I was stationed with the U.S. Army in W.Germany from 84-86 with a deployment point in the Fulda Gap. We were told from the time we arrived that if the Soviets attacked we weren't intended to win and weren't expected to survive. Our ONLY purpose was to slow down the Warsaw Pact enough to allow the reinforcements to arrive. The entire 8th Infantry Division was expected to last three days. Nobody ever said we were expected to hold any ground .
Oh dear god, the "7 days to the Rhine" plan. If anyone thought our plan to use nukes to halt the Warsaw Pact's advance across the Iron Curtain was nuts, Soviet higher ups decided to go for gold in 'who's plan was the craziest of them all.' Hell, most of the Soviet officer corps thought the 7 days of the Rhine plan was insane at worst and overly optimistic at best.
@@ricardosoto5770 Zampolits type of politicians, blind, deaf, about anything but his/her political ambitions and blind zealotness towards his/her ideological ideals..
@@ricardosoto5770 polticial officers dreamed it up. There are extreme dangers when officers are chosen based off polticial connections and party loyalty over competence, and lesser dangers of letting politicians and polticial officers enforcing their ideas while disregarding experts opinions
Sobering isn't it? Probably a A-7, Soviets had triple layers of air defense and hell to pay for a ground attack plane. The Corsair was a carrier aircraft though.
Mike Cimerian The USAF did use a modified version of the A-7 from 1970 to 1991, and it was deployed to Europe so that would make sense. But yeah, even a conventional war would have been an absolute nightmare. Fortunately it never came to that at least...
This video has only taken into account front line operations. Deep Battle also involved dropping forces behind enemy lines to neutralize C3 bases of operations. Airborne assaults are chancy but when successful they could have crippled the chain of command structure and we haven't looked at the bag of dirty tricks both sides had up their sleeves like sleeper agents and top level decapitation.
Soviets don't bomb innocent civilians, they bomb military targets to destroy enemy units before they are even deployed. Oh and my dad was in the East German Army and he said that they had to train one a week with gas Masks and anti radioactive suits and that they had to march with them for 10 kilometers. Some did fall down and had to go to hospital then but they were fit after a few hours again.
Soviets don't bomb civilians? There countless examples of the opposit. LP Flore: you should try to look behind propaganda ...be that "western" or "eatsern" one.
They wouldn't have lasted a day, they thought the NATO defense strategies were all a sham. They'd have been a smoking pile of ash, and I suspect they knew it which is why they instead infiltrated the media / entertainment / academia and took us all over that way, 'active measures' as the KGB called it. Check out Yuri Bezmenov, that fucker was warning us ever since he defected. The 'summer of love' in the 60's and all the drugs and shit was a product of their measures to erode social cohesion in the west and destabilize us, and they almost did. Anti-war protesters were at their highest when they were pumped full of cheap drugs. But the socialist governments of the world are feeding cheap drugs to their people now anyway. No wonder the place is turning a bright shade of red.
I disagree. As a Cold War veteran tanker and tank commander, I have an intimate knowledge of how, granted in the late '80s, we trained for the defense of W. Germany. It would've been a very, very hard fight. Soviet forces outnumbered us at least 3-1. We probably would've been able to stop them but we would not have resorted to the use of tactical nukes. The fear of escalation and possible NATO mutiny were far too great.
Nguroa i grew up through the 90s in former yugoslavia survived four wars and nato bombing. I wish i was lucy like you guys just to live in fear of war not live through him...
@@igorzlatanovic8286 I wish you the best my friend. We do have it pretty nice here, and we will fight to keep it that way. Your country made the best version of the AK47 in my opinion, the Zastava M70.
Jup. Brings up memories from the 80´s in western Germany, too...Every first wednesday of the month at 11:00h, the air raid sirens would give the "all clear" for 5 minutes, just to check that the gear was running. No, not scary at all. Just a constant reminder that you could be dead already... Then there was a Pershing-II-battalion stationed in my hometown...so we knew, if anything cooked off, geopolitically, we´de be toast in ~3min. Sooner, if anything cooked off by accident (which damn near happened in `86...). Even as a primary school kid, you knew for sure that the only job of the german army (and germany as a whole, by proxy) was buying just a little time. We were too young to REALLY realize, but it was still occasionally scary as hell. We´d be in the playground, watch the skies, and pretend the contrails were caused by ICBMs...how sick is that? Anyway, it seems the idea to conduct war away from the civilians seems to have gone out the windows during those times, and the result was the absolute horror that happened in the Balkans. And yes, I am glad every day I did not have to suffer this in person, I know enough people who did, so for what it´s worth, Igor, take my empathy, and my best wishes for your future
Hello Matsimus, no ideea if you are going to read this, but nice informative video. However, I have to point out 2 things. 1. Most important: MAPS. MAPS! MAPS!!!!. Whenever you are making something about battle tactics/ troop movements, use maps. Even poorly drawn ones and encircle stuff with circle tool in MS Paint. It helps a lot in understanding stuff. I know you are on a time limit, but it might help more than just editing footage from other warfilms. Those kind of footage is useful if you make a video about anti-tank tactics, disembarking/dismounting and stuff. 2. Clearly specify the period you are talking about and stay within that time frame. For example, technology employed in the Yom Kipur War was much different than the one during Cuban Missile Crisis or in the 1980s. And something else, It seems that it was not taken into account a second scenario or small/second front: Iceland. I am talking about the ideea presented in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising(still have to get deeper into that book, but had that ideea in my head for years-'Best book is the one that tells you things you already know', huh?) with Soviets invading Iceland. I mean it seemed a no brainer that in the case of a Full Scale War Iceland would not remain untouched. It already had a NATO atomic air base. in a war, Iceland not only posed a threat to soviet mainland via this base, but also to soviet submarines.
Bear in mind that whatever Clancy's merits describing US Forces and doctrine, he really has zero clue about the structure, organisation and doctrine of the German military ca. 1985. His understanding of German police is less than that. I realise this was before Wikipedia, but a modicum of research would really have helped.
@@markcorrigan3930 Eh, Clancy's premise - WWIII, limited to conventional forces - isn't bad, as such. Hackett's take on it was much, much more grounded in reality, as you'd expect from a former British general and deputy SACEUR, but less entertainingly written. Unless, like me, you read history books for fun - Hackett is very much about an operational level view of things, and one needs to bear in mind that he wrote his book expressly to warn about a dangerous decline in British and American conventional military capability. For a view of the same fictitious WWIII much closer to the ground, I highly recommend Team Yankee (the book, not the game, although that's also quite good), written by a US armour officer. From a "realism" perspective, those two are probably the best takes on mid-1980s Cold-War-gone-hot scenarios.
5:40 i love how the Soviets, Nazis, and NATO all viewed Poland as just a speed bump and everyone is just kind of like "how do you expect us to wage a war *without* destroying Poland? You can't even have a World War without wiping out Poland, that's World War 101!"
8:00 The Brits will put up with hell as long as you keep up a steady stream of tea going. Trench warfare, the Blitz, nuclear fallout; just *for the love of GOD* _don't_ let the tea run out!
@@EBOWSAGOE-BIRIKORANG really that how it be. Some people dont know that the opium war was really about the British tea habit was leading to one of the richest country in the world to develop a looming economic crisis and growing opium to sell to China was the only thing keeping the British economy afloat. The British had 2 choices: 1. drink less tea, or 2. make the largest and oldest empire on earth bow and ultimately break and the British didnt even consider option 1. Also side note but there was a point leading to WW2 where to secure a vital resource the British bought every bit of tea on the world market for at least a year just in case the British got cut off from Indian and Chinese tea markets.
These new Cold War videos and description of tactics are some of your best content. Would also love to see more overviews of modern vehicles and equipment as well as detailed predictions of how ongoing and future conflicts could unfold.
One thing I think the Soviets never considered is that the North German Plain was not open space anymore. Rather it covered with small towns and villages. One of the tactics I remember learning were what the British called sponge Tactics. small units centered around a ATGM at the edge of one village. when you see the column of advancing tanks you take out the commander's tank and the rear one. Retreat to the next town, which was about the range of a ATGM and do the same. The Soviets would deploy the support infantry to clear the town before proceeding. By that time we'd be set up in the next town ready to do the same again. Rinse and repeat. In one ReForger exercise we shredded several tank columns and their infantry support using these tactics.
That's happened a number of times. In fact during the Korean war the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry did that at Kapyong Korea. They are one of the few foreign units to have won an American Presidential Unit Citation because of that action.
well the last thing I would want is to get captured by isis and have them cut off my head and video record it. I would much rather die by the hands of my own comrades. sounds crazy, but that's war man.
@Matsimus The point you raise at 6:40 about the advancing into radioactive zones is why Soviet doctrine at the time was to be fully armoured with NBC protection. This is the reason for quirks such as the BMP firing ports.
One of the most interesting posts I've seen lately. I was an artillery officer with two tours in the FRG during the Cold War. One as a Fire Direction Officer of a 155 Battery out of Bamberg and the other as an Air Defense Brigade Intelligence Officer. The "heavy armor"(2:43) did not arrive by sea, it was stored in multiple POMCUS (Prepositioning Of Materiel Configured in Unit Sets) sites throughout Germany and Holland. IF the WP invaded, as you theorized, the choke points would have been nuked by Germany and the US using tactical weapons such as 155, 8in. (not to mention air delivered weapons) and Lance. Follow on WP echelons would have the choice of becoming contaminated or staying put. The problem with the the WP moving through contaminated areas is that most troops would receive a lethal dose of radiation causing fatalities with in 24-48 hours. It's a stand off with all of eastern Europe as the loser. Even if the WP tankers survived because of their armor, their supporting logistics manpower would have been decimated. The level of destruction, nuclear contamination and human suffering would have been horrendous. Those areas would still be contaminated today, much like Chernobyl. The fundamental precept of ALB was to engage the follow-on echelons at the same time as NATO engaged the first echelon. This doctrine permeated tactics and weapons development. An example of a weapon developed for ALB is ATACMS. The missile contained 13 BATs (Brilliant Anti-Tank munitions) that in theory would kill an entire WP tank company.
I am just happy it never kicked off, I live in germany and my dad was in the rhine army and my hometown would have been a value target since we got a huge maritime infrastructure here. Thanks for the video, it is quite eerie.
BMP-2 mechanic-driver here. I confirm that training and doctrine is almost identical to that of what was in 80s. But we were Motostrelki (mechanized infantry) so we are the last ones to join a war (after special forces or VDV fail)
Served with the 3/11th ACR right in the Fulda Gap, 75-77. Unnerving if you took time to think about it. Estimated 98% casualty rate within 24 hours of combat if the USSR came across the border.
Hey Matsimus I was training in California way back in July and we got to train with the Welsh Cavalry. Don't know if you ever had a chance to work with them but is completely changed my view of the British Army they were a bunch of warriors. Great bunch of guys. So glad to be allied with y'all. 🇺🇸🇬🇧
5:04 Sergey: "Ivan.... What are you doing...? Is that a *knife* in your hand...?" Ivan: "I AM RUSKIE-RAMBO COMRAAAAAAAAADE" Sergey: "IVAAAAN, NOOOOOO **dives after Ivan** "
I like your videos but there is a correction I would like to make on a comment you made. I was in the U.S. Army as a tanker ( M60A1 & M60A3 ) during the 1980's in the 4th Infantry division. Part of our deployment efforts to reinforce units already stationed in Germany near the Fulda gap was aided by what was called POMCUS sites which were pre-positioned materials and vehicles which arriving reinforcements would need to merely fall in on, fuel and arm, and off you go, most likely to a near by rail load site. I took part in REFORGER '85 ( Return of Forces to Germany ) which are training missions for the event we went to war with the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. Follow on reinforcement/replacement equipment was determined to be ineffectual if it required it to be shipped by sea after hostilities commenced as the Russians would have the advantage of not needing to transport long distances by sea to supplement/reinforce, and the war would be over before this kind of action could take place. This would have been a nasty war as part of the Soviet battle doctrine was to employ chemical weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons may also come into play if things went badly for the Russians, and the use of tactical nuclear and chemical weapons by NATO was also expected (we were told to expect it and nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) training was always constant). It was really a good thing that this war never went hot.
I expect with the expected mobilisation time for Soviet forces that those sites would have already been manned and moved out before the first shots were fired. Its doubtful that there could have ever been a surprise attack. Soviet military wasn't ever at full readiness. The minute they started ramping up readiness we would have done likewise.
@Steve Arthur Funnily enough, even US forces already in Germany expected to use rail transport for a significant part of their deployment from peacetime barracks to their readiness areas. Unlike the roads, which any sensible planning expected to be full of refugees, the rail System would switch to prewar/wartime scheduling, according military cargos priority over everything else. State-run railway, after all.
@Steve Arthur Depth of intelligence information would be key. Military's are not ever at full readiness due to cost. In peacetime you buy and maintain your kit and personnel at a limited state of readiness (cost is not just financial but can also physically exhausting for personnel). In order to bring all the required divisions up to battle condition would require a ramping up of all sorts of needs. We are not just talking about vehicle and personnel movements but also all the spare parts that those vehicles will need. For instance, the sort of thing that Intel would be constantly monitoring is production of important items such as Car Batteries for civilian use. Spare parts shortages for vehicles was well known and thus would be monitored. For war needs such production lines would be diverted towards the Army's needs. This would be something noticeable within wider society a sudden upsurge in price and demand in the Soviet Black Market for instance. Its a seemingly small thing, but it and all these other important items that keep Armies functioning would be constantly watched for. Diesel supply, motor oils etc etc. It would be very unwise to launch a War if you are ill prepared to follow up with the required momentum to overwhelm and beat your opponent. Just look at the required preparedness that was needed to invade Iraq. Its very hard to do all that in utter secrecy. A good example of state of readiness problems - In the 1990 war, the British Army had to cannibalise hundreds of Tanks based in Germany in order to keep 220 Tanks in Kuwait combat capable such was the shortage of spare parts. If I remember rightly, approximately 1/3rd of Soviet forces available for use against NATO - important second echelon divisions - were kept at between 50-70% readiness. the rest were below 50% with some divisions below 25%. Soviet Warsaw Pact based Divisions were in a better condition but would be still not War ready for perhaps 4 weeks after Mobilisation Orders were issued. 1 million men and all that equipment need a lot of preparedness. It would be noticeable especially in a nation that then suffered all sorts of shortages from food to medical supplies, vehicle parts to fuels and oils.
@Steve Arthur The rail network was built, for the most part, before the Cold War. Much of it was cut when the Intra-German Border went up, but we're not talking about bringing stuff to Dresden. We're talking about going from Grafenwöhr to that border. Baumholder is still a US Army post, and it's closer to France than it ever was to East Germany. Sending that armoured brigade anywhere is faster by rail than by road.
@Steve Arthur Who are "they"? WarPac plans focused on two areas, the North German Plain, which is about as perfect for mechanized forces as you'll find in Europe, and the Fulda Gap, which is an area of relatively flat terrain between two minor, but heavily wooded, mountain ranges. Personally, my impression was always that the Fulda Gap was more of a diversionary element to the overall plans; not trying for it would leave US forces free to either assist in North Germany, or throw a counter-attack into the shoulder of the North German thrust. A secondary objective would have been eliminating Rhein-Main AFB, at that time the primary nexus for US air logistics. Sure, they'd advance along the entire border, but that's just basic Soviet doctrine. To oversimplify, the general advance serves to find weak spots in the defence, then you throw the operational manoeuvre group at that weak spot. Hence why NATO considered battlefield interdiction so crucial; the OMG follows the advance just outside artillery range, so they can rapidly deploy into the attack without having suffered much attrition before hitting NATO's main defence line. And frankly, I think NATO always underestimated how effective Soviet doctrine would have been, even, or perhaps especially, if the matter had stayed entirely conventional. The frontage of a Soviet tank division in the attack on a conventional battlefield is IIRC a mere 2km for 600 tanks and 300 IFVs.
I was with the 11th ACR "Blackhorse" at FULDA, West Germany, 1981/85. This doc depicts the situation well. I would however put more emphasis on the POMCUS sights full of equipment we "maintained" and used every REFORGER. Not to mention the impact of the M1 being pushed into service in 1981 in V Corps along with the Pershing Missiles.
The real problem is that the Russians have not drawn the conclusion that their strategy during the cold war was wrong. F.i. attacks on the UK over Denmark would have been butchered - and Denmark would have had a severe case of alluminium pollution. The Russians would have tried to force the Danish Straits - which under even the best assumptions is a very hard thing to do: Simply put: The wrecks getting mineblown would have blocked the rather narrow channel in the middle of the straits. Today any attempt to use nukes on Nato would result in St. Petersburg being a heap of radioactive rubble - let's hope for a westerly wind - blowing the debris over Moscow. Point being: The affected area will be where Putin lives.
One big problem is the West never really understood the Russian plan for the cold war and was obsessed with the Fulda gap when it was really more of a diversionary strategy and they always planned on a offensives elsewhere. One thing I've noticed for quite some time now is that we (the West) don't like thinking about scenarios that don't favor us or play into our hand. We always wanted Russia to fight us on our own terms where we knew we could defend, but Russia always saw it differently, and most of the strategic information available is from the West's point of view and it's NEVER objective. We really didn't want to think about how badly we could lose if things went their way. Russia practically invented most of the modern battle tactics of the cold war like operational art (1920s), defense in depth, and numerous diversions which would be extremely difficult to determine which offensives were the real ones, they used this to their advantage at the end of WWII. At the lowest levels there's tactical predictability, they may launch attacks across an entire front which would force their enemy to go on the defensive to repel the many simultaneous attacks giving them the initiative. They may lose many lives, but from the other side it feels like no matter where you are, you're repelling a major offensive. This gives them operational flexibility because while you're trying to figure out where their offense is going to come from, they're looking for weak points and exploiting them to the utmost of their ability. The US doesn't fight like that at all, we give our low level officers much responsibility to take the initiative on their own and are in close communication with everyone. A strategy like what Russia had would seriously hamper a NATO country's ability to exert their own pressure. You might already know this but if not it might be helpful. I just enjoy trying to understand both sides as much as possible. I'm honestly not sure which one would have worked the best but Russia certainly had a lot of experience in fighting on a massive front and using a lot of deception and unpredictability and has been developing that military theory for a very long time.
Yeah you dont really know what you are talking about or understand Soviet strategy, that much is clear. Denmark would not have lasted 5 minutes (not literally but they would have been neutralized pretty damn quickly without even needing nukes). Within days it would have been completely cut off from the rest of NATO except for Norway which would have been neutralized just as quickly. In 1983 Denmark has 120 Leo 1s and 90 Centurions. The USSR alone had over 50000 tanks. The UK could be targeted with long range ballistic and cruise missiles without even needing to penetrate Denmark air defenses.
"The USSR alone had over 50000 tanks" a majority of which were mothballed relics and retired models put into long-term storage- which they still continue to do. (So do we, to a much lesser degree) Still, the total number of tanks was huge in comparison to NATO's formations. I'm not arguing that Denmark would have survived a Soviet attack, but I doubt it would have rated highly on a list of primary objectives- at most a sideshow. As far as Soviet ballistic and cruise missile technology in the 80's- it ain't even close- the Warsaw Pact rightly feared Western air forces and their force multipliers of technology, advanced training with hundreds of hours in the air and the ability to conduct sustained rapid sorties beyond what the East could match. Any such missile attacks would have been countered tit for tat with better weapons. Of course, logistics wins wars and one of the reasons the Soviets needed a rapid victory- they suck at supply. I don't think it's mentioned in the video.
Thanks Steve. I try to remind people of what happened to NATO forces in Korea first during the initial fights against the modestly armed north Koreans and then against then also against the modestly armed/equipped Chinese. It reminds me of a cartoon strip of sorts where two Soviet tankers are wondering about who won the air war; the Eiffel tower is in the background. The Chinese light infantry force ( mortars/machine guns for the most part) machine inflict the longest retreat on the US eight army in US military history but this is all forgotten and we keep hearing about western superiority. The reality is that the USSR had the industrial and logistical means to inflict far worse on NATO and what saved us all was that both sides were heavily armed and had different goals that is commonly believed.
@@PdPete11795 It is so fcukin true. We still remember how hundreds years ago any comming close of Germany and Russia was not possible due to how huge "double nation crown" Poland was - and I mean a half Europe huge. Then the bigger the fall was. Poland of today needs roughly 1k+ of 3rd gen modernized and next-gen MBTs, with addition of thousands of APCs, IFVs, MRAPs, LAVs and armed 4x4s. Of course those only with an adequate artillery profile and a 3 layered missile launching defence system. An aircraft forces in size of those used by the France with a second to none drone "qantity and quality" force. Let nobody get confused with those numbers. This is only the minimum safety plan.
BRAVO MATSIMUS, BRAVO. I AM IN LOVE WITH THIS VIDEO. Your videos give me life unlike these other military comparison videos made by other people with robot voices. KEEP IT UP!!
I was in a Lance Unit in 5th Corp. Guarding the Fulda Gap. Our survival time was 16 minutes had a War started! Crazy things in Europe during the cold War! I am grateful to have been there for 2.5 Years and was Glad to return Home. I miss Germany. I guess because I was Young then.
Back in the 70s I attended a military intelligence lecture where it was stated that NATO could only be expected to hold the Soviets for 3 days after which we would go nuclear, and that once there was a "general release" of nuclear weapons down to divisional commander level the expected use would be around 200 per day in W Germany alone. An interesting vide is "WW3 - the movie" th-cam.com/video/q1m7opOGSmQ/w-d-xo.html
hey matsimus theres a game called ahfganistan 11 that i realy recomend where you are playing as the us fighting militia and the taliban. Keep up the great work!
7:00 France and Britain were not targeted initially because they were nuclear armed. The Soviets would have attempted an invasion of Western Europe in hopes of using their nukes as a deterrent to the US, Britain and France while gaining territories of Europe.
Excellent stuff as usually! Maybe you should try to apply some of these tactics when you play Wargame, some of them work quite well and make for some fun games
I trained for this war back in the late '80s, when it was still thought of as a virtual inevitability. As an M1A1 armor crewman, my training included reaction to immediate nuclear flash from various directions, both mounted and dismounted. If the flash came from the right, for example, then the driver would turn INTO it and go hatch-down (the most aerodynamic option), while the turret would traverse to the rear in hopes of protecting the gun barrel from the blast wave. We were expected to carry out operations in MOPP4 (maximum NBC protection) for in excess of 24 hours (at which point the charcoal linings of the suits would have largely degraded due to being soaked with sweat). The objective of that period would be to break contact, advance or retreat from the strike area and rendevous with a decontamination unit for full equipment, personnel, and vehicle scrubdowns. And then we would receive new orders to re-engage the enemy... business as usual.
I’m frigging loving this channel, one of your videos showed up in my recommend and after that I’ve gotten hooked, not to mention the raw at which you are putting these videos out. Great stuff!
"If you want peace prepare for war" seems to be the idea, cant help but be impressed by the artillery loader who took the recently fired/ejected brass in his hands without gloves.
Carl Hallberg Or just "Nazi Roman Latin Teacher" 😂😂😂 In Italy we learn Latin in every high-school and usually the teachers are strict as lagers' commander
I still hold the opinion that AirLand Battle is a superior and timeless military doctrine. Adoption of Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine was a mistake. It's too costly, makes too many assumptions, and drives foreign policy in a dangerous direction. EDIT: Please make a video about Full spectrum dominance, how it arose after the collapse of the USSR, how it works, and your opinion on it in comparison to other doctrines.
An absolutely brilliant explanation of cold war doctrine! This kind of analysis is precisely the kind of thinking that more people should be aware of. Keep up the good work!!!
I had a very interesting chat with an ex UK cold war era soldier a couple of weeks ago. He was in the signals and often found himself right up on the edge of the East /West gap , listening in to the Russians. Among other things , he told me that a large amount of Soviet tanks etc, were simply "running dummies" not armoured and just put on display during the May day parades etc, for the fear factor.
Good thing Stanislav Petrov correctly identified missile attack warnings from the nuclear early-warning system of the Soviet Union, which reported the launch of multiple USAF Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles from bases in the United States, as a false alarm on 26 September 1983.
7 days isn't that crazy; it just says reaching the Rhine, not eliminating all forces up to that point. Deep Battle is all about making break through with shock army, avoiding direct confrontation with strong concentration of enemy forces until main force caught up, and let the reserves encircle and wear them out.
There were three Soviet manned nuclear munitions storage facilities in Czechoslovakia. Codename: JAVOR. They were storing nuclear munitions for CS rocket and heavy artillery units. They were supposed to be used to blow a hole in enemy lines for tanks to exploit.
All right my man, you just made subscribe to this channel! I watched your Mong videos, I watched a military training video on physical fitness you made (very insightful and helpful I believe, even to a civilian like me who just wants to get in shape), I watched your HIND video, and these Cold War videos. I liked them, they're great! If you ever get a chance please, please, please! Do another Cold War tactics video like this, its truly fascinating to learn about this! Its really disturbing to hear that both NATO and the Soviets were willing to use tactics and strategy that would have produced extremely high casualties. And I'm not just talking about the nuclear options either! Anything on the Cold War will do really! Keep up the great work!
I was a staybehind OP. Job was to go to ground, let the first and second elcehlon pass the team by. Then come out, and call down long range arty fire, on MSR, logs, POLs.The while idea was to save on expensive planes and pilots doing recce for the Soviet Logistics, this was the 8os. Nowdays I guess the role would be taken over by drones.
God damn...That would have been the mother of all battles. Operation Barbarossa would look like a small skirmish compared to the full blown conventional and nuclear war between Warsaw and NATO pact on the plains of the Central Europe. It's incredible to even think about all of this considering the level, and amount, of the human suffering this clash would have brought to bare. On the other hand being a military and history buff myself, it's entertaining to think about the tactics, doctrine and an impact of this pivotal moment in human history.
After watching this video I feel more greatful than ever to live after the Cold War. I didn't know that Austria (where I live) was such a great target. Our military wouldn't even be a obstacle, perhaps you could do a video about them? Thanks for the good content!
Two big doctrinal changes that you missed describing were Full Spectrum Warfare, which is basically an extension of AirLand Battle into the space and cyber spectra, and Shock and Awe, which was basically a concept derived from a single policy paper of the same name. Shock and Awe posited that if you throw enough explosives at a target in a short enough period of time you can create the same effect as the release of a nuclear weapon. They tried this in Iraq in 2003 with mixed results, AFAIK it is however still part of US doctrine.
Hey Matsimus - In about 5’ into the video. Please add maps in such a video. It would help to see why the Fulda-Gap was so crucial in strategic terms. Otherwise great video as always 😊👍🏻
You missed two significant factors: 1. Soviet equipment unreliability: 30% losses of mechanized equipment were common in road marches over distances as short as 200k - say Kudowa-Zdoj to Cheb - crippling casualties before the first shot is fired. 2. The nuclear mines in the Fulda Gap with redundant EMP-proof control circuits.
Hey Matsimus, I would love to see a video that explains, and goes more in depth, the famed Air-Land doctrine, that was developed by the US to fight the USSR in Europe. Basis for this new doctrine is a development of the new generation of military technology that changed the war plans significantly. Main technology that underpins this doctrine are stealth, precision "smart" weapons and the new generation of battle tanks, MLRS, attack gunships, etc...
NATO was established on April 4th 1949, the West Germany joined NATO on the May 9th 1955. The Warsaw Pact was established on May 14th 1955 as a reaction to the West Germany joining NATO. The East Germany didn't recognize the borders with Poland till 1950 after pressured by the Soviet Union. The West Germany didn't recognize the borders with Poland till 1970 and ratified in 1990.
+Matsimus great vid. To Anyone who wants to learn more about this topic, required reading is Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. The book is a hypothetical NATO/CCCP cold war confict. Political, Strategic, and Tactical levels are expounded on in all detail that Clancy is known for. A great read
I thnik that while Clancy simply had to make some choices for plot to resolve and he and Bond made some questionable choices, he nailed the issue: high-tech attrition campaign defined by so many variables that essentialy impossible to predict. Also: Ralph Peters, Red Army.
You're using the term defense in depth inaccurately. Defense in depth is the use of multilayered defense lines to slow down, grind and demoralize your opponent. Look at Kursk as the best example of this. What you described is trading land for initiative. Using large areas to force your enemy to over extend their supply lines. Interesting that the WP plan was a 'counter' attack to a NATO strike. And the Cold War was a very long time frame. Really starting in 1949 up to about 1989.
Not just that, it went deep. Stuff like Operation Gladio was already planning ahead to where most of Europe and Turkey would be overrun by Russian agression. Plus it's on so many levels too. The Netherlands for example had two mostly dormant ammunition plants that could kick into action on a moment's notice. Their workers, mostly Moroccan immigrants since they were not diminishing the number of potential fighting men, were some of the best off as they worked very little and still got paid because they had to be around 'just in case'. This made the difference between importing most ammo and suddenly most conventional ammo being homemade, for an entire country. The levels of planning that went into everything from logistics routes, to spare industrial capacity to frontline units is insane.
Yeah I was thinking this too. Defense in depth is where you use layered defenses to break the momentum of the enemy spearhead. It doesnt really have anything to do with giving ground.
I don't know the NATO plan for 1979, but the U.S.A. plan was a little different by 1985. l know I was with 1st armoured division in Germany in 1985. Here one thing American reinforcements came in two waves. The first was in less than 72 hours from the first shot. We had a war stock of equipment that could double the U.S. force that was maintained at war ready state. So we just had to fly troops in. The second wave was by rapid deployment by ship. Personally I find it interesting that some people write books just by what they study not live. I also would not write some of what I know if I would not have worked in a tactical operation center at that time. I got to see both sides I was a tanker for awhile for a view of front line. Later moved to a T.O.C. to see what the high officers where looking at. Like I first said maybe the tactic changed in 5 years, but somehow all that equipment moved that fast Russia would have thought that ment war. So I leave it up to the readers of this. Me I think there should have been more study that's why I never wrote a book.
LOL: "...when the UN steps in..." That was never a consideration in anything I ever trained on. The "7 Days" thing had to do with Soviet logistical capacity -- basically, their logistical capacity was good for 7 - 14 days, at which point, it would collapse. That was always the assumption, and I have never seen anything that disputes that...Also, keep in mind that the most realistic exercises NATO worked had the Soviets actually making it, because their plan was to use high levels of chemical attacks in the North, which was largely held by the Dutch and Belgians, who didn't have the best NBC capacity.
Nice video as always, the cold war was a scary time.... And can you do a video about the ah-1z cobra/viper, my grandpa was in vietnam and he said he loved to see them flying around with oh-6 Cayuse's and huey's giving him covering fire on the ground.
Hey Matismus could you cover SSBNs and SSGNs? They are part of the Nuclear triad and I would lover to see you cover them, perhaps nation by nation since they come in all shapes and sizes. Great video and love your content
Hi Matsimus, Excellent video once more, my compliments! A bit of more background information on the topic. I served with 1 NL Army Corps, adjacent on the North of BAOR (we often had exercises at the Sennelager training area) during the eighties. We were informed and briefed about the NATO tactical plan to counter WP. The plan was to absorb the initial onslaught by dugging in and delaying the offensive with hit and run tactics. Meanwhile, NATO Air Forces were to launch Follow On Forces Attack (FOFA) to destroy 2nd and 3rd echelons and Lines of Communication (LOC) in the WP hinterland. At the same time, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK would mobilize their reserves (which in the case of the Netherlands could be activated within 24 hours and be combat ready in 48 hours) and start a retreating battle, 'buying' time for the American reinforcements to arrive. This battle would last a week, we were told. We had three main concerns back then; Soviet special forces (Spetsnaz), Soviet NBC weapons and Soviet tactical aviation (helicopters, attack fighter-bombers). Soviet armor and artillery of course were regarded as dangeous too, but we all were convinced that we could deal with that, although the estimation was that for every 10 WP tanks, we would suffer a loss of 3 ourselves. Artillery was regarded as short ranged and not very precise which the Soviets compensated for by having huge amounts of artillery pieces. But they could be taken out by counter artillery fire, our artillery officers were confident. We operated the Hughes Firefinder artillery locating radars and after the rounds would have left their barrels, our rounds would be pretty much underway to their positions as well. Our tanks were vastly superior - all but in numbers - to the WP ones, having excellent night vision capabilities and fire on the move effectiveness close to 100%, just like our ATGWs. Spetsnaz were a whole different kind of threat though. They were supposed to be already among the Western European population, waiting for a sign to spring into action. They would blow bridges, attack fuel and ammo stores, command centres and put sand into our well rehearsed mobilization efforts. NBC warfare would severly hamper our ability to fight as well, the more so, because most western armies hardly had any NBC decontamination units or equipment ( 1NL Army Corps only had one company, I don't know about the BAOR). And they had such vast air forces, that our air dfence artillery would probably been saturated pretty soon. Enter Air Land Battle. Air bases became small fortresses against Spetsnaz. And as their tactical aviation and their tactical ballistic missiles were short ranged, the idea was, to take them out from the air. We know now, how difficult the Scud hunting mission was in Iraq, but back then our generals were confident our air forces would succeed. And enter the Patriot system. All in al I am glad it did not come that far. However, today we're sliding towards a same scenario again, albeit of smaler scale as both European NATO members and Russia have much smaller armed forces. Let's hope both our politicians and Putin do the math and recognize there's nothing to be gained by waging war. If we have to however, we'll better be prepared. At present, we are not, after having fought insurgents for far too long and having neglected our conventional warfare tactics and equipment. We've sold much of our (anti-aircraft) artillery, tanks, mechanized infantry fighting vehicles and replaced them with air transportable, light armored vehicles with in most cases not much more than a .50 cal HMG or 7.62mm MG on it. Air forces have been reduced severly (for example: look at how much the aircraft the RAF had back then and the small amount it has right now) and our navies aren't in a better shape. At the same time, a lot of fancy stuff has come into service of which most is utterly inpractible in all out war (UAVs are sitting ducks for anti aircraft artillery for instance). Besides that, Europe is in political shambles after the Euro-crisis, the 2008 economic crisis, the large influx of refugees from North Africa, Iraq and Syria, Brexit, etc., etc. It's all coming down to wether how Putin estimates our resolve to defend the baltic states and our flanks (South: Bulgaria and Romenia, North: Norway, Finland and Poland). In my view, Britain could not have picked a worse moment to leave the EU, signaling that Western European political cohesion is crumbling - which of course it is, regardless of Brexit.
Matsimus, when you use videos of various exercises or anything else, show some descriptions of what we are seeing such as "Soviet military exercise in Poland in 1981" or "NATO Airborne exercise in Bavaria in 1988" or the like. I was intrigued by the last footage of an army armed with Centurions, Garands, M1 105 howitzers. What were they, Dutch? Love your videos, just keep them coming! BTW sorry my English doesn't completely add up :)
6:48 Most Soviet combat vehicles where equipped with CRBN systems, along with widespread issuing of CRBN gear to troops. The Soviet army was basically built to fight in a nuclear wasteland. You can see the CRBN gear they would have used in the footage at 10:25.
You made this one video about a old british army recruitment video and I cant find it anymore xD, the clip of the close range nuclear support thing at 15:07 reminded me of it.
Simon Barabash the strategical plans in place assumed soviet invasion despite neutrality ad Sweden is just too strategically important in order to open up alternative routes to the north sea and tactical movements in the southern Baltic sea. It is also a strategic roadblock for strike aircraft from both WP & NATO. Basically the strategy was based around trying to sink as much soviet troop transports as possible using submarine deployed ship mines, diesel-electric attack subs, packs of fast anti-ship missile boats, strike aircraft and both fortified (nbc-resistant or proofed) and mobile coastal artillery while mobilizing as much as possible of about 12% of the Swedish population as pre-trained conscripts in the armed forces alone in order to counter-attack inevitable bridge heads and fight a nation wide delaying action that would seamlessly transition into a semi-organised guerilla war until foreign military intervention could be recived or the soviets decided to cut their losses and bugger off on their own. Every phone book issued in Sweden during the cold war had a section on "If the war comes" and the message it stressed the most was "Every statement advocating or demanding cessation of resistance is to be considdered false" Basically every Swedish citizen was expected to take on the same mantle as the 70+yo individual japanese imperial soldiers who ran their own guerilla wars in the south pacific and wouldn't stop until someone managed to drag their even older COs out of retirement homes to order them to stand down 50-60years after VP-day.
Simon Barabash the Swedish defence doctrine was based on applying the maximum. Amount of casaulties as possible. The Swedish airforce was expected to more or less be killed off in its entirety in about 1-28 days. The Swedish Armed Forces where at the time trained to cause maximum amount of casaulties for Every meter gained. To make the war extremely costly and to try and morally convince the enemy to not continue the war. In essentiality Sweden whould be What Vietnam was to USA to the USSR.
I was stationed with the U.S. Army in W.Germany from 84-86 with a deployment point in the Fulda Gap. We were told from the time we arrived that if the Soviets attacked we weren't intended to win and weren't expected to survive. Our ONLY purpose was to slow down the Warsaw Pact enough to allow the reinforcements to arrive. The entire 8th Infantry Division was expected to last three days. Nobody ever said we were expected to hold any ground .
Oh dear god, the "7 days to the Rhine" plan. If anyone thought our plan to use nukes to halt the Warsaw Pact's advance across the Iron Curtain was nuts, Soviet higher ups decided to go for gold in 'who's plan was the craziest of them all.' Hell, most of the Soviet officer corps thought the 7 days of the Rhine plan was insane at worst and overly optimistic at best.
I wonder what type of madmen dreamed up this plan.
@@ricardosoto5770 Zampolits type of politicians, blind, deaf, about anything but his/her political ambitions and blind zealotness towards his/her ideological ideals..
If we nuke all of Western Europe, NATO won't use nukes at us surely?
it would have worked no doubt
@@ricardosoto5770 polticial officers dreamed it up. There are extreme dangers when officers are chosen based off polticial connections and party loyalty over competence, and lesser dangers of letting politicians and polticial officers enforcing their ideas while disregarding experts opinions
Around 40% casualties on both sides within 48 hours. An Apache was not expected to last more than fifteen combat hours.
B-52 life expectancy was about 6 hours. 1 mission, 90% casualties expected.
I once saw a US fighter pilot (Either A-7 or F-16, can’t quite recall) say he was expected to survive two sorties.
Sobering isn't it? Probably a A-7, Soviets had triple layers of air defense and hell to pay for a ground attack plane. The Corsair was a carrier aircraft though.
Mike Cimerian The USAF did use a modified version of the A-7 from 1970 to 1991, and it was deployed to Europe so that would make sense. But yeah, even a conventional war would have been an absolute nightmare. Fortunately it never came to that at least...
This video has only taken into account front line operations. Deep Battle also involved dropping forces behind enemy lines to neutralize C3 bases of operations. Airborne assaults are chancy but when successful they could have crippled the chain of command structure and we haven't looked at the bag of dirty tricks both sides had up their sleeves like sleeper agents and top level decapitation.
6:46 sliding into battle with style
Altwerk Vyner yeah boiiiii
Comarade Legolas back in the army days :D
When you know you're gonna die, you must at least die with STYLE
They don't do things nowadays like they did back then
7:04
Sergey: "Ivan, comrade; why are we shooting our tanks and SPAA off the back of a train...?"
Ivan: "IT LOOKS SO COOOOOOOL BLYAAAATS!"
The tactics were COOL because of COLD war
okay im silent
Ha!!!
Ja
Ura
Soviets be like:There will be no urban warfare,if there are no cities left.
Soviets don't bomb innocent civilians, they bomb military targets to destroy enemy units before they are even deployed. Oh and my dad was in the East German Army and he said that they had to train one a week with gas Masks and anti radioactive suits and that they had to march with them for 10 kilometers. Some did fall down and had to go to hospital then but they were fit after a few hours again.
Soviets don't bomb civilians? There countless examples of the opposit. LP Flore: you should try to look behind propaganda ...be that "western" or "eatsern" one.
Vindicare no wonder they built the tsar.bomb then.lol
They wouldn't have lasted a day, they thought the NATO defense strategies were all a sham. They'd have been a smoking pile of ash, and I suspect they knew it which is why they instead infiltrated the media / entertainment / academia and took us all over that way, 'active measures' as the KGB called it. Check out Yuri Bezmenov, that fucker was warning us ever since he defected. The 'summer of love' in the 60's and all the drugs and shit was a product of their measures to erode social cohesion in the west and destabilize us, and they almost did. Anti-war protesters were at their highest when they were pumped full of cheap drugs. But the socialist governments of the world are feeding cheap drugs to their people now anyway. No wonder the place is turning a bright shade of red.
I disagree. As a Cold War veteran tanker and tank commander, I have an intimate knowledge of how, granted in the late '80s, we trained for the defense of W. Germany. It would've been a very, very hard fight. Soviet forces outnumbered us at least 3-1. We probably would've been able to stop them but we would not have resorted to the use of tactical nukes. The fear of escalation and possible NATO mutiny were far too great.
Still scary stuff to this day, I remenber being a kid in the 70's talking about this in the playground!
"We who grew up strong and proud, in the shadow of the mushroom cloud".
Nguroa i grew up through the 90s in former yugoslavia survived four wars and nato bombing. I wish i was lucy like you guys just to live in fear of war not live through him...
@@igorzlatanovic8286 I wish you the best my friend. We do have it pretty nice here, and we will fight to keep it that way. Your country made the best version of the AK47 in my opinion, the Zastava M70.
Jup. Brings up memories from the 80´s in western Germany, too...Every first wednesday of the month at 11:00h, the air raid sirens would give the "all clear" for 5 minutes, just to check that the gear was running.
No, not scary at all. Just a constant reminder that you could be dead already...
Then there was a Pershing-II-battalion stationed in my hometown...so we knew, if anything cooked off, geopolitically, we´de be toast in ~3min. Sooner, if anything cooked off by accident (which damn near happened in `86...). Even as a primary school kid, you knew for sure that the only job of the german army (and germany as a whole, by proxy) was buying just a little time. We were too young to REALLY realize, but it was still occasionally scary as hell. We´d be in the playground, watch the skies, and pretend the contrails were caused by ICBMs...how sick is that?
Anyway, it seems the idea to conduct war away from the civilians seems to have gone out the windows during those times, and the result was the absolute horror that happened in the Balkans. And yes, I am glad every day I did not have to suffer this in person, I know enough people who did, so for what it´s worth, Igor, take my empathy, and my best wishes for your future
And the good old BBC telling every night how the Soviets were going to annihilate us.
From assault rifles to battle doctrine, this channel is stepping up. Good stuff!!!!
Hello Matsimus, no ideea if you are going to read this, but nice informative video. However, I have to point out 2 things.
1. Most important: MAPS. MAPS! MAPS!!!!. Whenever you are making something about battle tactics/ troop movements, use maps. Even poorly drawn ones and encircle stuff with circle tool in MS Paint. It helps a lot in understanding stuff. I know you are on a time limit, but it might help more than just editing footage from other warfilms. Those kind of footage is useful if you make a video about anti-tank tactics, disembarking/dismounting and stuff.
2. Clearly specify the period you are talking about and stay within that time frame. For example, technology employed in the Yom Kipur War was much different than the one during Cuban Missile Crisis or in the 1980s.
And something else, It seems that it was not taken into account a second scenario or small/second front: Iceland. I am talking about the ideea presented in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising(still have to get deeper into that book, but had that ideea in my head for years-'Best book is the one that tells you things you already know', huh?) with Soviets invading Iceland. I mean it seemed a no brainer that in the case of a Full Scale War Iceland would not remain untouched. It already had a NATO atomic air base. in a war, Iceland not only posed a threat to soviet mainland via this base, but also to soviet submarines.
That's my favourite book of all time. I've read it twice. Excellent read.
I second the maps suggestion. Even basic ones are very useful.
Bear in mind that whatever Clancy's merits describing US Forces and doctrine, he really has zero clue about the structure, organisation and doctrine of the German military ca. 1985. His understanding of German police is less than that.
I realise this was before Wikipedia, but a modicum of research would really have helped.
@@jochentram9301 Yeah the comment was cool until he talked about Tom Clancy.
@@markcorrigan3930 Eh, Clancy's premise - WWIII, limited to conventional forces - isn't bad, as such. Hackett's take on it was much, much more grounded in reality, as you'd expect from a former British general and deputy SACEUR, but less entertainingly written. Unless, like me, you read history books for fun - Hackett is very much about an operational level view of things, and one needs to bear in mind that he wrote his book expressly to warn about a dangerous decline in British and American conventional military capability.
For a view of the same fictitious WWIII much closer to the ground, I highly recommend Team Yankee (the book, not the game, although that's also quite good), written by a US armour officer.
From a "realism" perspective, those two are probably the best takes on mid-1980s Cold-War-gone-hot scenarios.
5:40 i love how the Soviets, Nazis, and NATO all viewed Poland as just a speed bump and everyone is just kind of like "how do you expect us to wage a war *without* destroying Poland? You can't even have a World War without wiping out Poland, that's World War 101!"
8:00 The Brits will put up with hell as long as you keep up a steady stream of tea going. Trench warfare, the Blitz, nuclear fallout; just *for the love of GOD* _don't_ let the tea run out!
@@arthas640British:For the tea!!!!!!!
@@EBOWSAGOE-BIRIKORANG really that how it be. Some people dont know that the opium war was really about the British tea habit was leading to one of the richest country in the world to develop a looming economic crisis and growing opium to sell to China was the only thing keeping the British economy afloat. The British had 2 choices: 1. drink less tea, or 2. make the largest and oldest empire on earth bow and ultimately break and the British didnt even consider option 1.
Also side note but there was a point leading to WW2 where to secure a vital resource the British bought every bit of tea on the world market for at least a year just in case the British got cut off from Indian and Chinese tea markets.
My Grandma still lives in Fulda. There was a huge radar array on a hill. Now its museum.
I was stationed in gelnhausen 75-76 fulda gap was our area to defend
These new Cold War videos and description of tactics are some of your best content. Would also love to see more overviews of modern vehicles and equipment as well as detailed predictions of how ongoing and future conflicts could unfold.
One thing I think the Soviets never considered is that the North German Plain was not open space anymore. Rather it covered with small towns and villages. One of the tactics I remember learning were what the British called
sponge Tactics. small units centered around a ATGM at the edge of one village. when you see the column of advancing tanks you take out the commander's tank and the rear one. Retreat to the next town, which was about the range of a ATGM and do the same. The Soviets would deploy the support infantry to clear the town before proceeding. By that time we'd be set up in the next town ready to do the same again. Rinse and repeat. In one ReForger exercise we shredded several tank columns and their infantry support using these tactics.
Reminds me of that russian soldier that called an airstrike on his own position because hes surrounded by ISIS anyway.
That's happened a number of times. In fact during the Korean war the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry did that at Kapyong Korea. They are one of the few foreign units to have won an American Presidential Unit Citation because of that action.
well the last thing I would want is to get captured by isis and have them cut off my head and video record it. I would much rather die by the hands of my own comrades. sounds crazy, but that's war man.
thisghy, exactly
Alexandr Prokhorenko, March 2016, Palmyra, Syria.
Its a good tactic as it can protect your colleagues, and by extension, country.
@Matsimus The point you raise at 6:40 about the advancing into radioactive zones is why Soviet doctrine at the time was to be fully armoured with NBC protection. This is the reason for quirks such as the BMP firing ports.
In case of war, France had agreement with NATO. Its armed forces could move to the Rhin ready for action.
France also had a plan to nuke the lands east of the Rhine should the soviets ever take them
@@ufoash1066 : I heard about that nuke plan decades ago. It was no joke. The French would have done it.
French had a plan. To surrender before red army advanced to their border.
@@waszkreslem9306 don't make such stupid statements
@@sander7165 im sorry man but had to make this joke.
Just wow man, this was both so epic and terrifying to watch. Your channel is the real deal.
One of the most interesting posts I've seen lately. I was an artillery officer with two tours in the FRG during the Cold War. One as a Fire
Direction Officer of a 155 Battery out of Bamberg and the other as an Air Defense Brigade Intelligence Officer.
The "heavy armor"(2:43) did not arrive by sea, it was stored in multiple POMCUS (Prepositioning Of Materiel Configured in Unit Sets)
sites throughout Germany and Holland. IF the WP invaded, as you theorized, the choke points would have been nuked by Germany
and the US using tactical weapons such as 155, 8in. (not to mention air delivered weapons) and Lance. Follow on WP echelons would
have the choice of becoming contaminated or staying put. The problem with the the WP moving through contaminated areas is that
most troops would receive a lethal dose of radiation causing fatalities with in 24-48 hours. It's a stand off with all of eastern Europe as
the loser. Even if the WP tankers survived because of their armor, their supporting logistics manpower would have been decimated. The level of destruction, nuclear contamination and human suffering would have been horrendous. Those areas would still be contaminated
today, much like Chernobyl.
The fundamental precept of ALB was to engage the follow-on echelons at the same time as NATO engaged the first echelon. This
doctrine permeated tactics and weapons development. An example of a weapon developed for ALB is ATACMS. The missile contained 13 BATs (Brilliant Anti-Tank munitions) that in theory would kill an entire WP tank company.
I am just happy it never kicked off, I live in germany and my dad was in the rhine army and my hometown would have been a value target since we got a huge maritime infrastructure here. Thanks for the video, it is quite eerie.
BMP-2 mechanic-driver here. I confirm that training and doctrine is almost identical to that of what was in 80s. But we were Motostrelki (mechanized infantry) so we are the last ones to join a war (after special forces or VDV fail)
Served with the 3/11th ACR right in the Fulda Gap, 75-77. Unnerving if you took time to think about it. Estimated 98% casualty rate within 24 hours of combat if the USSR came across the border.
Hey Matsimus I was training in California way back in July and we got to train with the Welsh Cavalry. Don't know if you ever had a chance to work with them but is completely changed my view of the British Army they were a bunch of warriors. Great bunch of guys. So glad to be allied with y'all. 🇺🇸🇬🇧
5:04
Sergey: "Ivan.... What are you doing...? Is that a *knife* in your hand...?"
Ivan: "I AM RUSKIE-RAMBO COMRAAAAAAAAADE"
Sergey: "IVAAAAN, NOOOOOO **dives after Ivan** "
I like your videos but there is a correction I would like to make on a comment you made. I was in the U.S. Army as a tanker ( M60A1 & M60A3 ) during the 1980's in the 4th Infantry division. Part of our deployment efforts to reinforce units already stationed in Germany near the Fulda gap was aided by what was called POMCUS sites which were pre-positioned materials and vehicles which arriving reinforcements would need to merely fall in on, fuel and arm, and off you go, most likely to a near by rail load site. I took part in REFORGER '85 ( Return of Forces to Germany ) which are training missions for the event we went to war with the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. Follow on reinforcement/replacement equipment was determined to be ineffectual if it required it to be shipped by sea after hostilities commenced as the Russians would have the advantage of not needing to transport long distances by sea to supplement/reinforce, and the war would be over before this kind of action could take place. This would have been a nasty war as part of the Soviet battle doctrine was to employ chemical weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons may also come into play if things went badly for the Russians, and the use of tactical nuclear and chemical weapons by NATO was also expected (we were told to expect it and nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) training was always constant). It was really a good thing that this war never went hot.
I expect with the expected mobilisation time for Soviet forces that those sites would have already been manned and moved out before the first shots were fired. Its doubtful that there could have ever been a surprise attack. Soviet military wasn't ever at full readiness. The minute they started ramping up readiness we would have done likewise.
@Steve Arthur Funnily enough, even US forces already in Germany expected to use rail transport for a significant part of their deployment from peacetime barracks to their readiness areas. Unlike the roads, which any sensible planning expected to be full of refugees, the rail System would switch to prewar/wartime scheduling, according military cargos priority over everything else.
State-run railway, after all.
@Steve Arthur Depth of intelligence information would be key. Military's are not ever at full readiness due to cost. In peacetime you buy and maintain your kit and personnel at a limited state of readiness (cost is not just financial but can also physically exhausting for personnel). In order to bring all the required divisions up to battle condition would require a ramping up of all sorts of needs. We are not just talking about vehicle and personnel movements but also all the spare parts that those vehicles will need. For instance, the sort of thing that Intel would be constantly monitoring is production of important items such as Car Batteries for civilian use. Spare parts shortages for vehicles was well known and thus would be monitored. For war needs such production lines would be diverted towards the Army's needs. This would be something noticeable within wider society a sudden upsurge in price and demand in the Soviet Black Market for instance. Its a seemingly small thing, but it and all these other important items that keep Armies functioning would be constantly watched for. Diesel supply, motor oils etc etc.
It would be very unwise to launch a War if you are ill prepared to follow up with the required momentum to overwhelm and beat your opponent.
Just look at the required preparedness that was needed to invade Iraq. Its very hard to do all that in utter secrecy.
A good example of state of readiness problems - In the 1990 war, the British Army had to cannibalise hundreds of Tanks based in Germany in order to keep 220 Tanks in Kuwait combat capable such was the shortage of spare parts.
If I remember rightly, approximately 1/3rd of Soviet forces available for use against NATO - important second echelon divisions - were kept at between 50-70% readiness. the rest were below 50% with some divisions below 25%. Soviet Warsaw Pact based Divisions were in a better condition but would be still not War ready for perhaps 4 weeks after Mobilisation Orders were issued. 1 million men and all that equipment need a lot of preparedness.
It would be noticeable especially in a nation that then suffered all sorts of shortages from food to medical supplies, vehicle parts to fuels and oils.
@Steve Arthur The rail network was built, for the most part, before the Cold War. Much of it was cut when the Intra-German Border went up, but we're not talking about bringing stuff to Dresden. We're talking about going from Grafenwöhr to that border. Baumholder is still a US Army post, and it's closer to France than it ever was to East Germany. Sending that armoured brigade anywhere is faster by rail than by road.
@Steve Arthur Who are "they"? WarPac plans focused on two areas, the North German Plain, which is about as perfect for mechanized forces as you'll find in Europe, and the Fulda Gap, which is an area of relatively flat terrain between two minor, but heavily wooded, mountain ranges. Personally, my impression was always that the Fulda Gap was more of a diversionary element to the overall plans; not trying for it would leave US forces free to either assist in North Germany, or throw a counter-attack into the shoulder of the North German thrust. A secondary objective would have been eliminating Rhein-Main AFB, at that time the primary nexus for US air logistics.
Sure, they'd advance along the entire border, but that's just basic Soviet doctrine. To oversimplify, the general advance serves to find weak spots in the defence, then you throw the operational manoeuvre group at that weak spot. Hence why NATO considered battlefield interdiction so crucial; the OMG follows the advance just outside artillery range, so they can rapidly deploy into the attack without having suffered much attrition before hitting NATO's main defence line.
And frankly, I think NATO always underestimated how effective Soviet doctrine would have been, even, or perhaps especially, if the matter had stayed entirely conventional. The frontage of a Soviet tank division in the attack on a conventional battlefield is IIRC a mere 2km for 600 tanks and 300 IFVs.
I was with the 11th ACR "Blackhorse" at FULDA, West Germany, 1981/85. This doc depicts the situation well. I would however put more emphasis on the POMCUS sights full of equipment we "maintained" and used every REFORGER. Not to mention the impact of the M1 being pushed into service in 1981 in V Corps along with the Pershing Missiles.
"Dry and boring"
This type of content is the reason I subscribed! Good stuff.
The real problem is that the Russians have not drawn the conclusion that their strategy during the cold war was wrong. F.i. attacks on the UK over Denmark would have been butchered - and Denmark would have had a severe case of alluminium pollution. The Russians would have tried to force the Danish Straits - which under even the best assumptions is a very hard thing to do: Simply put: The wrecks getting mineblown would have blocked the rather narrow channel in the middle of the straits.
Today any attempt to use nukes on Nato would result in St. Petersburg being a heap of radioactive rubble - let's hope for a westerly wind - blowing the debris over Moscow. Point being: The affected area will be where Putin lives.
Baltic Fleet wouldn't try to cross Danish Straits really, it would stay in Baltic. Northern Fleet was supposed to handle UK and Atlantic.
One big problem is the West never really understood the Russian plan for the cold war and was obsessed with the Fulda gap when it was really more of a diversionary strategy and they always planned on a offensives elsewhere. One thing I've noticed for quite some time now is that we (the West) don't like thinking about scenarios that don't favor us or play into our hand. We always wanted Russia to fight us on our own terms where we knew we could defend, but Russia always saw it differently, and most of the strategic information available is from the West's point of view and it's NEVER objective. We really didn't want to think about how badly we could lose if things went their way. Russia practically invented most of the modern battle tactics of the cold war like operational art (1920s), defense in depth, and numerous diversions which would be extremely difficult to determine which offensives were the real ones, they used this to their advantage at the end of WWII. At the lowest levels there's tactical predictability, they may launch attacks across an entire front which would force their enemy to go on the defensive to repel the many simultaneous attacks giving them the initiative. They may lose many lives, but from the other side it feels like no matter where you are, you're repelling a major offensive. This gives them operational flexibility because while you're trying to figure out where their offense is going to come from, they're looking for weak points and exploiting them to the utmost of their ability. The US doesn't fight like that at all, we give our low level officers much responsibility to take the initiative on their own and are in close communication with everyone. A strategy like what Russia had would seriously hamper a NATO country's ability to exert their own pressure.
You might already know this but if not it might be helpful. I just enjoy trying to understand both sides as much as possible. I'm honestly not sure which one would have worked the best but Russia certainly had a lot of experience in fighting on a massive front and using a lot of deception and unpredictability and has been developing that military theory for a very long time.
Yeah you dont really know what you are talking about or understand Soviet strategy, that much is clear. Denmark would not have lasted 5 minutes (not literally but they would have been neutralized pretty damn quickly without even needing nukes). Within days it would have been completely cut off from the rest of NATO except for Norway which would have been neutralized just as quickly. In 1983 Denmark has 120 Leo 1s and 90 Centurions. The USSR alone had over 50000 tanks. The UK could be targeted with long range ballistic and cruise missiles without even needing to penetrate Denmark air defenses.
"The USSR alone had over 50000 tanks" a majority of which were mothballed relics and retired models put into long-term storage- which they still continue to do. (So do we, to a much lesser degree) Still, the total number of tanks was huge in comparison to NATO's formations.
I'm not arguing that Denmark would have survived a Soviet attack, but I doubt it would have rated highly on a list of primary objectives- at most a sideshow.
As far as Soviet ballistic and cruise missile technology in the 80's- it ain't even close- the Warsaw Pact rightly feared Western air forces and their force multipliers of technology, advanced training with hundreds of hours in the air and the ability to conduct sustained rapid sorties beyond what the East could match. Any such missile attacks would have been countered tit for tat with better weapons.
Of course, logistics wins wars and one of the reasons the Soviets needed a rapid victory- they suck at supply. I don't think it's mentioned in the video.
Thanks Steve. I try to remind people of what happened to NATO forces in Korea first during the initial fights against the modestly armed north Koreans and then against then also against the modestly armed/equipped Chinese. It reminds me of a cartoon strip of sorts where two Soviet tankers are wondering about who won the air war; the Eiffel tower is in the background.
The Chinese light infantry force ( mortars/machine guns for the most part) machine inflict the longest retreat on the US eight army in US military history but this is all forgotten and we keep hearing about western superiority. The reality is that the USSR had the industrial and logistical means to inflict far worse on NATO and what saved us all was that both sides were heavily armed and had different goals that is commonly believed.
Poor Poland XD
My history teacher had a saying when we learned about WWII and Cold War history. "Whenever Poland is discussed, Poland is never at the table."
@@PdPete11795 It is so fcukin true. We still remember how hundreds years ago any comming close of Germany and Russia was not possible due to how huge "double nation crown" Poland was - and I mean a half Europe huge. Then the bigger the fall was.
Poland of today needs roughly 1k+ of 3rd gen modernized and next-gen MBTs, with addition of thousands of APCs, IFVs, MRAPs, LAVs and armed 4x4s. Of course those only with an adequate artillery profile and a 3 layered missile launching defence system. An aircraft forces in size of those used by the France with a second to none drone "qantity and quality" force.
Let nobody get confused with those numbers. This is only the minimum safety plan.
They always had it coming.
BRAVO MATSIMUS, BRAVO. I AM IN LOVE WITH THIS VIDEO. Your videos give me life unlike these other military comparison videos made by other people with robot voices. KEEP IT UP!!
Love your Cold War stuff. Nice seeing more of it actually.
Thank God it didn't happen
I was in a Lance Unit in 5th Corp. Guarding the Fulda Gap. Our survival time was 16 minutes had a War started! Crazy things in Europe during the cold War! I am grateful to have been there for 2.5 Years and was Glad to return Home. I miss Germany. I guess because I was Young then.
Back in the 70s I attended a military intelligence lecture where it was stated that NATO could only be expected to hold the Soviets for 3 days after which we would go nuclear, and that once there was a "general release" of nuclear weapons down to divisional commander level the expected use would be around 200 per day in W Germany alone. An interesting vide is "WW3 - the movie"
th-cam.com/video/q1m7opOGSmQ/w-d-xo.html
Notification Squad here as normal, keep up the good work Matsimus loved all the recent uploads
hey matsimus theres a game called ahfganistan 11 that i realy recomend where you are playing as the us fighting militia and the taliban. Keep up the great work!
im gonna check ttat out
An absolutely fascinating topic, and I think I speak for a lot of us that more Cold War videos are in order.
There’s only one way to test doctrine.... STEEL BEASTS😂😂😂😂
That and Armored brigade....
7:00 France and Britain were not targeted initially because they were nuclear armed. The Soviets would have attempted an invasion of Western Europe in hopes of using their nukes as a deterrent to the US, Britain and France while gaining territories of Europe.
Excellent stuff as usually! Maybe you should try to apply some of these tactics when you play Wargame, some of them work quite well and make for some fun games
I trained for this war back in the late '80s, when it was still thought of as a virtual inevitability. As an M1A1 armor crewman, my training included reaction to immediate nuclear flash from various directions, both mounted and dismounted. If the flash came from the right, for example, then the driver would turn INTO it and go hatch-down (the most aerodynamic option), while the turret would traverse to the rear in hopes of protecting the gun barrel from the blast wave.
We were expected to carry out operations in MOPP4 (maximum NBC protection) for in excess of 24 hours (at which point the charcoal linings of the suits would have largely degraded due to being soaked with sweat). The objective of that period would be to break contact, advance or retreat from the strike area and rendevous with a decontamination unit for full equipment, personnel, and vehicle scrubdowns.
And then we would receive new orders to re-engage the enemy... business as usual.
Beautiful work as always Matty. Thanks for this.
SteelbeastsCavalry thanks buddy!
I’m frigging loving this channel, one of your videos showed up in my recommend and after that I’ve gotten hooked, not to mention the raw at which you are putting these videos out. Great stuff!
"If you want peace prepare for war" seems to be the idea, cant help but be impressed by the artillery loader who took the recently fired/ejected brass in his hands without gloves.
Carl Hallberg Si vis pacem para bellum
Actually "Si vis pacem para bellum" means "if you want internal stability, go to war with another country"
"now conjugate the verb to go..." Should be Nazi Vampire Roman Latin Teacher :P
Carl Hallberg Or just "Nazi Roman Latin Teacher" 😂😂😂 In Italy we learn Latin in every high-school and usually the teachers are strict as lagers' commander
was thinking about the monthy python sketch with Latin :)
I still hold the opinion that AirLand Battle is a superior and timeless military doctrine. Adoption of Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine was a mistake.
It's too costly, makes too many assumptions, and drives foreign policy in a dangerous direction.
EDIT: Please make a video about Full spectrum dominance, how it arose after the collapse of the USSR, how it works, and your opinion on it in comparison to other doctrines.
Full Spectrum Dominance is just a long winded way of saying megalomania.
An absolutely brilliant explanation of cold war doctrine! This kind of analysis is precisely the kind of thinking that more people should be aware of. Keep up the good work!!!
Excellent overview and analysis. Thank you.
I had a very interesting chat with an ex UK cold war era soldier a couple of weeks ago. He was in the signals and often found himself right up on the edge of the East /West gap , listening in to the Russians. Among other things , he told me that a large amount of Soviet tanks etc, were simply "running dummies" not armoured and just put on display during the May day parades etc, for the fear factor.
All 60 000 of them?
What he said is complete nonsense.
Good thing Stanislav Petrov correctly identified missile attack warnings from the nuclear early-warning system of the Soviet Union, which reported the launch of multiple USAF Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles from bases in the United States, as a false alarm on 26 September 1983.
7 days isn't that crazy; it just says reaching the Rhine, not eliminating all forces up to that point.
Deep Battle is all about making break through with shock army, avoiding direct confrontation with strong concentration of enemy forces until main force caught up, and let the reserves encircle and wear them out.
There were three Soviet manned nuclear munitions storage facilities in Czechoslovakia. Codename: JAVOR. They were storing nuclear munitions for CS rocket and heavy artillery units. They were supposed to be used to blow a hole in enemy lines for tanks to exploit.
Where do you get all of this footage from?
Fantastic, both the information and the Cold War footage.
All right my man, you just made subscribe to this channel! I watched your Mong videos, I watched a military training video on physical fitness you made (very insightful and helpful I believe, even to a civilian like me who just wants to get in shape), I watched your HIND video, and these Cold War videos.
I liked them, they're great! If you ever get a chance please, please, please! Do another Cold War tactics video like this, its truly fascinating to learn about this! Its really disturbing to hear that both NATO and the Soviets were willing to use tactics and strategy that would have produced extremely high casualties. And I'm not just talking about the nuclear options either!
Anything on the Cold War will do really! Keep up the great work!
I was a staybehind OP. Job was to go to ground, let the first and second elcehlon pass the team by. Then come out, and call down long range arty fire, on MSR, logs, POLs.The while idea was to save on expensive planes and pilots doing recce for the Soviet Logistics, this was the 8os. Nowdays I guess the role would be taken over by drones.
I wrote this 3 years ago, and boy I was right looking at the Ukraine war, drones are being used as arty spotters.
God damn...That would have been the mother of all battles. Operation Barbarossa would look like a small skirmish compared to the full blown conventional and nuclear war between Warsaw and NATO pact on the plains of the Central Europe. It's incredible to even think about all of this considering the level, and amount, of the human suffering this clash would have brought to bare.
On the other hand being a military and history buff myself, it's entertaining to think about the tactics, doctrine and an impact of this pivotal moment in human history.
After watching this video I feel more greatful than ever to live after the Cold War. I didn't know that Austria (where I live) was such a great target. Our military wouldn't even be a obstacle, perhaps you could do a video about them? Thanks for the good content!
Matt, one of your best vids man
Two big doctrinal changes that you missed describing were Full Spectrum Warfare, which is basically an extension of AirLand Battle into the space and cyber spectra, and Shock and Awe, which was basically a concept derived from a single policy paper of the same name. Shock and Awe posited that if you throw enough explosives at a target in a short enough period of time you can create the same effect as the release of a nuclear weapon. They tried this in Iraq in 2003 with mixed results, AFAIK it is however still part of US doctrine.
I just love to watch these videos ^ ^
15:09
"I Missed"
"What do you mean you MISSED?!"
From our side, in the Fulda Gap, it was Shoot, move, shoot again...pray.
Hey Matsimus - In about 5’ into the video. Please add maps in such a video. It would help to see why the Fulda-Gap was so crucial in strategic terms. Otherwise great video as always 😊👍🏻
Thank you Matsimus for sharing this with us.
Thanks for making videos like this. I really learned a lot from your educational videos. I really like war and stuff.
awesome video Matsimus. thanks
You missed two significant factors:
1. Soviet equipment unreliability: 30% losses of mechanized equipment were common in road marches over distances as short as 200k - say Kudowa-Zdoj to Cheb - crippling casualties before the first shot is fired.
2. The nuclear mines in the Fulda Gap with redundant EMP-proof control circuits.
How about video on guerilla warfare tactics
Hey Matsimus, I would love to see a video that explains, and goes more in depth, the famed Air-Land doctrine, that was developed by the US to fight the USSR in Europe. Basis for this new doctrine is a development of the new generation of military technology that changed the war plans significantly. Main technology that underpins this doctrine are stealth, precision "smart" weapons and the new generation of battle tanks, MLRS, attack gunships, etc...
Great cold war footage and info. Thank you!
NATO was established on April 4th 1949, the West Germany joined NATO on the May 9th 1955. The Warsaw Pact was established on May 14th 1955 as a reaction to the West Germany joining NATO. The East Germany didn't recognize the borders with Poland till 1950 after pressured by the Soviet Union. The West Germany didn't recognize the borders with Poland till 1970 and ratified in 1990.
18:10 The bravest soldiers I've ever seen.
+Matsimus great vid. To Anyone who wants to learn more about this topic, required reading is Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. The book is a hypothetical NATO/CCCP cold war confict. Political, Strategic, and Tactical levels are expounded on in all detail that Clancy is known for. A great read
I thnik that while Clancy simply had to make some choices for plot to resolve and he and Bond made some questionable choices, he nailed the issue: high-tech attrition campaign defined by so many variables that essentialy impossible to predict. Also: Ralph Peters, Red Army.
@@piotrd.4850 There was also "Team Yankee", A novel about a tank heavy combat team at the outbreak of hostilities by Harold Coyle. Damn fine reading.
Tho after 2/3 of the book the Soviets suddenly seem to loose all kind of skill.
But still a great reaf
You're using the term defense in depth inaccurately. Defense in depth is the use of multilayered defense lines to slow down, grind and demoralize your opponent. Look at Kursk as the best example of this. What you described is trading land for initiative. Using large areas to force your enemy to over extend their supply lines. Interesting that the WP plan was a 'counter' attack to a NATO strike. And the Cold War was a very long time frame. Really starting in 1949 up to about 1989.
I believe it is actually 1945. Patton and Churchill called for war against USSR even before Hitler's Germany fell.
My apologies, 1947 is the credited start of the Cold War. Berlin Airlift was 1948.
It never really ended
Not just that, it went deep. Stuff like Operation Gladio was already planning ahead to where most of Europe and Turkey would be overrun by Russian agression. Plus it's on so many levels too. The Netherlands for example had two mostly dormant ammunition plants that could kick into action on a moment's notice. Their workers, mostly Moroccan immigrants since they were not diminishing the number of potential fighting men, were some of the best off as they worked very little and still got paid because they had to be around 'just in case'.
This made the difference between importing most ammo and suddenly most conventional ammo being homemade, for an entire country.
The levels of planning that went into everything from logistics routes, to spare industrial capacity to frontline units is insane.
Yeah I was thinking this too. Defense in depth is where you use layered defenses to break the momentum of the enemy spearhead. It doesnt really have anything to do with giving ground.
Awesome video as always man.
I don't know the NATO plan for 1979, but the U.S.A. plan was a little different by 1985. l know I was with 1st armoured division in Germany in 1985.
Here one thing American reinforcements came in two waves. The first was in less than 72 hours from the first shot. We had a war stock of equipment that could double the U.S. force that was maintained at war ready state. So we just had to fly troops in. The second wave was by rapid deployment by ship.
Personally I find it interesting that some people write books just by what they study not live. I also would not write some of what I know if I would not have worked in a tactical operation center at that time. I got to see both sides I was a tanker for awhile for a view of front line. Later moved to a T.O.C. to see what the high officers where looking at. Like I first said maybe the tactic changed in 5 years, but somehow all that equipment moved that fast Russia would have thought that ment war. So I leave it up to the readers of this. Me I think there should have been more study that's why I never wrote a book.
Matsimus is a child of the cold war. A great summary with the candour of service and respect for the would be opponent.
LOL: "...when the UN steps in..." That was never a consideration in anything I ever trained on. The "7 Days" thing had to do with Soviet logistical capacity -- basically, their logistical capacity was good for 7 - 14 days, at which point, it would collapse. That was always the assumption, and I have never seen anything that disputes that...Also, keep in mind that the most realistic exercises NATO worked had the Soviets actually making it, because their plan was to use high levels of chemical attacks in the North, which was largely held by the Dutch and Belgians, who didn't have the best NBC capacity.
Nice video as always, the cold war was a scary time....
And can you do a video about the ah-1z cobra/viper, my grandpa was in vietnam and he said he loved to see them flying around with oh-6 Cayuse's and huey's giving him covering fire on the ground.
Tireless Cloud77 south Vietnamese army , United nations or Us army?
Joseph conrad SA US army he left in 1971
Great discussion but really suffered from a lack of maps.
Excellent Video. I Served in BAOR in the late 1980's at the Minden Gap, waiting for 3rd Shock Army to come skipping across the border.
This is a amezing video Matt keep this up man
Hey Matismus could you cover SSBNs and SSGNs? They are part of the Nuclear triad and I would lover to see you cover them, perhaps nation by nation since they come in all shapes and sizes. Great video and love your content
Hi Matsimus,
Excellent video once more, my compliments!
A bit of more background information on the topic. I served with 1 NL Army Corps, adjacent on the North of BAOR (we often had exercises at the Sennelager training area) during the eighties. We were informed and briefed about the NATO tactical plan to counter WP.
The plan was to absorb the initial onslaught by dugging in and delaying the offensive with hit and run tactics. Meanwhile, NATO Air Forces were to launch Follow On Forces Attack (FOFA) to destroy 2nd and 3rd echelons and Lines of Communication (LOC) in the WP hinterland. At the same time, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK would mobilize their reserves (which in the case of the Netherlands could be activated within 24 hours and be combat ready in 48 hours) and start a retreating battle, 'buying' time for the American reinforcements to arrive. This battle would last a week, we were told.
We had three main concerns back then; Soviet special forces (Spetsnaz), Soviet NBC weapons and Soviet tactical aviation (helicopters, attack fighter-bombers).
Soviet armor and artillery of course were regarded as dangeous too, but we all were convinced that we could deal with that, although the estimation was that for every 10 WP tanks, we would suffer a loss of 3 ourselves. Artillery was regarded as short ranged and not very precise which the Soviets compensated for by having huge amounts of artillery pieces. But they could be taken out by counter artillery fire, our artillery officers were confident. We operated the Hughes Firefinder artillery locating radars and after the rounds would have left their barrels, our rounds would be pretty much underway to their positions as well. Our tanks were vastly superior - all but in numbers - to the WP ones, having excellent night vision capabilities and fire on the move effectiveness close to 100%, just like our ATGWs.
Spetsnaz were a whole different kind of threat though. They were supposed to be already among the Western European population, waiting for a sign to spring into action. They would blow bridges, attack fuel and ammo stores, command centres and put sand into our well rehearsed mobilization efforts. NBC warfare would severly hamper our ability to fight as well, the more so, because most western armies hardly had any NBC decontamination units or equipment ( 1NL Army Corps only had one company, I don't know about the BAOR). And they had such vast air forces, that our air dfence artillery would probably been saturated pretty soon.
Enter Air Land Battle. Air bases became small fortresses against Spetsnaz. And as their tactical aviation and their tactical ballistic missiles were short ranged, the idea was, to take them out from the air. We know now, how difficult the Scud hunting mission was in Iraq, but back then our generals were confident our air forces would succeed. And enter the Patriot system.
All in al I am glad it did not come that far.
However, today we're sliding towards a same scenario again, albeit of smaler scale as both European NATO members and Russia have much smaller armed forces. Let's hope both our politicians and Putin do the math and recognize there's nothing to be gained by waging war.
If we have to however, we'll better be prepared. At present, we are not, after having fought insurgents for far too long and having neglected our conventional warfare tactics and equipment. We've sold much of our (anti-aircraft) artillery, tanks, mechanized infantry fighting vehicles and replaced them with air transportable, light armored vehicles with in most cases not much more than a .50 cal HMG or 7.62mm MG on it. Air forces have been reduced severly (for example: look at how much the aircraft the RAF had back then and the small amount it has right now) and our navies aren't in a better shape. At the same time, a lot of fancy stuff has come into service of which most is utterly inpractible in all out war (UAVs are sitting ducks for anti aircraft artillery for instance).
Besides that, Europe is in political shambles after the Euro-crisis, the 2008 economic crisis, the large influx of refugees from North Africa, Iraq and Syria, Brexit, etc., etc. It's all coming down to wether how Putin estimates our resolve to defend the baltic states and our flanks (South: Bulgaria and Romenia, North: Norway, Finland and Poland).
In my view, Britain could not have picked a worse moment to leave the EU, signaling that Western European political cohesion is crumbling - which of course it is, regardless of Brexit.
13:10
What recoilless gun is that
i love your videos,
thanks from germany
Klaus
There is a difference between Russia and USSR. Please keep that in mind.
there is a difference between a KGB spy and a president.
USSR = Russia & Co. / СССР = Россия и Друзья
Amazing those videos about the cold war! More. Thanks for that !
“Attack what is weak, avoid what is strong”
-sun tzu
Great video, what's your thoughts about the film threads? From realism propsective?
It is strange how in the Cold war only NATO had concrete plans for first strike on Russia ... and still USSR was the 'agressor' .
Matsimus, when you use videos of various exercises or anything else, show some descriptions of what we are seeing such as "Soviet military exercise in Poland in 1981" or "NATO Airborne exercise in Bavaria in 1988" or the like.
I was intrigued by the last footage of an army armed with Centurions, Garands, M1 105 howitzers. What were they, Dutch?
Love your videos, just keep them coming!
BTW sorry my English doesn't completely add up :)
They're Danish
It's a great thing for humanity that the cold war stayed cold
6:48 Most Soviet combat vehicles where equipped with CRBN systems, along with widespread issuing of CRBN gear to troops. The Soviet army was basically built to fight in a nuclear wasteland. You can see the CRBN gear they would have used in the footage at 10:25.
The way you just explained that was incredible. It seems as if nuvpear weapons may never have been used if thing popped off.
You made this one video about a old british army recruitment video and I cant find it anymore xD, the clip of the close range nuclear support thing at 15:07 reminded me of it.
Not dry, one of my favs. Thanks.
8:02 truly inspirational design teaching the limits of potential
Matsimus, please do a video on swedish coldwar tactics. I think you and many others will find it interesting :)
Not getting involved probably is the best tactic in the end.
Forts alot of bloody forts
Simon Barabash the strategical plans in place assumed soviet invasion despite neutrality ad Sweden is just too strategically important in order to open up alternative routes to the north sea and tactical movements in the southern Baltic sea.
It is also a strategic roadblock for strike aircraft from both WP & NATO.
Basically the strategy was based around trying to sink as much soviet troop transports as possible using submarine deployed ship mines, diesel-electric attack subs, packs of fast anti-ship missile boats, strike aircraft and both fortified (nbc-resistant or proofed) and mobile coastal artillery while mobilizing as much as possible of about 12% of the Swedish population as pre-trained conscripts in the armed forces alone in order to counter-attack inevitable bridge heads and fight a nation wide delaying action that would seamlessly transition into a semi-organised guerilla war until foreign military intervention could be recived or the soviets decided to cut their losses and bugger off on their own.
Every phone book issued in Sweden during the cold war had a section on "If the war comes" and the message it stressed the most was "Every statement advocating or demanding cessation of resistance is to be considdered false"
Basically every Swedish citizen was expected to take on the same mantle as the 70+yo individual japanese imperial soldiers who ran their own guerilla wars in the south pacific and wouldn't stop until someone managed to drag their even older COs out of retirement homes to order them to stand down 50-60years after VP-day.
k
Simon Barabash the Swedish defence doctrine was based on applying the maximum. Amount of casaulties as possible. The Swedish airforce was expected to more or less be killed off in its entirety in about 1-28 days. The Swedish Armed Forces where at the time trained to cause maximum amount of casaulties for Every meter gained. To make the war extremely costly and to try and morally convince the enemy to not continue the war. In essentiality Sweden whould be What Vietnam was to USA to the USSR.
these days its who's got the most fighters, drone bombs and fuckn robots. lol.
And lasers