Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lies and Myths about Russian/Soviet Military Equipment & History

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17943
    Points : 18519
    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 10:02 am

    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.

    Or indeed realise that unlike all of the propeller driven aircraft from WWII that the Tu-95 is actually a jet powered aircraft.

    Unlike the B-17 and B-29 piston engined aircraft the Tu-95 uses turboprop engines and is still the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft... a clue should be the swept wing design as most propeller driven aircraft are not fast enough to require a swept wing.

    The irony is that when they do copy they generally have no problem admitting it... the Tu-4 copy of the B-29 was a decision by Stalin, while the copying of the Sidewinder missile was dictated by the radical difference in design and production of the weapon.

    The Sidewinder was a simple modular design with a seeker in the nose, control mechanisms and guidance system, then a warhead, then the solid rocket motor and finally the tail.

    In comparison the equivalent Soviet missile was a complex mass of wiring and bits all over the place.

    The modular design of the American weapon meant each component could be built separately and fitted together in a final assembly. More importantly if there was a fault the faulty section could be replaced.

    When they got their hands on a Sidewinder they couldn't believe how simple it was... the key was simplicity, so it really didn't make sense to start designing from scratch a brand new missile, the Sidewinder was used as the template and a mixture of Soviet components and copied components were used to make the Soviet equivalent. The IR seeker and rocket motor were inferior to Soviet designs so they substituted the Soviet equivalents, but the servo motors and the simple gyro system in the US model were copied due to their superior performance to Soviet equivalents.

    In the end the Soviets produced both IR and SARH models of their missile and while the replacement short range IR guided missiles (R-60M and R-73 don't have SARH versions they took the modularity concept further with the R-27 family.)

    The west claims they copied the assault rifle, but anyone who has seen the inside of both weapons knows they didn't.



    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 792
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu May 02, 2013 11:26 am

    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...



    BTRfan i truly don't understand from what alternate reality you could have taken a similar amount of absurd theories.

    Any.....i repeat one more time...... ANY, NATO warplans for Europe in the Cold War had as its real focal point and inalienable operational condition EARLY and MASSIVE EMPLOYMENT OF TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS to counterbalance the MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL SUPERIORITY of Warsaw Pact.

    The role of NATO conventional forces was seen (going to and fro in the 12 revisions and in the various opinion of the Commanders of time) from complete irrelevance to element useful at momentarily pause or slow Warsaw Pact's advance to render its divisions more vulnerable to ADM.


    That is an example of the opinions of Lyman Lemnitzer (Commander in Chief of SACEUR) and that of Deputy Commander in Chief of the United States European Command John P. McConnell in a formerly classified document:


    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB31/docs/doc03.pdf


    In general, I felt that though Lem and McConnell both viewed the threat and enemy capabalities as being very serious (as one would expect of a military commandar in the field).
    Lyman were more balanced in his view then McConnell.
    The latter implied that NATO forces could be easily overrun and must rely quickly and heavily on use of nuclear weepons.
    Lyman openly disagreed saying that the NATO force was substantial and would give the Russians a pause, but that its deficiencies were serious enough so that it could not now fight a sustained conventional undertaking.


    About the document you have pointed out (obviously a civil level publication...):

    It is very interesting that ,in order to even only let the disparity of Forces appear less crushing, them have not only proposed a very questionable methodology (for say the least... Laughing ) for unitary force impact assessment but has been forced to .....completely remove from equation and from forces counting ......the ENTIRE AIR DEFENCE DEPARTMENT factor !!!
    And so the VERY QUICK and MASSIVE DEGRADATION of NATO's C4 and Air Force potential (that for Warsaw Pact's Forces would have been several dozen of times slower thanks just to its titanic and mobile IAD.)


    Naturally would be also interesting to question the "very bright".... Laughing .... author of this "study", if ,in its book, a surface ship armed with RGM-84 Harpoons and a Soviet one armed with P-500 or P-750 should both count as one unit.

    Also more interesting would be to know how are counted number of NATO aircraft, concentrated in a airfield defended with....NATO level air defense and with NATO level passive hardening ( i search a word better than pathetical to describe them ,but i sincerely cannot find it) after an attack with a barrage of stand-off cruise and theatre ballistic missiles.


    Even an 8 year old kid wouldn't have made a similar amount of banal mistakes and strange omissions....but ,you know, western PR machine in the Cold War was in need of people minded to sell its intellectual self-respect clown to aid to spread optimism in the NATO's military chances in a confrontation against the Soviet Juggernaut.




    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 5:48 pm

    Kennedy rejected almost all of the plans proposed by Lemnitzer, particularly Operation Northwoods... I wouldn't be surprise if you don't know anything about Operation Northwoods...


    Lemnitzer proposed that American special forces dressed as Soviet soldiers would attack American Marines at Guantanamo Bay while at the same time a small nuclear device would be detonated in Miami and several American passenger airliners would be brought down with explosives. They would then declare that the nation was under attack by the Soviet Union and Cuba and then launch a full nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and then launch an invasion of Cuba.

    Lemnitzer's team projected that approximately 95% of all Soviet citizens would be dead from the attack and that the Soviet response against America would be negligible due to their weakness in missiles, the element of surprise, and the overwhelming American attack neutralizing most of their response capabilities. Lemnitzer said that the absolute worst case, if the Soviets could respond with everything they had, would be at most, 30% of Americans dead, which he told Kennedy would constitute a victory, but that a more realistic number would be between 5% and 10%.


    They say that Kennedy was so disgusted that he stormed out of the meeting without saying a word to Lemnitzer after the general made that proposal.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2071
    Points : 2071
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

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

    Post  Regular on Thu May 02, 2013 10:09 pm

    BTRfan wrote:Kennedy rejected almost all of the plans proposed by Lemnitzer, particularly Operation Northwoods... I wouldn't be surprise if you don't know anything about Operation Northwoods...


    Lemnitzer proposed that American special forces dressed as Soviet soldiers would attack American Marines at Guantanamo Bay while at the same time a small nuclear device would be detonated in Miami and several American passenger airliners would be brought down with explosives. They would then declare that the nation was under attack by the Soviet Union and Cuba and then launch a full nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and then launch an invasion of Cuba.

    Lemnitzer's team projected that approximately 95% of all Soviet citizens would be dead from the attack and that the Soviet response against America would be negligible due to their weakness in missiles, the element of surprise, and the overwhelming American attack neutralizing most of their response capabilities. Lemnitzer said that the absolute worst case, if the Soviets could respond with everything they had, would be at most, 30% of Americans dead, which he told Kennedy would constitute a victory, but that a more realistic number would be between 5% and 10%.


    They say that Kennedy was so disgusted that he stormed out of the meeting without saying a word to Lemnitzer after the general made that proposal.
    I thought that Operation Northwoods was false flag operation targeted at Cuba and not Soviet Union. Did America had such a big advantage in nuclear weapons back then?

    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 11:08 pm

    Regular wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:Kennedy rejected almost all of the plans proposed by Lemnitzer, particularly Operation Northwoods... I wouldn't be surprise if you don't know anything about Operation Northwoods...


    Lemnitzer proposed that American special forces dressed as Soviet soldiers would attack American Marines at Guantanamo Bay while at the same time a small nuclear device would be detonated in Miami and several American passenger airliners would be brought down with explosives. They would then declare that the nation was under attack by the Soviet Union and Cuba and then launch a full nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and then launch an invasion of Cuba.

    Lemnitzer's team projected that approximately 95% of all Soviet citizens would be dead from the attack and that the Soviet response against America would be negligible due to their weakness in missiles, the element of surprise, and the overwhelming American attack neutralizing most of their response capabilities. Lemnitzer said that the absolute worst case, if the Soviets could respond with everything they had, would be at most, 30% of Americans dead, which he told Kennedy would constitute a victory, but that a more realistic number would be between 5% and 10%.


    They say that Kennedy was so disgusted that he stormed out of the meeting without saying a word to Lemnitzer after the general made that proposal.
    I thought that Operation Northwoods was false flag operation targeted at Cuba and not Soviet Union. Did America had such a big advantage in nuclear weapons back then?


    In 1961/1962 the USA had about 200-300 operational ICBMs while the Soviet Union had a grand total of FOUR [yes FOUR] operational ICBMs (counting advanced prototypes) in their entire arsenals. Things were not so unbalanced in regards to IRBMs and SRBMs. Kruschev put IRBMs and SRBMs into Cuba to try to make up for the huge gap in ICBMs.


    The classical US view has always been that Kruschev was making an aggressive move against the USA. I see it as a move made out of desperation. He certainly didn't want to provoke the USA when he knew how weak his own nuclear forces were and he didn't want nuclear weapons outside of his country/control such that they might fall into Cuban hands. He put IRBMs and SRBMs into Cuba because he was desperate to do something to counter the massive American advantage in ICBMs.

    America did not know just how weak the Soviets were in ICBMs. American intelligence generally knew that the Soviets had less, perhaps even far less, but they didn't know just how few... At least if they did know, the politicians were not selling the people.


    First it was the bomber gap, when it turned out the Soviets had perhaps 5% of the strategic bombers that the USA had, then it was a warhead gap, a missile gap... All of the "gaps" were basically invented by American politicians to justify and rationalize massive expenditures on strategic weapons. In the mid-1950s US intelligence declared that the Soviets had at least 2,000 operational ICBMs, which of course was an absurd estimate based on nothing except blind guessing.



    Anyway, the Air Force estimated the Soviets had hundreds, even several thousand, ICBMs, in 1961/1962. The CIA declared that the Soviets had no more than 12 operational ICBMs. In actuality the Soviets had exactly 4 ICBMs.


    Last edited by BTRfan on Thu May 02, 2013 11:40 pm; 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 11:12 pm

    Regular wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:Kennedy rejected almost all of the plans proposed by Lemnitzer, particularly Operation Northwoods... I wouldn't be surprise if you don't know anything about Operation Northwoods...


    Lemnitzer proposed that American special forces dressed as Soviet soldiers would attack American Marines at Guantanamo Bay while at the same time a small nuclear device would be detonated in Miami and several American passenger airliners would be brought down with explosives. They would then declare that the nation was under attack by the Soviet Union and Cuba and then launch a full nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and then launch an invasion of Cuba.

    Lemnitzer's team projected that approximately 95% of all Soviet citizens would be dead from the attack and that the Soviet response against America would be negligible due to their weakness in missiles, the element of surprise, and the overwhelming American attack neutralizing most of their response capabilities. Lemnitzer said that the absolute worst case, if the Soviets could respond with everything they had, would be at most, 30% of Americans dead, which he told Kennedy would constitute a victory, but that a more realistic number would be between 5% and 10%.


    They say that Kennedy was so disgusted that he stormed out of the meeting without saying a word to Lemnitzer after the general made that proposal.
    I thought that Operation Northwoods was false flag operation targeted at Cuba and not Soviet Union. Did America had such a big advantage in nuclear weapons back then?



    Lemnitzer's team anticipated that the Soviet Union would interfere with the American invasion of Cuba and that the American people would only support a nuclear war with the Soviet Union if a nuclear attack had taken place against America, hence his plan to detonate a nuclear warhead in Miami and then launch a massive strike on the Soviet Union before they could figure out what was going on.


    Lemnitzer thought that the whole thing would be a great opportunity to invade Cuba, topple Castro, destroy the Soviet Union, and dismantle the entire Warsaw Pact/East Bloc in one sudden move.


    It was not long after Lemnitzer made his proposal that his career as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came to an end as Kennedy refused to have him serving on the Joint Chiefs any longer.


    Last edited by BTRfan on Thu May 02, 2013 11:21 pm; edited 2 times 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 11:18 pm

    Kruschev was perhaps the most reasonable Soviet leader. If Kennedy hadn't been killed [by the clique comprised of the CIA and Lyndon Johnson], and Kruschev hadn't been toppled, Kennedy and Kruschev might have been able to work together.


    I cannot fault Kruschev for carrying on in we today identify as an absurd fashion, pounding his shoe on the podium and shouting "we will bury you!" what was he supposed to, smile at the camera and say, "we only have four operational ICBMs in our entire nation..."


    Kennedy wouldn't have leapt up and shouted, "ah ha, we can attack them and they cannot offer much retaliation!" but not all of the top brass were the caliber of JFK. There were plenty of Lemnitzers who would have chuckled and grinned while declaring, "ah ha, now we can destroy the Soviet Union and they cannot do much to stop us!"



    Today it is easy to look back at historical footage and say, "Kruschev was a clown, pounding his shoe on the desk..." He had to project strength because his strategic position was fairly weak. The only thing worse than being weak is to be recognized by potential enemies as being weak.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17943
    Points : 18519
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 03, 2013 1:25 am

    In 1961/1962 the USA had about 200-300 operational ICBMs while the Soviet Union had a grand total of FOUR [yes FOUR] operational ICBMs (counting advanced prototypes) in their entire arsenals.

    As mentioned many times before in this forum, the west has long claimed there was a huge threat from the Soviets, but the truth is that the threat has largely come from the west till about the mid 1970s.

    When Kennedy was trying to get into power he used arguments that... I think it was Truman was soft on the commies and that the growing missile gap and the bomber gap would lead to a massive Soviet invasion of Europe. The Soviets paraded missile after missile and flew bomber after bomber at every may day event and because of the secrecy (it wasn't called the iron curtain for nothing) most laymen that didn't have access to secret U2 spy photos believed the Soviets had a massive production program of production of bombers and missiles.

    Truman was soft on the commies because he knew they weren't building lots of bombers and lots of ICBMs.

    Kennedy got into office on the ticket of mass production of bombers and ICBMs and when he got into office he found the truth... there was a huge bomber gap and a huge missile gap... in favour of the west. Very simply the US could base medium range missiles in Turkey (Jupiter missiles to be precise) and they would be the equivalent of Moscow basing medium range missiles in Canada... more effective than real ICBMs because the warning time was 5 minutes, not 30.

    Given the new information Kennedy decided to lie rather than tell the truth to the American people and he just went ahead with the massive production of bombers and missiles he promised and changed doctrine from parity to first strike superiority.

    Kruschev saw this and realised his best option was to get his own Jupiters into Turkey... so he pursuaded Castro to take nuclear weapons... which castro didn't like as it made Cuba a strategic target, but the Soviets were his supporters to he accepted them anyway.

    America did not know just how weak the Soviets were in ICBMs. American intelligence generally knew that the Soviets had less, perhaps even far less, but they didn't know just how few... At least if they did know, the politicians were not selling the people.

    The American government knew exactly how many bombers and missiles the Soviets didn't have... thanks to U2 spyplane flights and other flights by RB converted bombers that flew illegally over Soviet airspace.

    Anyway, the Air Force estimated the Soviets had hundreds, even several thousand, ICBMs, in 1961/1962. The CIA declared that the Soviets had no more than 12 operational ICBMs. In actuality the Soviets had exactly 4 ICBMs.

    The US government knew from late 1950s about the Soviet status from U2 spy plane flights... that is why Kennedy had the confidence to set up a blockade around Cuba and to stare down Krushchev.

    The amusing thing was so that Kennedy would appear to be the winner the Soviet demand for Jupiter missiles to be removed from Turkey was kept secret and they were quietly removed several months later... the US would say they were obsolete anyway and new ICBMs were ready anyway... so why keep that clause secret.

    At the end of the day the Soviets didn't want missiles in Cuba because the short flight time is destabilising, but they wanted US missiles out of Turkey more, so behind closed doors they actually won... they got missiles removed from Turkey and a US guarantee not to invade Cuba. They also set up a hotline for communication between US and SU.

    Publicly it was a humiliation that cost Krushchev his position.

    Lemnitzer thought that the whole thing would be a great opportunity to invade Cuba, topple Castro, destroy the Soviet Union, and dismantle the entire Warsaw Pact/East Bloc in one sudden move.

    Only problem with that of course is that the Soviets move dozens of IRBMs to Cuba, but they moved hundreds of FROGs with tactical nuclear warheads too... the purpose of the latter was to deal with any invasion force... one per ship.



    pounding his shoe on the podium and shouting "we will bury you!"

    Another western myth... construed by most as a threat. In actual fact it is more of a claim that we will outlive you and rather than leave your body to be picked at by scavangers, we will bury your body.


    "ah ha, now we can destroy the Soviet Union and they cannot do much to stop us!"

    Four ICBMs means four totally destroyed US cities... I would not say they cannot do much. The R-7 had a huge throw weight and could carry a pretty powerful warhead... rather more powerful that the weapons dropped on Japan.

    Plus US bombers of the time could not fly as high as a U2, so early model SA-2 missiles and early jet fighters would have been a serious threat.




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

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

    BTRfan

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

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

    Post  BTRfan on Fri May 03, 2013 1:46 am

    GarryB wrote:
    In 1961/1962 the USA had about 200-300 operational ICBMs while the Soviet Union had a grand total of FOUR [yes FOUR] operational ICBMs (counting advanced prototypes) in their entire arsenals.

    As mentioned many times before in this forum, the west has long claimed there was a huge threat from the Soviets, but the truth is that the threat has largely come from the west till about the mid 1970s.

    When Kennedy was trying to get into power he used arguments that... I think it was Truman was soft on the commies and that the growing missile gap and the bomber gap would lead to a massive Soviet invasion of Europe. The Soviets paraded missile after missile and flew bomber after bomber at every may day event and because of the secrecy (it wasn't called the iron curtain for nothing) most laymen that didn't have access to secret U2 spy photos believed the Soviets had a massive production program of production of bombers and missiles.

    Truman was soft on the commies because he knew they weren't building lots of bombers and lots of ICBMs.

    Kennedy got into office on the ticket of mass production of bombers and ICBMs and when he got into office he found the truth... there was a huge bomber gap and a huge missile gap... in favour of the west. Very simply the US could base medium range missiles in Turkey (Jupiter missiles to be precise) and they would be the equivalent of Moscow basing medium range missiles in Canada... more effective than real ICBMs because the warning time was 5 minutes, not 30.

    Given the new information Kennedy decided to lie rather than tell the truth to the American people and he just went ahead with the massive production of bombers and missiles he promised and changed doctrine from parity to first strike superiority.

    Kruschev saw this and realised his best option was to get his own Jupiters into Turkey... so he pursuaded Castro to take nuclear weapons... which castro didn't like as it made Cuba a strategic target, but the Soviets were his supporters to he accepted them anyway.

    America did not know just how weak the Soviets were in ICBMs. American intelligence generally knew that the Soviets had less, perhaps even far less, but they didn't know just how few... At least if they did know, the politicians were not selling the people.

    The American government knew exactly how many bombers and missiles the Soviets didn't have... thanks to U2 spyplane flights and other flights by RB converted bombers that flew illegally over Soviet airspace.

    Anyway, the Air Force estimated the Soviets had hundreds, even several thousand, ICBMs, in 1961/1962. The CIA declared that the Soviets had no more than 12 operational ICBMs. In actuality the Soviets had exactly 4 ICBMs.

    The US government knew from late 1950s about the Soviet status from U2 spy plane flights... that is why Kennedy had the confidence to set up a blockade around Cuba and to stare down Krushchev.

    The amusing thing was so that Kennedy would appear to be the winner the Soviet demand for Jupiter missiles to be removed from Turkey was kept secret and they were quietly removed several months later... the US would say they were obsolete anyway and new ICBMs were ready anyway... so why keep that clause secret.

    At the end of the day the Soviets didn't want missiles in Cuba because the short flight time is destabilising, but they wanted US missiles out of Turkey more, so behind closed doors they actually won... they got missiles removed from Turkey and a US guarantee not to invade Cuba. They also set up a hotline for communication between US and SU.

    Publicly it was a humiliation that cost Krushchev his position.

    Lemnitzer thought that the whole thing would be a great opportunity to invade Cuba, topple Castro, destroy the Soviet Union, and dismantle the entire Warsaw Pact/East Bloc in one sudden move.

    Only problem with that of course is that the Soviets move dozens of IRBMs to Cuba, but they moved hundreds of FROGs with tactical nuclear warheads too... the purpose of the latter was to deal with any invasion force... one per ship.




    1- Truman and Kennedy were both Democrats, and Truman was not seeking re-election. Kennedy ran against Nixon who was the VP to Eisenhower and Kennedy accused Eisenhower of allowing a missile gap to develop.


    2- Truman was very soft on communism. He probably could have gotten along in the Central Committee of the CPSU but he would have been on the center/right of the party. He was about as left as one could get in the USA without engaging in political suicide.

    3- The USAF argued that the CIA U-2 flights could only determine what was going on in limited areas and they assured the president that the Soviets almost certainly had hundreds of ICBMs in areas that the CIA wasn't flying over.

    4- I'm not sure if those IRBMs or SRBMs in Cuba were ever brought online.

    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 Fri May 03, 2013 1:50 am

    GarryB wrote:


    Four ICBMs means four totally destroyed US cities... I would not say they cannot do much. The R-7 had a huge throw weight and could carry a pretty powerful warhead... rather more powerful that the weapons dropped on Japan.

    Plus US bombers of the time could not fly as high as a U2, so early model SA-2 missiles and early jet fighters would have been a serious threat.




    Lemnitzer wasn't concerned with losing several major cities. He knew that America had enough missiles and warheads to destroy every city in the Soviet Union with a population greater than 50,000 and he didn't concern himself with possibly losing four American cities in the retaliation.

    People who were there say that Kennedy was horrified by Lemnitzer's disregard for the lives of Soviets and Americans.

    It is also a matter of record that Lemnitzer and his staff submitted dozens of recommendations, almost on a daily or weekly basis, to McNamara and Kennedy, suggesting various plans for how to invade Cuba, how to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, they said that McNamara got to the point where he would just summarily reject anything that came from Lemnitzer.

    Lemnizter was ultimately sent packing, he lost his job as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was sent to Europe to serve as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17943
    Points : 18519
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 03, 2013 3:17 am

    1- Truman and Kennedy were both Democrats, and Truman was not seeking re-election. Kennedy ran against Nixon who was the VP to Eisenhower and Kennedy accused Eisenhower of allowing a missile gap to develop.

    Fair enough... replace Truman with Eisenhower.

    Ironic though... a democrat accusing a republican of being soft on military expansion...

    2- Truman was very soft on communism. He probably could have gotten along in the Central Committee of the CPSU but he would have been on the center/right of the party. He was about as left as one could get in the USA without engaging in political suicide.

    The sad truth is that the way the US sucked up to the Chinese showed there was actually no real problem between a democracy and a communist state... if Truman and Kennedy could have done with the Soviets what was later done with the Chinese perhaps we could have avoided the worst parts of the cold war and perhaps worked out some better arrangement. A lot of those proxy wars need never have happened.

    People who were there say that Kennedy was horrified by Lemnitzer's disregard for the lives of Soviets and Americans.

    He was a soldier... enemy losses were a goal... not something to be worried about. friendly losses were important but victory was the key.

    4- I'm not sure if those IRBMs or SRBMs in Cuba were ever brought online.

    They were all ready to fire, with the FROGs under the command of quite junior officers with orders to launch at an invasion force... the fear was that they might be taken out quickly so it was a case of giving it a hair trigger so it gets to be used before it is lost.


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 792
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri May 03, 2013 11:48 am



    They would then declare that the nation was under attack by the Soviet Union and Cuba and then launch a full nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and then launch an invasion of Cuba.



    Question Question Question

    BTRfan you have few ideas and very confused Very Happy ; you come to the point to mix horribly Operation Northwoods with SIOP-62.
    Enough said.....



    In 1961/1962 the USA had about 200-300 operational ICBMs while the Soviet Union had a grand total of FOUR [yes FOUR] operational ICBMs (counting advanced prototypes) in their entire arsenals.



    Question Question Question

    BTRfan Disney store is not far Laughing


    Only to remain within western publications:


    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab4.asp#foot2

    http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab3.asp


    Note: Data likely taken from some Norris publication and....still not matching, for wide defect, Soviet data Wink


    A slight numerical advantage in US favor was present for a time span of only 6-7 years (and for the momentary "slowing" effect produced by the October '60 Baikonur incident and the replacement of two production staff technical chiefs) after which URSS ICBM's production resumed at its intended pace and US was never capable to even only remain near to URSS for the entire Cold War


    Interesting that, from your initial position, you are forced to recede more and more in the time, at the frantic research of the most little time window of supposed US strategic weapons superiority over URSS in the Cold War; priceless Very Happy .



    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 Fri May 03, 2013 4:24 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:


    A slight numerical advantage in US favor was present for a time span of only 6-7 years (and for the momentary "slowing" effect produced by the October '60 Baikonur incident and the replacement of two production staff technical chiefs) after which URSS ICBM's production resumed at its intended pace and US was never capable to even only remain near to URSS for the entire Cold War


    Interesting that, from your initial position, you are forced to recede more and more in the time, at the frantic research of the most little time window of supposed US strategic weapons superiority over URSS in the Cold War; priceless Very Happy .




    It is a matter of CIA record that they placed the number of Soviet ICBMs in 1962 at no more than 12, and Soviet archives, accessible after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, reveal they actually had 4 operational ICBMs.


    Also, just so you know, it doesn't matter if the Soviets were able to deploy 45,000 missiles and warheads by the late 1970s and early 1980s. You were more than welcome to go broke buying enough missiles and warheads to destroy the world 10 times over. We were content to have enough to destroy the world 3 times over. There's something to be said for redunancy and back-up/spare missiles, but you went broke building an unnecessarily and obscenely large nuclear arsenal for a war that never came.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5660
    Points : 6303
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Fri May 03, 2013 6:36 pm

    Funny guy.

    Firstly arguing about US superiority and when proven wrong changes record to "who cares you went bankrupt" Very Happy

    Nice doing conversation with you.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5642
    Points : 5660
    Join date : 2011-12-06

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

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 03, 2013 8:26 pm

    BTRfan wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:


    A slight numerical advantage in US favor was present for a time span of only 6-7 years (and for the momentary "slowing" effect produced by the October '60 Baikonur incident and the replacement of two production staff technical chiefs) after which URSS ICBM's production resumed at its intended pace and US was never capable to even only remain near to URSS for the entire Cold War


    Interesting that, from your initial position, you are forced to recede more and more in the time, at the frantic research of the most little time window of supposed US strategic weapons superiority over URSS in the Cold War; priceless Very Happy .




    It is a matter of CIA record that they placed the number of Soviet ICBMs in 1962 at no more than 12, and Soviet archives, accessible after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, reveal they actually had 4 operational ICBMs.


    Also, just so you know, it doesn't matter if the Soviets were able to deploy 45,000 missiles and warheads by the late 1970s and early 1980s. You were more than welcome to go broke buying enough missiles and warheads to destroy the world 10 times over. We were content to have enough to destroy the world 3 times over. There's something to be said for redunancy and back-up/spare missiles, but you went broke building an unnecessarily and obscenely large nuclear arsenal for a war that never came.

    Heh, so when the US builds a massive, economy crippling arsenal that is grossly larger than what it needs, it smart, but when the USSR does the same, its baaaaaad.
    Dual standard much?

    WHile we are at it, lets shit-talk the US for bringing the world the terror of nuclear weapons!

    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 Sat May 04, 2013 3:17 am

    TR1 wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:


    A slight numerical advantage in US favor was present for a time span of only 6-7 years (and for the momentary "slowing" effect produced by the October '60 Baikonur incident and the replacement of two production staff technical chiefs) after which URSS ICBM's production resumed at its intended pace and US was never capable to even only remain near to URSS for the entire Cold War


    Interesting that, from your initial position, you are forced to recede more and more in the time, at the frantic research of the most little time window of supposed US strategic weapons superiority over URSS in the Cold War; priceless Very Happy .




    It is a matter of CIA record that they placed the number of Soviet ICBMs in 1962 at no more than 12, and Soviet archives, accessible after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, reveal they actually had 4 operational ICBMs.


    Also, just so you know, it doesn't matter if the Soviets were able to deploy 45,000 missiles and warheads by the late 1970s and early 1980s. You were more than welcome to go broke buying enough missiles and warheads to destroy the world 10 times over. We were content to have enough to destroy the world 3 times over. There's something to be said for redunancy and back-up/spare missiles, but you went broke building an unnecessarily and obscenely large nuclear arsenal for a war that never came.

    Heh, so when the US builds a massive, economy crippling arsenal that is grossly larger than what it needs, it smart, but when the USSR does the same, its baaaaaad.
    Dual standard much?

    WHile we are at it, lets shit-talk the US for bringing the world the terror of nuclear weapons!



    Actually the USA has made many of the same mistakes that brought down the Soviet Union, and is presently making many more.

    Reckless spending with no end in sight being the main one.

    The so-called leaders of the USA seem determined to do everything in their power to wreck the country they supposedly care so much about.

    America is on a collision course with disaster. The Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, the Balkans, the Caucuses... Whether bombing Serbs, invading Iraq, or promoting Georgian aggression against Russia, it seems America has adopted an unwritten policy of reckless military adventurism over the last several decades.

    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 Sat May 04, 2013 3:22 am

    TR1 wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:


    A slight numerical advantage in US favor was present for a time span of only 6-7 years (and for the momentary "slowing" effect produced by the October '60 Baikonur incident and the replacement of two production staff technical chiefs) after which URSS ICBM's production resumed at its intended pace and US was never capable to even only remain near to URSS for the entire Cold War


    Interesting that, from your initial position, you are forced to recede more and more in the time, at the frantic research of the most little time window of supposed US strategic weapons superiority over URSS in the Cold War; priceless Very Happy .




    It is a matter of CIA record that they placed the number of Soviet ICBMs in 1962 at no more than 12, and Soviet archives, accessible after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, reveal they actually had 4 operational ICBMs.


    Also, just so you know, it doesn't matter if the Soviets were able to deploy 45,000 missiles and warheads by the late 1970s and early 1980s. You were more than welcome to go broke buying enough missiles and warheads to destroy the world 10 times over. We were content to have enough to destroy the world 3 times over. There's something to be said for redunancy and back-up/spare missiles, but you went broke building an unnecessarily and obscenely large nuclear arsenal for a war that never came.

    Heh, so when the US builds a massive, economy crippling arsenal that is grossly larger than what it needs, it smart, but when the USSR does the same, its baaaaaad.
    Dual standard much?

    WHile we are at it, lets shit-talk the US for bringing the world the terror of nuclear weapons!



    I'm not an American nationalist and don't have any sense of jingoist love for America. I don't hold America above criticism, especially if the criticism is truthful and valid.



    One thing in that "Myths about Russia" site that struck me as very sad was the claim that no Germans took part in the Soviet rocket program. I've already shown that the Soviets recruited Werner von Braun's chief assistant, an electrical engineer who designed the entire guidance system for the V2, along with about 19 other technicians and assistants. It was as though the author of that list thought it would cheapen Russia's accomplishments to admit that they had substantial German assistance in their early rocket programs. Russia has enough accomplishments in science, literature, music, opera, architecture, that somebody drawing up a list to show support for Russia shouldn't have to feel the need to lie to enhance Russia's accomplishments.


    I'll agree right away that America wouldn't have made it to the moon in 1969 without the Germans. America's space program would have been delayed by at least a decade, perhaps two decades. It is based on historical fact. But the same can rightly be said of the Soviet space/rocket program.


    Last edited by BTRfan on Sat May 04, 2013 3:28 am; edited 2 times 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 Sat May 04, 2013 3:24 am

    TR1 wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:


    A slight numerical advantage in US favor was present for a time span of only 6-7 years (and for the momentary "slowing" effect produced by the October '60 Baikonur incident and the replacement of two production staff technical chiefs) after which URSS ICBM's production resumed at its intended pace and US was never capable to even only remain near to URSS for the entire Cold War


    Interesting that, from your initial position, you are forced to recede more and more in the time, at the frantic research of the most little time window of supposed US strategic weapons superiority over URSS in the Cold War; priceless Very Happy .




    It is a matter of CIA record that they placed the number of Soviet ICBMs in 1962 at no more than 12, and Soviet archives, accessible after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, reveal they actually had 4 operational ICBMs.


    Also, just so you know, it doesn't matter if the Soviets were able to deploy 45,000 missiles and warheads by the late 1970s and early 1980s. You were more than welcome to go broke buying enough missiles and warheads to destroy the world 10 times over. We were content to have enough to destroy the world 3 times over. There's something to be said for redunancy and back-up/spare missiles, but you went broke building an unnecessarily and obscenely large nuclear arsenal for a war that never came.

    Heh, so when the US builds a massive, economy crippling arsenal that is grossly larger than what it needs, it smart, but when the USSR does the same, its baaaaaad.
    Dual standard much?

    WHile we are at it, lets shit-talk the US for bringing the world the terror of nuclear weapons!



    Well what would you expect me to say, "oh yeah, those Japs had it coming, we should have dropped a dozen more!!!! burn burn burn!" Who would say that?

    It was a horrible thing, what else could be said about it? Horrible things happen in war, it doesn't make it right, it just makes it how it was. It was horrible and nothing can change that.

    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 Sat May 04, 2013 4:31 am

    Viktor wrote:Funny guy.

    Firstly arguing about US superiority and when proven wrong changes record to "who cares you went bankrupt" Very Happy

    Nice doing conversation with you.


    Strictly speaking, we were both right. I have shown that in 1962 the USA had a massive advantage, although this did close rapidly by the mid-1960s and in the 1970s the Soviets developed, and kept, a colossal advantage in number of warheads and delivery systems. But at some point it becomes unnecessary and even absurd to have so many warheads.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17943
    Points : 18519
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 04, 2013 11:16 am

    BTRfan Disney store is not far

    Funny guy.

    People... lets not get personal or be rude.
    BTRFan has posted what he believes on a discussion forum, if you disagree that is fine, if you find information that is counter to what he has or anyone else has said, by all means post it, but lets not get mean or nasty. This is a discussion forum and we are here to discuss... I quoted two replies above, but there are likely others... including possibly some from me for which I would like to appologise to BTRFan for their directness... it has been pretty clear in BTRFans replies that he does not want to cause offense, and I appreciate that. Lets make the discussion less personal.


    It is a matter of CIA record that they placed the number of Soviet ICBMs in 1962 at no more than 12, and Soviet archives, accessible after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, reveal they actually had 4 operational ICBMs.

    It is common knowledge that Kennedy played that card game believing he held all the cards. Not knowing all the missiles in Cuba were operational, not knowing the FROGs were there for the express purpose of being used against and invasion, meant he had the false belief that he held all the cards. As you mention we are all very lucky he wasn't deluded enough to believe some of his Generals.

    Also, just so you know, it doesn't matter if the Soviets were able to deploy 45,000 missiles and warheads by the late 1970s and early 1980s. You were more than welcome to go broke buying enough missiles and warheads to destroy the world 10 times over. We were content to have enough to destroy the world 3 times over. There's something to be said for redunancy and back-up/spare missiles, but you went broke building an unnecessarily and obscenely large nuclear arsenal for a war that never came.

    Both sides wasted trillions of dollars building weapons they really didn't need... except that spying and surveillance dictated that even if you didn't want them you had to make them to ensure the other guy didn't get tempted to use theirs. The other MAD aspect of MAD.

    Mutually Assured Destruction kept the peace at a strategic level but it also depleted the budgets of both sides and certainly never stopped any of the little proxy wars.

    Firstly arguing about US superiority and when proven wrong changes record to "who cares you went bankrupt"

    Not proven wrong, the US did have more nukes and more bombers than the Soviets in the early 1960s.

    The so-called leaders of the USA seem determined to do everything in their power to wreck the country they supposedly care so much about.

    From what I have seen the republicans seem hellbend on embarrassing Obama... if that means blocking a bill that helps the american people then it seems they will do it... just so they can blame obama. Here in New Zealand, we call that cutting your nose off to spite your face.

    I'll agree right away that America wouldn't have made it to the moon in 1969 without the Germans. America's space program would have been delayed by at least a decade, perhaps two decades. It is based on historical fact. But the same can rightly be said of the Soviet space/rocket program.

    I don't agree. The Soviet space program might have had a few Germans involved, but they were already quite advanced when the war ended. The US program, particularly the Saturn IV rocket program was an all German affair, in the Soviet Union the nazis were not trusted and anything they did was seriously tested and checked before it could be used.

    The vast majority of the German rocket program went to the US... not only did US forces actively seek them out, but the nazi scientists actively tried to be captured by the western allies.

    The few the Soviets caught and used were the 'unlucky ones'.

    But at some point it becomes unnecessary and even absurd to have so many warheads.

    No, it doesn't. If you have less then you are in trouble... the other side can walk over you in public like Kennedy did to Kruschev. If there is parity however you can bargain on equal terms. Having a huge superiority means you are largely safe from sneak first strike and can actually consider a first strike yourself and examine the possible ramifications of being able to take out a large portion of the enemies ability to strike back quickly in the first few minutes of the war.

    Kennedy went from demanding massive production of bombers and missiles to bridge the bomber gap, to implementing massive production programs of bombers and missiles to achieve a superiority that would enable a first strike to be an option. The superiority of the Soviets in the 70s and 80s enabled them to ensure no first strike options could be realistically contemplated in the west... just the same as Krushchev wasn't contemplating a first strike in the 1960s... he wanted a quick simple way to restore the balance.


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

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

    BTRfan

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

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

    Post  BTRfan on Sat May 04, 2013 12:00 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    It is common knowledge that Kennedy played that card game believing he held all the cards. Not knowing all the missiles in Cuba were operational, not knowing the FROGs were there for the express purpose of being used against and invasion, meant he had the false belief that he held all the cards. As you mention we are all very lucky he wasn't deluded enough to believe some of his Generals.



    Just imagine if Lemnitzer had wound up as president! Quite a scary thought.

    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 Sat May 04, 2013 12:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:



    From what I have seen the republicans seem hellbend on embarrassing Obama... if that means blocking a bill that helps the american people then it seems they will do it... just so they can blame obama. Here in New Zealand, we call that cutting your nose off to spite your face.




    At this point there's really no such thing as a "bill that helps the American people."


    Stealing from Peter to feed Paul doesn't help anybody. It hurts Peter by taking from him and it hurts Paul by enabling him to live a life of sloth and idleness.


    In California the top 1% of income earners pay 41% of all California State income taxes... This means that 1% of the California population accounts for a huge portion of California state revenue... So we must wonder, just what does the left mean with their rhetoric of "the rich must pay their fair share!" since the idea of fair is subjective and since the "rich" top 1% usually account for no less than 40% of the revenue of any particular state, the whole idea of "fair share" is just empty rhetoric.


    The Congress could best help the American people by disbanding itself and going home. They each want to leave their mark so they pass new laws every day. The problem is that we've always had laws addressing major issues such as murder, arson, rape, robbery, theft. Back in the early 1800s we used to issue more search warrants and arrest warrants to citizens than to police [few cities/towns even have standing police departments]. Today we have more police per capita than just about any nation in the world, and the police are seldom held responsible for abuses against citizens. If it was 1836 and I believe you stole my horse and had him in your barn, I would appear before a judge, present my evidence, and he would consider issuing me a search warrant to search your barn. However, I would be strictly liable to any damage I committed against your property while searching for my missing/stolen horse. If I found the horse then I would possibly be able to get an arrest warrant against you, but again I would be liable if I ruthlessly beat you out of revenge or used more force than was necessary/reasonable to subdue you if you resisted.

    We've gone from a nation of people who handled their own security to a nation that has outsourced it to a group that has become a semi-elite clique, a group within a group, a state within a state.


    Since the 1960s the average cop has made about 2x the national average wage, not bad considering that until about 10 years ago, most departments didn't even require a 2 year degree, let alone a 4 year degree [and even today, probably less than 10% of departments require a 4 year degree, but you do get additional points in the hiring process for it].

    Today some departments, such as the Pennsylvania State Police and New York State Police, pay their first-year state police officers 3 x the average national wage.

    http://www.nytrooper.com/salary_benefits.cfm

    Starting Base Salary

    Effective April 1, 2010

    $50,374 - Starting salary (during Academy training)


    $66,905 - Upon graduation from the Academy


    $71,261 - After one year


    $84,739 - After five years





    Anyway, I'm sort of ranting and have gone off topic. My main point is that I don't regard the government as being able to help people with bills. All they are doing is outlawing or controlling new things and additional things and presiding over large wealth transfers from hard-working citizens to government agencies and bureaucrats or to elite finance corporations.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2071
    Points : 2071
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

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

    Post  Regular on Sat May 04, 2013 12:43 pm

    Don't forget the myth about AK-47 being copy of Stg 44. Well if you gut those weapons out You will see that they are definitely different.

    But it's a fact that very experienced weapon designer Hugo Schmeisser was working with Kalashnikov and lets not forget that final version of AK-47 is not 1 man creation. There was a team of very experienced weapon designers. Weapon was innovative, but yet in the same time was final product, good for mass production so it can only say about people who designed it. It borrowed many proven elements from other designs, foreign and domestic. We can call Kalashnikov M1 garand copy too if we are at it.

    But for really out of this world weapons that unfortunately didn't see luck, check TKB weapons
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2071
    Points : 2071
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

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

    Post  Regular on Sat May 04, 2013 1:04 pm

    BTRfan wrote:
    Anyway, I'm sort of ranting and have gone off topic. My main point is that I don't regard the government as being able to help people with bills. All they are doing is outlawing or controlling new things and additional things and presiding over large wealth transfers from hard-working citizens to government agencies and bureaucrats or to elite finance corporations.
    Interesting numbers. In UK police wages are way lower, if You are rookie You will get about £22000 per year. And it's nothing. Jus t about enough to buy average a car.
    I agree that government shouldn't interfere in certain things. In UK there is a rampant benefit culture. People don't see work more profitable than benefits. It disgusts me, but it's their country and I hope they all go down the drain with their failed system. As a hard working person I have no sympathy for them.
    I grew up in end of socialism. In Soviet system You could binge drink, don't go to work for a month until soc workers started knocking on your door and they will find You new work, wash your face, send you to sanatorium if you are seeing white horses etc, until same thing happens and it's all over. You could be sure that what ever happens in your life You will always have food on Your table. We had relative that lived like that, but he didn't last long when Soviet union collapsed. He still had better flat than us. Even if he was single and had to pay single tax.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17943
    Points : 18519
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 05, 2013 11:01 am

    Just imagine if Lemnitzer had wound up as president! Quite a scary thought.

    As a soldier his mentality is the win... he is not interested with the politics of how to tell the western world that a lot of it is no longer here because he saw the chance and he took it.

    If voted into office he would have to take into account a few more things that would certainly change his tune... but I am certainly glad he never made it to office.

    At this point there's really no such thing as a "bill that helps the American people."

    There are plenty of laws they could introduce to make things easier for people... there was a time when it was illegal to lend some one some money if you knew they couldn't pay it back. Changing that law has created a lot of problems where greedy banks thought the could just give away house loans because in the worst case scenario if they can't pay you take possession of the house and recover your money. House prices kept going up so that was perfectly sound logic. The problem is that when the house market collapses and ordinary people owe millions on a house they now can't afford, taking the house is pointless because it is not worth the money that was paid for it. If the owner sells it they will pay a small fraction of what they have it mortgaged for and still owe a substantial amount on a house they no longer live in... which means they are in serious debt and homeless.

    The solution was to pay money to the banks!

    In California the top 1% of income earners pay 41% of all California State income taxes... This means that 1% of the California population accounts for a huge portion of California state revenue...

    Actually I don't believe that. All the rich people I know have offshore accounts and buy businesses that are running at a loss and pay big sums to accountants just so they never have to pay tax at the same rate as real workers. The average business model is a pyramid scheme where the ones at the top enjoy all sorts of benefits and perks and enormous wages, yet they very rarely have much to do with actually making the product their company sells/supplies. Instead of a minimum wage, personally I would make a law requiring a specific ratio between the highest paid employee and the lowest... perhaps you should watch a movie called "the other guys" and take note of the credits at the end to see what I mean.

    Not picking on all businesses, some are very responsible and give back to their workers and the communities they operate in. In some places they actually do a lot of the work many would expect the government to do, but has failed to do.

    So we must wonder, just what does the left mean with their rhetoric of "the rich must pay their fair share!" since the idea of fair is subjective and since the "rich" top 1% usually account for no less than 40% of the revenue of any particular state, the whole idea of "fair share" is just empty rhetoric.

    I think you will find that is hard to back up, because financial information is often considered private information that is not revealed without permission... and permission is rarely given because it is generally not very favourable to the rich person who hasn't paid fair tax for some time...

    And I am not talking about a higher rate of tax for the rich, I am talking about a flat rate for everyone... but no loopholes for the rich to get out of paying their share.

    The Congress could best help the American people by disbanding itself and going home.

    The speed with which they agreed to the new Start treaty, and the speed with which they agreed to the Magnitsky act tells me their disbandment would be a huge step forward for democracy in the US.

    We've gone from a nation of people who handled their own security to a nation that has outsourced it to a group that has become a semi-elite clique, a group within a group, a state within a state.

    Look at Waco, a military force armed with military firearms that stood back and watched women and children burn.

    My main point is that I don't regard the government as being able to help people with bills.

    The problem with most governments is that they see their job as making laws to make everything safe and everything fair, but laws don't really do that on their own. Most judicial systems are games of win or lose. They have forgotten that they should be about the truth and about being fair and about justice (not US government justice like murdering Saddam or OBL, which was just revenge). It seems the modern justice system is getting the defendant a jail term for the prosecution and getting them off for the defence... neither of which serves the public if it is the wrong person.

    A good start would be to simplify the rules and the laws, get rid of the dumb ones, and while describing your rights... note your responsibilities and required contributions.

    Don't forget the myth about AK-47 being copy of Stg 44. Well if you gut those weapons out You will see that they are definitely different.

    Ironically the Germans were happy to copy Soviet stuff... after coming up against Soviet mortars and seeing how effective and yet cheap and simple they were the Germans adopted 120mm mortars into their own forces that were pretty much direct copies of the Soviet models. Their first semi auto rifle was pathetic, but their upgraded model was much better because it copied the gas system of the Tokarev rifle... I believe it was called Gw. 43 or something.

    I have already been through the reasons for the AK-47/Stg-44 copying accusations... I think it was in the AK thread, but briefly, they look similar because they both have a gas system above the barrel, and they both use ammo that does not have parallel sides so a curved magazine is needed to hold the ammo as it doesn't stack straight. The front iron sight needs to be raised because of the gas system. This makes them look similar, but the AK could just as easily have copied such features from the Federov Avtomat of 1916 that had a 25 round curved magazine, a gas system above the barrel, plus the gas system of the Tokarev.

    The Germans adopted the Stg-44 because the soviets were deploying 7.62 x 25mm sub machine guns very widely and they needed a weapon to deal with such short range firepower. The intermediate round allowed effective fire outside SMG range where the soviets only had bolt action or semi auto rifles like the Tokarev and Simonov rifles.

    We can call Kalashnikov M1 garand copy too if we are at it.

    Most western documentaries about the T-34 will claim it is a Christie design because the Soviets bought the Christie running gear.

    In reality of course it was only able to be used in a light tank in its original configuration and the BT series of tanks were born, but it didn't scale up very well and had to be heavily modified first for the early model prototypes and then the T-34. Not much of the christie design actually made it to the final product except the basic functioning.


    _________________
    “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 Wed May 23, 2018 8:22 pm