World War III, 1989: NATO vs Warsaw Pact

[@kipter]

Spoiler: Luxembourg beats both of them and Andorra conquers the entire world.

[@sgtmayhem7567]

Did Luxembourg find a way to reanimate General Patton? Cool.

[@stronkblyat6435]

Don't forget that Andorra is blessed by Vatican

[@rocksorstones6176]

What ever happened to Switzerland?

[@atf7923]

No Liechtenstein won the war

[@soroosh_abd2589]

Ooof

[@kevinsullivan7831]

I was stationed in Germany, our lifespan if the soviets ever attacked was very short. We were supposed to slow them down so Reforger could reinforce West Germany

[@davidhudson5452]

Kevin dont Scare Them They Dont Know What Reforger Is Charge You Know What Would Happen

[@patvanquish4586]

I was at Gatow and the only person I knew with a shorter estimated survival time was a cousin. RMP at Checkpoint Bravo. I used to call him 'the nominated target of the first shot'

[@soapy3500]

Reforger. Good lord I haven’t heard that one in decades. Baumholder here. We would’ve held.

[@soapy3500]

I was stationed in baumholder. 90-93. 3-12 infantry and 2-29 FA. 8th ID then 1 AD. Iron chicken.

[@johnpappone8610]

I was at sea on a destroyer... wasn't looking forward to fighting off swarms of anti ship missiles or swimming in the North Atlantic

[@Abensberg]

dont even want to imagine the wasteland germany is going to be in this scenario :S

[@morecopemorerope4372]

Imagine the huge civilian loss

[@jakehayes1998]

@@morecopemorerope4372 Especially if we only considered tactical nukes. Yet alone city killer nukes.

[@morecopemorerope4372]

Jake Hayes there probably wouldnt even be a germany anymore

[@haowoon8213]

Let alone a intact Europe.

[@tommygun5038]

Only if just contained to Germany.

[@georgechar1101]

I think the only scenario in which turkey and Greece will work together is this one greetings from Greece

[@UnablEEE]

Turks and Greeks dont hate each other. We are just everyday people. I am a Turk and i love Greek culture and history.

[@eminemishh]

george Χαριτος Once Turks and Greeks leave their countries they end up being friends.

[@sirbader1]

We all bleed red, boys.

[@dernierergenekon5234]

Basil II, The Bulgar Slayer we had many conflicts in Aegean too, dogfights at 90s, Imia/Kardak crisis 1996, Greek defence minister wanted to bomb Turkish Sat commandos which landed on West Kardak islets, there are also crisis at 80s about airspace and waters, also since 1964 conflict about Cyprus. If there wasnt Nato Turkey and Greece would declare war to each other 4 5 times.

[@ΓιωργοςΡενεσης-χ9λ]

@Basil II, The Bulgar Slayer of course

[@DragonHunter24]

So basically Austria was forced to be neutral and they would still be invaded by both? Thats a very big middlefinger to us if u ask me.

[@lardinal2413]

I mean thats just strange tbh

[@llamallama1509]

It's what ended up happening to Belgium in WW2

[@lardinal2413]

@@llamallama1509 and ww1

[@williamfurlong9786]

@@lardinal2413 austria is very mountainous and easy to defend

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

Austria was fucked back then. They would have nuked us from both sides just to make sure we won't help anybody and nobody would use our country to march through.

[@amEricaneurOstar]

I live in Germany. I feel uncomfortable.

[@tf2anti963]

why

[@davep5227]

You should be,due to the Muslim immigration and Angelia Merkel! I will never go there!

[@mememaster9393]

David Paul you do realize this all planned out for the eventual ww3. Thank the US for creating isis and causing those ppl to go elsewhere

[@richardroberts4355]

@@mememaster9393 the US made many many mistakes in the middle east, no doubt about that. But implying that Germany and eastern Europe's immigration problems are the US fault is ridiculous. Most of them are coming from north Africa. They aren't war refugees either, they want the welfare programs. Merkel and the EU are the ones that want chaos. Poland Finland and Norway are the only counties there that have leaders with balls. Blame the liberal politics on the problem. Not the US.

[@MrDonut-ch8dr]

David Paul uhmmm, ok...

[@scottrichards8540]

Interesting presentation. I was a serving NATO Military personal in the 1980’s. One thing you didn’t discuss was the possibility of a soviet satellite countries mutiny. There was a strong belief on the NATO side, that given a chance, several of the smaller Warsaw Pact countries would change sides.

[@FDNY101202]

Exactly.

[@Meanfromeindhoven]

Czechoslovakia and Poland maybe.

[@FDNY101202]

@@Meanfromeindhoven Hungary

[@Meanfromeindhoven]

FDNY yeah,thats true. Poles hated Soviet Union,Czechs always wanted to be truly Western style country,Slovaks knew that this act of mutiny will help them to have own country and Hungarians will hopefully never forget Soviet Invasion.

[@fetusofetuso2122]

they probablywouyld have. But the Red Army had strong presence in many of them, and in case of war with Nato the amount of soviet military personnel would have been even greater.

[@kinglouiev9530]

Greece & Turkey working together. Wow that’s very likely.

[@ThisAlias]

That's illegal... Both of them would say to stay out of their ways and attack from their respective fronts...

[@mikael5938]

agree, tukey would have to push alone or just defend. bulgaria would not been invaded at all

[@fordprefect6150]

It would happen because they're both in NATO

[@kinglouiev9530]

Ford Prefect And they went to war over Cypress despite both countries being members of NATO.

[@mhmoeller]

@@fordprefect6150 iceland and UK had 3 wars despite both being in nato.

[@HaydenLau.]

Soviets invade Finland Simo Hayha: Breaks out sniper rifle Soviets: Sorry we bothered you, *goes home

[@TwsWithSai247]

Hayden Lau hahahaa true!🇫🇮

[@javierroldan6667]

Simo Hayha as arrived in moscow: Soviet Union has left the game,

[@ivanredskin]

and vassily Zaitev, stalingrad sniper?

[@zepter00]

very funny. between 1945 and 1989 finland was half satelite state for USSR. Soviets told them how many aircrafts, tanks and SPGs finns must buy from them. fins in war with soviet union were so much succesfull that they lostbig part of their country for USSR.

[@neitilinvandring]

Russia/Soviet was, are, and will be imperialistic.

[@MrSonofsonof]

After the 1989 revolution, I talked to a Czechoslovak army officer about the WP's capabilities. He said that from the late sixties onwards, there was no realistic chance of an attack on western Europe because of the low level of loyalty of the Soviet Union's allies. i.e., there was a high risk of the Poles, Czechs, East Germans etc. either not fighting at all or switching sides.

[@StevioGaming1]

Finally been waiting so long!

[@kingnevermore25]

Stevio Gaming This is cancer and it doesnt represent anything

[@osedebame3522]

Even though you stated why you wouldn't in the past, I think it would be cool to do a 1950's or early 1960's WW3 scenario, before the Sino-Soviet split to see if the difference of China could turn the tide.

[@jak00bspyr72]

I think many countries of the Warsaw Pact would change sides if the war started in 1989.

[@anonymous9656]

Polski Ślachcic I believe that's why he assumes that morale is 100% and no allies involved. Including all these psychological factors would make the video very complicated and would require such a large amount of assumptions that might be affected by personal bias that the video just wouldn't be as accurate.

[@wasylwasylson7349]

That's why the author should have made the scenario for mid 1980s at the latest not for 1989. It's just silly for 1989. At least in mid 1980s eastern block was still more or less politically stable and it's economy although not in good condition by any stretch could have sustained a war effort for a short time (maybe not even then - not sure about that but certainly not by late 80s), but not in 1989. Also long term war (several years) is not even worth making scenario without taking into account political and morale factors. Again author should have concentrated on up to 1 year scenario at most. After that it all breaks down without taking into account more complex factors. It just becomes useless even as an intellectual exercise - it becomes too detached from any possible potential reality that could have existed.

[@jak00bspyr72]

Indeed. It would be more possible for war to start in time of Cuban Missle Crisis rather than last moments of USSR and Warsaw Pact.

[@swietoslaw]

The year 89 is weird, this is start in changing in Poland so they would not be fighting alongside soviets

[@brandonlyon730]

The Union probably wouldn't be the best in economic terms, the Chernobyl incident was only a few years ago in 1989, and that power planet has cost the Union a arm and leg just to repair the damages that it cost.

[@masterofalltrades_]

You should've considered the war scenario in the 1960s.

[@ferrarisuper]

S S A WP total victory

[@alexalbrecht5768]

Ferrari Super total victory implies the US is defeated. Good luck with that

[@ferrarisuper]

Alex Albrecht I meant total victory over Europe

[@alexalbrecht5768]

Ferrari Super they’d get no further than France before US reinforcements turn their advance into a fighting retreat. With their supply lines stretched thin they would be easy prey to superior NATO airpower. Superior armor means nothing if they run out of fuel just ask the Germans

[@ferrarisuper]

Alex Albrecht the WP airpower was far ahead then the Nato one. Also that’s not WW2 lol, there were lots of roads and railways. Also even without roads to bring oil from Eurasia to France would be easier than bringing everything from the other side of the Atlantic

[@Sajotyn]

3:00 Turks and Greeks fighting together..., wow no wonder this didn't happen

[@Phoenix_The_HeroHater]

I mean in modern times they have an ok relationship with each other and with other nato members so it’s not that hard to imagine it Edit:Nevermind

[@aleksk4151]

I am Bulgarian.

[@yusuf3005]

Change everythings

[@SupremeLeaderyt]

@@Phoenix_The_HeroHater well that didnt age well

[@Phoenix_The_HeroHater]

Supreme Leader it aged like milk

[@mitchellalexander9162]

Ahh I have been waiting so long for this Channel to cover things like Hypothetical Alternate History Conflicts and possibly even reenactments and illustrations of Legendary military campaigns Hiel to Commissar Binkov!

[@rem4431]

Next Idea: NATO vs WARSAW PACT NUCLEAR WARFARE

[@kokofan50]

Everyone fires their missiles and then dies.

[@garygao6072]

Everyone Dies, The End

[@shoulderescape]

everyone dies™

[@deltoroperdedor3166]

MR. BLYAT "Reflex in the sky Warn you you're gonna die Storm coming, you'd better hide From the atomic tide Flashes in the sky Turns houses into sties Turns people into clay Radiation minds decay!"

[@rem4431]

Wht about hiding in nuclear bunker?

[@michaelsnyder3871]

One of the many constraints on the Soviet Army was its system of conscription and its sheer size. The Soviet population could no longer sustain the size of military that Soviets had created over the '70s. More and more Central Asians were being conscripted, and where they used to be limited to the Construction Troops and other non-combat organizations, now they were flowing into the combat units. The Soviets had to re institute Russian language classes they had dropped when the conscription period dropped to two years. The KGB, MVD, airborne, spetnaz, air force and navy (where conscripts had to serve three years) soaked up most of the technically competent, literate and committed/loyal ethnic Russians, leaving the tank and motorized rifle troops with what was left. Soviet tactics and operations had to be simple because they simply didn't have the quality conscripts to train in more than a single task in the two years they were with the unit. Conscripts with limited mental abilities and criminal records were swept up to fill the ranks. When the Soviets went to two years, DODSAAF was supposed to provide basic training through schools and youth organizations, but this was pretty much a failure between unmotivated cadre and a lack of resources. So conscripts came to the units untrained. A new batch came every six months as the time-expired conscripts moved on (one of the warning signs was if the Soviets DIDN'T release these men). This meant that 25% of a Soviet unit was made up of untrained or barely trained troops who could barely use their personal weapon. 25% would be at least partly trained and 50% would be fully trained to the rather simple tasks and standards. But 25% would be in short-timer mode. Training for new troops was often interrupted by fatigue duties. The Soviets had no real NCO core to maintain discipline and daily admin and ops. NCOs were just conscripts with more training, often still in their first year. Officers had to do junior NCO work. But they also had their own jobs to do, so they relied on the 25%, the "old sweats" to get things done. The "old sweats" assigned all the fatigue duties to the "new fish". They also acquired any money, or other assets and assigned the "New fish" to do individual menial jobs like cleaning boots and clothes for the "old sweats". If the "new fish" protested, they were beaten. The officers looked the other way. As an example of standards, a Soviet tank crew in a T-54/55 or T-62 was expected to master an engagement cycle, firing from the halt at stationary targets, of two targets a minute (the US Army standard with the M60A1 was six rpm). They might fire 10-12 live rounds a year (a NATO crew fired 100-120). The drivers might get 120-160 hours a year, compared to NATO troops who got at least 480. A lot training was on props and rote memory and confined to a single task. Tank crew members were rarely cross-trained onto another position. Living conditions can only be described as "Third World". Food was monotonous and unhealthy, hygiene and living conditions fostered contagious diseases like hepatitis, typhus and diphtheria. Troops had better equipment in many ways than earlier, even being issued sleeping bags, though this equipment was often left behind on maneuvers for lack of space. Training accidents, murders, suicides and such reached 7-8% and more of the force by 1987. The Soviets had problems with health and physical readiness of conscripts. Reservists received little refesher or sustainment training which probably helped since the Category C and Mobilization divisions were armed with 20 year old equipment. But except in GOSFG and some other high priority units, even CAT A divisions needed 10-15% of their force in reservists to fill to war strength.

[@looinrims]

But somehow this was gonna be the force that took Europe in a week Amazing

[@somerandomboibackup6086]

@@looinrims the force that couldn't take Afghanistan in 10 years and lost 15000+ men?

[@looinrims]

@@somerandomboibackup6086 yup, if you believe all the soviet cocksuckers on Internet forums ‘ooooooh Soviets would’ve crushed nato they’d be at the Pyrenees in 11 days cuz the East Germans said so’

[@Dushmann_]

Very interesting. Good information. I've read about how awful it was for the "new fish" in the Red Army and in the Russian Army during the Chechen Wars.

[@SenorTucano]

Ever heard of paragraphs?

[@algerian4480]

Impressive like always.

[@HeavyStorm4]

i wish he had looked into the cooperation difficulties NATO could have faced, like one i have read was that NATO had divided the European theater into several air defense zones which ran longitudinal along Europe and these zones had been assigned to different countries, it was argued that the borders along these zones could have made severe weak points

[@ZacksYT]

sWechkom rejela 7ata entom tetfarjou binkovv

[@algerian4480]

Yeah.

[@algerian4480]

+Mid ary Hello brother

[@algerian4480]

+Zacki BoI yeah brother.

[@luigithegreat1331]

I have been waiting for this FOR WEEKS Yay

[@traviszhang1686]

You missed some important points, in 1989 it would very questionable whether countries in eastern blocks would stick with Soviet Union. They are likely to remain neutral or even switch to NATO. (Poland, Hungary etc)

[@rajc2257]

Travis Zhang ye

[@SonBui-de6qx]

Do you even know Binkov’s rules? No nukes. No allies outside of the original combatants. Same morale.

[@rajc2257]

Son Bui u didn’t watch the video did u

[@jeffreykalb9752]

@@SonBui-de6qx Which means useless analysis.

[@Saeronor]

@@jeffreykalb9752 Sadly, in this particular case it is indeed useless. While one can imagine countries trying *everything* to resolve a local conflict without nukes, this sort of scenario suggests the opposite, with tactical warheads embedded in any large - scale planning from the day 1. Moreover, even if deploying nukes ends up less apocalyptic due to countermeasures, failures, human error, political pressure, that's still more than enough to affect another factor Binkov leaves out - morale. Not necessarily in a way people usually predict, though. Sure, population in WP was less than friendly to USSR in 1989. However... imagine you live in eg. Poland, which is most likely nuked into oblivion in the very beginning. Why? This is how NATO could ruin logistics of WP with one swift strike - the alternative routes to Germany were inferior and/or more exposed. Imagine you live there, secretly predisposed towards the West. Oh, wait, NATO just turned your major cities into irradiated wasteland. All available sources are saying they attacked first. All alternative sources are either jammed or too risky, because it's war, therefore listening to / disseminating foreign propaganda might already be a capital offense. Suddenly it's Soviet AA units who are defending your cities against conventional bombardments. The more it takes, the more it looks like "both sides are assholes", so rebellion makes no sense. So... rather than some top 10 Anime Betrayals I suspect Soviet puppets would turn into massive anti - war hubs, pressuring their communist governments about armistice - and they, in turn, would actually have something to pressure Moscow with: their remaining infrastructure. Sure, USSR can outright occupy one or two puppets to secure supply lines - but not without extremely costly drama that would spill over entire WP.

[@salokin3087]

Finally! There needs to be way more ww3 fiction, so many what ifs and decisiveness

[@kattegatcitychamberofcomme311]

Salokin , Team Yankee by Harold Coyle

[@throwaway4827]

Arc Light was an excellent book regarding World War 3.

[@gamerguy4476]

Go and play World in Conflict.

[@kokomo7032]

NotPoliticallyCorrect77 can we destory Palestine and Islam after?

[@nationalistfromcanada3497]

I read that as ww3 fanfiction, this is awkward...

[@ericwilson178]

I really enjoyed it. I spent two years with the US 2nd Cavalry (78-80) as a front line unit covering the Hof Gap. I was mostly an M60A1 RISE tank driver, but filled in as a loader for gunnery at Graf. It was accepted that we would cease to be a functioning unit at +1 hour after the Soviets crossed the frontier. That is why we had "escape and evasion" training.

[@sonajrilhav]

This is poor speculation.I was a soldier in one of Warso Pack army, where accents and priority were different and variation made in many way!

[@AudieHolland]

Morale and combat quality of NATO troops differed greatly too. American troops were more known for their drug and drinking habits. What's more, while their NATO allied troops would get out in the dirt, Americans preferred to remain in their vehicles, which were warm and comfy compared to slugging in the mud. And I cannot imagine that either side would be prepared to lose 100,000s of men in atrocious fighting conditions. Napalm was a much used weapon to 'chase enemy infantry from buildings,' so they could be bombed and machinegunned in the open. In my opinion, after only a few weeks, both sides would reach an agreement to stop advancing and to stop shooting at each other. NATO ammunition stores are also greatly inflated because it had to deal with quite a number of different calibers. France's position within NATO has always been up for debate. They were outside of the NATO military organization but cooperated on the political level. This would have decreased fighting capability and efficiency within NATO to a significant degree. Meaning it could mean the difference between holding the line or having to fall back because of lack of supporting troops. British General Sir John Hackett wrote two books, with two very varying scenarios of how WWIII would be fought in Western Europe. He had great insight into the political instability of the Warsaw Pact forces. A protracted, costly war would probably have seen one or two sattelite states rebel which would mean more forces would have to be diverted to fight the rebels. Then again, NATO's main supply route across the Northern Atlantic would have been its achilles heel. The Soviet Northern Fleet was not designed to fight a long war but to launch an enormous amount of anti shipping missiles at the start of hostilities which would have decimated NATO naval forces in the Atlantic. Also, as the military strategic minds in WWI could not keep up with the attrition rate of infantry in the endless trench warfare (which is a misnomer because if the men had remained inside their trenches, it wouldn't have been all that bad). Strategic minds theorizing about WWIII would have been baffled by the fact that after one or two weeks, there would be no airfields operational anymore and precious few combat planes and pilots left after the initial slaughter (AAA missiles and 'Shilka' type AA vehicles would have reduced the average survival time of pilots on either side to minutes instead of hours).

[@nxshuu]

pakika tetiso I mean,war really is unpredictable. I’m glad none of this happened in real life tho.

[@drakashrakenburgproduction5369]

@@AudieHolland let the actual experts and military professionals talk

[@AudieHolland]

@ Thank you, glad you found it very funny. Which is not what people can say about you.

[@AudieHolland]

@ Sure man. Have a good life!

[@Yzzo1]

I once knew an old Polish guy who lived under communist rule in Poland and was an officer, am not exactly sure in what, and he told me that if war ever broke out between the Warsaw Pact and NATO he was going to do everything he can to give away Soviet plans to NATO intelligence and he said that if he ever got desperate he would begin sabotaging Soviet supplies. He mentioned Soviet supplies specifically not necessarily Polish supplies because he sort of despised the Soviets but yet he was an officer, (Still not exactly an officer of what but oh well).

[@zrbbg9639]

Josue Yanez Well the Soviets were kind of rude to the Polish until the 70s so no wonder he hates them.

[@alexs.2727]

They have their reasons true, but they're to this day the salitiest people in europe

[@michaelw6277]

Alex S. Seems like they’ve earned the right to be.

[@Rus-bw2oq]

Without the Soviet union and its great sacrifice in the war, these Poles would now speak German and be slave to them.

[@heneraldodzz4978]

indian summer true

[@bobsink624]

Finally, I’ve been waiting for long!!!!

[@fredlandry6170]

The picture of the M60 Patton tank was taken in my hometown of Lake Charles Louisiana. On the lakefront park area.

[@azynkron]

Want a medal for that?

[@Krzemieniewski1]

Polish army main target was Denmark. Greetings from Poland

[@Madplanetguy]

Michał Michał hello there! I assume you're quiet and a good construction worker as you're Polish (thats my polish stereotype)

[@Krzemieniewski1]

Madplanetguy Iam not construction worker. Iam yacht skipper...

[@1234femmarc]

Quite funny because Poles and Danish pilots when flying close to each other doing the Cold War often waved at each other and smiled, compared to Soviet pilots who just looked straight ahead.

[@jurisprudens]

I wonder how they could see each other in jet planes. Sounds like a legend

[@RoKoStudios]

+Marc1234fem Soviet bomber crews often waved that their NATO intercepts, theirs even a picture of one Soviet holding up a Pepsi showing it to the NATO pilot.

[@maybefixfix6143]

Could you do the same. But for the 1950 to 1970

[@GAZAMAN93X]

maybe fix fix Look up Operation Unthinkable

[@nationalistfromcanada3497]

Operation Unthinkable was for summer 1945. We're talking about going up against the Soviets at their absolute height of power in the 1960s.

[@yaz2928]

Definite win for Soviets. Soviet Union in 1989 was very weak and almost broken due to stagnation started under Brezhnev. No surprise 2 years later it broke. Still got a minor victory. However Soviets in 1960 were at their strongest and could've easily taken all of Europe.

[@l0necroc]

Lone Wolf "taken" but not won

[@yaz2928]

Dildo Faggins Lol, the US and all it's allies struggled against a minor Nazi force at Normandy, while the Soviets were facing over 80% of German soldiers alone. Once Europe was taken by Soviets it would be impossible for either the US or the UK to regain control. US naval superiority might save the UK from an invasion but that's it.

[@Joris13T]

West Germany by area. 32% forst, 53% agricultural, 25% urban = 110% :)

[@yigitalpalakoc]

Upgrades people, upgrades

[@ChazCharlie1]

Now that's what I call German efficiency!

[@andrewl258]

The things I'd do to that puppet....

[@andrewl258]

CAT: Lmao. I'm not sure what I meant tbh, but yeah, that sounds close.

[@Madplanetguy]

Andrew L uhhhhh... if that puppet turns you on, theres something seriously wrong with you...

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Madplanetguy so true

[@noneshere]

Its made from China

[@ZachAttack-tp7eo]

Thats called muppet necking

[@ninja-gaming8988]

What you are forgetting is the amount of unrest within Warsaw Pact member nations; we are right at the end of the Cold War here, and all member states were turning against communism: it wouldn’t be unlikely for larger member states, such as Poland, Hungary, Czechia and East Germany to revolt, not only reducing soviet numbers and increasing NATO numbers, but also many soviet divisions in East Germany could find themselves cut off from supplies

[@ryanjacques166]

Ninja-Gaming to be fair he said politics aside

[@ozzykulinski896]

Haha and you think unrest would do any good when soviet armies just ride the trains to Germany? You think unrest in Poland or Germany during wat time would mean a prison or hard labour sencence? No, you get shot in the head for treason same day.

[@piotrd.4850]

See Vietnam War unrest in US - how do you think it would be avoided in this scenario ?

[@johnadamski9913]

Poland would never fully fight for Soviet Union.

[@yeeterdeleter6306]

What about the problems nato has I know a lot of them and it should decreases the amont of enlisted

[@michaelsommers2356]

You're forgetting that by 1989 the USSR and the Pact were both dissolving. The Soviets could not longer keep up the arms race, and the Pact countries were of dubious loyalty. The Soviets would have had to spend considerable resources to just ensure that the Pact did not rebel.

[@johanlassen6448]

Bro Binkov is a known Soviet shill. By 1989 the USSR had 0 chance to win a conventional war against NATO even if all Pact countries stuck with them. NATO troops simply maintained a much higher training and technological standard to the completely overrated Soviet crap.

[@venelin9819]

Bulgaria had a big rocket arsenal capable of destroying most European Turkish and Greek bases, so a quick advance would have been unlikely.

[@akhsdenlew1861]

Pretty sure both sides would just keep defensive positions at both the balkans and the caucasus, unless if turkey starts mobilizing serious numbers.. which is unlikely. Those 2 fronts would be a stalemate for the vast majority of the war with little to no changes in the front lines. The battlefield was always going to be germany and both sides knew that.

[@nikolaigrudev8095]

Bulgarian army not defensive!

[@mint8648]

Proof?

[@manjushettar5866]

Great animation + narration. Just a reminder that by the 1990's the USSR was on the brink of collapse and the economy was near garbage.

[@casbot71]

You missed one big factor, the US and NATO using laser guided bombs. That completely changed modern warfare and were an incredible shock to Soviet planners. Any Soviet ground forces without air cover would be decimated by precision strikes. And the F-117 stealth fighter would destroy Soviet air defense because it was an unknown quantity at the time and it's vulnerability to particular frequencies had not been discovered and developed. So it would be unopposed at night. In fact the general superiority that NATO forces had at night would be a big factor as well, as the American forces in Iraq said "we own the night". NATO could advance and counter attack at night and reinforce it's positions during the day.

[@keithmitchell6548]

As a former British Army soldier, I can say that we trained to do everything at night.

[@AC-hj9tv]

@@keithmitchell6548 hell yea

[@vejet]

Exactly. The Warsaw Pack was lucky the West didn't engage them in the late 80's early 90's, it wouldve been a blood bath right up to the boarders of current day Russia. What a dramatic change from the post war period until at least the mid 70's when the West would have had virtually no chance in stopping the Soviets from sweping across the continent. Oh how the times change.

[@Jaxymann]

This is very similar to Tom Clancy's works like "Red Storm Rising" - even with greater numbers, the Soviets could not push through Germany because of a lack of air superiority, insufficient supplies and NATO's technological edge. Great work as ever Commissar!

[@Cyime]

You should do do China vs Soviet Union during sino-soviet split.

[@hwg5039]

Nato would catch this chance and defeat both countries

[@orangeboss896]

Cyime China probably stood no chance

[@jurisprudens]

China had numbers though. Soviet military was preparing to repel "human waves" by building fortified areas. :)

[@chrispanca1590]

7:43 Those percentages don't add up to 100. They add up to 110

[@dominiksoukal]

German efficiency

[@jamesfraser1327]

China vs Taiwan with 2 scenarios 1: Taiwan alone 2: US helps Taiwan

[@fountainchristain]

James Fraser for 1 Taiwan uses it's land to cause deaths but would be pushed back but would cause damage for every mile For 2 it would be like how China vs USA but maybe the USA comes out a bit better cause they can use Taiwan to pull attention away and I am not sure of how big the Taiwanese airforce is but should be big enough to pull some of China's air power away so more towards the USA And Tawian forces

[@pablodelatorregalvez4260]

1: China invades Taiwan within a few days. 2: China invades Taiwan first but then USA recovers it.

[@mickeyg7219]

Pablo de la Torre Gálvez I have read the strategic analysis paper about what happen if China invades Taiwan, actually it will take more than a few days, months even.

[@hwg5039]

Mickey G lol, according to Taiwan's own defense minister, they can only fight for a week in the best scenario

[@thetraveler0386]

Taiwan's military is designed to defend itself until the US actually comes and intervenes.

[@alexandrufleseriu]

If you were to simulate WW2 France would have won.

[@onepangaean3018]

Yeah you assume equally skilled generals so that's an F for the simulation

[@henryp9671]

One Pangaean how would you propose to simulate it then we don’t know how competent the generals on each side would’ve been nor do we know how the political fallout would have occurred

[@ahmadhassan8466]

Not really. France has no defensible terrain once Paris is taken. Germany is easier to defend

[@boris4491]

In 1989 Czechoslovakia´s revolution in November ended communism goverment, so i think they wouldn´t join Warsaw Pact, more like they will try to stay neutral or switch sides to NATO :)

[@johnwillard7603]

Boris yeah but if they were in a war the revolution would’ve been cracked down on, it couldn’t succeed

[@sufimuslimlion4114]

No. Soviets would crush them like worms

[@theonefebo1089]

NATO VS Wakanda

[@plasmaphy2512]

the one febo10 Wakanda will win

[@gareththompson2708]

^ no contest

[@KawaiiCanadafreememes]

Going by the movie Just fuckin nuke 'em

[@annyoung7853]

Wakanda is pure fiction.

[@ausore9832]

Wakanda forever.

[@kralle-uw9mc]

What amazed me about this video, is that both sides had so many soldiers fully mobilized and ready within a day. Thats an amazing achievement. tbh. See 1:50

[@tomduggan51]

Binkov, Thanks for this deeply interesting video on Cold War scenario. Very good and original channel on Military matters-well done! I

[@michaelbrown2300]

First,love ya,commissar.Always will be a subscriber

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Why you want to boycott pepsi

[@michaelbrown2300]

Zachary Moskovits eh,it was a joke lol

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Michael Brown k lol

[@michaelbrown2300]

Zachary Moskovits what?

[@zacharymoskovits5530]

Michael Brown ok, laugh out loud

[@The_sound_Of_Thunder]

Should have considered many of the Pact troops switching sides, hardly anyone there wanted to be a part of it, especially the population.

[@schadenfreude1061]

'Full Morale'.This rule is literally right at start of the video

[@HemlockRidge]

@@schadenfreude1061 Yeah. BUT... i n the real world, I seriously doubt that Germans would want to fight Germans, and the rest of the Soviet "Puppet States" would probably drag their feet, if not outright refuse. Thus; a significant portion of the Soviet army would be tied down trying to keep their thumb on the unwilling.

[@m1ckyg21]

@@schadenfreude1061 i think the whole point was that "rule" is a HUGE assumption and very very flawed

[@erersdgqhqerhqeh3372]

HemlockRidge same comment but change into US european puppet states

[@Moleoflands]

@@erersdgqhqerhqeh3372 but they are beimg invaded. A lot easier to convince the population to fight

[@WealthAndMoney]

The southern flank is an old story played in both WW1 and WW2. Neither worked for the Allies. The British ended up losing 2 divisions at Doiran and never attempted fighting the Bulgarians again. The Turkish border in 1989 was impenetrable fortress ex. nuclear weapons. In fact, that’s why the strategic rocket forces had intermediate ballistic warheads in the town of Sandanski on the Greek border. The Bulgarians had prepared for all kinetic scenarios hence they had stationed 3 armies (most of their available forces in the “star” formation (Elhovo, Topolovgrad, Sliven) there was 3 armored division in the town of Sliven designed to push back any initial Turkish advance. That was always perceived to be a stalemate with trench fighting unless the Alexander Lebed’s Soviet 14th army had engaged from Transnistria and pushed the Turks back across the Golden Horn.

[@quinlanal-aziz6155]

Yeah we really want to keep the Muslims out of Europe

[@IC3XR]

Canada vs Australia. Now that would be quite an odd war

[@IC3XR]

I reckon it’d be a draw

[@silverhost9782]

No one wants to see their children fighting🇬🇧lol

[@IC3XR]

Amen

[@genericname5909]

Lemo n no with the United states helping Canada or Australia the person the the us is helping

[@malamuteaerospace6333]

Surfers vs Lumberjacks

[@predator931]

The actual video starts at 00:38

[@zrbbg9639]

Mr_Quality97 thanks

[@dean1039]

Just imagine the world without nuclear weapons. A protracted ww2 most likely ending in '47. And an all most immediate ww3 in the 1950's on the lines of this video. Einstein found the answer to global wars by discovering the means to develop weapons that can wipe out humanity.

He didn't invent any weapons

[@Alistana]

China vs India

[@Mohit-zn2rn]

Ali // A Squad already a video is there. China wins

[@nationalistfromcanada3497]

Bops and Vagene vs Noodle.

[@Mohit-zn2rn]

Nationalist From Canada hey your Prime Minister is gay, right?

[@anindyanarayansingh7896]

Mohit Kumar bro no videos yet on India va China.

[@hagalathekido]

its obvious which one would win though, china has slightly more manpower and better economy

[@MichaelStrick9]

One thing that none of these scenarios take into account is the mass defections that I think would take place. This would be the prime opportunity for the Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries to defect. You'd have mass chaos and uprisings in each country. East Germany would be first, then the Baltic countries. Poland and Hungary would be next. None of those countries wanted to be under the heavy hand of the Kremlin. Even if that didn't happen, on a micro level, troop by troop, pilot by pilot, you'd see mass defections. You think the Polish troops would really jump to the front line to fight for Russia? Add to this the likelihood of the neutral countries immediately forming an alliance with NATO. Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, and Finland would have some sort of military alliance with NATO if war were on the horizon. No way those countries would want to run the risk of being under Russian control. Which troops would fight harder? The guys trying to prevent the USSR from ruling them, or the poor bastards who are ordered by the Kremlin to go and fight? The CIA would work to get China to go to war with Russia on that side of the country. Overall, this would have been a very bad idea for the WP/USSR. And they knew it. That's why never tried it.

[@justwhenyouthought6119]

I did Summer Sales in 1989, by day six we were supplying targeting information for NATO commanders en route to Berlin. Conventional would not have happened and the Soviets approach then was very much different to what most people imagined. Ever wondered why they placed so much emphasis on NBC capable vehicles ? They pre identified 106 targets in West Germany for tactical nuke strikes and they would simply drive their tanks through what was left.

[@emrysgeibhendach7572]

that would not have gone well given that NATO would have responded with there own nukes the world would have been a nuclear hell scape

[@Danail740]

I like how Bulgarian tank says "Bulgaria hits, Bulgaria crushes"

[@thanosthethiccfarmer1850]

Germany would be like in the middle of the war *THIS IS WHAT WE TRIED STOPPING BY HAVING THREE SUPER STATES, BUT NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!*

[@sinistranrepublic8682]

Outstanding work, again, you guys do excellent research.

[@nickc8773]

if this is 89 then shouldn’t the american tanks have a much larger edge of russian tanks- as seen in gulf war the m1 decimated the t-72s and the t84s (i think its t-84 somone correct me if i’m wrong)

[@hrpuff]

Nick C You might be combining the t-80 and t-64

[@nottoday3817]

T-72s used by Iraq were much inferior to the ones used by USSR, Also, different tactics and numbers. One of the biggest reasons why Iraq got so crushed was because the tanks were stripped bare of their advanced equipment(night fighting, range finders etc.) and were dug down in static positions. This allowed for US forces to take them out at range. Of course, the fact that Iraq also had no Airforce was a wellcome advantage.

[@nickc8773]

daniel halachev that makes sense, thanks for the input.

[@Unbekannter2024]

Kurishev Tulipov SVIR and INWAR had 800mm of HEAT-PENETRATION. Meanwhile M1A1 had 950mm aganist HEAT and 610 aganist KE. M1A1HA had 1100 mm aganist HEAT and 790 aganist KE. Basic soviet rounds 3BM-29/32/36 had less than 590 penetration on 30° 1700m. Only Svinets-1, created in 1991 had 650mm on 30° 2100m. K-5 couldnt stand aganist M829A1. It can stop only M829 at 1800m. T-72B and T-80BV was mediocre trash from 1983rd year. Only WP tank capable to stand aganist M1A1/M1A1HA/HC in 1989 year was T-80U with K-5 and 3BM-42. Lets see numbers: 2450 M1A1 in W. Ger. , 1100 M1A1HA, 1000 Challengers vs 270 T80U/UD mk. 1989. I dont mind L2A4/3/2/1/0 because they had only protection aganist 3BM-15/17/22/25, which was outdated in 1989.

[@taelorpickel2830]

what the actual f*ck are you speaking about better than anything USSR can field? Holy sh*t wtf man. The Guards Tanks and advanced tanks of the Soviets utterly curb stomp the Iraqi's the Soviets were far stronger than the Iraqi's as well. I don't know what you're saying there but WTF.

[@chrisloucks3958]

All I'm saying is you need to look at Iraq and Iran War to look at how Iraqi, then look at the gulf War and look how we fought and how we just cut right through them

[@jimatwood6915]

Now y'all need to do a World War III, 1968 NATO vs Warsaw Pact

[@PulpComic]

I think the impact of 'smart' weapons and the edge in training and tactics is missing. While there is no doubt that the first 60 days would see success in Germany and Denmark after 12mos the WP would be unable to move and be suffering from shortages of every kind.

[@MonMalthias]

PulpComic Back in 1989 smart weapons were rare and expensive. Stocks would not be expected to last beyond a few days of combined arms operations. We're talking tens of thousands of targets across hundreds of kilometers of front.

[@Loki1701e]

MonMalthias us had huge stockpile of cruise missle

[@fludblud]

Smart weapons were extremely rare in 1989, even in the 1991 Gulf War where the US could concentrate their best arsenal on Iraq, smart bombs made up less than 10% of all munitions dropped. If you watch the video Binkov did model training ratios which favoured active NATO units on an individual basis, its just that active WP troops outnumbered them by such an insane amount they wouldve still been pushed back regardless. Also remember that training quality only differs at the start of the war, combat experience will mean that tactics and the skill of individual troops will reach parity as the war drags on through natural selection. In the end it is NATO's powerful economies and the US's safe geographical isolation that will eventually outproduce WP and drive them back. But then again we all know the WP drove itself bankrupt trying to keep its initial combat edge anyway.

[@PulpComic]

I agree with everything below but even a few dozen devastating strikes by the F-117s on command and control, rail bridges and fuel stores could have put the armored columns into highway of death status. The training in combined arms and the better coordination of NATO forces would be able to counter the outright numbers advantage in artillery and armor. Much of which on the WP side could best be considered 50's and 60's surplus. Add in the low Soviet morale in '89 and this is a recipe for 'Red Storm Rising' levels of FUBAR.

[@nottoday3817]

I am not sure what you are talking about 'better coordination'. Actually, it would be a bit harder for NATO to coordinate. not only in this scenario where soviets do the push, so the chain of command has to be made in a hurry, but different nations in NATO had a different status. Like Greece and Turkey might not agree with US plans. France with the one of UK. Furthermore, bombings on railways, command and control centers etc. would be a problem for both sides. Soviets can do that as well, you know?

[@Semiantomatic]

The thing about the Warsaw Pact was that many of these “soldiers” were held at gunpoint to fight. Poland has always held Russia in contempt, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them switch ideologies. Same with Hungary, and given the threat of annihilation, Yugoslavia would have sided with the NATO powers in the post-Tito era. You could argue slightly the same with regards to some NATO, but nobody in the West really wanted less personal freedoms. Also, the wildcard being China, it would have drained Soviet resources in the southeast.

[@piotrd.4850]

In 1940s - true. In 1980s - not so much. If you think that any WP nation would at challange Soviets directly while having hostile military pact shooting at them - you are delusional. After prolonged crisis and careful diplomacy .... but if war errupted suddenly, there would be no time for organized action that would have meaningful impact on progress of war, which would have been won or brough to standstill in first two weeks.

[@Semiantomatic]

@@piotrd.4850 Hate to break it to you, but conscripts were still held at gunpoint to fight imaginary westerners in the 1980s. They were there, sure, but were very poorly equipped. My father and uncle both had to return all clothing after their tours of service because there was not enough to go around. In the event of a long, prolonged conventional war, enough time would pass for those old fashioned feelings and memories to persuade the Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians to turn against the ideology. You got examples of intra-revolutions during the fall of the Iron Curtain without an external shot being fired. You think that those same people would have fought against the west just five years before that? Please, look at Romania, Albania, the former Yugoslavian states for the violent examples. Hell, Russia is at war with the Ukraine right now. Those feelings didn't spring up over night. *cough* Holodomor *cough*.

[@АртёмАлександрович-ф6с]

@@Semiantomatic а турки, болгары и греки сражающиеся вместе?! - ещё более неправдоподобно.

[@BoxStudioExecutive]

@@piotrd.4850 I think you underestimate a few things, like how close to economic collapse a lot of these countries were, especially USSR, and going to war would have tipped them over the edge, leading to popular uprisings.

[@GenocideWesterners]

Warsaw pact was always considered to be a buffer zone or a meat shield for the USSR. After the cold war ended and the documents were declassified, the only "offensive plans" they ever found out was the plan to take over west germany after warsaw pact territory was nuked by the west. The soviets probably didn't even care about the baltic states. In 1990, the soviets allowed reunification of germany in exchange for NATO's promise not to expand. Instead NATO expanded to all warsaw pact states, even 3 former SSRs and is on now russia's borders. And now NATO claims that such a promise was never made despite thousands of documents and even recordings being available.

[@Wi-Fi-El]

If this happened my dad would've probably fought in Europe. He was stationed in germany in 1990 in real life

[@beratceylan3882]

Azerbaijan vs Armenia pls

[@Michael-ys4rf]

Berat Ceylan No! RUSSIA ARMENIA VS TURKEY ASERBAIDJAN

[@TheBlessingOfTurnip]

Day 1: The Azerbaijani's Air Force Kite has attacked the Armenian Naval Raft without notable success Day 2: Both sides cure hangover Day 3: Monday

[@arle3685]

@@Michael-ys4rf umh Did you really fear Azerbaijan?

[@Michael-ys4rf]

@@arle3685 i m not armenian but i have to agree that azeri had a better army .

[@chase5220]

Japan vs China

[@kameronjones7139]

Fenris Wolf modern time setting?

[@chase5220]

Kameron Jones Yes

[@mickeyg7219]

In South Korea vs China, it's concluded that China couldn't take South Korea by amphibious force alone. Japan is over 3 times larger in both land area and population than South Korea, it has stronger industries, and is geographically isolated from the rest of Asia. I think this kind of war will be a draw, neither side could invade each other.

[@chase5220]

You're probably right. However, Japan will soon be revisiting its constitutional restrictions on its military (namely the purely defensive role of the Defense Forces). So, give Japan 15-20 years, and this stalemate hypothesis might not be the case anymore.

[@mickeyg7219]

Fenris Wolf At least for Binkov's scenario, a country must destroy a significant part of each other's forces or gain strategic piece of land in order to be a victor. In China vs USA video, China lost because its navy is wiped out, but it doesn't lose any land. And even that cost USA a lot, it's extremely unlikely Japan could build up their force large enough to pull off the same feat.

[@sonar357]

Alternate History scenario: April/May 1945, war breaks out between the Western Allies and Soviet Union. Could the Western armies match up to the numerically superior Soviets? Could the Soviets endure, logistically or otherwise, a new war against the well supplied and airpower heavy Western Allies? With or without use of the atomic bomb did the West stand a chance in a war against the Soviets?

[@Joesolo13]

Realistically the Soviets would 100% be facing Nuclear Bombardment, and a two front war. China is far from fully unified, but with a global war against Russia spinning up the Nationalists would seize the chance to fight Mao's forces, but with the massive Soviet forces deployed against Japan in 45, there's no question it'd be a proper fight, though British CBI units could be deployed to join in a fairly short period of time. Navally the Soviets would be entirely boxed in. Now Anyone who tells you it'd be an easy victory for either side is a liar. Realistically the US would have only a handful of nuclear weapons to use within a year, having literally none left after Japan's surrender. But as they were produced they would be used. And with no counter measure there's little Russia could do.

[@Joesolo13]

Given a year the US could amass a huge Bomber wave for a massive assault from Norway straight towards Moscow and numerous other strategic points. Even sending escorting bombers carrying light conventional loads, or even just extra fuel to act as dummy planes.

[@sonar357]

@ As they say, the Devil is in the details. Can't just glimpse at simple numbers of 'this many troops vs that many troops' and say who would win.

[@gamewizardks]

Why would Stalin do that? America had the bomb at the time, he didn't. History works for a reason.

[@muhammadzidanezainalbaihaq3376]

The notifications that i waited all this time 😁

[@mrkotouoeji4267]

Thailand Vs Malaysia(next video) And Myanmar , Laos VS Thailand (if you want to do next)

[@TalesFromThailand]

Thailand would rather decisively crush Malaysia.

[@leekuntv6345]

MRKOTO UOEJI wow is very good idea ( Friends from China)GG thailand

[@mrkotouoeji4267]

Lee Kun TV haha thanks but I'm from Russia my friend XD

[@jessemounoury6065]

No way fighting would last that long. All ammo would be used within 4 to 6 weeks tops.

[@colerape]

Since all of this video presupposes a straight numbers game. I'll throw one number out there to start. All military planners in the modern era state that a numerical superiority of 3-1 is necessary to achieve victory by an offensive force. Using your numbers the Soviet Union would fall short of those numbers from the start of the war. You used km advanced in for the Soviet Army from WWII. This is spurious and ignores the effectiveness of Soviet forces contemporaneous to this time period. Soviet effectiveness in Afghanistan during the 1980 war resulted in massive casualties on the part of the Soviets; against an enemy much weaker than and less capable than NATO forces. Soviet conscripts (in Afghanistan) had shown themselves to be much less effective than NATO reservists and US National Guard (in Iraq). NATO forces trashed Iraq in 1991. Iraq had been liberally supplied and trained by the Soviets. The primary gun of NATO tanks was still the 105 mm. The Israelis had used said weapon system in 1982 and reported kills on T-72s at ranges approaching 2 miles; it is unlikely that even frontline T-80s would have fared much better. (An Israeli kill requires a brew up which is a much higher standard than real life operations requires) Your numbers also ignores a really important number. Operational Readiness. I spent the early part of my adulthood in the US military eye ball to eye ball with the Soviet military. In my career I seldom saw the Soviets able to maintain better than 50% OR for an extended time. Some frontline units could maintain 75% OR for very short periods of time. By contrast US Army commanders could get relieved of command if they had less than 90% OR. The standard was 95% OR. I am talking about the late 1980s to mid-2000s. I don't know what the standards were before or after. In 1989 the Soviets would have been facing the US Army the best army in the world at the time (bar none). The Soviet loss rates would have been horrendous. Any US Brigade could obliterate a Soviet division in short order in 1989 in a straight fight. But it would not have been a straight up fight. In 1989, US artillery would have used Block-I GPS satellites and counter battery radars to nullify much of the Soviet numbers in artillery. Plus much of the NATO artillery was better protected SP guns. NATO air forces had a higher percentage of new fighters with all weather and night time capabilities. Soviet air forces lacked all weather capabilities and had less capable night fighting abilities. Since the embarrassments of the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars the NATO air forces had done extensive research on how to defeat Soviet SAMs. The First Gulf War is ample proof of their improvement in this area. Even if the Soviet frontline forces had 75% of their SAM systems operational it is quite likely they would have lacked the effectiveness they had had in those earlier wars. Large numbers of NATO aircraft were designated and crews trained for deep interdiction missions that would have made resupplying and maneuvering first and second echelon Soviet formations difficult to impossible let alone the follow up forces in the third and fourth echelons. As to the comments about reactive armor making Soviet tanks equal to NATO tanks...that's laughable. An APFSDSDU (aka the silver bullet) from a 105 mm doesn't even notice reactive armor (reactive armor has little to no effect vs kinetic perpetrators). If all NATO tanks fired HEAT this comment might have been believable but they didn't in 1989 anymore than they do now. It is highly unlikely, given the constraints used by Binkov, that the Soviets could have overrun Frankfurt let alone Bonn. Within a month of the Soviets pulling the trigger they would have been back on their start lines having lost as much as 50% to 75% of their tanks and IFVs, 75% to 85% of their air forces, 50% to 75% of their artillery, and likely 20% to 25% of their Infantry. NATO losses would have been around 20% to 25% in tanks and IFVs, 30% to 35% in the air forces, and 20% to 25% in infantry. NATO was formed to defend its borders through defense in depth and counter offensive. Most NATO losses would occur during offensive operations, but the Soviets would already have taken massive losses and would have been incapable of putting up an effective defense in Germany. NATO would have stopped offensive operations once the borders were secure. There was no NATO mandate to go on the strategic offensive. That would have been unnecessary. Special Forces operating in the Eastern Block countries would have trained freedom fighters (probably most effective in Poland and East Germany) that would have had great successes against the retreating Soviets (a la Afghanistan). The fall of the Soviet Union would have likely occurred in late 1989 or early 1990 instead of in 1991 as the Russian people would have had little to fear from a thoroughly defeated Red Army. EDIT: Clarification

[@soapy3500]

I guess he forgot what happened in 1991 when that very same Soviet equipment was put up against the very same US equipment in the gulf. Our tanks cut through the soviets like butter and out AirPower wiped those very same AA missiles off the earth. He’s just using number And guessing.

[@greatdude7279]

@@soapy3500 " Our tanks cut through the soviets like butter and out AirPower wiped those very same AA missiles off the earth. He’s just using number And guessing." Wtf are you talking about? Most equipment that Iraqis had were from the 70's export version. Its kinda like saying Abrams tanks are inferior because they are getting blasted in Yemen by goat farmers. In the 90's Soviets not only had T-80's but also t-90's while Iraq had modified t-72's...

[@greatdude7279]

Your argument is stupid once you do a research on Warsaw pact and their military platform and once you realize literally every country exports inferior platforms to other countries. You are literally comparing modified T-72's found in Iraq with T-80UM's with reactive armor. I guess Abrams tanks are shit because rebels in Yemen are destroying them left and right....

[@soapy3500]

Reactive armor is old tech and no, the rebels in Yemen aren’t destroying Older M1’s left and right. Your argument is stupid once you realize Russia HAS to send their top of the line stuff to other countries because that’s where they get financing. Russia is broken. His argument is valid and your rebuttal is idiotic at back

[@soapy3500]

Again, you show your stupidity. No, Abrams aren’t getting blasted in Yemen. The Iraqis didn’t have 70s era tanks. They had current equipment. I love when guys who’ve never been to war speak about it. I saw all that equipment up close. Twice. The Soviet equipment today is no match for NATO, and is wasn’t back then. The Soviets always over sold their equipment. Just like their new “technologically advanced” fighter that will out perform the F-22... If they can ever get the engines to work. That’s why their top of the line fighter is using last gen engines. Dude, you’re a moron and simply talking out of your ass. Delete your account. 😂😂😂

[@lucasmucas2807]

Cool! Would love to see one of the Allies v The Soviet Union 1945 after the fall of Germany. I think Churchill wanted the war to continue against the soviets, but roosevelt dissuaded him.

[@jojonesjojo8919]

Generally pretty good analysis. A few points: - Yes the Sovs had more artillery, but NATO's artillery was significantly superior qualitatively. Not quite the disparity you mention. - By the 1980s - and certainly by 1989, there was (on both sides) a much higher usage of Precision Guided Munitions - such as long range anti tank guided weapons. This very much favours the defenders - another big advantage for NATO. - nuclear weapons change things somewhat. Sov doctrine appears to have been to use nukes without restraint across the board. They simply saw tactical nukes as more effective artillery, and didn't appear to have NATO's taboo around using them. The Sov doctrine was to fight a nuclear war - and win. - the main point, the Sovs were never really an expansionist power. They had ambitions (mostly thwarted) of expanding communism through peaceful means. They kept Eastern Europe after WWII because they needed a buffer, and had such high military spending (which eventually ruined them economically) because they were scared of us.

[@piotrd.4850]

Actually - no. The only superiority might have been C&C, and in terms of artillery, Soviets had ALL possible advantages. Rare case.

[@mainulakash3787]

Clicked this so damn fast.

[@9and7]

Yeah but only after you sank the Yamato!

[@Sceptre1]

Tom Clancy had the best breakdown of a possible war TBH

[@DMS-pq8]

Red Storm Rising is the best

[@AlexanderUnit-731]

Do you realize that Tom Clancy is a fantasy author just like John Tolkien.

[@Sceptre1]

you do realize red storm rising was his idea for how a hot war wouldve gone right? Not the Jack Ryan serious, the Red Storm Rising book smartass.

[@AlexanderUnit-731]

The entire idea of Red Storm Rising was to shout "MURICA!" louder than retarded Ronald Reagan could.

[@DMS-pq8]

Paid Russian bot

[@priyanshusrivastava2941]

Who is here after Ukraine invasion

[@survivaldayz5739]

by 1989 the soviets had become a shell of themselves as the economy and logistics were far more lacking than you say overall id put money on NATO but only if it was 1989

[@piotrd.4850]

Most people don't get that, that there's world of difference in balance of power between 1981 and 1989.

[@GenocideWesterners]

USSR of late 1970s and early 1980s was a completely different beast. By 1989, the Soviet army was already dealing with separatists within the Soviet union.

[@davilimalol4612]

Vídeo starts at 0:33

[@gujikujtutu2330]

The warsaw pact armies would have crippling low morality, there would be a huge desertion factor.

[@sufimuslimlion4114]

lol you don’t understand... you’re too stupid

[@VeteranR]

@@sufimuslimlion4114 Please educate us in that case.

[@SuperLusername]

Do Earth against Aliens for April 1st

[@gareththompson2708]

Aliens win. No contest. Exactly how they win depends a bit on their level of advancement and goal. It is reasonable to assume that they don't care about preserving the ecosystem as a sufficiently advanced civilization would mostly just see a planet as a raw materials for artificial habitats (they probably care about harvesting the rock and metal, not the animals or vegetation), in which case they would just sterilize the surface with an assortment of weapons. Some of the most fascinating weapons they might use to destroy us are the RKM (Relativistic Kill Missile, a solid object traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light so that it carries more power in raw kinetic energy than any chemical explosive warhead could ever provide, this thing is a continent killer. Side not: the technology for an RKM is available automatically upon developing ships capable of conducting interstellar travel in reasonable time-frames, as such it is one of the few weapons that we can absolutely guarantee every interstellar civilization will have available to them), a matter-antimatter bomb (releases 100% of the mass-energy of the reactants, is the most efficient bomb that is theoretically possible, also a continent killer), and last but certainly not least *drum-roll* the Nicoll Dyson Beam (this is essentially where you turn your entire sun into a giant Death Star with enough range and power to roast any planet in the galaxy from the comfort of your own solar system). Our own weapons would do little good against them. If they are taking pot shots from their home solar system then we have nothing that can reach them. If they have traveled here from a distant solar system then they automatically have incredible active defense technology (when you are traveling at 20% of light speed a single grain of interstellar dust packs as much punch as a small nuke, so you either develop active defense lasers that can detect and destroy targets the size of a grain of sand from light seconds away while they are approaching at 1/5th the speed of light, or you develop armor that can withstand the impact of a nuclear blast), meaning none of our nukes could even touch them. There are defensive countermeasures for all of their weapons of course (a planet sized shield to block out the Nicoll Dyson Beam for example). But those countermeasures require technology on par with the weapons being countered, and these scenarios usually assume modern humans against Aliens with interstellar travel. On the other hand maybe this scenario takes place a few hundred years in the future, and it is the humans who have developed interstellar travel and the aliens who are a low level industrial civilization defending their home world. In that case the humans would win, no contest.

[@jamiebigham9420]

Already been done by H.G. Wells. Viruses win.

[@adriankepler5254]

@@jamiebigham9420 loved the movie and the book lol

[@user-fr6qn9xl9e]

We got Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum. "Hiii, look at the earthlings!"

[@hiukas.]

Turkey and Greece fighting together wtf?

[@ars8223]

İkiside Natodalar.

[@discovaria9507]

They hate each other but sure hate communism together

[@ars8223]

Turkey have a communist place.

[@lazaros1312]

@@discovaria9507 yeah those fucking idiots don't know shit about politics

[@HemlockRidge]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[@offensivebias8761]

The warsaw pact would fall apart within a year just from political turmoil

[@PsyWu]

i think it would just take days. poland would revolt in the first weak after war declaration and sabotage the whole logistic system of the war mashine and would lead to a break down of the ussr army. hungary, romania and bulgaria would follow the next month refusing to battle with turky. only east germany would remain in battle.

[@PsyWu]

and by the way, lets not forget, the ussr would try to bet down the uprising of poland (i say there would be at least 20 million polish people starting sabotaging the infrastracture) with brutal violance, which would instantly end in a full scale revolution of the ussr in itself. i would say the ussr would dissolve within 2 month only by declaring war. no matter of the battle results.

[@teamfortress2teamfortress881]

@@PsyWu the USSR? collapsing? because of war? no,that's impossible,they only collapsed because of mikhail gorbachev,you're really wrong on that one,and the USSR doesn't care about warcrimes,so they'd massacre anyone trying to rebel against them,and they could crush and steamroll the countries that rebelled against them.

[@etubrutus3501]

Binkov, I love your scenarios! Please do a USA vs EU. Spasiba.

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

very unrealistic since the EU is the whore uf the US ...

[@danielvaptsarov2523]

In 1989 Bulgaria has 180,000 thousand troops or 3/ 60,000 thousand armies.The thurd army was on the turkish border and second army was on the greek border.First army was deep in country.Bulgaria had 1,000,000 people army reserve.The soviet generals were saying back then that Bulgaria can hold 500,000 thousand Nato army on the south Turkish and Greek border for 45 days.And don't forget about the SS-23 rockets that the bulgarian army had back then.

[@shroudedinsecrecy7014]

Daniel Vaptsarov What could you aspect from a pseudo expert & NATO fanboy.

[@danielvaptsarov2523]

Shrouded In Secrecy It's funny man.Soviet Union was giving billions to Bulgaria to build strong army.Bulgaria back then was the best allie to the Warchaw pack on the Balkans.A lot of soviet generals and CIA agents were saying the Israel on the Balkans.The only way that Turkey and Greece had chanse to push our army was to hit us whit atomic bombs.But we had SS-23 rockets whit nuke warheads given from USSR.They were going to hit Sofia Plovdiv and Varna thats major bulgarian cities and we were going to hit Istanbul Athens and other cities.So nobody wins in that case.But i don' like when somebody takes info from Wikipedia and talks bullshit.😀

[@shroudedinsecrecy7014]

Daniel Vaptsarov I agree with you. This guy is cheery picking data to suit his narrative. His bean counting military equipment add nothing to the possible real war scenarios of that area. Soviets weren't dumb. They knew that in WW3 turds would attempt to harass them through Bulgarian front. Hence they put some serious firepower in the Bulgarian front to deal with mongol-turds. In a real conflict turkroches wouldn't even able to cross one inches of the border because of the firepower & difficult terrain of the Bulgarian front.

[@zrbbg9639]

I agree with both of you.

[@earlwyss520]

I've read that all along their boarder with Turkey, the Bulgarians buried old PzKfW IVs leaving only the turrets exposed as Anti Tank bunkers. I've also read that some criminals have been digging them out and selling them.

[@g.santoro1387]

Considering how Ukraine is resisting Russia in urban warfare today I would assume that we those 12000 in Berlin could survive longer than a day

[@eliasziad7864]

Ukraine was a Soviet republic and was building thousands of tanks.

[@hannahdyson7129]

​@@eliasziad7864And may have refused to fight

A point to remember: the Austrians weren't really neutral. They had plans to actively help NATO.

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

Source?

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

@ Austria was always more pro west than pro east. But I would like to know the source which stated that we would "actively help NATO"

@@yesyesyesyes1600 Well, we officers back in REFORGER days often constantly discussed everything from aligning comms with the Austrians to standardizing our pallets so our S4's could send deployment packages to Bundesheer forward operating bases when the Soviets inevitably attacked. Which I would like to point out literally everyone assumed the Soviets would attack Austria during the 80's. So there's that. I don't know, do I have to prove "what every officer in Europe just assumed" with a source in a science journal? I'm just saying that's what everyone I ever met in the 80's just assumed. I seriously doubt if you googled it would take you more than 2 minutes to confirm it. I get it. You were neutral. I don't think your official stance mattered when the Soviets attacked. Which I would like to point out, the Russians confirmed they were going to do after the Soviet Union fell. I doubt seriously an Austrian officer ever discussed aligning comms with East Germans.

@@yesyesyesyes1600 I counted. This took me 11 seconds to find: sites.tufts.edu/fletcherrussia/files/2018/09/2007-Andrew-Earl-Harrod-Felix-Austria_-Cold-War-Security-Policy-between-NATO-Neutrality-and-the-Warsaw-Pact-1945-1989.pdf

[@yesyesyesyes1600]

Buddy, 1985 war ich gerade mal zehn Jahre alt. Nimms mir nicht übel, aber da kannte ich nicht reihenweise Offiziere, die mir das hätten erklären können. Und als ich 93 EF eingerückt bin, war die Chose gegessen und jeder hat nur noch vom Jugo-Krieg gesprochen. Mir fiel natürlich auf, dass wir ausschließlich Angriffsverfahren Ost geübt haben, da gab es auch seitenweise Material zu lernen. Für Angriffsverfahren West gab es gerade mal ... was? 5 Seiten? Trotzdem gab es auch "Feste Anlagen" in Westösterreich. Verzögern und unpassierbar machen, war wohl die Devise. Es war auch ein offenes Geheimnis, dass der CIA eine Standleitung in die Goldhaube hatte. Ob die Russen auch eine hatten, habe ich nie erfahren. Keine Angst, ich wollte eigentlich nur wissen, ob du eine Ahnung hast, wovon du redest. Aber eines ist sicher und das können wir, glaube ich, außer Streit stellen. Wäre es zum Krieg gekommen - egal, wer gewonnen hätte (falls man dann noch von einem Sieg sprechen kann) - für uns wäre es in jedem Fall schlecht ausgegangen. Nix Thermenland. Nuclear Wasteland. Edit: das PDF les ich mir durch. Vielen Dank.

[@wetdog3664]

WORLD IN CONFLICT

[@nesakysiu4748]

You did not account for that every Warsaw pact country has actually considered itself occupied by Russia and would rebel almost instantly

[@idk1848]

Soviet Unioun was at its weakest here, NATO in the long run would have a complete total victory. Not just eastern Europe, all of the USSR. It's simply a fact, both that would be after millions and millions of lives and trillions of dollars are lost.

[@piotrd.4850]

There would be no 'long run' there, unless you consider a month a long run. After 2 months of 'fighting' sides would be economically ruined, any more sophisticated ordnance would be spent one way or the other, casualties among NCOs and officers alone would prevent any meaningful operations from taking place. Each side had ... about a week to achieve decisisve win, otherwise it would ground down either nukes or WW I equivalent.

[@ΑνδρέαςΓαζής-ε4κ]

That's what I want to see ! Turkey and Greece fighting together

[@bubbasynklayr6965]

Interesting! But where did you find your number sources?

[@gandhithegreat328]

8:11 I disagree with how far you said the Soviet's would get into Bavaria. Bavaria is very mountainous, hilly, a forested so very easily defendable. It also would be the where most if not all Italian troops rushing across Austria would go. French territory is also closest to the Soviet Union through Bavaria so the French, who never liked to be ordered around by NATO, would probably send most of their troops to Bavaria as well and the so the Soviet advance would be smallest in Bavaria. They might reach Nuremberg but they wouldn't get very close to Munich after meeting most of the Italian and French armies, plus some Germans, in easily defendable terrain without air superiority

[@tanostrelok2323]

IT'S FINALLY HERE :DDDDD

[@joeboyd8702]

Excellent analysis. Thanks.

[@Dzichader]

I can say that Soviet would have shorts of supply due to sabotages in Poland.

[@piotrd.4850]

Soviets had supplies in Germany for month or so.

[@LindaAzizan]

You're a fool,Binkov! It's so obvious Switzerland will win!

[@trtyuiop]

Wrong vatican city will conquer the world with a alience with sealand and switzaland

[@blagoevski336]

@@trtyuiop Wrong, Luxembourg will win.

[@markgray3648]

The German’s had twelve Territorial brigades, not six in 1989. Two of them were nearly fully manned, too.

[@bazej1080]

1989? In 1989 most Warsaw Pact countries would turn the side immidiately and fight against Soviets for independence. People in states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania etc. hated Russians and treated them as occupants. Soviet Union managed to control them only by force and - from time to time - Soviets were bloodily crushing the uprisings in this states. Even without the war this states managed to break free one year later in 1990 when people noticed the chance.

[@AirShark95]

YEAH BOIIII!!! Part 3!!!!!!!!! - Chile vs Peru?

[@cavinhannahs1879]

Don't Chile, Peru, and Bolivia have some sort of border dispute? Just curious, as I'm assuming you're from Chile.

[@AirShark95]

Nivajoe Yeah. Chile and Peru recently settled a controversial maritime dispitue while Bolivia has now taken Chile to the International Court, alleging that Chile unfairly took its territory during the War of the Pacific (1879-1883) and cut it off from the Pacific Ocean. The thing is that Bolivia recognized its defeat and signed a treaty, along with Peru, which recognized their defeat and the loss of territory to Chile. Ever since, relations between Chile with Peru and Bolivia have been tense and Chile and Peru are currently in a bit of an arms race with one another.

[@cavinhannahs1879]

Interesting. Although it is my understanding Chile is the strongest of the three, and more likely to be backed by the US for economical reasons. I'm sure Chile will come out on top.

[@jascrandom9855]

Colombia vs Venezuela and Ecuador. What if something like the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis went hot?

[@El-Silver]

true remember they almost went to war in the 70s but god forbid this happens today our countries will be fucked (debt)

[@danielbenington4814]

There were so many parallels that could be drawn between this war and WW1

[@michaelbrown2300]

Also,2nd ranger bat is in Seattle.Dad was a Ranger.Ther would be 2 major theaters

[@BagoPorkRinds]

2nd Ranger BN is at Ft. Lewis near Tacoma. Not Seattle!

[@michaelbrown2300]

BagoPorkRinds Seattle area.Near the area.

[@michaelbrown2300]

BagoPorkRinds always considered it a big area.my Dad lived out there

[@BagoPorkRinds]

Well I live in Western WA. No one says Ft. Lewis (JBLM) is near Seattle. It has always been associated with Tacoma.