Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6521
    Points : 6922
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:15 pm

    The purpose of this thread is to document the common Lies , Fakes heard on many forums on Russian Equipment and Russia as a Nation that you might have come across.

    Here is most common one I come across on Indian Forums and some International ones.

    1 ) Russian Equipment is always worst then Western Equipment as its cheaper.
    2 ) Russian Equipment are always defeated in War against west.
    3 ) Russians are beggers if India does not buy their equipment their MIC will collapse.
    4 ) Russian Equipment are unreliable and needs many more maintenance hours and have short life
    5 ) India & China kept Russian MIC alive during 90's else they would have died
    6 ) Russians have little value for its soldiers life so equipment is not protected as well as Western ones , T-72 tank is an example of it.

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 111
    Points : 116
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  ali.a.r on Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:39 pm

    7) Half the Russian inventory is copied from Western stuff (Tu-160 vs B-1, Ak-47 vs Stg-44, etc...) Comical stuff really. Razz

    8 ) Russia had and still has to rely on numbers alone to get a victory. (Usually this is in context to WW2, and the insulting and disrespectful way it is said makes me sick. Mad )

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 111
    Points : 116
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  ali.a.r on Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:50 pm

    I found this hilarious link listing common anti-Russian remarks, and some good responses.

    http://darussophile.com/2009/07/04/top-50-russophobe-myths/

    Very Happy

    Austin

    Posts : 6521
    Points : 6922
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:20 pm

    Nice Blog Indeed Smile
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  TR1 on Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:11 pm

    That black paint increases stealth characteristics Very Happy

    Not a Russia specific one I guess though.

    When Russia flies its planes around the world, its threatening posturing, but when NATO does, its friendly peace-keeping.

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 111
    Points : 116
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  ali.a.r on Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:51 am

    And who can forget the good old "Our defense budget is 10 times bigger than yours, so obviously, that must mean we are 10 times better than you". lol!

    Hachimoto

    Posts : 147
    Points : 159
    Join date : 2013-02-08
    Age : 33

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Hachimoto on Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:54 am

    Sorry but he fall in the trap in order to get the west in his back he's spit on Muslims :

    "almost nothing will change because vodka has long since dissolved away the Koran in Russia."

    Could be something more intelligent !! like we are not France who bash Muslims in order to please Israel Very Happy
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:50 am

    I have chatted with Americans that sincerely believe that all Russian and Soviet stuff is a copy of western/american hardware and that it is inferior copies that is their problem.

    I would not write off the one about India and China "saving" the Russian MIC, sales were important at preserving knowledge and capabilities... Russia would be in a lot worse shape without those orders... but their MIC would have survived.

    I have chatted to American teenagers who really believed that by now Russia would be part of NATO and would be flying second hand F-16s now. They also believed that the Russians had no bomber technology after WWII and that all their current bombers are based on the B-29 design. They think the Tu-95 is a B-29. They also thought the standard Soviet fighter at the start of WWII was based on a US design (I-16 Polikarpov = BeeGee racer or some such thing).

    They believe that the Mig-23 is a direct copy of the F-4 and that the inlet plates on the jet engine of the Mig-23 are identical to those on the F-4, but that there are additional holes because the example F-4 they got hold of had bullet holes in it, which they mindlessly copied.

    They believe that the Mig-29 and Su-27 are copies of the F/A-18 and F-15 respectively... but are shocked when I suggest that the F-15 might have been based on the Mig-25 design planform...

    They think the Buran is a direct copy of the US Space Shuttle.

    They think Russian rifles are all reliable but less accurate than western rifles. They believe that is because they are made to looser tollerances and it is this loose fit that gives their ability to fire while dirty, but reduces accuracy.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2047
    Points : 2051
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Regular on Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:12 am

    6 myth is common. But hell to be honest it is true. But look at m113 and how long it is in service. American tanks before Abrams were good in numbers only too.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2047
    Points : 2051
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Regular on Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:17 am

    GarryB wrote:I have chatted with Americans that sincerely believe that all Russian and Soviet stuff is a copy of western/american hardware and that it is inferior copies that is their problem.

    I would not write off the one about India and China "saving" the Russian MIC, sales were important at preserving knowledge and capabilities... Russia would be in a lot worse shape without those orders... but their MIC would have survived.

    I have chatted to American teenagers who really believed that by now Russia would be part of NATO and would be flying second hand F-16s now. They also believed that the Russians had no bomber technology after WWII and that all their current bombers are based on the B-29 design. They think the Tu-95 is a B-29. They also thought the standard Soviet fighter at the start of WWII was based on a US design (I-16 Polikarpov = BeeGee racer or some such thing).

    They believe that the Mig-23 is a direct copy of the F-4 and that the inlet plates on the jet engine of the Mig-23 are identical to those on the F-4, but that there are additional holes because the example F-4 they got hold of had bullet holes in it, which they mindlessly copied.

    They believe that the Mig-29 and Su-27 are copies of the F/A-18 and F-15 respectively... but are shocked when I suggest that the F-15 might have been based on the Mig-25 design planform...

    They think the Buran is a direct copy of the US Space Shuttle.

    They think Russian rifles are all reliable but less accurate than western rifles. They believe that is because they are made to looser tollerances and it is this loose fit that gives their ability to fire while dirty, but reduces accuracy.
    Funny story. Cold war, arm races, of course weapons were made to counter each other, there is nothing wrong if weapons look almost identical. Parallel evolution sometimes made them look same without copying. As for Buran, they used similar shape but it was different beast, like same model pick-up compared to suv. There is no need to reinvent bicycle

    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:30 pm

    ali.a.r wrote:7) Half the Russian inventory is copied from Western stuff (Tu-160 vs B-1, Ak-47 vs Stg-44, etc...) Comical stuff really. Razz

    8 ) Russia had and still has to rely on numbers alone to get a victory. (Usually this is in context to WW2, and the insulting and disrespectful way it is said makes me sick. Mad )



    #8 is probably a result of 1941-1942 in which the numbers accusation would be partially/largely true, and a misunderstanding of Soviet Deep Battle doctrine. Soviet Deep Battle exploits large numbers by achieving multiple breakthroughs that penetrate into the strategic depth of the enemy, which contrasts with the German Blitzkrieg [which was never a properly defined or coherent doctrine, more of an "ad hoc operational method"] which relies largely on one or two narrow penetrations by high quality forces.


    As an aside, I am quite glad that American Air-Land Battle doctrine has never been tested against Soviet/Russian Deep Battle doctrine because it would have meant hundreds of thousands of American/NATO casualties and probably a million or more Soviet/Warsaw Pact casualties.

    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:35 pm

    GarryB wrote:I have chatted with Americans that sincerely believe that all Russian and Soviet stuff is a copy of western/american hardware and that it is inferior copies that is their problem.

    I would not write off the one about India and China "saving" the Russian MIC, sales were important at preserving knowledge and capabilities... Russia would be in a lot worse shape without those orders... but their MIC would have survived.

    I have chatted to American teenagers who really believed that by now Russia would be part of NATO and would be flying second hand F-16s now. They also believed that the Russians had no bomber technology after WWII and that all their current bombers are based on the B-29 design. They think the Tu-95 is a B-29. They also thought the standard Soviet fighter at the start of WWII was based on a US design (I-16 Polikarpov = BeeGee racer or some such thing).

    They believe that the Mig-23 is a direct copy of the F-4 and that the inlet plates on the jet engine of the Mig-23 are identical to those on the F-4, but that there are additional holes because the example F-4 they got hold of had bullet holes in it, which they mindlessly copied.

    They believe that the Mig-29 and Su-27 are copies of the F/A-18 and F-15 respectively... but are shocked when I suggest that the F-15 might have been based on the Mig-25 design planform...

    They think the Buran is a direct copy of the US Space Shuttle.

    They think Russian rifles are all reliable but less accurate than western rifles. They believe that is because they are made to looser tollerances and it is this loose fit that gives their ability to fire while dirty, but reduces accuracy.


    Most of the first generation of jet fighters and interceptors, American and Soviet, were heavily inspired by German Luftwaffe aircraft.

    The MiG-15 is perhaps the most obvious, borrowing heavily from the Me-262.

    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:25 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    They think Russian rifles are all reliable but less accurate than western rifles. They believe that is because they are made to looser tollerances and it is this loose fit that gives their ability to fire while dirty, but reduces accuracy.

    Generally American rifles have superior accuracy, especially when fired in semi-automatic mode.


    With comparable barrel length the regular AK-74 has superior accuracy over the M4 in full auto mode. The M4, however, is more accurate than the regular AK-74 in semi-auto mode.[118]

    http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201112262209-hjce.htm



    Standard operating procedure in the US Armed Forces is for soldiers to use their rifles on semi-automatic [or three shot burst if applicable] and that they only go to fully automatic if they are laying down suppressing fire to cover an advance or cover the crossing of a road or another obstacle, or if they are in a dire emergency.


    I think it speaks to a substantial difference in the mission of the individual soldier as determined/decided by the American military and the Soviet military.

    America has always held up the individual rifleman, able to influence the course of the battle through his individual marksmanship and his personal efforts, as the ideal. This goes back 200+ years with a rifleman killing the British commander at the Battle of Kings Mountain and causing the British to rout and then surrender.

    During the Battle of the Argonne Forest in the closing months of WW1, Americans were using their 1903 Springfield rifles, with just iron sights [no scopes/optics] to engage and kill Germans at 1000 meters.


    Russian, and later Soviet doctrine, seems to be a reflection of a less individualistic culture, a society that emphasizes group achievement and encourages people to work together as a team in a combined effort. A squad might have a designated marksman with an SVD but everybody else [aside from the machine gunner] would have an AKM [later AK-74].

    The idea being to have a large number of individuals armed with overwhelming firepower so that, as a team, they could overcome the enemy.

    The revolutionary BMP reflects this team effort in that the vehicle has firing ports for soldiers to use their basic AKM and add to the firepower on the battlefield, even though it is not particularly easy to fire from within a vehicle and accuracy would suffer greatly. The idea was to contribute to the battle and increase the overall firepower, as a team, from within the vehicle.

    The M113 never had firing ports at all, and the Bradley series of IFVs had firing ports but they could only be used with a limited style of weapon and in practice they were almost never employed.

    The purpose of the Bradley wasn't so soldiers could fight from inside of the armored beast, it was to transport them across the battlefield and then support them after they dismounted to fight on foot. They wouldn't expend ammo firing from inside of the vehicle just to add the firepower of their squad to the overall battlefield, they would get out, pick their targets, and fire as individuals.



    If you follow the evolution of American military rifles and Russian/Soviet military rifles, the doctrinal/cultural differences are obvious.


    America went the route of the 1903 Springfield, the M1 Garand, the M-14, and then the M-16.

    Russia/Soviet Union went the route of the M91/30 Nagant [not many differences to see here as like America and every other nation in the world, bolt-action rifles were all the rage at this time], the M44 Nagant, the SVT-40 [although production numbers were nowhere near the M44 or M91/30], the SKS [quickly relegated to second/reserve status and export to client states], and then the AK-47/AKM.


    While the Soviets were bringing out the AK-47/AKM, Americans were working on what would become the M-14. The two rifles couldn't have been more different.

    The M14 was not suitable for fully-automatic fire, it is uncontrollable, but in semi-automatic fire it could reliably and accurately hit center mass on a man sized target at 1000 meters, without a scope. It had a 20 round magazine and fired a 30 caliber round not quite as powerful as the 30'06, it was a full-sized battle-rifle that happened to have a fully-automatic feature. It was best used from a prone sling supported position.

    The AK-47's primary/first mode of fire was fully automatic, moving the selector down once puts it on fully automatic [this is the first/default choice of the weapon] to get it to semi-auto you have to move the selector all the way down [contrast this with the America's M-16 where the selector first moves to semi and you have to move it all the way over to get fully-automatic- American rifles are always designed with semi-automatic fire intended as the default/primary use]. The AK-47 was small and compact, especially compared with the M-14 which had a 22 inch barrel and weighed almost 11 pounds with a loaded magazine. The AKM was about 6.8 pounds, which makes a world of difference for a soldier who has to lug it around day in and day out for months on end. But if you wanted to engage a target at 1000 yards with the AKM, you're better off calling in a mortar strike. Objectively the MOA for an AKM type rifle is nowhere near the MOA for an M-14 or an M-16, it just isn't as accurate. The AKM is an excellent weapon for a soldier who is going to spend a lot of time in a vehicle [BTR/BMP], perhaps fire from inside the vehicle, then dismount, and overwhelm the nearby enemy with shock and firepower while assaulting on foot, with the vehicle nearby. But if you put 300, 400, or 500 meters between the man with the AKM and his enemy, if his enemy is armed with an M16, an M14, even the old but reliable M1 Garand, the man with the AKM is probably in trouble.

    The AKM is a true assault rifle, designed based on lessons learned during WW2, that most engagements happen within relatively close distances, between 50 and 300 yards, and few of those are beyond 200 [most are under 200 yards], and almost none beyond 300 yards.

    In an urban battle, house to house, room to room, the advantages of the M16 or M14 over the AKM rapidly disappear, except that the M16 is much more modular and it can easily accommodate a sound suppressor, a tactical light, a red-dot optic, a forward pistol grip, any number of accessories. The AKM is less modular and the M14 is even less modular, something that could be verified by anybody who has ever tried to mount a scope on an M14 style rifle.


    There are also obvious differences in magazines and pouches/packs/etc. I have read that Warsaw Pact and Soviet soldiers had a standard procedure of carrying 1 magazine in the rifle and then 3 or 4 extra magazines in a pouch, with the idea being that they would never be more than 200-300 yards away from a BTR or a BMP and thus they would be able to easily obtain more magazines.

    I remember reading about an officer in Vietnam who had TWENTY of the 20 round M-16 magazines in his pack, as well as having 1 in the rifle and 6 in pouches on his web gear belt.

    Even in the days of ALICE [web-gear] it was expected an American rifleman would have, at his disposal, 7 magazines, outside of his pack... Three magazines in the pouch on his left, three magazines in the pouch on his right, and one in the rifle, not even counting the 20-30 he might be expected to have in his pack. Thus he had 210 rounds available without having to touch his pack or go back to a vehicle [if there was even a vehicle around]. Warsaw Pact soldiers might have 120 rounds available on their person [nothing in their pack] and then they'd have no choice but to get to a vehicle.

    My friend who served in Afghanistan told me he carried 30 of the 30 round magazines, spread between his pack and on his person/vest in pouches. When he was training in the USA he had to carry 30 of the 30 round magazines for his own use and he had to carry 1,000 rounds of linked 5.56mm NATO for the unit's M249 [SAW] although just about everybody in the squad had to carry 1,000 rounds of linked 5.56mm NATO.


    There are some clear advantages to the Soviet model [mainly soldiers don't have to be burdened down with 13 pounds of ammunition for themselves and 15 pounds of ammunition for the unit squad automatic weapon] but there are also disadvantages [reliance on a nearby vehicle to restock ammo, risk of being hit by enemy fire while going to the vehicle, risk of being unable to get to the vehicle, risk that the vehicle might take a hit and then the ammo is gone]. Both systems have merits and flaws, but they reflect fundamental differences in culture and expectations of the individual soldier.


    The American soldiers is expected to put rounds down range, as an individual, picking out specific enemy targets, achieving a high number of hits [although in practice it always winds up being something like 50,000 rounds per enemy killed- the lowest round count per enemy killed ever achieved I believe was managed by South African forces in Angola who achieved a count of less than 6 rounds per enemy killed] and be able to operate out of his ruck/pack for several days without resupply. He should carry enough ammo into the field to sustain himself for at least several days.

    Maybe I'm entirely wrong on this but it seems Soviet soldiers were expected to work as a group to overwhelm the enemy group with shock and firepower, striking into the rear areas where their BMPs and BTRs would provide an enormous firepower advantage against anything the enemy might have in said rear area. The M113 was basically an ugly armored box with a 50 caliber machine gun tacked on it to provide covering fire while the troops dismounted. The BMP was a combination of a light tank, an antitank guided missile carrier, and an armored personnel carrier. It was revolutionary and a truly innovative weapon system. It was capable of presenting a threat to NATO/American tanks, although it was never intended to get into a toe-to-toe battle with a tank, but it could certainly destroy anything in a NATO rear area, any jeep, M113, anything it might encounter. It could even take out a tank if it caught the tank by surprise and was able to use an ATGM.



    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:08 pm

    ali.a.r wrote:I found this hilarious link listing common anti-Russian remarks, and some good responses.

    http://darussophile.com/2009/07/04/top-50-russophobe-myths/

    Very Happy


    Most of the answers are valid, some are bogus.


    The second part of point 5, the mass rape has even been admitted by declassified documents.

    I find the crass dismissal of mass Red Army rape against German women "in any case does not come close to the scale" to be rather inappropriate. Also it wasn't just against German women, so painting it as revenge for the war is incorrect. There were many Polish women raped, Soviet women who were prisoners in German camps were also raped.

    It is something that Americans often say when somebody points out that many Japanese women were raped when the Americans landed in Japan, a lot of surrendering Japanese soldiers killed on Okinawa, and of course the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead of saying something like, "oh yeah, that was horrible, that just wasn't right" they default to, "well the Japanese did this" and "the Japanese did that" which I find to be dishonest dodging of the main issue.



    Point 6 is spot on, Georgia is out of control, no disputes there...



    No further disagreements until point 16. It is recorded that the Soviets snatched up a number of highly skilled German professionals.

    Helmut Gröttrup, a chief expert in the A-4's flight control system, returned into the Soviet zone of occupation and joined Institute Rabe [in September 1945].

    He is nobody to sneeze at! He was Werner von Braun's chief assistant on the V2 program.

    About 20 others from the German rocket program also joined or were recruited from internment/POW camps.


    Point 16 declares- All German leading hi-tech professionals, including rocket scientists, surrendered to the Americans and many worked on their space program.


    It is a bald faced lie. Unless they don't consider Werner von Braun's chief assistant, who designed the guidance system for the V2 rocket, to be a "hi-tech professional" or the other nearly 20 rocket scientists and technicians.



    My main disagreement is with point 20.

    Whether or not the Soviet Union was dependent on oil exports, I don't know and cannot say. I'm not an authority on that subject. I do have the documentary evidence that upwards of 50% of the grain requirements of the Soviet Union, throughout the 1970s, were filled by shipments from the USA, this is a fact. The Warburg banking family organized the deals and made an immense amount of money.

    Ultimately, oil exports are irrelevant in whether or not a communist system can sustain itself. Communism cannot work because it has no feedback mechanism for planners to gauge demand and adjust production/pricing/supply/deliveries accordingly. Also since all transfers of raw materials to production facilities are internal transfers, there is no rational method to set a price for the raw materials. The lack of a feedback mechanism to allow rational prices to be determined based on market forces, is the main reason communism cannot work.





    With point 21, they might even expand it and point out that Russia has been more than cooperative with Western powers. I have often accused Russia of betraying Serbia over the Kosovo situation. It is one of the main reasons why sometimes I have to wonder whose side Putin is on and whether or not he really believes in ideas greater than himself or if he just believes in his power.



    Point 25 is a bald face apologist lie for Stalin and Marxism-Leninism. There was no faminine. Food was being forcibly extracted and exported from Ukraine by commissars and internal troops, while millions starved or were liquidated. There is plenty of video footage showing carts packed with bags of food as commissars loaded more bags onto the carts to take the food away. It was not a "famine" caused by poor harvests, lack of rain, too much heat, or some condition outside of man's control. What happened in Ukraine was a deliberate policy of extermination aimed at destroying the middle class family farmers who had small plots of land that they worked with their family.


    Point 27 is just a numbers game. If they concede Stalin killed at least 4.1 million people but dispute he killed 62 million, what's the point? If somebody murders 4.1 million of their own people, does the fact it was "only" 4.1 million make it less than 62 million? Also the most scholarly study [done over many years, painstakingly compiled with all available resources, Soviet archives] was done by by professor R.J. Rummel, and he concludes that 43 million is the most academic/reasonable figure for the number of people murdered by Stalin's regime. But playing games with numbers reduces the value of the individual.

    Again the author of the article cannot help but bring Hitler and Germany into this. "Stalin ONLY killed 4.1 million, from 1921 to 1953, but look what Hitler did and planned to do!" as though this somehow excuses anything and everything Stalin did and as though somehow Hitler had a bearing on Stalin's actions from 1946 to 1953 when Hitler wasn't even alive! If you steal one car and are arrested by the police, you cannot expect to be released by shouting, "but look at that man, he stole five cars! let me go!"



    On point 29- I have never heard people say, "Russia keeps getting worse." Maybe this is something specific to Western Europe, but most Americans don't know much about Russia and don't talk much about Russia, although the man on the street will automatically assume [and declare] that Russians and Communists are the same. If you say anything perceived as not in line with the mainstream neo-conservative military/warfare/welfare big spending state that the government media teaches is necessary, the knee-jerk reply is, "go back to Russia!"


    Point 32- my father seems to regard Yeltsin as a self-serving opportunist who brought about the potential for disaster while Gorbachev was trying to peacefully allow the various Warsaw Pact nations and Soviet Republics to decide their own future for themselves. I think in the USA Yeltsin is seen as an inept drunk by the man on the street, he is praised as a hero for democracy by the dishonest academics and journalists, and people such as myself and my father who study the situation see him as a self-serving opportunist.



    Point 39- I don't expect Russia or Russians to say "we're sorry about Stalin and Lenin, we're sorry for communism" sorry doesn't change anything, the dead are dead, and the Russian walking the street today is not to blame for Stalin or Lenin. However, it would be nice if the academics and journalists stopped running cover for Stalin and Lenin and stopped trying to deflect criticism that might damage the carefully constructed and perserved legacy of those tyrants. Stalin was a train robbing, bank robbing, professional revolutionary who never held an honest job a day in his life, academics should not shy away from discussing this and journalists should not shy away from running stories/articles on it. Demanding Russian children, who were not even born when Brezhnev died, to apologize for Lenin or Stalin, is obscene and absurd.




    Point 44- Russia is Mordor? Wow! This is literally the first I've ever heard of this. I always thought that Tolkien's epic had to do with Pan-European unity. The Men of the West, they're all Pale/White and fair, fighting Moors, Arabs [the pirates from the south], the Turks and Orientals [the wicked men from the East], and the Goblins and Orcs [beasts] were meant to represent black Africans. The traitor Sauruman was meant to represent a Jewish infiltrator in the midst of the West, while Sauron is the personification of evil, greed, and hate for all things pure and good.





    Aside from that, most of those points were valid, but some of them raise myths I have never heard of. The idea that Russians are lazy and irresponsible [myth point 49] I have literally NEVER heard anybody even suggest such a thing.


    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  TR1 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:16 pm

    [quote="BTRfan"]
    ali.a.r wrote:7)

    As an aside, I am quite glad that American Air-Land Battle doctrine has never been tested against Soviet/Russian Deep Battle doctrine because it would have meant hundreds of thousands of American/NATO casualties and probably a million or more Soviet/Warsaw Pact casualties.

    Why do you assume such an imbalance of casualties?

    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Wed May 01, 2013 12:29 am

    [quote="TR1"]
    BTRfan wrote:
    ali.a.r wrote:7)

    As an aside, I am quite glad that American Air-Land Battle doctrine has never been tested against Soviet/Russian Deep Battle doctrine because it would have meant hundreds of thousands of American/NATO casualties and probably a million or more Soviet/Warsaw Pact casualties.

    Why do you assume such an imbalance of casualties?


    Because the Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces would have crushed the Berlin Brigade, they would have pushed the NATO forces back in West Germany, but in a strictly conventional war things would not have gone well for the Soviets/Warsaw Pact forces.

    The economic/industrial infrastructure was not in place to allow for the Soviets to fight [and win] a protracted war.

    America's economy was almost 50% larger/stronger [GNP] than the entire Warsaw Pact + Soviet Union combined. When you add in the rest of NATO, NATO+ USA = twice as larger/strong [GNP] than the entire Warsaw Pact/USSR. With population figures as well, the NATO + USA had about 40% greater population than the Warsaw Pact+ Soviet Union.

    In the long-run it doesn’t count for much that the Soviets built 80,000 tanks because they had a 5+ year wait to get a car and their 140,000 tanks required the delay of producing other items. It still took them decades to build up their arsenal of T-55s, T-62s, T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s.

    America was able to build 15,000 M60 Patton tanks while also building so many cars that they wound up with one car for every American [today there are about 2.2 cars for every American in the USA].

    Regarding more advanced tanks, in a 6 year period, from 1986 to 1992, the USA managed to produce 6,000 Abrams tanks, while still producing tens of millions of civilian automobiles, trucks, tractors, jeeps, and other vehicles.

    In a 16 year production run only 5,400 T-80 tanks were made, and this came at the cost of diverting huge amounts of resources away from civilian production, which meant the typical Soviet citizen had to wait 5 years to get a car.

    If the war began in such a way that the Americans were galvanized with a Pearl Harbor style event, such as a Soviet sneak attack on the American fleet in the Mediterranean, or an unprovoked attack on NATO forces in West Germany, Americans would have rallied to support the war effort and within a year they’d have produced 100,000+ Patton tanks and there would be an American army of 10+ million ready to go within 12-24 months.


    This article shows that even the Soviet leadership lost confidence in their weapons systems in the 1980s which is one of the major reasons why they began to shift their doctrine back towards the heavy reliance of tactical nuclear weapons in the event of open warfare in Central Europe.

    http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/the_war_that_never_was.htm



    I think a conventional war between Warsaw Pact and NATO would have had several distinct phases.

    For sake of the discussion let us suppose the year is 1980 and the month is June or July.

    The first phase, lasting perhaps 4-6 weeks, would see very impressive Soviet victories, the capture of West Berlin, the destruction of NATO forces in West Berlin, the capture of most or perhaps all of West Germany.

    The second phase, perhaps lasting several months, would involve NATO’s immediate operational and strategic counter-attacks. America would probably invade and occupy Cuba to deny its use by the Soviets and to boost morale following the loss of West Berlin and West Germany. DPRK would possibly attack ROK or America might even begin bombing runs over DPRK against troop concentrations to pre-empt their assault into DPRK. China could go either way and might assault the Soviets in the Soviet Far East in disputed areas, or they might join with the Soviets and attack Taiwan and the American naval forces that would stand in their way.

    During this time, battle-lines would be drawn in the Low Countries and along the French/German border and possibly along the Austrian-Italian border, assuming the Warsaw Pact invaded neutral Austria and was ready to push into Italy. It is possible that France might have been lost but in the strategic picture this would be a hindrance but it would not destroy the NATO war effort.

    American production would now be fully shifted over and instead of producing tens of millions of automobiles per year they would be geared towards producing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of tanks, personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, helicopters, jeeps to carry TOWs, etc.

    America had enough industrial capacity to produce 15,000 Patton series tanks during the production run of that tank and 6,000 Abrams during the initial production run from 1986 to 1992. All of that while producing so many automobiles that there are twice as many automobiles as people in the USA.

    The Soviets had enough industrial capacity to produce some 140,000 tanks, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, and T-80, while producing so few automobiles that there was a 5+ year wait for the basic citizen to get an automobile.

    America could have spent 4+ months to switch over all [or even half] of civilian automobile production to military production [especially tanks and personnel carriers] and they would have been able to produce 100,000+ tanks within 1 year.


    Soviet citizens had already endured decades of hardships, shortages, poor quality consumer goods, minimal variety with what consumer goods were available. Asking them to make more sacrifices to support a war that was not defensive in nature might have been too much for them to bear. Asking them to get on board with waiting 10+ years for a car, making do with less food [keep in mind that the day the war starts, ALL American grain/food shipments to the USSR will cease- and throughout the 1970s shipments from America accounted for 50% of all Soviet grain requirements]

    The first year would probably be a Soviet/Warsaw Pact year but once the Americans were on a full war footing, fully mobilized, and cranking out tens of thousands of tanks, the pendulum would begin to swing back the other way.

    The opening months of the second year would see the arrival of millions of American soldiers in Europe, coming in to Portugal, Spain, France, Great Britain, or a combination of those four nations [depending on whether or not France had fallen in the first year].

    During this crucial second year, America would probably insert airborne/commando forces into Afghanistan, assuming they had not already sent such forces into Afghanistan during the opening months of the conflict.

    Ultimately the outcome would be decided by civilian staying power [who is willing to endure the longest], industrial power/capacity/capabilities, and manpower. I believe America has a tremendous advantage in industrial power, an advantage so extreme that the entire Warsaw Pact could not begin to approach it even if they switched over 100% to a war footing. Manpower is not as clear-cut, the Warsaw Pact nations had more trained reservists capable of being used to rapidly fill out Category II divisions or to form new formations or to reinforce primary divisions. Civilian staying power is mostly a matter of who started the war, who the public perceives as having started the war, and how well the governments of the respective nations are at delivering consumer goods and quality food to the masses while fighting the war.

    The Soviets were barely able to deliver cars [with a 5 year wait imposed] to their people during a time of peace, their consumer goods production would suffer tremendously during a time of war.

    It would be a fairly drawn out war but it would probably be a matter of superior quantity of American war material. Most American weapons systems were at least equal to most Soviet systems, with some systems better, and some system worse. There were also some Soviet systems where America had no clear equivalent [the BMP being the most obvious example here, America had no equivalent until they brought out the Bradley IFV in 1981].

    A large number of weapons systems, in the hands of well-trained personnel, tends to result in less casualties. The large number of NATO losses would probably be in the early months, the first year, of the conflict. The coming years of the conflict would be decidedly in NATO’s favor. The conflict would probably end after 3-5 years with a negotiated settlement being requested by the Soviets [who would be on the verge of losing the conventional war] and accepted by the Americans [eager to end things before nuclear escalation occurs, and ready to get back on with life in the USA].

    Keep in mind before and during WW2, from 1938 to 1945, not a single year went by where America did not produce at least TWICE as much as the next biggest producer. In 1943 America produced more than Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, and the Soviet Union combined. That's industrial power to be reckoned with!


    From the link earlier in this post-

    As noted above, training was geared toward repetitive crew drill as befitted the collective nature of the society the soldier defended. Individual expertise suffered for both philosophical and budget reasons. While tank crew might be expert in the procedures it needed to engage a target, hitting the target was something else; as their drill was commonly on a simulator. One report, for example, indicated tank gunners in some units fired only three full size rounds per year, compared with 120 rounds for US tankers.
    In the air, the same situation occurred. Experienced pilots received perhaps 60 hours of flight time per year, or about a fourth of what US pilots flew. (For the record, Russian pilots today are lucky to receive 14 hours of flight time per year.)




    If that is correct, that Soviet tank crews in some units were only allowed to fire three rounds per year in training, then training was woefully inadequate [at least in those units].


    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Wed May 01, 2013 12:31 am

    Of course all of the above is just speculation and guess work, but based on what I've found while studying the economic data of the various nations back in the mid-late 1970s, I cannot help but conclude that the Warsaw Pact had no serious hope of sustaining any prolonged conflict against NATO/USA.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  TR1 on Wed May 01, 2013 1:04 am

    I think Mindstorm will have a lot more to say about that link than I Smile .


    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Wed May 01, 2013 1:29 am

    TR1 wrote:I think Mindstorm will have a lot more to say about that link than I Smile .



    I hope for a lively discussion and one based mostly on economic data, facts, specifications of weapons systems, potential manpower of the combatants, trained reservists, civilian morale, etc.


    When I say that the Warsaw Pact could not sustain a war against NATO, it is not meant as some sort of insult against the Russian people. I have no doubt they would fight bravely.


    But bravery alone cannot win a war or prevent a defeat. In the modern era of warfare, especially with total war, it becomes a matter of numbers and industrial power.




    Assessing the
    NATO/Warsaw Pact
    Military Balance
    December 1977 (Reprinted July 1978)
    CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET



    That US document provides an economic/industrial/population/manpower assessment of NATO/Warsaw Pact and the conclusion is that the Warsaw Pact could not expect to have any hope of winning a conventional war with NATO.

    Especially when one considers how fragmented the Warsaw Pact truly was. By the late 1970s early 1980s the Poles were just about in full revolt, they had to be crushed with martial law. Czechoslovakia had been invaded and crushed under the heel of the Pact in 1968 and they had never forgotten about it. Romania wouldn't even allow Soviet soldiers to transit through their territory to get to Bulgaria, nor Bulgarians to transit through to get to the Soviet Union. Romania also provided samples of EVERY Soviet weapons system that the Soviets delivered to them, to the West, in exchange for lots of money and food.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2047
    Points : 2051
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Regular on Wed May 01, 2013 8:55 am

    Well casualties would be higher on Soviet side because attackers tend to lose more soldiers. But if they would play their cards right and focus on their strenght and NATO weaknesses they could blitz through Europe with victories and massive casualties on both sides. But as You've said, economic potential, even mobilised man power was not a joke on NATO countries too. I'm afraid that Soviet attack would end like German blitzkrieg. Anyways, Nato attack on Soviet union was possible to but they wouldn't fare as good. Thanks God Soviet and NATO leaders weren't dumb and didn't provoke conflict.

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 111
    Points : 116
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  ali.a.r on Wed May 01, 2013 9:45 am

    I dont think it would matter how many troops either side lost. If WW3 did indeed break out, then that would mean both sides would now be fully committed, and there is no backing out then. If one side, lets say Warsaw Pact had the upper hand, and victory seemed assured, then I think NATO leaders would say "f*** this. if we're going down, we're taking you with us". And used nukes. Same for if NATO was winning.

    Just my theory.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 01, 2013 12:11 pm

    6 myth is common. But hell to be honest it is true. But look at m113 and how long it is in service. American tanks before Abrams were good in numbers only too.

    It is not true. If Soviet designers didn't care about the lives of Soviet Soldiers they would not bother with modern armour arrays, and making their tanks low and less likely to be seen and hit than big tall western tanks.

    I have a computer game called M1 tank platoon from the 1980s whose manual claims the BTR is a joke of a vehicle and that if the Soviets had anything like the US Congress such a vehicle would never have gotten funding.

    Very amusing because at the time the BTR-60, which is bullet proof and amphibious, was transporting Soviet troops as the big numbers cheap transport, the west in general and the US were transporting their troops in trucks with no armour and no amphibious capability.

    In fact at the time the expensive APC transport in the US was the M113, while the Soviets used the BMP-1... the difference was that the BTR carried the rest of the Soviet troops while the US troops either took a truck or walked.

    The BTR-60 was exactly what it was supposed to be, a relatively cheap light vehicle... costs were cut to the point where a new engine was not even developed for it, they just took a standard widely used truck engine... which was not powerful enough on its own so they put two in it. Parts were cheap and easily available.

    Wasn't till the BTR-80 that it got a single diesel engine, but it still did the job, and was found to be much much cheaper to buy and operate than tracked vehicles and in situations where there were mines it was found to be much more survivable than tracked vehicles.

    I agree too before the west introduced Chobham armour the Soviet tanks were actually superior one on one in many aspects.

    As for Buran, they used similar shape but it was different beast, like same model pick-up compared to suv. There is no need to reinvent bicycle

    NASA spent 2 billion dollars perfecting the external shape of the Space shuttle, the Soviets saw no need to spend any more with likely the same result. The Space shuttle is a big heavy aircraft with an enormous external fuel tank and two solid rocket boosters to get it moving. The Buran is a glider that is mounted on a very big rocket for launch. Fundamentally different designs.

    As an aside, I am quite glad that American Air-Land Battle doctrine has never been tested against Soviet/Russian Deep Battle doctrine because it would have meant hundreds of thousands of American/NATO casualties and probably a million or more Soviet/Warsaw Pact casualties.

    Interesting figures... any reason for the numbers you chose?

    The MiG-15 is perhaps the most obvious, borrowing heavily from the Me-262.

    The Mig-15 looks nothing like the Me-262... the Me-262 has two wing mounted engine pods, while the Mig-15 is a tube with swept wings and a single engine.

    The only thing the Mig-15 borrowed heavily from is British Jet engines which definitely raised its performance, but then further work on those British engines and they quickly got rather better and can be considered Soviet engines.

    Of all the german designs the only one that looked like the Mig was the Ta-183 which never even got to prototype phase and all the designers and the factory that would have made it was captured by the Americans.

    Mig was already working on swept wing aircraft like the Mig-8 before the end of the war whereas the US went from the straight winged P-80 Shooting star to an aircraft called the Sabre that looked rather more like a Ta-183 than anything the Soviets made or put in service.

    Generally American rifles have superior accuracy, especially when fired in semi-automatic mode.

    Do you have the empirical data to back that up, or are we talking opinion?

    I would add accuracy means nothing, we are talking consistency.

    Shooting at a standard target with a ten circle in the middle with rings counting down to a one outer ring a very accurate rifle might score zero with a five shot group tightly clustered low and to the right of the rings, while a very inaccurate rifle might scatter hits all over the sheet and happen that one round hits the bullseye.

    In terms of accuracy the second rifle scored a 10 and is therefore the most accurate even when the other rifle is more consistent and with a quick sight adjustment could suddenly become accurate.

    By suggesting that US rifles are inherently more accurate you are merely continuing the myth...

    While the Soviets were bringing out the AK-47/AKM, Americans were working on what would become the M-14. The two rifles couldn't have been more different.

    A light compact rifle effective to established combat ranges, compared with a heavy battle rifle with ammo designed for use well beyond the capacity of most soldiers that were using it.

    The M14 was not suitable for fully-automatic fire, it is uncontrollable, but in semi-automatic fire it could reliably and accurately hit center mass on a man sized target at 1000 meters, without a scope.

    Combat data from Afghanistan shows a US soldier having something like a 70% chance of hitting a target with their first shot at about 70m. The bullet flight time to 1km for a 308 would be something like 6 seconds...

    The AKM is a true assault rifle, designed based on lessons learned during WW2, that most engagements happen within relatively close distances, between 50 and 300 yards, and few of those are beyond 200 [most are under 200 yards], and almost none beyond 300 yards.

    [quote]In an urban battle, house to house, room to room, the advantages of the M16 or M14 over the AKM rapidly disappear, except that the M16 is much more modular and it can easily accommodate a sound suppressor, a tactical light, a red-dot optic, a forward pistol grip, any number of accessories[/quoe]

    Bullsht. The AK can easily accomodate a suppressor and a grenade launcher can be fitted like a bayonette. Side rails are available for the AK that take standard sights and optics.

    Both systems have merits and flaws, but they reflect fundamental differences in culture and expectations of the individual soldier.

    Or does it reflect the inaccuracies of the things you have read about the Warsaw Pact forces?

    Perhaps in the Jungles of Vietnam where resupply was by helicopter the method of transporting ammo and food and water might have been effected by the terrain not being very vehicle friendly?

    The other advantage of having ammo in a vehicle nearby of course is that you have the firepower of a vehicle nearby... in fact several vehicles.

    Maybe I'm entirely wrong on this but it seems Soviet soldiers were expected to work as a group to overwhelm the enemy group with shock and firepower, striking into the rear areas where their BMPs and BTRs would provide an enormous firepower advantage against anything the enemy might have in said rear area.

    Most armies expect their soldiers to work together...

    The M113 was basically an ugly armored box with a 50 caliber machine gun tacked on it to provide covering fire while the troops dismounted.

    The M113 was a simple APC... as used in WWII... an armoured box to move troops around the battlefield... drop them off and fall back and provide some covering fire from a safe distance.

    Fundamentally the IFV is no different but offered much more effective support fire and the ability to engage the enemies troop transport vehicles. Its anti tank capability is purely for emergencies only... it was supposed to engage enemy infantry and troop transports.

    There were many Polish women raped, Soviet women who were prisoners in German camps were also raped.

    In occupied Europe women between about 14 and 35 didn't go to work camps or death camps... they often went to "comfort units" that moved with SS units.

    they default to, "well the Japanese did this" and "the Japanese did that" which I find to be dishonest dodging of the main issue.

    What the Soviet troops did was not right, but the countries they did it in were not Soviet allies till it was convenient to them to be. The Soviets attempted to create defence pacts with Poland and the UK before the war and neither country was interested... the Soviets had no reason to be best buddies with either country after the war.

    If the Germans wanted better treatment they should have laid down their arms and not killed another 1 million Soviet soldiers in the taking back of Eastern Europe and Germany.

    Communism cannot work because it has no feedback mechanism for planners to gauge demand and adjust production/pricing/supply/deliveries accordingly.

    Seems to be working just fine in China... with western investment because of the cheap labour force where no labour laws apply it is a CEOs paradise... Twisted Evil

    The lack of a feedback mechanism to allow rational prices to be determined based on market forces, is the main reason communism cannot work.

    Market forces are worse than no oversight... haven't you worked that out yet? The continual "growth" in the economy is unsustainable... look at all the bubbles and bursts in the various markets... it is like a game called Bullsh!t. You are dealt a hand of cards and you make bets based on the cards you have, but as the game progresses you get to the point where you either have to bid higher or fold. If you are caught in a lie you lose, but if you fold you lose too, so most people lie and hope they can catch someone else in a lie before they are caught... sounds exactly like the market based economy...

    I have often accused Russia of betraying Serbia over the Kosovo situation.

    Like the US in Georgia, the Russians could talk but could not really do anything concrete to help short of what they did. Even if they sent 20 S-300 SAM systems the west could easily have intercepted them on their way... even if they got them there and the Serbs had time to master them NATO would not have given in, they simply would have changed tactics.

    but in a strictly conventional war things would not have gone well for the Soviets/Warsaw Pact forces.

    There was never going to be a strictly conventional war...

    America's economy was almost 50% larger/stronger [GNP] than the entire Warsaw Pact + Soviet Union combined.

    War economy is irrelevant in a nuclear war.

    With population figures as well, the NATO + USA had about 40% greater population than the Warsaw Pact+ Soviet Union.

    Population figures are irrelevant too.


    In the long-run it doesn’t count for much that the Soviets built 80,000 tanks because they had a 5+ year wait to get a car and their 140,000 tanks required the delay of producing other items. It still took them decades to build up their arsenal of T-55s, T-62s, T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s.

    In any run it does not matter if an American could walk into one of a hundred car dealerships and buy any car they wanted when M60s are facing T-72s it is the former that is at a disadvantage.

    Regarding more advanced tanks, in a 6 year period, from 1986 to 1992, the USA managed to produce 6,000 Abrams tanks, while still producing tens of millions of civilian automobiles, trucks, tractors, jeeps, and other vehicles.

    In a 16 year production run only 5,400 T-80 tanks were made, and this came at the cost of diverting huge amounts of resources away from civilian production, which meant the typical Soviet citizen had to wait 5 years to get a car.

    The T-80 predates the M1 Abrams... the latter being a US tank with British armour that started life with a British gun that was later replaced with a West German gun.

    or an unprovoked attack on NATO forces in West Germany,

    You mean like putting up a wall in Berlin, or shooting down some transport planes heading to Berlin?

    There wouldn't have been any unprovoked attacks... they don't exist... except when Saakashvili is in command.

    This article shows that even the Soviet leadership lost confidence in their weapons systems in the 1980s which is one of the major reasons why they began to shift their doctrine back towards the heavy reliance of tactical nuclear weapons in the event of open warfare in Central Europe.

    Rubbish. The Soviets were spending as much in the 1980s as they ever did on conventional weapons, the facts of the matter are there is no such thing as a conventional war in europe and there never will be now except between smaller countries like Serbia and the rest of NATO, or Greece and Turkey.

    The reality is that the conflict in Kosovo showed enormous weaknesses in how NATO works... a war run by committee.

    I think a conventional war between Warsaw Pact and NATO would have had several distinct phases.

    Sorry, but that is very amusing and a very western view.

    WWIII would not last years... very simply the Soviets weren't planning on invading and occupying Europe... what would they do with it?

    They were invaded by the Germans in 1941 and their actions and efforts ever since have been to prevent a repeat by any European power or collective group. Eastern Europe wasn't the springboard for invasion and European conquest, it was the buffer zone where attacking NATO forces would be stopped and crushed.

    Within hours of an attack approximately 800 tactical nuclear strikes would be launched against major NATO military bases and airfields... within hours there would either be and agreement to ceasefire, or an escalation to full strategic nuclear strikes.

    One Soviet General described it as the Western doctrine of escalation being two cowboys... first they curse each other, then they trade pushes, then punches, then one pulls a knife and the other grabs a bottle to smash on the table and threaten the other cowboy with... and then finally when both cowboys are bruised and tired one will go for his pistol.
    In comparison the Soviet doctrine was if you don't shoot the other guy first he is going to get first shot at you.

    But bravery alone cannot win a war or prevent a defeat. In the modern era of warfare, especially with total war, it becomes a matter of numbers and industrial power.

    That is strange because the Soviets started the war being greatly out produced by the Germans yet the Soviets won... was it lend lease, general winter, or the western strategic bombing campaign?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Wed May 01, 2013 5:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The Mig-15 looks nothing like the Me-262... the Me-262 has two wing mounted engine pods, while the Mig-15 is a tube with swept wings and a single engine.

    The only thing the Mig-15 borrowed heavily from is British Jet engines which definitely raised its performance, but then further work on those British engines and they quickly got rather better and can be considered Soviet engines.



    Sorry, I meant the MiG-9, which used a reverse engineered engine from the Me-262, my mistake.

    The MiG-15 used a licensed copy of the a British rolls royce jet engine.

    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Wed May 01, 2013 5:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:


    Market forces are worse than no oversight... haven't you worked that out yet? The continual "growth" in the economy is unsustainable... look at all the bubbles and bursts in the various markets... it is like a game called Bullsh!t. You are dealt a hand of cards and you make bets based on the cards you have, but as the game progresses you get to the point where you either have to bid higher or fold. If you are caught in a lie you lose, but if you fold you lose too, so most people lie and hope they can catch someone else in a lie before they are caught... sounds exactly like the market based economy...




    So you're blaming the problems caused by central banks [which are antithetical to free market enterprise] on free market enterprise. This is a textbook Occupy move. You let them define your terms and you use their words.

    They create the Federal Reserve, a private bank which is not at all Federal, and they manipulate the money supply, private bankers working in collusion with the government. They create artificial bubbles and they cause booms and busts.

    America got along just fine without them, we got along fine prior to 1913.

    BTRfan

    Posts : 428
    Points : 464
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  BTRfan on Wed May 01, 2013 5:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Generally American rifles have superior accuracy, especially when fired in semi-automatic mode.

    Do you have the empirical data to back that up, or are we talking opinion?

    I would add accuracy means nothing, we are talking consistency.

    Shooting at a standard target with a ten circle in the middle with rings counting down to a one outer ring a very accurate rifle might score zero with a five shot group tightly clustered low and to the right of the rings, while a very inaccurate rifle might scatter hits all over the sheet and happen that one round hits the bullseye.

    In terms of accuracy the second rifle scored a 10 and is therefore the most accurate even when the other rifle is more consistent and with a quick sight adjustment could suddenly become accurate.

    By suggesting that US rifles are inherently more accurate you are merely continuing the myth...

    While the Soviets were bringing out the AK-47/AKM, Americans were working on what would become the M-14. The two rifles couldn't have been more different.

    A light compact rifle effective to established combat ranges, compared with a heavy battle rifle with ammo designed for use well beyond the capacity of most soldiers that were using it.

    The M14 was not suitable for fully-automatic fire, it is uncontrollable, but in semi-automatic fire it could reliably and accurately hit center mass on a man sized target at 1000 meters, without a scope.

    Combat data from Afghanistan shows a US soldier having something like a 70% chance of hitting a target with their first shot at about 70m. The bullet flight time to 1km for a 308 would be something like 6 seconds...




    Actually I cited a Russian website which said they found the M-16/M-4 on semi-automatic to be more accurate than the AK-74 or AK-47 on fully or semi, but the AK-74 was more accurate than the M-4 when both were fired on fully-automatic. Apparently that didn't suffice for you, because you've started citing personal opinions.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:08 pm