MC: Lack of WP amphibious capability = NATO bias?

[JDR Dragoon]

The use of snorkeling equipment on WAPA (and NATO, the Leopard 1 could do it as well) tanks was primarily done as an administrative move, after proper scouting (by divers and engineers) of the riverbed and both banks. It is something that might be done in order to alleviate the pressure and congestion on established engineer bridges, which are vulnerable to enemy air attack (both the the bridges and the units waiting to cross the bridge).

This is how an opposed crossing of a major river might be done (from an East-German film on the Waffenbrüderschaft 80 WAPA exercise):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC98UqytUCg
0.38: The WAPA commander decides to attempt a quick crossing of the river before NATOs defences can be strenghtened further. To this puprose the opposite bank is taken under artillery fire and airmobile infantry is used to "bounce" the river.
1.30: Divers are dropped into the river in order to ascertain the passability of the opposite riverbank.
1.41: BMP fighting vehicles cross the river using their inherent amphibious ability.
2.08: Helicopter Gunships in support.
2.22: MiG 23s over the bridgehead (might be airsupport or aircover).
2.30: Amphibious ferries moving up to the riverbank in the background (looks like PTS-M)
2.38: The ace in the hole; soviet paratroppers w. BMDs are dropped in the depth of the NATO defences in order to secure the bridgehead against counterattacks (this is c hronologically supposed to take place before the film starts).

The Youtube clip ends before the river crossing is complete, but the original film ends with the erection of PMP pontoon bridges and the use of ferries to move across tanks and towed artillery (notice: tanks goes last, not first!)

This film is similar (River crossing starts at 1.00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtAHw4NeQoQ

This film shows just how problematic and dangerous snorkeling is (1.25.25 FWD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C99h5hSZwQ