NATO vs Warsaw Pact: The Air War (1989)

[@AlephNull37]

Wow. Austria got invaded and still remained neutral. That's some real commitment to neutrality.

[@zepter00]

Austria is so small that author forgot to change its colour 😆

[@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447]

@@zepter00 It's not that they would side with one or the other, it's that Austria would likely be invaded by both sides at the same time to open up fronts and channels for troop movement, meaning like Germany, they lose.

[@zepter00]

That Bad BLU Spy Yes.

[@emirturkmen4524]

Switzerland: "Are you challenging me?"

[@victorlazari5708]

Phaha....true lol)

[@SeresTheZocker]

No matter who wins Germany looses

[@noblegrizzlybear5475]

And Italy changes sides and France surrenders. Aaaaannnnddd Germany takes the blame for the whole ordeal.

[@albertoamoruso7711]

Gentleman Grizzly It would be great if Italy sided with WP

[@Ey3contact]

Nazi Vampire Eating Babies WoW what a comeBack

[@Ey3contact]

And poland cannot into space

[@alandesordi]

As usual !

[@dasbubba841]

This comment section is worth a Binkov video in of itself.

[@deltoroperdedor3166]

DasBubba da

[@MartinLeong25]

Yes

[@HistoryMarche]

To think that scenarios similar to this one were a possibility is chilling. Good thing it never came.

[@zektre2059]

Wrong

[@michaelharris679]

@@zektre2059 a war between India and Pakistan would starve about 1 billion people to death just due to climate effects. A hot war between the US and USSR would make that look like a minor skirmish Edit: spelling

[@zektre2059]

@@michaelharris679 why didn't that many people die in ww2

[@gaminglichgamer4035]

@@seanmurphy7011 The USA was the one to consider dropping nukes on Vietnam during the Vietnam war and China during the Korean war and went in for a show of strength first during the Berlin crisis.The USA and Soviets probably would've both aimed nukes at each other but honestly I doubt a nuclear war would be approved unless someone shot first.Nukes dropping on NATO countries that don't have nukes may work but honestly that'd only start if an actual attack from Warsaw Pact was initiated.

[@mint8648]

@@michaelharris679 it wouldnt. look up kargil war

[@popuptarget7386]

As someone who sat in Germany waiting on the Red horde, I'm glad that nobody pushed the go button. It would have interfered with my drinking.

[@pingmann]

david edbrooke-coffin i like your clinking

[@kharn56]

Vatican City vs Monaco please ! 💪

[@kelvinpang438]

AntiochosSoter Just wait for a little bit under 2 months.

[@roryross3878]

AntiochosSoter -YESS DO IT!!! ...the Swiss Guard, having overestimated the disarming effect if their jester costumes, had craftily planned for this dreaded day and reluctantly mobilized it's strategic reserve of snowballs from deep freeze...

[@martinjuulandersen9694]

Monaco would be raped like an alterboy !

[@johan.mydeaf8203]

allies for Vatican city and Monaco Vs italy 👈💪

[@WRGOP]

The Vatican has a bathtub worth 2b :p

[@sgtmayhem7567]

You do a great job with these videos, I was actually breathing a little heavy, leaning forward and gripping the arms of my chair. Really outstanding, thank you.

[@kyjason6826]

May I say that we should appreciate the work that went into this video, good god ! I dont want to know how long it took you guys to analyse and transfer this data into a realistc battle . I tip the hat to you people from Brinkovs Battlegrounds!!

[@sufimuslimlion4114]

Lol I do this type of analysis and research for fun

[@dipdop9734]

I love how non biased all of these videos are. He clearly doesn't have a preference for any side

[@AvroBellow]

Yeah, you can tell by how many Americans whine. They're so used to propaganda that paints them as invincible even though they only fight third-world countries like Iraq and can't even win in Afghanistan or Vietnam.

[@rick7424]

@@AvroBellow I see a bunch of Warsaw Pact fans complain that he has a Western bias. Watch his video on the F-35 vs the SU-35. Alot of angry Russians.

[@williamemerick6060]

He uses info the Russians put out(they overhyped their equipment), while america under plays what they can do. Or do you think an American attack sub can only do 25 knots. We Americans don't want you to know what are equipment can do. The Russian lie and say their equipment can do stuff they just can't do though. Just look at Ukraine. Or I guess their 5th Gen fighters of Russia or just having bad luck I guess.

[@NuMaaaaaa1]

World in Conflict *intensifies*

[@massineben7198]

As a *CYKA BLYAT* , I have a feeling that I am obligated to *RUSH B* after he finishes "NATO vs WP" video.

[@kristinarain9098]

Fliyo MB stay cheeki breeki, blin

[@akhashdhillon2159]

Fliyo MB tri poloski gang attack into nato territory

[@tonyflores3859]

CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE PIZDEC

[@arandompersonlol1202]

Amazing video as always bro! Keep it up! Can you make Turkey VS Iran please?

[@KouNagai]

a random person lol👍👍

[@afridyabir]

a random person lol obviously iran will win❤️🤘

[@KouNagai]

Afrid Abirov but without nuclear wepons, turkey win. Turkey has more tanks, planes, ships and soldiers than iran. And iran has lots of turk population. That can help turkey in war too

[@KouNagai]

Afrid Abirov and turkish economy is larger than iran too

[@turkishwolf9630]

a random person lol Turkey Drop 1 Nuklear Bomb In Tehran Half Iran Population Death So Turkey Easy Win

[@mrs7195]

I'm really interested to see land warfare in this scenario - it is said that the Warsaw Pact had the conventional land warfare edge in Europe up until about 1983/1984, and after that the balance tipped in favour of NATO, due to better technology and new tactics/strategies. And please, since you did Norway vs. Sweden, can you do Sweden vs. Finland as well...? 😉

[@okandoguhanaslaner8863]

damn​ mate, it is huge research to get this result. Good job with that. I m waiting for next video.

[@massineben7198]

Shit is about to go down once that awesome intro start.

[@wisnuwangsawardana6245]

Dear Commissar Binkov, could you make analysis about possible late or post WW2 era conflicts like operation unthinkable or operation downfall?

[@metanumia]

I second this.

[@mississippirebel1409]

Great video Binkov! Once the US introduced the F-15 and F-16 fighters to it's fleet during the Cold War, they pretty made every Russia fighter obsolete. The F-15 was by far the best air superiority fighter in the world and had a great radar, avionics and other sensors. The F-16 was just a nasty little fighter that could do just about anything you could think of from air superiority to air to ground missions. The Russian Mig 29 wasn't that big of a threat to either the F-15 or F-16, but if the Mig 29 managed to get in close, it could become a threat.

[@gbornitz]

Till 1990 the F16 wasn't that great, as it had no Sparrow missiles. They only integrated the AMRAAM for BVR, which massivly improved its capabilities.

[@dimitarivanov2562]

😂😂😂

[@denvasya1986]

About MiG-29 is true. MiG was perfect for dogfights, but for long-distance air battle - no. However, soviets had su-27 which was pretty good for both kinds of air battle.

[@hermannalios2740]

F4 Near to Retrirment Nato say F4 were need you Back

[@Paveway-chan]

Man, the animations for these videos are top notch, love it :P

[@Limescale12]

can't wait for the ground war video 👍

[@metanumia]

Great video, thank you once again Commissar Binkov!

[@leonardgrant6876]

Nice, but I am pretty sure that Soviet satellites soldiers from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc would defect a lot which would complicate the situation.

[@voss0749]

In 1989 Hungary and Poland would likely object to soviet forces going to war from their territory.

[@MasonicadaM]

finally iv been looking every day for this

[@gildor8879]

One of my favourite military jokes referres to that topic: Two Soviet generals are sitting in a bar in Paris when one asks the other: "By the way, who won the air battle?"

[@kurousagi8155]

That would have been pretty funny prior to the widespread introduction of precision guided munitions.

[@tvanb8729]

In a world where Air domination isnt important that would be a joke, ha-ha. In pur reality air dominance is the deciding factor.

[@TRUMP2024-m1y]

@@tvanb8729 I agree

[@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL]

This didn't age well. Two Soviet generals might be sat on the east if the Elbe wishing there were some bridges lwdt ti cross

[@looinrims]

@@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIALit didn’t age well when it was posted Everyone has circle jerked the Russians for decades and god knows why

[@lightbox617]

Your graphics could be a little more sophisticated but your knowledge of history, current events and logistics is impeccable Thanks

[@rayne_brown]

Former R&D for the U.S. military here. His videos fascinate me. He has this unique ability to be quite interesting while having nearly no real understanding about how wars are fought. He is also fairly subtle when it comes to how he slants his videos to get a particular outcome. Which is impressive considering that he has little to no understanding about war.

[@Denkmaldrubernacht]

Yeah his videos are merely interesting theory I think, nothing more than just a proposed war game vision

[@rayne_brown]

@@Denkmaldrubernacht kind of yes. He his videos make me think of a middle schooler trying to give a military lecture. Both amusing and strangely fascinating. Even when he gets certain points right he has no real understanding of what those points mean or how impactful they are. He stretches the likelihood of certain outcomes and lowers others in order to influence the results and make them believable.

[@looinrims]

This comment makes no sense Especially when you think about it, what part of R&D gives you any credibility or authority by the way?

[@looinrims]

@@rayne_brown0 examples cited

[@rayne_brown]

@@looinrims considering I was one of the individuals who decided military doctrine im very qualified. My job consisted of a handful of tasks the most important of which are what matters here. First my team and I had to evaluate the higher level technology of our military, our allies, and as much as we could the nations we were most likely going to enter conflict with. The latter consisted of certain nations such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea to name the top four. The purpose of this when it came to our military was to decide which higher end and experimental technology was worth keeping as well as how best to integrate it into our military properly and that included the development of a specific doctrine for the individual technology. The purpose of this when it came to our allies was mostly because it allowed a greater understanding of that particular allies capabilities. I of course did not have a hand in deciding the individual doctrine of our allies. That was their decision alone. The purpose of this task as it relates to a likely enemy again allowed us to develop a very good understanding of the capabilities of multiple nations we deemed had a high risk of conflict with us. Going back to this video and channel in general. This creator has very little real understanding of the fine details of how modern war is fought. He also slants his videos to get an outcome that he prefers. He is similar to someone who thinks because he plays COD that he is qualified to be in the army. He demonstrates a somewhat decent knowledge of the generalities but a nearly complete lack of knowledge about the specifics of modern war. For example he places far too high a value on time limitations with certain assets. A United States Supercarrier can be literally anywhere in the world with an attached body of water large and deep enough for it to sail with 72 hours. This is due to their nuclear core and certain other classified components. That means their max speed is far higher than 30 or 40 knots. To be fair this fact is little known outside of a certain part of the military. However he claims a carrier has a very limited amount of time on station which while true is FAR longer than he claims. We very specifically DON'T use our ships in this manner because we don't feel it is necessary. Its rough on the equipment and in most situations is unnecessary. He also places a VERY high value on assets such as China's long range anti-ship cruise missiles. These weapons while dangerous are NOT nearly as effective as claimed. They rely on a long and complex kill chain just to get the missiles within 200 miles of the ships they target. That kill chain is part of something called ""combative logistics"" which is a military ""martial art"" that was invented and perfected by the United States military. Nobody knows how to disrupt such a kill chain as effectively as the United States military. Disruption of even ONE link in such a chain renders the weapon useless. China is inflexible and lacks the ability to adapt. Would they be able to use the weapon in a limited or rapid first strike situation? Limited capacity? Yes. First strike? Yes ONLY if it was a first strike WITHOUT previous political bickering with us. Any such bickering would make us wary and measures are always taken. Our countermeasures would also defeat most such attacks that DO get launched. And for any such missiles that got through most wouldn't target a Supercarrier they would target a less important ship of the fleet and for any that struck a carrier? It wouldn't sink it. Short of a direct strike or near miss from a nuclear weapon our Supercarriers are ALMOST impossible to sink in combat. But I digress my point is he knows very little about modern war and his lack of knowledge shows in these videos. If you have any farther questions feel free to ask and when I eventually see the comment I will attempt to answer.

[@lmyt1505]

This is my favorite video on this channel

[@babyseals4872]

Great video! Very interesting. I applaud the level of thought that went into this. I was surprised though that the existence of the F117 didn’t come up. It’s ability to operate with impunity (at the time) as a strike aircraft taking out key c&c nodes and such makes it quite a force multiplier IMO

[@calebmitchell6870]

Great new production work!

[@darryljones3009]

The Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China in an arena war in the year 100 AD.

[@xenotypos]

The channel Metatron (focused on history) actually did something like that.

[@majunior4623]

Yes I have been asking for this forever!

[@NotTheBomb]

this channel is way under subbed for the amount of detail and quality they put into these videos.

[@scottytoohotty8510]

Love your video Commissar Binkov!!!

[@ShivanshNautiyal-hk8uo]

When I see Notification I was like whoaaaa click click click .

[@ryankorte8601]

Well done sir! I love your stuff....

[@siredwardheath4920]

Two soviet tank commanders, old friends, run into each other while on leave in Paris. "By the way," one of them asks the other, "Do you know who won the air war?"

[@rickychandler5013]

Sir Edward Heath without control of the air the Soviets commanders would probably be prisoners.

[@lape2002]

Air power is overrated. The Soviets would have controlled the air by stationing a shitload of T-72 and T-80 tanks at the conquered NATO bases. That's the point of this anecdote. The Red Army conquered the ground first then the air during WW2.

[@markusweissenbock6337]

Because Germanys air power was forced to fight against the bomber attacks in the west.

[@benyamaha4426]

Sir Edward Heath didnt get it

[@zulfiqarhashim1376]

@@benyamaha4426 most likely the shorter the airwar , more the advantage is with WP.Longer the airwar NATO has edge as 1-NATO aircraft are more reliable and made for long hours 2-More available reserves from USA/canada 3-The initial WP strike will achieve their purpose likely but significantly deplete the strike planes and escorts available to them 4-Would be interestng to see if USSR does not use any su-27 in the initial assault and use the PVO + VVS flankers ( approx 400 + in mid-1989) as a "fleet in being " for a counter strike

[@avocedo975]

Its 1 AM and i just delay my sleep for this shit. Thats how much i love you.

[@rajc2257]

Do India vs China

[@tobakroger7504]

Yes

[@AnonYmous-dh2zt]

Good idea

[@aimenelhabry6178]

And the winner will be Bhutan.

[@pablodelatorregalvez4260]

Good one, although I think China would win.

[@ShivanshNautiyal-hk8uo]

Pablo de la Torre Gálvez maybe marginal.

[@chamathgunarathne3548]

Awesome comrade you have done a great job

[@comradeiceberg7660]

What a great video series. Thank you very much for doing these Binkov. However I'm puzzled how you rate the planes ? The Mig-23 has got to be the worst fighter of the cold war , see the loss rates when operated by Arab armies. Likewise the F-15 has shot down over 100 opponents with no losses which makes it beyond exceptional . Great video all the same

[@gbornitz]

I think it is based on the equipment and flight performance of the plane. The kill ratios of the two planes are not that useful, as they happend under different circumstances. E.g. the Mig 23 was often flown by poor trained pilots against more modern enemies, whereas the F15 was flown by well trained pilots against older planes. Furthermore, the US F15 enjoyed force multipliers like AWACS. Also the effectivness of planes changes with the number of planes. The 200 km range of the F15 radar loses part of its advantage, if you lose situational awareness, because the airspace is too crowded.

[@adamferguson8781]

Great series 👍👍 Looking forward to the Ground War Edition.

[@pablodelatorregalvez4260]

Please, do European Union vs China.

[@etherealkraken2662]

*Nothing happens because they're a continent away and neither has overwhelming naval supremacy*

[@aussieboy4090]

How do you invade the other side of world without suffering many casualties.

[@xeji4348]

Both sides don't have the necessary replenishment fleet size to sustain a large fleet that far. Even the UK and Frence over seas bases have the capability to support a few ships at max.

[@unclemirjafar5858]

Good Luck Binkov !

[@Viper_75th_RR]

You failed to mention the impact of stealth technology. There were several squadrons of F-117s in service in 1989 and the primitive Soviet radar systems in use at that time had no chance of detecting them. Don’t you think those planes would have been able to decimate the Soviet’s command and control structure?

[@anastas11ace80]

an F-117 was shot down by those "primitive radar systems" you speak of in 1999 i doubt they would be any more effective than any other NATO bombers

[@pand9293]

Great job Binkov !!

[@dave28bs]

Heya! Great video, how did you do your research? Could you pin your bibliography next time? Thanks!

[@muhamadrasul9251]

Google

[@ryantogher8105]

Loving the new animations.

[@scorpionfiresome3834]

Balkan States vs Turkey Can the balkan peninsula stand up to it's old enemy and subjugator?

[@zrbbg9639]

Scorpion Firesome Balkans would win. Just my opinion.

[@fionnmoules7620]

Scorpion Firesome does that include Greece?

[@Ey3contact]

Turkish army cant even properly fight against ISIS.

[@fionnmoules7620]

Germanium true

[@АлексаМихајловић-з3г]

+Germanium they are not fighting ISIS at all. They're only fighting Assad and so helping ISIS

[@T_P56]

I read about a Soviet air doctrine that they had to strict with ground control in very echelon shape, plus like in the video said that it could be very chaotic conflict. It is a downside for Warsaw pact that discourages personal decisions in the situation that need it the most.

[@massineben7198]

13:21 I wonder what do the Russian pilots say.

[@scudb5509]

Fliyo MB Ура! => Hurraah.

[@scudb5509]

Хм => hmmm.

[@MrTangolizard]

Fliyo MB in 1989 most likley I hope we get paid this year

[@jurisprudens]

Most likely, "where do we get meat today?". The "I hope to get paid" thing came later, in the 1990s. ;)

[@romanbuinyi]

jurisprudens Soviet pilots were better fed and payed than ground troops. So probably they would have meat and payment no matter which year :)

[@Lasstpak]

I think this is pretty complex one. Especially when you count Soviet SAMs. During Yum Kippur SAMs alone had a devastating impact. But only during the static fase. I guess the way both sides would act and use their assist would mostly decisive. And defence tactics were mostly a plus of both sides.. I guess...

[@tbo2307]

The first Gulf war showed us just how superior to soviet equipment and training the west was. This has been painfully made clear from the war in Ukraine as well. The NATO forces would have murdered the soviet air.

[@Sinistercabbage]

Yes, the NATO forces and equipment were generally better than Soviet but the Iraqi equipment was of older types, somewhat downgraded export models and in lower quantity than what Warsaw Pact would have thrown at the west. And the Iraqi army was also probably less competent Lastly the western air forces had a luxury of fighting against a static enemy. They seldom had to worry about soviet armoured breakthroughs. the force comparison in 1989 would favour NATO far more than one in early 80s or late 70s for example. Reagan administration didn't ramp up the military spending for no reason.

[@SteinersCounter]

It was 10 years old tech and not even the best, export version. Against modern us and it's airpower​@@Sinistercabbage

[@Divano-qw2sb]

It really depends on the year and the category. for example NATO had an advantage both in numbers and technology in naval warfare for the entire cold war with the soviet navy tasked just with denying NATO the full control of the baltic sea, black sea and western pacific but the same can not be said for ground forces. Up until the early-mid 80s the soviets had more equipment and of higher quality in ground forces. For the air war I think that NATO had pretty much the edge for the entire cold war too but to a smaller extent than naval warfare and the soviets due to their abbundance of anti-air systems could simply apply air denial making it almost impossible for NATO to achieve air superiority. The first gulf war was so one-sided because the coalition forces had complete and absolute air superiority not because they had inherently better equipment or training, such conditions of air dominance would not have been achievable in a conventional war against the soviets. edit: much like NATO despite having a little technological edge on the soviets in the airforce category would still not have been able to dominate the skies due to siviet air denial the soviet army would not have been able to make a successufull large ground offensive despite its small technological edge as said edge is too small to make a great difference and the soviets did not have numbers so overwhelming to be able to "reach paris in one week" as it is often said.

[@stoat2]

I can't be the only one whom wishes to snuggle Binkov?!

[@Powderlover1]

This really doesn’t take into account the condition of the soviet Air Force, DoD studies around this time showed that roughly half of their fighter aircraft were out of service and would require weeks to get operational, and those weeks would allow the US to recommission hundreds or even thousands of decommissioned aircraft, and that the majority of soviet Air Force was way out of date and totally outclassed.

[@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447]

Still, once the Soviet numbers closed the gap, it would turn into an all out furball, à la Comona.

[@fw6938]

When you want to do your homework, but Binkov publishes a new video...

[@BlazingSlav]

Poland Vs Ukraine

[@вампиркобато]

DJ Frank Poland vs Russia's slave Belarus

[@deltoroperdedor3166]

вампир кобато that's not even a fight, it's just Poland bitchslapping a minion

[@afridyabir]

DJ Frank ukraine is already destroyed

[@вампиркобато]

Afrid Abirov Are you Belarusian? So you are Russian's slave hahaha 🙄

[@вампиркобато]

Lukashenko should go to hell. Why he doesn't side with Ukraine why?? Why he side with Russia?? Fuck Belarus!! Russia's slave

[@devontemorgan672]

Yay a new Binkov video

[@вампиркобато]

USA vs California

[@DaTurdburglar]

вампир кобато california is in the usa...

[@hello51319]

DaTurdburglar that's the joke.

[@DaTurdburglar]

Abage im autismo pls no bully

[@jaredwilliams5620]

Trapped behind enemy lines

[@scotthulsey8763]

You would have to add 3-4 carrier Air wings or More into the air battle .

[@Admiral_Jezza]

>Warsaw Pact successful for the majority of the video >NATO wins What?

[@nickcalderon2637]

Jezza NATO would have won in the long, long, long run. However in the short run its a tie. Now as for ground military, I think it's safe to say that the Soviets had that in the bag.

[@jurisprudens]

If you look at the lists he provides more closely, you realize that NATO led in the numbers of good and modern aircrafts. Most of WP's planes were mediocre or poor. NATO air forces marginally win in this scenario, because it is able to deliver more damage to the WP ground troops than they themselves take.

[@aaronlonghuynh5245]

jurisprudens Quantity over Quality is only viable with large differences in quantity.

[@andrewfranciscohughes2481]

@@nickcalderon2637 WOULDNT SAY IN THE BAG

[@AvroBellow]

@@andrewfranciscohughes2481 I would. The WP had the most potent land forces in military history.

[@SharyarJaleel]

Hiroshoo comrade ..what an awesome details analysis 😀😀😀

[@Teampegleg]

Strange that you categorize the F-18 as Very Good, but you consider the F-16 as Capable. The F-16 and the F-18 have very similar levels of capability.

[@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447]

@Mists & Shadows Someone's done their research.

[@Braycali]

Mists & Shadows holy shit someone who isn’t just talking out their ass in this comment section. You have no idea how much respect I have for you right. Good job brother.

[@Necrodzentelmenel1]

@Mists & Shadows Where tf did you even got all that information?

[@andrewgraham6006]

Mists & Shadows fuck asks man that’s like a fucking easey

[@patrickgermain1643]

The F-117 stealth plane was operational (though not in large numbers) by this time, I suspect it would have been used to good effect behind the front lines. I don't know if anyone already pointed this out as there are so many comments already.

[@ledavalon7118]

Great video, love the series! But the Sea Harrier under "poor"? They shot down 20 argy planes with zero air to air losses in the falklands so surely they can't be that bad. Apart from that there's nothing to nit pick. Great quality!

[@501ststormtrooper9]

I think it’s because us Argentines had lesser skilled pilots.

[@AvroBellow]

They shot down export-version Mirages that were fighting at the outer edges of their range and constantly had to fly back to get refuelled. Most of those kills were on planes flying away from them. Again, context is everything.

[@bloodinthewater5603]

Binkov lost a little credibility with me on that Russia versus European Union thing but this gets it back with this. REALLY GOOD!!!

[@sam2424202]

Why is that?

[@NeoEngineCorp]

England vs USA The tea-drinkers insulted American footbal, saying it wasn't real football. Now, the burger munchers will make them pay!!

[@alganhar1]

It isnt, its Rugby for wimps... When did you ever see a rugby player wearing body armour and a helmet?

[@Rert]

But it's not football it's rugby for cowards.

[@r.c.1881]

Burger yeah, you're right, let's call a sport where you touch a ball first and foremost with feets soccer, and let's call instead a sport where you seldom kick an object with not even a roundish shape football.

[@TheCJUN]

He should start a historic channel. Habsburgs vs Ottoman Empire etc.

[@hussainpainter52]

Shut up yank! Tea is love, tea is life and Football(what you wrongly call "Soccer") is thousand times better than Handegg (what again you wrongly call "Football")

[@gma729]

I LOVE BINKOVS BATTLEGROUND !!! I LOVE THIS CHANNEL !!!!!!🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰 GREAT JOB !!!!

[@mohammadsab4478]

Naval force:Nato won! Airfoce:Nato won! Ground force:WP Hold my beer!

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

Basically this. It's only understnadable since US is the biggest NATO player (while Soviet is the biggest WP player) that NATO will most likely be on the disadvantage on the ground war. It's a lot harder to transport tanks and other equipment over an ocean than on land. If geography somehow changed and North America is literally next to Europe without a large mass of water, it would drasitcally give NATO a huge advantage

[@markusweissenbock6337]

NATO forces were more diversified. This might have given them an advantage in overall tactics. The WP just simply had to adjust for a variety of different attacks while themself they were bound to strict ruling. Of course, that all under the assumption of non-nuclear attacks.

[@communistcat3240]

vodka beer is over rated

[@Whitetigerking88]

An interesting question. I feel like I should throw flows at this dudes feet his knowledge is so on point for the declassifies and soon most of the stuff will be declassified.

[@ShivanshNautiyal-hk8uo]

Putin vs trump fist fight.

[@unclejoeoakland]

Shivansh 2018 Nautiyal those guys are lovers, not fighters

[@jesusf.2600]

Shivansh 2018 Nautiyal PUTIN WOULD BITCH SLAP TRUMP AND TRUMP WOULD CRY LIKE THE BITCH HE IS.

[@ShivanshNautiyal-hk8uo]

unclejoeoakland 😂😂😂😘😘😘😘😘

[@maxstark4744]

Trump has said on the record that he "doesn't believe in exercising" while Putin has a black belt in Judo and is nearly ten years younger ...

[@Elementalism]

I think Putin could bitch slap trump. Be he will need a chair to get high enough to deliver it.

[@Nivajoe817]

at 9:21 there was a weird glitch where for a tenth of a second it switched to a different map.... just thought that was odd

[@corvus2112]

Please do a World War 3 scenerio! USA+Allies+NATO vs Russia+China+North Korea+Syria

[@eduardoraul5780]

i think US has problems with all the countries in BRICS, they would probablly declare war in the US side too, and Cuba/Venezuela would for sure ally anyone that wants to destroy the US note...on this comment i was trying to be impartial, if i dont say this a lot of people would throw to me like mad dogs :P

[@eduardoraul5780]

but, again, trying to be impartial...he...seems to have a problem with russia, he has been trying hard to put russia down in every video he makes, and what i mean is that he dosnt put some good russian weapons, and some good tanks, have been classified by him as "ex-soviet tanks in storage" or something like that, he also puts a much smaller number on them and the excellent are classified as good, the good as mediocre and the mediocre as bad, so honestly, if he dosnt make a video where he puts what each side really has, and classify them correctly, i think it dosnt make sense to watch that video, because he will put a much smaller arsenal on russia side and probablly on the whole russia-china block, so that makes a lost war for them, anyway, i liked the world war 3 scenario idea :) edit: some people Said something about the logistics, and thats why he dosnt put the whole number, but i dont think so, but anyway, if he uses logistics, then use the same for both sides, its not like you are going to watch by example football and tell a team that its players cant use one of their legs lol

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

Asumming no nukes involved, this will be an interesting fight. US side would have the technological edge while the Russians/Chinese would have the numerical advantage

[@chrisgaming9567]

Continuing from what You Remember and Eduardo said, I imagine the other CSTO nations, Iran, Iraq, Serbia and Pakistan would join the sino-russian side

[@nahkoratan9673]

This hyped me up to play Wargame airland battle and Wargame Red dragon.

[@nunyabeeswax303]

Our bases wouldve been knocked out with short range missiles. Soviet aircraft are easier to maintain in a war they could land on improvised airfields. There mobile air defense would claim a lot more of our aircraft. Tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to stop a full Soviet push to the Rhine. Simulations say 7 days to the Rhine river, then they would have to stop at the French borders. Baring nuclear weapons 1 1/2 months the Soviets would take all of western Europe.

[@lape2002]

Exactly

[@markusweissenbock6337]

I doesn't help to have aircraft able start from improvised airfields in central europe. Plenty of concrete and asphaltet areas there. Heck, you could event start B-52s from a lot of the Autobahns. Much better infrastructure than the WP in central europe. High tech industry in every small city could out-manufacture WP countries by a factor of 100.

[@m1garand903]

That’s just not true

[@anastas11ace80]

@@markusweissenbock6337 that is really not true. you cant land a fighter jet on a motorway. you can maybe take off from one if its long and straight enough but that is really unlikely in most cases. it is extremely useful for aircraft to land on impoverished airfeilds. it is stupid to say there is more concrete than feilds and natural terrain in west europe. you heavily underestimate powerful warsaw pact industry, and overestimate NATOs industry as well. there were no "high tech industries in every small city" that is comedical thing to say. it is known soviet factories could produce much more and much faster than western european ones (mainly because there werent a lot of big factories in west europe) eastern infrastucture was similar to western one. but that doesn't even matter because planes cant take off from motorways except in very specific cases

[@KorbenDalasCZ]

in Czechoslovakia there were several units with the S-200 VEGA set and one regiment equipped with the S-300 set and dozens of positions S-75 VOLCHOV and S-125 NEVA, dozens of sets 2K12 KUB, OSA-AKM, S-10 Strela10 and thousands of S- 2 Strela2. I was a soldier at the command post in 1990. We were visited by representatives of the US AIR FORCE and the German Air Force. they saw a tactical map deploying air defense units. They were terrified. they said they would not win and would have huge losses.

[@chkoti366]

plz..india vs china..video

[@afridyabir]

chkoti366 if pakistan captured jammu and kashmir then india will be dead..

[@afridyabir]

and obviously china will win

[@izeiHH9675]

no need we all know who would win

[@rajc2257]

Afrid Abirov but Pakistan won't capture Jammu and kashmir

[@dernierergenekon5234]

1962

[@revne6542]

Which programme you are using to prepare this types of video?

[@tristissimvshominvm8999]

Do Russian presidential airplane and escorts vs Air Force One and escorts.

[@МахамбетМамыров]

actually cool idea)

[@tristissimvshominvm8999]

Махамбет Мамыров thanks!

[@LiamN4321]

Tristissimvs Hominvm Trump and Putin jump out of plane and fistfight while falling.

[@willbrack7069]

Tristissimvs Hominvm Neither Carry weapons. He’d essentially be doing a few US planes vs a few Russian planes.

[@goalieman1830]

Awesome video. Reminds me of Red Storm Rising.

[@reincarnationofkurtcobain9449]

Do Texas vs California

[@deathphantomdaredevil]

reincarnation of Kurt Cobain Texas would win cause there are more gun lovers and a lot of ex military

[@reincarnationofkurtcobain9449]

deathphantomdaredevil 9000 lol i know

[@mickeyg7219]

deathphantomdaredevil 9000 California has larger military presence though, just look at how many military installations California has. Major military contractors, like Lockheed Martin has factories in California.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Mickey G so then it's not just Texans vs Californians? Lol

[@Shard37]

Have you ever done a video about a conflict/war between America and the Soviet Union directly after Second World Wars conclusion with the alternative history being that Patton doesn't die? I'd love to see the logistics and strategies that may have gone on during that conflict. Allies of each side included of course.

[@korean_empire157]

South Korea vs Japan

[@Марковбаев]

GOOD

[@korean_empire157]

Yeah but some of them are still arguing each other.

[@xeji4348]

Japan has the superior naval power in this matchup, but Japan wouldn't be able to make massive landings. At most, maybe a few islands

[@jamesmasonaltair]

Great video. Fairly thorough and insightful. Binkov even laid out the stats and details. In conjunction with his other two vids in this series, well done! The importance for both sides of AWACS, AEW, and ELINT platforms cannot be overstated. A Sentry, Hawkeye, or IL-76 can control an air battle for hundreds of miles. Their powerful (air and surface) search radars enable fighters and strike planes not to have to employ their own active sensors and remain under EMCON. Sometimes certain aircraft can even target enemy platforms using the data from the AEW aircraft. ELINT platforms can jam and confuse radar systems. It comes down to those who can see farthest, clearest, and see the enemy first will almost always win. Especially with BVR attack capabilities, even in 1989. (For example, the F-14 Tomcat's up to six Phoenix missiles had a range of 100+ miles.) In 1989, and still true today, he who can aquire, identify (IFF), and fire first lives to fire again.

[@greenacorn1151]

Roman Empire vs Han China

[@deltoroperdedor3166]

Green Acorn why not the Zulu against some north American tribe?

[@etherealkraken2662]

*Nothing happens because they're a continent apart and neither has overwhelming naval supremacy*

[@greenacorn1151]

Panda Boss He smushed the US and Russia together for the arena war.

[@chrisgaming9567]

In a real-geography war, complete stalemate. In an arena war, I have no idea

[@asian_6724]

awesome! keep it up!

[@artemmaltsev2]

>"Soviet side would also use bomber launched long-range ballistic missiles" I guess you've meant "cruise missiles" not "ballistic"

[@jurisprudens]

No, he meant exactly ballistic missiles. "Aeroballistic" missiles, to be precise. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15

[@devonweber8006]

Do one over a ground war between nato and Warsaw Pact

[@bobysinuraya6220]

INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA Make it in this era Commander Binkov!!

[@RKNGL]

Would usually say Indonesia would clearly win. But after what we saw in the Indonesia vs Australia vid, it makes we question whether either would have the naval power to effectively combat the other.

[@afridyabir]

Malaysia and Indonesia are allied

[@bobysinuraya6220]

Afrid Abirov since when? is it ok an allies steal their allies country culture and reclaim it?

[@вампиркобато]

Malaysia is pro-China but Indonesia is pro-USA and Japan

[@bobysinuraya6220]

вампир кобато That's not true,we're pro to Russia

[@Mendiar88]

I'm anxious for the third part. When will you make the Venezuela vs colombia, or Venezuela vs USA?

[@Madplanetguy]

China vs North Korea

[@cubanmapping4406]

Did anyone else notice a frame that was off in 9:22 ?

[@carlbergquist6433]

Sweden vs. Finland

[@afridyabir]

Carl Bergquist definitely finland 🇫🇮 they have massive marine ship and air craft

[@stalhandske9649]

Surely you mean Sweden victorious, then? Swedish air forces _and_ navy fleet are both far superior to us Finns, and have been for the wole duration of Finnish independence. Land forces not so much (though Swedes are a tad better equipped), especially considering that we have more guts to fight. I'm assuming the scenario would not be for this shameful period of 2010-17 when Sweden had its conscription abolished?

[@marcusalm7350]

Stål Handske While abolishing the conscription may have been a really bad decision in hindsight knowing how the world looks now (and arguably without hindsight as there are benefits of the program for society in general, but anyway), it made sense due to the doctrine change. Going from a force made to defend from the invasion of a neighboring superpower to one of international peace-keeping was made because the superpower was no longer as big of a threat and keeping the rest of the world at peace made sure that consequences didn't spread to us (like hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the middle east creating the... politically interesting... situation we are in now). Would these missions worked and kept the world more peaceful than the price of the positive effects of the conscription program might have been worth it. But now with that price paid *and* our home region once again feeling pressure from the superpower in the east we got stuck with all the negatives and none of the positive aspects. Sorry if I'm rambling a bit. But analyzing decisions, especially bad ones, and seeing if they made sense at the time is something I find really interesting.

[@alejoquiroga9369]

Sería casi imposible que sucediera eso porque ambos son neutrales, se concentran principalmente para la defensiva que la ofensiva.

[@azheraltaae6896]

Where have u been. We missed u

[@Ey3contact]

PACT doctrine cannot always work and NATO doctrine cannot always fail. They both have pros and cons. NATO air doctrine focused on supporting ground units and destroying enemy planes/air defense systems by having tactical and precise missiles along with better fighter jets and PACT doctrine is focused on maintaining numerical superiority in both air defense systems and inferior fighter jets to defend their air space (and this is backed up by the fact they didn't care to have enough in-flight tanker planes to match their numerically superior fighter jets thus forcing themselves to perform in shorter range), how can you say that PACT will be able to push the NATO forces to the west? And as you said, most of their air defense weapons weren't really designed to be used as mobile units meaning they cannot be utilized in effective numbers in offensive operation. And since PACT air force cannot perform long range missions they will most likely lose air superiority when they take a step out of their territory. But because PACT has such numerical superiority in air defense system and old fighter jets, NATO WILL have hard time thinning them out and suffer losses yet no heavier than PACT. With time, NATO will gradually take control over the European air space. And I was kinda dissapointed when you actually said that NATO trains their pilot longer than PACT but they might train in multirole so no effect. That's just out right assuming.

[@DaTurdburglar]

Germanium it seems like in a prolonged war, the Soviet front would eventually hit a standstill or buckle under NATO air pressure

[@TornadoADV]

I think what he's trying to get at is that the air combat picture won't develop fast enough in his typical one year war simulations. The Soviets would have enough airframes and missile stockpiles to throw into the grinder for that time period.

[@boltmix7359]

Germanium I like how you ignore everything said in the video.

[@scudb5509]

You are wrong. Soviets had a lot of mobile short range and long range SAMs that with the support of the Airforce could destroy Engaging NATO aircraft. Plus if the Soviets liberated territory. They will create a new position for the S-125 and S-75 and move it up within a day. The Soviets had a very well worked out plan to capture Europe within two weeks. Not enough to let Americans reinforce.

[@scudb5509]

Plus Binkov is forgetting that during the war factories will be operating, so both sides will be able to manufacture military equipment. Just like the Russians did in WW2. T-34s fresh out of the factories went to the front.

[@whysosyria1]

Forgot that many times during the cold war, we trained on using high ways and roads as airfields.

[@butikegoloko3130]

Phil vs indo.

[@noodles7193]

butike goloko I hate to say it, but The Philippines would lose

[@butikegoloko3130]

MasterOfNoodles i just want to know how fast they will lose.

[@matthewwaddington2777]

7:20 Bristol Bloodhound; not more than four miles away from me!

[@michahunicz1741]

Asking once again - what with Soviet attack on Alaska?

[@clpfox470]

Michał Hunicz you would have to get thur the terrain first, miles upon miles of dense wilderness, then Canada again miles of dense wilderness and lack of infrastructure. Supply lines would be thin at the very least and lack of transport ships if at all would make it not worth it

[@alganhar1]

Logistics. There is nothing in Alaska, or in Siberia for that matter. Almost no infrastructure, virtually no centers of population, just milions of square kilometers of wilderness, cold, brutally unforgiving wilderness. Would there be action? Possibly, but neither side could hope to field and supply anything other than small units in either Alaska or Siberia. You would end up losing more people to the cold of winter than to enemy action. That is REALLY harsh territory out there.....

[@RKNGL]

It would be impractical to challenge the U.S.'s airpower over such a trival territory. The U.S. Pacific fleet would leave any Soviet paratroopers or amphibious invasions unsupplyable. The USSR would be playing defense in the East, any incursions against the US their would weaken their defense.

[@bluemountain4181]

They might try a limited attack on the ports in order to disrupt US oil production in Alaska. It would depend on how long the war was going to last.

[@Marylandbrony]

I recall in the frist video that the Soviets had comparability few landing craft or spare ships for a landing anywhere beyond possbily Denmark or Norway. Besides the Soviet Pacific fleet would be too busy with the US Pacific fleet and the JSDF navy to do any kind of landing.

[@0maj0hns0n3]

Binkov I'd like to see modern US army vs Vietnam era or gulf war era!

[@ThaoNguyen-wq1dp]

vietnam vs north korea

[@sichere]

LOL @ 12:35 the 1,400 Mig 23's Flogger - it lived up to it's NATO name but should have been called Fodder.