Soviet Encounter

British Army training film from 1983 which explains how the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG) would advance into the west.

[@DungNguyen-jf4in]

Respect to the cameraman who had filmed this battle.

[@riflemandod1975]

lol

[@covertops19Z]

Dung Nguyen, you do realize these were all very highly choreographed fake battle scenes, using former captured Soviet equipment (from the 1973 Arab/Israeli war), right??.

[@kiprasmalakauskas7793]

@@covertops19Z hes just joking

[@covertops19Z]

@JohnTWB Respect for your opinion, but as much of the off the reservation comments I've seen on KZbin. His comment could have been credible..

[@LeeLee-kk1qu]

​​​​@@covertops19ZRespect to the cameraman" or similar variation, is a common sarcastic/humorous phrase often used in Hollywood type movie scenes, within the KZbin comment section.

[@LegoGuy_Productions]

I love the British green-and-black forest camouflage, especially on the Chieftains and Scorpions. Two of my favourite armoured vehicles.

[@sheldrake6]

Watched this film in concert with the excellent Fighting on Film podcast that reviews it and another British Army training film.

[@lineofdeparture3584]

Link to the cast?

[@robossuperchannel9434]

@@lineofdeparture3584 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJrNZYOEmLuifM0

[@decimated550]

One thing I think is missing from these staged battles is the what I would assume would be a nearly constant suppressive machine gun fire tank and APC and IFV coaxial weapons. They would be drenching the entire landscape and hillsides and any potential targets with machine gun fire that would be hard to simulate in the simulated combats done by live forces just the same way artillery is not easily simulated when you're doing maneuvers

[@thecoolestofthe834s2]

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

[@jacobhammer9737]

Great stuff, thank you.

[@mikkoveijalainen7430]

Very interesting. Thank you.

[@MzLunaCee]

Brings back some memories! Feel like bimbling down the NAAFI for a yellow handbag or two.

[@stevegray9828]

Narrated by Edward Judd.

[@thewomble1509]

So many of these films were narrated by well known actors. I've heard Patrick Allan, Judd, Paul Copley, George Sewell in different vids.

[@Historyfan476AD]

Always feel sorry for anyone who had to go first to probe for the enemy first, They always end up getting shot up first and into the worst traps. I feel sorry for the poor guys who would have had to met a soviet Regiment head on and be the first to feel the sting they bring along with their air and artillery. Glad I never served and could not due to health issues. But got to respect those did and where putting themselves at such risks. Though i was born post cold war such Russia of today is well a shadow of it's former USSR self.

[@isengard1500]

War is terrible, and should be avoided at all costs

[@teteshnik]

СССР возродится вновь!

[@moredistractions]

It would be interesting to know how long and to what effect formal military operations could have carried on had there been a complete nuclear exchange as was predicted for WWIII. If the major cities, bases, industry, infrastructure, etc. were destroyed by nuclear bombardment, one might surmise that at some stage effective combat units would cease to exist. The vehicles would stop running, supplies would run out, command and control would disintegrate, etc. Sheer survival alone might become the soldier's only remaining objective. I wonder how the NATO and Warsaw Pact leadership anticipated this and what their expectations were in such a scenario.

[@fiendish67]

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.

[@moredistractions]

@@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.

[@fiendish67]

@@moredistractions Maybe?

[@decimated550]

​@@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

[@thecoolestofthe834s2]

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

[@bambang303378]

CRP, Vanguard, Guard, etc. Today, troops would just start firing kamikaze drones.

[@K0ntakt5]

has anyone ever read harold coyle's team yankee? the problem with this novel is how optimistic world war 3 is supposed to be, that is, it is a conventional war save for the unexplained reasons the soviets decided to launch a very limited nuclear strike on england, but failed to use their tactical nuclear weapons on the nato front line before the red army crossed. that's what this video presumes- as if it is a peacetime exercise without nuclear weapons. soviet warplans have been uncovered and disclosed, and we know for a fact that they would have begun the war right out out of the starting gate with the full suite of NBC warfare before the first tanks ever met NATO resistance. the fact is both sides would have been dead meat, since whoever survived the first hours basically succumb to radiation, since you can't stay buttoned up under armor in MOP gear forever.

[@bugler75]

Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy gives quite a good technical assessment of what may have happened and a lot of what he wrote came under investigation by the US authorities as it appeared to contain state secrets. But overall a very clean and optimistic assessment. A more realistic book is by General Sir John Hackett’s The Third World War. There are two editions (1979 and 1982, I think) and both are cracking reads including the impact of nuclear attacks on mainland UK. Team Yankee was an entertaining read at the time for us based in Germany ! Ian

[@turtlecheese8]

I read TY about a month ago and then watching videos like these, it's interesting what Coyle got right and what's clearly optimism/patriotism at work. He certainly got right about the fact the Soviet's open up with chemical weapons and I imagine they would have continued to do so.

[@bugler75]

@@turtlecheese8 Good observation on the Patriotism! I guess it was needed to help sell the book!

[@TheMarkJoergensen]

Soviets had both nuclear and non-nuclear war-plans. It would be foolish not to have. In the 70s and 80s there was quite a radical shift away from using WMDs, as they slowly came to grips with the idea of fighting a war WITHOUT ending the world.

[@K0ntakt5]

@@TheMarkJoergensen what i am saying that soviet warplans revealed that nuclear weapons were going to be used- full stop. if you refute this, you are refuting a fact. the facts are that chemical biological and nuclear weapons were considered part of soviet warplans- no special case for them, they were to be integrated as 'normal' doctrine as any weapon system- again, straight from the source, to refute this would be refuting a fact

[@kiprasmalakauskas7793]

that would have been unlikely that no british batallion hadn t lost something.

[@Mechanized85]

Well, as reality says, depending on each situation, I would not be surprised if some battles on one side could avoid all losses or just reduce them to less, of course, in the end, war is complex, and it is always full of unknowns and even opportunities. by the way, war is not nice.

[@fastlaneproductions92]

What this Able Archer 83 ?

[@johnorlitta]

Sounds like someone said Blyat! at 16:35

[@A-fckng-nobody]

Перед - peryot as pronounced, means forward

[@johnorlitta]

​@@A-fckng-nobodyThanks!

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

its pretty optimistic, that the sovjets would use T62 in their vanguard units of first wave divisions. at that point in time, it would have been T72AW, wich by far outclassed chieftain. (Better armor protection, better main gun, better penetration on the ammunition etc. Chieftains would not be able to reliably penetrate T72AW with their L15a4 APDS on ranges above 900-1000m, while T72 would be able to punch through Chieftains strongest armor on 3000+m range.) Also BTR-60 would not be in use in first wave units anymore, as BTR-70 entered service about 10 years earlier. And there you got side doors for egressing the vehicle safely.

[@under1286]

this film was made using primarily equipment captured from the yom kippur war which was handed to NATO for testing and videos like this do you think they'd just give them to the west to make a video on how to fight against them?

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@under1286 as already stated: T62 was out of frontline service for first rate units for about 10-12 years at that point in time. And NATO already got T72´s from the middle east. Iran-Irak war was raging for 3 years at that point and the major MBT heavy engagements where Irak used T72 were done.

[@under1286]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 even though that might be true, i don’t believe that any captured T-72’s would’ve gone to britain (instead going to america) and especially not for a internal training video, and when you need quite a few tanks you wouldn’t want them mixed as it may be confusing

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@under1286 of course, those T72 would be studied and subjected to penetraton tests etc. But still. This video depicts sovjet Tactics from about 1968, while it is 15 years later. AND at that point in time (1983) significantly more advanced and capable equipment was in use by the sovjet army. You can fight against 1960´s MBT´s and Equipment differently than vs 1980´s equipment. Tactics and Weapons used vs T62 will not necceesarily work against T72, T80 and T64. For example: Chieftain and Challenger 1 still used L15a4 APDS, wich was incapable of penetrating T72B from the front above 700-900m or even worse, fully incapable. Vs T62 this would work. ATGM´s would have major difficulties vs T72BV (wich was in service at that point) due to its ERA Sovjet Artillery Doctrine also result in agressive, heavy bombardment of the suspected enemy positions, while own forces would advance under cover of the artillery barrage. If the UK would have used the depicted Tactics, they would not have liked the outcome.

[@under1286]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 well, assuming these were the tactics used by britain, like the rest of european nato it's entirely to throw men and material at the soviets until an Operation Reforger could happen, also assuming that britain only knew about soviet tactics in the 60's, im sure we would've paid dearly for trying to defend like this, being taught outdated tactics (but as i've read from most ex-BOAR soldiers, most just went to sleep in these videos anyway) and since this only covers the defence, by the time reforger happened (which can happen fairly quickly from the main british army, as seen in Lionheart '84 and the US slightly later), with canadian and other NATO forces they could probably stall the soviet advance and by that point, let's face it would've been the apocalypse if they didn't already perform a limited nuclear exchange

[@decimated550]

10:15 what funny weapon is that which fires a anti-tank projectile but which recoil is backward in a seeming uncontrolled manner?

[@frangiblecover6350]

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.

[@decimated550]

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

[@frangiblecover6350]

@@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.

[@simonh6371]

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

[@hantykje3005]

Who got to play the Soviets in this movie?

[@user-ly3yl4wb7d]

Maybe they are British OPFOR units. During the cold war, Israel was captured lots of soviet equipment. And shipped to allied nations in order to test their capability.

[@tomsoki5738]

@@user-ly3yl4wb7d Oh, that's interesting. I've always wondered how they managed to get all this enemy equipment. I don't reckon the Soviets had hundreds of SLR's laying about.

[@applejuice7847]

@@tomsoki5738 check out the Yom-Kippur war

[@mrd7067]

There was more than israel. There were intelligence services all over the conflicts in africa. There was material the US got their hands on in southeast asia and afghanistan (there were even West german soldiers in afghanistan to get their hands on sowjet equipment (Operation Sommerregen). If i remember right in one case the US bought a armored vehicle or tank in romania and smuggled it into the west. Not to forget the equipment the sowjets sold to other countries all over the world from where they could have made their way into NATO hands. On the other side there was atleast one unit in the "east" german military that was equipped like a west german armoured unit, equipped with US vehicles the communists captured in korea. Not to forget that there is a lot of hidden history out there. For example it has been alledged that Willy Brandt, the Bundeskanzler 1969-1974 of west germany worked for the CIA as well as for the KGB. Very simmilar things have been alledged in regards to all kind of leading politicans in germans. So much for a free people and a free country.

[@Gilberto90]

@@tomsoki5738 Yeah but they were probably able to get their hands on plenty of FALs from Africa.

[@mcsmash4905]

watching this so i can figure out how to fight in steel armor blaze of war (sabow)

[@decimated550]

or Gunner, Heat! ©

[@mnpd3]

Back in those days, the Warsaw Pact would have crossed the entirety of West Germany in less than a week. NATO simply didn't have the means to stop it.

[@Sam-nx9ec]

NATO had a lot of battlefield nuclear weapons, and the Warsaw Pact's policy was second-strike only for strategic weapons. The 70s and 80s brought attack helicopters and AirLand Battle, and the WP's traffic management system was a bit crap and prone to creating traffic jams which overall makes for a vulnerable and belated subsequent attack after initial engagement.

[@simonh6371]

@@Sam-nx9ec Exactly. NATO was outnumbered 3:1 in Germany so would have had to resort to use of battlefield nuclear weapons first...which would have then escalated into nuclear armagedon.

[@mcsmash4905]

assumptions like that should be taken with a grain of salt , we all expected ukraine to fall within a few weeks and yet here it is , i mean yeah it isnt the ussr they are fighting here but then again , anything can happen on the battlefield

[@K0ntakt5]

@@Sam-nx9ec wrong. soviet WW3 battle plans have been uncovered since, and it is now well known that the soviet union would have begun the war with weapons of mass destruction- that is to say, chemical warheads and artillery shells, and tactical nuclear weapons delivered by artillery, medium and intermediate ranged ballistic missiles (frog scud) and aircraft delivered bombs. the soviets were prepared to sacrifice poland and east germany right away in the opening rounds of nuclear warfare, as their own warplans showed. this is not speculation, that is a fact

[@oxfordmule7472]

@@mcsmash4905 we assumed it because wi did not know what the state of its military is

[@milotura6828]

Guys i think we are forgetting the Russian army in Ukraine is VERY FUCKING different from its Prime as the Soviets

[@dcpugh]

Fascinating video on the one hand, but it seems unrealistic ... someone would have fired some nukes by about 3:00 into the clip.

[@makschl4688]

Вообще странно что у бритишей есть совковые методички. Но да пох

[@matthewwaddington2777]

14:23: At this point your position will be completely annihilated by Soviet artillery. By the way the Soviets would first infiltrate NATO with Spetsnaz airborne troops! And dug-in positions aren’t much use against thermobaric rockets…

[@nothingnothing8503]

so, are we going to put the white flag first?

[@vito7428]

Well yeah its unrealistic to show all that artillery and air support doing minimal damage but i mean what else should they do,show how badly they'll be mauled to death by Soviet fire support before they even get to shoot any troops? That doesn't bode well if NATO wanted any chance at repelling the Warsaw Pact

[@Historyfan476AD]

Maybe soviet artillery is bust at the moment with more important requests. Who knows?

[@Sam-nx9ec]

The Spetsnaz themselves didn't rate their chances of surviving to drop into West Germany particularly highly.

[@Historyfan476AD]

@@Sam-nx9ec I would not either really, either your die from counter commando forces, or your own artillery and airpower kills you by mistake.

[@channelfogg6629]

The Siviets had no intention of invading. They could hardly hold down Eastern Europe so would have had no ambition to seize the West.

[@andrewtippman]

As a BAOR soldier in the 1980s, I can tell you that is nonsense. Unfashionable though it may be, it is worth pointing out that GSFG was constantly at short notice to attack. They had the capability - without prior reinforcement - to mobilise and overwhelm NATO in the FRG in days. They feared only the nuclear response, which is why they so heavily funded CND-like organisations and infiltrated Cruisewatch etc to weaken our nuclear capability. With the arrival of Cruise in Europe, able to drop every bridge East of the Inner German Border and cripple any support for an offensive, the Soviets were faced with having to go nuclear themselves if they wanted to win - a very last resort option. Look up "Seven Days to the Rhine" for an indication of the sort of thing they were planning.

[@badgertheskinnycow]

Another BAOR soldier in the 1980s here - I agree with Andrew. The Soviets were absolutely prepared for a possible invasion of the West - if they could have achieved a strategic advantage. Their fear of a possible attack by the West was such that a pre-emptive attack was always an option.

[@vito7428]

Wouldn't say that they didn't have any intention of an invasion. They most certainly were ready and more than capable of an attack if the order came to. Of course thankfully no one on either side gave that attack order

[@simonh6371]

@@andrewtippman I remember a Cpl Tippman at Templer Bks Ashford. Guard commander who got pissed off when I misplaced some keys which I then re-located but luckily didn't warn me for orders.

[@ethanmcfarland8240]

@@andrewtippman What helmet did you wear during your service

[@theabsurd9416]

I mean, let’s face it. If the Red Army made it all the way through Western Europe and on to UK soil, I doubt the British Army would even stand a chance...

[@pansarskott1]

This is the British Army of the Rhine... stationed in West Germany...not the defense of Sussex...

[@theabsurd9416]

@@pansarskott1 I’m aware. My point still stands though.

[@lscarlet2475]

They wouldn't have made it, the Soviet doctrine called for tactical (battlefield level) nuclear weapon use. The FIRST bridge or base they blew with a tac would have ended up with Strategic Sunshine dropped via Vulcan and Trident until Germany GLOWED. Soviet Doctrine relied on NATO not responding to tactical use with strategic and it is just pure fantasy land dreams. Between Soviet tactical nukes and the biological and chemical weapons use and our own strategic and the odd SF carried tactical nuke moving across West Germany would have got VERY complex, Very quickly. Yes we'd have lost thousands, theres a reason the Rapid Response units were told from arrival in Germany on day 2 to death for the anti armour teams was 15 hours. The UK is incredibly difficult to invade and doing so whilst fighting in West Germany, every bridge capable of taking armour having been blown and your homeland is glowing, oh and the Hungarians, Poles and Czech starting civil wars and machinegunning Soviet troops in the back isn't doable.

[@nikita-fm7ij]

@@lscarlet2475 The use of tactical nukes so soon would probably indicate that they didnt have any intent to invade as like you said, tactical nuclear weapons would immediately escalate into a very messy situtation for all.

[@Historyfan476AD]

Soviets had no plans to attempt a naval invasion of the UK mainland. Since it's Navy lacked the ships or dominance to pull it off. Going into the Sea was risky as it was Dominated by NATO mostly US naval forces. And it is easier for the UK and USA to defend the island of Britain than the European mainland.

[@user-mx2sv1xq2i]

Хорошее кино по тактике стран НАТО. Однако показаны только действия разведки и начала атаки Армии СА. Далее выявление всех огневых точек, их уничтожение, контрбатарейная борьба, применение химических и бактериологических веществ и на самой вершине тактического ядерного взрыва!!! 😂😂😂😂 В общем мало там всем не покажется... 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Greekmilsim]

Propaganda .Soviets were not idiots to open in open field with exposed dismounted infantry

[@Mechanized85]

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.

[@Weblima]

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

[@Closedgroove]

They wouldve been been given a bloody nose...look how pathetic russia was in the Ukraine! Their tactics haven't changed!!! 😂 we had 3 days to hold em up...and i think we would've achieved that. 😊 yes, heavy casualties maybe but we had everything to fight for😉

[@squid6368]

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

[@simonh6371]

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.