Yeah but this isn't battlefield 4 you don't supress an area like that irl specially if you don't know if your rear line depots get nuked with in an hour or not

MILAN anti-tank guided missile. The missile goes out the front of the disposable tube, the tube goes out the back and the tripod and guidance systems stay still. Then you can whack a new tube on and go again.

​@@frangiblecover6350thanks for explaining! british always have enginnering which seems odd to me. like the lightning fighter point with the two stacked engines.

@@decimated550 it's a Franco-German job actually, the Euromissile consortium. Britain was a big customer for it though, MILAN was the primary anti-tank weapon of the infantry battalion from the late 70s to the early 00s. You're not wrong about the weird engineering though, MILAN was supplemented by Swingfire, a British missile that used thrust vectoring to allow you to fire it around corners.

@@frangiblecover6350 You beat me to it. MILAN stands for Missile Infanterie Legere Anti-Char which translates to ''Light (!) anti-tank infantry missile''.

Перед - peryot as pronounced, means forward

​@@A-fckng-nobodyThanks!

According to their doctrines, the Soviets would send their reconnaissance units to probe and locate the enemy, aiming to mark them down and suppress them with their own fire support. Regardless of the success of these efforts, they would push forward with mass numbers, forming attacking formations and closing in on dismounted infantry. They would sustain their attack while receiving support from automatic grenade launchers (AGL) and general-purpose machine guns (GPMG) provided by their weapon company. However, if the battle plan was flawed, intelligence unreliable, reconnaissance ineffective, or the information gathering was insufficient, with few or messy details that hindered proper identification, even without the advantage on their side, don't think their foolish opponents, they would know how to counter their attacking style and react accordingly, Thus, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact can lose battles. There may be situations where retreat is not an option, although there could be circumstances where they fall back. Even if a glorious victory is achieved, there will undoubtedly be a heavy price for losses. The reality of the battlefield is incredibly complex, messy, and filled with confusion and surprises. Let us not forget the fog of war. While the video may sound like propaganda or nonsense, it is still better than individuals on the internet proclaiming with certainty which side is winning or losing. War does not operate in such a simplistic manner. It is a multifaceted and intricate phenomenon that involves numerous factors. All I know, it's important to approach matters with care, using examples and references to examine and simulate scenarios. Whether you choose to believe it or not, or just keep blindly believing everything should consider it as propaganda or misinformation, feel free to proceed. you can end up creating your version of misinformation and falsehoods, meanwhile, you don't even understand their doctrines. that's all is it.

The infantry was not unprotected It was under the support of tanks and APCs as said in the video , What I don't understand is that this support from tanks was never shown, bad video. Infantry must form a line during the attack and maintain suppressive fire constantly.None of this was shown. Furthermore, the troops who cut the wires must be protected with their colleagues lying down or behind the armored personnel carriers, or tanks

but the have though? do you really think the modern russian army (who im not a fan of, to put it lightly) are using the same tactics as 40 years ago? thats silly and disingenuous

Lol that aged well. Now the narrative is that they can invade the UK and we need to conscript our zoomers lol. Truth is the first casualty of war. Neither side is ever going to tell the truth during wartime or even during a cold war, they're not bloody eejits. Fyi I was in an Inf Bn in 1988, it was TA but 1/4 of 1 (Br) Corps i.e. the British army units whose job it was to go and fight the Sovs if it kicked was - 2 Inf Div were TA, 1, 3 & 4 Armoured Divs were regulars, based in Germany. Our job was to stop the Sovs breaking through the Minden Gap. They told us that in the event our battalion's life expectancy was 20 minutes. It has since emerged that had they broken through, within a matter of hours the US would have had to deploy tactical (i.e. manpack) nukes to stop the Sovs, that's how much we were outnumbered.

Absolutely put them in front of you and you crouch down, makes sense. You are harder to hit.

That's what I was just thinking; how long before the tactical nukes were deployed? My "guestemation" would be less than 8 days, until a cease fire or then limited barrage of strategic nuclear missiles.

@@fiendish67 I think it would have been almost all at once from the very get go. Once the shooting started, the high-level commanders would have decided that they must act with full force immediately to claim the initiative. They probably would have kept a small percentage of their nukes (onboard submarines, etc.) in reserve for round two but most of the developed world would have been flattened within about 48 hours I would guess. It's a fiendish scenario. Thank God it never happened...or hasn't happened yet anyway.

@@moredistractions Maybe?

​@@moredistractionsMy guess is that the Soviets could have made a big conventional push into Europe with massive forces that NATO forces would not have been able to completely defeat. . And been too afraid to fire nukes

@@decimated550 yeah they also would have opened up with an nbc suite over the boarder like viruss chems and everything then nato launches

It could’ve been worse, luckily the irish government had sensible individuals in the cabinet at the time so they didn’t invade NI

.. but mot of the people wanted them there... Important point. Most of the people WANTED US PATROLLING MOST OF THE POPULATION WANTED US PATROLLLING

There was a reason why people hated you

It is just you. Go and get some help.

SUIT (sight unit infatry trilux)

Weren't the optics a bit crap and prone to misting internally?

@@stevenpremmel4116 Not when shooting at unarmed civilians.

@@Demun1649 do you think thats all the british army did in northen ireland? are you aware of the kind of war that was fought? do you think the IRA ran around in uniform?