Technically yes, but then you're limited to mechanized and motorized infantry without heavy armor support, and the artillery is going to get left behind, as well as a lot of logistics is done via non-amphibious trucks. That's why bridges are important, for the heavier stuff.
@@michaelthayer5351 actually, the Warsaw Pact military was made so 90%+ of the ground vehicles would have the ability to cross waters even without bridges, as a matter of fact, this goes even for logistics, artillery support, anti-aircraft defense, tanks, and MBTs. (The snorkel tube on the majority of Soviet tanks, you can see it mostly on the turrets) Yes, it is definitely harder and slower thus less effective, as a result though, it was and is better than nothing and something unique that the opposition side did not have in such a number. Some examples of Soviet vehicles with water crossing ability are: BMP family AFVs BTR family AFVs MT-LB universal carriers (this includes even logistic versions) T- tank family Medium/Main battle tanks (from T-54 up to T-80s and T-72s) Gvozdika SPG 9K33 Osa SAMS ... (Some vehicles needed further preparation in order to cross the waters such as the T- tank family vehicles, but most of them were prepared for such events 24/7)
Carpenter Brut - Looking for Tracy Tzu. Товарищ Маузер, вам выпишут Ленинскую премию, если следующее видео будет под Invasion A.D. того же Брюта, тем более, что он сам под него пускал нарезку из "Red Dawn" (если мне не изменяет память), что более чем било по атмосфере. И вообще, больше Наступающего Красного Шторма, хорошего и разного.
@@radiacia_3511 *LAUGHS IN UKRAINE PROPAGANDA* (Ukraine air defence missiles, tanks, artillery, HIMARS, bridges and electric are subjects related to Russian military risks Read all war related doctrines carefully)
@@radiacia_3511 Even the russians are complaining their commanders arent using the doctrine. Theres a few of them who say its in the regulations though noone seems to have read them.
@@lordtritus2261 Haven't seen Russia manage to pull off a single proper combined arms assault during the whole war, and not for the lack of trying. They just fail at coordinating and try to make up for it with mass and tenacity...which usually ends the same way as for late-WW2 Germany.
Normaly only interested in german stuff and completely disinterested in anything russian or soviet, but i'll be damned if this wasnt absolutely a e s t h e t i c. Damn good job.
It is SOVIET army, comrade. If we say is the proletarian way to float, then ANY other way of floating is decadent, capitalist, bourgeois-revisionist floating.
@@taterater1052 Of course not. But NATO would use them first, if convinced a ground attack from the East were imminent. Nato never would, and never will, allow a first blow to come from the East.
@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry Are you talking about Ukraine? Because NATO isn’t sending cruise missiles just like that as a first response over Ukraine. If Russia were to invade NATO on the other hand, they would start with their own cruise missile barrage and launch air attacks first.
@@taterater1052 No, I'm not talking about Ukraine, at present at any rate, although I wouldn't rule out unilateral actions by individual Nato countries (namely the UK, France and Turkey) should their personnel be harmed by a Russian advance into Ukraine. That might then lead to the intervention of the US and the Nato alliance as a whole. This may have something to do with Putin withdrawing 10,000 troops away from the Ukraine border. But I'm sure that was just because the "exercises" had concluded...
О, спасибо. От себя добавлю, что вроде как показалось, заметил кадры то ли из "Родословная подвига" то ли из "Наследники победы". Склоняюсь больше к последнему, можете поправить, если говорю не так.
Actually, this shows the Red Army retreating back to the USSR, as their comrades in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and western Poland had just been vapourized.
In the comments above was said: This video uses newsreel footage from military exercises "Dnepr-67", from film "Such soldier is invincible" about military exercises "West-81" and footage from documentary about soviet airborne troops. Sorry for terrible engrish :)
The combined arms doctrine was all the forces working together to quickly gain large amounts of land. During ww2 up to that point, working with all the branches was hard to do, as each ran thier branch separately and it took much planning to work together. It could be argued that Russia was one of the first modern armies to have standardised items such as vehicles, weapons between the branches
1:36 Accumulating to compel their past and present legacy victorious of the "cobiyate" ("Soviet") while most mumbling to parade the past and present legacy of the "origin" stances of the first monarch government that was dismantled by the revolutionaries party of Late Lenin before the eruption of the world war 2. Field-Marshal Lt. Gen. Wango Yima Dima ( a permanent bloodline biologist and history navigator)
Hardly. They'd have been vapourized the second SACEUR was convinced that an attack was IMMINENT, BEFORE they started to attack. Why do you think the US never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons, especially the use of tactical nukes in Europe? And then there's the French, who would be quite happy to turn everything east of the inter-German border into an irradiated lake of fire the second the Warsaw Pact moved west. And the British would deal with anything left over.
No. It's a video of the Soviet military ESCAPING Eastern Europe, which would be a glowing, green, irradiated wasteland the second SACEUR was convinced the Warsaw Pact was moving west. Ok, THREE seconds after.
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 I'm not saying I'd LIKE it. Nevertheless, that's what would have happened (and might yet happen). And no one could be absolutely certain that a theatre nuclear war in central and eastern Europe west of the actual Soviet border would necessarily have led to a full exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. The Soviets were quite prepared to let Europe burn, and weren't shy about pointing it out to western European leaders. Both the US and the USSR intended to keep any conflict confined to Europe and keep their own homelands out of it for as long as possible. Tactical/theatre nuclear war in Europe has always posed a greater threat than a full scale strategic exchange, both during the Cold War and today.
Absolute shame this footage will never conjure the same feeling as it did just a year ago. Legacy of the Red Army completely ruined by a war hungry dictator
