COLD WAR U.S. AIR FORCE SOVIET THREAT ANALYSIS USSR MILITARY CAPABILITIES 54374
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 04. 2017
- Support Our Channel : / periscopefilm
This classic Cold War film shows a U.S. analysis of Soviet capabilities, and draws heavily on a Library of Congress report, most likely the 1977 "Collins Report on American and Soviet Armed Services, Strengths Compared 1970-76" for much of its data. The film may or may not have been seen by Ronald Reagan when he was running for President, but many of the ideas presented within it -- that the USA is falling dangerously behind its principle adversary -- were repeated by Reagan during his election campaign against Jimmy Carter.
Description:
Made during the Brezhnev Era (probably 1979?), this U.S. Air Force film takes a hard look at the Soviet Union's growing military capabilities. It uses a wide variety of footage culled from various Soviet propaganda films, some of which you can also find in the Periscope Film archive. The film examines the USSR's military build-up and its quest to achieve superiority over the West. As the film indicates from 1970 onward the Soviets outspent the USA in defense. The film contains a great deal of footage of Red Square parades and military infrastructure. At 2:20, a look inside a Soviet ICBM launch facility is shown, and the film goes on to show some of the new ICBMs developed by the USSR including MIRV capable ballistic missile systems. At 3:30, land mobile IRBMs are shown with MIRV payloads.
At 3:50, Soviet ballistic missile submarines are shown. At 4:30, some of the Russian Tupelov long-range Bear bombers and Bison (jet powered) bombers are shown. Drawings of the Backfire bomber, a Soviet equivalent of the B-1, is also shown. At 5:50, Soviet strategic defense including air defense is shown including ground early warning and air interceptor sites. the Mach 3 Foxbat aircraft is shown at 6:30, as well as the Flogger at 6:40. At 7:00, Soviet SAM surface to air missiles are shown dedicated to anti-aircraft service, including road transportable systems.
At 7:30, Soviet aircraft are seen being equipped with missiles, and at 8:00 tank maneuvers are seen, including at 8:20 a tank equipped with a snorkel and at 8:30, mobile artillery and rocket launchers as well as tactical missiles and rockets. At 9:00, Soviet SSM systems are seen including the SA-4 designed to intercept incoming aircraft and the SA-7 shoulder-launched system.
At 9:50, the Soviet fleet is shown on exercise, launching surface-to-air and surface-to-surface anti-ship weapons. The Moskva helicopter carrying cruiser is seen, and a drawing of the Kiev class carrier is seen at 10:30. A Soviet VSTOL aircraft, equivalent to a Harrier, is seen at 10:45.
Tactical aviation is seen at 11:00 including the Su-24 Fencer, and Blinder and Badger bombers. At 12:00, a Soviet nuclear test is seen. This is apparently the atomic bomb test at Zone A, Guba Chernaya, Novaya Zemlya on September 21, 1955. a 3.5 kt underwater burst of the "Joe" series (probably Joe-17). Only one ship was sunk by the explosion, a destroyer less than 984 feet from the explosion.)
At 12:30, Soviet transport aircraft including the IL-76 are shown carrying mobile missiles and tanks. At 13:40, the film shows Russian troops operating in chemical warfare suits and discusses the capabilities of the Army to undertake operations in a chemical warfare environment. The film concludes by indicating that the Soviet Union's forces quantitatively outnumber the USA's forces but that qualitatively, it is difficult to say whether they are indeed superior. At 15:00, Soviet design and engineering programs are seen, as the USSR works to improve its capabilities for the future.
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com
Looks to me like a "fund me" commercial from the military.
That is precisely what it is. Later analysis revealed that we had grossly over-estimated Soviet capabilities. For example the reference to all the "engineers" they produced compared with the US was totally bogus---the Soviets counted technicians as "engineers". But it was in the interest of the DoD to hype Soviet power in order to get Congress to appropriate ever larger defense budgets.
@@donwert sorry to disappoint you,but technicians were never labeled engineers there...nor here,where we had an educational system similar to theirs.But I can tell you one thing,electrical technician for Boeing 737 that was schooled here,after getting schooled in Seattle by Boeing got an engineering certificate....Which was worth nothing here nor made much sense(thus worth nothing and t he calling of technician stayed).
So I wouldn't go much about education,because one of the thing they had(far better than our own),was an excellent educational system and were high on the ladder in higher education/college-university level(this was pushed since Stalin's era....and that is why,for instance,they had more doctors per person than USA)
@@donwert Western Naval and Air branches of the US military were technologically superior in the late 70ties in most cases, as for ground forces, not so much, though only elite divisions received state of the art equipment and somewhat comparable training to the West, even second-tier weapons like T-72 (compared to T-80 line) equipping hot climate divisions, conscripts and satellite states were more than a match to anything West could offer before the new generation of Western tanks (M1, Leo2, Chally) arrived.
Tanks, mobile AA defenses, field artillery and multiple generations of well-armed troop transports were all more often superior than just on par when compared to what deployed West at the time, though this was quickly leveled by the US in 80ties for most categories excluding mobile AA defenses as US military budget grew noticeably since the war in Afganistan started, this together with the collapse of Soviet Union is the main reason behind clear technological superiority of the United States military that is nowadays diminishing mostly due to sharing its technology with allies (like F-35) and unwillingly (like F-35:) also with the opposition like China through hacking etc...
Propaganda was harder to see back then
@@IonorReasSpamGenerator The part about Soviet ground forces being superior were simply not true. Now that we have information from the Soviet he know their military was much less capable that it appeared. Their weapons were flawed in many cases and their men were poorly trained. An example of this was many Soviet tankers did not get training because the training would cause the tanks to break down. If that happened then they would have to report the readiness of their unit was compromised.
Thanks for this and unimaginable!
Thanks for shearing
They sure showed us how prepared they are to operate in an environment with nuclear contamination
The idea that the USSR was inferior to the US, only because they believed simple over complex. They had twice as many aircraft, tanks, bullets and men. It would of been a very rough war. But it would of ended with a nuclear weapon going off. Then...all of them
Would that be so bad
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yeah a nuclear exchange would be bad.
@markjulian9113 Yep, Nuclear War and would probably be the end. Humans will live, but sadly, a different world.
seriously... during that time I should believe what he say ...I don't believe America today
I like that high powered fan that cleanses the tank..💨
Reading some of these comments. It really wasnt that we overestimated their capability, it was the fact that for example, for every one division we fielded, the Soviets could field 3 or 4 or more. Same for ICBMs and aircraft. Now as far as their technological stand point yes NATO was ahead of them. Just refer to the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam had Soviet equipment fielded and we the Allies quickly swept them to the side.
Naaah its because alot of saddams forces were not fighting. Alot of them changed clothes to civilian and ran away. Did you read times magazine?
Allot of Saddam’s equipment was 70s or even 60s tech. Compare that to the state of the art late 80s tech of the west plus add the horrible leadership of the Iraqi military and it’s no surprise why coalition forces did as well as they did.
wrong on many levels...First,Sadam also had French(F1 being an example) and others equipment.
2nd Sadam and his generals used their forces pretty bad...For example,they wanted a more or less open tank battle with Allied forces...First wrong thing with that,Soviet tanks were meant to use their lower silhouette and dig in capabilities(as well as ATGMs),as well a s their terrain mobility and ease of maintenance as an advantage...they did not use any of that. Once critical ground observation radars and critical SAM instalations were sabotaged or hit(actually,many were sabotaged and destroyed prior to bombing,thanks to US and UK's special forces...as well as a whole lot of traitors in Iraqi army,to which US own's high ranking official and military journalists wrote about a lot),their air protection was gone and armored vehicles were easy picking for Allied air force(actually,most tanks were destroyed by air force,then artillery...very little by other tanks,thanks to the "brilliant" strategy of Sadam's generals ). Oh,forgot to mention that Iraqi advisors and high ranking officers(some deliberately ) ignored US's capability of drones and satellites...US m ore or less knew where all bigger or important armed formations and equipment was thanks to this and a lot of spies.
Another point of how badly they used their forces was Iraq-Iran war,where they often sent MiG-25s deep into Iran and even sent them to fight ahead with F-14...First,deep into territory meant Iranians already knew they were there(had most advanced ground observation radars of all US allies/former allies) and always had F-14s patroling...MiG-25 was never an air superiority fighter,but interceptor -bomber-recon...The right way to hit F-14s would be to fire from the back and going up ahead with them gave them no chance of doing that.It would be far better to just use MiG-25 for observation and keep them at high alttitudes when rest of air force is attacking them a nd sweep in when the F-14s were busy.F-14 was definitely the best air superiority fighter of its time and sending a intercetor-bomber to fight it head on is pretty opposite of what MiG-25 was meant to do.They should have used them for air defense and for observation/recon and sweep in and hit NEAR borders,not far from them.Due to such strategies,Iraq lost most of its well disciplined and well trained forces in Iraq-Iran war
3rd Moral and equipment...Well,I already said they lost their best forces in Iraqi-Iranian war...And moral wasn't high after that nor were Iraqi's known for discipline(same as Egyptians and few others).As for e quipment,most of Iraqi tanks were T-55s and Chinese upgraded versions...Not T-72s ! As for T-72s,they had M version...which was close t o what MiG-23 MS was...way too downgraded export version.Far weaker armor,not having ERA possibility,lacking ATGM capability and downgrading or not even installing some equipment.Then we come to the point of MiG-21 forming a big p art of their air force,thou they had MiG-23s and Mirage F1s which were good(except early export model of MiG-23,which was basically MiG-21 level o f equipment just with a lot more maintenance and being far more expensive....not to mention early versions lacked in manuverability).As for MiG-29s,they were few compared to Allied air force and they were 9.12 B versions..downgraded radar and lacking E CM.Actually,despite late offers,ECM and EW equipment was sought by Iraqi forces,which is another big problem t hey faced in Gulf War.On top of that,Allied forces were pretty much showing their best equipment and latest fighters,with great EW capable aircraft(most notable and my favorite,F-111 Raven...thou EA-6B was nice touch too)
You cannot use Iraq of 1990 as an example of NATO vs WARPAC. They were nothing alike. Iraq was using 20-40 year old Soviet and Chinese equipment and all export models were downgraded. Iraq also used European equipment, notably a French air defense radar network. WARPAC and the Soviets alone would have beat the shit out of NATO conventionally or using nukes.
I think iraq was a good example of US tech beating the crap out of CCCP garbage. I mean saddam had the MiG29...T72..he was more modern than most believe. The T72 was inferior to the M1A1. Our Fighters killed the Soviet ground control aircraft while they took off. Who showed Iraq how to use this stuff? Saddam wasnt flying em. Russia just had more of everything than NATO.but by the 70s we had advanced and they were trying to catch up.. unfortunately they went broke doing it...they lost. As was the point!
They did succeed in going broke and collapsing
Because of the stupid international ideology and the support of African and South American poor countries? Maybe that's why? International ideologies lead to death and destruction.
I can't even keep track of how much debt the US is in.. how much China owns etc .
The Warsaw pact supposed superiority turned out to be entirely from a defensive viewpoint with the benefit of hindsight.
I would like to see the new version of this report, but against the chinese threat.
Because Trump or what
Because the new non democratic superpower is China.
Did he say Soviets are replacing their Toad Artillery?
With what? Bull Frog Artillery?
Towed artillery.
Lmao ....
With barn tanks “haus” 😂
Ray Giordano, rifled 81mm mortars? I don't think so, and certainly not in US service.
Wow, what does 13:13 look like?? Wonder if it was inspiration.
A Soviet/Warsaw pact vs. NATO conflict would have begun using conventional forces. How long would it have remained so before the first use of Tactical nukes?
about 5-6 days
Within hours, I believe. The best chance NATO had of seriously slowing down Warsaw Pacts ground forces was through the use of its immense air power. Tactical nuclear strikes on NATO air bases in Central Europe would greatly reduce this threat, and the Soviets would’ve gained a massive advantage.
At certain points, mainly the 50s and 60s, Soviet military doctrine did away with close air support for ground forces in favor of using tactical nuclear weapons.
30 min - 3 hours. Unless they used any form of nbc first.
@Somarik Green then why did every plan the Soviets/Warsaw pact had have use of not only tactical nukes ,but biological and chemical warfare at the onset of their invasion ? By the way my brother was very aware of what they had targeted on us in fulda he was on the 1k zone.
People don't realize that the soviets had a few huge qualitative advantages over NATO in Europe by 1985. Specifically the s-300 system. The same model and missile types that they had back in the 1980s are giving a good account of themselves today in Ukraine. That's what kept Russia from overrunning them for the first year of the war. Additionally the mig-31 it's radar (first PESA radar) and it's r-33 and r-73 missiles were greatly superior to the F-15s and F-16s stationed in Europe. They also had the BUK and TOR which are highly mobile very capable AD systems. We would have not had the air superiority we thought we did if it went hot in the 1980s. We always knew we would eventually lose Europe anyway but we thought we could extract a huge price with airpower but that wouldn't have happened.
The Soviet's numerical strength vs USA's technological edge was what made the Cold War so tense for those of us keeping track of such things at the time. It wouldn't have been a contest at all if the USA managed to keep a lid on her secrets and was a lot wiser about weapons procurement.
In some techs USSR was much better than USA
agree
That's true, Sir Edward Heath, especially missile technology. The USSR captured a lot technology from the Germans which gave them an edge, even though the USA got a lot too. The USSR's early development of huge rocket boosters (the USA had none) were just an absurd amount of V-2 engines bundled together.
A lot of Soviet equipment was just plain practical, even if not cutting edge. It also had the advantage of being cheaper to produce. They'd crank out several smooth bore 82 mm mortars to our one rifled bore 81 mm mortar, same with tanks and rifles.
Charlie Franz
Ironically it was the atheism of the Soviets that, in good part, saved us from a war. Atheists are afraid of death, so the atheistic leadership was afraid of risking a nuclear war for that selfish reason, among others.
Both the Bible and scientists agree that the universe had a beginning, so technically most scientists are creationists. For a while atheist scientists thought the universe had always existed until the cosmic background radiation and the universe's expansion discoveries made that theory untenable.
The age of the earth and the universe is a moving target, but without any observers all scientists can do is conjecture about what they think happened. Their theories are elaborate, but when they fall apart they always add another conjecture, usually some sort of catastrophe involving heavenly bodies hitting each other.
The moon, dinosaur-doom, earth's water, organic molecules, mutation/evolution, and why the planet Mercury is so dense involve very lucky strikes. From nothing to everything, from particles to galaxies, from molecules to proteins, DNA, and life the stories require millions of industrial strength miracles.
On the other hand evolutionary thinking has caused many false conclusions, the most major (to me) being "90% of DNA is junk DNA since it doesn't contain code used for making proteins and so must be left over from evolutionary processes and ancient viruses." We know now it is all vital and that DNA attempts to prevent mutations in many ways.
I think the Re-pubic-ans and the Demon-rats are both rotten and not at all two parties, rather they are one entity working towards a common goal. They are there to give the illusion of choice and representation to enough of the population to keep the status quo.
Never the less, it is super-ironic blaming the Republicans for hindering defense technology when the Democrats fought a two prong attack on the defense industries by cutting every defense contract they could and mightily aiding Soviet espionage. Republicans on the other hand fell to corruption from the defense lobbies.
What is really also very ironic is claiming Christians and Jews cannot do science. Sir Isaac Newton is the father of physics and devoted Christian. Matthew Fontaine Maury charted ocean currents based on his faith in the truth of the Bible saying there were ocean currents, "paths in seas." The list of Christian and Jewish scientists is very long.
In relation to this film, my late father is a Christian and he worked in the defense industries for fifty years as an electronics engineer. His beliefs didn't harm his career and through his abilities he was promoted to work on very complex projects. I think his biggest single accomplishment was aborting a launch that he alone was convinced would fail horribly.
He took the heat (NOBODY was pleased with his decision) and sweated it out as the suspected critical equipment was tested and promptly failed. He saved the $100 million missile and the USAF even gave him a small percentage as a bonus.
This happened shortly after the Challenger disaster and engineers were told to stick to their guns if they think a launch should be aborted.
Ray Giordano: Your logic has a flaw; how is fear of death, (and it's subsequent prevention) automatically selfish?
The music...
The Russians/Soviets were keeping pace with the west through sheer numbers, while the West kept up by always staying one step ahead in technology. So there was a sense of balace.
man, we are phucked if we go to war with the Soviet Union
Soviets intentionally produced inferior easy to manufacture equipment because their doctrine preffered vast numbers over high quality. But all this expediture bankrupted them.
Agree with the first part, not he second part. The US failed in Afghanistan and in general in a prolong war are due to the expenditure of sustaining our sophisticated war machine, even with our super economic power. It saves lives though. The Soviet doctrine was based on WWII and other wars that simpler weapons are easy and cheap to produce in mass. Their communist economic policies along with their isolation are what brought them down.
It was the 30% plus investment in defence spending that was the main driver in the collapse of the Soviet Union. That preponderance on military hardware meant insufficient was available for adequate housing, and cosmetic goods. The interminable queues at state stores with largely bare shelves for basics at inflated prices remains the abiding image of the workers’ paradise. It was only a matter of time before communism and the Soviet empire imploded. But too long …
Gorbachev had to appoint a top level official to resolve the persistent problem, bitterly resented by Soviet women, of there not being enough pantyhose. Like zero US presidents ever had to worry about this.
Very good aRussia
At 10:20 , the Moskva is mentioned, which was recently sunk by Ukraine.
Not that Moskva he was talking about Moskva Helicopter carrier.
@@paulhickie6974 Right. It's confusing because the Soviets insisted on calling all their aircraft carriers "cruisers" to get around a weird treaty that let Turkey block any battleships or aircraft carriers from crossing the Turkish Straits to enter or leave the Black Sea. So the Moskva class helicopter carriers were called "cruisers" even though they weren't cruisers, and the Slava class cruisers (one of which was called Moskva) were actual cruisers.
Great parade military!
I wonder if anyone has fact-checked anything in this vid ?
🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋
The Pentagon always overestimated the ability of Soviet weapons, just as it continues to overestimate the abilities of Russian weapons. Doing so ensures funding for programs to counter the supposed superior Russian weapons. The US claimed the Mig-25 was far superior to anything the US had. This led to US Air Force getting the F-15. It turned out that the MIG was junk, while the F-15 far out-classed anything the Russians built. The F-15 is still better than anything the Russians have, even the Felon, which has turned out to only be good at performing at air shows.
This was some awesome scare mongering!
LOL back then so many ppl like you kept claiming that these "fake" analysis were scare-mongering tactics used by the DOD/military-industrial-complex to line its pockets with more funding...until the DOD's analysis turned out to be completely true when the Iron Curtain fell and the West was finally able to test many Soviet hardware. They found out that Soviet weapons were very good--some even superior to their counterparts in the West.
Everything in there is true. And it leaves out a lot of even more advanced Soviet stuff like the Tu-160 "Blackjack" bomber (a bigger version of our B-1 Lancer), the MiG-29 Fulcrum (their answer to our F-16 and which could lock on to anything the pilot looked at, erasing the need to haul the plane over to point its nose at a target), the Su-27 Flanker (their answer to our F-15 Eagle), and much more.
@@redDL89 And yet this "superior" technology is getting its ass handed to it by our last generation stuff.
stop the cap
The Soviets needed this level of military just for defense purposes and as analysts predicted it eventually broke their economy. Russia now continues to needlessly fund military expansion to the detriment of their economy, society and to that of others.
@Somarik Green Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Syria, Crimea, Afghanistan - Hearts and Minds are never won with a gun
@@sichere In Chechnya it was foreign jihadis funded by Saudis and CIA. Putin gave Bush Jr the evidence of this. Georgia and Ukraine were as a result of CIA coups and provocations. Hungary and Czech are ancient history - both countries have very friendly relations with Russia now. In Syria Russia helped save the country from Saudi and US funded terrorists, and in Afghanistan, the USSR was ASKED to help by the legitimate govt to repel a US funded jihadi insurgency. The US openly admits its involvement in this. Crimea was and is Russian. A referendum proved it...unlike in Kosovo where in Serbia there was no referendum or democracy to legitimize its break away - just the threat of NATO bombing. Clearly your schools failed you.
@@Internetbutthurt- czcams.com/video/DKmfHOPf3YU/video.html
@@Internetbutthurt is that why in Afghanistan spetnaz troops raided the presidential palace and killed the legitimate leader ,his family, then installed a puppet ? Ya ok buddy. If you want you can find former spetnaz talking about that mission here on yt .
@@Internetbutthurt well you apparently suck at your job , didn't predict the break up of the Soviet union now did ya ? Also the Russian government admitted it , how do you think these people ,including high ranking officers were free to discuss it ? It's fairly well known and discussed in many documentaries on the subject.
This was all a hoax. The soviets were good poker players but did not have the advantage in numbers or superiority
Yep
They’re still playing the same game, total clown show!
DOD propaganda, aims at home front lol😎
Abdullah Al Nahyan
Not really. A recent declassified Dod report from the 80s talked about the Soviets closing the technological gap and predicted that the Soviets would overtake the U.S. by the 2000s. I’ll link the report as soon as I find it.
The most effective propaganda is the truth. and literally every word in that video was true
Produced by Boeing and McDonald Douglas who want your money. And still do.
Everything in the video was true
McDonald did? Those bastards😂😂😂
Come back the USSR, the world needs you to fight back US hegamony!
And the Warsaw Pact
Hahaha yeah this made me laugh.
It’s spelled “hegemony”, dumbfukc
The USSR had a lot more integrity and honor than the current criminal kingdom
This aged badly