Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "1980: could NATO stop a Soviet tank rush in Europe?" video.

  1. Early M1 was inferior to T-72 - without uranium plates it had much weaker armor. Certainly would be used through.
    3
  2. Soviets were ready to be nuked in return - there were multiple spots setup for backup bridges from the main bridge which would be taken out. The initial plan called for hundreds of nukes used by both sides. Plus nuclear mines to blow up Germany.
    3
  3. Sure, like that laser range finder that T-64 had over 5 years before any US tank and over a decade before any British tank.
    2
  4.  @Lorian667  Which does show how advanced Soviet tanks were.
    1
  5. Ummm, basic T-64 in late 1960s had 115mm and in 1980 we had them all with 125mm and T-72s with 125mm. Both of these easily out ranged 105 - hence why M1 got its main gun replaced to 120mm.
    1
  6. Nah, this is "current talk" - there were no issues deploying troops during the crisis of 1980s in Poland. My uncle was in the army. Poland's task was taking out rather minor NATO - like doing some amphibious attacks (hence so many ships of the class) and also taking out Austria. No one would switch sides if all of their loved ones were just vaporized by NATO. Would you join your enemy if they just killed your mom?
    1
  7. Oh, bullets were plentiful - at least 2x (more like 3x) as many as NATO had.
    1
  8. Soviets mostly took a large hit as they went after insurgents into the hills while NATO just fortified itself in their bases. I still remember a Taliban commander saying on TV 10 years ago "We defeated Soviets and they were far better soldiers the Americans, so we will defeat US as well" - flanked by 2 former US soldiers ;)
    1
  9. Soviet tanks love wet stuff. All of their armored vehicles can swim. Russia is a wet land. Market Garden failed b/c of idiots in British command. Heck the Polish brigade commander said the plan is idiotic but was overruled and vengeful Brits even blocked his military pension. So much for being right.
    1
  10. Yep, Soviets had at least two spare bridges for each existing one on Odra river.
    1
  11. Actually Soviets were (as well as satellites) overflowing with spare parts and spare bridges and spare everything. Ammo was kept at least 2x NATO reserves. The joke was that NATO countries did not have a lot of ammo stored as they knew they will be overrun before they get to use it all. On Oder river each bridge had at least 2 spare locations - the concrete stumps are still there today.
    1
  12. Initial plan called for 100s of nukes used mostly by NATO. France would be a minor player in this war - a bit bigger then say Poland. There was no win scenario for NATO without Nukes. Hence crazy idea of nuclear mine field - blowing up all of Germany. NATO was not about to just nuke in Germany but also in Poland and all over Warsaw pact. I think not nuking France b/c French have nukes would go out the window in the first 24h. Any work with neutral France was to simply limit NATO response - it is hard to believe that Soviets would manage to take Spain - even if it took few weeks to take out Germany and few more weeks for France uber extended nuked lines and mountains of Spain would prove 99% too hard. So why go there - make France neutral - an obstacle to NATO as much as to Soviets and consolidate Germany / Italy etc. I think it becomes clear that any war was simply not worth it for anyone. Tiny limited mini wars were of little payout and of high risk. Soviets just limited themselves to liberating different nations through proxy wars. This mostly had negative effect for colonial powers, which US was not.
    1
  13.  @jpc7118  Myth of France or UK as major players died with WWII - especially France. France is by far not the strongest army in Europe today. I venture Russia is. I mean seriously, France has just 400 tanks total ;) Out of which just over 200 are in service (rest in storage). Also France only has wheeled APCS numbering less then 1000 unless you count armored cars as well. Army size is just around 115k. Air force has 200 jets but only half are modern. This is roughly similar land fire power as Poland. Poland has a bit more pp 144k, far more tanks & more modern (especially with 250 Abrams added) and just touch less modern fighters (F16 plus F-35) (80 vs 100). So much so for "French power". If not for Adolf Poland today would be roughly the same size country France is. In 1939 France had just few million pp more then Poland.
    1
  14.  @jpc7118  So what - its Frances business whatever it wants to waste French tax payers money on such adventures.
    1
  15.  @jpc7118  The official number of tanks in France is over 400. Where do you have data there is more tanks? Russia has about a 1000 modern tanks, same as US. Given weak armor on French tanks I doubt they will have issues destroying them - after all their main opponent is Abrams which has lots of armor and is very heavy. I would bet 100 USD Su-35 can easily defeat any junk over French skies. Not to mention latest Su. France is now behind China in aircraft development and has no 5th gen fighters active or in end development. Mirage 2000 is old - same old as oldest stuff Russia has in active service. Year of design is 78. This is what like 3 years younger then the oldest Russian? This is what you are proud of? Seriously? Maybe you should compare yourself to Germany not Russia ;)
    1
  16.  @jpc7118  If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 you can clearly see that comparable aircraft to it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale so Russians have Su-35 to oppose it. Both are very similar through Su-35 has better by far maneuverability. F-22? Seriously? That is 5th gen, French fighter is 4.5 it is not stealth aircraft and is not even a full match for Russian Su-35! What do you mean French did not surrender in 1940? Ehm, the railcar? Hello! French do not know what harsh occupation means - you need to go to central Europe for that.
    1
  17.  @patewing5808  Relax, most pp know this - he was just baiting you into writing all of this. Most people know that the only thing that would have stopped Soviets is nukes, and a lot of them. Maybe not stop but make any advance a bit without meaning. I mean why fight for some still glowing German or French town.
    1
  18. As a kid in the 80s most Germans optimistically though it will take 4 weeks to be conquered by Soviets. Pessimists 3 weeks.
    1
  19. It played out over an island in the river. Did not go too well for PLA.
    1
  20. Actually no. Israel shown the world that Arabs don't know how to use tanks. Israel used 100s of captured tanks and they also had many, many victories in Israeli service. We can say 100s of destroyed M1 "US stuff" is garbage as well - even worse then Soviet stuff as at least Israel needed tanks to take out tanks while ISIS just needed pickups to take out M1.
    1
  21. Sure NATO would have stopped the Soviets - its called Nukes and lots of it. After few weeks crushing the puny NATO ground forces Soviets would have discovered nuclear rain. Certainly taking over all of Germany would be nice - too bad that Germany would be nuclear wasteland of no value, same as everything around it.
    1
  22. Today Germany has rather small army - so not a big deal. If they each had few years to arm its a different deal. Turkey today has big army but no match for Russia at all. If each had few years to arm Russia would also easily run them over - far easier then Germany (wide margin). All of EU today plus Russia would easily defend themselves against US. Defeating US through would be very hard as it involves rather long range invasion. Potential of EU plus Russia is about 2x that of US and with excellent defensive position of US it would be impossible to win. Through if say China joined on EU+Russia side things would become nasty for US as it would be now close to 6 to 1. This is in scenario where aliens control humans for fun as no one would fight a war as a joke.
    1