A wide variety of Soviet equipment of the Cold War era was described as amphibious but, in reality, its main purpose was to facilitate river crossing.
During this time, the game plan (as I understood it) was to slow down the Soviet forces so that it took them 2-3 weeks to reach the North Sea/English Channel allowing time for "other means" of defence or politicising to be adopted.
Had the Soviets actually reached the Channel coast, could they have immediately mounted a sea-bourne invasion of Britain with their amphibious armour?
Or would the waves have been too much? Could they carry enough fuel for the crossing and a limited period of engagement on British soil?
Or would they have had to rely on assault ships to deliver the armour to within striking distance? And were such assault ships available in adequate numbers to make invasion a possibility?
Or did we, Britain, (as an insular nation), worry about something that would stand a snowball's chance in Hell of happening?
During this time, the game plan (as I understood it) was to slow down the Soviet forces so that it took them 2-3 weeks to reach the North Sea/English Channel allowing time for "other means" of defence or politicising to be adopted.
Had the Soviets actually reached the Channel coast, could they have immediately mounted a sea-bourne invasion of Britain with their amphibious armour?
Or would the waves have been too much? Could they carry enough fuel for the crossing and a limited period of engagement on British soil?
Or would they have had to rely on assault ships to deliver the armour to within striking distance? And were such assault ships available in adequate numbers to make invasion a possibility?
Or did we, Britain, (as an insular nation), worry about something that would stand a snowball's chance in Hell of happening?