Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Share
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

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

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:50 am

    GarryB wrote:This means the issues with recoil on accuracy are only relevant in full auto... in which case few rifles are "accurate".

    It is said that the AK-10x can fire a full 30 round burst at the range of 100m with quite high accuracy.

    In the AEK-971 there is a T-shaped air tube which split the air into two, and the air will and reach two parts of the feeding machine which moves in opposite direction, further reduced the recoil.

    I don't really know whether this T-shaped air tube is used in modern version of AKs or other assault rifles.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:19 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:This means the issues with recoil on accuracy are only relevant in full auto... in which case few rifles are "accurate".

    It is said that the AK-10x can fire a full 30 round burst at the range of 100m with quite high accuracy.

    In the AEK-971 there is a T-shaped air tube which split the air into two, and the air will and reach two parts of the feeding machine which moves in opposite direction, further reduced the recoil.

    I don't really know whether this T-shaped air tube is used in modern version of AKs or other assault rifles.

    That is the counter balancing mechanism it is used on AK-107/108 and AEK-971/972/973. I don't think there any other weapons with this mechanism.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:05 pm

    GarryB wrote:The piston and bolt carrier on the AK do not cause recoil, they actually delay it.

    By the time the bullet has exited the barrel the bolt carrier has started to move but it doesn't slam into the rear of the receiver until after the bullet is well down range.

    This means the issues with recoil on accuracy are only relevant in full auto... in which case few rifles are "accurate".

    Not exactly recoil, but it creates more torque/flex/movement inside of the rifle, which isn't desirable. However, the system itself is far superior to DI and that is its only disadvantage.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

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

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:11 pm

    Some ranting about myths of USSR and US weapons.

    1)Original language is not English, and my translation is not 100% correct.

    2)The author use a very harsh tone with a considerable amount of violent words, and have a hardline pro-Russia stance. So I guess many of us have to prepare emotionally and mentally.

    3)Feel free to criticize the writing if you think the author is wrong.

    Huy Phúc wrote:Dogs and brainwashed bullshit continued to blah blah "SR-71 is the first aircrafts which can be stealth in front of radar."

    Bullshit. Even old radar can see the SR-71 as clear as day.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRTyUO3oo_g

    Vietnam once tried to shot down the SR-71 but failed. The reason is that at that time there had been no AA missiles or AA gun in Vietnam which can killed SR-71 yet. But the radar of Vietnam still can saw SR-71. Of course, it is clear that only if you detected and saw the SR-71 then you could opened fire and missed it. SR-71 is not stealth.

    SR-71 emitted great amount of infrared light, because when flying the tail of SR-71 is very hot. And the cover of SR-71 is 700 Celsius degree. Therefore people had to paint the charcoal violet in order to emit the infrared light to reduce the heat.

    It's hurt but in the U.S. there is a number of people who live in delusion. Ah yes, SR-71 is stealth, but only in the world of Hollywood. And SR-71 is still the fastest manned aircraft in the world, ok, that's right, and brainwashed dogs continue to jerk off about that.

    ====

    But you need to know that the USSR did not opened fire onto SR-71 not because they couldn't, but because the SR never entered USSR aerospace. Long long ago the U.S. law forbade all kinds of manned military aircraft to illegally entered USSR sky. The M12 evdaded the forbidden by carrying the unmanned D-21 and throw the D-21 into the USSR space, but unsuccessful.

    Furthermore, in fact SR-71 was made by... the USSR. Indeed, all the titan used in SR (titan made up of 90% weight of SR) was supplied by the USSR and the main parts of the aircraft were made by the USSR. The USSR supplied these materials through an underground company in Switzerland. It provided even the reserved titan in which the U.S. can used in the case that this illegitimate marriage was interrupted.

    So basically the USSR would not destroyed SR-71 because SR was the offspring of USSR itself, although this offspring was born in an illegitimate marriage.

    ====

    But then the question is, why the USSR secretly helped the U.S. to built the SR-71 ? Because the series of A-12 / F-12 / M-12 / D-21 / SR-71... played an important role in killing a whole generation of the U.S. aircratfs. All the series used the old design similar to MiG-21: cylindrical hull, thin delta wings, conical air inhale, turbojet without fan. In fact, that series is even inferior to MiG-21 because the compression rate of MiG-21 is 8.9, meanwhile the SR-71 series is only 5.

    SR-71 serie used outdated techs, but they can fly in extreme speed simply because the aircrafts were made of titan.

    The old and outdated design of SR-71 series means that, when flying in extreme speed they are equal a bullet shot out of a gun. They have poor aerodynamic, cannot maneuver in high speed, and have very low fuel effeciency. For example the F-12 flew over Vietnam on 31 July 1967 can only flew 500 kilometres in very high speed.

    Therefore, even if the U.S. really crazily tried to use SR-71 for scouting the USSR in 198x, they could not be successful. Because if SR-71 wanted to fly at maximum speed so that USSR MiG-25 / 31 could not catch, they could only fly 500km and then fall in the USSR territory. And if they wanted to fly at cruising, fuel effecient speed, they would be too slow and MiG-25/31 could easily catch them. In cruising speed, MiG-25/31 can easily follow SR at the distance of several kilometres. And MiG-25/31 can easily killed SR-71 at the range up to 100km because at high alitude the SR-71 emitted a lot of infrared.

    In the 196x Mikoyan began to develop the FBV. First are the model of Ye-6 and Ye-8. Later MiG-25 was born and it became the standard of FBV. MiG-23 followed later as a cheap and reduced alternative, it did not have digital computer which was still very expensive and novel at that time. Today, all kinds of fighters follow the standard and model of MiG-25, including the F-22 or F-35...

    What is the traits of MiG-25 which established the standard of later fighting aircraft ?

    The older MiG-21 uses delta and thin wings. Delta, thin wings are very robust in straight movement and are very suitable for flying in extreme speed. Howver delta wings do not have large area and broad wingspan. The thin wings mean they cannot sustain heavy wingload. The small wingspan make the aircraft highly unstable at low speed, therefore MiG-21 has short flying range and low capability of ground attack.

    Furthermore, a small wing area means aircraft cannot easily turn and change direction. Because turning acceleration is generated by the wingload. The thin, weak wings cannot sustain strong load to make a sudden turn, especially in high speed when the turning acceleration has to be very large. And in the design of cylindrical hull, the load only generates behind the wings.

    Cylindrical hull and thin delta wing are only suitable for dashing foward in extreme speed, just like a bullet. SR-71 in extreme speed is nearly identical to a cruise missile.

    In MiG-25, people replaced cylindrical hull with a broadened hull, and used thick wings which the main area is located along the hull. Now the load is generated behind the thick wings and the broadened hull, and the design is very robust due to better thickness. The broadened hull also has better capability in horizontal movement (direction of movement is from dorsal to ventral). Meanwhile cylindrical hull only focuses in foward movement (direction is from the behind to the front like a bullet).

    The MiG-25 can generates large G load to turn at very high speed. But when the load is mainly generated near the axis of the aircraft, it will have very low stability at low speed. Aircrafts like MiG-23 used variable sweep wings, however configuration of swinging wings is heavy and weak. MiG-25 fixed that shortcoming by using fly-by-wire, using computer to control the flying. The computer needed to be very sensitive because the relaxed stability means you are wakling over a very thin rope.

    ----

    But the series of A-12 / F-12 / M-12 / D-21 / SR-71 had no development. They are just a flying bullet or a cruise missile with a pilot cockpit. Talking about missiles and bullet, at that time there were already a lot of cruise missiles such as P-500, P-800... and we can see that SR-71 is equal to a P-800 with a pilot cockpit. Cruise missiles like P-500, P-800 still have cylindrical "hull" and "delta wings", no problem at all because they only fly at the very low alitude, near the sea level, no need to fly at 20km alitude like SR-71. In other words, since that time MiG-21 cylindrical hull and delta wings has only being used in cruise missiles. And the U.S. put a pilot cockpit into a missile to create SR-71. And unlike the P-800, SR-71 cannot fly at the very low alitude, only 5-15 metre over the sea levels. A computer pilot can but a human pilot does not dare to.

    Later, the U.S. mimiced MiG-25 to create F-15. MiG-25 has a 1.4 metre diameter radar while F-15 is only 70 centimetre. F-15 has only 50% resolution and 1/4 sensitivity compared with MiG-25, and the speed and flying range is far inferior.

    Later of later, MiG-25 used dynamic phase shift antenna similar to N011 of Su-30, therefore it is able to change the direction of the became relative to the plane of phase array. Meanwhile F-15 has to used AESA to get a dynamic phase shift.

    ===

    Another shocking "discovery" of dog and bullshits, f*ck it, they claimed that SR-71 has cesium in the fuel to reduce the heat and light of the exhaust.

    Bullshit. F*cking bullshit.

    Cesium is a solid chemical substance. When you put a solid substance into a fuel and burn all, the exhaust will have soot in it. The heated soot emits both visbile light and infrared light.

    You can test it by a simple experiment. Burn an clean alcohol flame, and you can see that the flame has no color, no light, but very hot. And then you throw into the flame some sort of solid substance, anything, powder, dirt, soot, dust, sugar or salt, or even cesium if you like. You can see that the solid substance emit a very briliiant light. And you can see that gas/biogas lamps have some sort of glass fibers so that the fiber in extreme heat will emitted bright light.

    And only the brainwashing system of "freedom" and "democracy" West will create the dogs and shits who believe that, putting cesium in fuel to make it darker.

    People add cesium in to JP7, the fuel for SR-71, actually in order to emit MORE infrared light, not to reduce the heat of exhaust. The exhaust will have a layer of hot ions cover, this cover emits an ernormous amount of infrared and it reflects the radar waves. So that it can blind the infrared seeker and radar. However this cover is not successful because it is very scattered and very thin, meanwhile SR-71 is very hot and very big, rader and infrared seeker can easily see the airplanes behind the hot ion cover. Especially when SR-71 is flying at very high alitude, the air here has very low condensation and the effect of ion cover is ever poorer.

    JP7 is an expensive fuel because people have to carefully stabilize it so that it can only burn in 600 celsius degree. JP7 is created from clean material, such as saturated hydrocarbon, add naphthalene, and add fluorocarbons to stabilization. JP7 is very condensed at normal temperature, and people will add oxidization so that JP7 will be burned when it contact with hot air flow.

    In USSR and Russia, even the spacecrafts only used kerosene toghether with liquid oxygen or similar. People add some additional elements and the final fuel is very cheap. In case Russia don't want to use cheap fuel, they will use things like unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine UDMH and do not restrict the fuel purely in hydrocarbon. The reason why JP7 is expensive is because it is stupid. The producer created the stupid and nonsense demands for the fuel which are completely bullshit.

    F*ck it. In order to lick the ass of the West you have to be either as stupid as a pig, or as crazy as a mad dog. Or both.

    ==================================

    We stop at that SR-71 and switched to stealth aircrafts and 5th generation fighters.

    Another dogshits claimed that Russia and USSR has been neglected the stealth development and has not paid attention to that.

    Rubbish.

    The USSR/Russia has already has a similar program to F-22. That is MiG-1.44 .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLxuUnAlNWk

    Russian MiG-1.44 do not have stupid and nonsense characteristics in F-22. However, at that time, the USSR and Russia just stopped at experiments. There are many reasons. One of it is that, the USSR and Russia recognized that in the 199x, stealth technology had not been perfected yet. You can see that the so-called stealth F-111 was shot down by Yugoslavian SAM-3. And you can see that F-22 only fought against terrorists and poor countries who does not have adequate AA defense. And F-22 many times flew over Russian bases and warship and it let Russian sensors inspect all kinds of stealth capability freely. The U.S. let Russia see all kinds of stealth capability in F-22 simply because the know full well that F-22 has no change of escaping Russian AA defense unscathed.

    Another reasons is cost-effectiveness. Russia intended to apply stealth capability for MFI i.e. multirole fighter at the frontline for example MiG-29 and Su-27/30. Because stealthy is very favourable for surprise attack and suitable for MFI missions which has better focus in ground-attack. However the stealth material and techs at that time was still very expensive, meanwhile Russia want their MFIs to be cheap and more attractive in international market.

    Expensive, specialized aerial fighters like MiG-25/31 do not need stealthy. Stealth capability increases the burden over the design and decreases the aerodynamic maneuverability. In addition, MiG-25/31 can easily use long waves radar (decimeter) in its own radar or in the ground forces, AWACS to neutralize enemy stealthy. MiG-25/31 jamming will significantly decrease the accuracy of guided missiles agaisnt it.

    Meanwhile stealth cover of F-22 is a immature, freaking fetus. Even third world countries like Vietnam have already manufactured stealth paints which has similar quality to F-22. The paints has already been applied in cruise and anti-ship missiles. A Vietnamese Kh-35 has RCS only equal to 1% of F-22.

    Vietnam has not been able to manufacture their own fighters yet therefore it has not thought of stealth painting in airplane.

    In Russia even "stupid" bomb also has "stealth" capability. For example the Sukhoi bombers use ballistic computer to calculate the trajectory of the bombs and drop them at the calucated position from very far far away, and then ran away. The enemy will not know exactly where the bombs came from. The gliding bombs used very cheap GPS which are black-hole-stealth in front of radar, have no projectors, no emmitted signal... and the enemy will not know where it came from. They are much cheaper than the expensive F-22.

    Aside from MFI MiG-1.44, MiG also has MiG-7, that is MiG-31 with steath capability. But all are only experimental.

    =================

    Another aspect of 5th gen fighter is AESA radar. It has dynamic phase shift controlled by computer to the level of each elements.

    Today, phase shift for each elements is carried out by very high frequency transistors which has just been perfected. They open and close the circuits, lengthen and shorten the waves and generate fast or slow phase shift depends on the needs of the users.

    Meanwhile F-22 radar has no such transistors, it controls the phase shift by capacitor. The wave's phase is shaped when it passes the capacitor, and the shift amount is controlled by changing the capacity of the capacitor. However that method has issues in quality: the capacitor distorts the waves, and the characteristics of capacitor change depends on age and temperature. As a result, both frequency and phase in F-22 are distorted.

    Back to AESA, it means the positions of the elements no longer depend on the surface of the traditonnal attena (phase array planes, parabol pan...). Therefore you can easily position your elements to suit the aircraft's aerodynamic shape.

    For example, T-50 has two big radar. The X-band (Ku, 10 GHz) has three pieces created the aircraft nose. L-band (1 Ghz -2 GHz ) is located at the frontal edge of the wing. Because the radar resolution is directly propotional to the size and inversely propotional to the wavelength, the T-50 L-band used it excessive size to compensate the long wavelength. The L-band is located at the frontal edge of the wings, therefore you have a very big, 10 metre long antenna. It is a 2D antenna, but then the T-50 just turns a bit and it becomes 3D. The long wavelengths is able to neutralize stealthy.

    Meanwhile F-22 just used old model of AESA. Just like someone use an expensive TV just for the sake of emitting light.

    -----

    So why F-22 has a prematured born AESA ?

    Because F-22 cannot have a PESA radar whith dynamic phase shift like the N011 of Su-30. In 1/200 of second, the antenna beam change its direction in a range of 120 degree, 60 degree each sides. And the antenna surface also mechanically oscilatte another 120 degree, all add up is 240 degree. The older model uses static phase shift, the beam's direction relative to the antenna surface cannot be changed. Each elements of the phased array plane is fixed pernamently by casting.

    The U.S. PESA does not have dynamic phase shift and it has to oscillate the surface to change the direction of the beam. Therefore, the U.S. has to use AESA to generate dynamic phase shift in fighter's radar.

    Russian dynamic phase shift PESA used traditional style of one receiver one emitter, and generates very high quality of waves: concentrated phase and frequency, and clean... therefore Russian AESA has to overcome that strong point of PESA in order to have practical value in combat. That means Russia has to wait for new generation of transistors.

    -----

    So isn't it OK if the U.S. updates the new stealth paints and radar for F-22 ?

    Yes it will be very OK.

    But look at that. It has been nearly half of a century but the lengend of bullshit and stupidity named M16 still has not get rid of its fatal shortcomings:

    1. Strings is positioned inside the buttstock therefore the stock cannot be folded.
    2. Cylindrical rotating receiver instead of rectangular ones although the receiver is born to restrict the rotating movement.
    3. The legendary direct impigement which cause legendary issues of choking, bullet jamming, and bending of barrel.

    AR-18 has already get rid of these shortcomings. But F-22 is having a strong tendency of being similar to M16.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:30 am

    Not exactly recoil, but it creates more torque/flex/movement inside of the rifle, which isn't desirable. However, the system itself is far superior to DI and that is its only disadvantage.

    I think you are referring to the inline stock of the M16 and M4.

    If you look at photos of the AK-47 and AKM you will notice immediately the angle of the stock to the barrel has changed to a more inline design.

    Having said that the stocks of the most accurate bolt action rifles are not inline either, yet manage to be accurate.

    I have seen videos of the AEK rifle with balanced recoil being fired on full auto and the holes appearing in the target paper appearing from the top down... ie the rifle is clearly not only not kicking up, it is actually tracking down the target in full auto mode.

    the FG-42 had an inline stock in WWII so it is not new or revolutionary... even the FN FAL had an inline stock.



    _________________
    “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
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

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

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:29 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Not exactly recoil, but it creates more torque/flex/movement inside of the rifle, which isn't desirable. However, the system itself is far superior to DI and that is its only disadvantage.

    I think you are referring to the inline stock of the M16 and M4.

    If you look at photos of the AK-47 and AKM you will notice immediately the angle of the stock to the barrel has changed to a more inline design.

    Having said that the stocks of the most accurate bolt action rifles are not inline either, yet manage to be accurate.

    I have seen videos of the AEK rifle with balanced recoil being fired on full auto and the holes appearing in the target paper appearing from the top down... ie the rifle is clearly not only not kicking up, it is actually tracking down the target in full auto mode.

    the FG-42 had an inline stock in WWII so it is not new or revolutionary... even the FN FAL had an inline stock.

    As far as I know, inline stock means the stock stays in more similar position and angle compared to the barrel axis, and that more or less mitigates the recoil.

    But the askew stock of AK-47 has its own reason. That askew stock is better for leaning the gun into your cheek so that you can take a proper aim.

    In the case you want accuracy, you do not open fire in full burst. You fire in short burst of 2-3 shots or single shot so that the effect of recoil is limited. And in that case you want to take a proper aim. Therefore AK designers deemed that inline stock is not neccessary, and they skewed the stock a bit so that the gun can lean into your cheek.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:28 am

    Yes.

    An angled stock allows the iron sights to be closer to the barrel, while inline stock require raised iron sights.

    There were plenty of cases with the SA-80 where the soldiers would raise their telescopic sights over the lower edge of a window and fire in urban combat training only to learn later that the muzzle of the barrel of their rifle had not cleared the window sill and their shots would hit the window sill and not the target.

    The practical results of an inline stock is that the rifle tends to simply push back rather than kick upwards like a rifle with an angled stock.

    The change to the AKM reduced muzzle rise during firing, which most effected it during full auto fire, but also the spoon shaped muzzle device also directed the muzzle blast up and to the right to counter both the muzzle climb and also the rotation of the body when firing from the right shoulder.

    As the rifle pushed back on the right hand shoulder the body tended to rotate to the right with the muzzle rising and moving to the right. The muzzle device pushed the barrel down and to the left to counter this effect.

    The muzzle device on the AK-74 is even more effective in countering recoil and keeping the muzzle on target.


    _________________
    “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
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

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

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:27 pm

    I heard that many people believe that MP44 is the first modern assault rifle and has strong impact on later models, including AK-47.

    But I think this belief is wrong.

    MP44 is not an assault rifle. The German said verly clear, that it is a Machine Pistol (Maschinenpistole). And the catridge use for it is the Pistolenpatrone M43, roughly means catridge for pistol.

    We cannot translate StG into "assault rifle", but "assault gun". Gewehr literally means "gun", any kinds of gun. We cannot translate "Maschinengewehr" as "machine... rifle".

    When Gewehr stand alone witout any clarification, for exp G41, G43, G3, G11, G36, it is the standard firearm for the German Army at that time. For G41, G43, gewehr is semiautomatic rifle, for G11, G3, G36, gewehr is an automatic assault rifle.

    Many opinions claimed that MP44 is a machine pistol with the size and shape of a long rifle. The Pistolepatrone is said to be merely a overpressured, overgunpowder pistol catridge. And the MP44 lacks the handguard which allow the hand of the gunner to extend into the more asterior part of the barrel, a distinctive trait of a rifle which allow the gunner to aim more properly.

    It is said there is an effort of Mauser to created a true assault rifle in 193x with the last version, SK-39 used GECO 7.62mm catridge. However the leader and favourites of Hitler in war industry were mostly MP designers and MP developers, as a result the "assault" was cut off of the "rifle" and MP dominated the German "assault" field.

    The true first assault rifle should be the Fedorov Avtomat. It does not have full auto firing mode, it sets the very first basic foundation of an assault rifle and an intermediate catridge for that. Although FA did not achieve a 100% commercial success due to the lack of ammo supply, its idea survive and later evolve into the AK-47 and M43 catridge.

    And the design of MP44 has nothing to do with AK-47. It used tilting bolt, similar to the Czech ZB-26. Meanwhile AK-47 used the rotating bolt, with 2 distinctively big logs. The idea of 2 logs rotating bolt is taken from M1 Garand, originally the logs of Garand is too small, and in AK the designers increased the size of the logs so that most of the force and pressure will be put into the logs rather than the main part of the bolt.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:19 am

    Just looking at the MP44 and the AK-47 a lot of people look at the gas tube above the barrel, which requires a raised front iron sight, and the curved magazine and think they are related.

    Opening them up however the mechanisms are quite different with the MP44 looking like an SKS or FN FAL with a two piece bolt and bolt carrier combination, and not a rotating bolt and bolt carrier like the AK-47.

    The A in AK actually means Avtomat and actually refers to the Federov Avtomat of 1915, which was their first assault rifle. The Avtomat was capable of fully automatic fire as well as single shots and used a 25 round curved magazine.





    _________________
    “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
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

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

    Post  Mike E on Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:15 pm

    Did anyone hear what Gorby said about the West messing with Russia? I'd say he was spot on.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

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

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Dec 26, 2014 10:36 am

    I noticed for some reason whenever someone asked "Why Russian APFSDS penetrator is shorter than Western one ?" ppl often said "Because it's two piece round"

    I see it's kinda unfounded because the one who limit the length of the Russian penetrator is the autoloader's dimension not because it's being two piece ammo. There's no reason why two piece ammo can't take longer penetrator except limited by the dimension of other thing (autoloader or the tank itself)

    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

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

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Dec 26, 2014 12:33 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:I noticed for some reason whenever someone asked "Why Russian APFSDS penetrator is shorter than Western one ?" ppl often said "Because it's two piece round"

    I see it's kinda unfounded because the one who limit the length of the Russian penetrator is the autoloader's dimension not because it's being two piece ammo. There's no reason why two piece ammo can't take longer penetrator except limited by the dimension of other thing (autoloader or the tank itself)

    funny thing is that if you take a look at the shorter russian penetrators you'll see that their design is more advanced- ex. is the humble mango -
    V. Fofanov wrote:"Had a very complicated design, including the solid frontal ballistic/penetrating cap, shock absorber/secondary penetrating cap, and then two WHA penetrators of very high elongation. The penetrators interfaced with the projectile body by means of a sheath manufactured of a low-melting-point alloy; during the penetration the sheath would melt allowing the penetrators to slide freely forward without losing energy and integrity on separation from the projectile body"
    in contrast the equivalent murican weapon, the m829a1 employs a very plain solid DU cylinder encased in steel- kontakt-5 has no problem snapping it in two. against western armor arrays of the period the mango would be dangerous.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

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

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Dec 26, 2014 10:23 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    funny thing is that if you take a look at the shorter russian penetrators you'll see that their design is more advanced- ex. is the humble mango -

    Well subject of penetrator performance and their respective resistance to countermeasure deserve the whole discussion of itself.

    Another stupid misconception which quite prevalent is "N011M Bars radar is extraordinarily heavy that require canard to balance" The whole N011M weighs some 650 Kg, won't be that far from Su-27's original N001 radar thus won't affect Cg's (if such are affected then by logic the one should be installed would be ballast weight like what F-15 did)

    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

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

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:56 am

    hehehe, browsed mp.net for a couple of minutes and HS this one is fcking gold!!!
    Shelldraken wrote:
    "Yes 'they' can. And it is much, much easier to track a rail garrison than a field mobile ICBM. That is if the later ever leave their shelters. Also rail garrisons are far easier to destroy so you can deploy a much smaller throw weight against them than compared to a silo. So actually its a terrible outcome. Its a huge expense for the rail garrison and if there is a nuclear exchange you get a bunch of nice big nuke craters across your rail lines (where the rail ICBMs were) cutting the vital lines of communication you are going to need to try and put your country back together. Much better to just have a cheap concrete silo in the middle of nowhere. So when it gets taken out you didn't waste too much gold on it and the collateral damage is minimal."
    my god this is just so frickin wrong!!! Laughing Laughing Laughing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:04 am

    Investing in rail infrastructure now would be a good thing for Russia including high speed rail services would increase the value of their rail based ICBMs exponentially.

    Even a relatively cheap siding with a slight incline downwards and build up dirt walls on either side and the rear would protect a rail based ICBM train from anything but a very near miss... as soon as a warning of missile attack comes through with all those new ground and satellite based sensors to detect enemy launches you can divert all trains into these sidings for a few minutes to protect them from the blast.

    Once the blast has past they can come back up and continue on their merry way... from their sidings they can launch retaliation strikes.

    They will be vulnerable to direct hits, but surface blast options would be very limited for the enemy because although it will destroy a large area of track... new track is easy and cheap to lay and does not stop trains launching missiles. Ground bursts limits the damage area as much of the blast is wasted straight into the ground. Air bursts wont destroy track and although it will blow over a train for many dozens of kms it wont blow over trains just below ground level protected by berms.

    With only 1,200 to 1,500 nuke warheads the US wont have enough to cover all the rail launch positions from Moscow to Leningrad let alone all the rest of the rail network.



    _________________
    “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
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

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

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:Investing in rail infrastructure now would be a good thing for Russia including high speed rail services would increase the value of their rail based ICBMs exponentially.

    Even a relatively cheap siding with a slight incline downwards and build up dirt walls on either side and the rear would protect a rail based ICBM train from anything but a very near miss... as soon as a warning of missile attack comes through with all those new ground and satellite based  sensors to detect enemy launches you can divert all trains into these sidings for a few minutes to protect them from the blast.

    Once the blast has past they can come back up and continue on their merry way... from their sidings they can launch retaliation strikes.

    They will be vulnerable to direct hits, but surface blast options would be very limited for the enemy because although it will destroy a large area of track... new track is easy and cheap to lay and does not stop trains launching missiles. Ground bursts limits the damage area as much of the blast is wasted straight into the ground. Air bursts wont destroy track and although it will blow over a train for many dozens of kms it wont blow over trains just below ground level protected by berms.

    With only 1,200 to 1,500 nuke warheads the US wont have enough to cover all the rail launch positions from Moscow to Leningrad let alone all the rest of the rail network.

    well said. i also hate the way these west stronk crew dismiss everything russia does (most likely reactions to western actions) as paranoia in one sentence and then say we can totally fck up your deterrence in the other, usually in just 1 post. anyway, another sneak untruth-
    wiki ETC gun page wrote:
    Most proposed advances in gun technology are based on the assumption that the solid propellant as a stand alone propulsion system is no longer capable of delivering the required muzzle energy. This requirement has been underscored by the appearance of the Russian T-90 main battle tank.
    which is hilarious because absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence- kholod, squall, among others anyone? not to mention while the west jerk off with hilariously bulky and expensive capacitors the russkies would most likely just use EPG- which they invented way back in the 50s btw.
    a much more simple, and elegant solution imo.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

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

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:07 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    which is hilarious because absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence- kholod, squall, among others anyone? not to mention while the west jerk off with hilariously bulky and expensive capacitors the russkies would most likely just use EPG- which they invented way back in the 50s btw.
    a much more simple, and elegant solution imo.

    Hmm i wonder if this practical for tank gun application.

    Explosive is never used by itself as gun propellant because it'll simply burst the barrel before moving anything. Gun propellant in other hand may not have the compressive power required by Pumped flux generator.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

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

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:39 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Hmm i wonder if this practical for tank gun application.

    Explosive is never used by itself as gun propellant because it'll simply burst the barrel before moving anything.  Gun propellant in other hand may not have the compressive power required by Pumped flux generator.
    the EPG is just to supply additional energy to the propellant gases by providing the insane amounts of current that heats up the propellant gas further- maybe even turning it to plasma. hotter gas has higher speed of sound so anything it carries it can carry much faster than colder one.

    another neat thing is the EMP effect- normally the harness used to contain the explosion(which btw is not that much- since you just need to shrink a coil you can make it so that its not that destructive and easily contained by the devices container) shields the EMP effect- use it in the open and you have a nice EMP grenade.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3372
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:12 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:hehehe, browsed mp.net for a couple of minutes and HS this one is fcking gold!!!
    Shelldraken wrote:
    "Yes 'they' can. And it is much, much easier to track a rail garrison than a field mobile ICBM. That is if the later ever leave their shelters. Also rail garrisons are far easier to destroy so you can deploy a much smaller throw weight against them than compared to a silo. So actually its a terrible outcome. Its a huge expense for the rail garrison and if there is a nuclear exchange you get a bunch of nice big nuke craters across your rail lines (where the rail ICBMs were) cutting the vital lines of communication you are going to need to try and put your country back together. Much better to just have a cheap concrete silo in the middle of nowhere. So when it gets taken out you didn't waste too much gold on it and the collateral damage is minimal."
    my god this is just so frickin wrong!!! Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Ah yes, the denizens of the NATO butthurt forum. User "void" is fighting a losing battle talking sense to a bunch of shit flinging chimps.
    None of these NATO stronk monkeys has a clue about the technical aspects. And as for physics, what's that? But they are very quick
    and keen to jump all over Russia when their media starts to send out the orders.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:25 am

    kvs wrote:
    collegeboy16 wrote:hehehe, browsed mp.net for a couple of minutes and HS this one is fcking gold!!!
    Shelldraken wrote:
    "Yes 'they' can. And it is much, much easier to track a rail garrison than a field mobile ICBM. That is if the later ever leave their shelters. Also rail garrisons are far easier to destroy so you can deploy a much smaller throw weight against them than compared to a silo. So actually its a terrible outcome. Its a huge expense for the rail garrison and if there is a nuclear exchange you get a bunch of nice big nuke craters across your rail lines (where the rail ICBMs were) cutting the vital lines of communication you are going to need to try and put your country back together. Much better to just have a cheap concrete silo in the middle of nowhere. So when it gets taken out you didn't waste too much gold on it and the collateral damage is minimal."
    my god this is just so frickin wrong!!! Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Ah yes, the denizens of the NATO butthurt forum.   User "void" is fighting a losing battle talking sense to a bunch of shit flinging chimps.
    None of these NATO stronk monkeys has a clue about the technical aspects.   And as for physics, what's that?  But they are very quick
    and keen to jump all over Russia when their media starts to send out the orders.

    These are the same crackpot jackassed teabaggers that claimed the European Meatshield wasn't directed towards Russia, and only 3 months ago leading politicians in the Baltic states admitted that the Euro ABM should be directed towards Russia...WOOPS!!! They let the cat out the bag... lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

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

    Post  Regular on Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:29 am

    True nature of ABM was shown in 080808 already. But smart heads prevailed then.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

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

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:29 am

    Yeah I got permabanned from mp.net now it seems.

    Would have loved to show some people their place in the train ICBM thread. They have no idea what kind of system they're talking about here.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3372
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:08 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Yeah I got permabanned from mp.net now it seems.

    Would have loved to show some people their place in the train ICBM thread. They have no idea what kind of system they're talking about here.

    That is simply obscene, what they did to you. None of your posts ever violated any forum rules. At the same time
    foaming at the mouth hater retards who routinely violate the rules are still allowed to post and I notice that they
    never really get suspended either. Some are slapped on the wrist to make it look like the mods are fair but that
    is transparent BS. The NATO butthurt forum is an indictment of the NATO groupthink and intolerance for freedom
    of thought and speech. (Sorry, but the excuse that it is a private forum and that they can do what they want is
    lame, they are pretending to have free exchange and not some exclusive cult indoctrination.)
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:28 pm

    kvs wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Yeah I got permabanned from mp.net now it seems.

    Would have loved to show some people their place in the train ICBM thread. They have no idea what kind of system they're talking about here.

    That is simply obscene, what they did to you.  None of your posts ever violated any forum rules.   At the same time
    foaming at the mouth hater retards who routinely violate the rules are still allowed to post and I notice that they
    never really get suspended either.   Some are slapped on the wrist to make it look like the mods are fair but that
    is transparent BS.   The NATO butthurt forum is an indictment of the NATO groupthink and intolerance for freedom
    of thought and speech.   (Sorry, but the excuse that it is a private forum and that they can do what they want is
    lame, they are pretending to have free exchange and not some exclusive cult indoctrination.)

    Anybody with one eye and one braincell can see that mp net is a US fanboy operated forum, i was banned immidiatley after one single post.

    They started a thread rant about russia and how Putin is a dictator oppressing everyone, so i replied if Putin is a dictator then how should we call our leaders who warmonger around the globe for oil and spread terrorism? And that was the last post. The place is filled with retarded US americans who love to speak about "freespeech, democracy and freedom" but their actions show their true nature of political motivated society, every single one of them holds nothing of anything they say.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

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

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:04 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Anybody with one eye and one braincell can see that mp net is a US fanboy operated forum, i was banned immidiatley after one single post.

    They started a thread rant about russia and how Putin is a dictator oppressing everyone, so i replied if Putin is a dictator then how should we call our leaders who warmonger around the globe for oil and spread terrorism? And that was the last post. The place is filled with retarded US americans who love to speak about "freespeech, democracy and freedom" but their actions show their true nature of political motivated society, every single one of them holds nothing of anything they say.
    getting permabanned from that site is like a badge of honor nowadays. just hope all the rational people migrate here- deprive them madafakz of good posts.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:48 pm