Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Share
    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 Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:19 am

    Mindstorm wrote:even more when keeping a deeply buried grudge and masked inferiority complex, in defending gold plated powerpoint garbage systems.      
    Word.
    avatar
    Shadåw

    Posts : 81
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2012-07-29

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

    Post  Shadåw on Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:25 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:

    The AW forum became a cesspit of Western Superiority Complexes so fast I couldn't quite believe it... I knew it would, just that quick? Really? Rolling Eyes

    Damian will fit in well there.

    Find the admins or better to say the mods funny there. PRovocating arguments and then advocating abramszky fanbiysm there quite onesided in judgement at least our mods are not like that and most russian forums do not give a rats ass about such things either to shut up people and their opinions.

    Well, I informed Spitfire_ about Damian90 and that he frequents forums simply to adovocate such and to 'troll'

    He/she then replied to me stating this: ""He was given a one day ban today If he continues he will be given longer and longer bans.""
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

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

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:14 pm

    Another myth that occurs from time to time on the internet that attempts to portrait an inadequate ordnance that was issued due to cost and philosophy to combine two types of ammunition to have one ammunition doing several jobs. The type of ammunition that is referred to perform well is HEAT-MP or HEDP type of ammunition.

    This myth came to be due to advertisement promises as well agenda driven to conceal lack of dedicated ammunition that can be blamed on costly ammunition and profitable contracts with the MIC.
    The design of a HEAT-MP/HEDP warhead and the physics behind it to compare it with a dedicated HE-F warhead.

    This type of ammunition combines the shaped charge ammunition with the use of the Monroe effect to shape a copper liner (or similar ductile material), to form a penetrator of the shaped charge explosive, to penetrate armor with combination of high-explosive and fragmentation to be used against infantry or unarmored targets.

    This is the basic design of general concept of HEAT-MP,HEDP or MZ (Mehrzweck) ammunition.




    This is an American M830A1 HEAT-MP that was reconfigured to HEDP design from the original M830 HEAT ammunition.




    From the post above about the Myth “RPG vs Attack Helicopters” we have learned the basic principle and physics behind shaped charges. The design of HEAT-MP and HEDP ammunition will give us a better understanding how such type of ammunition can not compete with dedicated HE-Frag warheads of same caliber and therefor are not adequate type of ammunition to deal with infantry.

    Rough conceptual plan of a HEAT-MP/HEDP/MZ ammunition


    The concept of the first segment for the Anti-Armor role is the shaped charge liner (c) colored yellow. The explosive (b colored brown) is set off by the detonator fuze (a colored in blue) the shockwave is then moving forward starting from the rear and reaching the shaped charge liner (c). The shaped charge liner (c) has only one path to go (the red colored zone) which is in this case the “Least resistance”, since physics rule is energy follows the path of the least resistance.

    For better understanding what it means here a video of a shaped charge detonation in a simulation.


    The second part shows the shaped charge simulation where you also can notice that dedicated shaped charges have horrible Fragmentation pattern due their shape and lack of fragmentation coat/casing.


    The difference however from normal shaped charge and a HEDP/HEAT-MP/MZ ammunition is that the explosive liner is not only covering the shaped charge liner (c) but is concentrated to the rear to form a cylindrical shape .This is needed to concentrate explosive on one small segment to create a shockwave also known in terminology as High-Explosive.

    The energy in cylindrical form has to expand in all directions to press and expand towards the outside, in its longtitude axis of its trajectory, to create a HE effect as well create fragmentations of the casing (colored green) for enhanced effect. The better the cylindrical shaped explosive is encased the more pressure can build up and create a better shockwave and with it create fragmentations with higher velocity which are reflected with higher lethality.

    The Detonator fuze (a) at the rear is detonating the cylindrical shaped explosive charge from one direction the rear and blows towards the tip which reduces further the High-Explosive effect and that detonator is the worst among the compromise such designs have to offer. The detonation from rear with a forward segment (d) does not give the explosive the chance to build up optimal pressure and wastes a lot of potential energy for the monroe effect which will not reach an optimal velocity compared with dedicated HEAT ammunition of equal caliber and explosive charge.

    A different detonator fuze place for a better HE effect is used within the cylindrical shaped explosive charge which is colored in dark brown. This design enhances at least to some part the explosive charge more equal while still providing the shaped charge liner a detonation pattern to create a shaped charge to develop a penetrator. However it still suffers the same problem since the forward section (d) is the Path of least resistance and rear section which the explosive charge is, depletes itself of potential pressure for a proper HE effect and potential velocity fragments could achieve.

    Further problem of most common ammunition of this design lack a dedicated Fragmentation casing that has grooves in the casing which are breaking points to create equal sized fragmentation of the casing to have better coverage of fragmentations which non Fragmentation rounds can not offer due unequal creation of fragments in size and coverage. Such grooves are also subject to the physical law “path of least resistance” which would also slightly affect potential drain of pressure build up.


    Fragmentation casing AGM-114K2


    (A fragmentation sleeve that provides a better Anti Personal lethality however still does not achieve the equal lethality of dedicated HE-Frag warheads due the shaped charge explosive moving forward and by that wasting lot of energy on Monroe effect rather than on HE effect.)

    To show the usual pattern of HEAT-MP/HEDP/MZ ammunition and design without dedicated fragmentation casing looks like in general is here a picture of a HEDP ammunition of Shaped charge Dual Purpose design of Apache M230 30x113mm gun uses.



    The remaining fragments from such a warhead show that the fragmentation is unequal in size and few in number with some big and some smaller that are inadequate in coverage in azimuth of the cylindrical shaped explosive charge as well few in numbers which further reduces its chances to actually hit a target. The fragmentation pattern for Sabot’ed rounds do not look better. (No picture yet found).

    That overall myth to portray MZ, HEAT-MP and HEDP ammunition as adequate for doing their job in Anti Personal role is constantly challenged by reality of engagements with such ammunition.


    Like seen on this Video of Apache engagements against personal on the ground several HEAT-MP (HEDP) 30x113mm rounds can be seen landing right next to the Person running down the hill. The impact zone of those 30mm HEDP rounds is often less than half a meter to its target and still do not manage to effectively to “neutralize” him. This is due the inconsistency of the ground along the stones that are shield him off from the “low” HE effect and the few fragments that are not hitting him. The fragmentation pattern does not cover anywhere near an optimal coverage to be effective for this purpose.

    Graphic 18+


    01:10 starts the part of the analyze.
    The engagement start with 1040m to target and 66 rounds left, at the time 01:18 right after the first salvo of rounds impacting less than 1 meter behind him he stumbles but can get up and run further. 4 Rounds at least land next to him in the advertised lethal/effective zone of the 30x113mm HEDP M789 rounds which is up to 4m.

    At the second engagement starting at 01:19 two salvos of 20 rounds miss their target miserably.
    At the third engagement  starting at 10:25, one salvo with 3-4 rounds landing next to his head do not have any effect on him.  The rounds that land near his head, less than a meter, impact at 01:28.
    If that one single round that hit that person right into the chest would miss him the Apache would have run out of ammunition and he either would get away or he would had to attempt to use Hellfire missile.

    That is just one use of ineffective ammunition for a job that real ammunition is meant to do like the M799 HE-I rounds that contain almost double the explosive and have a better fragmentation pattern with higher velocity of fragments due the HE layout.

    Same problem the M830A1 encounters and has been several times complained about due to lack of efficiency for dedicated job. The fragmentation pattern for such rounds is generally very bad and have a very bad coverage.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:02 pm


    Some butt-hurt Americans are now claiming that the Armata was inspired by the M1 TTB test project, and so I was wondering if there was an earlier Soviet unmanned tank project. Even if the Americans did get there first with an unmanned tank, virtually every other feature of what constitutes a modern MBT is Russian. Smooth-bore guns, composite armour, ERA, active defence system and GLATGM are all Russian inventions and yet the American fanboys won't admit to that.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:08 pm

    That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:10 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Some butt-hurt Americans are now claiming that the Armata was inspired by the M1 TTB test project, and so I was wondering if there was an earlier Soviet unmanned tank project. Even if the Americans did get there first with an unmanned tank, virtually every other feature of what constitutes a modern MBT is Russian. Smooth-bore guns, composite armour, ERA, active defence system and GLATGM are all Russian inventions and yet the American fanboys won't admit to that.

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

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

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:02 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Some butt-hurt Americans are now claiming that the Armata was inspired by the M1 TTB test project, and so I was wondering if there was an earlier Soviet unmanned tank project. Even if the Americans did get there first with an unmanned tank, virtually every other feature of what constitutes a modern MBT is Russian. Smooth-bore guns, composite armour, ERA, active defence system and GLATGM are all Russian inventions and yet the American fanboys won't admit to that.

    The TTB is nothing like the Armata, the issue with that claim is centered around the autoloading mechanism. It looks "the same" for some people, while we don't know what AL the T-14 uses. Also there are multiple testbeds for unmanned turrets notably by Morozov DB. Also it's mainly an unmanned turret Unmanned AFV's were tested by basically everyone and their mothers. See goliaths in WH service. You basically got an "unmanned tank".

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:04 pm

    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and it seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:09 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Some butt-hurt Americans are now claiming that the Armata was inspired by the M1 TTB test project, and so I was wondering if there was an earlier Soviet unmanned tank project. Even if the Americans did get there first with an unmanned tank, virtually every other feature of what constitutes a modern MBT is Russian. Smooth-bore guns, composite armour, ERA, active defence system and GLATGM are all Russian inventions and yet the American fanboys won't admit to that.

    The TTB is nothing like the Armata, the issue with that claim is centered around the autoloading mechanism. It looks "the same" for some people, while we don't know what AL the T-14 uses. Also there are multiple testbeds for unmanned turrets notably by Morozov DB. Also it's mainly an unmanned turret Unmanned AFV's were tested by basically everyone and their mothers. See goliaths in WH service. You basically got an "unmanned tank".

    I'm just going to ignore the Americans from now on (because in addition to being ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious) they seem to be wrong about virtually everything. Thanks guys.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

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

    Post  Zivo on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:12 pm

    The M1TTB was just a mock up anyways. I think its autoloader functioned, and everything else was just sheet metal veneer.

    avatar
    Werewolf

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

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:13 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    The first Unmanned tank and robot was TT-26 russians are inventors of Robots and were used in WW2.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

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

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:19 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    It's not lies per se. It's just the way they see it.

    If you want, for instance I had a very troublesome discussion regarding the viability or American style repeaters in European theatre. I got hit with the battle of Varna during the last Russo-Turkish war. According to an US/English legend, repeaters and volley fire would have been decisive in stalling the Russian attacks on Plevna/Pleven.

    While when you read the actual movement. There are instances where the repeaters did exactly the contrary. They created gaps in the rhythm of fire that allowed both Russians and Romanians to actually sap the Turkish defences and get closer. The fact that the battle ended by a three months old siege doesn't mean that the Turks were "winning", because basically they lost the battle and the war, because of Pleven. And the repeaters were NEVER seen again by any modern European force and even the Turks and later the Russians who tested them, went the good old bolt action route.

    Now for the US weapons aficionados, the truth is that repeaters were king of the hill. But from a military stand point, they were utterly expensive and ammo consuming, especially if you didn't hit. And everyone with a brain went for bolt actions. Including the US.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:28 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    The first Unmanned tank and robot was TT-26 russians are inventors of Robots and were used in WW2.


    Holy s***, I had no idea that anyone had anything that advanced during that period. Got to give the Slavs the credit for creating robotics and radio (Tesla) and so many other inventions that have changed our world. Tesla had something like 800 patents, making him the greatest scientist and inventor of all time.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:29 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    The first Unmanned tank and robot was TT-26 russians are inventors of Robots and were used in WW2.

    Lets call it radio controlled tanks, as they were not really "robots" but rather drones in todays terms. As Tesla would be the one to bear right saying that he "invented" radio control capabilities.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:30 pm

    Zivo wrote:The M1TTB was just a mock up anyways. I think its autoloader functioned, and everything else was just sheet metal veneer.


    I think they created a prototype, but it doesn't matter because the Soviets got there first by at least a decade. You have no idea how satisfying that is for me.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:32 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Lets call it radio controlled tanks, as they were not really "robots" but rather drones in todays terms. As Tesla would be the one to bear right saying that he "invented" radio control capabilities.

    There is a very fine line today what we would call robot or drone. Russians call today radio controlled UGV's robots while the term robot was meant as artificial selfsuficienent and indepentend moving mechanism, but the line we use it for is very fine and the term robot was created also during that period.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:32 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    The first Unmanned tank and robot was TT-26 russians are inventors of Robots and were used in WW2.


    Holy s***, I had no idea that anyone had anything that advanced during that period. Got to give the Slavs the credit for creating robotics and radio (Tesla) and so many other inventions that have changed our world. Tesla had something like 800 patents, making him the greatest scientist and inventor of all time.

    Yeah, radio controlled variants of almost all pre war tanks existed T-26, T-38, BT-5, BT-7, T18...



    Tesla however was never even proposed for Nobel prize, as they claimed he is "an engineer" and not a real scientist.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:34 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Lets call it radio controlled tanks, as they were not really "robots" but rather drones in todays terms. As Tesla would be the one to bear right saying that he "invented" radio control capabilities.

    There is a very fine line today what we would call robot or drone. Russians call today radio controlled UGV's robots while the term robot was meant as artificial selfsuficienent and indepentend moving mechanism, but the line we use it for is very fine and the term robot was created also during that period.

    I am very aware of differences between drones, robots and manipulators as my Master degree was in AI Smile. Common people call many things "robot", my mother calls her automatic egg breaker "robot", while its simple device with endless loop of 3 operations Very Happy
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:35 pm

    Find me one fucking genius better than Tesla. His studies, work and scientific thesis and explorations have and are still moving forward concepts in modern technologies which took many decades after his death just to form the basis for such moving and future orientated thesis to actually work towards their realization/confirmation.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:37 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    It's not lies per se. It's just the way they see it.

    If you want, for instance I had a very troublesome discussion regarding the viability or American style repeaters in European theatre. I got hit with the battle of Varna during the last Russo-Turkish war. According to an US/English legend, repeaters and volley fire would have been decisive in stalling the Russian attacks on Plevna/Pleven.

    While when you read the actual movement. There are instances where the repeaters did exactly the contrary. They created gaps in the rhythm of fire that allowed both Russians and Romanians to actually sap the Turkish defences and get closer. The fact that the battle ended by a three months old siege doesn't mean that the Turks were "winning", because basically they lost the battle and the war, because of Pleven. And the repeaters were NEVER seen again by any modern European force and even the Turks and later the Russians who tested them, went the good old bolt action route.

    Now for the US weapons aficionados, the truth is that repeaters were king of the hill. But from a military stand point, they were utterly expensive and ammo consuming, especially if you didn't hit. And everyone with a brain went for bolt actions. Including the US.

    Still repeaters were great for cavalary. However due to logistics most cavalary units in the world had to stick with shortened carabine bolt action rifles.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:38 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Find me one fucking genius better than Tesla. His studies, work and scientific thesis and explorations have and are still moving forward concepts in modern technologies which took many decades after his death just to form the basis for such moving and future orientated thesis to actually work towards their realization/confirmation.


    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:43 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    It's not lies per se. It's just the way they see it.

    If you want, for instance I had a very troublesome discussion regarding the viability or American style repeaters in European theatre. I got hit with the battle of Varna during the last Russo-Turkish war. According to an US/English legend, repeaters and volley fire would have been decisive in stalling the Russian attacks on Plevna/Pleven.

    While when you read the actual movement. There are instances where the repeaters did exactly the contrary. They created gaps in the rhythm of fire that allowed both Russians and Romanians to actually sap the Turkish defences and get closer. The fact that the battle ended by a three months old siege doesn't mean that the Turks were "winning", because basically they lost the battle and the war, because of Pleven. And the repeaters were NEVER seen again by any modern European force and even the Turks and later the Russians who tested them, went the good old bolt action route.

    Now for the US weapons aficionados, the truth is that repeaters were king of the hill. But from a military stand point, they were utterly expensive and ammo consuming, especially if you didn't hit. And everyone with a brain went for bolt actions. Including the US.

    It's undeniable that we all bring our preconceived notions to the table in any debate, but some of these Americans are clearly incapable of nuance or the finer details of a given matter. We all have our differing opinions but my main problem with Americans is that they (more than anyone) always try to present their subjective opinions as objective, established fact. It does my head in, mate - especially when they ignore all the reasons for why they triumphed against a third world Nation (Iraq) in the first Gulf war.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

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

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:45 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    It's not lies per se. It's just the way they see it.

    If you want, for instance I had a very troublesome discussion regarding the viability or American style repeaters in European theatre. I got hit with the battle of Varna during the last Russo-Turkish war. According to an US/English legend, repeaters and volley fire would have been decisive in stalling the Russian attacks on Plevna/Pleven.

    While when you read the actual movement. There are instances where the repeaters did exactly the contrary. They created gaps in the rhythm of fire that allowed both Russians and Romanians to actually sap the Turkish defences and get closer. The fact that the battle ended by a three months old siege doesn't mean that the Turks were "winning", because basically they lost the battle and the war, because of Pleven. And the repeaters were NEVER seen again by any modern European force and even the Turks and later the Russians who tested them, went the good old bolt action route.

    Now for the US weapons aficionados, the truth is that repeaters were king of the hill. But from a military stand point, they were utterly expensive and ammo consuming, especially if you didn't hit. And everyone with a brain went for bolt actions. Including the US.

    Still repeaters were great for cavalary. However due to logistics most cavalary units in the world had to stick with shortened carabine bolt action rifles.

    Yeah until you had to reload...any repeater. And with the Enfield action, the large capacity Henry Martinis were a moot point. They were out ranged, out punched and out reloaded. And then there's the Lebel...

    Cyrus: Once again, it's not a lie if you believe in it. Honest to God, there's the hard belief in American Exceptionalism that goes really deep into how the US was made. And that's how the Americans see it. Then there's the trolls who know better.

    I used to be bothered by that, but thanks to guys like ArtjomH, I've settled down on the technical side of the deal. However the political side is something else.

    Anyway, I'm way off topic.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:49 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    The first Unmanned tank and robot was TT-26 russians are inventors of Robots and were used in WW2.


    Holy s***, I had no idea that anyone had anything that advanced during that period. Got to give the Slavs the credit for creating robotics and radio (Tesla) and so many other inventions that have changed our world. Tesla had something like 800 patents, making him the greatest scientist and inventor of all time.

    Yeah, radio controlled variants of almost all pre war tanks existed  T-26, T-38, BT-5, BT-7, T18...



    Tesla however was never even proposed for Nobel prize, as they claimed he is "an engineer" and not a real scientist.


    Tesla is without a shadow of a doubt the greatest mind that has ever drawn breath, and the fact that he didn't get duly recognized demonstrates that the whole thing is rigged. It's meaningless, especially when Obama got one when he hadn't even done anything.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:54 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Tesla is without a shadow of a doubt the greatest mind that has ever drawn breath, and the fact that he didn't get duly recognized demonstrates that the whole thing is rigged. It's meaningless, especially when Obama got one when he hadn't even done anything.

    No question about fact that he was great, one of the greatest in history for sure. I am proud by fact that my grand-grandmother was his mother cousin, which sort of makes us some far, far cousins Smile

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:56 pm