John Kettler

Sgt.Squarehead, Oh, that would be the link I noticed, meant to check out, then got distracted and forgot! As I said, I've not played the game, but the various incidents in the film seem to offer rich gaming possibilities. Regards, John Kettler

Having never played the game (no Mac version) but having watched a bunch of gameplay videos, I think, given the similarity of terrain and such, that perhaps something like what's depicted in this marvelous war pic could be done in CMA. Believe all the needed weaponry is in the game, and the modders might want to reskin the Russians into Border Guards uniforms. Regardless, it's a great movie that's really well done. Welcome to Tajikistan, where the Border Guards try to hold the line while civil war rages! Russian with English subtitles. Would post link, but YT blocked that option! Regards, John Kettler

No doubt. Circa 1980, got to visit my brother at the National Training Center, where they had a bunch of Soviet built weaponry, including a T-55, a T-62, a BMP-1 and an MTLB. For me, at 5'11", the T-55 was workable because of turret height and layout, but the T-62 was a nightmare, including no headroom and aa remarkable setup seemed designed to bruise and contuse the crew at every turn, including some sort of square railing with knife sharp edges and ends seemingly designed to tear great chunks of flesh from the crew--regardless of tanker coveralls. The back end of the BMP-1 was open, so I gave that a go and failed. Was way too tall when seated. Was barely able to get into the also open back of the MTLB. Decades later, I got to clamber into the back of an ex-Czech Mi-24, and that was quite the contortionist routine to get in and out, too. Given these experiences, and based on other video I've seen, the BMDs 1 and 2 for sure must be horrible to ride in, even by BMP standards. In this video, made by the manufacturer, we can see lots more of the external riding going on, coupled with a whopping few second clip of infantry emerging from BMD-2s in combat line. And here we have a somewhat vertiginous look at the BMD-2 inside and out. Talk about tight confines! Regards, John Kettler

It's called sovietmilitarystuff and is awash in pics and purchasable items, including Soviet period bronze busts! You, too, can have Marshal Zhukov watching over you (Stalin and Lenin being a bit much)! Can't post the link, because it's a commercial site. Regards, JOhn Kettler

Found this most informative and enlightening 2017 article while researching a related matter. It's primarily about BMDs from both sides in combat, but gets into other areas of interest, such as operating with troops on top, cage armor and other expedients. There is also an account of an IFV vs tank clash which bears at least some resemblance to our Bradley vs T-72 engagements in Iraq. https://warisboring.com/airborne-fighting-vehicles-rolled-through-hell-in-eastern-ukraine/ Regards, John Kettler

Sgt.Squarehead, BMD-2s are in the movie, but they aren't involved in the mountaintop fighting. Interestingly, though, the VDV guys ride around on top of them, just like we've seen from Afghanistan and the invasion of Georgia. The pic was shot in Georgia. https://warisboring.com/the-ussrs-air-dropped-fighting-vehicles-tore-through-cold-war-conflicts/ Regards, John Kettler

Peter Samsonov, the guy who created and runs the near priceless Tank Archive, has just released a book called Red Army Shermans. If this is a sample of what's in the book, every treadhead out there should buy a copy! If this isn't useful for CMRT, then it will be when the CM game calendar moves far enough backward to cover Kursk. Article has several pics, a map, tank recognition charts, armor protection vs KwK 40 and even one showing M4A2 (75 mm) penetration vs Tiger 1. https://warspot.net/432-shermans-at-kursk Regards, John Kettler

He took the name as a nom de plume because he greatly respected him. Suvorov/Rezun is a former GRU major who defected to the British. Before joining the GRU, he was successively a Motorized Rifle Company commander and Tank Company commander. While in the GRU, he worked in the Carpathian Military District Intelligence Department and also as a SpetsNaz Training Officer. He authored a stack of books on the Soviet Army, Spetsnaz, the GRU, but is highly controversial in some circles for his (Soviet archive documented) views on the case that Stalin was going to preemptively invade Germany. Nevertheless, in 2009 he was invited to come to the United States Naval Academy Eurasia Forum and present his case, which I thought he did very well. Suvorov/Rezun's books on Soviet military and intelligence matters were so important they formed part of my work library. Regards, John Kettler

Mods, Have no way to excise colorful language in BK-354M item. Sorry. Rice, I gave the source and where and when I heard it. Dr. Joseph Backofen told us this at the Soviet Threat Technology Conference in 1965 held at the CIA under the auspices of the prestigious AIAA (American Institute of Aviation and Astronautics). Here's some info on Dr. Backofen. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734743X99000585 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813009284 Jospeh Backofen was a a Co-Inventor of a special kind of shaped charge with liquid follow through. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4955939A/en Dr. Backofen was the CIA's SME for Soviet and Warsaw Pact shaped charge weaponry. He was also the person who told us about the major advantages the Soviets had over us in explosives, information subsequently published in Soviet Military Power. He informed us of the as much as 40% penetration delta between static testing of Soviet cannon launched HEAT projectiles and dynamic testing at typical impact speeds. At some point, if I happen to think about it, I'll post on FB some SSN hidden docs showing I did work at Hughes and Rockwell, did work on ERIS, etc. If you don't want to believe what I tell you after that, then I shall continue to post on what I do know, but you're welcome not to read it. Regards, John Kettler P.S. Am on FB under my own name and Twitter under at John_Kettler. Should also tell you that brother George and I visited Michael Emrys at his home in Washington state coming up on roughly two years ago. Michael subsequently posted on the Forums about our visit. If you can find him, the CMer whose handle is/was Actor had me over to his house as part of a large Beta Test for, successively, CMBB and CMAK.

Combatintman, Freely concede your knowledge of BAOR is vast compared to mine. As I said, it wasn't my direct concern at all. Nor have I ever served, much less been in MI. Vietnam would've been my war, and it ended shortly after I registered for the draft. Told you how I got crossed up on Matsimus and owned my mistakes in that regard. Conflation post-TBI has been and still is an intermittent but significant problem, as is recalling what I read and where. Am very impressed with your research skills. Whether people believe me or not ref my credentials is on them. Have provided a wealth of material and offered to present such physical evidence as I have available. As for your first point, aircraft design was an easy example to present to illustrate my point. Let's talk tanks instead. Soviet and, later, Russian tanks are designed to operate on the steppe. where every additional inch of height over the bare minimum to make the AFV effective on the steppe increases the chance of being seen, engaged and killed. but US tanks have to be able to operate worldwide. As a result of the differing operational requirements, the opposition's tanks are significantly lower than ours, but at a roughly factor of 2 disadvantage in gun depression angle, which translates directly into likelihood of being spotted, engaged and killed. Their tanks are much lighter than ours because of the constraints Russian narrow gauge railroads, especially their tunnels. Lighter weight is also because of reduced armor envelope, in turn made possible by the smaller stature of their crews. Believe the height requirement during the Cold War, maybe even now, was 5'5" (10th percentile for height of US man). By contrast, the US tanks are designed for at least a 90th percentile man (6"), making for a much bigger tank. Russian tank cannon are designed for expected combat range, and as I've several times explained, drawing on US Army and DIA documents, cold War doctrine prescribed platoon volleys or even company volleys to deal with targets outside the nominal cannon range for each type. The AT-8 and other CLGMs were designed, not for tank duels but to reliably deal with ATGM platforms both on the ground and on helicopters in the air. By contrast, US guns, FC and training allowed (it seemed before we understood how inadequate the L7 was) effective tank engagements out to roughly twice that of the Russians prior to the AT-8 and siblings. The Vietnam War provides several examples of this in action, for the ARVN , using M47s ,M48s and US training and ammo, butchered NVA armor (including T-54s and T-55s) at such long range panicked intercepted radio traffic that the tankers thought they were in a minefield. We design our tanks for 20+ year heavy use service lives, but the Russians designs are based on very short service life (24 hours?) once committed to battle and little use before then. US tests found that overall, their tanks (M60A1 vs T-62) were far less durable, had shorter MTBF, lower readiness rates, shorter lived tracks, dramatically lower EFC on the main gun, etc. Unsurprisingly, the much simpler and lighter T-62 was way cheaper, by around, I believe, a factor of 3. Read the whole analysis in Journal of Defense Research, in a study which also compared the F-4 with a MiG-21. Overall, you have two radically different tanks or aircraft based on operational environment, expected service life, concept of war and expected casualties, role, sensors, weapons, expected quarry, industrial base, etc. The new Russian AFVs represent a radical departure from previous designs in some ways, which I believe are the product of a shift to expensive higher quality, greater capability AFVs, AFVs which whether they see combat or not, WILL be competing against advanced weaponry from many nations in the global weapon marketplace. Would note, though, that the T-14 Armata tank has thermals, not of Russian design and manufacture, but the license built Thales Catherine system, and initially, the Russians had to have the French deal with repairs, if memory serves. Regards, John Kettler

Combatintman, Am all in favor of having more data and much appreciate what you've provided. Would note that it's extremely dangerous to mirror image Soviet collection tasking with US/NATO practice, just as it was even more dangerous to model Soviet weaponry on best US/Western design practices. What concerned us certainly does have significant overlap with what concerned them, but it's also true that what they collect is driven by their world view and the particular needs of their own military, intelligence and defense production apparatus. Consider, for example, the MiG-25/FOXBAT, which we shockingly found was made mostly of steel, had titanium only when and where needed, and was only flush riveted where that was needed. Since we thought US aircraft design practice was being followed, we were shocked to discover the aircraft was a massive beast powered by two simply gigantic jet engines, with thrust eclipsing anything we had operational on a fighter or interceptor back then. Know this because I read the roughly 3 inch thich SECRET//NOFORN/WNINTEL REL UK/CA/AU/NZ technical exploitation report myself. Where we started with a clean sheet of paper, they did aircraft design by cookbook, if you will, choosing from an array of proven component designs and hardware, creating other items only as needed. Thus, you'd have, say, three approved inlet designs to choose from. two landing gear configurations, etc. Rice, Almost everything I did during my 11+ years was classified, so I have little to show on that score. They don't, after all, let you take either classified or Company Proprietary documents with you when you leave. Had to comprehensively account for every single page of classified material, and company security directly inspected every single piece of paper in the two boxes containing my personal stuff. Can show you copies of my hiring notices at both Hughes (also my promotion notice there after graduating from college while working full time) and Rockwell, but neither says a thing about Soviet Threat Analyst because I was tied to an already existing job classification, so what my actual job was doesn't reflect in the documents. Have an award made to those at Rockwell NAAO Operation Analysis Department who helped develop ERIS, an ATBM/ABM system. Worked threat characterization and also came up with a way to launch ERIS from US Navy VLS (Vertical Launcher System). The award clearly shows me. Don't recall that it was a proposal effort, so we may've been a subcontractor to Lockheed. I may still have an unclassified Assault Breaker briefing I worked on at Hughes and perhaps a conceptual study of defending US armor against the AS-15/Kedge through seeker deception. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/eris.html Other than the above, perhaps in conjunction with meeting people I worked with who know what I did then, I don't know what to tell or show you. Have been on the CM Forums since 2000, during which I've many times posted--at length--on what the true armor-antiarmor and other situations were doing the Cold War. I know what I did, People in the intelligence community know what I did, as do military personnel and DOD personnel who were present at my threat briefings. My first boss in the Operations Analysis Department of Highes Missile Systems Group was John Green. John Green's career included RAND and China Lake. His deputy and later successor was David Spencer, who held a doctorate in Operations Research from Harvard. Our weaponeer was Robert "Bob" Martin, a physicist. Don't know much about his career, though I do know he and John Green had worked together elsewhere. Our TOW expert was US Army Retired LT COL Robert "Bob"Siegrist" who'd been instrumental while serving in bringing in TOW to the Army. He was a battlefield commission during WW II and was slated as an Assistant Division Commander role if the balloon went up. Greg Latta ran Air Defense, George Hahn helmed Strike, and Ron Dawson ran FAD (Fleet Air Defense). Later, we got a very senior guy named Don Kephart who apparently was a nuclear targeting specialist at RAND. Used to talk about the MMP (Moscow Missile Package) and even gave me a nuclear weapon kill probability whiz wheel like this one. On a more prosaic note, I had one of these, too. Used to read this, too. The issues I saw were issued by The Jasons (our US mega brain trust) and published by Mitre Corporation. https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2010/07/jdr/ At Rockwell NAAO Operations Analysis, the department manager was Steve Hostetler. My section heads were, successively, Tony Ortega and Tom Gurbach. Dave Toliver was the other part of the AC-130U threat team. The physicist who handled the esoteric laser stuff on NASP was a Cornishman named Nigel Thomas--who had eidetic memory and used to brief eyes closed--opening them only long enough to make sure the right slide was visible. NASP Proect Leader for OA was Jim Kirkpatrick. Dave Toliver was also on NASP. The Director of Hypersonic Research was Marine Reserve major and fighter pilot Don Zinn, and the program manager was Ed Brown. The FSTC branch chief I mentioned was Tom D'Isepo (Target Signature and Image Metrology). The CIA conduit I mentioned was in the OSWR (Office of Scientific and Weapons Research) at the CIA. Met him briefly and then was sent outside the office for the several hours of briefing my colleague got. Apparently, there was a LOT of ground for them to cover, for I spent the entire next day exploring the Washington Mall while my colleague was at Langley! Regards, John Kettler

Don't claim to know how to depict this in CM, if it can be depicted in CM, but Breakthrough is all about the Russians in the Second Chechen War fighting a highly outnumbered desperate battle from a hilltop blocking position trying to hold off an enormous force of Chechen and other fighters while waiting for reinforcements. This great war movie draws upon real events in the iconic 2000 Battle of Height 776. It's in Russian with English subtitles. Would post link, but YT won't allow this one to be embedded. Channel is called Epic Media English. Combat action is intense, and a wide variety of weaponry is shown. There's some excellent scenes of BMD-2s shot mostly from close range. Regards, John Kettler

Shall be happy to discuss Suvorov/Rezun as an intelligence officer and spook, but I can't do it here without getting into trouble. Please PM me if you'd like to know more. But for now, please know that a great deal of what Suvorov/Rezun said about Soviet organization and capabilities wound up almost verbatim in Soviet Military Power, which should tell you something right there about his credibility. Would also note that our SECRET level SAM launcher counts wound up matching his numbers, too. This means that had there been a war, we would've been facing a far more capable and robust air defense than we expected to encounter. Ref the Chieftain situation, I would note that the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia from the Carpathian Military District and that Suvorov/Rezun's company was the veritable tip of the spear in that invasion. Since in this period the British Chieftains of the BAOR were the most potent tanks NATO had, iy makes sense to me that the Carpathian Military District would be very concerned at what those tanks might do if sited so as to be able to intervene against the Red Army invasion force from the Carpathian Military District. Recall the Soviets back in 1968 considered it highly likely NATO would intervene to stop the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Consequently, this is why I believe so much emphasis was attached to knowing which direction those Chieftains were going on a certain bridge. Suvorov/Rezun says he sent a rocket to the agents responsible for that incomplete report. Regards, John Kettler

Thought I'd covered my credentials many times before, over a period of 21 years, but shall do so again. Joined Hughes Aircraft Company, Missile Systems Group (now part of Raytheon) on Valentine's Day 1978 and worked there through September 12, 1984. My job was Soviet Threat Analyst, but my official HR slot was Mathematical Analyst. When I got my degree, I got the even more giggle inducing slot of Statistical Analyst. Was the only full time Threat guy in Operations Analysis. Worked threat for Phoenix, AMRAAM, Maverick,TOW, ASSAULT BREAKER, WASP, Anti-SUAWACS Missile, Roland, etc. Anything and everything Soviet and Warsaw Pact weapon and capabilities, current or projected, fell under my ambit, be they hand grenades or ASATs. Worked hand in hand with our weaponeer, a physicist, and an electronics engineer who had a CIA sponsor (whom I met personally at Langley) and functioned as a back door on up to date threat info. The latter individual and I put the highly accomplished program manager for that missile into a state of white as copier paper shock when we showed him conclusively his missile would NOT be able to home in on the SUAWACS radar because the programmed frequencies were wrong. Not only did I support the work in my department but in other departments, and part of my job involved working on new applications and capabilities (such as a special SEAD version of the Maverick) for various Hughes Missile Systems Group weapons. Was also consulted by Dr. Hans Maurer, a Project Paperclip scientist who was our CTO. The result of one of those discussions was the Wireless TOW, which grew out of discussions of guidance mechanisms on several Soviet ATGMs. During my time at Hughes, I briefed an array of customers, including a branch chief of the US Army Foreign Sciece and Technology Center (FSTC). Twice he tried to hire me, only to be done in by hiring freezes. While at Hughes my investigations led to discovering critical vulnerabilities on one of our missiles. This got me shut down both by Hughes management and the customer. Was later quietly informed a fix had been produced and implemented. Started at North American Rockwell, North American Aerospace Operations on September 24, 1989. Was originally hired to be a Member of the Technical Staff I, Soviet Strategic Analyst, but was done in by a reorganization while I was waiting to come in. Thus, wound up doing nauseating (ever seen a pic of a one foot diameter blister on someone or faced a nightmare decontamination program in which a CW gassed aircraft keeps outgassing for hours even after decontamination?) Operation and Supportability work on NBC and laser protection for aircraft and crew of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter), the program that eventually yielded the F-22. Worked B1-B Conventional Capabilities, B1-B SA-10 Escape, provided detailed analyses of the composition of Soviet EW/GCI sites, radar types, operating frequencies, etc. Worked on a Stealth CAS (A-10 replacement). This was a SAP (Special Access Program). Created and maintained a comprehensive bed down of Soviet and East German aircraft in East Germany, together with all fixed SAMs, filter centers, hardened HQs, etc. As part of a two-man group (the other being Air America's former threat briefer), created a Central American threat laydown for the AC-130U Spooky so dead on that we were told by the customer that validating it would exceed program security level! Was heavily involved with the MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft), a program which eventually yielded the super capable P-8 Poseidon. One of my major activities a Rockwell was Soviet Threat Analysis for the military versions of the NASP (National AeroSpace Plane) and its endoatmospheric hypersonic versions. The program was an acknowledged SAP, and I held all four clearance levels for these craft. My work involved not just the direct threat side of things, including such concerns as Spetsnaz attacks while on the ground but the Soviet perception side, to include declaratory policy and doctrine. Worked in tandem, chiefly with a physicist who dealt with the nitty gritty aspects of lasers and particle beams weapons. While at Rockwell, was a co-founder of the DEWWG (Directed Energy Weapons Working Group), with particular concerns about the rapidly emerging HPM (High Power Microwave) threat. Sounded the alarm, too about Soviet hyperdimensional Tesla type weaponry (AKA scalar weapons) and associated breakthrough science called energetics. The NASP Program Manager, Ed Brown (who earlier in his career helmed the X-15 program), told me that my threat briefings were the "long pole in the tent" for quarterly reviews. If they went well, we were good. Must've known what I was doing, because some lateral thinking I did about ways to hide the NASP once in orbit unmasked a black program when a pair of CIA types popped out of their chairs, demanded to know my source and blurted in front of about 100 people that this was compartmented information. That briefing was so well receivved by the various generals, admirals and suits that it's fair to say they wore my arm out shaking my hand afterwards. Somewhere in all this activity I was promoted to MTS II, and by the time I left, my health in ruins from hyper stress on the job (long story), was MTS III promotable and was offered my own projects and project team. By then, it was way too late. Subsequent to leaving Rockwell on June 20, 1989, in the early 1990s I became lead researcher for The Empowerment Project's blockbuster documentary The Panama Deception, which won a stack of fim awards, including an Oscar for Best Documentary. My research activities covered the history of the US in Panama, US covert and overt activities to create an excuse for military intervention, US awareness of and involvement in narcotrafficking and money laundering in Panama, but the real discovery, in terms of evaluating what weapons were employed and what they did, was uncovering multiple evidences that the US combat tested several varieties of HEL (High Energy Laser) weapons there, as well as its use of some sort of chemical weapon. I have no doubt I left out a few things, but it should nevertheless show the depth and breadth of my 11+ year Soviet Threat Analyst career, as well as use of my intelligence analyst capabilities after leaving military aerospace and classified defense work. Suggest, too, that a search under my name might unearth other interesting items, but make sure you don't get the John Kettler who's an air conditioning engineer! Regards, John Kettler

Combatintman, That chart is a head-breaker for me visually, I don't read Russian, and have never known of Feskov until it came up via the link I posted. Ref Red Army generals' attitude toward and respect for BAOR, there were several times I saw such things mentioned, but offhand, the one that comes to mind was in Suvorov/Rezun Inside Soviet Military Intelligence. He was in the GRU following being, successively, the CO of a Motorized Rifle Company (BTR-60PB) and a Tank Company (T-55). Was handpicked to work in the Carpathian Military District HQ. Believe the combination of British professionalism, strong training, excellent gunnery and big nasty Chieftains, whose every movement was reported by agents of the Carpathian Military District, were responsible for that respect/concern. Regards, JOhn Kettler

The link works, and here's the pic again. One of my CoC colleagues notes there's a BRen gunner just out of frame, but. not the business end of his Bren. Regards, John Kettler

Sadly for us, Part 3 is not yet done, so we all have is a trailer. Regards, John Kettler

Already intense combat at the Donetsk Airport escalates, and it's altogether too "You are there" to be remotely comfortable viewing. Much of the footage is blurry, jumpy or both, but what do you expect when fire is pouring in, the building is on fire, etc.? Nor is it just the Donetsk Airport where battle rages. Regards, John Kettler

Here is a first rate, unflinching, and intimate look at the 93rd Brigade alerted and called into action, for it was the most combat ready formation available. Doc has excellent extensive footage and extensive informative interviews with the Ukrainians in the fight. There are many actions in here that would easily fit CMBS, too--if you ignore later actions at the Donetsk Airport deep into the fight there where five divisions' worth of Russian mortar, artillery and rocket fire rained down daily (15,000 rounds/day). By contrast, when the North Vietnamese Army did long range bombardment of An Loc, South Vietnam, the world was shocked by 1200 rounds/day. The interviewees are easily understood, and there is full English VO, too. Titles keep the viewer oriented as to the date and battalion being discussed. Supporting graphic is a large computerized map put up to show who was where, course of action, etc. Part 1 Regards, John Kettler

Holy cats--and that's just from a quick scroll down! Looks like some deep and prolonged reading awaits. Regards, John Kettler

Here's the OOB. For the time period of CMCW, it was indeed mighty--3 x Guards Tank Division and 1 x Motorized Rifle Division. Core force only! https://www.liquisearch.com/3rd_shock_army/service_in_germany/cold_war_order_of_battle Cold War Order of Battle For most of the 1970s and 1980s the Army was composed from the following major formations: 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division 12th Guards Tank Division 47th Guards Tank Division 207th Motor Rifle Division (not a Guards unit according to Feskov et al.) Here's what else was in the mix via subordination to 3rd Shock Army. From above link. Formation and units subordinate to Army 792 individual company of special purpose (SpetsNaz) (Cochstedt) 115 individual tank regiment (Quedlinburg) 899 independent landing-assault battalion (Burg) 232 independent battalion of protection and security (Magdeburg) 178 individual helicopter regiment (Borstel) 440 individual helicopter regiment (Borstel) 296 independent helicopter squadron (Mahlwinkel) 36 missile brigade (Altengrabow) 448 missile brigade (Born) 49 antiaircraft-missile brigade (Planken) 385 artillery brigade (Planken) 451 individual anti-tank artillery battalion (Magdeburg) 254 individual radio-technical regiment (Cochstedt) 15 independent radio-technical battalion (Magdeburg) 10 independent battalion radio-electronic combat (Stahnsdorf) 105 independent communications regiment (Magdeburg) 457 independent radio relay cable battalion (Magdeurg) 323 independent engineer battalion (Magdeburg) 36 Łódź engineer pontoon bridge regiment (Magdeburg) 2 independent battalion of chemical protection (Burg) 42 brigades of materiel supply (Magdeburg) 298 independent equip. maint. and recovery battalion (Schönebeck) 302 independent equip. maint. and recovery battalion (Schönebeck) (?) military hospital (Magdeburg) I claim no particular expertise ref the BAOR, because it wasn't my principal area of concern. There was more than enough to deal with in the US sectors. The exception was aerial warfare, for which I had a huge two panel map of East Germany with every single Soviet and East German air base on it, together with the aircraft breakdown, every fixed SAM site, every air defense HQ and major command center on it. Regards, John Kettler

And where would we be without a discussion of that Red Army staple--the Meeting Engagement? Here's is the course on that, as told through a notion pre-battle brief by the Komandir of the lead MRB of the entire Soviet offensive. Not only is there a thorough discussion delivered through the Socratic method, but the actions of the MRB Advance Guard are placed into a much broader context of MRR and MRD. The tactical doctrine and drills I once could recite instantly are all there, prime fodder, might I add, for scenario designers. Per the credits, though an official US Army AV product, the British did this training film. Regards, John Kettler

Clearly, after looking at fresh info, he wasn't in the BAOR, but the key to this, I believe, is how strongly he identified with how things would've been to be living in the path of, and having to fight, the mighty 3rd Shock Army. His reactions are genuine, and he strongly relates to the plight of his unit, 7th Armored Division, had the balloon gone up in the FRG. The 7th Armored Division was, for many years, part of the BAOR. My sense of it now is that he never really had any sort of handle on how scary things were doing the Cold War for the units directly in the path of the expected Soviet onslaught. What he learned really rattled his cage. Would it comfort him to know that the BAOR was the old NATO ground unit that truly concerned Red Army planners? https://www.baor-locations.org/historybaor.aspx.html Regards, John Kettler

At 1:49 here, he says he left the British Army in 2011. The video is from 2018, and when he made it, he was training to be a 105 mm howitzer gunner reservist in the Canadian Army. And here, he shows himself in Afghanistan, apparently as the Driver of a Warrior IFV. Outfit? 7th Armoured Division! Regards, John Kettler

That's not what he says. He talks like someone who was right on the path of Third Shock Army and, I believe, specifically mentioned being near Hanover. The Hanover Autobahn would've been the axis of advance for Third Shock Army. Regards, John. Kettler