Excellent video. And yes, everything I've seen and read about this subject tells that it would have gone into WMD use fairly quickly. Glad things went a different way back then.
Happy New Year, Matsimus, and to the rest of you all. I hope for a future where our future generations don't have to see others thru gunsights, thermals or any other kind. Peace be with us, fellow brothers in arms.
Yeah, this lines up with a translated doctrinal handbook I found awhile ago. The Soviets and Warsaw Pact would assault our defensive positions with a wave of tanks; cheap, quantity tanks at the front (different models depending on the time period) to suppress the defenders while they're advancing toward them, along with artillery and/or frontal aviation support; more expensive, quality tanks directly behind to pick off enemy armor and AT positions; IFVs a few hundred meters behind them with APCs on the flanks who'll drop off infantry to mop up whatever units the armor has missed. Meanwhile airborne units would be flown behind enemy lines to disrupt support units (i think, it's been years since I read that handbook.) The only realistic plan we had back then to fight the Soviet Army (and the Pact armies) was a fighting retreat until the nukes fell or until we couldn't retreat anymore. Until the plan changed in the later years of the Cold War if I remember correctly.
By the way, where did you get footage of the Soviet maneuvers from the beginning to 1:53?
What's really odd and interesting is that the first wave of Soviet "Quantity" Tanks weren't too badly lacking in quality. The T-62, for example; had a roughly similar level of frontal turret armor to the early Chieftains, not to mention the Chieftain was the only NATO tank (until the introduction of the Challengers/Leopards/Abrams) with a more powerful gun. If one reads the development history of the T-72, they'll find that one of its early prototypes was simply a T-64 *Quality* tank with a less complex and expensive fire control system, and a tried-and-true V-12 diesel rather than the opposed piston 5-TD, the Objekt 172 had the exact same gun/armor/mobility for crying out loud! This led to an approximately seven year period in the 1970s where the Soviets not only had more tanks than NATO, their tanks were also on average *Better* (thanks mainly to the failure of the MBT-70 program).
At the time the only equivalent tank we had to their T-62 was our M60 Patton series and just a relatively even match. I recall my dad telling about his motor pool being called in by the company command and shown footage of the Soviets T-72 and it scared the living hell out of every one. It was tough, fast, could entrench itself quickly, and had a low silhouette. It was around that time that they were introduced to the M1 Abrams as well.
IIRC; there was a test done on WARPAC tank armor during the early 90s, this test was the reason why they went into Iraq with depleted uranium sabots; the 120mm tungsten sabots struggled to penetrate T-72As at an acceptable range, the 105 failed at all except point blank. And the T-72As weren't the best T-72 the Soviets had; that was the T-72B, which was a much better armored tank.
The objective of the BOAR (British Army of the Rhine) was to slow the Soviet attack down long enough for reinforcements to be flown in, chiefly from the United States. By fighting, inflicting a few casualties then pulling back and fighting again in what is often called a fighting-withdrawal they hoped to delay the Soviet push westwards and buy the time that was needed.
Nice find!
Great Vid Matsimus !!!👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 I love everything "Cold War " my era !! 🙂👍
Ah, the sweet taste of NATO player tears in Wargame when faced with a PACT player who plays like the real thing. I miss it.
Because the lack of B-52s, lack of more than one A-10(with a gimped loadout) M1 tanks with stats that haven't been updated since the older games and other nuances don't prove that the U.S. and a few others can hardly play "like the real thing."
Also the world where there's any sort of PACT air superiority over the west.
"Real thing."
Wargame is hardly realistic and if anything allows people to live out their fantasies of beating out superpowers n' such.
Reality>Games.
It's a great game tho. Definitly beats real war in terms of fun^^'
Magni56 You're a special kind of stupid aren't you?
You know our maximum effective range isn't what's in game right? Try more like 4,000m for max effective range. 2275? Oh okay sure, not like I wasn't on the fucking things for four years.
Optics? Not excellent? Oh that's funny. Considering we've always had a leg up on Russia in tank ergonomics.
Russians? Air superiority?
Jesus it must be hard to be a slavaboo. Stick to kancolle mmk?
As for the B-52 who gives a fuck? Fulda was going to be a fucking meat grinder anyways, long as a whole company/BTN of Russian tanks dies that's worth the B-52.
Same applies to the A10 and who gives a shit about the Iraqis
when we still buried them and won a clear decisive victory.
Magni56
Go actually serve and then you'll have the right to toss the term kiddo around. Instead of playing make believe on the fucking PC.
Back on topic.
The actual max effective range of the Abrams is 4000m dumbass. Probably more on the A2 with better optics. If you think every tank is running around with a max effective range of 2275 you're sorely mistaken.
Argument was that the game "got it right" which it doesn't. You're over here arguing lifespan when you're completely missing the fucking point.
"Getting it right" would be being able to put TOW teams inside buildings as opposed to relying on the garbage ass super dragon. Everyone else is running around with tripod mounted ATGMs.
The Rise Patton has better range and optics than the standard M1 and IP. Same gun and IRL no better optics.
Then we have shit like the Chinese getting SEAD aircraft with 80% accuracy and four missiles. Raven might have slightly better ECM but that's beyond the point.
Aircraft that fly low enough for fucking unguided AA to hit.
Who gives a shit about lifespan of A-10s IRL when the British can actually make four Challenger 2s in some decks and the U.S. is stuck to 1-2 M1a2s. Nevermind the fact we were going to have a large tanker presence in Europe and still have a larger amount of tanks to this day.
You spat out this entire wall of text about "myths" when you're completely missing the point.
The game is fun from a tactical perspective, but to think this is how shit would play out or that the vehicles/decks are portrayed accurately is assinine.
While you were off playing video games and reading silly military books or articles online I was actually doing the real thing. I was lucky enough to.meet knowledgeable people who've actually been around/worked on weapon systems and their tactics.
So yeah, you keep being a military expert there RUclips guy. You tell me how the Abrams works aight?
Lemme know when we share the exact same combat capable range and accuracy as the best North Korean tank.
Magni56 Too bad in fucking wargame red dragon and most of the other games you're not constantly having hills in the way.
So yeah the 4000m still applies. By that logic ATGMs are fucking useless too.
Okay so the Soviets can throw a bunch of tanks forward. Turns out the game isn't just fucking about them dumbass.
When the U.S. is getting gimped for the sake of "balance" then it really isn't much of an accurate wargame now is it?
And the Norks don't even have T90s in real life so let's dial it back down to the next best thing yeah?
And yeah I'm gonna use that superiority over you because you can't tell.me shit how the U.S. armed forces operates because you were never fucking in dumbass.
You keep jerking off the Soviets though.
FYI the T90 design is nothing more than a 72 chasis with a T80 FCS and a few bells and whistles on it. It came out around the exact same time. The A sure as fuck isn't newer or more advanced than the SEP line either.
Nice one dumbass.
"It's the BMP, the newest soviet apc" which year is this video from?
The BMP-1 entered service in 1966, but they did mention the T-72, "first seen in 1976", but no mention of the BMP-2 that entered service in 1980, so I assume it's late 70's, 1977-1979.
You have to understand the pace and circulation of information back then. Beginning with gathering information, and validity was definitely an issue, followed up compilation, publication and readership.
Love ur channel
Man, to think I watched this vid when I was 11 and I keep coming back every year and learn something new.
-Semechki and Vodka
-Praise Stalinium
-Rush B
+ BMP mounted speakers for hardbass that can bounce APFSDS rounds. ))))
Your voice sounds like it's slowly dieing
He's originally from England. Probably spent the 72 hours before making this video in a pub. ;-)
Thank you for this one. It catapulted me back into my own service time (1972 - 1987) . Stationed in Düsseldorf, "Bergische Kaserne" and serving as the german counterpart to the 101 Provost. It was a scary time. It's good to be reminded and hope that we do not have to experience these events in real life.
Thanks for this reminder!
Sorry for my bad english.
I served in 2ATAF in Germany during the cold War. This brings back memories, and the threat was very palpable in those days. Great Post!
Surprisingly enough western forces like the Brits was actually well informed about the formation and weapons of the soviets. Brits general trained their soldiers on how to take out Iraqi tanks ( most of 'em are T-55 and T-72) back in '91 and was really helpful
THEY RUSH A
random WeEb nooo they will lose always rush to b (Berlin)
NO CAP KILL ALL!!! YUO NUBS!!!
Excellent video - Thank you!
I remember those days & Soviet tactics.
Very interesting video.
NATO’s McDonalds vs Warsaw pact’s vodka
I served in Fulda from 78 to 81 with A troop 1/11 ACR. We knew our mission was to buy time. The joke was we would all die within the first half hour. We were young and really didn't think about it much, I spent my free time at the discos in town chasing the frauleins.
Was your backup in the 3rd AD the same years. We called a DIP mission. Die in place.
You should do a V-22 Osprey video please, I love your videos. Keep it up
Ello Matt, slowly working through your Vids (awesome!!!) and only just found this one. I served with The Royal Hussars from jan 87 till dec 88, Lumsden Barracks, Fallingbostel..........and just heard you say you were based there!!!
Lovely place, usefully close to Hannover & Hamburg (THOSE memories are a little vague!!!), hope you enjoyed your time there as much as I did!
Cheers
Team Yankee and Red Storm Rising covered both very well.
To best answer this question let us rewind back to 1983, during the most dangerous year of the Cold War. Everything about 1983 should have led to nuclear Armageddon: Pershing 2 missiles in West Germany, the "evil empire" remark by Regan, SDI (Star Wars), the KAL 007 shoot down, Able Archer, and the Soviet missile scare. Yuri Andropov was the leader of the Soviet Union and very different from Joseph Stalin. Andropov and most of the party leadership were in a state of paranoia over the thought of a sudden nuclear attack by the West. Years earlier they had initiated operation RYAN to check for any signs of an attack against the Soviet Union. This paranoia was ingrained in the Soviet leadership after World War II and they never wanted to suffer a catastrophe like that again. They saw Ronald Reagan's provocative politics and insults as yet another indication that he was ready to go to war. The entire Soviet military was put on raised combat alert. Multiple tank divisions and countless military personnel moved into defensive positions all over Eastern Europe. Nuclear bombers stationed in the G.D.R. we're awaiting orders to take off. Soviet ships steamed out of their ports and into defensive positions. Soviet nuclear submarines sailed underneath the Arctic ice in preparation for a retaliatory strike. Most of the Soviet nuclear arsenal including 75 ss-18 mobile ballistic missiles dispersed into the field awaiting the command to launch. All of this was done under the nose of NATO and the United States who were completely unaware of the Soviet panic. To make matters worse, an East German agent, "Topaz" had infiltrated deep within NATO and gave the Soviets the most top secret documents which detailed everything NATO knew of the Soviet Army. Everything was set for a nuclear showdown in November of 1983, and yet fate had other plans. There was no surprise attack by the West and no nuclear retaliation by the U.S.S.R. The point I'm trying to make here with this long discussion is that the Soviet mindset of this time was far different than what United States perceived. Soviet Union would never have intentionally attacked the United States or Europe during this time because they have suffered millions of casualties at the hands of Hitler's War Machine. As one ex-Soviet commander once said, "We were ready for the Third World War if the Americans had unleashed it." There would have been no victors only victims. From that point till the end of the Cold War, the new political policy for both powers became a mission of peace and disarmament.
loved it. :)
What an amazing channel i found! SUBBED! :D
Didn't Tom Clancy's Red Storm rising win awards, and become a case study of sorts as a likely scenario.
It was good fiction and about as inaccurate as the rest of his books.
Red Storm Rising won no literary awards of any sort; it is useful only as a case study on why proper research is important if you want to write a good book. Reading about German police lieutenants, police being reserve officers and Germany having a "Landwehr" pretty much killed my suspension of disbelief right there.
Not in any serious military. He was a fantasy writer with no real insight into doctrine and tactics when you get down to it. Pure "what if" stuff that could be rationalized in almost any way you wanted.
If you want a case study of what the Warsaw Pact would've done, look no further than the Seven Days to the River Rhein wargame exercise that they ran for a number of years.
Rokossovsky Partially?! :-) ;-)
I think it was more likely the West would attack the USSR, after WW2 there were already plans to attack the very much weakened Soviet Army. In the West there is always talk about the aggression of the Soviet Union, but which countries did they attacked after WW2 ended? In Afghanistan they helped the Afghan government, so it was not really a invasion. The Afghan governement was maybe "evil", but it is not liked the US in Korea or Vietnam which were invated without permission of anyone. The USSR government was very bad, but their evil stayed within the USSR borders.
Also look at the weapons developed during the Cold War by the West and USSR. The weapons developed in the West were more with a attacking role in mind, where weapons developed in the USSR were more about countering new Western weapons. Why is the West so focused on stealth if they are not planning to attack some one? Even all the promotion of stealth is showing this. According to the US Russian air defense systems aren't able to detect the F-22 or F-35, but why would Russian air defense systems have to see US planes? The only reason Russian air defense systems are a problem for the US is when the US attacks Russia.
If the west did attack the Soviet Union first, I'd all end fairly badly.
All NATO doctrine is focused on the defence, all the equipment if set up for defence, all the training is meant for defense.
If NATO decided to prosecute the attack on the USSR, they'd be in a very bad position, I doubt they'd do something like that unless some kind of tragic accident occurred geo-politically.
Matsimus,
Thanks for this very interesting video. All credit to our lads who
would have had to face very
capable Soviet forces!
My dad was in the Staffs in Fallenbostel in the mid 80s. Loved it. Had so many happy childhood memories there
My father was a Bulgarian-Soviet soldier who was brought to Afghan in 1979 as a Rocket artillery specialist. He has said many times how the Soviets could have crushed the West simply because of their military might. Facts is one thing but people like my father and other Soviet soldiers can talk about plenty of secret weapons and tech the soviets created. Rumor has it that the soviets created a plasma weapon but this is local word from my father from what he heard in his base.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Ah what? A plasma weapon???...I mean no disrespect to your father, but no fucking way. A plasma weapon is not gonna work. The hot ionized gas would expand harmlessly out the barrel. Maybe, your dad, was confused, and mistaken it for a coil, or a railgun :/
Possibly i was confused at first as well but there is a documentary on Soviet plasma weapons its old and only in Russian so it will be very difficult for and English speaker to try and understand. It is here- ruclips.net/video/TGMETb1xjv8/видео.html
ooooooooohhhhh...THX M8!!!!! I am gonna be having a nice choco break :)
In a nuclear war, everybody loses.
Propaganda of the day by all sides was that they were better than the 'bad guys', better kit, better training, better tactics, decadent west, ignorant east blah blah blah.
Truth is it would have been a blood bath for both sides
No such thing as HESH in soviet arsenal. It's High Explosive FRAGmentation.
That's HE. They may be referring to HEAT, which the Soviets did use. HESH was indeed a British peculiarity.
The US round was called HEP. It's inventory was reduced in favor of sabot rounds.
The same sabot rounds which are near useless against buildings.
Excellent resource. Reminds me of my time on exchange with the BAOR. Thanks and UBIQUE
Definitely ab historical topic I find most interesting. Thanks for covering it! Also I would recommend checking out the British film from 1983 called Soviet Attack.
For good reading, I recommend Team Yankee, very good book.
just round the corner from me, Hohne (Detmold 88-92 Hohne 92-2000 then posted back to uk) loved living in Germany Cheap cars,booze,tabs,Food.................. Oh yes and AMAZING GIROS!!!!!!!
If the cold war became hot, I might be dead by then.
or supa toasty
I didn't even EXIST when the cold war started
I was roasted by a KV-2 on the eastern front
PanzerKampfwagen VI Ausf B [H] lol kv-2s were a fucking joke...Unless its in a russian made video game
A KV2 wouldve stood no chance against a Tiger II at all...atleast have a brain and say an IS2 or SU-100 or something like that
@@F-14DSuperTomcat kv-2 on Battlefield where rare
Hope you had a merry Christmas, hope your voice gets better lad, cheers
I had a war game on my Atari 800 called Reforger 88. It dealt with a hypothetical Soviet push through the Fulda gap. The only strategy I could come up with that worked was immediately abandon almost all of West Germany, pull back behind the main river around Frankfurt. I would blow all the bridges and dig in and wait for reserves to mobilize and US units flown in. I would wear down Soviet air power before counter attacking with air superiority. I would use airborne units to drop behind enemy lines and disrupt the supply lines and route the Soviet formations.
There's this documentary from the 80's called Red Dawn. Very informative. ;-)
Red Dawn? Are you sure it isn't a movie (one of my favourite, at least the old version is. The new version is shet)? XD
Yeah, the 80's Red Dawn is a great movie but I never gave the remake a chance. Nothing about it seemed on point.
I actually watched the new version. Now I wanna watch the old version.
The new one has North Korea invading America... somehow. Never mind that fact they would be preoccupied dealing with South Korea, the logistics of intercontinental invasions are just monstrous. Not to mention, it's North freaking Korea. If they wanted a more believable power invading America (MORE believable, not believable) they should have replaced NK with the PRC.
Jamthis, as you may know, the original writers of the Red Dawn Re-Make film did in fact have a joint PRC/PLA and NK attack of the USA. But the Hollywood producers were told very bluntly by both the Chinese Foreign Service and the US State Department not to include the PRC as the attacker. Chinese government went so far as to threaten MGM studios' future films distribution rights in Chinese theaters. Hence, the re-make film had to stumble along with only North Korea as the attackers. Needless to say, the film bombed financially (losing over $10 million USD).
WOLVERINES!!!
CAPITALIST PIGS !
Hi Matsumus, Ive been watching cold war vids to help me with Flashpoint campaigns redstorm, a WEGO strategy game about the cold war gone hot in the 80s, its very realistic with OODA loops, chemical weapons and orders delays... thanks for the vids :-)
I dig it!!!