World War III, 1989: NATO vs Warsaw Pact

before the Cold War a message from ice cold north did you know that Vikings were of clans game has 20 million players or ten times more players than actual Vikings ever lived if that's not reason enough to try it out here are three more it's a strategy RPG game with manually detailed portray of Vikings ancient world its massive online battles will get you hooked in mere minutes and you can also find me in-game look for the commissar so install Vikings right now using the links below you'll get 200 gold protection shield and your place in Valhalla for free [Music] Mariposa Lola welcome to bing cuffs headquarters and our last video in cold war going hot series it is 1989 and war breaks out between NATO pact and Warsaw Pact naval and aerial balance of power were discussed in previous videos check them out with no warning or preparation time the warring sides would pour fresh forces into Germany Warsaw Pact new NATO had a stronger economy and greater population but NATO had less units stationed in Europe it meant Soviets needed to succeed before us reinforcements come NATO had a token force in West Berlin it was surrounded and would be dealt with within a day overall disposition of forces between two Germany's in 1989 favored the Warsaw Pact NATO's main self-sufficient unit was the brigade while Warsaw Pact was the division NATO units were in standard in size each country had own organization most of the forces into Germany's were alert ready within a day German territorial army and Soviet category B units required a few more days previous video showed solid edge in ballistic missiles and air defenses they would initially negate NATO air power letting Soviet tank and artillery advantage to be fully utilized especially the artillery edge would suppress NATO frontline forces Warsaw Pact would start pushing into Germany while neutral Austria is too important geographically for either side NATO would seize the opportunity to quickly include Italian forces while Soviets would use Austria to protect its flank Austrian army was capable of protecting most of its country for days or more especially around Vienna and the Alps Yugoslavia would likely be left alone having a stronger military and not really being in the way Italian army would eventually secure a corridor even if Austria actively defends but forces in Hungary would intervene initially Romania and Bulgaria would be on their own soviets had no troops there Greece and Turkey would be in position to push north over half of Turkish army was stationed in the tiny region of European Turkey Bulgaria would likely get cut in half quickly until NATO reaches Balkan Mountains with Soviet and Romanian reinforcements further advance would be hard in the long run there might even be a counter-attack with help from Soviet troops from Odessa combination of mountains and flat ground near the coast would provide for some interesting battles more fronts would open turkey would be tasked to protect the carcass approach Soviets were on a defensive stance there due to tough mountainous terrain large offensives for either side would be unlikely Norway would also see combat NATO regarded it as roadway to Murmansk threatening Soviet naval might Soviets hoped for securing points along Norwegian coast hoping project naval power into Atlantic Soviets didn't have many units up north suggesting a defensive stance even Leningrad had just enough forces to monitor Finland Finland and Sweden are modelled neutral here for a reason they had decent armies and rough terrain meant it would be hardly worth attacking them both sides would quickly reinforce Norwegian front Soviet airborne corps was bigger with heavier weapons an average perhaps small NATO push until Soviets sent reinforcements could happen so it amphibious landings could be a countermeasure realistically mountains and snow would act as a wall with Norway seeing very little front movement during most of the war reservists soldiers would be a huge part of the war mobilizing and training them usually took from a week to half a year but European countries closest to the front line traded off some training for much quicker deployment NATO reservists trained up to one week per year Warsaw Pact basically did not train their reservists and so they had to train for a longer period upon mobilization Soviet Union had special reservists category category C units a mix of reservists and active army troops the active troops were the core that maintained equipment and helped train the reservists the Pacific front would be quiet at first Japan all taking US side in these scenarios had a defensive policy it was not prepared to handle large-scale offensive operations the coral islands however would be attacked swiftly Japan would try to retake them from the Soviets with help of the US Marine Corps but any serious action beyond the coral islands would take weeks after US boxes in Soviet fleet and takes control of the Pacific so it Far East region had many troops stationed mostly because of the Chinese threat at the same time those troops would reinforce Vladivostok u.s. lacked numbers for multiple Pacific France but Soviets would be forced to spread their troops over a larger area not knowing where US might strike but let's get back to Europe within days troops from other countries would start arriving in numbers Rapid Reaction and airborne units would be used by both sides especially for establishing bridgeheads rivers in Germany would slow down Soviets quite a bit but the seventh day NATO would narrow down the troop numbers gap to perform both attacks and counter-attacks one needs to know where the enemy is both sides use ample recon assets US had a few semi-permanent satellites with digital cameras Soviets relied on short-lived satellites with film cameras recon was also performed by tactical aircraft both sides were evenly matched in numbers NATO planes had better sensors and endurance Warsaw Pact severely lag in scouting helicopters though both belligerents employed conscripts in large numbers soviets required long service obligations to keep up their numbers the service time doesn't equal more training Soviet training was simpler accentuating mobilization repetitive drills and rigid chain of command NATO armies spent more resources and action war exercises there would be a parity in training levels at first as more of the US and British forces join in NATO would enjoy somewhat better trained forces attacker usually needs more troops to succeed in attack which warsaw pact had but was a bit behind in technology and recon it's offensive formations would be easier to track going through numerous urban centres and forests in Germany even in this nuke free scenario would be quite slow historical examples show defend the territory is seldomly quickly conquered small units may temporarily advance a lot but average base of front movement will be sluggish with factors of our scenario in mind one can extrapolate the following base of advance tens of kilometers the first day then slow down as troop ratio evens out and Soviets move out of their prepared initial positions first week might see a dozen kilometers per day then the pace would fall further as ever longer logistics routes get exposed to counter strikes Soviets had less logistics personnel in their units than NATO they simply did not believe most of their frontline units could survive for long as one unit would get decimated another one would hop in its place defender could count on greater percentage of forces at the front the local numerical difference would thus be smaller than the absolute numbers suggest especially with NATO's edge and sensors and air mobility fleet which would help redistribute and concentrate NATO troops and logistics NATO's edge in heavy lift platforms would mostly be spent in bringing in US reinforcements by 15th day further enforcement's would arrive additional US light infantry brigades and so-called reforge a brigade annual reforge er exercises tested how quickly could US troops reach Germany units would get manned and troops would fly over the Atlantic pre-positioned stocks of their hardware would be waiting for them in Benelux and Germany some equipment would be transported by air and sea three additional brigades would come HEVC lifts assets soviets would bring their forces from Ukraine Belarus Moscow and other areas more and more reservists would get deployed the size of Germany would be an issue compared to the number of troops it is quite small and the firepower present would be much greater with longer reach of sensors and weapons there would not be room for efficient use of all of those troops road congestion would be a serious issue the attacker faces even bigger problems moving supplies for such forces over the roads and units need to rest as well by 30th day of the war Western Europe front would get flooded by troops US and Canada would use cargo ships bringing in soldiers all of the European armies would have reached the front soviets would be bringing rest of their active army units from asian regions in the real world soviets might keep most of those to keep China in check in this scenario half of the Soviet troops will be bound for Europe Atlantic Ocean would mean us would be behind Soviet Union in reinforcements but Soviets had their issues the rail infrastructure was decent up until Central Asia central and eastern regions suffered from low capacity slowing down troop influx NATO's issue would be greater reliance on reservists compared to Warsaw Pact it would blunt their overall training advantage and sizable conquered part of West Germany could not be fully mobilized such reservists units are better suited for defensive warfare as their lack experience in large-scale combined operations Soviet tank numbers will be even higher though as NATO troops reinforced in Germany had less tanks than once initially present Soviets featured tanks in almost every unit exploiting those higher tank numbers would not be easy NATO had edged in guided anti-tank missile platforms it also used more attack helicopters and using them in counter attacks would mean less casualties compared to yet being ambushed over NATO territory NATO's ground-based anti-tank platforms were even greater in numbers and held some technological edge as well theoretical tank inventory totals benefited worse impact by a large margin thanks to Soviet Union u.s. had hard NATO tank numbers or Soviet Union at 80% of Warsaw Pact numbers tanks were roughly comparable in quality except for the newest vehicles from 1980s which were low in numbers Soviets used reactive Armour equalling NATO armor protection penetration was roughly comparable while so its sensors and computers lagged behind they were more vulnerable in night fighting and long-range battles Warsaw Pact had more infantry fighting vehicles as it preferred to field more firepower its vehicles were less protected being lighter as most of them had amphibious capability so they could deal with rivers over Europe NATO vehicles would have had a harder time crossing rivers offensively but is they artillery where NATO was really outgunned artillery would suppress the defenders so tanks could fight through enabling Soviets to move the front line Warsaw Pact had many more towed guns and multiple rocket launchers NATO relied more on battalion level fire support and mortars artilleries power is harder to concentrate when advancing as enemy air power prevents the guns from being as close to the front as they could be all the figures so far are deployable totals not actual frontline figures they don't account for lost equipment a good casualty ratio requires attacker to have an upper hand in many factors Soviet historical loss ratios provide a rough comparison baseline as world war ii went on soviets had even more troops better training and air superiority extrapolation to 1989 with balance of power shown need for speedy advance and lack of soviet air superiority suggests higher losses for Warsaw Pact at all those points up to day 30 actual numbers of troops left in the front would differ from the theoretical total available by day 60 further mass influx of reserve formations would be added to the mix US National Guard and Soviet category C units would make up the brunt of reserves after casualties Soviets would have only a few percent more troops similar number of soldiers and River Rhine to cross would mean European front would come to a standstill other fronts would see little movement Norwegian Balkans and caucus fronts would end in a stalemate due to similar troop numbers and rough terrain Soviets Pacific coastline would be at first impenetrable even after US Navy takes control of the ocean US could only hope for landings in remote areas all fronts would turn into Wars of attrition NATO would slowly mobilize more troops than Warsaw Pact Soviets could use their greater firepower while defending and both sides air forces would be decimated and ineffective within half a year NATO might amass enough troops to move into Germany casualties will be counted in millions by that point NATO countries higher population would help it strategically but troop numbers at the front would be similar except for the Pacific where us would immensely amass enough forces for landings more than Soviets could keep for defense at multiple locations costly coastal battles would decimate u.s. Navy but Kamchatka might eventually be taken short term war production was on Soviet side they produced more stuff in 1989 but in total war economy NATO countries would out produce them within two or three years ammunition stocks were roughly appropriate for both sides but for NATO's pushed back into Germany more would be needed that's because NATO had enough ammo for initial half-a-year munitions production could be expanded in such time frame but tank and plane for reduction would take a year or two NATO country's economy was bigger and better positioned for a long-term war if a ceasefire was somehow established after a year Warsaw Pact was had fared a bit better than NATO it would have suffered more casualties lost almost all of its Air Force and most of its Navy but it would have gained most of Germany Denmark and Austria NATO would have retained half of its Navy and gained a part of Bulgaria while locking in Soviets in the Pacific in coming years NATO would push back into Germany and Romania and open new fronts as shown previously more of the Soviet Pacific coast would be threatened forcing Soviets to redistribute their forces it would all come at the cost of greater casualties and going into European Soviet Union would have been unlikely still it would have amounted to some sort of victory keep in mind 1980s were period when Soviets were weakest had cold war went hot in earlier decades Warsaw Pact might have reached Paris or outright won [Music]

Channel: Binkov's Battlegrounds

Views: 638,218

Rating: 4.6877513 out of 5

Keywords: ww3, world war three, WWIII, cold war, cold war gone hot, soviet union versus NATO, soviets vs nato, soviet military, nato military, army comparison, military comparison, cold war 1989, cold war 1980s

Id: kONMKmWQyE8

Length: 17min 35sec (1055 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 23 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/Daveallen10]

Eugene please...pay your workers and make my game

[u/vonnx]

Wow Stealth17 really turned into a puppet

[u/COMPUTER1313]

Wargame: "ARTY SPAMMER!"

RL: "Oh god no more rocket arty please."

[u/HrcAk47]

lol T-80A "excellent" wtf binkov

T-80A existed in two pieces only.

[u/beyondthepaleogender]

pop military theory is suffering

[u/Bread_n_cheese]

False, Yugo will suddenly unleash all hell with super stealth tanks and unavailable frontal engine machines and the whole world will bow before the might of sekrit dokuments

[u/EUG_MadMat]

1989 is too NATO-biased. 1983 is more even.

THIS is actually "basically Wargame": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciy5R-tLiE (even the soundtrack is excellent! :) )

This documentary can be regarded as Wargame's conception day, since WG's original setting was ... hypothetical WW2 battles. The first tests we made were for "Operation Varsity-gone-hot").

But then we chose to move away from WW2 and looked for another setting. Cold War/Modern seemed the more obvious choices, although quite vague: that's when I showed that documentary around to suggest early 80's that we settled for ABLE ARCHER. And this was the first campaign/units we worked on.

[u/blahdblahh]

FWIW, The US Naval War College gamed this in the 80’s with real military and intelligence personnel, rather than video game players. PACT generally wins, though NATO does better in later years. The report (written in 2004) is an interesting read:

http://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/newport-papers/34/

There is a note somewhere within that expresses doubts about the estimated effectiveness of Soviet higher echelon divisions (less trained, more poorly equipped). Those forces were critical to grinding NATO down in later incarnations of the game. The doubt is based on the result of the first Gulf War. Before that war (I’m old enough to remember) there were serious worries about the casualty level being 10-20k, which jibes with an overestimate.

[u/SwordOfInsanity]

I really do get sick of every assumption suggestion soviet FCS, Optics, Radar, Sensor suits are inferior to their NATO counterparts.

Ignoring that fact soviets pioneered every field of sensor development...