Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Share

    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 7:28 pm

    Just for the record I have an AK-47 [Romanian], an AK-74 [Bulgarian], 11 SKS carbines [Romanian, Albanian, Yugoslavian, Chinese- haven't picked up a Russian yet, waiting for a good deal], 2 AR-15s, an M1 Garand, and a semi-automatic clone of the HK G3.


    At 500 yards with the M1 Garand I was capable of putting two rounds essentially on top of each other on a 2/3 reduced man-sized target [the target was 66% of a typical man], firing prone from a sling-supported position with only iron sights. My father did the same with an AR-15. Other people did the same with an Fn-Fal or an M1A [semi-automatic modern version of the M14]. Nobody took an AK variant or an SKS from their case to even try because it would have been a waste of ammunition.


    I did conduct tests of the SKS rifles on my own to see which amongst the ones I had was the most accurate or capable of accuracy. I used the same ammunition for all of them, Yugoslavian M67 military surplus, I fired 20 rounds, some of them 10 rounds standing, 10 rounds seated, some of them all 20 rounds standing. This was at 50 yards.

    I found that the Chinese had the worst accuracy and worst consistency, I'll never keep it in my vehicle as an emergency rifle [I keep a Romanian SKS in my vehicle as an emergency rifle]. The Yugoslavian and Romanian were about equal, with the Yugoslavians having a slight advantage in a tighter grouping and accuracy.


    Even still, I found the groupings to be mostly unacceptable by my standards and considering that I have been able to put 2, even 3, rounds practically on top of each other, at 500 yards with an M1 Garand, I should be able to achieve tight groups at 50 yards with an SKS. The SKS has a rather nasty trigger pull, the basic rifle needs a trigger job done to it and that should probably result in group pattern tightening by 30-50% [from what I've read of people who had the trigger jobs done], but still it is nowhere near the M1 Garand.

    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 7:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    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...



    Well you're getting shot at accuracy tends to go down.

    If you have a 100% chance of hitting a target at 300 meters in peace-time on the range, that might drop to 50% or less during combat.


    Also, experiences in Afghanistan are different from Iraq. Many engagements in Afghanistan are happening at 400-600 meters, some even 800 meters. Taliban fighters are using the RPG-7 to engage American patrols from well outside the maximum effective range of the M4 carbine with its 14.5 inch barrel. Insurgents [throughout the world] have often relied on the self-detonate feature in the RPG-7s grenade, to use it as a poor man's artillery, sitting about 1000 yards from the enemy and firing the RPG so it will explode over the enemy's position.

    They also have the Enfield rifles, the M91/30 Nagant, and the SVD, all of which allow them to engage American personnel well outside the effective range of the M4 Carbine [which has a 14.5 inch barrel and was designed to be a true Carbine].

    The Marines are still using a 20 inch barrel version of the M16, the M16A4, so the individual Marine is able to take accurate shots out to 500+ yards [it helps that the Marines train/qualify out to 500 yards as a matter of policy].


    Anyway, they have brought back the old yet trusted M14 rifle, in a semi-automatic configuration, as a Designated Marksman's Rifle, with the idea that each squad should have two such rifles in the hands of specially trained riflemen who have been trained to engage targets out to 800-1000 yards and now have been issued a rifle capable of doing just that.


    In Iraq most engagements happened under 300 yards, but they found something very interesting. Soldiers wearing body armor reported they were far less nervous about exposing themselves and taking a position necessary to get a better shot at the enemy and they were more willing to rapidly engage the enemy when the enemy was around 200 yards away. It made little difference when the enemy was within 50 yards.

    They also spoke with members of one Marine unit which was involved in the rapid advance to Baghdad. This unit suffered extremely minimal casualties compared with the several hundred Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary fighters that they killed. One Marine summed it up, "we were using the M16, they were using the AK-47, we were able to engage them outside of the effective range of their weapons, and we've trained at those ranges, almost everytime a Marine pulled the trigger an Iraqi soldier went down, while almost none of them hit us, we had more problems from RPGs than from their AKs."

    My friend who fought in Fallujah said that the AK was an awesome weapon for houes to house, room to room, close quarters, he said, "if you had to go into a building or work just outside of the building and engage them at 50 yards, the AK-47 would be fine for that, but anything beyond that and you really need the M16."


    Try to keep in mind, at the very basic level, the AK-47 was designed first and foremost as a machine gun that happened to be capable of switching into semi-automatic mode. The M-16 was designed as a rifle, specifically a precision rifle, that had the capability of switching into fully-automatic mode.

    The AK-47 is basically a machine gun, an automatic rifle, whichever term you wish to use, the M-16 is a true rifle.


    You can google AK-47 vs M16 and see that there are about a half-dozen videos where both weapons are discussed, analyzed, and then fired under identical conditions.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed May 01, 2013 9:21 pm



    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


    Seriously ?
    We are truly debating about an article by Col. Wilbur E. Gray ?
    Then why not one by Jim Dunnigan from Strategypage ? Very Happy

    It is in wargaming and game design exactly in the same way of J. Dunnigan and show its same degree of disturbed (to the limit of the comical) penchant for historic revisionism and twisting of facts and events...always to put anything western-related in the better light possible. Razz Razz


    Anyway this is a very well known "article" (the original was in an old "Strategy and tactic" magazine), and from the first to the last word is a horrific collection of weak factoids, groundless assumptions ,half -truths and true factual mistakes.

    In absolute the part i prefer is its "climax" around Pershing II and GLCM


    It was, however, the US deployment of its GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile) and the Pershing II SSM (Surface to Surface Missile) systems to Europe in 1983 that overturned Soviet complacency.

    Ogarkov's assertions were ratified by their deployment. The GLCM could fly undetected beneath radar and hit with "second window from the left" accuracy. The Pershing II could fly 1,800 kilometers and hit within "somewhat less than 100 feet" of its target by using a hard-to-counter guidance system that compared radar images of the ground to digital maps carried in an onboard database. The missiles' short flight time also meant they could strike before Soviet commanders could react. And as Desert Storm and the 2001- 2 war in Afghanistan would demonstrate, the United States and the West in general actually seemed to be able to make those complex devices work on the battlefield. To suspicious Soviet generals, those developments also meant the United States had achieved de facto first strike superiority. And so the favorable correlation of forces was shattered.


    Someone ,one day or the other ,should explain to him that just in those years NATO feel itself in the darkest of the corners for the wide introduction by part of URSS of a little thing called..... РСД-10 and also that the deployment of Pershing II and GLCM ( real TOYS at comparison ) was one of the most gasping, pathetic, self-embarrassing attempt of the entire military history to show ,to an opponent, some kind of improvised "response" to lure it to the diplomatic table and here only Mikhail Gorbachev's aid, against the opinion and with ferocious opposition of almost the whole VGK, dragged out NATO from that deadly strategic hole.


    In those years that was the average level of the matter.


    http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1983/pdf/bg300.pdf


    If someone is really interested in a more serious -western- analysis of the situation of those years of plain Cold War can read those CIA declassified dossiers on the subject (at least it could get at least a correct, even if simplistic idea of the real area and vector of attack of a possible Soviet offensive in Europe)


    http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278537.pdf


    http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278537.pdf

    Naturally if someone is interested in something ,in the open press, even more adherent to reality for the Soviet side, should procure to himself "Voennaya Strategiya" or some of the first numbers of "Voennaiya Mysl".


    Anyway if someone still ask to itself toward who dangled the Conventional Military Force's balance in Europe in those years is sufficient to open the page at NATO site


    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_23453.htm



    a.The Soviet Union's military presence in Europe, at a level far in excess of its needs for self defence, directly challenges our security as well as our hopes for change in the political situation in Europe.
    Thus the conventional imbalance in Europe remains at the core of Europe's security concerns.
    The problem is to a large extent a function of the Warsaw Pact's superiority in key conventional weapon systems.
    But it is not only a matter of numerical imbalances. Other asymmetries are also important, for example:
    the Warsaw Pact, based on the Soviet Union's forward-deployed forces, has a capability for surprise attack and large-scale offensive action; the Allies neither have, nor aspire to, such a capability;
    the countries of the Warsaw Pact form a contiguous land mass; those of the Alliance are geographically disconnected;
    the Warsaw Pact can generate a massive reinforcement potential from distances of only a few hundred kilometres; many Allied reinforcements need to cross the Atlantic;
    the Warsaw Pact's military posture and activities are still shrouded in secrecy, whereas those of Allied countries are transparent and under permanent public scrutiny.



    Now the real central question which would receive the combined attention of all of us :

    Exist ,maybe, a terrible virus in USA that hit selectively low grade Colonels forcing them at twist grossly and clumsily facts and events to attempt to sell a revised version of relity ?
    Do you know ,after the infamous "show" of USAF Colonel Fornov overturning upside-down the facts, technicla details and outcome or red Flag 2008 and Col. Wilbur E. Gray i begin to have more than a doubt on that.... Laughing Laughing Laughing




    Last edited by Mindstorm on Wed May 01, 2013 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
    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 Wed May 01, 2013 10:00 pm

    BTRfan wrote:
    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.
    Where did You get that? On a contrary I've decent comparison of AK-74 and M-4 and only category M-4 won was accuracy and not on big margin anyways.

    The AK-47 is basically a machine gun, an automatic rifle, whichever term you wish to use, the M-16 is a true rifle.
    Sorry, but have You ever fired machine gun?? I've only handled polish made Kalashnikovs in army and shot FN MAG, and MG3 machine guns. And for sake of god, I would never call AKM a machine gun! I guess You didn't have luck to carry one too.
    AK is assault rifle and shooter was expected to close in.
    Old M-16A2 is not impressive too, I wouldn't call it precision rifle. Very archaic and unreliable, accuracy is not great too. It becomes worthless in forest where distances are small and You have to id/acquire target full auto fire on target.
    We have Lithuanian version M-14L1, and that is accuracy rifle.

    I don't know what is more pathetic - Russians claiming that their new weapon is more accurate then old M-16 they show on videos or Americans that boast about how accurate and amazing their M-16 are. Sorry, but it's outdated as hell, take any modern rifle in to Your hands, shoot it and You will change Your opinion.

    Nice story about Iraq, I know that Americans fought professionally, but it was sometimes painful to see poor infantry storming buildings with unsuitable M-16 and almost no CQB discipline. We can see common mistakes in clearing rooms and CQB who cost unlucky soldier lives all over the world. I know that most armies aren't properly trained with in CQB, but we are talking about US.
    For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjenmP2FptE and there were more videos where I get shivers from seeing guys running in front of firing position or exposing himself just to have a peak or pot shot towards enemy. I see bravery but not tactics. Don't get me wrong I have respect to them, but if You compare their tactics then and the ones You see used by ISAF and NATO today then You see the picture.
    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 Wed May 01, 2013 10:21 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    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?
    Do You think people in Europe wouldn't be so brave to face Soviet invasion in Cold war? I bet bravery wouldn't count as much these days.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 1:50 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    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


    Seriously ?
    We are truly debating about an article by Col. Wilbur E. Gray ?
    Then why not one by Jim Dunnigan from Strategypage ? Very Happy

    It is in wargaming and game design exactly in the same way of J. Dunnigan and show its same degree of disturbed (to the limit of the comical) penchant for historic revisionism and twisting of facts and events...always to put anything western-related in the better light possible. Razz Razz


    Anyway this is a very well known "article" (the original was in an old "Strategy and tactic" magazine), and from the first to the last word is a horrific collection of weak factoids, groundless assumptions ,half -truths and true factual mistakes.

    In absolute the part i prefer is its "climax" around Pershing II and GLCM


    It was, however, the US deployment of its GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile) and the Pershing II SSM (Surface to Surface Missile) systems to Europe in 1983 that overturned Soviet complacency.

    Ogarkov's assertions were ratified by their deployment. The GLCM could fly undetected beneath radar and hit with "second window from the left" accuracy. The Pershing II could fly 1,800 kilometers and hit within "somewhat less than 100 feet" of its target by using a hard-to-counter guidance system that compared radar images of the ground to digital maps carried in an onboard database. The missiles' short flight time also meant they could strike before Soviet commanders could react. And as Desert Storm and the 2001- 2 war in Afghanistan would demonstrate, the United States and the West in general actually seemed to be able to make those complex devices work on the battlefield. To suspicious Soviet generals, those developments also meant the United States had achieved de facto first strike superiority. And so the favorable correlation of forces was shattered.


    Someone ,one day or the other ,should explain to him that just in those years NATO feel itself in the darkest of the corners for the wide introduction by part of URSS of a little thing called..... РСД-10 and also that the deployment of Pershing II and GLCM ( real TOYS at comparison ) was one of the most gasping, pathetic, self-embarrassing attempt of the entire military history to show ,to an opponent, some kind of improvised "response" to lure it to the diplomatic table and here only Mikhail Gorbachev's aid, against the opinion and with ferocious opposition of almost the whole VGK, dragged out NATO from that deadly strategic hole.


    In those years that was the average level of the matter.


    http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1983/pdf/bg300.pdf


    If someone is really interested in a more serious -western- analysis of the situation of those years of plain Cold War can read those CIA declassified dossiers on the subject (at least it could get at least a correct, even if simplistic idea of the real area and vector of attack of a possible Soviet offensive in Europe)


    http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278537.pdf


    http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278537.pdf

    Naturally if someone is interested in something ,in the open press, even more adherent to reality for the Soviet side, should procure to himself "Voennaya Strategiya" or some of the first numbers of "Voennaiya Mysl".


    Anyway if someone still ask to itself toward who dangled the Conventional Military Force's balance in Europe in those years is sufficient to open the page at NATO site


    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_23453.htm



    a.The Soviet Union's military presence in Europe, at a level far in excess of its needs for self defence, directly challenges our security as well as our hopes for change in the political situation in Europe.
    Thus the conventional imbalance in Europe remains at the core of Europe's security concerns.
    The problem is to a large extent a function of the Warsaw Pact's superiority in key conventional weapon systems.
    But it is not only a matter of numerical imbalances. Other asymmetries are also important, for example:
    the Warsaw Pact, based on the Soviet Union's forward-deployed forces, has a capability for surprise attack and large-scale offensive action; the Allies neither have, nor aspire to, such a capability;
    the countries of the Warsaw Pact form a contiguous land mass; those of the Alliance are geographically disconnected;
    the Warsaw Pact can generate a massive reinforcement potential from distances of only a few hundred kilometres; many Allied reinforcements need to cross the Atlantic;
    the Warsaw Pact's military posture and activities are still shrouded in secrecy, whereas those of Allied countries are transparent and under permanent public scrutiny.



    Now the real central question which would receive the combined attention of all of us :

    Exist ,maybe, a terrible virus in USA that hit selectively low grade Colonels forcing them at twist grossly and clumsily facts and events to attempt to sell a revised version of relity ?
    Do you know ,after the infamous "show" of USAF Colonel Fornov overturning upside-down the facts, technicla details and outcome or red Flag 2008 and Col. Wilbur E. Gray i begin to have more than a doubt on that.... Laughing Laughing Laughing





    http://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-History-1955-1991-National-Security/dp/9637326073


    This book gets heavily into the issues with Romania and Romania consistently sabotaging the Warsaw Pact. The Kremlin couldn't even keep Romania in line or keep them from delivering/selling samples of Soviet weapon systems to the USA.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 1:57 am

    Regular wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:
    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.
    Where did You get that? On a contrary I've decent comparison of AK-74 and M-4 and only category M-4 won was accuracy and not on big margin anyways.

    The AK-47 is basically a machine gun, an automatic rifle, whichever term you wish to use, the M-16 is a true rifle.
    Sorry, but have You ever fired machine gun?? I've only handled polish made Kalashnikovs in army and shot FN MAG, and MG3 machine guns. And for sake of god, I would never call AKM a machine gun! I guess You didn't have luck to carry one too.
    AK is assault rifle and shooter was expected to close in.
    Old M-16A2 is not impressive too, I wouldn't call it precision rifle. Very archaic and unreliable, accuracy is not great too. It becomes worthless in forest where distances are small and You have to id/acquire target full auto fire on target.
    We have Lithuanian version M-14L1, and that is accuracy rifle.

    I don't know what is more pathetic - Russians claiming that their new weapon is more accurate then old M-16 they show on videos or Americans that boast about how accurate and amazing their M-16 are. Sorry, but it's outdated as hell, take any modern rifle in to Your hands, shoot it and You will change Your opinion.

    Nice story about Iraq, I know that Americans fought professionally, but it was sometimes painful to see poor infantry storming buildings with unsuitable M-16 and almost no CQB discipline. We can see common mistakes in clearing rooms and CQB who cost unlucky soldier lives all over the world. I know that most armies aren't properly trained with in CQB, but we are talking about US.
    For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjenmP2FptE and there were more videos where I get shivers from seeing guys running in front of firing position or exposing himself just to have a peak or pot shot towards enemy. I see bravery but not tactics. Don't get me wrong I have respect to them, but if You compare their tactics then and the ones You see used by ISAF and NATO today then You see the picture.



    The BAR is technically an automatic rifle but it is intended to be a squad light machine gun.

    The M-16 is capable of automatic fire but it is primarily intended as an individual service rifle.


    The AK-47 can accept a 75 round or 100 round drum and it can operate in a squad support role. The M-16 would be a rather poor choice for a squad support/light machine gun role.




    There is a 1000 yard rifle competition in Ohio at Camp Perry and for years people would use M1 Garands, M1A rifles, some would use an AR style rifle... Over the last few years there has been a decided shift, everybody uses an AR style rifle, either an AR-15 or an AR-10, almost nobody uses the M1A anymore, and they have separate events for the M1 Garand. To my knowledge NOBODY has EVER used an AK variant or an SKS, that should say something.

    You can use an out of the box AR-15, sight it in, and take it to the event, and do okay, but you'll probably lose to the people who fine-tuned their rifle.

    You can use an out of the box AK clone, sight it in, and take it to the event, and you probably won't even get on the paper at 1000 yards.



    The AK is a nice weapon and I don't fault folks who own them [I own two myself] or who enjoy them, but anybody who claims the AK-47/AKM/AK family is "equal" in accuracy, let alone "greater" in accuracy, to the M16/AR-15 family of rifles, is either ignorant and naive or they are outright lying.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 2:05 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    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


    Seriously ?
    We are truly debating about an article by Col. Wilbur E. Gray ?
    Then why not one by Jim Dunnigan from Strategypage ? Very Happy

    It is in wargaming and game design exactly in the same way of J. Dunnigan and show its same degree of disturbed (to the limit of the comical) penchant for historic revisionism and twisting of facts and events...always to put anything western-related in the better light possible. Razz Razz


    Anyway this is a very well known "article" (the original was in an old "Strategy and tactic" magazine), and from the first to the last word is a horrific collection of weak factoids, groundless assumptions ,half -truths and true factual mistakes.

    In absolute the part i prefer is its "climax" around Pershing II and GLCM


    It was, however, the US deployment of its GLCM (Ground Launched Cruise Missile) and the Pershing II SSM (Surface to Surface Missile) systems to Europe in 1983 that overturned Soviet complacency.

    Ogarkov's assertions were ratified by their deployment. The GLCM could fly undetected beneath radar and hit with "second window from the left" accuracy. The Pershing II could fly 1,800 kilometers and hit within "somewhat less than 100 feet" of its target by using a hard-to-counter guidance system that compared radar images of the ground to digital maps carried in an onboard database. The missiles' short flight time also meant they could strike before Soviet commanders could react. And as Desert Storm and the 2001- 2 war in Afghanistan would demonstrate, the United States and the West in general actually seemed to be able to make those complex devices work on the battlefield. To suspicious Soviet generals, those developments also meant the United States had achieved de facto first strike superiority. And so the favorable correlation of forces was shattered.


    Someone ,one day or the other ,should explain to him that just in those years NATO feel itself in the darkest of the corners for the wide introduction by part of URSS of a little thing called..... РСД-10 and also that the deployment of Pershing II and GLCM ( real TOYS at comparison ) was one of the most gasping, pathetic, self-embarrassing attempt of the entire military history to show ,to an opponent, some kind of improvised "response" to lure it to the diplomatic table and here only Mikhail Gorbachev's aid, against the opinion and with ferocious opposition of almost the whole VGK, dragged out NATO from that deadly strategic hole.


    In those years that was the average level of the matter.


    http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1983/pdf/bg300.pdf


    If someone is really interested in a more serious -western- analysis of the situation of those years of plain Cold War can read those CIA declassified dossiers on the subject (at least it could get at least a correct, even if simplistic idea of the real area and vector of attack of a possible Soviet offensive in Europe)


    http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278537.pdf


    http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278537.pdf

    Naturally if someone is interested in something ,in the open press, even more adherent to reality for the Soviet side, should procure to himself "Voennaya Strategiya" or some of the first numbers of "Voennaiya Mysl".


    Anyway if someone still ask to itself toward who dangled the Conventional Military Force's balance in Europe in those years is sufficient to open the page at NATO site


    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_23453.htm



    a.The Soviet Union's military presence in Europe, at a level far in excess of its needs for self defence, directly challenges our security as well as our hopes for change in the political situation in Europe.
    Thus the conventional imbalance in Europe remains at the core of Europe's security concerns.
    The problem is to a large extent a function of the Warsaw Pact's superiority in key conventional weapon systems.
    But it is not only a matter of numerical imbalances. Other asymmetries are also important, for example:
    the Warsaw Pact, based on the Soviet Union's forward-deployed forces, has a capability for surprise attack and large-scale offensive action; the Allies neither have, nor aspire to, such a capability;
    the countries of the Warsaw Pact form a contiguous land mass; those of the Alliance are geographically disconnected;
    the Warsaw Pact can generate a massive reinforcement potential from distances of only a few hundred kilometres; many Allied reinforcements need to cross the Atlantic;
    the Warsaw Pact's military posture and activities are still shrouded in secrecy, whereas those of Allied countries are transparent and under permanent public scrutiny.



    Now the real central question which would receive the combined attention of all of us :

    Exist ,maybe, a terrible virus in USA that hit selectively low grade Colonels forcing them at twist grossly and clumsily facts and events to attempt to sell a revised version of relity ?
    Do you know ,after the infamous "show" of USAF Colonel Fornov overturning upside-down the facts, technicla details and outcome or red Flag 2008 and Col. Wilbur E. Gray i begin to have more than a doubt on that.... Laughing Laughing Laughing




    Forward deployed troops giving the ability of a surprise attack provides a short-term advantage... But if everything is peaceful and calm and then suddenly 1 million Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops pour across Central Europe, destroying the Berlin Brigade and killing/wounding/capturing 30,000 other American soldiers in the process, "REMEMBER BERLIN!" or "Avenge the Berlin Brigade!" or other such slogans, would serve to rally Americans behind a war that they would prosecute until victory was secured.


    Surprise attacks are all well and good from a military perspective but if they give your enemy massive moral superiority and the ability to draft tens of millions with minimal opposition, then the surprise attack essentially backfires...

    Imagine if America had declared war on Japan in September of 1941 and ordered 4 million young men to report for military service, simply because, "American policies and Japanese policies are very different and we do not approve of their war in China." That never would have gone anywhere, Congress would not have voted for war, FDR would have been politically ruined for trying to bring it up.



    There's also the fundamental issue that the Soviet Union was seldom able to feed its own people and not a year went by in the 1970s where the Soviets didn't require grain imports from the West [mostly the USA] with the norm being 50% of Soviet grain needs being met by shipments from America. The day they begin their assault into Central Europe, those grain shipments end.

    Having millions of reservists doesn't help you when half of your population is without food.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Thu May 02, 2013 2:32 am

    All of the Europe would fall in a matter of month or less. There was simply nothing but nukes to hold up Soviet advance.

    Britain would hold simply because its an island and Im not sure Soviet union had an ability to transfer huge forces

    in short period of time.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 3:37 am

    Viktor wrote:All of the Europe would fall in a matter of month or less. There was simply nothing but nukes to hold up Soviet advance.

    Britain would hold simply because its an island and Im not sure Soviet union had an ability to transfer huge forces

    in short period of time.



    Romania would almost certainly not have participated in the conflict.

    Bulgaria would be unable to participate in the main thrust in Central Europe because Romania always refused to let them transit across Romanian territory and Bulgaria lacked the air transport capability to move any significant number of troops...

    So basically just DDR, Poland [maybe], Hungary, and Czechoslovakia [maybe], and of course the Soviet Union. I say maybe with Poland because the Polish military was dealing with enforcing martial law and Poland was a powder keg ready to explode throughout the entire 1980s. Czechoslovakia also greetly resented the Soviets and it is a matter we could debate as to whether or not they would jump into an offensive war to support the Soviet Union.


    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/101xx/doc10146/77doc579.pdf




    The Soviets never would have been able to get into Spain, the Spanish [with British and American help] would have held the Soviets at the border with France.

    Italy would have a solid position to hold along the Alps.
    avatar
    TR1

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

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

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 02, 2013 3:39 am

    Romanian army sucked anwyays, so no serious loss there.

    Same could be said of Cold War Spanish army.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 3:41 am

    Viktor wrote:All of the Europe would fall in a matter of month or less. There was simply nothing but nukes to hold up Soviet advance.

    Britain would hold simply because its an island and Im not sure Soviet union had an ability to transfer huge forces

    in short period of time.


    Much [not all but much] of Europe would fall in months... But the day the Soviets cross into West Germany, food shipments from the USA to the Soviet Union stop and the clock starts to tick... How long do people accept substantially reduced allocations of food before they rise up? How do you sustain a war when you suddenly cannot feed 30-50% of your homefront?
    avatar
    TR1

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

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

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 02, 2013 3:43 am

    They sustained it with a worse food situation in world war 2, why not again?

    I think talking about long term war is pointless anyways. FAR too many variables, especially with inevitable use of nukes, and the entirety of shit hitting the fan.
    Actually, even short term is far too convoluted to predict really anything. Aside from massive casualties on both sides.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 3:49 am

    TR1 wrote:Romanian army sucked anwyays, so no serious loss there.

    Same could be said of Cold War Spanish army.



    Don't forget that the entire Warsaw Pact, aside from Bulgaria, essentially hated the Soviet Union and had experienced revolutions, mass uprisings, and other chaotic events and crisis situations.


    Czechoslovakia 1953 [moderately serious]

    East Germany 1953 [major level of seriousness]

    Poland/Poznana 1956 [moderately serious]

    Hungary 1956 [tremendously serious]

    Czechoslovakia 1968 [tremendously serious]

    Poland 1970 [moderately serious- mass demonstrations and thousands of arrests]



    Every single Warsaw Pact nation, with the exception of Bulgaria [and of course the Soviet Union- and Albania for the brief time it was a member] experienced tremendous issues with internal stability, specifically their regimes were wildly unpopular with the masses and they had to rely on brute force to keep a lid on dissent.



    So if the Soviets are going to drag the entire Warsaw Pact into a war of aggression, a war that will be incredibly unpopular, they are going to have to leave behind huge numbers of troops to garrison the Warsaw Pact nations or else the people, who have previously been kept in check by the threat of overwhelming military force, will rise up when the forces have been removed to go fight NATO.



    America wouldn't have that problem. America could sit, protected by the Atlantic and Pacific, raise a military of 10-20 million men, build 100,000+ tanks, and decide when and where to land in Europe [or Asia for that matter]. They might land in the Soviet Far East with a small diversionary landing, they might land in Greece and push into Bulgaria, they might land in the north near Murmansk, they might land in Portugal or Spain or Italy. They might land in Turkey, they might open multiple fronts...

    Also don't forget about Turkey... While the Red Army is racing across central Europe, NATO forces based in Turkey will almost certainly penetrate into the Soviet Union and race for Baku, Tiblisi, and Grozny.


    Last edited by BTRfan on Thu May 02, 2013 3:52 am; edited 1 time in total

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 3:52 am

    TR1 wrote:They sustained it with a worse food situation in world war 2, why not again?

    I think talking about long term war is pointless anyways. FAR too many variables, especially with inevitable use of nukes, and the entirety of shit hitting the fan.
    Actually, even short term is far too convoluted to predict really anything. Aside from massive casualties on both sides.



    Many people are willing to endure hardships when they have to defend their country from an outside aggressor.

    It is one thing to endure because a war was forced on you by an invade, it is another thing to be made to endure because your leaders have decided to drag your nation into a war of aggression.



    Also during WW2 American and British deliveries accounted for 15.1% of all Soviet meat use and 29.5% of all Soviet sugar use. If America and Britain had not sent that food, the starvation in the Soviet Union would have been considerably worse.
    avatar
    TR1

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

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

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 02, 2013 3:57 am

    Who said it would be a clear war of aggression though?
    It could be a defense response, or portrayed as a counterattack.
    On the subject, who is to say most of NATO armies would be willing to push into Soviet lines, while taking massive casualties?
    It is a question for both sides...

    "build 100,000+ tanks,"

    By the time that army is built, what is the status of Europe? If the War is over, those 100,000 tanks won't do much good.
    Not to mention, transporting them is a different story.

    "hey might land in the Soviet Far East with a small diversionary landing,"
    Pretty sure this was floated as an idea, but the USSR always though it a laughable excersise in futility.

    "hey might land in Portugal or Spain or Italy. They might land in Turkey, they might open multiple fronts..."

    Possibly. It all depends on how the war is going on land, and the local anti-ship and air assets the USSR has in the area. So many variables.

    "Also don't forget about Turkey... While the Red Army is racing across central Europe, NATO forces based in Turkey will almost certainly penetrate into the Soviet Union and race for Baku, Tiblisi, and Grozny."

    Good luck doing that with the terrain in the area + the Soviet Forces in the area. I think they would be about as succesfull as they were anytime they tried to invade the Kavkaz.

    Plus- are you so sure the Turks would be happy to launch an inevitable very costly attack for their European allies? They are bigger enemies with the Greeks than the USSR.


    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 Thu May 02, 2013 4:05 am

    TR1 wrote:Who said it would be a clear war of aggression though?
    It could be a defense response, or portrayed as a counterattack.
    On the subject, who is to say most of NATO armies would be willing to push into Soviet lines, while taking massive casualties?
    It is a question for both sides...

    "build 100,000+ tanks,"

    By the time that army is built, what is the status of Europe? If the War is over, those 100,000 tanks won't do much good.
    Not to mention, transporting them is a different story.

    "hey might land in the Soviet Far East with a small diversionary landing,"
    Pretty sure this was floated as an idea, but the USSR always though it a laughable excersise in futility.

    "hey might land in Portugal or Spain or Italy. They might land in Turkey, they might open multiple fronts..."

    Possibly. It all depends on how the war is going on land, and the local anti-ship and air assets the USSR has in the area. So many variables.

    "Also don't forget about Turkey... While the Red Army is racing across central Europe, NATO forces based in Turkey will almost certainly penetrate into the Soviet Union and race for Baku, Tiblisi, and Grozny."

    Good luck doing that with the terrain in the area + the Soviet Forces in the area. I think they would be about as succesfull as they were anytime they tried to invade the Kavkaz.

    Plus- are you so sure the Turks would be happy to launch an inevitable very costly attack for their European allies? They are bigger enemies with the Greeks than the USSR.




    By the time America had an army ready to fight Germany in 1943, Germany was pretty much in possession of all of Western Europe, but the war wasn't over, was it?

    In 1943 Japan was in possession of almost the entire Pacific, but the war wasn't over, was it?


    You seem to think the Red Army could race across Europe [I won't dispute this, it probably could, but it would suffer reasonably significant losses in Germany and France], and then occupy most of Western Europe [it could probably do this], and then announce "the war is over!" at which time America would just say, "oh okay, sure thing, we'll stop sinking your ships on the high seas, we'll stop bombing raids against you, we'll stop the commandos we sent into Afghanistan to hit your forces there, we'll resume shipping grain to you, the war's over, you can keep Europe."

    That just wouldn't happen.

    America has the economic and industrial power, as well as the internal stability, to handle a decade long war as long as there is popular support for the war [i.e. it is not an aggressive war or it is not perceived as being aggressive]. It comes down to staying power and America has incredible staying power as long as popular support is maintained.

    The Soviet economy couldn't even provide enough food for the entire Soviet Union, they had to rely on shipments from the USA and Canada [nobody has ever addressed this, it seems to be a point that is conveniently and repeatedly ignored- why?], and they couldn't even produce enough cars over a 40 year period for even half of their population.
    avatar
    TR1

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

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

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 02, 2013 4:18 am


    By the time America had an army ready to fight Germany in 1943, Germany was pretty much in possession of all of Western Europe, but the war wasn't over, was it?


    That's an inaccurate comparison and you know it. Germany was embroiled mostly on the East. The USSR had no USSR on its eastern border.
    Do you know what would have happened had they been able to deploy the entire Wermacht to the West, and not taken the losses they did in the East?
    We can't say for sure, but Operation Normandy would have ended in a bloodbath. And not a successful one.


    "In 1943 Japan was in possession of almost the entire Pacific, but the war wasn't over, was it?"


    Unlike Japan, the USSR would not be beaten by several naval battles.

    You seem to think the Red Army could race across Europe

    No, I actually don't. The scenario is so complex I refuse to commit to a theory of how the war would have went. I am just going with the premise we have been examining, that say the USSR wins the initial battle for Europe, Germany, whatever.

    "oh okay, sure thing, we'll stop sinking your ships on the high seas"

    We don't know what the situaion would be like. But we do know that sinking the USSR's ships on the high seas would be an utterly negligible effect as far as the war would be concerned Very Happy
    Get closer to SOviet Shores, and the US navy risks becoming depleted.

    "we'll stop bombing raids against you"

    Bombing raids against the PVO would result in the American bomber fleet turning to dust. Do you mean cruise missile attacks? that is relevant, but then again, the USSR had its own cruise missiles. Once again though, divorcing nukes from this example is impossible.

    "nobody has ever addressed this, it seems to be a point that is conveniently and repeatedly ignored- why?"

    I have actually. The USSR managed fine in world war 2. Well, it was hard and all, but it never starved into submission. This is with a far less advanced agricultural sector, and losing much of its fertile lands to the GErmans. Why are you so sure it would fold up in a Cold War gone hot?


    "and they couldn't even produce enough cars over a 40 year period for even half of their population."

    Irrelivant in this case. That had to do with command economy and the ill-s of the Communist system, and really doesn't reflect on the USSR's ability to keep its forces stocked with enough armor.
    ANother question is how would both sides have been able to remain functioning at high capacity with cruise missile strikes on factories? USSR at least had much bigger PVO to deal with the situation, while the US was more geographically isolated.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 4:28 am

    TR1 wrote:

    I have actually. The USSR managed fine in world war 2. Well, it was hard and all, but it never starved into submission. This is with a far less advanced agricultural sector, and losing much of its fertile lands to the GErmans. Why are you so sure it would fold up in a Cold War gone hot?



    Managed fine? Managed fine?

    Tens of millions of Soviets died from the deprivations of war. Probably half of the population of Leningrad starved to death, and that was because the city was under siege and getting food in was very difficult. Imagine half of Moscow starving to death simply because there is no food, not because of a siege.



    As of the early 1980s the Soviet Union was receiving 50% of all its grain needs from the USA. Unless the USA would be willing to actively trade with a nation in the middle of a war, the grain shipments would cease and multiple tens of millions of Soviet citizens would begin to starve to death.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 4:30 am

    TR1 wrote:[b]
    Irrelivant in this case. That had to do with command economy and the ill-s of the Communist system, and really doesn't reflect on the USSR's ability to keep its forces stocked with enough armor.
    ANother question is how would both sides have been able to remain functioning at high capacity with cruise missile strikes on factories? USSR at least had much bigger PVO to deal with the situation, while the US was more geographically isolated.


    What is the standard Soviet conventional cruise missile, what is the range, what is the CEP, and in what number were the missiles deployed?
    avatar
    TR1

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

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

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 02, 2013 4:34 am



    Tens of millions of Soviets died from the deprivations of war. Probably half of the population of Leningrad starved to death, and that was because the city was under siege and getting food in was very difficult. Imagine half of Moscow starving to death simply because there is no food, not because of a siege.



    Fanciful scenario, to put lightly. A Cold War gone hot would not have had the same effect as the siege of Leningrad, at all.

    Regarding tens of millions of Soviet civilian dying from starvation, how many of those died in German occupied lands? You understand the difference right?

    avatar
    TR1

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

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

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 02, 2013 4:38 am

    BTRfan wrote:
    TR1 wrote:[b]
    Irrelivant in this case. That had to do with command economy and the ill-s of the Communist system, and really doesn't reflect on the USSR's ability to keep its forces stocked with enough armor.
    ANother question is how would both sides have been able to remain functioning at high capacity with cruise missile strikes on factories? USSR at least had much bigger PVO to deal with the situation, while the US was more geographically isolated.


    What is the standard Soviet conventional cruise missile, what is the range, what is the CEP, and in what number were the missiles deployed?

    Kh-55, for long range subsonic land attack.
    Here's the thing though- it only had a nuke warhead until past the Cold War.
    If the US was striking Uralmash, then you can bet the USSR would have retaliated against US tank factories.
    Can you tell me how many thousands of tanks those factories would be churning out when they are irradiated rubble?
    Nukes make the whole scenario stupid, TBH.

    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 Thu May 02, 2013 4:57 am

    TR1 wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:
    TR1 wrote:[b]
    Irrelivant in this case. That had to do with command economy and the ill-s of the Communist system, and really doesn't reflect on the USSR's ability to keep its forces stocked with enough armor.
    ANother question is how would both sides have been able to remain functioning at high capacity with cruise missile strikes on factories? USSR at least had much bigger PVO to deal with the situation, while the US was more geographically isolated.


    What is the standard Soviet conventional cruise missile, what is the range, what is the CEP, and in what number were the missiles deployed?

    Kh-55, for long range subsonic land attack.
    Here's the thing though- it only had a nuke warhead until past the Cold War.
    If the US was striking Uralmash, then you can bet the USSR would have retaliated against US tank factories.
    Can you tell me how many thousands of tanks those factories would be churning out when they are irradiated rubble?
    Nukes make the whole scenario stupid, TBH.




    Well America was a truly industrialized nation. It seems to me that the Soviets had a number of industrial sites but they were all in several key areas.


    America had significant industrial assets in just about every single state, scattered all across the nation. Detroit, Cleveland, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Chicago, Gary, South Bend, Flint, Buffalo, Gulfport, Norfolk, etc.


    ali.a.r

    Posts : 110
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2011-11-04

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

    Post  ali.a.r on Thu May 02, 2013 5:58 am

    At first I thought this thread was getting hijacked by the usual US vs Russia arguments, but now reading BTRfans posts, made me realise, this still is about Common Lies, Assumptions, Russophobia, Nonsense on Russia and Russian Military Equipment.

    Razz

    Back on topic, another common misconception I noticed about some westerners, is that they think of the Tu-95MS as a World War 2 type, fly above you, type of bomber, good only for carpet bombing. They also dont differentiate between the MS and the original Tu-95.
    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 Thu May 02, 2013 9:37 am

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

    The Su-9 was based on the Me-262, but was found to be an inferior layout to other Soviet designs like the Mig-9.

    The Soviets already had jet engines, what they got from the British was new materials and new component designs and a base radial engine design that they developed... the first Mig-15 engine was a licence produced NENE, but later models were less British.

    For those not familiar with jet engine design radial engines used flat plates with vanes that directed the airflow outwards and around the plates, whereas the axial flow jet engines had blades in a tube that sucked air straight through. Radial engines were stronger and more robust, but were heavier and bulkier.

    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.

    What makes that any different from any other group of private companies that work in collusion and undermine free enterprise. Here in New Zealand there is price fixing all the time with energy companies delivering petrol to the consumer. The myth of a free market economy is just that... without government control they would be worse, not better.

    As an aside I find it amusing the American mentality seems to fear government control yet be totally at ease with big business control.

    At least with government control there is some accountability every few years...

    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.

    Perhaps you should have read the article further "But the difference in results is not too big.", and I am impressed that you can suggest that all American rifles are more accurate than Russian or Soviet rifles based on one comparison. What sort of ammo was used in the test? What was the testing range? What calibre was the AK-74? Was it even an AK-100 series AK-74 or was it simply one from stocks?

    From this article:

    http://www.interarms.ru/arhiv/n2_2019/bilateral_collaboration_in_weapons_development1/

    For instance, weapons expert Peter J.Kokalis regarded characteristics of 100-series assault rifles as “representing a major improvement of the world’s most popular assault rifle that proved its combat performance in many wars and local conflicts.” “Nothing can even be compared with this weapon especially if we take 5.56-mm models,” he said.

    Perhaps rather than a real comparison between an M16,M4 and AK-74 it was actually a comparison between ammo consistency. At the Olympics and other world shooting competitions Soviet and Russian shooters seem to be competitive with Soviet and Russian designs...


    Apparently that didn't suffice for you, because you've started citing personal opinions.

    Combat data from Afghanistan is not personal opinion.

    For a very long time the effective range of the M16 has been given some fairly wild claims based purely on its accuracy... figures of 600-800m are common in many western coffee table books on small arms, yet empirical evidence from Afghanistan shows effective range is actually more like 200m in terms of bullet lethality and rather less for the average soldier.

    Just for the record I have an AK-47 [Romanian], an AK-74 [Bulgarian], 11 SKS carbines [Romanian, Albanian, Yugoslavian, Chinese- haven't picked up a Russian yet, waiting for a good deal], 2 AR-15s, an M1 Garand, and a semi-automatic clone of the HK G3.

    So you don't have any Russian rifles?

    Nobody took an AK variant or an SKS from their case to even try because it would have been a waste of ammunition.

    So what you are saying is that a round designed for short range use is no good at long range.

    Thanks for the heads up... I will stop using my AK at targets at 1,000m from now on. Razz

    but still it is nowhere near the M1 Garand.

    Yes, because at the outset of development it was decided that the 7.62 x 39mm round should exceed the performance of the .30-06 round when fired from a foreign made SKS.

    The really odd thing is that complaints by real US soldiers from Afghanistan seem to suggest that their M16s are being outranged by Kalashnikovs... now they are of course not talking about AK-74s or AKMs, I am not going to suggest that, they are talking about PKMs.

    So I guess Russian weapons must have better accuracy... at 1,500m in burst fire with PKMs compared with American issued M16 rifles.

    I would suggest that as the Russian Army changes its focus to better accuracy that steps have been taken and further steps will be made to improve the consistency of assault rifle rounds to extend their range and improve their lethality.

    I might add that when testing new armour piercing ammo using an RPK-74 they had three shot groups of 18mm at 300m centre to centre.

    They also have the Enfield rifles, the M91/30 Nagant, and the SVD, all of which allow them to engage American personnel well outside the effective range of the M4 Carbine [which has a 14.5 inch barrel and was designed to be a true Carbine].

    So the excuse for the M4 is its shorter barrel which I presume makes the comparison unfair?

    Anyway, they have brought back the old yet trusted M14 rifle, in a semi-automatic configuration, as a Designated Marksman's Rifle, with the idea that each squad should have two such rifles in the hands of specially trained riflemen who have been trained to engage targets out to 800-1000 yards and now have been issued a rifle capable of doing just that.

    So the M16 is fine but they are reintroducing a calibre they largely removed from platoon level for fun?

    Surely the accuracy of the superior American rifles means they don't need to make any changes... Razz

    One Marine summed it up, "we were using the M16, they were using the AK-47, we were able to engage them outside of the effective range of their weapons, and we've trained at those ranges, almost everytime a Marine pulled the trigger an Iraqi soldier went down, while almost none of them hit us, we had more problems from RPGs than from their AKs."

    Clear evidence that the AK is totally inferior to the M16 because the Iraqis obviously had superior training to the US marines so the only difference could possibly be the quality of their rifles and ammo... Razz

    The AK-47 is basically a machine gun, an automatic rifle, whichever term you wish to use, the M-16 is a true rifle.

    Except that both rifles were designed for the same purpose... to combine the short range firepower of a SMG with the accuracy and power of a battle rifle to ranges that were statistically relevant... ie 200-300m in a light portable package.

    BTW the British in the Falklands faced Argentine soldiers equipped with the same calibre rifles... the main difference was the Argentine rifles had full auto capacity, while the British did not, yet the real difference was that the British were far better trained and that was reflected in the results.

    We see a lot of stuff in western literature about western marksmanship, but in real combat the British soldiers went out of their way to take the autosear from captured Argentine rifles to allow them to fire full auto too.

    The choice by US soldiers to take the M4 instead of the M16 included the fact that M4s have full auto capability, though in addition they are much more compact weapons as well.

    You can google AK-47 vs M16 and see that there are about a half-dozen videos where both weapons are discussed, analyzed, and then fired under identical conditions.

    Yeah... lets compare a worn out WWII Garand with an SVDS while we are at it. Perhaps a video comparing an AK74M with an M16 might be more appropriate, or perhaps even better an M16 with a 5.45mm calibre upper.

    Do You think people in Europe wouldn't be so brave to face Soviet invasion in Cold war? I bet bravery wouldn't count as much these days.

    I have yet to see any evidence the Soviets had any plans to invade Europe after WWII. They didn't have the logistics to mount such an invasion, their forces would have been sufficient to blunt a NATO attack and mount minor counter attacks in some areas.

    The Kremlin couldn't even keep Romania in line or keep them from delivering/selling samples of Soviet weapon systems to the USA.

    They didn't need to have them totally in line... they were not a potential fifth column, they were part of the buffer zone where the minor portion of a conventional conflict would take place briefly.

    The BAR is technically an automatic rifle but it is intended to be a squad light machine gun.

    BAR is not an AK.

    Even the RPK is a different rifle from an AK and it is called a light machinegun.

    The problem I think is terms... I see western documentaries about machine guns that talk about sub machine guns as if they were a type of machine gun. They are not... sub means below... a sub machine gun is less than a machine gun... that is what sub means.

    A machine gun and a light machine gun are not exactly the same a LMG is a lighter portable machine gun. An assault rifle is not a machine gun.

    The AK-47 can accept a 75 round or 100 round drum and it can operate in a squad support role. The M-16 would be a rather poor choice for a squad support/light machine gun role.

    It can, but operationally rarely ever does. The squad support AK is the RPK, which is a different weapon.

    There is a heavy barrel model of the M16 for the squad support role.

    To my knowledge NOBODY has EVER used an AK variant or an SKS, that should say something.

    That a country that will have a documentary listing the worlds best weapons that includes the 45 calibre colt pistol despite the fact that pretty much only a country with a population of about 300 million people use it, might not want to use a weapon from a foreign country is no shock to me at all.

    These shooters are clearly not interested in a real challenge.

    You can use an out of the box AK clone, sight it in, and take it to the event, and you probably won't even get on the paper at 1000 yards.

    Nobody ever thought to hand load some 5.45 and tune up an AK?

    Sounds like an oportunity to impress and bust some myths. Razz

    The AK is a nice weapon and I don't fault folks who own them [I own two myself] or who enjoy them, but anybody who claims the AK-47/AKM/AK family is "equal" in accuracy, let alone "greater" in accuracy, to the M16/AR-15 family of rifles, is either ignorant and naive or they are outright lying.

    The key is likely part of the "waste of time" aspect of using a 22 at 1,000 yards.

    Have you wondered why the 5.56mm mini gun never entered service? It was big and heavy and useless beyond about 500 yards in terms of terminal ballistics.

    Hitting a piece of paper at 1000 yards is all those rifles would be good for.

    "REMEMBER BERLIN!" or "Avenge the Berlin Brigade!" or other such slogans, would serve to rally Americans behind a war that they would prosecute until victory was secured.

    What difference would it make if Americans were behind the war or not? The British weren't behind the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan... or they might have been... nobody asked them.

    Surprise attacks are all well and good from a military perspective but if they give your enemy massive moral superiority and the ability to draft tens of millions with minimal opposition, then the surprise attack essentially backfires...

    Soviet attack on Japan in 45 secured all of China, and a lot of lost territory... moral superiority is meaningless to inferior forces.

    Hint NATO attacks on Serbia...

    That never would have gone anywhere, Congress would not have voted for war, FDR would have been politically ruined for trying to bring it up.

    The vietnam war is an example... the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident was successfully used as a pretext for US involvement, but I don't remember it being effective in keeping US forces there.

    There's also the fundamental issue that the Soviet Union was seldom able to feed its own people and not a year went by in the 1970s where the Soviets didn't require grain imports from the West [mostly the USA] with the norm being 50% of Soviet grain needs being met by shipments from America. The day they begin their assault into Central Europe, those grain shipments end.

    Lots of countries import food, for the very short period WWIII would have lasted there would have been no problems... in fact there would be rather more serious food shortages after the war had ended, but also a massively reduced human population.

    The Soviets never would have been able to get into Spain, the Spanish [with British and American help] would have held the Soviets at the border with France.

    WTF are you talking about. To what purpose would the Soviet invade all of Europe?

    You claim they couldn't control Rumania and other eastern european states yet you suggest they would want to occupy western europe?

    Can I have a sip of what you are drinking?

    Perhaps this is the biggest western myth... the land hungry Soviets bend on conquest and occupation of Europe... Rolling Eyes

    Western Europe wasn't land for the taking... Western Europe was a threat that would be dealt with using tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. The WP conventional forces were to blunt a conventional attack but it was known the west would resort to the use of Nukes... they admitted it themselves. Polish forces might turn and fight for NATO but the difference between NATO nukes destroying eastern europe and soviet ones doing it is immaterial. Once the nuclear threshold is crossed then it becomes a case of use them before you lose them... any conventional superiority will be gone in a flash for both sides and the question becomes will cool heads prevail before the real weapons are deployed... personally I doubt it.

    So if the Soviets are going to drag the entire Warsaw Pact into a war of aggression, a war that will be incredibly unpopular, they are going to have to leave behind huge numbers of troops to garrison the Warsaw Pact nations or else the people, who have previously been kept in check by the threat of overwhelming military force, will rise up when the forces have been removed to go fight NATO.

    You mean like the Iraqi people and Afghans rose up to support the US occupation of their countries?

    I think you over estimate the WP nations.

    It is one thing to endure because a war was forced on you by an invade, it is another thing to be made to endure because your leaders have decided to drag your nation into a war of aggression.

    Quite true... how many Americans will go to Iraq to fight US soldiers because of their illegal war of aggression?

    Also during WW2 American and British deliveries accounted for 15.1% of all Soviet meat use and 29.5% of all Soviet sugar use. If America and Britain had not sent that food, the starvation in the Soviet Union would have been considerably worse.

    Very few people have died of starvation because of a lack of meat and sugar. For a large majority of the poor people currently on this planet meat is not an option anyway due to its cost... besides all those US super sharp shooting soldiers with their 1,000 yard effective range M16s will be reducing the population so rapidly there will be little chance to starve.

    Who said it would be a clear war of aggression though?

    Of course it will be... just like the Russian invasion of Georgia...

    By the time America had an army ready to fight Germany in 1943, Germany was pretty much in possession of all of Western Europe, but the war wasn't over, was it?

    WWII is never going to happen again. The existence of nukes makes it pointless.

    Without the USSR to continue to fight the Germans they would have had plenty of time to consolidate their new found resources in land and people. Simply shifting half the forces from the eastern front on its own would have made things very difficult for the allies, but being able to shift its industry east and utilise Soviet industry beyond the urals all well out of range of western bombers, not to mention the sudden new stocks of manpower and the US would have had to seriously consider some sort of peace treaty.

    In 1943 Japan was in possession of almost the entire Pacific, but the war wasn't over, was it?

    They couldn't defeat the Soviets in 39, if the area they had attacked in the Pacific was US land they never would have gotten as far as they did. Instead it was mostly ex-european colonies and islands... small operations that could not be compared with what germany did in europe.

    [quoe]we'll stop the commandos we sent into Afghanistan to hit your forces [/quote]

    Why on earth send commandos to Afghanistan? ...if WWIII broke out right now would you be upset if the Russians sent spetsnaz to Iraq or afghanistan?

    America has the economic and industrial power, as well as the internal stability, to handle a decade long war as long as there is popular support for the war

    Yeah... not an industrial power with ICBMs exploding everywhere...

    The Soviet economy couldn't even provide enough food for the entire Soviet Union, they had to rely on shipments from the USA and Canada [nobody has ever addressed this, it seems to be a point that is conveniently and repeatedly ignored- why?], and they couldn't even produce enough cars over a 40 year period for even half of their population.

    You keep harping on about this... lots of countries import food... does Canada grow all its own food?

    Tens of millions of Soviets died from the deprivations of war. Probably half of the population of Leningrad starved to death, and that was because the city was under siege and getting food in was very difficult. Imagine half of Moscow starving to death simply because there is no food, not because of a siege.

    When there is no siege the population can use a plow and some seed and grow their own food. Grain is not all they eat in Russia...

    Besides if the US would not SELL grain to the Soviets they could certainly buy it elsewhere.

    multiple tens of millions of Soviet citizens would begin to starve to death.

    Rubbish... that would take months and there is no way a conflict in Europe would last months with the Soviets and NATO involved.

    And even if it did there are plenty of other countries that would take the opportunity to sell food to a country with money.

    Even assuming famine was a possiblity without a blockade/siege type scenario the obvious solution and used by North Korea... send us food or we will launch a nuke.

    The difference is that the Soviets had plenty of very capable nukes to launch.

    What is the standard Soviet conventional cruise missile, what is the range, what is the CEP, and in what number were the missiles deployed?

    Suggest you research OKA (SS-23 Spider) and SS-20 Saber.



    _________________
    “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

    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