[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / choroy / coz / dempart / fascist / sissy / truebrit / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: c5753b970837ea6⋯.png (861.33 KB, 1024x625, 1024:625, po2.png)

 No.2774743

Does anyone knows did Soviet military hardware fared against nato hardware in the field?

 No.2774746

File: 4a4ed77ab7660a6⋯.jpg (377.16 KB, 1125x1255, 225:251, supperior socialist techno….jpg)


 No.2774749

It varied widely, and changed as the arms race unfolded. For example the AK massively out preformed the M16 in Vietnam, but modern AR’s are arguably superior to modern AK’s. There’s also the complicating factor of export vs domestic models. For example the export T-72s that were exported to the Middle East were famously inferior to the ones used in Europe.


 No.2774751

>>2774749

What about fighter planes and other high tech stuff?


 No.2774753

>inb4 the retards who got BTFO on the stinger and the concorde earlier pile in


 No.2774755

>>2774751

I don’t know as much about Soviet fighter planes, but I do know that Soviet AA systems were more than a match for Western planes. The Egyptians basically grounded the entire Israeli airforce in 1973 using Soviet SAM systems, and their T-55s and Malyutka ATGMs devastated the Egyptian Centurians. The only reason why the Egyptians lost that war was because they advanced past their SAM umbrella and got rekt. Also the Syrians couldn’t fight for shit.


 No.2774756

>>2774755

>Egyptian Centurians

Meant to say Israeli Centurians.


 No.2774758

Tbh dogfights between the MiG-15 and the F-68 Sabre must have been pretty dank since they were effectively the same plane.


 No.2774759


 No.2774760

The 1971 war witnessed the first supersonic air combat in the subcontinent when an Indian MiG-21FLs claimed a PAF F-104 Starfighter with its GSh-23 twin-barrelled 23 mm cannon.[19] By the time the hostilities came to an end, the IAF MiG-21s had claimed four PAF F-104s, two PAF Shenyang F-6, one PAF North American F-86 Sabre and one PAF Lockheed C-130 Hercules. According to one Western military analyst, the MiG-21s had clearly "won" the much anticipated air combat between the MiG-21 and the F-104 Starfighter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Kargil_War_and_Atlantique_incident


 No.2774761

>>2774753

quick resume?


 No.2774762

>>2774749

Well apart from that one T-72 Al-Quds are still using today in Syria, that's pretty based.

>>2774755

Soviet SAMs were always going to be better though considering how much the USSR devoted its resources to it (not a criticism by-the-by). I mean the Soviet armed forces has a special air defence branch: was never quite sure why. Was it in response to the deviation of the opening period of Barbarossa of the VVS and thus putting it under its own command was more effective than the airforce?


 No.2774763

>>2774762

>Was it in response to the deviation of the opening period of Barbarossa of the VVS and thus putting it under its own command was more effective than the airforce?

I think it had more to do with the fact that NATO doctrine relied heavily on air power so the Warsaw Pact gave strong priority to countering that.


 No.2774786

File: f5237e8236ff6ea⋯.jpg (156.39 KB, 850x1062, 425:531, Soviet.jpg)

File: 5a382d3bcba6f97⋯.png (262.23 KB, 358x604, 179:302, Soviet on donkey.png)

File: 8758cc1a350daea⋯.jpg (46.66 KB, 351x730, 351:730, Soviet with stinger.jpg)

The Vietnam War: (1964–1975)

US losses only

KIA: 58,300+

WIA: 153,300+

Planes lost: 3632

Choppers lost: 5229

Tanks lost: 600+

Afghan-Soviet war: (1979–1989)

Soviet losses only

14,500+ KIA

53,750+ WIA

125 planes lost

300+ Choppers

147 tanks lost

Despite the USSR fighting a CIA-funded, trained and armed group based in Pakistan, and being in a country far larger than Vietnam for the same amount of time, they lost almost NO major battles if any, and had comparatively fewer casualties.


 No.2774829

>>2774746

North Vietnam had no helicopters though.


 No.2774849

>>2774786

The scale of the war was also much smaller though. The total number of combatants on both sides in Afghanistan never went much beyond a million. In Vietnam there full number of combatants was well over twice that. To put this in perspective, there were never much more than 250,000 Mujahideen in total. The NVA and NLF meanwhile fielded a combined force of 800,000. Soviet troops in Afghanistan never exceeded about 150,000, whereas the combined US and ARVN forces was around 1.4 million. Putting casualty the numbers side by side is not a fair comparison since Vietnam was just a larger war. You have to compare them relative to total size of troops deployed over the course of the conflict. When you crunch those numbers the Soviets had about the same casualty rate as the US in Vietnam.


 No.2775001

>>2774746

Most of those losses weren't directly from enemy combat, most were from hardware failures and flying to low into the jungle.

Also Hard warfare is the least important factor in warfare, organization, discipline, and logistical production are far more important factors.


 No.2775007

>>2775001

>>2774849

The numbers of the opposition forces in itself says something about the respective war doctrines


 No.2775153

>>2775007

The numbers of opposition forces tell you that Afghanistan has a third the population of Vietnam.


 No.2775446

>>2774849

Vietnam

Area: 331,212 km^2

Population (1970, UN estimate) 45 million

Afghanistan

Area: 652,230 km^2

Population (1980) 13 million


 No.2775459

>>2774749

>There’s also the complicating factor of export vs domestic models

Is that why the Americans dabbed on the Iraqis in the Desert Storm tank battles? I remember reading that the Soviet-designed Iraqi tanks were totally outclassed because they lacked night vision and couldn't aim while moving. I imagine that the Iraqi tanks were older models as well.


 No.2775469

>>2775459

That had more to do with the fact that T-72s were horribly outdated by the time Desert Storm happened.


 No.2775474

>>2775459

Ukrainians,pro western Russians and other scum really love to talk about desert storm and other american battles against Iraq as proof that Soviet technology overall was very bad. One of reasons why I made the thread in fact.

>>2775469

good answer,


 No.2775516

Dumping my stuff

An-72, Boeing tried to replace the A-130 with a similar (but larger) plane called the YC-14 but it didn't perform hardly as well and did not have the ability to land at such rough roads.

An-2 Commissioned in 1947, the 'Colt' is still in production in China and Poland, with Russia planning to re-start. It can travel 1000 kilometers and carry up to 1500kg of cargo or 11 people. She will land on any sufficiently large field. You can replace wheels with skis for snow-landing and even buoys for water-landing. If there is a 100-200m relatively flat chunk of land, she will land there. Fueled by ordinary 91-octane leaded gas (engine made in 1938, you won't break it by fueling with ordinary car gas), consumes 150-200 kg per hour. Easy to pilot, hard to stall, it can fly backwards (with stalling speed near 40 kph if you fly against a strong wind your ground speed will be negative). The most importantly: rugged and reliable as hell. It was used for anything from Arctic fly-overs to bombing. If that wasn't enough the An-3 turbo-prop modification gives it a massive performance upgrade and is even simpler.


 No.2775525

MiG-25 and 31

The MiG-25 (NATO codename Foxbat) was to have been a response to the perceived threat from the American supersonic B-58 bomber and its upgraded replacements, which were capable of breaking through anti-aircraft defences of the time (SA-2 and SA-3) and inflicting a nuclear strike. The designers of the MiG-25 used their ample experience with the Ye-150 series to produce an aircraft capable of mach 2.85 cruising and mach 3 sprints (it was mach 3.2 capable but the engines burned through) and attaining a ceiling of 27 km, which made it comparable with the performance characteristics of the Valkyrie. A modified MiG-25 called the Ye-266M holds the record for highest altitude reached by a jet aircraft at 37.65km. This was done in a zoom climb of course, however it is notable regardless. To give an idea of what kind of speed this was; During the Gulf War of 1991 two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of 10 air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, and none reached them. Despite being several decades out of date the MiG-25 remained relatively effective in interdicting and disrupting US bombing runs, causing them to scratch the mission, even if they didn't shoot down many aircraft. Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name Foxfire) radar had enormous power — about 600 kilowatts. It could literally 'burn' through ECM of the time and was very resistant to EMPs from nuclear blasts, its only issue was tracking and a lack of look-down/shootdown.

The issues and Belenko's famous treason resulted in a crash update program birthing the MiG-31

The MiG-31 is rated for positive 5G loading on its airframe, an improvement over the MiG-25 4.5G limit it is based upon. Can a MiG-31 handle more than 7G in a dogfight? Sure. A MiG-25 is reported to have taken 11.5G during dogfight training but this bent the airframe so badly the aircraft was decommissioned upon landing. This is for an aircraft not designed for maneuvering of any kind however and is impressive regardless.

>https://web.archive.org/web/20041017122850/http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000588922/0000588922_0001.gif

>https://web.archive.org/web/20160812192407/http://aerospace.boopidoo.com:80/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan's%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm

>https://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/

>https://www.rbth.com/articles/2012/09/03/foxhound_vs_blackbird_how_the_migs_reclaimed_the_skies_17363

>https://web.archive.org/web/20161108195250/http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:-l-r-lr&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxtQhOFqAU


 No.2775542

File: 6d62784930ed05e⋯.png (1.54 MB, 762x1200, 127:200, Uk and soviet frontal prot….png)

File: 99f709d5172b8d4⋯.png (1.06 MB, 682x1075, 682:1075, Uk and soviet tanks 1984 H….png)

The Kontakt-5 reactive armor was first used in 1985 with the T-80U. It was designed to "break" the long-ROD penetrator (APFSDS) of NATO tank ammunition, so that they couldn't penetrate the main armor of the T-80U where the Kontakt-5 covered the armor. It was very effective in the mid-80's and made early NATO ammunition quite ineffective. The American and European Main battle Tanks (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2) had no sufficient APFSDS munition to penetrate the Kontakt-5 ERA in 1985. For example, the early M1 Abrams used the M829A1 and the Leoaprd 2A4 used the DM33/43, both of which failed to penetrate the Kontakt-5. Only 6 years later, in 1991, the Americans first developed the new APFSDS penetrator M829A2. The only APFSDS that could effectively penetrate the Kontakt-5 plus the basic armor of the T-80U. However with the T 90 which through other tests has shown that its base armor is better at resisting tandem-warhead and APFSDS rounds than the T 80U and thus this data cannot be used to judge it.

Other NATO countries such as the UK and Germany still lacked sufficient APFSDS rounds to defeat the Kontakt-5 until 1999. For example, even the Leopard 2A5 in 1996 still used the outdated DM33/43 munition from the 1980's ERA, and the British Challenger 2 still used the outdated L-23/L-26 CHARM 1 APFSDS rounds from 1983 to 1999. Which means that neither Leo 2A4/2A5 nor Chally 2 had sufficient ammunition types to defeat the Kontakt 5 until the early 2000's. Only in 1999 the Germans finally developed a sufficient penetrator round, the DM53, for the longer 120mm L/55 gun used by the new Leopard 2A6 from 2001. And the British developed the more powerful L-27 CHARM 3 in 1999 for the Challenger II. Both of these ammunitions can now penetrate the Kontakt-5 however their stock is small.

In the first Gulf War, Iraqi T-72 crews performed pretty dismally. In his book Inside the Great Tanks, military writer Hans Halberstadt quotes Marc Sehring of the Patton Tank Museum, Fort Knox, Kentucky, “If the crews were equally well-trained (and that's really the key ingredient) the T-72 would probably have been the winner.” Remember, the T-72 was developed in the early 1970s while its main American rival in the Gulf War, the M1, was a whole new generation ahead of it. Add to that, that the Iraqi T 72s were stripped down, lacking some of its basic components such as the modern passive IR sights, an older autoloader and firing steel core penetrators decommissioned from soviet stockpiles in 1969 (the Gulf war was 1991) not to mention the fact that it used the non ATGM compatible 2A26 gun rather than the 2A46. These guns in turn had worn out their barrel life, in the Iraq-Iran war prior to that. In the 1982 Lebanon war, various types of Syrian T 72s faced the Merkava I, M48/M60 (equipped with Blazer ERA) and Centurion tanks, all its contemporaries. T 72 losses were miniscule with the IAF tanks getting destroyed at ranges beyond their own guns and failing to penetrate the Syrian tanks at all until the M111 sabot was put into service, and even then at ranges well within the T 72’s range fire. The only T 72s lost were from hits by TOW missiles at close ranges and 1 by tank fire from the side and that tank was only disabled and then sabotaged by its crew. The only genuine Syrian losses from tank-tank battle was their aging T 62s and T 55s


 No.2775545

File: c51204a3aa56b80⋯.png (66.44 KB, 976x532, 244:133, L23A1 v BD-26 sabot.png)

File: 1570fa7a7c46500⋯.png (1.66 MB, 859x1233, 859:1233, UK ATGM v tank.png)

>>2775542

The first soviet Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot ammunition was made in early 1960s and put on the T-62. The first US APFSDS is from 1979 nearly 20 years late.

The T-64 sported composite armour as the first tank in the world in 1963 making it basically immune to HEAT ammo of the time which was the standard AT ammo for NATO tanks until the 1980s. The T-64B was able to fire anti tank missiles through it barrel, an idea originating from the 1960s experiments during the rocket/missile craze. The US fielded the M-551 Sheridan at around the same time, however its missile system was very glitchy and it didn't fire regular rounds all too well.

The M60A2 was another attempt at this, however the results were the same. This also plagued the joint US-German MBT-70 program. The US finally made it when they produced a120mm gun-missiles system for the M1A2 abrams, however they cancelled the program along with their autoloader experiments in 2012. There was renewed interest in 2015, but it is unlikely to go anywhere judging how the past several projects have gone.

The Israeli's in the meanwhile created the LAHAT system. The Soviets also pioneered Reactive armour, Active protection system, Autoloader. The T-55 from 1961 and every tank made after it in the Soviet Union featured two plane gun stabilization and CBRN defense, in the US the CBRN was first used on the M1A1 in 1985 and two plane gun stabilization on the M60A1 AOS in the 1970s. The Soviets were also the first to create a gas-turbine engine in the T-80. This was also implemented on the M1 Abrams, but far later.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3shrIw2IOs

>http://btvt.narod.ru/2/t72istoria.htm

>http://btvt.narod.ru/2/syria1.html

>http://btvt.narod.ru/2/iraq_iran3.htm

>https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html

>https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/4haume/the_t72_a_bad_tank_some_history_and_misconceptions/


 No.2775562

File: 477cd112506b90b⋯.png (917.19 KB, 768x1162, 384:581, S-200 performance against ….png)

File: 2232ae0ee0033e6⋯.jpg (379.22 KB, 1712x881, 1712:881, модернизированного ЗРК С-1….jpg)

In the Yom Kippur war the most decisive new weapon was the Russian SA-6 surface-to-air missile. The Israelis encountered it on the Sinai front while their US built F-4 Phantom and Skyhawk jets were attempting to knock out the pontoon bridges placed across the Suez Canal by the Egyptians. In the first two days of fighting, 40 Israeli planes were shot down near the canal, most of them by SA-6 batteries. The missile was equally devastating over the Golan Heights, protecting the Syrians and exacting a heavy toll of F-4 Phantom and Skyhawks. The missile batteries were manned by mostly Russian crews.

Bill Sweetman and Bill Gunston are counted among the world’s leading weapons experts. Almost 3 decades ago, they demolished the stereotype about Soviet weapons being technologically backward in comparison with Western ones. According to them, while the Soviet civilian economy was a command one producing average quality consumer goods, the military bureaus had to face real competition from each other, leading to cutting edge weapons that were far ahead of anything the West could come up with. Sweetman and Gunston write, “In the entire history of the human race, there has never been a fighting machine as formidable and terrifying as the air and rocket forces of the Soviet Union.”


 No.2775564

File: 806d4ac9bd9a0b0⋯.png (1.42 MB, 712x1000, 89:125, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2775553

October 1951—dubbed Black Tuesday—MiGs took out six of nine B-29 Superfortresses. McGill’s first encounter with the craft had been typically brief. “One of the gunners called him out. He was a small silhouette,” McGill says. “That’s when I saw him…. [The gunners] were shooting at him.” McGill says the bomber’s centrally controlled firing system provided some protection against the fighters.

MiG-15 pilot Porfiriy Ovsyannikov was on the other end of the B-29’s guns. “When they fired at us, they smoked, and you think, ‘Is the bomber burning, or is it machine gun smoke?’ ” he recalled in 2007, when Russian historians Oleg Korytov and Konstantin Chirkin interviewed him for an oral history of Soviet combat pilots who fought in World War II and Korea. (The interviews are posted on the website Lend-Lease on airforce.ru.) The historians asked Ovsyannikov to rate the B-29’s defensive weapons. His reply: “Very good.” But MiG pilots were able to open fire from about 2,000 feet away, and at that distance, says McGill, they could savage a B-29 formation.

“The MiG-15 surprised the hell out of us,” says National Air and Space Museum curator Robert van der Linden. Compared to the North American F-86 Sabre, hastily introduced in combat after the MiGs showed up, “the MiG was faster, could out climb it, and had more firepower,” he says. And Sabre pilots knew it. “You’re damned right it was intimidating,” says retired Air Force Lieutenant General Charles “Chick” Cleveland, remembering his first encounter with a MiG-15. He was flying a Sabre with the 334th Fighter-Intercepter Squadron over Korea in 1952. Only weeks before, the squadron commander, high-scoring World War II ace George Andrew Davis, was killed by the Soviet fighter. (Davis was posthumously awarded a Medal of Honor.) Now, pulling a tight turn to evade the MiG, Cleveland violated the Sabre’s unforgiving stall margin, snapped over, and briefly entered a spin, as he puts it, “right there in the middle of combat.” Cleveland survived his mistake to become a Korean War ace with five confirmed MiG kills and two probables. Today, he’s president of the American Fighter Aces Association and still has respect for his adversary of 60 years ago. “Oh, it was a wonderful airplane,” he says from his home in Alabama. “You have to remember that the little MiG-15 in Korea was successful doing what all the Focke-Wulfs and Messerschmitts of World War II were never able to do: Drive the United States bomber force right out the sky.” From November 1951, B-29s stayed on the ground during the day; bombing missions were flown only at night and under the cover of heavy escort protection.


 No.2775565

>>2775564

While the number of American W.W.II fighter aces, who shot down 20 or more aircraft, barely exceeds two dozen, the number of Soviet aces, who shot down 29 or more aircraft is well over a hundred. The number of Soviet aces credited with shooting down 20 or more aircraft during the Second World War is in hundreds. [Soviet Aces of World War 2, Hugh Morgan, Osprey aerospace, 1998] This is a very important fact, considering that the Soviet pilots in Korea were represented by the best-of-the-best the VVS could offer. Many of the Second World War aces participated in the Korean War as pilots and commanders. This was a new era of jet aircraft, but the weapons used on aircraft were essentially the same old cannons and machine-guns taken from the propeller fighters of the W.W.II and most elements of air combat remained unchanged. There was an enormous gap is the number of experienced pilots in the US and the USSR after the Second World War. And this gap remained during the Korean War as well, allowing the Soviet VVS to attain a favorable 3.3:1 kill ratio against the UN aircraft. During the Korean War the VVS pilots flew 1,872 combat sorties and downed 1,106 US-made aircraft, of which 650 were F-86 "Sabres." In air combat over Korea against the VVS, Americans lost about two "Sabres" for every downed Soviet MiG-15. ["Russian Weapons: War and Peace," by Vladimir Babych, 1997] During the Korean War, the best American ace, Capt. MacConnel, was credited with shooting down 16 MiG-15s, while the best Soviet ace, Capt. Sutyagin, downed 23 American aircraft. ["Duel" N 20 (42) - 21(43), 1997] The gap between Soviet and American aces remained during the Korean War: there were 40 American aces who were credited with shooting down 5 or more enemy fighters, while the number of Soviet aces with 5 or more kills was 51. ["Duel" N 20 (42) - 21(43), 1997] The number of Soviet non-combat losses was only 10 aircraft. The number of non-combat losses, officially admitted by the US, is 945 ["The United States Air Force in Korea 1950-1953" by Robert Futrell]. This enormous number non-combat losses is a testament to the "superior" training of American pilots as well as to the attempts on the part of the US government and the military to present combat losses as "accidents." The Chinese and Korean air forces lost 231 fighters in combat, which brings the total number of MiG losses to 576 aircraft. The Americans claimed to have shot down 2,300 "Communist aircraft." [Aviation Encyclopedia, 1977, New-York] This was one of many wild claims made by the media and certain unscrupulous historians, contradicting even the USAF claims.


 No.2775577

File: 129094393d5a01a⋯.jpg (299.25 KB, 1504x994, 752:497, MiG-15.jpg)

File: 97d674a8463a01c⋯.jpg (342.71 KB, 1024x732, 256:183, Il-10.jpg)

File: 2bc231368d84679⋯.jpg (461.51 KB, 1500x921, 500:307, Tupolev Tu-2S.jpg)

File: c02a28edcde22b4⋯.jpg (63.99 KB, 780x432, 65:36, T-34.jpg)

File: baced2bce06b3d3⋯.jpg (143.22 KB, 800x550, 16:11, IS-2.jpg)

How well did Soviet armaments perform in Korean War?


 No.2775581


 No.2775609

>itt people cherry pick situations and unsourced data from foreign countries using export models of outdated equipment

If you're not going to talk about a direct engagement between NATO and USSR forces don't even fucking bother posting because you cannot possibly know how either sides gear will fare when put up against a properly trained an motivated adversary who doesn't shit in the streets.


 No.2775612


 No.2775615

>>2775609

literally the last two posts were about NATO vs USSR you mongoloid


 No.2775617

>>2775615

>>2775612

>yea well im just going to ignore everything that doesn't fit what you're saying and call you a retard for talking about the other %80 of the thread heh

Nice job


 No.2775622

>>2775617

THis thread is about Soviet military hardware and how it fared in real life battles of the Cold War. Whether it be proxy wars or direct conflicts this entire thread is relevant. Your argument is nonexistant.

>you cannot possibly know how either sides gear will fare when put up against a properly trained an motivated adversary who doesn't shit in the streets.

Except that we've done xactly that all thread. do you think the US army and NVA weren't motivated? Or were badly trained? Or the Koreans and the UN? Or the Iraqi and Iranian forces?

STFU about stuff you don't know.


 No.2775623

File: 1eea0bfdb31ec7b⋯.png (53.82 KB, 206x212, 103:106, 2nukes.PNG)

>>2775622

>do you think the US army and NVA weren't motivated?

>who doesn't shit in the streets.

>US GIs having their girlfriends banged at home while firebombing rice farmers are properly motivated

>run down NVA conscripts who are either young or have been fighting for decades are properly motivated

No.


 No.2775626

"STFU about stuff you don't know."

Irony in it's purest and most brazen form.


 No.2775627

>>2775622

>THis thread is about Soviet military hardware and how it fared in real life battles of the Cold War.

>using handmedown export and lend lease models operated by barely trained conscripts from foreign countries as a basis for judging how well USSR equipment works when in the hands of a properly motivated and trained force of USSR hardcores who are fighting a just war for their own soil


 No.2775635

>>2775627

>using handmedown export and lend lease models operated by barely trained conscripts from foreign countries

North Korea operated the same model aircraft as the USSR. The same applies to Vietnam, with the SA-3s being the same as the ones used in the USSR. The SA-6 in Syrian hands was the same model and crewed or directed by Russian officers, same as the NVA SAM units. etc. etc.

Also I'll add, the majority of aircraft were NOT export models in any of the wars mentioned. The Syrians got regular T-72s as did the Warsaw Pact. Also, despite the T-72 in Iraq being a monkey model export, the non-locally made versions displayed a level of defense capable of withstanding modern NATO tanks, and the only reason it failed was because they were deployed badly and most were taken out by aviation. READ MORE YOU DIPSHIT

>>2775623

>>2775626

>>2775627

>3 separate replies

what a bitch

>US GIs

They were motivated enough to burn down villages en masse and fight. Or for revenge of fallen GIs or other reasons.

>NVA

They were literally fighting for their homeland, I'd call that motivated. By your logic the Soviet army in WW 2 wasn't motivated either.


 No.2775651

>>2775635

>They were motivated enough to burn down villages en masse and fight. Or for revenge of fallen GIs or other reasons.

You actually typed this and thought it was a legitimate point? what a faggot.

>They were literally fighting for their homeland, I'd call that motivated. By your logic the Soviet army in WW 2 wasn't motivated either.

The soviet army hadn't been involved in a decades long continuous invasion by pretty much every surrounding neighbor to then be invaded by one of the most powerful militaries on the planet after having their militia forces overwhelmed.

And no, soviet troops were generally not motivated, there were several uprisings and desertion was common when the conscript could actually get away with it, the USSR didn't have the highest amount of executions among

non officer classes in their own army for nothing, if you think that the majority of USSR conscripts actually wanted to fight then your worldview has been corrupted by your political beliefs and desire to LARP.

the USSR had to have handlers placed in charge of conscripts during stalingrad in order to stop the conscripts from just fucking off.

>North Korea operated the same model aircraft as the USSR.

Flown by pilots who were killing foreigners for foreigners in foreign interests.

>The same applies to Vietnam

>functioning AA is somehow noteworthy when talking about the soviets

>The Syrians got regular T-72s as did the Warsaw Pact. Also, despite the T-72 in Iraq being a monkey model export, the non-locally made versions displayed a level of defense capable of withstanding modern NATO tanks

Pffff gonna need a source on this you lying faggot.

> and most were taken out by aviation.

But i thought the syrians were using amazing soviet AA missiles?


 No.2775669

>GIs were motivated to fight properly because some nutty fuckers decided to burn down villages despite the majority of US GIs saying that even at the time they knew what they were doing was wrong and became demoralised and demotivated for it

>implying someone fighting to survive in a shitty jungle far away from home because they got conscripted and others didn't will have the same unit cohesion and tactical prowess that someone fighting for a "just cause" would have in a pitched battle scenario which is the only true judge of how equipment and training actually works when both forces have specifically geared their entire military to fight each other but end up doing things way outside of their parameters e.g. soviets and US in afghanistan

Lol @ your mindset fam


 No.2775676

If you don't state the specific armament used and the specific target on the receiving end and the way in which the weapon destroyed the target and how repeatable that process is and how easy the weakness the target suffers from would be able to fix should it become a full pitched battle with genuine resources put into it when talking about military equipment and how effective it is in the real world you prolly should not go around telling other people to read more.

For instance you talk about t-72s in syria taking "modern nato tank" rounds but you WEIRDLY AND CONVENIENTLY forget to mention that the Sryians plaster modern ERA plates all over their tanks.

Weird that you say i need to read more yet you WEIRDLY and CONVENIENTLY forgot to mention that CRUCIAL game changing detail like modern ERA plates.


 No.2775694

I'm not saying you lot have bias im just saying you're just going to say whatever it is you need to say in the moment as long as it doesn't require you doing genuine research that doesn't involve a 15 min google search and vague statements about how X beats X every time like it's some videogame or something with supporting data being small engagements in a scenario most of this equipment was not designed to be operated in while being operated by people who have not being trained to utilise this equipment properly in the environments they're used in.

A good example would be US tanks in vietnam, i don't know if this is known to you lot or not, but tanks aren't really designed to be used in jungles, and just because some retard gives the order to use tanks in an environment perfect for the use of RPGs doesn't mean that RPGs will be effective in any other environment, just like b-29s dropping below their flight ceiling and into danger (while armed with .50s) to drop bombs on strategic targets hidden in jungle would never happen in an actual pitched war against the USSR where they would be immediately scrapped and a jet bomber quickly rushed in its place because even the US knew at the time that the only thing they could work with as a bomber was the b-29 which was outdated the second the first jets were produced. In a real war scenario those would be turned into transport planes or mothballed or put into roles where they wouldn't be decimated because the US would be willing to spend that kind of money when in a war with the USSR to produce something that isn't crap which was not the case in Vietnam or Korea because those were considered "minor" wars to the US leadership.

Just like nobody here talks about the bt-7 or the t-26 or the t-28 or any number of soviet junk that was far outdated by the time of its use because most of you know damn well that realistically in a pitched battle against a equivalent force these assets would not be used (in a situation of a superior or inferior enemy these assets are rushed into service to stem the tide or used because they are deemed the cost effective way to fight a "inferior" enemy respectively)

Basically this is a shitty larping thread for people to gush about their favorite military vehicle and how it totally BTFO the enemy heck yea!

It's fucking gay LARPing and it's childish and embarrassing when the things you're talking about are killing machines that eat human souls in terrible probably avoidable conflicts and you treat it like a videogame or football or whatever.


 No.2775695

>>2775581

Thanks, but I am also wondering how did tanks, AA guns, artillery and other hardware perform?


 No.2775713

>>2775651

>The soviet army hadn't been involved in a decades long continuous invasion by pretty much every surrounding neighbor to then be invaded by one of the most powerful militaries on the planet after having their militia forces overwhelmed.

Yeah 5 years of genocidal war, on top of a nearly decade long revolution and a constant struggle to survive and industrialize while under military and economic assault by capitalists? Totally not demoralizing. Fuck off. North Vietnam became independent a decade before the Vietnam war, and the Vietnamese began fighting since the late 30s after ho Chi Minh returned from the USSR.

>They foght the French and Japanese to a stand still and continued fighting on their own up until the US Vietnam war, when the USSR and China began regularly giving over a billion dollars annually in military aid for that period of time.

>>2775676

>Sryians plaster modern ERA plates all over their tanks.

I mentioned it was the Syrian Israeli war of 1982, if you actually read carefully you braindead shitposter.

>>2775694

>15 min google search and vague statements about how X beats X every time

That isn't what was posted though you brain-dead moron.

>tanks aren't really designed to be used in jungles

Tanks are meant to be armored fighting vehicles capable of traversing any terrain and defending from other tanks and anti-tank weaponry. Your argument is bullshit, Tanks are not used alone, they are supported by mobile infantry and air-cover. That is basic fucking knowledge.

>doesn't mean that RPGs will be effective in any other environment

Except RPGs are used in wars across the world in many different environments. They are designated medium-range infantry anti-tank weapons and do that job, be it in the deserts of the Middle East or the Jungles of Vietnam. The LAW rocket didn't even work well against soviet tanks in environments advantageous to its use, the RPG on the other hand did its job.

>just like b-29s dropping below their flight ceiling and into danger (while armed with .50s) to drop bombs on strategic targets hidden in jungle would never happen in an actual pitched war against the USSR

Except it would have because that is what plans like Operation Dropshot and other attacks on Post WW-2 USSR were like you dumb fuck. Also the B-29 wasn't bombing jungles, it bombed Korea, which was full of open spaces unlike Vietnam. The B-29s carpet bombed the entire country with complete indiscretion and at their flight ceiling and STILL got shot down. I provided sources to that effect, what did you bring? Vague statements.

>In a real war scenario those would be turned into transport planes or mothballed or put into roles where they wouldn't be decimated because the US would be willing to spend that kind of money when in a war with the USSR to produce something that isn't crap

yeah which is why the B-52 is still in service right? That's not how it works you ignoramus. Learn what M.A.D and the Nuclear Triad is before spouting conjecture you don't know.

>nobody here talks about the bt-7 or the t-26 or the t-28 or any number of soviet junk

You are a newfag aren't you?

The BT-7 wasn't junk and was superior to Japanese tanks even in WW-2. It was on par with the Panzer III prior to the upgrade, and outclassed its contemporary the Panzer II in all aspects despite being an older design. The T-28 was a good tank in its time and when utilized correctly could single handedly wreck German tanks. It was also being replaced by the T-34 and had been largely phased out by 1941. The T-26 was also a good tank. Keep cherry-picking, see where that gets you.

>in a pitched battle against a equivalent force these assets would not be used

Except they were, at Khalkin Ghol (1939), and in the battles of 1941. Things take time to re-arm you idiot, it's not like a videogame where you scrap something and can use the materials to instantly make a newer one.

Your entire argument is a strawman based on cherry-picking, because the examples weren't an all out fight between the two… (y'know, except Korea where the UN and US faced off against large forces of the USSR and PRC with the DPRK and foguht one another to a standstill). Sorry honey but nuclear weapons are a thing. the USA's aircraft carriers wouldn't last a week in an actual war, that isn't my words, those are the words of the US Admiral Rickover who was the father of the US nuclear navy.


 No.2775714

>>2775713

> if you think that the majority of USSR conscripts actually wanted to fight

Yes, they did. You truly are a retarded person who doesn't understand the fact that humans can fight and die of their own volition. Partisan units ALONE made up 1 million people in the USSR. Partisan units are wholly volunteer groups. That's ignoring the number of people who willingly signed up to fight. Or the people who became officers.

>the USSR had to have handlers placed in charge of conscripts during stalingrad in order to stop the conscripts from just fucking off.

<Muh enemy at the gates faggotry

KYS

>your worldview has been corrupted by your political beliefs and desire to LARP.

Projection and ignorance. Learn what LARPing is you salty faggot.

>functioning AA is somehow noteworthy when talking about the soviets

The patriot SAM system literally couldn't shoot-down a fucking Scud-D export version… despite being designed precisely for the purpose of shooting down short range Ballistic Missiles like the Scud-D and being over 2 decades newer. Meanwhile Soviet SA-3s shot down an F-117, despite the F-117 being built in the late 1980s and the SA-3 being built in the late 1950s. Soviet SAMs are considered the world's best and proved it in combat, unlike US SAMs.

>gonna need a source

I already posted it if you could read that is.

>the syrians were using amazing soviet AA missiles?

I was talking about the Gulf War, you illiterate twat.


 No.2775716

>>2775695

Unfortunately I lost my stuff on that data, however I suggest you look stuff up on militera.lib.ru


 No.2775720

File: a9b6fd418f73aaa⋯.png (388.86 KB, 490x482, 245:241, Disdain.PNG)

>>2775713

>>2775714

>half of your replies are just insults


 No.2775726

File: d16a4c043179cf8⋯.png (26.13 KB, 187x200, 187:200, physical version of autism.png)

>>2775720

>half of your replies are just insults

<When you can't debunk anything so you just whine about your strawmen and when that is pointed out and you're insulted over it, you ignore the points and strawman about the insults being half the replies

wew


 No.2775743

File: 9ac65191d05669a⋯.png (192.58 KB, 995x804, 995:804, 130 150 mm test 2.png)

File: 576c05d7b53280b⋯.jpg (112.32 KB, 604x223, 604:223, british cold war tank armo….jpg)

>>2775545

Some more on tank design in the USSR and NATO

Soviet tanks were designed for high intensity conflicts. To this point, they were safer than NATO tanks of the period, and still are to a certain extent. In general the location of the autoloader is quite good, because it is very unlikely to get directly hit (being located at the floor); between 2/3 and 3/4 of all hits are expected to occur on the turret. There even is a steel plate on the late T-72/T-90 tanks to prevent fragments and splinters from hitting the autoloader. The problem is the ammo not located in the autoloader, which is sitting higher in the hull (not on the floor) and is not protected against fragments/spall by any sort of additional steel plate.

In the Second Chechen War, the Russian used T-72 tanks with only the autoloader being filled, all other ammunition was removed from the vehicle. While this was certainly not ideal, reports show that the tanks survived being hit/penetrated multiple times, in one case, a T-72B was penetrated 11 times without ammunition explosion.

No modern tank was designed with urban combat in mind, even the Merkava 4 is just a retrospective design change to tanks designed to conventional warfare. The Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 all have their own problems in such a situation. The T-72/80/90 tanks for example have ERA ontop of the turret, which can be useful in assymetric warfare while the M1 Abrams' roof is about one inch thick steel only.

Armor at the hull ammo storage of a Leopard 2, Leclerc or Challenger 2 can only be penetrated by extremely powerful APFSDS projectiles and ATGMs, which would have enough power to kill the crew regardless of the ammo. The armor at the M1 Abrams' hull ammo storage can be penetrated by much smaller threats - i.e. RPGs and medium calibre ammo, which usually doesn't have the power to kill all crew members at the same time. That's why the Chrysler's engineers decided to put a blow-off panel and blast doors there.

In terms of post-penetration survivability, the Abrams also suffers from the usage of hydraulics rather than using electric drives for the gun and turret. When hit, the highly pressurized hydraulic liquids can catch fire (even though the Abrams uses "non-flammable" hydraulic liquids with a high flashpoint, there have been multiple fire incidents in the past years), which could burn the crew alive. On the older models of the Leopard 2, the hydraulics were contained in a separate compartment (like the turret ammo) with its own blow-off panel; later the Leopard 2 switched to electric drives. Machine gun ammo and grenades can also kill the tank crew when being set on fire by a penetrating round. The Abrams and most of the previously mentioned tanks don't bother to care about this issue and have no protection for this. The late Merkava models are the sole exception to this, but suffer from various other issues.

The only NATO tank that has completely isolated ammunition storage is M1 Abrams (both hull ammo and turret bustle). Challenger 2 has propellant in the crew compartment. Leclerc has 22 rounds in autoloader, 16 rounds elsewhere. Leopard 2 has huge number of rounds sitting beside the driver. C1 Ariete is very similar to the Leopard series, loads of rounds beside the driver. The Abrams also had unprotected ammunition in its original variant. Three rounds of 105 mm main gun ammo were stored in a thin metal box on the floor next to the commander's seat. When switching to the larger 120 mm ammo, the old container was too small and was discarded.

If we would remove the loader's compartment from the Abrams, keep the same profile, but fill up the newly gained space with additional DU/composite armor? Yes, it would be just as cramped as a T-90, but the tank might have just gained an extra ~100-200mm KE penetration resistance, without increasing the profile itself. This is why the T-90 has similar armor performance in the turret compared to the Abrams, even though it's noticeably smaller.


 No.2775744

File: a66593f876a42a0⋯.jpg (171.68 KB, 698x1000, 349:500, british cold war tank armo….jpg)

File: 3d5d7ebd021281f⋯.png (223.64 KB, 829x445, 829:445, gun penetration v 1230 and….png)

File: 6130fae7eeb02a9⋯.png (1.29 MB, 1242x664, 621:332, leo-IIa4 detontation.png)

>>2775743

As for the argument that a 4th crewman is more helpful outside of battle. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave that extra person at the base were he could be a proper technician who would help to service multiple tanks. Or do you suggest that fighter pilots should strap their technicians to their planes as well?

The only sources I can find for any claims that the T-64's original auto-loader (or a Russian auto-loader of any kind) was detrimental to crew safety is a small quote from Bryan Perretts, "Soviet Armour Since 1945" book.

"Early versions of the autoloader lacked safety features and were dangerous to the tank crews (especially the gunner, who sits nearby): Limbs could be easily caught in the machinery, leading to injuries and deaths. A sleeve unknowingly snagged on one of the autoloader's moving parts could also drag a crewman into the apparatus upon firing."

The quote itself to me is quite questionable in some areas, especially regarding that the gunner as far as I know is the man responsible for operating the auto-loader. I strongly feel this is kind of an "old wives tale" of military-myths. Not to mention that it could very much be a cold war "smear" campaign against the Russians that still gets spread around even today.

Про защиту «самых защищенных» из западных танков. Речь про британцев, цифры официальные и когда-то были секретные. Судя по контексту речь про защиту от БПС.

«Чифтен» – 250 мм ВЛД и башня.

«Челленджер-I» – 275 мм – ВЛД, 500 мм - башня.

«Челленджер-II» – 500 мм – ВЛД, 500 мм - башня.

Т-72Б (1984) 490 мм и 540 башня.

В середине 80-х БПС «Вант» пробивал бы Челленджер-II с дистанции 2 км, а «Манго» с 1-1,5 км. Хотя вопрос были ли они в войсках.

Why the Soviets didn't use bustles is a good question, likely to do with profile and weight. It increases the length of the turret by about double the internal turret floor design. That also adds a huge amount of vulnerable area on the tank. Most tanks are hit in the turret, and with this design not only is there a lot more turret, but it's a lot more vulnerable as well per the same weight. Not only is there effectively twice the target when fired at perpendicularly, but also when fired at from more than 30* a round would impact the long turreted tank whereas it would pass behind the short turreted tank.


 No.2775759

>>2775459 (me)

Actually I've done some research and apparently if the Iraqis had used proper tactics they would have devastated the American attack:

'simulated U.S. vehicle losses rise from only two in the base case to almost 50 (more than 70 percent of total U.S. strength), while Iraqi losses fall from 86 to about 30, even given the technological advantages of the M1A1, the effects of Coalition air supremacy, and the skilled handling of the U.S. attack'

http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

Incidentally, I got this from a military history forum where vets and engineers (or boomers claiming to be such) were discussing NATO vs Soviet tanks, and the really noticeable thing was that they couldn't agree on things that should be verifiable fact. Like one was saying he had seen Soviet tank armour being tested and shown to be fucking useless, and another was saying that tests had proven said armour to be impenetrable to NATO shells. Makes me think that objectivity is hard to find in these sorts of debates.

Also has anyone read The Threat: Inside The Soviet Military Machine by Andrew Cockburn? It claims to be firsthand evidence for the Soviet military being dogshit. Is it known to be propaganda?


 No.2775768

>>2775759

>The Threat: Inside The Soviet Military Machine by Andrew Cockburn

I've read it and it's cherry-picked trash that bases itself on old-wives tales about the Soviet Army.

>tests had proven said armour to be impenetrable to NATO shells

This is largely correct: I actually posted screenshots of those tests

>>2775744

>>2775743

>>2775545

>>2775542

Also it's mentioned here: https://battle-machines.org/2015/04/12/countdown-to-tank-battles-of-iraq-and-t-72s-failure/


 No.2775774

>>2775726

ok faggot here we go

>Yeah 5 years of genocidal war, on top of a nearly decade long revolution and a constant struggle to survive and industrialize while under military and economic assault by capitalists? Totally not demoralizing. Fuck off. North Vietnam became independent a decade before the Vietnam war, and the Vietnamese began fighting since the late 30s after ho Chi Minh returned from the USSR.

Ok you supported by assertion that USSR troopers were heavily demoralized and demotivated after about a decade of conflict where as the NVA had suffered multiple decades of constant conflicts that involved entire generations of people living and fighting as soldiers where as in the USSR they would get sent home to families and have tings that typical NVA conscripts dreamed of.

>I mentioned it was the Syrian Israeli war of 1982, if you actually read carefully you braindead shitposter.

But i thought they were modern NATO tanks? you meant modern for the time? you should have probably specified.

>That isn't what was posted though you brain-dead moron.

It really, really is, if you can't see that im sorry for you.

>Tanks are meant to be armored fighting vehicles capable of traversing any terrain and defending from other tanks and anti-tank weaponry.

Notice how "capable" doesn't mean "best at" or "designed for"

I am capable of bending over and sucking my own dick, but i'm not going to do it because i would probably hurt myself in the process and im not very good at sucking dick.

>Except RPGs are used in wars across the world in many different environments.

And many of those enviroments aren't the best for the RPG to be used in, you missed the whole point of that entire post.

I'm trying to say you can't judge the combat effectiveness of a weapon based on small engagements, im not talking about the RPG specifically but using it as an example.

>The LAW rocket didn't even work well against soviet tanks in environments advantageous to its use, the RPG on the other hand did its job.

You are so obviously biased about this it's unreal, i mention USA stuff comparatively or as examples for making points and you just start spouting off about how shit they apparently are even thought it's completely detached from anything, the LAW being shit has nothing to do with the conversation other than you wanting to get a 1 up on someone you perceive to be a western shill because you are so invested in killing machines as a replacement for your manhood.

>Except it would have because that is what plans like Operation Dropshot and other attacks on Post WW-2 USSR were like you dumb fuck.

None of those are pitched battles in a genuine war against the USSR.

>The B-29s carpet bombed the entire country with complete indiscretion and at their flight ceiling and STILL got shot down.

B-29 bombing sights are not designed to operate at their flight ceiling but ok.

> I provided sources to that effect

No your post doesn't mention altitudes or anything specific about the engagement other than the losses taken and some prattling by a US pilot about how good the migs were.

>yeah which is why the B-52 is still in service right? That's not how it works you ignoramus. Learn what M.A.D and the Nuclear Triad is before spouting conjecture you don't know.

Are you trying to imply here that the US still uses b-52 as genuine atomic bombers in the 21st century?

>The BT-7 wasn't junk and was superior to Japanese tanks even in WW-2.

I can't name a single country that had inferior tanks to the Japanese other than the Italians so that's not much of an accomplishment.

>It was on par with the Panzer III prior to the upgrade,

Again, proving my point that people here talk about military vehicles in a vacuum, because once the upgrade was issued the BT-7 took such heavy losses that they were moved to a more appropriate environment where they wouldn't get decimated just like the USA wouldn't use b-29s to bomb USSR cities in a genuine war, they would re delegate the inferior machines to do less dangerous tasks like the British did with the blenhiems during the end years of the war.

God why the fuck is the text limit on a board about political discussion so fucking small


 No.2775776

>The T-28 was a good tank in its time and when utilized correctly could single handedly wreck German tanks.

Now i know for a fact you're a larping faggot, no human would ever allow these words to be typed onto a screen unironically unless they were politically and emotionally invested in this.

>and when utilised correctly

Again proving my point about training and motivation being at least %50 of the equation when fighting pitched battles against equally equipped enemies which USSR and NATO doctrines were designed for.

>and had been largely phased out by 1941.

Because it was so shit, couldn't turn, had weak armour and had such a huge profile it basically became impossible to compete with other tanks, which as you've said in one of your earlier posts, is one of the main tenants that make a tank useful.

>The T-26 was also a good tank.

Again, it wasn't, if it was a good tank it would have led to further developments in it's design style, but it was such a bad tank that pretty much every design aspect of the t-26 was ditched apart from it's sloped front plate which pretty much every other nation was also doing at the time, you do not see that style of turret on a Russian tank after the t-26 after it.

> Keep cherry-picking, see where that gets you.

I'm not the one cherry picking here when people in this thread mostly only talk about successful soviet designs and not the utter failures and pretend the inferior designs were totally fine for the time.

>Except they were, at Khalkin Ghol (1939), and in the battles of 1941. Things take time to re-arm you idiot, it's not like a videogame where you scrap something and can use the materials to instantly make a newer one.

I specifically point this out.

> Sorry honey but nuclear weapons are a thing. the USA's aircraft carriers wouldn't last a week in an actual war, that isn't my words, those are the words of the US Admiral Rickover who was the father of the US nuclear navy.

Again you're so heavily invested in this that you feel the need to throw insults at Americans and be constantly making pointless jabs at american equipment even though the thread topic is USSR equipment and i only mention USA equipment to correct inaccuracies or to provide examples.

>Your entire argument is a strawman based on cherry-picking,

No it's not.

>because the examples weren't an all out fight between the two

If it's not an all out real fight then it's not a measurable real world example of how the USSR militaries equipment works when it's designed to fight the US and they don't end up fighting the US in any large amount that could be used for real data gathering that can actually be used to come to conclusions.

We know for a fact semi automatics are better than bolt actions because we have had the combat experience in large scale wars to definitively prove that a semi auto is more combat effective than a bolt action, the same cannot be said for USSR and US equipment that was designed to compete but often ended up fighting against outdated older versions or used improperly. Migs shooting down a formation of bombers or a group of fighters that weren't expecting it or were designed for different eras proves nothing other than the importance of clandestine use of up to date equipment in shadow wars where the opposing side does not expect modern (for the time) equipment to be used.

>Yes, they did. You truly are a retarded person who doesn't understand the fact that humans can fight and die of their own volition. Partisan units ALONE made up 1 million people in the USSR. Partisan units are wholly volunteer groups. That's ignoring the number of people who willingly signed up to fight. Or the people who became officers.

Because they were going to get killed and because their society would pressure them into fighting, mothers wouldn't talk to their children if they refused to sign up, people would be jailed or sent to labour camps if they refused to sign up, we are not talking about world war 2 though we're talking about how people conscripted into service against their will typically aren't going to be the best fighters and they would typically get barely a few weeks training, hardly effective fighters who would feel confident when an mg-42 is firing into your general direction and you're expected to assault that position.

><Muh enemy at the gates faggotry

>implying what i said was wrong

>implying you have proof against this basic fact that you can read from ww2 USSR veterans

>implying i said it was anything like enemy at the gates

>implying a group of 16-25 year old conscripts who would be given a crappy rifle would be up for charging into a line of heavily entrenched germans with mg-42s like cannon fodder without brains


 No.2775777

>The patriot SAM system literally couldn't shoot-down a fucking Scud-D export version… despite being designed precisely for the purpose of shooting down short range Ballistic Missiles like the Scud-D and being over 2 decades newer. Meanwhile Soviet SA-3s shot down an F-117, despite the F-117 being built in the late 1980s and the SA-3 being built in the late 1950s. Soviet SAMs are considered the world's best and proved it in combat, unlike US SAMs.

Well scuds are ballistic missiles, not planes, so i have no idea why you're talking about the application of anti ballistic missiles systems when im talking about AA systems designed to shoot down enemy planes which pretty much every country on earth has an effective way of doing but im going to guess its so you could bash US equipment again because in your deeply troubled mind im the enemy who must be insulted and belittled instead of just another user on an imageboard discussing things.

>I was talking about the Gulf War, you illiterate twat.

Imagine how much time you would have saved if you had used the word "modern" properly and added "for the time" on the end.

Saying "modern" implies current day.

If you were talking about a past time you say "modern for the time" or you don't use the word modern at all.


 No.2775785

There needs to be a better way than just quoting the whole thing otherwise it's just going to spiral out of control into 40 fucking posts per person


 No.2775799

>>2775774

>>2775776

>>2775777

Having read your entire bitch-rant I have determined that you are a troll. Every word you say is the most ironic shit I've heard in years. This arm-chair opinionated analysis is so ignorant yet so confident that it can't be anything but a joke. That said, here's a final reply. I'm hiding any further ones as they are a waste of time.


 No.2775800

>>2775799

I'm going to guess that you're either a burger or some other Westerner because of what bullshit you're saying.

>that USSR troopers were heavily demoralized and demotivated after about a decade of conflict

Actually 2 decades of conflict and struggle. The famines occurred because of war, and the lack of industry under the Tsar + economic global pressure created huge issues. Despite this the USSR did not collapse and had a standing army of several million people.

>I thought you meant

learn to read carefully, I literally cite dates of what I was describing throughout my posts.

> "capable" doesn't mean "best at" or "designed for"

A tank shouldn't be defeated by a weapon over a decade older than it. The M-60 and m-48 got CREAMED in almost all conflicts with competent enemies and contemporaries. Their design and specs were completely sub-par to their counterparts as well. I already pointed this out in a 5 part post about soviet and NATO tanks, backed by sources and images of documentation.

>many of those enviroments aren't the best for the RPG to be used in

See this is why you should be quiet. You clearly don't understand Soviet military doctrine. Soviet doctrine matched their ATGM capability with that of the RPG-7. letting it cover the gap of the 1-200 meter area that ATGMs could not be used in.

>you missed the whole point of that entire post.

No it's just that your point is bullshit arm-chair theorism that ignores reality.

>you can't judge the combat effectiveness of a weapon based on small engagement

What's your definition of a small engagement? Iraq and Iran are medium-Large size countries and had a full blown war, the Gulf War was the US literally using superior technology and tactics to overwhelm worn out troops of Saddam, whilst also outnumbering them.

>You are so obviously biased about this it's unreal

Everyone is biased. That is irrellevant.

>i mention USA stuff comparatively or as examples for making points and you just start spouting off about how shit they apparently are even thought it's completely detached from anything

You didn't mention the LAW, I did. i mentioned it not because "it's garbage because muh evil West" but because it is objectively inferior to the RPG-7 and displayed this in combat.

>1 up

No. not really. You're just blustering ignorant bullshit and I pointed it out.

>None of those are pitched battles in a genuine war against the USSR.

Except that they were. Planned nuclera assaults along side conventional invasion. They wer abandoned because they lacked sufficient nuclear capability and the USSR had

acquired nuclear capability of its own.

>B-29 bombing sights are not designed to operate at their flight ceiling

As I said, they carpet combed EVERYTHING, literally everything.

>your post doesn't mention altitudes or anything specific about the engagement

The US B-29 bombers didn't go low to bomb jungles, they bombed Korea. And they were forced to fly at night only. The MiG-15 could reach their flight ceiling and devastated their formations low-level or high. And that is what my sources provide.

>prattling

ad hominum that ignores the objective statements by battle-experienced veterans

>proving my point that people here talk about military vehicles in a vacuum

That wasn't your point and that wasn't what happened here you dimwitted fuck. That also isn't what this thread is about. It is talking about Soviet hardware's military performance in conflicts. There is more to warfare than all out major war you twat.

>Are you trying to imply here that the US still uses b-52 as genuine atomic bombers in the 21st century

Nothing to imply, it's a fucking fact. They made new modifications to bombs. Obviously B-52s are useless today, but the number of B1s and B-2s are so low and their usage so costly that B-52s would be used, mostly because, unlike Soviet aircraft, the US never fully developed a doctrine of nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

>can't name a single country that had inferior tanks to the Japanese other than the Italians

US tanks prior to the M4 sherman were trash. British tanks were mostly garbage that couldn't get to battle-field, required obsurd amounts of maintenance and had few produced, French tanks, like Japanese tanks, were innovative or had good ideas, but also like the Japanese had massive design flaws that made them easy targets.

> the BT-7 took such heavy losses

Yes, but again that was in the middle of re-armament, proving my point. You're using WW-2 as your bench-mark when warfare has changed. It's like Judging WW-1 based on how its tactics would function in WW-2.

> the British did with the blenhiems during the end years of the war.

The Blenheim was a failure from the start


 No.2775804

>>2775799

>Having read your entire bitch-rant I have determined that i am incapable of debating properly and have to pretend you're not being genuine in an attempt to silence the opinions of someone who does not agree with me because i know i have the majority on my side

ftfy


 No.2775809

>>2775776

>no human would ever allow these words to be typed onto a screen unironically

On July 3rd, 1941 A Soviet T-28 tank seperated from its division and, made up of a ragtag crew of rookies and veterans, went through Minsk destroying dozens of German trucks and Panzer IIIs that were taken by surprise. The tank was finally knocked out, with most of its crew was killed, but two of them - Dmitriy Ivanovich Malko and Nikolay Evseevich Pedan who survived, both escaping to friendly lines (albeit seperately) and fighting up until the war’s end. T-28s were being phased out in 1941, but when they were built they were very capable tanks, and in the right hands could cause massive damage to superior tanks like the Panzer III.

Source: https://mihalchuk-1974.livejournal.com/19986.html

>proving my point about training and motivation being at least %50 of the equation

That wasn't our point. You just threw that out as if it was some secret, when we were talking about soviet hardware and how it performed in war and why. It's a discussion, and you just butt in with smart-ass bullshit that is plain unnecessary.

>when fighting pitched battles

Pitched battles on the scale of WW-2 are never going to happen unless it's WW-3 which is the prelude to the apocalypse. Nuclear warfare is a thing and therefore it is retarded to talk about conventional military might in an all out war. The idea is ludicrous. You sound like those "limited nuclear war" retards from the Reagan era.

>it was so shit

compared to what you buffoon? Tanks that were a generation newer? No shit, that's called progression. For its time the T-28 was one of the best tanks, but in 1941 it no longer held that position.

>had such a huge profile

Not an issue, the T-28 was not much bigger than other tanks of its type later in WW-2. the Panther was a bigger tank despite both being mediums.

>if it was a good tank it would have led to further developments in it's design style

The T-26 was the culmination of earlier designs just because it is obsolete in 1941 does not make its design bad, but simply outdated. It's like judging the Wright Brother plane by comparing it to a Fokker tri-plane. Things progress. A Gatling gun of the US civil war era was an excellent weapon in its day and is still a good weapon, but over-shadowed by modern designs, because they have things not available before.

>it was such a bad tank that pretty much every design aspect of the t-26 was ditched

most of which were also ditched on foreign ones, does that mean that ALL tanks of the T-26 generation were garbage? Your comparisons make no sense. You whine about obsolesence, then claim a design is shit because it is obsolete when that isnt how you determine that.

>people in this thread mostly only talk about successful soviet designs

Uhh no, the thread here mentions soviet military hardware used in combat, their success is not dependent on their designs.

> not the utter failures

Name one utter failure that was used in combat.

>pretend the inferior designs were totally fine for the time.

It's not pretend, it's fact. The BT-7 was better than its contemporaries, with innovative, design features that gave it an edge, like its Christie suspension. However thsi suspension was obsolete compared to the newer systems created afterwards. But that's just shifting goal posts.

>the need to throw insults at Americans

Where did I insult americans in that statement? I only pointed out that by the words of their own admiral their aircraft carriers wouldn't last a week in an all out war:

Back in the 70s, Admiral Rickover, the ‘father of nuclear navy’, had to answer the question before the U.S. Senate, “How long would our aircraft carriers survive in a battle against the Russian Navy?” His response caused disillusionment, “Two or three days before they sink, maybe a week if they stay in the harbor.”

>pointless jabs at american equipment

Uhh no, I compared them in terms of specs and then compared their performance in battle, with context of crew and date.

Your entire argument is STILL a bunch of strawmen based on cherry-picking and conjecture, salted with some opinionated nonsense.


 No.2775815

>>2775799

>If it's not an all out real fight then it's not a measurable real world example

That's not how the military works you retard. Not every military situation is an all out war.

>We know for a fact semi automatics are better than bolt actions because we have had the combat experience in large scale wars to definitively prove that a semi auto is more combat effective

That's the most retarded shit I've heard. Semi-auto was created and used because its designs provided an advantage. THEN it was proven. However, going by your statements, the AK-74 wasn't necessary, because the Vietnam war wasn't an all out demonstration.

>were designed for different eras

The MiG-15 is literally 10 years older, the F-86 was a contemporary design, and the B-29 was upgraded repeatedly. The B-29 was designed to supercede the B-17 and it was nigh-untouchable by any Axis Air defenses.

>they were going to get killed and because their society would pressure them into fighting

<Muh labour camps

<muh evul Stalin-era society

literal horseshit, those who were university students could choose not to go, yet many still did. Millions joined voluntarily.


 No.2775816

>>2775799

>hardly effective

I already debunked this bullshit before.

Early in the war the Soviets understood that a precision built bolt action rifle with sights graduated to 1200 yards was an expensive option and one that required considerable time and resources to train huge numbers of troops on. The Mosin–Nagant of which they made 37,000,000 was a good weapon but one that only a small percentage of their infantrymen could use to its maximum potential and as with all bolt guns was cursed with a slow rate of fire and a limited magazine capacity.

The soviets realized sooner than anyone else that 90% of infantry combat takes place at close range (<=200 meters) where full power cartridges like their 7.62mm X 54R were over powered and the bolt action rifles that fired such heavy hitters had a low rate of fire. Soviet doctrine demanded that in meeting engagements their troops should be able to establish direct fire superiority quickly and then maneuver under the cover of that high volume of fire. Of course the Germans wanted the same capability but were too slow to implement the changes required in time.

The German Solution:

Was to place light belt fed machine guns with high rates of fire such as the MG-34 with its ~900 round/min rate of fire with infantry platoons. Thus the German squad armed predominantly with bolt action rifles was centered around its base of fire the MG34.

The Soviet Solution (s):

•On one level the Soviets adopted the same solution with the 7.62mm X 54R DP-28 drum fed light machine gun acting as the base of fire and the rest of the unit armed with bolt action rifles.

•Another Soviet solution was the creation of SMG battalions where the predominant weapon was the easy to manufacture PPSh-41 sub machine gun (1000 rounds/min) that was supported by DP-28 LMG and designated marksmen armed with either Mosin–Nagant bolt guns or SVT-40 semi automatic rifles. These units could send clouds of lead at German troops while in the attack at a dead run.

Imagine 20 Germans with 1 MG-34, 4 MP-40s and 15 bolt action rifles facing 20 Soviets with 2 DP-28s, 6 SVT-40s and 12 PPSh-41s. The German unit is over matched with respect to the volume of fire it can deliver. And it take less time and effort to train a sub machine gunner than an effective rifleman.


 No.2775820

File: 1796f7737e0d2f7⋯.pdf (5.08 MB, Stalingrad the City that D….pdf)

File: 8c35e0f9e38af60⋯.png (513.99 KB, 500x707, 500:707, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2775776

>>implying what i said was wrong

It is. Your statements are literal Solzhenitsyn levels of made-up bullshit.

>you have proof against this basic fact that you can read from ww2 USSR veterans

My great-grandfather WAS a soviet veteran, so was his brother and his father-in-law. He DID fight in Stalingrad. Moreover I've studied that battle. You're just spouting the same anti-soviet garbage the Robert Conquest was.

I have read more soviet ww-2 memoirs than you know.

>implying a group of 16-25 year old conscripts who would be given a crappy rifle would be up for charging into a line of heavily entrenched germans with mg-42s like cannon fodder without brains

<muh human waves

Not what happened. see >>2775816


 No.2775826

>>2775777

>Well scuds are ballistic missiles, not planes, so i have no idea why you're talking about the application of anti ballistic missiles systems when im talking about AA systems designed to shoot down enemy planes

Are you actually this retarded?

The Patriot SAM is also an AA system you tard, and short-range ballistic missiles are also aerial targets. Planes aren't the only things being shot down you dip-shit.

>Its so you could bash US equipment again

You're projecting so hard it's hilarious.

the point is that US SAMs are inferior even compared to older soviet SAMs because they have not demonstrated the capability to shoot down a target they were DESIGNED to shoot down, while the soviet SAM compared was NOT designed to be able to shoot down F-117s, yet did one, and damaged another. The point was a comparison. The SA-3 being used was in real battle conditions, all out Kosovo war with NATO bombardment and technology overmatching Serbia's by a wide margin. meanwhile the Patriot missiles, far more autonomous and deployed in a comparatively peaceful and easy area was unable to shoot down a basic bombardment when it had literally NOTHING stopping it except its own design faults. The crews were Israeli and US (well trained), the missile was the top-tech of its time and the situation was such that they had no distractions or worries of being compromised during their efforts to conduct AA warfare (unlike the Serbs who were watching out for HARMs every time they risked using their SAMs). Despite this they failed to shoot down a SINGLE missile, despite being designed to do JUST THAT, and having nearly PERFECT conditions.

>Imagine how much time you would have saved if you had used the word "modern" properly and added "for the time" on the end

I didn't use it that often at all and I pointed out the dates of what I stated, as well as the countries and other specifics, Your lack of reading ability is at fault, not me.


 No.2775837

>>2774761

Two different threads, one where a guy claimed the stinger had a 90% success rate which is obvious propaganda. The guy who countered him actually knew his shit and could tell that soviet helicopters could actually survive multiple hits in some cases and soviet troops preferred their own launchers over captured stingers.

In the other, someone who claimed the Tupolev-144 was inferior to the Concorde, got shut down by someone whose grandfather had been on a Tupolev-144 and was an aircraft engineer and knew all about it, pointed out how NASA preferred the Tupolev-144 for testing purposes and how the myth of Concorde superiority arose from a comparison made between a Concorde which had been modified against a semi-prototype version of the Tupolev-144.


 No.2776098

If MIG's performed well in Korean war, how did Americans managed to bomb North Korea so much? According to wiki

During this period, U.S. Far East Air Forces (FEAF) B-29 bombers carried out massive aerial attacks on transport centers and industrial hubs in North Korea. Having soon established air supremacy by the destruction of North Korean aircraft in the air and on the ground, FEAF bombers encountered no resistance and "the sky over North Korea was their safe front yard."

What happened? How did Americans establish air dominance?


 No.2776174

>>2776098

> how did Americans managed to bomb North Korea so much

1) night bombing as I mentioned. The MiGs lacked sophisticated RADAR and thus had trouble combating night-fighters at the same time as taking down the Bombers.

2) The MiG-15 was introduced mi-way into the war, prior to that the North Korean forces were unable to stop B-29 bombing.

3) The B-29 has a massive payload

4) Strike fighters with 2 napalm bomb tanks on them often conducted low-level high-speed bombing (similar to the Vietnam war.

The American's were literally chased out of the sky during day-time hours in Korea, after the MiG-15 came in. At night they had the advantage, but considering that the Koreans were fighting a semi-defensive war and did not have bombers available, it is a moot point.

>B-29 bombers carried out massive aerial attacks on transport centers and industrial hubs in North Korea.

The USAF, just like in WW-2 bombed everything indiscriminately. Civilian housing and industry alike,

> FEAF bombers encountered no resistance

US propaganda. As I pointed out before, they inflated North Korean loss-rates many times over while denying their own losses and attributing them to "mechanical failures".


 No.2776175

>>2776174

But Americans still inflicted large amount of damage to Good Koreans. Was it during night by bombing everything or are there more reasons?

How big was damage inflicted to North Korea?


 No.2776176

>>2776174

Also how effective were the AA guns?


 No.2776206

>>2776175

>Was it during night by bombing everything

After the MiGs arrived, yes, prior to that the US bombers had managed to fly their missions with acceptable loss-rates, with a limited Korean AF opposing them.

>How big was damage inflicted to North Korea

Well along side the biological weapons they deployed (http://nrt24.ru/en/news/available-first-time-general-public-evidence-about-use-us-biological-weapons-during-korean-war)

The end result of the Korean war was that the USAF dropped 635,000 tons of explosives on North Korea, including 32,557 tons of napalm.

>>2776176

>how effective were the AA guns

I don't know much, because I haven't looked into it, however the biggest AA gun in the Korean arsenal was the 100mm KS-19, which was capable of hitting B-29s. Their effectiveness was limited because they lacked the sophisticated infrastructure required to organize the anti-aircraft systems and thus made their use limited.


 No.2776221

>>2776206

Always thought AA machine guns were pretty shit defensive weapons built for a time where we hadn't AA missiles and planes were weak af and flying low. Are they actually effective ?


 No.2776227

>>2776206

Why did over the course of three years socialist allies failed to react to and counter night bombing runs? How did Chinese react to nigh bombing runs?


 No.2776241

>>2776221

>AA machine gun

The KS-19 is an AA autocannon. It's firing shells larger than your head.

>shit defensive weapons

When they were made they were capable of severely damaging planes. Both AA cannons and AA machine guns used ammunition designed to shred a plane to pieces from a distance. Flak may not have been effective at pursuing, but it could act as an area-denial weapon when concentrated into areas. An example would be the USAF catastrophe in the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, which lost 60+ bombers in 1 mission, and failed to achieve a meaningful result.

As planes became more powerful and flew higher, they became more obsolete. HOWEVER when SAMs came in, they became useful again, because planes, began to fly low to avoid RADAR and thus the SAMs, and came into range of things like the Shilka.


 No.2776247

>>2776227

>socialist allies failed to react to and counter night bombing runs

It's not that easy to just create a night-fighter, especially when the issue is stuffing a massive RADAR array into a tiny jet-plane not designed for that, especially when the concept was becoming fast-obsolete in any country with a proper RADAR system. Obviously they gave teh MiG-15 various upgrades, (such as a warning system that detected RADAR lock-ons by enemy fighters and notified the pilot)

>How did Chinese react to nigh bombing runs

That I don't know, sorry


 No.2776253

>>2774749

>but modern AR’s are arguably superior to modern AK’s

I feel the need to add that the minutiae of performance of individual service equipment hardly matters in the grand scheme of things. Of course, that goes both ways, but really it hardly matters whether AK outperforms the AR or the other way, as long as they fulfill their basic function in the field (and they do) without drastic faults.


 No.2776295

>>2776221

>Are they actually effective ?

they're the AA of choice for mid to close range


 No.2776409

>>2776253

There's also the issue of who's going to operate the weapon. While modern AR's are technically superior to AK's, it won't make a difference to your average grunt or militiaman, because they are never going to use those weapons to their full potential anyway. In that context it is far better to have a mass-produced, foolproof rifle that does all the things it's supposed to, rather than a tricked-out rifle that can only be operated properly by specialists.

Besides, they're all gonna get bombed or nuked anyway.


 No.2776660

File: 3f904aacc5f872e⋯.jpeg (3.6 MB, 3008x2000, 188:125, MiG-17.jpeg)

File: ec8603117e6a94e⋯.jpg (94.77 KB, 856x561, 856:561, MiG-21.jpg)

File: b61b4e5d4067789⋯.jpg (135.59 KB, 900x600, 3:2, T-54.jpg)

File: 7473f5043ed9b3f⋯.jpg (23.59 KB, 599x328, 599:328, S-75 Dvina.jpg)

File: fba2f5db3158f4f⋯.jpg (1.84 MB, 3024x1998, 56:37, ZSU-57-2.jpg)

How well did Soviet technology perform in Indochinese wars?


 No.2776668

File: fdb087224f0f20a⋯.jpg (327.11 KB, 1500x2180, 75:109, mig-21.jpg)

>>2776660

>original T-54

That one never engaged in conflicts FYI

Do you mean Indochinese as in conflicts in Far-East Asia in general or conflicts between India and China specifically? I don't have a lot of information on the latter, though i suggest you ask my acquaintance, Bill Purkayastha (blog: https://bill-purkayastha.blogspot.com/)

On the former I can give some information, though it may take time to amass it into concrete information.


 No.2776670

>>2776668

I mean the first,second and third Indochina wars, Mainly the Vietnam war,


 No.2776674

File: 167374170b7df0e⋯.jpg (1.11 MB, 1389x1635, 463:545, vietnam stamp.jpg)

>>2776670

Oh, okay. I'll see what I can find in my old stuff.


 No.2776925

File: 176dbf41b324a07⋯.jpg (62.73 KB, 631x300, 631:300, Cuban-Missile-Crisis-631.jpg)

How would the USSR have done in a nuclear war at various points in its history? I know that in 1962 they would have been at a severe disadvantage.


 No.2776930

>>2776925

Pretty well from what I remember reading of it. Ever wonder why the planet is flooded with BTR's and AK's? It's because the Soviets expected to be nuked first, and their retaliation included an all out nuclear strike, bombarding Europe and America with biological and chemical weapons, such as caking the mainland with sarin, then shortly after rushing BTR's packed with Red Army over the wasteland. IIRC there were 10 BTR's to a single piece of NATO light armour.

They would have won but it would have been an end of days scenario. Revolution through a lead lined mask and a nearly non-existent atmosphere.


 No.2776944

>>2776930

There were times when the USSR was not capable of striking effectively at the US homeland, while it was itself surrounded by American missiles. That's why the Cuban missiles were such a big deal.


 No.2776946

>>2776944

When I say the mainland I mean Europe, not the US.


 No.2777492

File: 9c48fd6e4fe1678⋯.jpeg (165.53 KB, 960x742, 480:371, 05C37ED6-275D-4317-A2DD-9….jpeg)

it was awful, literally outclassed by american equipment in every category.


 No.2777620

>>2777492

But in vietnam war soviet sam rockets show wast superiority and made US airforce almost useless,


 No.2777628

>>2777492

and then the F-35 happened. now NATO is on suicide watch.


 No.2777634

Russian military equipment was literally designed to be as cheap as possible. despite their relative success they were objectively years behind America economically.


 No.2777637

>>2777492

>No Mig-15


 No.2777644


 No.2777666

>>2777492

>tired old (inaccurate) f-16 forums/mig-flug memes

Fuck off burger. The f-15 has been shot down several times in A0A combat but it's been attributed to SAMs or mechanical failure. I can go on and on but the point is, that picture is the most basic bitch disinformation around.

The F-16 also has been shot down in A0A combat but as we see in the Korean war, the USA regularly hides its losses and inflates the losses of its opponents.

>>2777634

- Soviet electronic and counter-warfare equipment was better than the USA's, their flares worked on their own missiles and on Us missiles while US flares barely managed to trick their own missiles, let alone soviet ones.

- Soviet cruise missiles are better in every way, faster, longer range, tactically more efficient, bigger warhead etc.

- Soviet mobile infantry out-classed the USA up til the 1990s when the Bradley was introduced, and even then the Bradley is technically a worse machine, and its only success was in the Gulf war.

- Soviet technology was 2x cheaper and 2x easier to make. They had more of almost everything or were on equal standing.


 No.2777678

File: 32412618f04ed3f⋯.jpg (87.43 KB, 640x512, 5:4, 1384136409109.jpg)

>>2777666

> the USA regularly hides its losses and inflates the losses of its opponents


 No.2777711

>>2777678

Just my Korea example >>2775565

Just an example of the F-15 being shot down, June 29, 1981 a Syrian MiG-25PD engaged an Israeli F-15 and shot it down. This is loss is ignored and waved away with bullshit about RADAR data and other stuff that is mostly gone (because of the chaos of soviet dissolution and the Syrian war). There are plenty of these, but because Middle-Eastern losses are often badly recorded or intentionally unrecorded (by Israeli and Syrian sides alike), this makes it easy for the USA to make such claims.

Sources like ACIG are helpful

>https://web.archive.org/web/20161219172206/http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=47

>https://web.archive.org/web/20161219173824/http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47

The F-15 is a great fighter plane, one of the best designs in the history of fighter aircraft, but this whole myth of it NEVER being shot down in A0A is impossible. The F-15 was used in too many conflicts for that to not have happened before. Not to mention that the F-15s deployed were always either USAF ones or the Israeli upgraded ones, which only faced downgraded versions of enemy fighters or enemy fighters a generation older like MiG-21s


 No.2777720

India BTFO out of Pakistan with Soviet tech and even today BTFO out of USAF in simulated combat.

>http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2016/03/swirl-of-controversy-cope-india-and-red.html

>https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/12/19/dogfight_duke_the_mig_that_forced_an_armys_surrender_31775

>https://www.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2017/04/03/the-foxbat-that-buzzed-pakistan-20-years-ago_733386

>https://www.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2016/07/26/how-the-iaf-dominated-the-skies-during-kargil-war_615175

A specific example:

2 pm, December 12, 1971 Jamnagar, a city on the west coast of India. Two F-104’s of the Pakistan Air Force entered Indian airspace with a mission to attack the forward airbase of the city. The first Pakistani aircraft dived towards the airfield and strafed it before being intercepted by a patrolling MiG-21 of the 47th Fighter Squadron. With the MiG on his tail, the Pakistani F-104 broke off the strafe, turned and attempted to shake the MiG off. The Indian pilot pulled the MiG-21 into a tighter turn inside the enemy plane and launched an air-to-air missile but missed. In the meantime, the pilot of the second Pakistani Starfighter, the wingman, fled at the arrival of another MiG-21, abandoning his comrade. The remaining Pakistani F 104 attempted to get away with a supersonic dash but the MiGs chased after, getting back on his tail. The Indian MiG fired a long burst with its twin barreled GSh 23 auto-cannons. Seconds later the Starfighter aircraft spinned out of control and crashed into the sea. The pilot had ejected safely, and the MiG pilot (Squadron Leader Bharat Bhushan Soni) contacted an IAF base to send a rescue team. Unfortunately the pilot (Wing Commander Mervyn Leslie Middlecoat) was not found. While not a factor of this dog fight, the original F 104s downward firing ejection seats (Stanley models B, C, and C1) made it nearly impossible for low level escape. 21 USAF pilots failed to escape from their stricken aircraft in such low-level emergencies. This was especially problematic for the West German air force who used the planes for low-level strikes and strafes.

>http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm


 No.2777757

>>2777678

it's true

a big example in recent history was in Syria

>IS claims ambush and shootdown of US helicopter or killing a bunch of US troops

>US doesn't respond but weeks or a month later reports a "training accident" involving the same number that was claimed to die overseas


 No.2777771

>>2777757

You best provide an example.


 No.2777782

Can't answer that question but I do know the U.S. regularly inflates casualties inflicted on its various foes. Part of the issue is that aerial reconnaissance / surveillance is nowhere near as accurate as it's often made out to be, so a lot of stuff gets bombed that isn't anything at all but ends up being cited as enemy troops or material.


 No.2777975

>>2777666

Would soviet jet engines be permanently inferior to western ones had the brits never given the rolls-royce nene engine to the soviets?

could lyulka have bridged the gap?


 No.2778326

>>2777757

thats funny, last i heard US helicopters were transporting ISIS fighters not attacking them


 No.2778352

>>2777975

>brits never given the rolls-royce nene

They probably would have found a way, the MiG-15 (and the other fighters of its generation) was the only jet to use an engine derivative that wasn't made in the USSR. ALL other jet engines, MiG-19 onward were completely soviet in design.


 No.2778463

>>2778352

But didnt the soviets incorporate british design solutions into their next engines? I keep readin that soviets were dumbasses in metallurgy and engine reliability until they got the british samples.


 No.2778480

>>2778463

> soviets were dumbasses in metallurgy and engine reliability until they got the british samples

Western propaganda. Even if they had gotten their hands on a British jet engine, do you think it's easy to make an exact copy (or an improved one as was the MiG-15's engine)

They didn't get any metallurgy equipment or assistance, just the jet engine. Thus the engineers had to examine the design and composition of the engine, take it apart, put it back together then figure out how to construct it on their own and THEN figure out how to improve it. This requires a level of expertise that would be impossible for "dumbasses".

Soviet jet engines are far more durable than Western ones

Interesting documentary on this:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpPSPQq7oas


 No.2778592

Anyone got any info on military equipment that the Soviets decided not to implement?

Like the guns that were competing to be the newest service rifle in the late 40's, which the AK-47 won.


 No.2778596

File: 25ebfb828ec32ea⋯.jpg (42.22 KB, 550x469, 550:469, sad pepe.jpg)

>>2776674

Have you forgotten what I asked?


 No.2778638

>>2778480

Then how were all of the USSR's jet engines

before they got the nene, unreliable and underpowered? The TR-1 was an underpowered POS, the TR-2 was so unreliable it was never put on an aircraft, same for the TR-3. The junkers jumo copies were obsolete too. IDK about the AM-3, but it was ready after the korean war anyway.

Somehow, soviet jet engines magically became reliable after getting british engines.


 No.2778696

>>2778638

>The TR-1 was an underpowered POS, the TR-2 was so unreliable it was never put on an aircraft, same for the TR-3. The junkers jumo copies were obsolete too.

Sources that aren't wikipedia or some retarded western armchair-general forum? The first soviet engines weren't reliable, but under-powered? Not really. In fact they were too high power for their needs and thus the first soviet jet engines had shorter life-spans because of the output.


 No.2778704

>>2778696

The TR-1 had 12.8 kN thrust, while the nene had 22.24kN

http://airwar.ru/enc/engines/tr1.html


 No.2778707

>>2778696

I couldnt find any Russian info on the TR-2 and TR-3


 No.2778783

>>2778704

The engines are different generations and different in purpose. The TR-1 was for the Su-11 and Il-22 which were bombers and strike fighters primarily which did not need massive speed, and in the latter case had multiple engines. the Nene was, from the start a fighter engine. The USA itself failed to develop an independent jet engine of the same power until after collaboration wth the british. However unlike the soviets they didn't have to figure out how the engine worked and how to build it and just got the design plans and machinery from the Brits along with the engines. Afterwards, the engines of such planes like the MiG-21, 19 and Su-24 are completely different to their predecessors. The engines for the MiG-25 were developed from scratch for example.


 No.2780853

I remember when I briefly looked up the T-64, and that when it was revealed to the world, pretty much the entire western militaries shat themselves, how much did the T-64 make them shit themselves,,I know about it's armour being the first composite armoured tank to be put into service, but what else about it caused so much concern among NATO?


 No.2780911

Surprised to not see soviet super torpedo in this thread. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h or 230 miles/h).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval


 No.2780938

Most western military historians say that if soviet tanks fought NATO tanks, they would've been at a massive disadvantage in long ranged combat and night combat because the soviets had piss poor thermal imaging systems.

Just how important are TIS in tank combat? Does that mean NATO could have easily destroyed the soviet army at night?

Why did the soviets suck so bad at making thermal imaging?


 No.2780939

>>2778783

regardless of purpose, the TR-1 was all they had that was remotely working. How would it be possible for the soviets to domestically create a fighter engine in time if they couldnt make a bomber one?


 No.2781028

File: 58f5395cf0966d1⋯.jpg (4.36 MB, 600x8681, 600:8681, differing T-64 T-72 and T-….jpg)

>>2780939

>How would it be possible for the soviets to domestically create a fighter engine in time

The same way they made their rockets. study and attempt to improve. Trying to discredit their work by claiming it was the British Nene is ridiculous, as the Nene was simply a more advanced version of a concept they already had. The main issue their early engines had were their lack of life-span, mostly because WW-2 had caused the industrial sector to focus on quantity over quality in some areas and thus it took time to acquire the necessary level of metallurgy, unlike the UK which had its factories backed by the USA (which also failed to produce its own suitable jet engines BTW and also relied on the Brits and Germans).

>>2780853

Covered here: >>2775545

>>2775542

>>2775743

The T-64 was relatively advanced, but what made it the big concern for NATO was its T-64B modification.

-Composite armor

-Autoloader with high reload speed

-Low/small profile

-Gun-launched ATGM (and targeting system)

Compared to it, all Western tanks of the time were instantly obsolete.

>https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498140.pdf

The T-64 did have its share of problems but many were rectified in later variants and the derivative T-80.

>>2780938

>Most western military historians

Who exactly? I only hear this from conceited armchair morons who think the T-72 in Iraq is a genuine representation of the Soviet Army.

>soviets had piss poor thermal imaging systems.

Bullshit.

>how important are TIS in tank combat

It's not the most important thing but it does dictate how well they operate at night. See

>https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html

>https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/4haume/the_t72_a_bad_tank_some_history_and_misconceptions/

This is just the T-72, however The first site also has stuff on the T-80 and T-64

>Why did the soviets suck so bad at making thermal imaging

They didn't. Compared to today's technology it may be inferior, however that is being obtuse. Back then technologies were roughly on par.

> NATO could have easily destroyed the soviet army at nigh

Tanks don't operate alone, on either side.


 No.2781031

>>2781028

Are those coil springs and torsion bars on the T-64 road wheels? Why both?


 No.2781050

>>2781031

Yes, they are. It's a combined system which provides a smoother ride.


 No.2781254

Can anyone enlighten me on the Soviet Air Force in WWII? From what I hear it was more important than it was often portrayed and by the end of the war the Soviets had complete air superiority over Germany


 No.2781293

>>2781028

>Who exactly? I only hear this from conceited armchair morons who think the T-72 in Iraq is a genuine representation of the Soviet Army.

You said the T-64 is what NATO saw as the biggest threat. Wasn't the T-72 based on the T-64?


 No.2781383

File: 0a338ada1a05db9⋯.jpg (77.7 KB, 700x544, 175:136, aN1NNd3_700b.jpg)


 No.2781385

>>2781383

>Reposting the same image as >>2777492

>ifunny

Just kill yourself, my dude


 No.2781389

>>2781385

Don't ever forget commie faggot


 No.2781404

>>2781389

>unironically only believing in the successes of capitalism but it's failures are "not real capitalism"

I'm not a Marxist-Leninist for the Soviet Union's ability to build interceptors. I would expect an imperialist country to build damn good tools of enforcing their hegemony.


 No.2781411

>>2781385

Perhaps someone could just make a correct debunk of this image? I really doubt migflug is a good source or that F-15 really took out that many planes


 No.2781428

>>2781411

Well we already know about the performance of the Mig-15, as well as the US practice of writing air losses down as "accidents". From that alone, it should already be apparent that the image is bogus, not to mention the fact that some random website where you can pay to fly a jet fighter is not a reliable source for combat statistics.


 No.2781454

>>2781411

The F-15 probably has shot down that many planes, but only because it has been in a shit-ton of conflicts in its time. The MiG-21 also has shot down a similar number of planes however, as it too has served in many conflicts over several decades.


 No.2781457

>>2781411

Although >>2781428 Is correct on how it should be obvious, actually compiling a counter-infograph would be good, if anyone is up to it.


 No.2781535

>>2781293

T-64 was introduced in the mid-to-late 60s, the B model in the early-to-mid 80s. T-72 was quite a shower when it popped on the scene. By the time of the Iraq War, they were squared off against weapons systems a decade younger, being mostly armed with munition that came from the mid 70s. And most Iraqi tanks were on the late 70s standard, mid 80s at best, hardly up to date or properly cared for at that.


 No.2781552

>>2781383

>ifunny.co watermark

Anyone got that clip of Roo saying "Fucking end yourself"?


 No.2782234

>>2781254

Pls answer


 No.2782303

>>2781385

literal NPCs


 No.2782455

>>2782234

Well it's a pretty generic question that's hard to answer without a wall of text. That's probably why you're not getting a response.


 No.2782664

>>2781411

>>2781428

>>2781457

Better yet, could someone compile an infograph comparing the cost and effectiveness of the soviet SAM systems to the cost and effectiveness of the aircraft they shot down? A relatively cheap to manufacture 2k12 Kub or a 9K31 Strela-1 mounted on a TEL taking down a fully armed $2.5 million dollar Phantom or a $20 million dollar F-14 may show a different perspective on things.


 No.2782684

>>2782455

Okay, so rephrase what was the Soviet Air Force like in WWII and how well did they perform in combat? What were their strategies?


 No.2782696

>>2782684

got slaughtered in '41, biggest loss was experienced pilots rather than material losses

rebuilt back up and air superiority was heavily contested in '42, but VVS ruled the eastern front skies starting in '43


 No.2782766

>>2782684

The Soviet airforce's initial high losses were most felt, in terms of experienced pilots. The Germans bombed a good number of planes on the ground, and others that managed to get into the air, were bombed when being refueled and re-armed. The Bf-109 that was being used was heavily upgraded compared to the version the Soviet pilots faced in during the war in Spain, and thus outperformed the i-16 fighters that were the mainstay of the VVS. The reason they were still the mainstays was the same reason that there were only a few hundred T-34s and KV-1s, they hadn't finished re-armament.

After the introduction of planes like the Yak-1 and La-3 the playing field became more level, however the VVS gained the upperhand when the Yak-9 and it's generation of fighters came into the war. Due to the rapid evacuation to the East however, such planes took a while to arrive on the front.

There is a saying in Russia, Many German aces made their names on the Eastern Front, and they died there too.


 No.2784494

it was kinda shitty, but what do you expect from stupid slavs, the only thing they are good for is being factory worker/enslaved in some mine or being a prostitute/drug addict

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2785974

File: b2be7261494bbf1⋯.jpg (8.43 MB, 8723x4148, 143:68, инфографика финальный. вар….jpg)


 No.2786347

>>2785974

What's that?


 No.2786356

>>2774746

most american aircraft lost were probably shot down from the ground

comparing dogfights would be a more sensible head to head comparison


 No.2786439

>>2786356

I agree with you, and this is one of reasons why I made the thread, but it still shows that Soviets had great AA guns.


 No.2786477

>>2786347

>Comparison of personnel composition and firepower, rifle companies of Red Army and Wehrmacht, in summer 1941's year


 No.2786866

>>2786356

True, but even in dogfights they lost in Korea and Vietnam rather badly and in the India-Pakistan wars Soviet planes blew US ones out of the sky. The only place USA tech had any success was in the Middle East, and that was solely due to the fact that the Israeli's received the same type of stuff the US army itself used and received commando level training to its entire army. Despite that, average old soviet tech still managed to cause serious losses to the Israeli's.


 No.2786912

>>2786866

>and that was solely due to the fact that the Israeli's received the same type of stuff the US army itself used and received commando level training to its entire army.

The reason that the Arabs lost was because they failed to do what the Soviets told the Vietnamese to do which is to always move after shooting and not stay in one place.


 No.2790178

>>2781028

>-Autoloader with high reload speed

That's a lie. All western 3rd gen MBT's except the challenger have an ROF of 10-12 rpm, while the autoloader soviet tanks had a 8RPM reload rate max(T-72s could only clock in at 6-7 RPM, while T-64/80s could clock slightly above that while having the disadvantage of having no ammo protection).

>-Low/small profile

Completely irrelevant in post ww2 combat. Show me a single example where soviet tanks managed to use low profile to their advantage instead of being slaughtered(No, against Iranians dont count because they were completely incompetent).

Also, why couldn't the soviets figure out wet ammo racks when the Americans were installing them since the sherman?

>It's not the most important thing but it does dictate how well they operate at night. See

Your links are unrelated to TIS. AFAIK TIS is used in all weather and times of day and it massively improves visibility compared to optics.

>They didn't. Compared to today's technology it may be inferior, however that is being obtuse. Back then technologies were roughly on par.

Wrong. The first soviet tank to have some kind of TIS was the T-80UM, and it was a shitty 1st gen TIS that could only see less than 1km away while NATO tanks had TIS that could see 3 times that distance(for example the leopard 2A5's TIS).

Also why was the reverse of soviet tanks so shitty, only being able to reach 4km/h? Why couldnt the soviets figure out how to make neutral steering?


 No.2790429

>>2790178

> All western 3rd gen MBT's except the challenger have an ROF of 10-12 rpm

HAHAHAHAHAHA

1) The T-64 is a generation older than the challenger

2) The high RPM was becuase 105mm rounds are far lighter than 125mm rounds and because Western tanks used single-shot ammunition, while Soviet ones have 2-piece rounds, due to ammunition doctrines differing.

3) autoloaders will be slightly slower than a well trained loader crew-member, HOWEVER while a crew-member can keep a faster pace for only so long, (and even then, gain on an autoloader by maybe 1–2 seconds), they will not be able to keep that up for prolonged time periods, and it also requires rigorous training. Meanwhile an autoloader will tirelessly keep loading at regular intervals, usually about 6 seconds. I remember listening to one guy telling me about the Abrams tank loaders (120mm of course): a highly trained crewman can load it in 5 seconds starting out fresh, and the number degrades with time (usually to about 6–8 seconds due to fatigue), the average trained loader will have an interval between 6–8 seconds which degrades with time to 8–10 seconds, again due to fatigue, and an untrained loader often enough fumbles around for up to 12 seconds and that degrades as well.

>having no ammo protection

Not correct, the entire point was that the T-64 was designed to not be penetrated at all, because any round that could penetrate it would kill the crew, regardless of whether the ammunition went off.

>Completely irrelevant in post ww2 combat.

False, a difference of 1 ft is not irrelevant

>against Iranians dont count because they were completely incompetent

Fuck off, the Iranians were trained by the US military as a US ally up until the coup. They received high quality US tech like F-14 Tomcats and M-60 and Chieftians. They went up against T-72M and T-72M1s which ambushed them often.

>why couldn't the soviets figure out wet ammo racks when the Americans were installing them since the sherman

1) Wet ammo racks weren't a thing after the Sherman not to mention that the Sherman had them only at the end of the war in the Easy Eight modification onward, and only after they kept getting blown up.

>Your links are unrelated to TIS

Actually they are if you read you dumb fuck. The former link covers the entire tank, including its night vision. The latter link covers the T-72 in general and provides several important links that do talk about TIS

>TIS is used in all weather and times of day and it massively improves visibility compared to optics.

Uhh no, that's today, not back then. Back then TIS served one purpose, night sights. The major upgrade in US TIS was prior to Desert Storm on the newer Abrams models, but even then, they never faced an opponent mounting anything more than a Luna IR searchlight, which was phased out for the Soviet army long before.

>The first soviet tank to have some kind of TIS was the T-80UM

Nope. ТНП-1-49-23 Was the original model mounted on T-72s back during the 70s as part of the ТКН-1 system later the ТКН-3. The T-64 received new tech upgrades before the T-72. The range was between 3000 and 3500 meters for the T-72B with its ТПДК-1. Yes they weren't LCD screen FLIR systems but at the time the West didn't have those either.

The West made a big leap in tank tech during the late 70s-80s to catch up with Soviet tanks, which resulted in similar armor performances but more advanced tech. But at the cost of being twice the cost of a T-64 or T-72, despite having negligible superiority. It doesn't matter what newfangled tech you have if your crew isn't good, (or if your tank can't cross most Bridges).

> leopard 2A5

The Leo 2A5 wasn't in existence then you fuck. Stop making false comparisons.

>Why couldnt the soviets figure out how to make neutral steering

The fuck are you talking about, you state this as if neutral steering was standard on Western tanks from the beginning.

>reverse of soviet tanks so shitty, only being able to reach 4km/h

Citation that isn't wikipedia? I have never seen this claim before, not to mention that it makes no sense considering that I've seen them go in reverse and they were going far faster than 4km/h.

If you're just going to keep peddling this rubbish here's a question,

Why couldn't the US make a properly functioning tank-launchable ATGM?


 No.2790625

File: 703d0f96d2f7a1e⋯.png (109.71 KB, 500x496, 125:124, ClipboardImage.png)

File: f77e1ae70669e3a⋯.png (27.18 KB, 493x572, 493:572, ClipboardImage.png)

Anyone got the stats for the M-16 and how it failed to penetrate thick clothes beyond 100 yards? I'm trying to track down the graph but I can't find it, oh and as compensation have a graph on how British HESH shells failed to do any damage to face hardened steel.


 No.2790902

>>2790625

Wasn't HESH mostly supposed to cause spalling inside the Tank?


 No.2790911

>>2790625

Ya that's how it's supposed to work, except they tested it on their own armour, which was cast steel, but the Soviets, like the Germans used face hardened rolled steel, which was more flexible and stronger and so would simply absorb the impact where brittle cast steel would shatter. MUh SUperIOr CeNTUrioN


 No.2790912

>>2790911

god damn it, meant for

>>2790902


 No.2791251

>>2790429

>2) The high RPM was becuase 105mm rounds are far lighter than 125mm rounds and because Western tanks used single-shot ammunition, while Soviet ones have 2-piece rounds, due to ammunition doctrines differing.

3) autoloaders will be slightly slower than a well trained loader crew-member, HOWEVER while a crew-member can keep a faster pace for only so long, (and even then, gain on an autoloader by maybe 1–2 seconds), they will not be able to keep that up for prolonged time periods, and it also requires rigorous training. Meanwhile an autoloader will tirelessly keep loading at regular intervals, usually about 6 seconds. I remember listening to one guy telling me about the Abrams tank loaders (120mm of course): a highly trained crewman can load it in 5 seconds starting out fresh, and the number degrades with time (usually to about 6–8 seconds due to fatigue), the average trained loader will have an interval between 6–8 seconds which degrades with time to 8–10 seconds, again due to fatigue, and an untrained loader often enough fumbles around for up to 12 seconds and that degrades as well.

Western 120mm guns also had a 10rpm ROF. The western autoloaders increased that to 12.

Fatigue is irrelevant. A tank clash is usually decided in the first 30-40 seconds.

>Not correct, the entire point was that the T-64 was designed to not be penetrated at all, because any round that could penetrate it would kill the crew, regardless of whether the ammunition went off.

And yet abrams tank crews survived unscathed in the few times they were penetrated by iraqi sabots in ODS and the multiple RPG hits in Iraq.

>The Leo 2A5 wasn't in existence then you fuck. Stop making false comparisons.

It was when the T-80UM came out.

>The fuck are you talking about, you state this as if neutral steering was standard on Western tanks from the beginning.

Every single western mbt had one since the centurion and M-47.


 No.2791432

>>2791251

>Western 120mm guns also had a 10rpm ROF

Not consistently, and not over long periods of time.

>The western autoloaders increased that to 12.

Not all of them, not to mention citation needed. The only autoloaders used on Western tanks have been very recent like the Leclerc or the K2, both of which are tanks over a generation newer than the T-64 or T-72. Their autoloaders are of a different type, similar to the system used by the T-90MS3

>Fatigue is irrelevant

The hell it is. Wearing heavy body armor, a helmet and also stuck in a hot tank, is fatiguing, even without having to grab rounds and shove them in the breech. Not every crew will be experienced, some will be greenhorns, and fumble around. AN autoloader doesn't have that.

>A tank clash is usually decided in the first 30-40 seconds.

Citation needed. Operation Desert Storm had fights last for a while, and Kursk, the largest tank battle ever, lasted for over a day at the least. Other tank battles such as ones between Iraq and Iran lasted anywhere from minutes to hours.

>abrams tank crews survived unscathed in the few times they were penetrated by iraqi sabots in ODS and the multiple RPG hits in Iraq

1) Iraqi sabots almost never penetrated the hull, because they were using the old BM-17 from 1969 stockpiles, This is in the sources I posted.

2) Iraqi RPGs also did not penetrate the hull or penetrated other areas.

However there was at least one penetration recorded. An Iraqi tank fired a sabot into the bustle of the abrams, and it blew up. The tank luckily had a round already loaded in the breech and fired back.

RPG 29s, which where the only ones to penetrate US abrams tanks (although RPG-7s have destroyed Saudi Abrams w/ crew before) The only NATO tank that has completely isolated ammunition storage is M1 Abrams (both hull ammo and turret bustle). Challenger 2 has propellant in the crew compartment. Leclerc has 22 rounds in autoloader, 16 rounds elsewhere. Leopard 2 has huge number of rounds sitting beside the driver. C1 Ariete is very similar to the Leopard series, loads of rounds beside the driver. The Abrams also had unprotected ammunition in its original variant. Three rounds of 105 mm main gun ammo were stored in a thin metal box on the floor next to the commander's seat. When switching to the larger 120 mm ammo, the old container was too small and was discarded.

Also I'll add almost all penetrations of the T-72 with RPGs were done by tandem warheads like the RPG-29, usually from the rear, bottom or diagonally down from the top. The Iraq war is already explained, shooting a mild-steel-turreted tank from point blank with a 120mm gun isn't the same as an actual T-72A1 or T-72B. Just as an example a T-72B in Chechnya was penetrated by 12 RPGs, not only did it survive, but so did its crew, completely.

>It was when the T-80UM came out.

Except the T-80UM wasn't the first to have TIS. And also Even wikipedia states that the T-80UM recieved a, "NEW thermal imaging sight "Agava-M1"" Not A TIS, but a new one.

>Every single western mbt had one since the centurion and M-47

Citation needed, not to mention that it doesn't matter. The Soviets prioritized simpler mechanical systems. They could and did make neutral systems, but what was the point when, up until now the performance has been largely the same. Not much point in gloating about your neutral steering M-47 when it doesn't go much faster than a T-55. They're not race-cars. Mechanical systems also do not require as large a transmission and thus make it easy to make the tank a smaller target.

Inb4 "height doesn't matter"

Among the reasons mecha is considered a silly idea is because height fucking matters.

Just fuck off you reddit spacing, shitposter.


 No.2791476

>>2790178

>autoloaders are worse than crew

if that was the case they wouldnt be putting them in tanks for half a century

>low profile

>Completely irrelevant

pick one

>Also why was the reverse of soviet tanks so shitty, only being able to reach 4km/h?

have you ever seen a tank that wasnt a 1:25 scale?


 No.2794043

File: 4d1b06ca344d45c⋯.jpg (12.53 KB, 268x188, 67:47, mosin1.jpg)

File: 20976339dc837ae⋯.jpg (359.62 KB, 2050x900, 41:18, mosin2.jpg)

>only holds five rounds

<internal magazine, not detachable in combat

Can someone redpill me on this weapon? To me it seems like an inferior design when compared to the Lee Enfield, which had a bolt with a very smooth action plus ten round clips that were detachable if you wanted to forego top-loading with stripper-clips. It was also used in WWI and the Russians were familiar with British equipment, so I have to think (or hope) there was some good reason that the Soviets didn't adopt something like it.

While not a true comparison since the Garand was a brand-new weapon in WWII, I am curious why the Soviet military didn't consider the possibility of using semi-automatic rifles early on.


 No.2794050

>>2794043

They did, dumdum. The SVT-38 and later 40 was supposed to replace the Mosin. Too hard to make, too hard to handle, too hard to maintain, too inaccurate for sniping, the design still needed refinement. Except the Germans invaded, and the Soviet could no longer spend time fucking around with it, and had to fall back on rifles they definitely knew. Hence, Mosin. Without Germans, by 1943, they'd probably have proto-FAL's. After urban warfare nature of WW2 proved the bolt-action obsolete, and rifle-rounds too big and too slow, SVT got cucked by SKS, which then was swiftly replaced by the AK. Except Soviet doctrine required at least one member of a squad to be a designated marksman, sooo SVT got cucked again by the SVD.


 No.2794059

So nigs what's the best gun calibre in your opinion? Do you guys prefer intermediate calibres like 7.62x39, 556 or larger shit like 7.62x54 or even 7.62x63 perhaps? What would be the best today for most combat situations?


 No.2794063


 No.2794068

>>2794063

9x39? Is that 9mmx39 or some other shit? Sorry if the question is utterly retarded, I had never heard of this calibre before and don't know many others besides the ones I mentioned.


 No.2794074

File: 27907afcc581efa⋯.png (153.46 KB, 846x918, 47:51, AK-47 For Everyone!.png)


 No.2794091

File: 8b21431319809e9⋯.png (7.25 MB, 2489x2160, 2489:2160, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2794043

The simplest explanation is the best one:

The Germans entered the war with a hunting rifle, the british with a military rifle, the USA with a sharpshooting rifle and the Russians with just a rifle.

In other words, the Mosin was the simplest rifle design and easier to use considering SOviet battle strategy. The soviet military recognized that such long slow rifles were better suited for distanced shooting, requiring aim to land a precise hit, thus they paired them with Submachine guns peppered with semi-auto SVT carbines to provide a coverage of the entire battlefield. They provided accurate distanced fire, backing up the closer ranged PPSh-41s and supported by the SVTs.

What matters isn't the gun, but how well you use it. That's why Soviet snipers were far above German ones. Not because their gun was better but because THEY as snipers were better.

>>2794074

Pic 1 is an (untranslated) infographic on the AK = Stg-44 myth as well. Also on the topic of ripping off German guns, the M-60 and several other LMGs used by the West are based off the MG-42, unlike Soviet RPD and RPK LMGs.


 No.2794167

>>2794059

Bast caliber is whatever is cheap and available in your area. Intermediate has the advantage of being lighter to carry so that's a plus.


 No.2794191

>>2794167

And speaking in larger terms as in armies and typical warfare? Same thing I'd imagine no?


 No.2794197

>>2794167

How do you find what is cheap and plentiful in your area?

I'm thinking of getting a norinco sks-m and a svd in 308 because I like soviet style weapons but need a bullet that will exist in police armories. Is there a SKS style weapon in 223?


 No.2794202

>>2794197

Get an AR if you're a burger or leaf, hell anything with a detachable magazine will be better than stripper clips (On the other hand collect what you want and makes you happy too I guess). No ethical consumption under capitalism etc. Also the AR is probably a better weapon today than a soviet style weapon produced for civilian use. The AK is a good weapon for subsistence farmers who do not know that guns require maintenance. Anyone who can do basic cleaning will do better with an AR. Soviet weapons are good if you live in a former Warsaw pact country.


 No.2794212

>>2794074

definitely an intermediate like the 7.62x39, you want as large a caliber as possible usually, small stuff like the 5.56mm is far too small and the US found that the M16 was next to useless in Afghanistan and Iraq since they were fighting in open flat areas and the bullets lost all energy before reaching the target, allegedly leather jackets and pith helmets stopped m16 bullets in Vietnam. The USSR doctrine was that the AK was a rifle first and a submachine gun in urban areas, and that full auto wasn't to be used beyond 70 yards. Rifle cartridges though are a bit overkill though, proving too much recoil as something like the Deagle shows and is impractical in urban combat, which is why intermediate is "best", able to be light enough for urban combat while keeping the energy and accuracy of a rifle.

>>2794074

The AK actually used a few things from the Stg-44, not nearly enough for it to be a rip-off though, it was actually just used to replace parts that didn't work on the prototype which was completely done before they got the Stg-44, they used the gas operation and a couple things like the trigger guard, but the entire function of the gun remained separate, they literally just used the Stg-44 as spare parts

>>2794202

>AR

ew, that's a disgusting gun and you should feel bad for suggesting it. Something like a G3 or FAL is much better, the 5.56mm of the AR is dumb and is really only good for the military-industrial complex in the US, you may as well get an actual assault rifle instead of getting the private sector's cheap knock-off version of an already shit assault rifle


 No.2794267

>>2794050

>>2794091

So which rifle do you think is superior, the mosin or the Mauser? and how would it compare against the Carcano?


 No.2794287

>>2794267

Carcano > Mauser 98k > Mosin


 No.2794315

>>2794202

I don't like how the AR functions, and I've heard really good things about people owning sks-m weapons from China that do actually accept ak mags (detachable magazines) without any significant design flaw in the stock, like how it served them for thirty years. But if I had to choose a battle rifle without considering the price it would be the Norinco ndm-86 chambered in 308.

Plus some things just don't make sense to me with AR's. What's with the forward assist? Too many moving parts that could malfunction, etc. Besides I'll be going directly against NRA and its corporate lobbyists by buying from foreign weapons manufacturers, and it would be cheaper than the same domestic manufacturers without the tax and markup.

If anything a SKS or ak chambered in 223 might do pretty good but you can also just buy 762 in bulk and not have to worry about grabbing the ammo from some police armories.


 No.2794432

>>2794212

You've never fired a gun


 No.2794434

Is learning how to gunsmith worth it, or no?


 No.2794443

>>2775694

>marxists talk normally about armaments

>liberal starts autistically screeching

Back to /leftpol/


 No.2794459

>>2794443

>Implying all Anarchists are liberals, who think Stalin killed 70 gabillion people


 No.2794471

>>2794432

Get the fuck out of here you Bushmaster shill, we aren't buying your fucking burger rifle.


 No.2794811

File: 8c94d25e6591988⋯.png (4.25 MB, 1096x4616, 137:577, ClipboardImage.png)

Hello, everyone. I'm looking for firearm related information regarding the Marxist-Leninist states. Specifically, I'm looking for any legislative documents on firearm ownership (what was acceptable to own and what was not, and the process of applying for ownership), censuses on firearm possession if existent, and any other statistical and/or legal information you could provide. Generally, if it's firearm related, capable of being sourced or backed up with other information, and you believe it's relevant to learning more, I'd likely want to know it.

Looking up this information myself only provides cries about the nine brazillian gorillions dead from nogun, and Americans crying about nonexistent communists coming to take their raifus Places that often provide a good starting point for information also seem to be completely blank on the topic.

I've also heard from several people that mandatory service in the republics meant that a great deal of households were, one way or another, armed, and that the military strategies of the nations usually factored it in.

Pic tangentially related.


 No.2794813

File: 17cd34b47ab7a2a⋯.jpg (35.73 KB, 420x420, 1:1, ehhhh.jpg)

>>2794459

>Implying all Anarchists are liberals

Where did he say anarchist you blind fuck?


 No.2794822

>>2794813

>Tank lads tend to do that, sorry about assuming there


 No.2794823

>>2794822

why the fuck did i use green text


 No.2794826

>>2794811

>/k/

>firearm laws

stahp, stahp this right now this is gonna turn into a shitfest no matter what, stahp this before it devolves further.

STAHP


 No.2794837

File: becc633cec67a40⋯.png (1.41 MB, 1436x885, 1436:885, ClipboardImage.png)

File: a66593f876a42a0⋯.jpg (171.68 KB, 698x1000, 349:500, british cold war tank armo….jpg)

File: 576c05d7b53280b⋯.jpg (112.32 KB, 604x223, 604:223, british cold war tank armo….jpg)

>>2790625

On the subject of British armor


 No.2794841

>>2794811

Basic rundown

The USSR is well known for supposedly banning guns for all, often heard from western gun-nuts looking to propogate anti-leftist sentiment. Unfortunately this works, as western radical-liberals are all but eager to do so. By and large liberals have opposed guns and their ownership, while socialists have supported them.

Contrary to common claims, in the USSR not only were there gun rights but also all students, male and female, were given pre-military training, in a class unimaginately named, Basic Military Training, for grades 9 and 10. The teacher would usually be a retired military officer. Among other things, one would have to take apart an AK (model depending on the military standard of the current year) and put it back together, learning to do so within 30 seconds at least. Students would also be taught to fire small-caliber rifles, either semi-automatic or bolt action on a range, that could be 25-100 meters. The basics of strategy, tactics and other necessary knowledge would also be taught.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00047R000100160006-6.pdf

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12893.html

The soviet state encouraged civilian gun use and awarded good marksmanship, for example the Stalin-era para-military award, Voroshilov's Sharpshooter, awarded to over several million people, civilian and military alike. Not to mention sport's use which were managed by DOSAAF, which is why soviet snipers were some of the world's best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSAAF

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ворошиловский_стрелок


 No.2794843

>>2794841

>>2794811

In 1953 (shortly after Stalin's death) "On Hunting" law was promulgated by the Soviet of Ministers, postulating that hunting arms and ammunition should be sold with no licensing requirements whatsoever and that the MoD should 'improve the production of guns for the benefit of gun-owners, develop and manufacture new better and cheaper guns'. Additionally there were organizations such as OSOVIAKHIM that provided free training in marksmanship and gun culture. According to the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of May 11, 1959 № 478 "On measures to improve the management of hunting", the free sale of smooth-bore hunting rifles was canceled. The right to hunt with hunting firearms was granted to all citizens of the USSR, who are members of the hunter's society, who passed tests on the hunting minimum and paid the state fee in the prescribed amount. To purchase a smooth-bore hunting rifle, it was necessary to present a member's hunting ticket of the hunter's society. In the industrial hunting areas (for furs), a different procedure was established.

The USSR was anti-gun only if you have a stupid full-blown anarcho-libertarian mentality about guns. Hunting was common-place and was regulated only within the prevention of harming animal populations, (Now take a look at modern capitalist Russia, with it's extensive poaching, great innit?) To quote an article on the subject, "perhaps 90% of the people in isolated regions (of the USSR) hunt for pleasure or profit." http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-30/news/vw-25513_1_fur

I cannot recall a single event like Columbine or Sandy Hook in the USSR, and accidental deaths by guns were also quite rare. (Meanwhile in the enlightened Britain one has to register a goddamn flare gun and/or antique fire-arm or have it rendered inoperable, and in the USA kids end up accidentally killing themselves with daddy's gun on a common basis).

Existing Armed Peasent-Worker Organizations :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Troops_Militia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-Peasant_Red_Guards

Defunct :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Militia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Militias_(Czechoslovakia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Groups_of_the_Working_Class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_People%27s_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Guards_(Romania)


 No.2794844

>>2794811

>>2794843

>>2794841

Finally, notice how the wiki claim on gun control in the Soviet Union has messed up sourcing, talking about gun control beginning in 1924 and '29 yet sourcing decrees from 1918 and 1920 (When the USSR was not even in existence yet). The source of these claims is a scurillous pro-czar site that makes fallacious claims that gun-ownership, and everything was far better under the Czar. It also fails to actually quote any of the degrees from 1924 onward, only 'supposedly' describing its contents.

The soviet poster, "Citizens! Hand in your arms!” During the reign of revolutionary terror in the Civil War of 1918–1921 was a war-time measure due to the critical lack of weapons available to the Red Army in the middle of a war. It is no different to US WW-2 posters encouraging people hand in their metal, paper and silk to the US army. And the confiscation of weapons from those resisting or involved in sabotage is no different to any other revolution in which the counter-revolutionary elements are disarmed.

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control/

Personal ownership of shotguns and smoothbore guns with less than 6mm caliber were declared legal starting from 1926. “Policemen were responsible for gun control,” writes Katherine Bliss Eaton in Daily Life in the Soviet Union (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004,: "Private citizens and institutions could own hunting weapons if they had police permission and registered their guns at the local station house. The militia could confiscate weapons and ammunition from people who showed signs of dangerously irresponsible behavior." Sounds reasonable to me. Punishment for not observing these were first surprisingly liberal. Before 1935, non-compliants risked prison terms of less than one year, or fines. A 5-year prison term was introduced in the run-up to the Yezhovschina of 1937, unless more serious charges were brought in. Up until the 1960s, a whole lot of people carried around a lot of different guns. If the police asked questions about these, all people needed was some kind of documentation that showed the weapon was handed out to them by the government. This changed at the end of 1960s after the first incidents of airplane hijacking with the use of firearms occurred. The number of non-military government officials who were entitled to service weapon was drastically cut. Use of firearms for self-defense outside of the home could result indictment for “excessive use of force”, until further investigation, something no different to the USA, which has tightened its air-ports further and further, and has been placing "excessive use of force" charges regularly. The Criminal Code of the RSFSR 1960, Article 218, details imprisonment and/or fines for illegally owned/produced weapons; guns, explosives, etc.


 No.2795255

File: aa73a056997ca97⋯.png (140.49 KB, 707x514, 707:514, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2794837

Finally some good fucking shit

>275mm

What the actual fuck, the Tiger 2 and IS-3 had better (effective) armour than that, and the Challenger is a third generation MBT, British tank designers don't seem to understand how tanks work at all, also that 275mm is probably of cast steel which is usually only 95% of what rolled homogeneous, so it's prrobably around 250mm in reality despite it saying it's the "equivalent" amount of RHA, since they're probably so thick that they think cast and rolled steel are the same thing

Oh also this is a chart showing that the British L7's, which was used on every NATO MBT until the 80s, APDS was likely to completely bounce off any surface at anything greater than 30 degrees, which meant the front of every Soviet tank could survive a shot from most western tanks.


 No.2795257

File: 3b320990b16b1e2⋯.png (374.21 KB, 867x901, 51:53, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 8371358098c0b04⋯.png (1.46 MB, 1049x1498, 1049:1498, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 66e82549e4b15ce⋯.png (1.25 MB, 825x832, 825:832, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2795255

whoops, forgot the other bits


 No.2795304

>>2777492

americans planes got worse?


 No.2795556

>>2794287

>>2794267

>carcano

that italian beangun had shit accuracy and handled like crap. the only upside was 6 shots compared to standard 5.


 No.2795565

>>2795556

Accurate enough to btfo Kennedy.


 No.2795569

File: b1c2e316e85b8ef⋯.png (1.41 MB, 800x1067, 800:1067, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2795565

a BB gun could have killed him if you aimed well enough, the carcano has some of the worst internalo mechanisms I've ever seen, it's typical italian engineering: makes sense at first glance but you soon realize that whoever made it was only pretending to know what they were doing. Just look at what the bullet and cartridge look like(middle), it's the only rifle to ever use 6.5mm, that alone makes me cringe, it's almost as bad as french calibers.


 No.2795574


 No.2795582

>>2795574

you know that they found the round for that too be inadequate and replaced it within 5 years, and by 1905 they'd gone to the expense of rechambering every type 30 with the regular 7.62 Mauser right? They only adopted it again in 1943 when they ran out of ammo for every gun and the scrap yards were full of the things

>Fedorov Avtomat

Shitty LMG that used surplus Japanese ammo because the Japs literally didn't want it anymore, you get the average armchair historian saying it's an early assault rifle despite it using rifle cartridges and it always being handled in LMG teams. There's a reason the Soviets didn't continue making the thing once they were in power.


 No.2795585

>>2795556

Well one advantage of the Carcano is that unlike practically every other bolt-action rifle its cartridge wasn't massively overpowered for regular battlefield ranges. But let's be real here: every bolt-action rifle was obsolete by the time WW2 started.


 No.2795596

>>2795585

Shooters being equal, Carcano has the advantage over the Mauser and the Mosin, but they aren't because Benny has thoroughly turned Italian Army into a paper tiger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BugznGj6bU


 No.2795601

>>2795585

The only reason it wasn't overpowered was because its bullet had a tendency to hit the target sideways on due to not being stable in flight cause of the untapered end, the Austrians found this out when charging Italian lines it felt like they were being hit by heavy hail or stones but was actually the Italians shooting them but their rounds tumbled mid air causing the round to lose most of its energy and usually hit the Austrians with their side or butt end, they only worked properly under 300 yards, the problem got worse the higher the altitude which is pretty ironic considering where the Italians always fought, but it might explain why the Italians sucked so much both in the Alps in WW1 and in Greece in WW2.

>>2795596

It's really not that accurate, you're exaggerating greatly, the poor aerodynamics of the round and length of the barrel(even before they were all turned into carbines) means that it might be lighter and fire faster than contemporary rifles, but it's definitely nowhere near as accurate


 No.2795605

>>2795582

>you know that they found the round for that too be inadequate and replaced it within 5 years, and by 1905 they'd gone to the expense of rechambering every type 30 with the regular 7.62 Mauser right?

This is blatantly false and it's even contradicted by the article tankanon posted. If you seriously want us to believe any of your bullshit, you best provide some actual sources. The 6.5 Arisaka was considered underpowered compared to other rifle cartridges, which it was, but those rifle cartridges were also universally overpowered for regular infantry use. They tried to replace it with a more powerful cartridge in 1939, mainly for use in machine guns, but they never managed to do so.

>>2795601

>The only reason it wasn't overpowered

Was because it had a smaller powder charge.

>they only worked properly under 300 yards

Even if your unsourced anecdote is true, that would still mean it was perfectly adequate for regular battlefield use. Accuracy is also less of a concern when it isn't being used as a marksman's rifle (which it wasn't, it was a standard infantry rifle).


 No.2795617

>>2795605

>This is blatantly false and it's even contradicted by the article tankanon posted

first of all that's wikipedia, that doesn't count as an article, secondly, it says on the wikipedia page when they moved to the type 38 and how by 1931 they were using the new 7.92mm.

>Was because it had a smaller powder charge.

That also was the reason but there definite accounts from the Izonso offensive from when the Italians were firing down the range onto the Austrian positions across 500 yards of broken terrain and the rounds were basically falling on them.

>that would still mean it was perfectly adequate for regular battlefield use

Not for the battlefield for when bolt-action was actually useful where you want to hit targets before they get close across either an open field or, in the Italians case, a long valley in the Alps, by WW2 or some of the closer engagements in WW1 then ya it would be better than an actual rifle, which is why they moved to the carbine version, but in the end it's not quite a proper rifle and not quite a semi-auto, maybe a good stopgap and definitely good back at the end of black powder weapons, but it was obsolete by 1916 even, although you could argue that Italian industry wasn't up to producing both a proper rifle and close quarters fast firing carbine, and the carcano is a compromise to streamline production. Definitely not a good reason why it was being used still in 1939 though, they should have replaced or at least updated it like other nations.


 No.2795631

>>2795617

>first of all that's wikipedia, that doesn't count as an article

Well a wikipedia article is a hell of a lot better than the zero articles you've provided, don't you think?

>it says on the wikipedia page when they moved to the type 38 and how by 1931 they were using the new 7.92mm

The year 1931 only appears once in the Arisaka article, talking about how the Japanese army acquired a bunch of Type 13 Mausers, some of which were rechambered to 6.5. As for the rest, you are right to say that it was obsolete by WW2, but so was literally every other bolt-action rifle. I still don't get your aversion to 6.5 - any ballistic issues of the Carcano would be due to the bullet shape. A 6.5 Arisaka using spitzer bullets would have far better ballistic qualities, and ultimately all of the rifle cartridges would end up being replaced by even smaller intermediate cartridges, at least for standard infantry use.


 No.2795654

>>2795631

>Well a wikipedia article is a hell of a lot better than the zero articles you've provided, don't you think?

Fair enough, I get most of my shit from books that I no longer have which is what every bullshitter says so you got me there

>A 6.5 Arisaka using spitzer bullets

Ah, I don't know much about the Arisaka so I just assumed it was a licensed copy of the Italian 6.5 like most pre-1920s Japanese weapons. And ships. And subs.

>I still don't get your aversion to 6.5

My only real knowledge of the 6.5 caliber has always been the Carcano, I don't like it mostly because it's one of those niche calibers which are a supply nightmare, I hate the 6.5 for the same reason I hate 18.7 inch torpedoes or 13.5 inch shells, it makes production a living hell and is so different to contemporaries that often it doesn't fit with current combat experience, although you could say the same for when intermediate cartridges were first introduced in that regard.

>any ballistic issues of the Carcano would be due to the bullet shape

Mostly this really, it's just a rather shit overall design, not much to a problem with the caliber in general, just that I always thought that the shape of the bullet for the Carcano was as a result of trying to find a way to fit a 6.5mm into a rifle, but the Japs proved me wrong there. Guess it's just an Italian thing, since this problem persists with most of their designs up until WW2.


 No.2795658

>>2795654

Cylinder shape prevents bullets from tumbling in the air. 6.5 Carcano does tumble when hitting tissue, which is good if you want to maim your enemy.


 No.2795669

>>2795658

it's only good for tumbling if it's traveling at a high enough speed, which because of the low amount of charge the Carcano's 6.5 is subsonic, the Carcano's rounds should just aim to shatter on the enemy to cause as much damage on the spot as possible, guess it's just the combination of the low charge and choice to use the less aerodynamic shape that ruins the bullet, either one would work if it weren't for the other, again it's fair principle being poorly practiced.


 No.2795681

>>2795669

661 m/s isn't subsonic


 No.2795686

>>2795585

>wasn't massively overpowered

the main complaint of the army was that it was underpowered dumbass. and innacurate.

the partisans in yugoslavia literally called it "Italian beangun"


 No.2795696

>>2795681

hmmm I thought that it had a speed of 445m/s but maybe that was due to other factors like low quality or the shortened carbine.


 No.2796587

File: 2be4756f83ebf6f⋯.png (2.01 MB, 1245x753, 415:251, 9753975307640864-.png)

>>2774743

It's actually quite hard to tell. In 'Nam there was a bureaucratic and geographical advantage for the NVA. The cards fell where they did and North Vietnam ended up with smart Soviet advisors instead of nepotism/dunning kruger types. They were picking the best pilots to fly the MiG-21s, which were arguably superior to the US F-4s in terms of dogfighting yet the ridiculously quick startup time of the -21 meant they could scramble very fast and do hit and runs on US attack aircraft coming in to North Vietnam.

They had GCI with NVA early warning radar directing MiG-21s towards the incoming American planes which meant the MiG-21s could fly low and remain hidden from US radar. The NVA could just cycle their early warning radars on a constant vigil whereas the US had a Red Crown PIRAZ ship off the coast or Hawkeyes launched off aircraft carriers that would telegraph an incoming strike when they started turning their air search radars on.

The F-4 Phantom had a massive plume of black smoke coming out of the back and could be seen from miles away and a ridiculous ROE limitation where they couldn't use their beyond-visual-range missiles and would be forced into a dogfight with better turning MiG-17/19/21s and the F-4s didn't even have a cannon in the first phase and would be defenseless when they merged with the planes.

The US didn't bomb the NVA airfields like they should have until 1972 and knowingly allowed the SA-2 SAM sites to be built, I don't believe for a second it was because they feared killing Soviet advisors.

I honestly believe that the movie Twilight's Last Gleaming had it right, that the Vietnam War was some kind of human sacrifice PsyOp related to the nuclear deterrent. The whole war was full of sending US men to their deaths in pointless actions which is exactly what sending a B-52 to nuke some Soviet cities is. They thought if the Soviets saw them doing retarded actions like attacking some hill of limited strategic value and leaving it behind immediately after or handing out weird target lists for the aerial strike packages it would make them think they would go all the way in the nuke war - because men had displayed their willingness to carry out nonsensical and suicidal orders.

Also a lot of people say the Gulf War showed that NATO technology was superior because of the low casualty rate of the coalition and how the Iraqis got absolutely schwacked when they were battle trained from the Iran-Iraq war and using modern Soviet hardware.

The United States used "incapacitation agents" on the Iraqi Republican guard and that was what caused Gulf War syndrome. That means a mixture of psychedelics and anxiogenics to induce terror and psychosis. The Sarin shells being blown up in Khamisiyah is a cover story and was not the cause of GWS, because the EOD men right next to the Sarin cloud did not have GWS and this was after the Iraqis has surrendered. People need to read up on MKNAOMI, MKSEARCH and MKOFTEN.

The scenario of "The war that never was", with the Warsaw Pact tanks streaming through the Fulda Gap and battles breaking out across the world would have involved psychedelics and anxiogenics used on a massive scale. They had CIA agents ready to released aerosolized gas from East Germany to Kamatchka to Socotra. Polaris and Trident missiles with RVs on the MIRV bus packed with DMT and all sorts of shit like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiogenic and they would have sent millions of people into the worst trip in the world.

Both Russia and NATO have this 'Incapacitation agent' plan in place. The idea is to hit launch control centers for the missiles, designated survivor politicians, military personnel that coordinate nuclear second strike capability for subs/silos which covers just about everywhere. My advice to any 'survivalists' is to choose Plan S when you get confirmation that WW3 kicks off. A cloud of psychedelic substances mixed with drugs that remove all psychological defense mechanisms and maximize your capacity for fear will be drifting over you while you witness civilization ending.

In the apocalypse there will be far less nuclear warheads detonated than people think - it's not the nukes you should worry about but the IAs. Everyone will be quantum-tortured by machine elves, left permanently psychotic and in a military-grade mental hell and you won't even pay any mind to the mushroom clouds.


 No.2796787

>>2796587

This reads like conspiracy theory but it's also incredibly compelling and you've pushed me into trying to learn more.


 No.2796834

>>2796787

Check out the docudrama 'Wormwood' on Netflix as a primer. Not going to spoil it for you, but Seymour Hersh has some very, VERY interesting things to say at the end during the big reveal. He has to protect his sources and the filmmaker has very cleverly implied what cannot be said because of national security and source endangerment reasons but if you read inbetween the lines you'll catch the hints. Keep an eye out for when 'vaults' are mentioned in the final episode.


 No.2796852

File: a5e0a2faacea315⋯.png (377.44 KB, 566x333, 566:333, keanu-image-8.png)

>>2796587

>In the apocalypse there will be far less nuclear warheads detonated than people think - it's not the nukes you should worry about but the IAs. Everyone will be quantum-tortured by machine elves, left permanently psychotic and in a military-grade mental hell and you won't even pay any mind to the mushroom clouds.


 No.2796862

File: baa0bd408d9b4ce⋯.png (1.2 MB, 993x668, 993:668, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2796587

this sounds way too much like Hitler blaming "Bolshevik Jews" for Germany losing WW1 instead of just accepting that Germany got starved into submission. As a note the stuff about the Gulf War is bullshit, the Iraqis lost so quickly because they employed their tanks in a hull down static position depriving them of their mobility which is exactly what you don't wanna do with modern MBTs, and just kept pouring more and more of the elite guard into the breach created by Desert Storm, effectively running into the fire instead of cutting them off like any sane post-WW2 general would do. Also the largest reason they lost was cause they were taught and supplied by the US during the Iran-Iraq conflict so it was basically a setup. Plus you never hear the times Iraq went on the offensive and actually matched US tanks man for man in terms of kills(they were fighting marines using outdated M60 Pattons but still) it's all the more impressive when you realize that they used HAND CRANKED TURRETS because, again, they were supplied soviet surplus T-72s with most of the ECM equipment stripped from it by the US.


 No.2796863

File: 37049d138e859d5⋯.jpg (232 KB, 1393x1000, 1393:1000, mig27_3v.jpg)

File: f505dbe67bac56d⋯.png (211.47 KB, 2907x2308, 2907:2308, mig-21-f-13.png)

File: d239d5324a43e91⋯.jpg (145.29 KB, 750x558, 125:93, mig_21_fishbed_by_skywarpg….jpg)

File: af8e9ab8a957003⋯.png (92.78 KB, 829x600, 829:600, In defence of the MiG-23.png)

>>2796587

>knowingly allowed the SA-2 SAM sites to be built

As if the soviets would let them destroy the sites. The USA knew that if they did do that they USSR would just send in stand-by AA and shred attack aircraft. Not to mention that SA-2s are not that hard to set up, especially with the manpower the Vietnamese had at hand. A REALLY well trained crew can get it set up in an hour. My dad served as a SAM RADAR technician during his mandatory service and he covered SA-3s and SA-6s as well as almost any other SAM.

>ROE limitation where they couldn't use their beyond-visual-range missiles

never heard of that one, if I remember correctly US AA missiles like the Sidewinder were too unreliable at long ranges forcing them to dog-fight. But while the MiG-21 had a discount cannon, the F4 didn't get one until the E model. This bad BVR is why the MiG-23MS was technically superior in BVR to the original F-16.

>MKNAOMI, MKSEARCH and MKOFTEN.

That is something I haven't heard of. Interesting and quite possible. Any suggestions as to counter these IAs? Do gasmasks work or do you need a HAZMAT suit?


 No.2796879

>>2796863

>MiG-23MS

MiG-23s are sexy and highly underrated


 No.2796885

>>2796862

The idea of buried hull down wouldn't have been bad if they had organized it properly. they positioned them at the bottom of high places and were completely lax in manning their tanks. i remember reading about a m-2 Bradley driving right up to the tanks before they noticed, in DAYLIGHT. Sights or no sights, a lack of discipline makes ANY tactic worthless. Ironically the most effective tanks used by the Iraqis were the chinese knock-off T-62s, the type-69s that caused a lot of problems. Also T-72s were the go-to tank used by coalition forces that weren't the USA or Saudia Arabia and performed just as well.

>marines using outdated M60 Pattons

The M-60 got a lot of upgrades by the time the Iraqis faced it. the same M-60s used by the Iranians were shredded by Saddams T-72s, which contributed to the failure in The Gulf War, their barrels were worn out because the 2A62 cannon used by the export T-72s lacked both velocity and barrel life, which further reduced their power by the time the USA faced them. The Gulf War was the true debut of the Abrams, while the T-72s of the Iraqis were war-weary and crewed largely by glorified boy-scouts who had succeeded the recently retired veterans of the iran-iraq war. Even then the USA stalled for time until the M1A1s could be sent over, because the original M1 was too vulnerable.


 No.2796886

File: 2f5325f4d59a864⋯.png (449.85 KB, 780x520, 3:2, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2796879

true, and it only got even better with the Mig-25


 No.2796888

File: c25ae59c5e321ff⋯.jpg (204.77 KB, 736x507, 736:507, mig 31 cleaning jets.jpg)

>>2796886

yep, I did a post on it here >>2775525


 No.2796898

File: b578305707b4a95⋯.gif (3.03 MB, 480x270, 16:9, tRiWEx3.gif)

>>2796834

Watching now. Holy shit.


 No.2796910

File: 94d1d873744e8c9⋯.jpg (209.54 KB, 1200x797, 1200:797, Mig23 is cute cute cute.jpg)

File: 59372dc106ec4cf⋯.jpg (21.9 KB, 512x341, 512:341, su24-2.jpg)

>>2796888

>>2796886

blocky thicc jets are just great looking


 No.2796918

File: 4a59ed0afa81c78⋯.png (268.55 KB, 780x439, 780:439, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2796885

>The idea of buried hull down wouldn't have been bad if they had organized it properly. they positioned them at the bottom of high places and were completely lax in manning their tank

Exactly, the Iraqi military was complete shit for the most part, not really for any fault of their own, but because they were taught their combat doctrine by the US whose commanders were giggling at how they were actually falling for it. It's rather sad what the US did to the T-72s that they bought for Iraq, they took out all electronics including the targeting computer and electronic sights, so the tankers had to basically do everything the old fashioned way

>The M-60 got a lot of upgrades by the time the Iraqis faced it

It's still an M-60 which was a flawed design to begin with, having rather shit armour, a shit gun(a 40 year old L7), not particularly fast and dropped like flies in Vietnam, they tried upgrading them with ERA but they were trying to slap a bandaid on a broken leg cause muh industrial complex

>because the original M1 was too vulnerable

The M1 also only had standard steel construction didn't it? It didn't get composite or ceramic armour until the M1IP right? Plus it STILL used the L7, the M1A1's a bit better with its 120mm Leopard 2 ripoff gun and semi-decent armour, but it slowly kills the crew with radiation poisoning and requires an entire truckload of fuel a day because they thought it was a good idea to use a petrol turbine engine instead a normal diesel like everyone else. God US equipment is the most retarded shit on the planet, it's basically what if Wall Street was in charge of weapon design.

>>2796888

>>2796910

I'm always makes me smile seeing the Arrow biting the US in the ass by giving its lessons to the USSR after being canceled out of US envy. Anyone know if technical blueprints of the TSR-2 also worked its way into Soviet designs? It'd be fucking great if the Soviet airforce was made up of nothing but planes of other countries that the US screwed over, it'd be just desserts.


 No.2796955

>>2796918

>M-60

M48, M60s never served in vietnam


 No.2796966

File: c010840382cdb88⋯.png (887.37 KB, 1328x558, 664:279, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2796955

oh fuck. Well it's still shit and still uses the 105mm L7. It also managed to go backwards from the M48, having only 200mm of armour on the frontal upper plate(90mm on the massive lower one), and didn't have the extremely bouncy rounded front of the m48. Also I dunno why it took them until the 70s to upgun from a 90mm to a 105mm despite the Germans and british using it since the 50s. I still dunno where all the weight went, since equal sized Soviet tanks were lighter, faster, and had better armour so what weighed it down so much I dunno.


 No.2797057

File: 6f23914a1da920f⋯.jpg (64.83 KB, 720x480, 3:2, 1544113174660.jpg)

>>2796863

>Any suggestions as to counter these IAs? Do gasmasks work or do you need a HAZMAT suit?

I'd assume you'd need a HAZMAT. But even if you hunkered down and remained sane would you want to live in a world where almost everyone else was deranged? Russia, the US and Europe would be like one big insane asylum at least in major metropolitan areas. Look at the videos of the Hawaii ballistic missile false alarm and see how many people don't seek shelter. Look at the videos of people reading the alert on their phone saying "Woah, what… that's crazy, anyways ima go sleep now".

Lots of people assume the post-apocalypse would be a situation of The Road-type roving gangs of sociopaths and cannibalism simply over nukes causing societal collapse, contaminating crops and survivors fighting over resources. Can you imagine a doomsday where powerful psychedelic/anxiogenic weapons were thrown into the mix?

This is a mixture of what I've read/watched about the philosophy behind the IA "non-lethal chemical weapon" deployments and some deduction. This British ITV special is a very good look behind the scenes into the use of incapacitation agents, how they tested LSD and BZ on soldiers and left many of them with permanent psychosis and also talks about how they wanted to turn WP/USSR soldiers insane during the outbreak of a war and justified it by saying they wouldn't even have to shoot them and could simply capture them which was a pack of lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1GAaWy3HTw

They wanted to hit airbases/submarine bases/strategic rocket forces with the schizo-gas so they could fry them without anyone compos mentis enough to deliver nukes in retaliation.

I believe that the IAs are still deployed - do you really think Porton Down is just a place where they destroy WW1 mustard gas shells like the British media says? - it's all about decapitating enemy nuclear forces without satellites and sniffer-planes picking up the double-flashes and radiation you'd get with a nuke. Mental health is poorly understood in general but especially by the military because of the fear of getting a Section 8 for even reporting anxiety and not wanting to be seen as a liability or weak. They do not understand the consequences of using ridiculously potent amounts of psychoactive substances on people. There was one soldier in that documentary who was given 100 times the standard 2 blotter LSD dose like it was nothing and he was fucked for life because of it. They have explained their intention to mix psychedelics and anxiogenic (something that induces anxiety) when using these weapons, which would come in the form of warheads with massive throw-weights and very large clouds released offshore from submarines and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

The IAs and bioweapons are of interest to the military because they are plausibly deniable and can be used in a limited fashion during a non-nuclear WW3. That was the whole purpose of the MKNAOMI/MKSEARCH program. When the US dropped bioweapons on NK/China it was a slow infection and no ground zero spectacle of the nuclear bomb. You could potentially kill more people with bioweapon bombloads dropped over some water source or remote area than an atom bomb. They were basically trying to cull the Chinese/NK civilian population in "countervalue" strikes just like a nuclear war wiping out cities with missiles and bombers.

Those IAs would be far more pervasive than fallout. Officially there's 2k nuclear warheads (or is it delivery systems like MIRVs with up to a dozen warheads? maybe someone can correct me on this) deployed on both sides with Russia and the US. A third of those warheads are air-launched cruise missiles, mostly subsonic ones that can be shot down and they don't create a nuclear blast if a fighter jet/ship/SAM shoots them down. I'm assuming a portion of the American aerial triad warheads are B-61/B83 gravity bombs for the B-2 stealth bomber but the US does have black project aircraft and that's not some David Icke shit. The land-based ballistic missile silos would be firing at the enemies silos, in remote areas and expended and destroying a lot of the available arsenal. Each target is also always hit with at least 2 or more warheads to account for duds. Most of the ballistic missile submarines are held back in a nuclear exchange, nuclear powers don't just blow their wad in one go and they don't nuke the head of state. They negotiate/blackmail on the hotline as the exchange is unfolding and try to bring about a ceasefire. If the commander-in-chief of the nuclear forces or backup doomsday plane loses the ability to order nuclear strikes and comms with the adversary that's when you get 'spasmodic' nuclear war like Threads where local commanders just fire off their missiles in anger and 'use em or lose em' thinking, firing off before they themselves are hit.


 No.2797059

File: 19ca6eb9c1493a6⋯.png (400.17 KB, 1273x679, 1273:679, 8623975307340.png)

>>2797057

Some of you will have seen the "To The Stars" UFO video bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1uLwUTDA0

It's Tom Delonge and a bunch of State Department personnel and CIA agents claiming they want disclosure about aliens. lolno. This 2017 "disclosure" was a follow-on from a 2015 leak in an aviation magazine where the pilots talked about the incident. Those are not aliens, those are drones launched from a submarine and this was shown in the 2015 magazine interview and animated in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26vx-EfVD8g

These naval aviators were vectored right on top of this submarine at periscope depth creating a small wake and were told to hold a 25k altitude and particular bearing to see the tic-tac drones which is like finding a needle in a haystack. The ground controllers/ship/AWACS who were guiding them knew exactly where the submarine mothership and the drones would be. The Naval Air Station commander knew exactly what this was, it was a test to see how the drones would maneuver with modern fighter aircraft and see how capable the ATFLIR pod was at tracking the objects. They claim it had some kind of impossible propulsion system and was zooming around in 6-degrees with no g-considerations at mach trillion. I don't know if that's true because it's based on the accounts of these naval aviators who are saying they witnessed ETs, it seems that they've been coached - military pilots know full well about black projects and ATC radar operators are told not to report high speed strangely maneuvering aircraft and told to assume it's an X-project, else they get fired. 4:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfoSdNeGSrU this is an eyewitness to the Rendlesham Forest incident. There are many incidents of ayy lmao craft flying around nuclear weapon facilities in NATO countries. Always the same kind of story about triangles or cigars zig-zagging like crazy and moving at impossible speeds at NATO nuke bases. They're testing X-craft on their own nuke sites for detection, reaction times and behavior in preparation for use against enemy nuclear facilities.

I think the ATFLIR/Gimbal videos were a threat to Russia. After the 2015 leak Russia started freaking out and doing their own fake leak of a doomsday torpedo and claiming to have hypersonic glide vehicles. This shows they lack faith in their regular nuclear weapons. Because they know about the sub-launched drones, they fear the tic-tacs dropping psycho clouds on their strategic rocket forces and probably the advancement of the US directed energy weapon programs plinking IC/SLBMs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEK3YC_BKTI

I believe this is a United States drone releasing some sort of innocuous yet detectable gas off the coast of Chile near a major metropolitan area in so they can detect the efficacy and spread of an agent - they have done many tests of the same kind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program#In_civilian_venues


 No.2797131

>>2796918

the USSR probably did study the Avro Arrow, but no evidence suggests they lifted anything directly from it. that said, your point stands.

>>2797057

Well that's fucking depressing. it sometimes makes one wish they were omnipotent or had an infinity gauntlet like Thanos's so that all these horrid chemical weapons could be deleted from existance.


 No.2797182


 No.2797286

>>2797131

>but no evidence suggests they lifted anything directly from it

I don't know exactly how much was taken from the programme, but the USSR had at least one spy get their hands on a set of blueprints and after it was shutdown one of the engineers defected to the USSR, it's not really known if they actually used stuff from the Arrow or just used the know-how to build different planes from the ground up using what they already knew instead of directly translating the Arrow over, since all technical details were destroyed. The fact stuff like the Mig-25 had square intakes, which were unique to the Arrow, and a general same shape may just be superficial likeness, although the Mig-25's speed suggests it used a copy of the Iroquois engines and why it was so much faster than even later US fighters.


 No.2797774

>>2797766

>As well as the use of depleted uranium munitions

And depleted uranium armour. It's like the new asbestos.


 No.2797798

>>2797286

>Mig-25 had square intakes

their intakes have nothing in common. the avro arros are more similar to the mig-23's than the Mig-25s.

>it used a copy of the Iroquois engines

citation needed. The MiG-25s design different than the Avro Arrows from almost all aspects, their general similarities are more based on their interceptor role rather than any direct copying.

>used the know-how to build different planes from the ground up using what they already knew instead of directly translating the Arrow over

This is the likely scenario, the USSR developed plenty of concepts similar to US ones but only because of the same basic knowledge rather than copying. It's why the Tu-160 is similar to the B1, but their actual designs are completely independent. (unlike the B2 which takes directly from soviet stealth concepts by Ufmitseev.


 No.2797845

>>2794043

they should have made something like the mas-36 or just coppied the mauser


 No.2797888

File: 8d98d1f73a76a22⋯.png (245.71 KB, 1190x652, 595:326, AnxietyPsychosisWeapon2.png)

File: 309154bfa6fb52a⋯.png (245.65 KB, 1190x683, 1190:683, AnxietyPsychosisWeapon1.png)

>>2797057

>>2796587

Great post, thanks comrade.

Screencapped for archival.

The concept seems really effective, how easy is to defeat your political opponents when it is possible to turn them insane for the crime of not wanting to suffer under the yoke of capitalism. Truly shows the murderous nature of capitalism.


 No.2798615

File: c1e595ff9352c39⋯.png (181.44 KB, 600x249, 200:83, 97397356075630.png)

>When you work hard to make an aircraft with outstanding performance in its role and it gets rejected by Khrushchev because he thinks it looks stupid and ugly

Imagine how that must have felt


 No.2798617

>>2798615

Interesting, what was it?


 No.2798619


 No.2798696

File: 166c9949f63228c⋯.png (824.51 KB, 1200x661, 1200:661, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2798615

why does that look like the bastard child of a TU-14 and a Screamer?

>>2798619

>after Joseph Stalin's death in 1953 cancelled the aircraft carriers being designed

What? Hold up.


 No.2798978

>>2798615

>Khruschev being an ass and damaging the soviet armed forces because of it

Why am I not surprised.

>>2797845

They had the SVT and SKS, but by the time they were put into production the entire concept of bolt-action rifles was obsolete compared to assault rifles. And the SVD pushed them out of the sniper role.


 No.2799163

File: b95d90f9f1680b4⋯.png (200.04 KB, 474x266, 237:133, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2775562

A good site on soviet SAMs and Air Defense

Here is an article on the S-125: http://pvo.guns.ru/s125/s125.htm

also a good site on Russian airplanes and SAMs: http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html


 No.2799301

File: 3269950bb5095a4⋯.gif (2.89 MB, 635x287, 635:287, p-700 ship wrecks.gif)

File: 02026330f6a34e1⋯.png (1.26 MB, 6500x3250, 2:1, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 9fb722c36a2467b⋯.png (130.24 KB, 1238x1053, 1238:1053, cruise missile chart compa….png)

soviet cruise missiles are kick-asss, pic related.

The SS-N-22 missile skims the surface of the water at two-and-a-half to three times the speed of sound (depending on model) until just before impact, when it lifts up and then heads straight down into the target’s deck. And when nuclear warheads are involved, its two-hundred-kiloton nuclear warhead has almost twenty times the explosive power of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima. The U.S. Navy has no real defense against this missile system. As retired Admiral Eric McVadon put it, “It’s enough to make the U.S. 7th (Pacific) Fleet sink twice.” Even the conventional warhead is massive, at over 300 kg. As a reminder, the HMS Sheffield (D80)was badly damaged and eventually sunk from just 1 Exocet missile, which is 20 years older than the Sunburn, is subsonic and has piddly 165kg warhead. The Sheffield did cause its own doom due to technological lacking and bad crew training, but regardless it proves that even a light missile can be massively dangerous if it hits.

The missile’s guidance system is relatively effective even considering its age and it’s cousin the SS-N-19 (with similar capabilities and payload) is enhanced by the Soviet/Russian satellite system Legenda/Liana, which can pinpoint and guide the missiles to a moving aircraft carrier sized target in a storm and a frigate sized target in clear skies. The capability has admittedly gone down with the Liana being a less than effective substitute for the Legenda, but it does its job.

Roger Thompson’s book, Lessons Not Learned: The U.S. Navy’s Status Quo Culture, also points out. A brief excerpt:

“As Howard Bloom and Dianne Star Petryk-Bloom advised in 2003, both the Russians and Chinese now have the deadly SS-N-22 Sunburn missile at their disposal. This massive long-range missile, equipped with nuclear or conventional warheads, is extremely difficult to detect or destroy. According to Jane’s Information Group, it is more than capable of destroying any U.S. aircraft carrier. More to the point, Timperlake (a Naval Academy graduate) and Triplett warned that the Sunburn missile is designed to do one thing: kill American aircraft carriers and Aegis-class cruisers.”

Soviet cruise missiles out-do NATO ones in all categories as seen in pic 2 and 3

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html


 No.2799332

File: 3b1e1514c70fe93⋯.gif (1.73 MB, 280x209, 280:209, AK-47 action mechanics.gif)

File: 574ee0a60086c75⋯.png (722.77 KB, 800x500, 8:5, ClipboardImage.png)

A lot of talk on the AK, but little about it posted really outside of it NOT being a Stg-44 rip-off.

U.S. Army Colonel David Hackworth offers the following anecdote about the AK-47 from his time serving in Vietnam:

"One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK-47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. "Watch this, guys," I said, "and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works." I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds — the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M16."

The Germans were the first to use assault rifles, in World War II, the Sturmgewehr 44 and 45.

The superficially similar AK-47 entered service with the Soviet army in 1949 and smaller batches of other assault rifles were introduced earlier. NATO, on the other hand, didn’t start introducing assault rifles until at least the 1960s. Many NATO armies didn’t do so until after the 5.56mm round was standardised with the adoption of STANAG 4172 in 1980. This reflects on poor NATO battle strategy in general.

> The ak-74 bullet story: http://e-beskor.narod.ru/ammo/cal_545x39.htm

> NATO once tried to opy the AK: http://theduran.com/soviet-ak-47-superior-nato-tried-copy-video/

> Some of the story on the AK design: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/12/09/9-prototype-soviet-assault-rifles-wwii/

> A series of Debunks on the Stg-44 myth: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/22/no-germans-didnt-design-ak-47-kalashnikov-conspiracy-theories-refute-part-1/

> http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25677/ak-47-history-1110/

> NATO STANAG 4172: https://standards.globalspec.com/std/261371/nato-stanag-4172

> https://www.forgottenweapons.com/a-soviet-look-at-cold-war-small-arms-development/


 No.2799343

>>2799332

Yes, it's here >>2794091

The upper and lower receivers, recoil spring that goes into the butt stock and dust cover means AR-15 is a bigger copy of StG-44 than the AK.


 No.2799346

>>2799343

That was my point. All we see is some discussion on the Ak NOT being an Stg-44 copy. I added some more info and good links


 No.2799347

>>2799332

>poor NATO battle strategy in general

Right-Wingers always lose battles unless they have help from Intelligence and Corporations.


 No.2799581

Never realize before that Soviet arms their's space stations with gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXRAsxHgOm4


 No.2799635

File: 7e2f05a08b20b89⋯.gif (256.73 KB, 326x261, 326:261, wasp eating meat.gif)

>>2799163

some stuff on the Osa system (full english CC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpA70Ad4Ta4


 No.2799764

>>2799301

Whenever I read about NATO anti-ship missile defence claims I just think of the Falklands and the Exocets. Also the fact that 4 mad lads in super retards literally attacked a state of the art anti-aircraft destroyer patrol with regular gravity bombs. Coventry was sunk by flying over the deck of a modern destroyer and dropping 250kg bombs. Broadsword got hit and was only spared because the Argentinians knew the Sea Wolf could hit much lower flying targets at the argie lad was literally bouncing off the sea as he was flying in with his cockpit misting up.

They set the bombs fuzes so they wouldn't detonate below a certain altitude and the HMS Broadsword bomb was pickled too low to explode and didn't have a parachute/snakeye bombload like the group attacking HMS Coventry. Little did they know the Broadsword's Sea Wolf system had malfunctioned and the attacking pilot could have pulled up and dive bombed it rather than the level/toss bombing from 10 feet that they tried.

Basically if the Argentinians decided to disregard blast patterns on the dumb bombs they would have eventually destroyed one of the RN carriers with Exocets and won. If you count all the times the Argie attack aircraft dropped HE bombs on British ships and they failed to detonate and imagined if they did you would have a lot of sunken ships and dead sailors.

Also that time when an Iraqi pilot hit the USS Stark with an Exocet (The Stark was an absolute unit btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate#Durability) basically it doesn't matter how good the missile defense is on a ship, so long as its manually controlled. A pilot can be as vigilant as they want because the longest a mission will be is a day and you have to be constantly aware to check for malfunctions or loss of control. Navy SAM operators are just going to get a ribbing and have a hard time if they are on a constant super-serious vigil on a long patrol in a nuclear-propulsion ship. That was the problem with the Falklands incident, the sailors let their guard down because they were getting bored and joking around due to a lull between actions.


 No.2799913

>>2799764

>super retards

lol, I will call super etendards retards from now on.


 No.2802249

Does anyone have accurate figures of the Angolian / Cuban civil war (MPLA, FAPLA and FAR) against Apartheid South Africa and US (UNITA, FNLA and CIA)

Units involved and How it went down. It seems Wikipedia is pretty unreliable with based Rhodesians flooding everywhere.


 No.2802300

>>2799764

>tfw there'll never be footage of a mutt carrier being hit by Zircon or Chinese version of Zircon


 No.2803616

>>2802249

Check /marx/ I think there was a thread archived about Cuba in the Angolan war. I also remember reading something about the performance of t-34-85's in the Angolan war but i don't have the article any more.


 No.2803644

>>2798978

I'm talking about the 1920s, instead of producing more mosins


 No.2803992

File: 491a23df1e138ed⋯.jpg (131.05 KB, 962x1122, 481:561, WW2 Soviet Female Sniper.jpg)

>>2803644

>the 1920s

They didn't have things like that in the 1920s, the US using the M1 garand and trench-shotgun was considered dramatically new then. the USSR didn't have the industry or resources to design anything new in the 1920s, and the 1930s were focused on automatic weaponry and artillery as per soviet military doctrine.

I thought I already wrote about it here but apparently it wasn't in this thread, so I'll post this here and now.

Early in the war the Soviets understood that a precision built bolt action rifle with sights graduated to 1200 yards was an expensive option and one that required considerable time and resources to train huge numbers of troops on. The Mosin–Nagant of which they made 37,000,000 was a good weapon but one that only a small percentage of their infantrymen could use to its maximum potential and as with all bolt guns was cursed with a slow rate of fire and a limited magazine capacity.

The soviets realized sooner than anyone else that 90% of infantry combat takes place at close range (<=200 meters) where full power cartridges like their 7.62mm X 54R were over powered and the bolt action rifles that fired such heavy hitters had a low rate of fire. Soviet doctrine demanded that in meeting engagements their troops should be able to establish direct fire superiority quickly and then maneuver under the cover of that high volume of fire. Of course the Germans wanted the same capability but were too slow to implement the changes required in time.

The German Solution:

Was to place light belt fed machine guns with high rates of fire such as the MG-34 with its ~900 round/min rate of fire with infantry platoons. Thus the German squad armed predominantly with bolt action rifles was centered around its base of fire the MG34.

The Soviet Solution (s):

•On one level the Soviets adopted the same solution with the 7.62mm X 54R DP-28 drum fed light machine gun acting as the base of fire and the rest of the unit armed with bolt action rifles.

•Another Soviet solution was the creation of SMG battalions where the predominant weapon was the easy to manufacture PPSh-41 sub machine gun (1000 rounds/min) that was supported by DP-28 LMG and designated marksmen armed with either Mosin–Nagant bolt guns or SVT-40 semi automatic rifles. These units could send clouds of lead at German troops while in the attack at a dead run.

Imagine 20 Germans with 1 MG-34, 4 MP-40s and 15 bolt action rifles facing 20 Soviets with 2 DP-28s, 6 SVT-40s and 12 PPSh-41s. The German unit is over matched with respect to the volume of fire it can deliver. And it take less time and effort to train a sub machine gunner than an effective rifleman.

From 1939 to 1945, the USSR outproduced Germany in aircraft (by a factor of 1.3), tanks (1.7), machine guns (2.2), artillery (3.2) and mortars (5.5), so in fact if anything the Red Army was better equipped than the Wehrmacht (sources – Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won; Chris Chant, Small Arms).


 No.2804005

>>2803992

The soviets were especially big on artillery. The DPRK also has the world's largest amount of artillery weapons.


 No.2804019

File: 736df28b116eaa7⋯.png (1.04 MB, 1000x617, 1000:617, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2804005

Yep

reposting some examples

C-51 - experienced Soviet heavy self-propelled artillery unit (SAU) during World War II. This war machine was designed in the autumn of 1943 on the basis of the heavy tank KV-1S Central Artillery Design Bureau (TsAKB) led vasiliy grabin. The letter C in the title adopted by ACS then notation TsAKB consistent development and the index of 51 was the serial number of the project. Installing the C-51 as a whole has successfully passed field tests, but adopted the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army was not taken and not commercially produced.

Transition to the active Red Army offensive in late 1942 showed the need for equipping its mobile artillery special power. Against the powerful bunkers and fortified buildings in urban combat was sometimes not even enough firepower towed and self-propelled artillery caliber of 152.4 mm. To solve such problems in service with the Red Army was towed 203 mm howitzer of the sample in 1931 (B-4), but its extension to the distance direct fire was a considerable risk for the calculation, the tractor and the most tools. In addition, low transport speed howitzer B-4 on the march did not allow her to use the opportunities in the fast and deep strikes deep into the enemy's defenses. Therefore, at the beginning of 1942 he was made the preliminary design of the U-19 placement howitzer B-4 on a fully armored assault guns SAU class-based heavy tank KV-1. However, the design weight of more than 60 tonnes, the already overloaded and unreliable transmission of the KV-1 would be a burden. A second limitation of such automatic control system was a small elevation howitzers, not allowing her to use the opportunities for the hinged fire and long-range shooting from the closed position.

Therefore, the fall of 1943 to design and build TsAKB armed howitzer B-4 SAU open-type, which is at an acceptable weight has good mobility and maneuverability. Tests of the new self-propelled guns, designated C-51, passed on Gorokhovetsky artillery range in March - April 1944. Installing the C-51 has passed 115 km and took 209 shots, the results of which it recommended for adoption by the Red Army at addressing the identified deficiencies. The latter included the largest rollback SAU at a shot and knocking down pickup, especially at low elevation. Also, due to the bias unit during the dispersal of the shot shells is rather large. Also, members of the competent commission reported "satisfactory performance and durability of machines guns" and the chassis, but with a caveat to the "Transmission Group, which during the test had a number of defects due to its poor technical condition and worn parts." These shortcomings in the opinion of assessors could be eliminated "by staging coulters at the rear shunt, as was done in the 203-mm self-propelled gun SU-14 … '.

Also in the book M. Kolomiets dedicated KV tank, referred to a similar in design to the installation of 152.4 mm gun BR-2, which took place in July 1944 trial in Leningrad and the question of the mass production of automatic control system based on the JS in the autumn of the same year. However, this has not been done, and to experiment with this type of self-propelled guns were continued after the war as part of a large-caliber artillery capable of firing missiles with nuclear warheads. Serial Soviet self-propelled guns of this type has already become a modern 2S5 "Hyacinth"


 No.2804021

File: acafd2ecc38e5b6⋯.jpg (21.5 KB, 401x399, 401:399, image-23.jpg)

>>2803992

> Of course the Germans wanted the same capability but were too slow to implement the changes required in time.

Meh, it's sort of the exact opposite, the Germans changed way too damn much, they had limited industry and resources and regeared all of their assembly lines every few months, which fucked up production of any piece of equipment cause they had to redo the jigs, which take 2 years to get right usually. The Soviets on the other hand streamlined as much as possible, they still upgraded but did so at a more gradual pace, focusing more on making ends meet before getting fancy stuff. As well the Soviets did clever workarounds with equipping their troops, when war broke out in 1941 the Soviets had two antitank rifles: the PTRD-41 and the PTRS-41, the PTRS is a much better rifle, but you could make 1000 PTRDs for every PTRS, and that's not an exaggeration. So the Soviets geared most factories to make the PTRD-41 with a few making the PTRS-41, the result was that within a year the entire army had the PTRD, some 500 000 units, while the PTRS was still only with elite units. Compare this with how the Germans brought the Stg-44 into production and how it crippled their economy making an expensive gun while you struggle to equip troops in the first place. This is also why the Soviets were reluctant to make the switch to the T-34-85, because they'd have to regear all the factories to produce the new turret rings, so they decided to hold off until it was necessary and just use the regular T-34 since it could still penetrate the tiger from the sides and the Germans didn't have many of them, so why would you fuck your economy to deal with maybe 50 german tanks, you wouldn't, it's much better to get the 100 ok tanks than the 10 really good tanks, they only switched when the Tiger 2 came to the field and they started running into the fortified lines in Easter Poland that they upgunned to the T-34-85.

>the Red Army was better equipped than the Wehrmacht

This is pretty well known, the Germans were still using horse transport because their industry was so lacking that they couldn't even build enough trucks for their army, all the "super" german weapons were only in a few units, while most of the German army was severely outdated infantry that was more like militias than actual infantry sections. I don't know why people think the Soviets were the ones with the human wave, they just were able to actually equip an army millions strong, the Germans on the other hand had a few tank divisions with a million civilians with guns trailing behind.


 No.2804022

>>2804019

Play Soviet Tanks in War Thunder: and fuck Soviet tank destroyers tbg.


 No.2804024

File: 9694abc52b8d529⋯.png (132.11 KB, 500x275, 20:11, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2804022

>fuck Soviet tank destroyers

excuse me?


 No.2804028

>>2804021

>I don't know why people think the Soviets were the ones with the human wave

German accounts tend to over exaggerate the numerical-size of the enemy forces they faced. And for most of the Cold War, the impressions that the West had of the Eastern front came from German accounts.

Part of the German misconceptions had to do with how Deep Operations worked, the point was to draw the enemy in and hit them hard, overpower them. They also overestimated the size of enemy units because when the Soviets hit them, they hit them with a lot of fire, the PPSH, for instance, was superior in speed and capacity to that of the MP40 and there were more of them. They also felt they were heavily outnumbered by a civilian population that hated them and engaged in guerrilla war (true).

One anon posted some material a while back that showed that the Germans and the Soviets were pretty close to 1:1 in military casualties despite the greater level of training of the former and the early disasters of the latter. CODkids wank off to the alleged superior K/D ratio of the Wehrmacht but forget that the Wehrmacht killed far more civilians than anyone else.


 No.2804037

>>2804028

>German accounts tend to over exaggerate the numerical-size of the enemy forces they faced

I'm pretty sure the Soviets really did outnumber the Germans at least 2:1, since they were actually able to equip and field an army that big, whereas most of the Germans forces in terms of numbers were the bloody Volkssturm which were literally civilians with impromptu guns, and even then they weren't able to match the Soviet's industry which was simply massive. People fucking say "oh the Soviets won cause the Germans froze in the Winter", but in reality the Soviets just built a bigger better army, and had the industrial backing for it, the only reason why the Germans had early success was cause that industry hadn't woken up yet and cause of um other factors.

>CODkids wank off to the alleged superior K/D ratio of the Wehrmacht but forget that the Wehrmacht killed far more civilians than anyone else

Well to be fair the Red Army in 1941 was complete fucking garbage and was actually wiped out. That just meant that the Soviets just built a good army from the ground up and the Germans had done the cleaning for Zhukov who had been wondering how the hell he was going to reform the army to the deep operations doctrine he'd come up with in Manchuria. Also the Germans counted partisans as enemy soldiers so that probably accounts for something like 50% of the casualties, which is technically true since they did become an actual branch of the Red Army in March 1943 I think but is still a bullshit way to inflate numbers.


 No.2804078

>>2804021

A lot of the "germans were better at literally everything" stuff comes from their early success against France and Poland. Those victories created the legend of an absolutely perfect war machine when in reality, ad you mentioned, their industry was atrocious. The Germans simply didn't have the capacity to wage a war for more than a few years and it showed.


 No.2804088

>>2804078

>The Germans simply didn't have the capacity to wage a war for more than a few years and it showed.

Remember that Hitler always promised his generals that he wouldn't go to war before 1945, so the entire German industry in 1939/40 was busy building stuff that'd be useful in 5 years, Germany in WW2 in 1939 is like if the USSR went to war with Germany before the first five year plan was done, it's absolutely idiotic.


 No.2804099

File: 98d3e522fa5c059⋯.png (83.12 KB, 241x209, 241:209, what in the nine fucks.png)

>>2804021

> >the Red Army was better equipped than the Wehrmacht

> This is pretty well known, the Germans were still using horse transport because their industry was so lacking

> … they couldn't even build enough trucks for their army

Only US had enough industry to rely on trucks alone in WW2.

Both Soviets and Reich used horses. Soviets used less horses only because of the shitty elitist paradigm Tukhachevsky&Co promoted in the 30s ("our army will use trucks only!") so as to undermine positions of Budenny and Voroshilov - which is how Soviet armies had hideous mobility in 1941 and got saved only through 500k horses from Monglia.

> I don't know why people think the Soviets were the ones with the human wave

Because propaganda. IRL Soviets were outnumbered in 1941 (if you look at actual numbers on the Eastern Front the ratio is usually 2-to-1 or worse).

>>2804037

> I'm pretty sure the Soviets really did outnumber the Germans at least 2:1,

Soviets kept over a million troops in the Far East, not to mention troops along the southern border, and in other places. All of them are counted as fighting on the Eastern front.

On the other hand, for Axis (which included everyone, from Finns to Italy; even nominally neutral Spain sent Blue Division) only Germany and only troops they've sent to Eastern Front are counted.

Until ~1942 (summer, I guess) it was Soviets who were outnumbered.


 No.2804102

File: fac5514272fca1e⋯.jpg (73.17 KB, 600x396, 50:33, plakat_45 36.jpg)

>>2804088

>Remember that Hitler always promised his generals that he wouldn't go to war before 1945

Yep, but he see that temp of modernization of Soviet Russia industry higher than nazi germany.


 No.2804104

>>2804088

That's super interesting actually, I would've never thought Germany was that badly equipped at the start of WW2. So why do you think they had such an "easy" fight against the poles and french? Were those countries in worse industrial positions than Germany?


 No.2804105

>>2804088

Where are you getting this from dude? Hitler had been threatening to go to war since the annexation of Austria


 No.2804113

File: f37faa40d07a382⋯.png (177.14 KB, 602x408, 301:204, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2804104

Germany had much worse tanks and industry than France, Britain, and the Soviets, even by 1941 they were still outmatched by the Soviets in tank design alone. The reason they took out the poles so easy is well cause it's the polish, they were still relying mostly on cavalry. The French were taken out because they were dumb asses who thought spending their entire military budget on a big speed bump would be a good idea, and then all of their tanks, which were better than German tanks and were more of them, were placed so poorly in French divisions and commanded so poorly that it was rare for more than 40 French tanks to be on any given battlefield, meaning the Germans always had the tactical advantage in numbers at least.

>>2804105

He said it a lot of times actually, the entire German naval plane actually, Plan Z, was based on a programme to build a new German navy to take on the Royal Navy and wouldn't be ready until 1944. To give you some idea of how fucked they were, they were supposed to have 4 aircraft carriers and 20 capital ships at the outbreak of hostilities, but they never got more than 2 battleships and not a single carrier because they went to war 5 years earlier than expected. The expected to have shit like jets and the type XXI submarine in full production by the time they were ready.


 No.2804127

>>2804022

didn't know you lot were size-queens


 No.2804135

>>2804127

Bruv it's not that: it's the fact there's NO FUCKING ARMOUR ON THE BACK OR THE TOP.


 No.2804137

>>2804113

I see, also from what you know were most german generals (at least at the start of the war) excellent tacticians and military experts?


 No.2804182

>>2804113

>shit like jets and the type XXI submarine in full production by the time they were ready.

So in other words WW-2 would have been like a massive version of the Korean war in terms of technology and combat, correct?


 No.2804312

File: 26b0383e48b749e⋯.png (400.8 KB, 1050x550, 21:11, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2804135

No tanks has armour on the tank or top…

>>2804137

Surprisingly yes, the Germans had a lot of good generals like Gudarian and Manstein, people like Rommel are overhyped to hell though, Rommel was really just the favourite of the Nazi party and was originally the head of Hitler's body guard so that's why his face is everywhere, cause the nazi propaganda liked him. Manstien though is arguably the best general of all time though, he's the one who changed Plan Yellow, the invasion of France, from a shitty rehash of the Schlieffen plan into something that actually used the new speed of motorized and armoured divisions, but he was unpopular in the party and got sent to shitty jobs, he spent most of the war in the Ukraine on the eastern front but actually did an incredible job down there, he's the only general to have gone on the offensive after Kursk and only fell back cause the fronts surrounding his were collapsing. After the war Zhukov wanted to meet him because he was the only nazi pig he actually admired since Manstien actually managed to outwit Zhukov in the Crimean encirclement. Of course Germany also had its own fair share of idiots, but somehow most of them went to the SS. Or it might just be that are level of expectations have just been lowered since western Allied generals were all complete dogshit, so the average German generals look great in comparison.

>>2804182

Debatable, most of the technology was created out of wartime necessity and experience so it's hard to say what would have actually been developed in peace time.


 No.2804330

>>2804312

Was Manstein actually a nazi? I have read that he was one of the few notable german generals that didn't really consider himself a nazi. Also, on the case of Rommel, regardless of him being overrated, I've read different perspectives on him, some saying he wasn't a nazi and some saying he was. What's the actual truth behind this?


 No.2804350

File: 207c1f0ce9b6623⋯.png (291.61 KB, 556x469, 556:469, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2804330

There was definitely a lot of butting heads in Germany, on the one hand you have all the old Prussian military staff who got their position usually through merit, but after Hitler came to power in 1933 he kicked out a lot of the old general staff and filled it up with the party with people like Göring. The remaining Prussian staff stayed out of a sense of duty cause Prussian society basically said that you gotta follow orders or you'll die or something, although they constantly griped about idiots like Hitler running stuff and called him the Bavarian Corporal behind his back, a place where you can see the generals rubbing against the nazi party is tank design, the actual generals wanted faster lighter tanks that emphasized mobility, but Hitler wanted heavy tanks with fancy guns, so the result was the tiger, which failed miserably and crippled the economy further. Manstein was definitely one of the Prussian bunch, he has the "Von" prefix and was very unpopular with the party. Rommel on the other hand, he was pretty much party through and through, he was a brash captain in the Great War who got some success against Italy in the mountains(but that's Italy so it's not that amazing), and he wasn't even in the army until 1939 and made the rank of general just because he dined with Hitler a lot and spoke in his ear. An example of him stealing credit is the whole thing about him using the 88mm flak to shoot at tanks, people act as if he invented the idea, but the 88s he used had to be supplied AP shells in order to penetrate tank armour, so someone beforehand had already decided the 88mm could be used to shoot at tank waaaay back when it was being designed, it was just that Rommel happened to have them at the right place and time. He became disillusioned with Hitler later into the war, mostly cause his military career was failing and he technically betrayed him when that Valkyrie assassination attempt happened, and Rommel knew about the plot before hand and didn't tell anyone and when he was arrested for questioning he killed himself out of shame or something. He was a political animal through and through though, all the brains behind the German tactics usually never got the credit for political reasons.

I think most of the shit about "not being allowed to disobey" is bullshit, but the German generals were just your typical higher up bastards that enjoyed being on top and didn't care at all for the stupid nazi shit. Still a bunch of idiotic nationalists though


 No.2804365

>>2794043

>plus ten round clips that were detachable if you wanted to forego top-loading with stripper-clips

AFAIK nobody ever actually did that though, closest they got was issuing a single spare mag with the Lee-Metford but even then the first mag was chained to the rifle and the practice didn't last once they started using chargers.


 No.2804368

>>2804365

Yeah, I would say that the British officer corps did not understand the potential that their own weapon had. They were afraid that the uneducated proles who made up their army would lose the magazine and become useless in battle.


 No.2804378

>>2804368

eh. The fear of loss was real, but even then chargers are cheaper and lighter than detachable mags, and at the end of the day a rifle only has to be "good enough", as evidenced by the 91/30.


 No.2806936

File: 7612cece2aa884a⋯.jpg (64.46 KB, 750x600, 5:4, soviet versatility.jpg)

>>2799332

Soviet small arms are tough and good in general.

For example the Finns favored the DP-28 machine gun due to its superior abilities, demonstrated here;

>https://politros.com/112236-amerikanec-sravnil-sovetskij-dp-28-i-finskij-ls-26-ya-ponyal-pochemu-finny-vybrali-pulemet-degtyareva

Or the PPS-43 which is probably the most effective SMG of WW-2. Light-weight, insanely easy to make (it was designed and produced in Leningrad during the siege), and with accurate fire outranging its German counterpart the MP-40. Finally its RoF was high enough to be effective, but lower than the PPSH-41, conserving ammunition and allowing soldier to more readily use stick and banana magazines, rather than the more ungainly and heavy disk mags.

>https://politros.com/111257-amerikanec-o-sovetskom-pps-43-eto-prostota-v-ideale


 No.2808376

File: 086b2aefe486788⋯.png (45.14 KB, 450x300, 3:2, ClipboardImage.png)

File: a68363fed02fc39⋯.jpg (203.08 KB, 1017x1200, 339:400, Margolin MCM pistol.jpg)

>>2806936

A brief honorable mention is a the MCM pistol. Designed by a blind man, it is an un-named icon, as the base for the laser gun used by Princess Leia in the first Star Wars movie.

> https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/327097-whats-russian-gun-appears-in-star-wars

>https://soldat.pro/en/2017/10/14/pistolet-mcm-margolin/

>https://www.forgottenweapons.com/margolin-target-pistols-video/

>Vintage Article on the pistol: http://toyfj40.freeshell.org/GunPix/Margolin.html


 No.2808423

How did the soviet navy perform during WW2?

Most russophobes make fun of it for supposedly having italian ships, even though the the designs were actually soviet and only the propulsion layouts and philosophy of speed over armor was copied copied from the italians. For example, soviet naval guns were completely indigenous and had very high performance, yet they were considered innaccurate(The cruiser Krasny kavkaz for example could never hit moving targets).

Was this because the soviets were extremely primitive in ship FCS?

Also soviet destroyers were actually pretty good compared to most european destroyers. Only the German,some French and US destroyers outgunned them mostly in torpedo armaments.

Soviet warships were also refitted very quickly with modern AA, but that still didnt help them against German air attack. Soviet ship losses also suffered massively from mines.

Soviet seamanship and build quality however was pretty shit. A Pr.7 destroyer sank in the arctic sea because of a storm, a Novik class ran aground because of fog, and 2 Pr.7s in the black sea hit their own mines kek.


 No.2808429

>>2808423

>they were considered innaccurate

Horse-shit. The FCS wasn't that bad, but on smaller ships it was more primitive, as equipment was too large for them. In the late 50s and 60s it improved.

>that still didnt help them against German air attack

The Brits and US only experienced air attack closer to the shores of Europe. The soviets were under aerial assault constantly from the very beginning, in every port and straight. The Soviet navy was still re-fitting at the time and was the least ready at the time.

>a Novik class ran aground because of fog

And? The allies literally sank their own submarine, the Surcouf because of shitty steering.

>A Pr.7 destroyer sank in the arctic sea because of a storm

<that's shitty sea-manship

Nigga have you ever been out at sea in a storm? Even off the US coast, which is relatively Temperate, storms are a hard ride. In the arctic its an 100x worse. The Brits, US and Germans also lost ships in that manner.

> Pr.7s in the black sea hit their own mines

US and German submarines repeatedly sank themselves with their own torpedos to the point where captains had people listening for the sounds of their own torpedo coming around in preparation to dive deeper or do an emergency surfacing to save themselves.


 No.2808444

>>2808429

>>2808429

>The Brits and US only experienced air attack closer to the shores of Europe. The soviets were under aerial assault constantly from the very beginning, in every port and straight. The Soviet navy was still re-fitting at the time and was the least ready at the time.

The pacific war and mediterranean was 90% air attack.

>Horse-shit. The FCS wasn't that bad, but on smaller ships it was more primitive, as equipment was too large for them. In the late 50s and 60s it improved.

Except all russian sources say the FCS on soviet cruisers were dogshit. The reload rates of the Kirov class were dogshit too(2rpm in practice).

>US and German submarines repeatedly sank themselves with their own torpedos to the point where captains had people listening for the sounds of their own torpedo coming around in preparation to dive deeper or do an emergency surfacing to save themselves.

Comparing surface ship and submarine navigation is comparing apples and oranges. Surface ship navigation is much easier and the soviets sucked at it.

>The Brits, US and Germans also lost ships in that manner.

Give me a single example of a western or warship sinking because of an arctic storm in WW2. Face it, soviet warships were expected to operate in the calmer black and baltic seas and werent designed to be very seaworthy.


 No.2808447

Is it true that without the chinese sending them a captured sidewinder Svoiet AAM tech would be inferior than Western AAMs?

Why couldnt the soviets make an AIM-9 equivalent by themselves, instead relying on the K-5 and K-7 which were only useful against bombers?


 No.2808450

>>2808444

>The pacific war

Yes and the US lost hundreds of ships, just like Japan. The difference is that the Pacific War was an island-hopping/carrier v carrier war, where ships rarely operated as independent units and covered each other constantly. The US navy was an established power since at least Theodore Roosevelt, and the Royal Navy of the Brits made up for their lack of carriers with battle-ships, Cruisers and other ships of the line.

>Mediterranean

The Brits controlled half of it, and had the US backing them up. The Mediterranean is gigantic compared to the Black and Baltic seas and more-over the Brits didn't have entire fleets locked off in an area the size of the Aegean Sea, with half the ships being bombed in the first days of the war.

>Surface ship navigation is much easier and the soviets sucked at it

citation needed

>all russian sources say the FCS on soviet cruisers were dogshit

Citation needed


 No.2808455

>>2808447

We already posted about soviet missiles

the K-7 is not a missile I've heard of.

the K-9, K-8 and R-4 were created before the AIM-9 got in soviet hands and were fully capable AAMs. Moreoever the following missiles like the R-23/24, R-60, R-27 R-73 etc. were all independent new designs that easily competed with or outclassed US equivalents. The original side-winder was a gimmicky shit-stick hardly better than the K-5 you compare it to, it only became useful after the bugs in it got worked out at the end of 'Nam.


 No.2808464

>>2808447

Also on the AA-2 Atoll. The missile may have some basic external similarities, but the soviets drastically changed its internals. Different fuel, larger explosive warhead, heavier weight and numerous other changes. Not to mention that again, even if they had acquired a brand new missile, if soviet engineers were unqualified r if their industry been primitive they wouldn't have been able even reverse-engineer and produce them. the Soviets had some blue prints, acquired through sweden, and 2 damaged models to work off of. They then re-built it and then changed it, putting it in production a year later. After that the evolution of the AIM-9 and the AA-2 was unique, each developed on their own based off of their original roots, and the Soviet missile was better, performing well in many Cold War skirmishes, notably Vietnam.

>http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/r3c/r3c.shtml


 No.2808486

>>2808455

The K-5 was beam riding therefore, almost useless. I meant the R-4, not K-7, sorry. The R-4 could only kill bombers. Even if easily spoofed, the AIM-9B was leagues above the available soviet AAMs at the time. Before the R-3, the soviets only had the equivalents of the AIM-4 falcon, which was useless in practice.


 No.2808510

>>2803992

Is it true that the design of the Mosin reloading the rifle/operating the bolt with a scope on it? I’ve seen this bandied about on gun websites a lot but I’m skeptical given that so many successful Soviet (among others) snipers used the Mosin.


 No.2809013

>>2808510

*prevented


 No.2809812

File: c48f7aa8a6f67d2⋯.png (1.15 MB, 768x1024, 3:4, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 617bf2bb9d67e53⋯.png (1.16 MB, 768x1024, 3:4, ClipboardImage.png)

I'll post some more about Arab v Israeli tank combat at a later date. For now I'd like to just present a small example in the form of an Egyptian IS-3, in an Israeli war museum.

The IS-3 was put into production in 1945 at the end of WW-2. There are few sources on it's WW-2 operations with disagreements on whether any units managed to fight or not (though the most plausible accounts are in the war with Japan). Regardless these tanks were the next generation of heavy tank, outclassing any Western heavy tanks in both armor and firepower. It was designed to easily shrug-off and take out a tank like the King Tiger. Its sheer power made the West panic and rush the production of the M-103 and Conqueror Tank, both of which were, design-wise, poor tanks, seeking to counter IS-3s through sheer armor mass and a big gun.

The IS-3 did not serve long because the soviets recognized it as already outdated by the early 50s, and it was replaced by other IS tanks and placed on the Far-East Border, mostly used as mobile pill-boxes and shore-artillery. They were also sold to soviet allies like the Arab nations. In the first Arab Israeli war, they took part.

Back to the IS-3 I posted, it was hit by the AP rounds of an 105mm Modèle F1 cannon. Despite this, the tank, not built to withstand the newer, larger and more-powerful shells, took it rather well, with no penetrations despite the massive dents. However why was it captured? The Arab armies, unfamiliar with tank warfare would often abandon their tanks even in situations where the tank was stuck in the sand and could just get out with enough effort.

As a side note the modified F1 used by Israel was only slightly less powerful than the L7 of the centurion tank, and the actual F1 was cited to be MORE powerful than the L7. Of course my source could be wrong, but still, the amount of penetration of a 105mm gun can only vary so much. the source on the T-55's D-10T however is sketchy to me so the second link is probably more reliable for that.

>http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/firepower/Cannon.html

>http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/100mm.htm

IS-3 armor tests:

>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/10/21/is-3-armor-tests/


 No.2809854

File: dacc76de84343c8⋯.png (393.34 KB, 640x426, 320:213, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2809812

Extra sources on the IS-3

>http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/search?q=IS-3

>http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/search?q=IS-3M

Tankarchives is objectively the best source on soviet tanks and has an older sister site with small-arms: http://sovietguns.blogspot.com/


 No.2809863

File: 80dfdad783457e3⋯.png (429.05 KB, 750x500, 3:2, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 414cd0ed69ae9a8⋯.png (104.35 KB, 488x742, 244:371, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2794837

>>2795257

>>2795255

>>2790625

Just some stuff on spalling I found that, I thought would be interesting.

A Spall is a wave process. If you transferred the same amount of energy via heating it you'd end up with a cooking surface not a spalled plate. If you delivered the same KE by bumping tanks together at a few km/s you'd end up with some bent bits, not spalled plates.

Spalling occurs when a shock of sufficient strength is driven into the plate by the interaction of the metal-metal impact or HE detonation-metal.

After the shock transits the plate, it is released on both sides by rarefaction waves. If the shock is of sufficient strength the relief waves are so strong that when they interact somewhere inside the plate they literally tear the plate apart in tension.

Spall is tensile failure due to the interaction of release waves in a shock-process. You can see the wave diagram of such an interaction here: (Pic 2) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/NN_Thadhani/publication/257974877/figure/fig4/AS:297445008396288@1447927824116/Representative-example-a-x-t-diagram-and-b-VISAR-free-surface-velocity-data-for-an-Al.png


 No.2810140

File: b5e74ad04c7c595⋯.png (81.16 KB, 422x195, 422:195, 9585887.png)

>>2808510

This is technically true, the infantry models had a straight bolt handle which would impede operating it with a scope mounted over, however sniper models used a bent bolt handle anyways, so that point is pretty much irrelevant. Mosin Nagant was after all, conceived long before infantry weapon mounted optics were thought of as practical solutions and a sniper rifle wasn't just an infantry model with a mounted scope, barrels were (or should have been, depending on the timeline of the war) more refined to increase accuracy, so sniper rifles were pretty much factory made as such.

The point about reloading the rifle is a bit silly. Yes, a scope mounted over the bolt obviously impedes the ability to reload the rifle "en bloc", but that was very much true for almost every WW2 sniper rifle besides those that used side mounted optics (Japanese Arisaka series' comes to mind). Sniper rifles are by role precision weapons and any situation that makes reloading en bloc a significant advantage over loading it bullet by bullet is already a potentially catastrophic mismanagement of resources.


 No.2810268

>>2796966

Russian tanks were much smaller and more cramped, because russian tank doctrine stated that only manlets may be trained as tank crews, while US doctrine prioritized comfort to keep morale high.

Also the m48 and m60 both often had mini turrets, that increased the weight instead of regular cupolas, which made sense in the jungles of vietnam since ambushers could easily kill commanders that had their upper body sticking out of the tank, while soviets didn't have mini turrets since they are superflous for long range engagements in the russian plains and an external machine gun works just fine as air deterrence.


 No.2810553

>>2798615

>>2798619

>>2798617

Some info on the plane and its contemporaries: https://pikabu.ru/story/tu91_byichok_bombardirovshchik_torpedonosets_i_shturmovik_5836027

The development of a similar turboprop attack aircraft, the "Skyshark" of the USA, was closed after the construction of pre-production vehicles in 1954. The British "Wyvern", though adopted by the Royal Air Forces and Navy, after a long development, served only 5 years, from 1953 to 1958, and became one of the most dangerous aircraft in history with 39 of 127 produced were lost.

The main source of problems in all three cases is the equipment of a single-engine with a powerful and unfinished turboprop engine.

Douglas Skyshark: http://jetaircraft.ru/reaktivnye-samolety-mira/123-duglas-a2d-1-skajshark

Wyvern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Wyvern


 No.2811707

File: be77536267dc4e2⋯.jpg (211.36 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, Militia (FAL).jpg)

File: 3884f0610731c95⋯.jpg (181.7 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, AK-103 (2).jpg)

File: 1fbca5e75347cea⋯.jpg (9.96 KB, 539x156, 539:156, CAVIM Orinoco.jpg)

File: 3f329c52793e4fa⋯.jpg (482.25 KB, 2048x1366, 1024:683, AK-103 (3).jpg)

File: f894877390a910e⋯.jpg (69.19 KB, 1140x641, 1140:641, 9K338 Igla-S.jpg)

Bumping this thread with ever-increasingly relevant materiel from National Bolivarian Armed Forces, most of which, especially the modernization program, constitutes Russian or Chinese production. Most of the obsolete NATO equipment won't be showcased as this is after all a thread for Soviet military hardware and it's performance or in this case, it's contemporary legacy.

Starting with infantry equipment and light motorized equipment. Most of the standard infantry service FAL rifles have been supplanted and replaced with AK-103, PO3.5x21P optical sight is increasingly present. Interestingly, the special forces seem to use M203 under-barrel grenade launcher instead of the usual GP-25/30/30M series. Some of the Milita forces still rely on the trusty Mosin Nagant. Sniper rifles are mostly comprised of SVD rifles with polymer furniture. Also present is the the indigenous Orinoco series of submachine guns which doesn't seem to be in wide use anymore.


 No.2811708

File: b7ab03e9e17cf54⋯.jpg (164.87 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, Unknown Sniper Rifles.jpg)

File: b29055e7701aab4⋯.jpg (96.91 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, MAG.jpg)

File: f44b0619233f9e3⋯.jpg (77.53 KB, 566x563, 566:563, SVD.jpg)

File: fbf3f2e56150d8c⋯.jpg (62 KB, 640x427, 640:427, AK-103 (1).jpg)


 No.2811710

File: 7fa0efc7416ac67⋯.jpg (1.71 MB, 4570x3078, 2285:1539, T-72B1V (1).jpg)

File: bd7ecc29250705c⋯.jpg (162.36 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, T-72B1V (2).jpg)

File: 9a5e74964d8de49⋯.jpg (199.47 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, BMP-3M.jpg)

File: 9a05872ce8a9345⋯.jpg (210.59 KB, 1280x808, 160:101, BTR-80A.jpg)

File: 660355e4dc69035⋯.jpg (274.3 KB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, 2S19 Msta-S.jpg)

>>2811708

The venerable Soviet designs form the backbone of the Bolivarian armor. Most of these are updated to a decent performance standard and are preferable to the obsolete NATO (AMX-30, AMX-13, Dragoon 300, Fuchs) armor that supplements them.


 No.2811711

>>2811710

You seem like you might know, but isn't Russian AA stuff currently top of the line? Would it be able to cause a considerable headache for the American airforce?


 No.2811713

File: 5e62c3ea8616190⋯.jpg (216.05 KB, 1280x925, 256:185, VN-4.jpg)

File: d6530d7d3f47c5b⋯.jpg (586.2 KB, 2000x1333, 2000:1333, VN16 (ZTD05).jpg)

File: 9d50c42fa47ff31⋯.jpg (214.92 KB, 1200x799, 1200:799, VN1 (ZBL08).jpg)

File: a98bfd2836f117f⋯.jpg (188.38 KB, 1200x784, 75:49, Viva (VN18 (ZTD05)).jpg)

>>2811710

Over the last few years Venezuela has increasingly been looking into imports of Chinese equipment, mainly for their Marine forces - amphibious armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, but also a light MRAP vehicle.


 No.2811715

File: 8f53c69e476c7f4⋯.jpg (64.52 KB, 640x479, 640:479, Tiuana RBS-70.jpg)

File: 5bc85ef17c1cddc⋯.jpg (160.18 KB, 1280x874, 640:437, S-300VM.jpg)

File: a7aa74b8f35a32b⋯.jpg (159.37 KB, 1280x821, 1280:821, BUK-M2E.jpg)

>>2811711

Now I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but I can give an opinion. Russian anti-air system are top of the line, however, quality of the equipment isn't necessarily a make it or break it factor. Venezuela has about 12 batteries of the very top of the line S-300VM systems, that's about 3-4 vehicles for each battery. These would be potentially biggest problem for any air aggressors. They are supplemented by rather decent 7 batteries of BUK-M2, another very modern model that potentially could be devastating for any areal aggressors. Otherwise the rest of the medium range equipment is consisting of old S-125 Pechora-2M, about 24 of them in use. They are modernized, but they can only do so much. They might prove useful against UAVs and slow moving targets like helicopters or light attack aircraft (which, cough, cough Brazil has). But overall, the main threat against these systems would be the sheer volume of pressure a large and capable air force like the United States one could exert. Potentially they could overwhelm the Venezuelan anti-air defenses by picking off targets (radars, batteries) systematically and relying on potential regional allies to do most of the grunt work. Speculating won't get us too far, but I imagine the overall experience would be most comparable to the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia - devastating but not enough to break the morale of the troops or the country dispersed with a few small scale but important victories for the defending side.


 No.2811719

>>2811715

What is it that makes systems totally obsolete? Why does some AA stuff become totally ineffectual?

Going off on a bit of a tangent I don't know much about this sort of thing but I know people call anything outdated obsolete even when it does its job, like old assault rifles. When someone says obsolete I typically think of the hundreds of SAM launchers Gaddafi hooked the IRA up with that were literally completely useless as they couldn't lock on to anything the Brits had and had no dumb fire mode.


 No.2811723

File: 0970256643c5a20⋯.jpg (388.14 KB, 1024x701, 1024:701, Mi-35M2 Caribe.jpg)

File: e6ca5447a95535f⋯.jpg (60.78 KB, 700x483, 100:69, Mi-26T (1).jpg)

File: 5b403568052d3aa⋯.jpg (102.23 KB, 1024x785, 1024:785, Mi-26T (2).jpg)

File: 5472fc2b92aeaf6⋯.jpg (1.01 MB, 2991x1998, 997:666, Su-30MK2 (2).jpg)

File: 7897294fc96370d⋯.jpg (70.71 KB, 1484x982, 742:491, Su-30MK2 (1).jpg)

>>2811715

Composition of Venezuelan Air Forces, or at least it's main stars, would be familiar to anyone acquainted with Russian exports. The main fighter is Su-30MK2, supplementing the older generation F-16A (the A model isn't exactly comparable in terms of performance with the newer blocs utilized by most of the F-16 users), and helicopter fleet (used by the Army) is compromised of the good ol' flying gunship Mi-35M2 ("Caribe"), the Mi-17V-5 ("Panare") transporter and potential gunship and the absolute unit that is Mi-25T ("Pemon"), the largest production helicopter ever to take off. Most of the helicopter fleet is still consisting of older Bell 205 and 412 helicopters.


 No.2811724

>>2811710

Does that BMP say "Independence and the socialist homeland?" Is that right?


 No.2811734

File: b8080bce3ad00f7⋯.jpg (22.32 KB, 321x366, 107:122, f-117-nn3.jpg)

>>2811719

>What is it that makes systems totally obsolete? Why does some AA stuff become totally ineffectual?

This is a good question and I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability. Basically when their intended targets vastly outperform the offensive capabilities a system has, but in more practical and relative terms it can also mean when the main user has enough systems that vastly outperform it in it's intended purpose.

For example, Flak 88 become obsolete in it's anti-air purpose when the aircraft became start flying too fast and too high for the operators to reliably hit them. Basically when the target reliably became a bigger threat to the system that is supposed to counter it then the system to the target. That made missile systems preferable to dumb fire systems in the developing Cold War, however that doesn't mean that machine gun AA is obsolete on the modern battlefield, quite the opposite, it poses a great threat to helicopters and relatively low and slow flying aircraft (like CAS). And that's not even talking about the dual purpose, such as anti-infantry.

When it comes to missile systems, the development of aircraft capabilities and protective measures make this arms race pretty quick. Some missiles, especially those in the late 50s to late 60s tended to become obsolete in their intended purpose quickly. However, they didn't necessarily become completely obsolete. S-125 for example, mentioned above was designed in late 50s and deployed in 1961 (if I'm not wrong). By the time they got used in combat (in Angola, during early 80s) they were already considered "obsolete" (despite many life extension programs) and not much of a factor. None-the-less, the system menages to down Mirages that first flew almost a decade after the system was introduced. In the 1999, during NATO attack on my home country, one of these systems belonging to the 3rd battery of 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade infamously tracked, hit and downed an F-117A, at the time the most modern stealth aircraft after the B-2 used by the NATO forces. Admittedly in part this was due to the NATOs mismanagement and certainty that there isn't anything we could throw that could reliably hit it. And that's true, but the key word was "reliably" and that doesn't mean that it could always evade an older system.

Recently, in Syria it was shown to be more then capable at hitting slow moving drones and if Russian sources are to be believed 13 missiles managed to intercept 5 incoming Tomahawk missiles. What is it that makes systems totally obsolete? Well, until aircraft remove radar signature completely, or learn how to phase out of existence, until forces utilizing the system update their material potential to a significantly better and more effective system - nothing really.


 No.2811735

>>2811724

"Independence and the socialist homeland,

we will live (persevere?) and we will overcome"


 No.2811813

File: 704c9191a246273⋯.png (474.29 KB, 640x496, 40:31, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2811711

Yes indeed, those soviet AA systems (that's what they are, all of Russia's missiles today are soviet, or soviet based) are top of the line and are better in many aspects to american systems, especially mobile ones. The only issue is training to use them but the Bolivian army is certainly well-trained so that makes their air-defence very good. Of course, because of how large the USAF is, they would be able to over-whelm the Bolivians through sheer size and numbers unfortunately.

>obsolete

The S-125 were designed in the 1950s. Pechora2M is a 70s variant if I remember correctly. The missile lacks the capability of modern systems in terms of speed, maneuverability and RADAR. HOWEVER its long-wave RADAR is good for detecting stealth aircraft, which in the case of the F-117 and B-2 are slow and easy targets. Even the B-1B has to slow down to bomb properly, and the B-52 is a joke that was being shot down by soviet SA-2s and SA-3s back in 'Nam and have not changed since.

TL;DR S-125 is useless against strike-fighters, fighters, fast-bombers and attack-aircraft but is a good threat against bombers including stealth. Training matters first.

The best source on soviet SAMs and other missiles is linked at these posts

>>2799163

>>2775562

>>2799635

Yugos post is also a great summary:

>>2811734

Also Yugo, If I remember correctly at least 1 other F-117 was badly damaged during the war, landing in Germany. It was reported to be the result of an A-class accident but no specifics were provided, and considering reports of other F-117As being hit, I'd reckon that was one that survived.

Also I remember 2 things about the Serb SAM forces that were particularly interesting.

1) To trick HARM missiles of the NATO AF they turned on open microwaves in the middle of fields and this radiation attracted the missile.

2) the reason they had a tough time hitting the F-117 reliably was because they used a tactic of turning RADAR on, scanning the distance, turning it off and launching 2 missiles in the general direction, RADAR turned off. After a certain period of time they'd flash the RADAR on again and start tracking and targeting the detected signal and as soon as the missile reached the target and went off they'd turn it off again and GTFO before they could be hit. NATO used 2x the number of HARM missiles they used in Iraq (a much larger army and country) and to far less effect.


 No.2812069

File: e384f528eb296a5⋯.png (196.42 KB, 564x322, 282:161, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 5944cbce2b757be⋯.png (487.13 KB, 642x427, 642:427, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 8563100ceec5535⋯.png (522.47 KB, 690x388, 345:194, ClipboardImage.png)

One of the things that pisses me off the most is watching the FOR bastardize good soviet designs. The only good systems they've managed to salvage is the SU series of aircraft, which themselves are actually cancelled soviet projects, the SU-47 and SU-57 for example are from paper designs from the PAK FA programme from 1979-1990 which was testing alternate radar deflection systems compared to the US's, the PAK FA programme was much more effective than the absorption style that the B-2 and F-117 used, however it was shutdown before anything could come of it, then in the early 2000s the Russians dusted off the paper prints and built some working designs, but they did a shoddy job of it, more concerned with showing the press an impressive looking 5th generation aircraft than actually fixing the problems that plagued the rushed copies.

As well, Soviet MBT design always focused on simplicity, flexibility, reliability and trying to keep a good combo of armour firepower and speed, this went right up to the T-90 which was Russia's first tank, which was actually just a redesignated T-72M. However the new T-14 Armata throws the experience gained by the soviets out the window; it focuses on being highly advanced and complex, with an unmanned turret which is prone to malfunctioning, using a form of artificial steel that's lighter so they simply stuck a metre of it on instead of less of a denser material so the tank is far too large, and this new steel is actually poisonous when it catches fire similar to the aluminium that the Americans like putting on everything. It can go pretty fast with a supposed 72 k/h, however this has never been achieved in practice, and the new engine they had to fit in around all the new electronics is so unreliable that back in 2014 when they tried showing off the prototypes in the 69th Victory parade, it broke down before it even got on the tarmac. In short, the T-14 is a plastic, shoddy electronic crammed unreliable piece of knockoff crap, people make fun of how simple Soviet tanks might have been, but they were simple because they were designed to work in the harshest conditions, and were far more flexible than some give them credit for, cause Soviet tank designers thought form followed function to the letter, whereas the new Russian tank designers are more concerned with shoving the latest wifi in their tanks and fueling the new Russian military-industrial complex. What a spit in the face modern Russia is to the old USSR.


 No.2812082

>>2812069

The T-14 didn't break down, the driver engaged the hand break. The tank could not be towed away due to this, eventually they figured it out and the tank drove off on it's own. This is an example of inadequate training or overly complex driving controls but not of unreliability.

>artificial steel

What do you mean by this? All steel is artificial.

>less dense material

If they had a less dense material they would need to sick more on since less dense would have to occupy more volume to provide the same protection. They would need to use a more dense material if they wanted to have the same protection with less armor thickness.


 No.2812087

>>2812069

What’s “FOR”?


 No.2812096

>>2812069

>>2812082 (me)

Alright I forgive you you were talking about the 69th victory day. However that picture with the T-14 is from the 70th victory day (2015) which is the incident I described.


 No.2812119

>>2812082

>What do you mean by this?

They created a special variant of steel, I call it artificial because it's technically composite armour, it has the same protection as normal steel but weighs less, they call it something odd that I can't remember right now and make it seem like it's something that's new and revolutionary but is really just physically lighter steel in all regards. The problem with this is that 400mm is still 400mm of RHS equivalent, so to get up to the par of 1000mm RHS equivalent that most modern MBTs have with modern composite armour(including the old T-72s), so they need to put an an entire metre of this new stuff on the front for it to be somewhat practical, that's why the driver's placed to far back, the engine's actually in the back and not in the front which a lot of people thought was what the space was for since that's what tanks like the Merkava do

>If they had a less dense material they would need to sick more on since less dense would have to occupy more volume to provide the same protection

I said "less of a denser material" which I mean that they could stick a lesser amount of a denser material, such as ceramic or other composites, which would use less space while weighing the same since you use less of it.

>>2812087

Federation of Russia.


 No.2812131

>>2812119

Ok I misread the density part. Aren't composite armor materials in general less dense than metal armor meaning they would have to occupy more space? Going for a less volume solution means going for depleted uranium which has it's upsides and downsides. I can see why people would interpret more space in the front as space for a transmission or something when information on the T-14 was scarce, but all soviet tanks as far back as T-34 and KV had their engines in the rear, transmission as well. Granted the T-14 is a departure from many design concepts in Soviet tanks but changing the location of the powerpack seems pointless and front transmission offers no advantages now that electronic or hydraulic assists are available.

I don't think it's a mistake to go for increased protection with the T-14, Russia does not have the industrial base or manpower to engage in deep battle across Europe. The T-14 is a tank built to suite the material conditions of the Russian Federation, both the demographic and industrial conditions as well as the fact that they are a capitalist state with a profit seeking defense sector. How effective the T-14 is in combat is another question all together, it has many new concepts so there are bound to be reliability issues at the start. We may see other countries adopt these concepts in the future or it may be an evolutionary dead end.


 No.2812149

>>2812131

>Aren't composite armor materials in general less dense than metal armor meaning they would have to occupy more space?

Quite the opposite, composite armour is almost always more effective to the equivalent of RHS, this is because they're materials specifically designed with negating either the kinetic value or chemical value of modern shells, which usually come in 2 flavours: Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot(kinetic) and High Energy Anti-Tank Fin-stabilized(chemical), although there are sonic rounds that are sort of the black sheep and nobody bothers with countering them. Composite usually very thin but very good at its one job, ie 200mm of it is equal to 1000mm of chemical resistance for RHS, but only has 200mm against kinetic, so these are usually layered on top oh each other, meaning that most MBTs have a physical frontal layer of about only 400-500mm but have resistance values going up to 2400mm. That's the problem with the T-14's armour, it has no specific energy resistance and so it ONLY has 1000mm of armour while also having almost half a metre more in length compared to contemporary MBTs. In short, it's bigger while offering less protection, there's no reason to use the new armour other than because someone's profiting off of it, and for so long Eastern tank design was unaffected by the for-profit style designs that plague western designs.

>Russia does not have the industrial base or manpower to engage in deep battle across Europe

Which is precisely why they should not be wasting their time on building highly experimental designs with low reliability/basis in actual combat experience, they should focus on more reliable, well rounded designs that are cheaper to produce and will serve better in battle rather than trying to one-up the west in a new arms race, one they can't afford to win.


 No.2812710

>>2811813

>at least 1 other F-117 was badly damaged during the war, landing in Germany.

Hush, hush, don't spoil us! But yes, the rather infamous US record of covering up their loses and informally I would add that one as well. There were a few more reported NATO loses locally, admittedly our information wasn't always accurate and confirming what was hit, damaged or downed isn't the easiest task when you're in a middle of a war, not on best terms with neighboring countries and also leading a propaganda war with the world and yourself. This lead to a lot of accounts of hit aircraft being reported as UFOs(!). It was a crazy time. I didn't want to mention it in my previous post precisely because of it's deniability.

There were, admittedly hearsay accounts, I recall, of a B-2 being either caught on radar(s) or even hit (but not significantly to be downed) during their operations over Yugoslavia. But that's completely anecdotal. None the less, here's the story about it, copied from quora:

>The story regarding B2 is very strange also. Supposedly it was shot down, but went down just near the border in Croatia near Spačvanske šume (forest). I recently watched colonel Zoltan Dani (commanded the battery that shot down F-117), during his interview about the downing mention, and later on in the show explain how he came to be convinced that a B-2 was shot down.

>Basically, to cut this short, there were reports, in the military, that a B-2 was shot down (by a brigade that he was assigned to, but not his battery) but he didn't believe them. He later heard the stories from some villagers that live near the border with Croatia that something big had passed over their village and was making strange sounds like it's engines weren't working properly. Later on, on a funeral that he attended (this was after the bombing), some people were present (Croats) who live in Croatia and were working for police department said that at that time they were assigned to a guard duty, so no one could get close, near this forest. They weren't told what they were guarding but they said that a lot of military (American) transport trucks went in an out. They said that even the ground was dug out, as they said, to a depth of 1,5m. This B-2 was, again supposedly, Spirit of Missouri.


 No.2812891

Other than AA guns, why did Soviet military equipment perform so poorly in Arab-Israel wars.


 No.2812899

File: 1cbcfb02fdf4795⋯.png (280.71 KB, 700x478, 350:239, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2812891

Cause the Israelies cheated and cause the Arabs were poorly trained, I mean even the best tank in the world can't do much when the enemy attacks you during a cease-fire and when the poorly trained Egyptian crews run away at the first bullet and can't read the markings on the range finder.


 No.2813267

>>2812891

Yugo explained it well here >>2812899

I'll add to that by pointing out that whenever there were trained units taking part in these wars, they would slaughter Western forces. SA-6s operated by soviet PVO officers annihilated Phantoms and Skyhawks. Syrian PVO was actually pretty good and whenever they weren't getting suppressed by US-provided AWACs systems, they shot every Israeli plane out of the sky, including F-15s and F-16s.


 No.2813364

>>2774743

In relation to the picture was the jet lost due to the stall or was the stall recoverable and the jet was lost due to weapons fire from the biplane?


 No.2813975

>>2813364

Nope, the USAF idiots flying the plane literally crashed it on their own trying to hit the damn thing. It counts though because the were clearly not letting themselves just be shot to pieces from afar

>http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/June%202011/0611april.aspx


 No.2814106

>>2794841

>Basic Military Training

Link to a photo of this

https://ekabu.ru/125835-sovetskie-shkolnicy-1-foto.html


 No.2816018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zveno_project

>It actually worked quite well, even in the early stages of the the German invasion of the USSR

The absolute madlads, damn shame they didn't continue them, with more advanced aircraft


 No.2818532

>>2816018

Versions were considered but after the war and the rapid advancement of technology the concept was rather null when SAMs became the main-stay of air-defense, and cruise missiles became the main strike system.


 No.2819410

File: 57081ab57e53dd8⋯.png (1.1 MB, 1024x682, 512:341, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2816018

I'm still surprised by the fact that flying aircraft carriers haven't been used further, especially since all practical testing of them actually proved that they weren't just feasable but actually quite practical. Hell, the US managed to make a dirigible into one and it worked fine, and it was perfect for early planes because of their short range. With the advent of jets one could argue that it would be useless because of their low stall speed, but considering the fuel consumption of turbojets compared to piston aircraft and the short range and flight time of modern interceptors, flying aircraft carriers would actually be pretty useful. I think the main reason why they haven't been used further is because it requires the pilots to be semi-decent and have actual training, which is an especial problem for the US knowing the dunces they are, but the USSR doesn't really ever have a reason not to since it has large borders to protect and most of it is landlocked so seagoing aircraft carriers to intercept long range bombers just doesn't work.


 No.2819457

File: 8c132c5a4b85e57⋯.jpg (1.17 MB, 2874x2047, 2874:2047, nuclear airship.jpg)

File: 3812dd6e4a9bd2f⋯.jpg (3.55 MB, 1800x1182, 300:197, atomic airship.jpg)

>>2819410

Hydrogen explodes. Helium dirigibles are a recent idea and is far too big a target for missiles like a normal aircraft carrier (but carries far less armor). Carrier ships are in general relatively useless for anything except mobile air support in bombing a third-world country with no real navy. That's partly why the USSR never tried too hard to create its own carriers or ship-yards capable of building them. HOWEVER airships were pursued by the soviets, for more civilian purposes (pics related). As well as a more advanced concept called ЭКИП which supercedes both airships and passenger aircraft.


 No.2819543

>>2819457

So basically the soviets could've made real life Kirov's?


 No.2819722

File: 788b1adb05fb993⋯.png (1.17 MB, 1200x642, 200:107, 10531_113e3b4c48304f-203e4….png)

>>2819543

>Kirov's

Essentially yes. Atom-punk FTW!


 No.2821456

>>2819722

>>2819722

>ywn pilot a soviet atomic powered airship and say "Kirov reporting" over the radio

Feels bad man


 No.2823581

http://boards.4channel.org/k/thread/40693653

Just in case anyone feels like correcting them on Soviet/Russian military equipment


 No.2823586

File: 7ca3e345c2626eb⋯.png (960.71 KB, 1080x628, 270:157, ClipboardImage.png)

File: e84e7c62a979f27⋯.png (30.31 KB, 675x120, 45:8, ClipboardImage.png)

File: ce30d70db03d37d⋯.png (1.04 MB, 1023x818, 1023:818, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2823581

this is some of the most retarded shit I've ever seen. What fighter are they even talking about? Are they calling the F-35 good? That's extra levels of stupid. Caring about aesthetics over function? And they're just spamming shit about shit like the YF-23 and F-22. Jesus christ I'm gonna avoid that as hard as I can, I'm losing brain cells just looking at that shitfest.


 No.2823621

>>2823581

>correcting them

you'll just get reaction images and greentext memes

/k/ always has been and always will be retarded and nofuns


 No.2823698

File: e7d1232e06506b1⋯.png (482.35 KB, 900x595, 180:119, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2823621

it never fails to amuse me how the board dedicated entirely to guns and weapons actually knows nothing about guns, over there it's usually just gun porn, crying about whatever state they're in limiting their ability to buy a minigun or something, and maybe the odd tidbit about a FAL compensator or what kind of bullet casing is best to try and keep up the appearance that they actually know what they're talking about. It's like if the gun-loving deep American south had its own board and at best they know "the double barrel shooty" and "the shooty that shoots fasty".


 No.2823714

>>2823581

>correcting them

They're doing a pretty good jobs debunking their own arguments, (unintentionally probably, but still).


 No.2823909

>>2823586

lmao that first meme is a terrible cope to justify all the money that is funneled into military contractors, did the CIA make this meme or something?


 No.2823947

File: 50c903f075a8caf⋯.png (1.09 MB, 1052x1251, 1052:1251, 50c903f075a8caf3b8bf8ea349….png)

>>2823581

>Person in thread literally defending Yeltsin

>Fucking Yeltsin

Holy shit


 No.2824005

>>2823714

>>2823621

Hmm, maybe "correcting them" was the wrong word, maybe I should've said "fuck with them" instead


 No.2824013

>>2824005

I gave up after they kept repeating the same fucking "Muh RIMON 20 FTW" FFS


 No.2824020

File: 1d2859373cef8c0⋯.gif (2.19 MB, 388x218, 194:109, slash_k_slash.gif)

>>2824005

Trying to fuck with people usually requires them to have enough intelligence to respond semi-coherently, but they're spinning the development of the F-35 as a positive of US military arms….. just….fuck…..


 No.2824053

>>2813267

Wait, they shot down F15s? But much western media said none of them were shot down, the closest they've gotten was one engine destroyed with a mig?


 No.2824470

File: 6f0e6c5ae62fd58⋯.jpg (367.38 KB, 1199x733, 1199:733, silent-eagle2.jpg)

>>2824053

The claim is that F-15s have never been shot-down in air to air combat. Plenty of them have been shot down with SAMs, (more than the USA, Saudia Arabia or Israel would like to admit).

However the former claim also doesn't hold up as there are several claims to F-15s being shot down in air to air combat as well.

The F-15 is a wonderful fighter-jet, certainly one of the best of its generation, but for it to have participated in so many conflicts and NEVER been shot down is a ridiculous notion.


 No.2824498

>>2824053

>they shot down F15s

Of course, even a Mig-21 would be able to catch an F-15 at low altitudes given the right conditions and the F-15 and F-15c's ECM suite is almost complete garbage since the military-industrial complex produces complete shit and the only reason why it's fast and has good maneuverability is because those were the requirements for the contract, pilot suitability and defense don't matter to the manufacturer I think it's Boeing now although it was originally McD, only with the F-15e variant did it get a actual good countermeasures and none of those saw combat in Israel.

>But much western media said none of them were shot down

Western media lies and tries to bolster their strength, that's nothing new

>the closest they've gotten was one engine destroyed with a mig?

That should have been a red flag right away, with modern planes every bit of surface is important and weight means everything, so basically there's not a bit of the plane that isn't not needed so basically even a slightly damaged plane even by basic canon fire is essentially as good as dead except for larger bombers since they can survive multiple engine failures and couple this with modern missiles which usually carry kilograms of explosives and have proximity fuses, meaning it has enough power that even a glancing blow will tear a super light titanium/aluminium plane to shreds like it was paper. No way in fucking hell did an F-15 get "only" an engine knocked out by a SAM and make it home.


 No.2824517

File: 4f78d1b39bd9df5⋯.png (540.3 KB, 600x590, 60:59, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2824498

forgot to mention that it isn't the explosion itself that'd knock out the plane but the shrapnel since all those bits of sharps metal would be sure to cut through very important wires that are packed very tightly in a cramped airframe, back this with the fact that jet fuel is very high octane and will ignite at even the smallest spark, planes are basically flying gas cans with wings, just take a look at anytime old prop planes caught on fire on carrier decks to give you an idea how absolutely screwed a plane that's hit is, also times that by 10 since jet fuel is even higher octane than the fuel prop planes used.

>>2824470

>Plenty of them have been shot down SAMs (more than the USA, Saudia Arabia or Israel would like to admit).

I've heard that Western aircraft are especially weak to MANPADS and SAMs, and during the six day war despite Egypt not having any planes the Israelis had a very high "attrition rate" for their planes,I think it's around 30%, whereas as similar Soviet planes that flew in Vietnam had very low chances of being shot down by AAA and SAMs. Is this more due to that Western planes are more vulnerable to ground based missiles or is it just that Soviet AAA was much better than the US's?

>The F-15 is a wonderful fighter-jet, certainly one of the best of its generation

Meh, it's more just a quickly slapped together overbudget interceptor that was made because the US shit its pants at the Mig-31. It lacks many of the advantages that the F-14 developed such as variable wings, although I dunno if this is due to rushed development or because they're made by different companies, either way it goes fast, turns tightly, and does fit the role it was designed to fill but is generally rather shit at everything else, which arguably is what the point of an interceptor is but in combat with actual aircraft of its generation such as playing chicken with some L-19s in Yugoslavia in the 90s, they were to be inferior in turn rates and acceleration with only its top speed being better


 No.2824545

File: c2f83eb8e3719f0⋯.png (1.27 MB, 1160x1336, 145:167, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2824517

The F-15 is very fast, and can carry a lot of ordinance. It's design lends itself to good dog-fighting characteristics and its size/engine-power allows large amounts of ordinance and fuel to be carried.

Large wings = low wing loading = high instantaneous turn. Twin differential rudders made its control surfaces large and thus allowed for a good maintained turn tightness. The initial engines burned out to quickly and the RADAR was nothing great (It's BVR capability hampered further more by a lack of good BVR missiles), but the F-15C was pretty good when it arrived and was no push-over.

The plane that supercedes the F-15 in all these aerodynamic aspects is the Su-27 and its family of planes. Pic 1 related

The F-14 is harder to maintain as its more complex variable wing requires more RID. it was more a long-range fighter like the MiG-23 (what with the Phoenix missile and all).

> https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-five-maneuvers-that-were-prohibited-in-the-f-14-tom-1757179036

>https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-14-tomcat-vs-f-15-eagle-aircrews-perspective/


 No.2826136

File: 83135b3d44febe9⋯.jpeg (39.83 KB, 722x425, 722:425, 270A7B28-D137-4638-B7AA-6….jpeg)

how did the Su-25 fare in combat? i heard they did well during the Chechen Wars but idk how good they were prior to that i.e. in the Afghanistan and Gulf Wars.

speaking of Afghanistan why didn't the Soviets use more modern vehicles? by the 80s they had MiG-29s, Su-27s and T-72s yet they stuck to older models like the T-55. was it just not worth the expenses?


 No.2826190

File: 9b83e8f5277919d⋯.png (500.37 KB, 619x931, 619:931, ClipboardImage.png)

File: ee4e890a6b8f299⋯.png (642.78 KB, 822x626, 411:313, ClipboardImage.png)

File: c7eb5358192dfcd⋯.png (429.97 KB, 600x449, 600:449, ClipboardImage.png)

File: f408d2a94368806⋯.png (523.82 KB, 740x584, 185:146, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2826136

MiG 29s and Su-27s are fighter aircraft first and fore-most, the USSR was waging a ground war only. The only airforce they had to contend with was the Pakistani airforce, which they could not officially engage in Air-to-air outside of defense.

The T-72 was an expensive tank compared to the T-55 and the T-55/62 upgraded variants which served in Afghanistan were better fit for a bush-war like Afghanistan, rather than the t-72 which was built primarily to take out NATO armored forces. a 125mm cannon is over-kill for the job of a 100/115mm gun. the t-55 was also in massive numbers and was raring to be used, so rather than let them rust and bring t-72 away from the Western defensive area, they took their millions of t-55s and deployed them, and successfully so.

>https://zen.yandex.ru/media/vartehnologe/pochemu-tanki-t64-i-t72-ne-voevali-v-afganistane-5b6dd529c13f4500aa7782cd

The Su-25 was a beast in Afghanistan and soaked up multiple stingers like nothing, doing belly landings on the way back and being back in the air the next day.

Analysis of damage to the aircraft showed the Sukhoi design bureau that the IR homing missiles would explode around the engine tail pipes or housing, with fragmentation from the warhead almost always knocking out one engine and causing catastrophic fuel fires in the engine bays, which would doom the aircraft. They solved this problem by installing an armored titanium firewall in between the engines, which minimized the chance of both engines being destroyed and prevented fire spreading to the unaffected engine. The engine bay were also equipped with automatic fire extinguishers, and more advanced IR countermeasures and evasion methods were developed to help minimize the threat from Stinger missiles.

>http://englishrussia.com/2008/06/02/russian-jet-fighters-in-afghanistan/

>https://battle-machines.org/2015/07/26/a-10-thunderbolt-ii-vs-su-25-frogfoot/

>https://document.wikireading.ru/14768


 No.2829375

File: b618352137d0deb⋯.png (180.05 KB, 1136x640, 71:40, ClipboardImage.png)

bump with interesting news, apparently the yemeni's shot down a saudi F-15 with a jury-rigged R-27 AAM. the Saudis denied losing the plane, though I doubt it.

- https://www.businessinsider.com/video-houthi-r-27t-russia-missile-attacking-saudi-fighter-jet-2018-3

- (archive link): http://archive.is/RyB91


 No.2829398

File: cabc55f099788c7⋯.webm (847.78 KB, 640x480, 4:3, goodbye f15.webm)

>>2829375

yeah it's old news, but Saudi aircraft losses in Yemen have been catastrophic

It was considerably worse early on, but the US carried out a series of cruise missile strikes on Yemeni radar sites and some of their better AA equipment


 No.2829588

File: 50b3e992c95a8a3⋯.png (793.54 KB, 1212x800, 303:200, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2775837

>>2774753

>>2774761

Just reposting that info here

Concorde v Tu-144:

All I have ever heard in criticism of the Tu-144 was some shit about noise and bullshit about aerodynamics and how the USSR 'stole' bad designs of the Concorde. Despite this I have not seen a single primary argument about how it was shit.

According to the Tupolev bureau: It should be added that the engines were less perfect (by specific parameters the engines of TU-144 a/c were brought close to “Olympus” only in their last modification). All these negative initial data were compensated in the course of development of the project by high aerodynamic cleanness of TU-144 which was achieved by making the design more complicated and by lowering maintainability of the aircraft.

I'll add to this some more facts, the Concorde's cruising speed was limited to 2000 KmPH, despite being cited as higher. The Tu-144 had a higher cruising speed, a comparable fuel efficiency and similar range. The usual comparisons made however, use the official statistics of the international market presentation. The Tu-144's modifications after it's debut were all within the USSR and thus not counted. Thus the comparison is usually of the older, advanced Concorde models, compared with the semi-prototype versions of the Tu-144. A comparative analysis of equivalent class flights is possible only after its official presentation on the world market. All changes and additions to the already existing models could be used only on domestic flights (at the discretion of the originating country) and were not official in the accounting of TTD and aircraft parameters. In a word - as a comparison, you can take only samples of the Tu144 with engine models "C" (or earlier). Concorde, in turn, almost annually exhibited its advanced models at international air shows.

Thus the comparison in terms of data cited is like comparing the data of the original AK-47 to an M4A4 carbine rather than comparing the latter to an AK-74M or an AK-12. Obviously an older prototype of one rifle will be inferior to the improved new version of a different rifle.

Anecdote cited: Grandfather took this plane on flights between Moscow and Alm-ata and said it was a smooth quiet ride. He had worked as an engineer, helping build passenger aircraft so he was not ignorant of what is good and bad construction.

Lastly, despite the Concorde being more easily available, the plane selected for use by NASA for research was the Tu-144 and not the Concorde.

A good source of comparison: https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/317332-tu-144-prervannyy-polet/#part1


 No.2829590

File: 8758cc1a350daea⋯.jpg (46.66 KB, 351x730, 351:730, 15 СнП.jpg)

File: bd87b9332d3a282⋯.jpg (59.59 KB, 600x786, 100:131, stinger afghan 1.jpg)

File: 96f3d180348eaa1⋯.jpg (146.52 KB, 1067x800, 1067:800, ПЗРК «Стингер», захваченны….jpg)

File: 45e7fe677427753⋯.png (9.49 MB, 3840x6879, 1280:2293, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2775837

>>2774753

>>2774761

>>2829588

Stinger:

the Stinger does function as a MANPAD, however, the cited 90% kill rate on Raytheon's site (pic 4 and link related) is ridiculous. It is nothing more than a bullshit ratios for the military-industrial complex to lap up, just like other systems. The Patriot SAM system was stated to have the same 90% kill rate, yet in real life it failed to shoot down aging, export-type Scud-Ds launched by Saddam, despite the Patriot being designed SPECIFICALLY to shoot down short-range Ballistic Missiles like the Scud-D.

>Raytheon: https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stinger

A missile can be good, but a stinger does not have a 90% kill ratio against targets like a Mi-24 or in fact ANY helicopter of the 80s onward. The statistics in the Afghan war speak for themselves, training isn't necessary to fire a Fire-and-forget missile, and the fact that the number of downed aeroplanes and choppers is low compared to the number of stingers used shows that this 90% is nothing but jacked up numbers from rigged tests for marketing purposes, that's how capitalism and its military-industrial complex works.

the majority of soviet aircraft were out of range of the Stinger in the first place. The Mi-24 and Su-25 showed repeatedly the ability to be hit by SEVERAL missiles and keep flying and the Su-17was so fast that it usually struck and climbed back out of range before the Mujaheds could even fire a missile.

When the soviets got their hands on the Stinger, they found it wasn't that much better than their own SA-14, and was not even as good as the simple downgraded SA-16 they were selling to their Warpac allies. The SA-18 that was being fielded by the Soviet army at the time was superior in every way to the Stinger. This is in spite of the fact that the soviets were not deploying AWACS or serious Electronic Suppression, (unlike the USA in Vietnam). The Soviets used strike bombers with a light fighter-bomber escort. Built in electronic suppression and missile evasion systems only.

While it is true that NEW internal systems like flares, beacons, and exhaust baffles were created for helicopters and strike aircraft to counter Stingers more effectively, they were only used to further degrade its performance against them rather than because it was especially effective, see >>2826190.

Of the 74 Mi-24s downed over the entire war, 27 were downed by Stinger missiles, which sounds like a lot, until you realize that the number of deployed and hit/damaged mi-24s was in the several hundred.


 No.2829633

File: 9f457b66e7cd058⋯.png (610.8 KB, 918x649, 918:649, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 382e0a730d2e336⋯.png (372.31 KB, 902x607, 902:607, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2829590

>shows that this 90% is nothing but jacked up numbers from rigged tests for marketing purposes

Pretty much every figure for American hardware reliability is actually from a single test where they probably just launched whatever weapon they're testing against a cardboard box filled with explosives. Only slightly exaggerating, there's evidence that early sidewinders and heat seekers were only allowed to enter use after they put hot plates all over the targets to get them to lock on.


 No.2829785

>>2829633

yep.remember that famous t-72 vs tow missile test video that internet warriors were screeching about, claiming that it was evidence that the T-72 was total shit? the T-72 was filled with explosives and the missile never struck the target, just flew over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRAYQ7uXjsY

i wonder if anyone can find more examples of such shit being done?


 No.2829792

File: 5fcd0d3153c90ff⋯.mp4 (1.71 MB, 320x218, 160:109, BillvsCenturion.mp4)

>>2829785

>that explosion

th-that's not….. how ATGMs work….. how the… I….. jesus christ people are stupid, THIS is what an ATGM blowing up a tank looks like, there's no hollywood style "poof" that has a bunch of gasoline added for colour, it's just a depressing "pop" and some grey smoke. ATGMs work by basically being a propelled HEAT shell, it shoots a very tiny jet of plasma to penetrate the thick armour and hopefully hit something important like ammo or kill the crew, it does not make a tank disintegrate, maybe if you're lucky it'd catch fire or the ammo'd cook off but that's especially unlikely with Soviet tanks since they ran on diesel which doesn't burn unless its pressurized.


 No.2829889

>>2829590

The stinger effect has been disputed, especially by Russian sources.

>Whether the introduction of the personal, portable, infrared-homing surface-to-air "Stinger" missile in September 1986 was a turning point in the war is disputed. Many Western military analysts credit the Stinger with a kill ratio of about 70% and with responsibility for most of the over 350 Soviet or Afghan government aircraft and helicopters downed in the last two years of the war.[171] Some military analysts considered it a "game changer" coined the term "Stinger effect" to describe it.[172] According to US Congressman Charlie Wilson who was instrumental in funding the Stingers for the Mujahideen, before the Stinger the Mujahideen never won a set piece battle with the Soviets but after it was introduced, the Mujahideen never again lost one.

>However, these statistics are based on Mujahedin self-reporting, which is of unknown reliability. Selig Harrison rejects such figures, quoting a Russian general who claims the United States "greatly exaggerated" Soviet and Afghan aircraft losses during the war. According to Soviet figures, in 1987-1988, only 35 aircraft and 63 helicopters were destroyed by all causes.[173] The Pakistan Army fired twenty-eight Stingers at enemy aircraft without a single kill.[174]

>Many Russian military analysts tend to be dismissive of the impact to the Stinger. According to Alan J. Kuperman, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev decided to withdraw from Afghanistan a year before the mujahideen fired their first Stinger missiles, motivated by U.S. sanctions, not military losses. The stingers did make an impact at first but within a few months flares, beacons, and exhaust baffles were installed to disorient the missiles, along with night operation and terrain-hugging tactics to prevent the rebels from getting a clear shot. By 1988, Kuperman states, the mujahideen had all but stopped firing them.[175] Another source (Jonathan Steele) states that Stingers forced Soviet helicopters and ground attack planes to bomb from higher altitudes with less accuracy, but did not bring down many more aircraft than Chinese heavy machine guns and other less sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry.[176]

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War


 No.2829968

File: f21465d455bfce6⋯.webm (2.66 MB, 480x300, 8:5, houthi abrams.webm)

>>2829792

yeah that video is bullshit, at most you might have some cookoff and some hatches blow off but not always

have "invincible" abrams being blown up footage


 No.2830017

>>2824020

Isn't that the one warplane which has been foiled by, among other things, rain and changing timezones?


 No.2830021

>>2829375

>>2829398

By all accounts, the Saudi armed forces are a joke. The pampered Saudi natives don't have a clue about anything, living in an oil-funded welfare State while slaves keep their economy running.


 No.2830044

File: 98711020d9bca58⋯.mp4 (499.94 KB, 480x360, 4:3, T-64 autoloader real.mp4)

File: e286d3e5e98a578⋯.webm (3.07 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, T-64 reloaded prequel.webm)

File: 0e4ebdf5568f828⋯.jpg (58.32 KB, 640x480, 4:3, soviet carousel autoloader.jpg)

File: 6e583f7fc0001a8⋯.mp4 (237.48 KB, 640x360, 16:9, Soviet autoloader kinemati….mp4)

>>2829968

The only time you get turrets pop off is a direct hit to the ammunition (which is pretty hard in the T-72 since from a horizontal POV it's a 16cm tall disk on the bottom of the middle of the tank, requiring penetration of either complete penetration of the lower glacis (fucking good luck with that) or a penetration from the side, through the tracks, wheels, side-armor and non-flammable diesel fuel tanks. In Ukraine now you can find T-64s with their turrets blown off but that's because the T-64 autoloader is vertical and so easier to hit and the war is involving the latest soviet ATGMs designed to penetrate the frontal turret of an Abrams from 5km away, let alone an aging T-64B upgrade from the side. that's when you see turrets blown off. But that's also not common. The only time you see turrets blown off and its NOT from ammo cook-off is with the export T-72M and M1 used by Iraq, when hit nearly point-blank by an M1A1 Abrams from the side.

videos related are soviet auto-loaders


 No.2830063

>>2830017

the thing is a flying catastrophe. It is ironically vulnerable to lightning, when it's namesake is lightning II.

>>2830021

Yep, but they have sheer umbers and lots of high-tech shit all for free*. Their navy and the UAE's navy has had a few casulaties from jury-rigged soviet missiles as well.

- *https://www.mintpressnews.com/pentagon-accounting-error-had-us-taxpayers-paying-to-refuel-saudi-jets-in-yemen/252709/

-https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19596260/saudi-missiles-fail-catastrophically-one-comes-crashing-back-to-earth/

- https://sputniknews.com/news/201806141065386344-UAE-Naval-vessel-fire-red-sea/

The Yemen rebels even shot down a US drone with a S-75

- https://twitter.com/lummideast/status/689902095080804352

Yemeni Rebels are fucking based

- http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17486/houthi-rebels-release-flir-video-showing-shoot-down-of-saudi-f-15s


 No.2830407

File: a03e8029ecac2f3⋯.png (989.83 KB, 987x853, 987:853, ClipboardImage.png)

So what about the guy in pic-related.

On one hand he's a fucking reactionary faggot.

On the other he's a pretty epid warrior, whose Hind D was basically a one-man/machine army. I need some information on this guy and a /leftypol/ take on 'im


 No.2830410

>>2830407

Seems like a pretty lit life ngl, just making everyone you don't like explode


 No.2833350

>>2830407

Reactionary warrior. Can respect his ability to fight but politically he's scum.


 No.2833362

>>2830407

tl;dr:

>be imperialist mercenary

>kill lots of niggers epic style!!!

>get praised by edgy retards online


 No.2833665

File: 8ecc5d89b393c16⋯.png (2.5 MB, 2100x1210, 210:121, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2804021

> the PTRS is a much better rifle

It's a faster one due to being semi-auto, but also jammed often.

On the subject of the PTRD and PTRS, they are being used in Donbass and Lugansk, taken from museums and using 14.5mm bullets from KPV machine guns. They're used mostly for anti-sniper suppression and against BTRs/Armored Cars.

- https://sovietarmorer.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/ptrs-41-and-ptrs-41-rifles-in-action-at-the-conflict-in-ukraine/

- https://war-time.ru/item/protivotankovoe-ruzhe-ptrd-41


 No.2833755

>>2804021

>when war broke out in 1941 the Soviets had two antitank rifles

They actually had no antitank rifles. PTRD and PTRS were designed and presented by the end of August after only 22 days. :^)

That's why the former is a very fancy pipe-gun with a neat recoil-assisted bolt-action, and the latter is an upscaled previous design.

The real OOMPH of the rifles lied in the bullet, and its Tungsten Carbide core. Not Tungsten, not Tungsten-Heavy Alloy, Tungsten Carbide(+Cobalt). I don't know if any other country done anything like this with its armor-piercing ammo.


 No.2833757


 No.2833948

>>2833755

How long is a development cycle of a gun usually?


 No.2833959

>>2833948

Years, if you want it to be well-made, reliable, and looking nice, like the Thompson. Months, if you want it to look like something made out of plumbing and have several problems, like the Sten.


 No.2834014

File: 2b39797dc47e94a⋯.png (169.04 KB, 600x580, 30:29, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 91847e3acd4548d⋯.png (342.23 KB, 650x455, 10:7, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 4004ac9c3c2481f⋯.png (959.29 KB, 766x994, 383:497, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2833948

usually at least a year, during war though the time drops dramatically, with examples such as the Sten gun taking only a week for the first prototype and then another week for serial production. That's partly why German equipment sucks, since it got stuck in development hell and stuff like the tiger even the stg 44 took over 3 years to make, and even then they were overengineered, didn't real solve any problems they were facing and were partly outdated by the time they left the drawing board. Also the US had the same problem since they fielded the M3 Lee simply as a stopgap for the M4 which took several years to make, then once the M4 was fielded it was already outdated to the KwK 40, and the US refused to update the design to meet modern battlefield standards, whereas the British once again decided to just screw it and stuck a 17-pounder in their Shermans a few months after they got their first bunch. Also the US spent so long working on the M26 that literally only 1 made it to Europe and saw combat, and it had the same overengineering problem as German tanks so that even by the Korean War 5 years later they still didn't have anymore M26s and had to use mostly upgunned Shermans, while the British had practically replaced all their tanks with some version of the Centurion and the Koreans were just getting the old T-34s the USSR didn't need cause of the new T-54. Also the USSR upgunned the T-34 to an 85mm only a few months after they saw the first Tiger and changed all production lines in order to get the new versions fielded fast enough, whereas with the US the "easy 8" upgrade package to a 76mm for the Sherman was still only in small numbers even by April 1945. It's almost like corporations running designs makes them take longer and messes with the requirements or something.

>>2833755

ah I see you just watched comrade gun jesus's episode on that.


 No.2834117

>>2774743

The design philosophy of Soviet military hardware was quantity over quality, for example in WW2 five adequate tanks (T34) will always beat one amazing tank (Tiger).


 No.2834128

>>2834014

Since you're more knowledgeable than me on this, do you think that sten-like guns will be made again in a modern revolutionary war? Being able to mass produce a gun designed in 2 weeks would be a great advantage.

>>2834117

holy fuck I couldn't put more memes and platitudes about soviet tech in one sentence if I tried

but yes I guess the point still stands, the soviets were way smarter and efficient


 No.2834175

File: 8fe120d045804c9⋯.jpg (48.73 KB, 650x323, 650:323, 3b146a6b259db69a90251c75c2….jpg)

why didn't the soviets produce an anti tank rocket launcher during wwii? Were lend-lease and captured german weapons enough to fill that gap?


 No.2834187

>>2834175

Pretty much. Soviets used a lot of AT guns. Shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets were pretty shitty in World War II and Soviet requirements called for a longer-range one, which they would get with the RPG-2 after the war (derived from the American Bazooka). The ones operational in World War II were mainly effective in cities which posed a problem for the Red Army later in the war.

A fun fact is the RPG-2 was known as the B-40 in Vietnam, which I didn't figure out for years when B-40s were referenced in this Full Metal Jacket scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4BuQMJEKHw


 No.2834241

>>2834128

Sten guns? No. The reason why the sten was made was cause the UK was broke and needed anything that could shoot bullets and the sten is literally a tube with a firing pin, so it's hard to get cheaper than that. But the AK has made that totally redundant since it's cheaper, more effective, and is already available and can compete with even the best hardware on the market. Any revolution from now until laser guns can be 3D printed is gonna be built on top of some version of the AK, Type-56 is the go to.


 No.2834359

>>2834175

The Germans and other nations didn't make a RPG weapon until late into the war. The soviets had enough artillery and tanks by that time to not require anything more powerful than the PTRD/PTRS for their operations. The RPG-2 however was projected for the future, similar to the IS-3 and T-44.

Lend-lease was literally a token gift, artillery and anti-tank weaponry being a miniscule portion of the Eastern front.

>>2834187

>RPG-2 is derived from bazooka

<Looks nothing like it

?


 No.2836584

>>2777492

>american numbers are only air to air

>Soviet numbers are ground to air, accidents and air to air


 No.2836739

>>2836584

tfw soviets are accused of running numbers but it's just projection


 No.2836759

File: 3486b2e35552b09⋯.png (278.71 KB, 1271x884, 1271:884, 9731bc41c10f6532da226d2fe1….png)

>>2836739

>it's just projection

That's how being a right-winger works, judeo-bolshevik.


 No.2837896

How do you respond to the outcome of rimon 20?


 No.2837899

>>2791432

>Except the T-80UM wasn't the first to have TIS. And also Even wikipedia states that the T-80UM recieved a, "NEW thermal imaging sight "Agava-M1"" Not A TIS, but a new one.

The only soviet tank to ever have TIS was the T-80UK, and the T-80UK was produced in tiny numbers. This means in the mid 80s soviet tanks would get massacred in most engagements because even the leopard 1A5 had a TIS.

http://defensepoliticsasia.com/progress-in-russian-thermal-imaging/


 No.2837902

File: 65fc1b644693449⋯.png (163.25 KB, 546x287, 78:41, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2837896

That the Soviets were initially under a no-fire order, we fired upon from a DMZ during a ceasefie, the Israelis started it by blowing up the Egyptian radar, and they caught the Soviets taking off. In short, Israel did more illegal shit again so it wouldn't be a fair fight.


 No.2837903

>>2812149

Your criticism of the T-14 makes no sense.

1.The technology used on it has been developed since the 80s and tested extensively on the T-95

2. Autoloaders have proven extremely reliable in extended periods of use. Unreliability is western propaganda

3. "only" 1000mm of armor against APSFDS is exceptional value. Also the value you use is the penetration of the Vacuum 1 APSFDS, the UFP of the T-14 is claimed to be 1500mm against APFSDS.

4. focus on reliability in russian designs is a dumb overgeneralization often used by ignorant westerners. The T-64 and T-80 were utilizing new and experimental technologies which caused some problems, but those problems were fixed.


 No.2838074

>>2774746

>when you lose to gook farmers with outdated weapons

Am*ricans everyone


 No.2838316

>>2837899

>http://defensepoliticsasia.com/progress-in-russian-thermal-imaging/

your link almost entirely concentrates on modern russian tis, its basic little over-view on the t-80 is inaccurate, and unsourced.


 No.2838383

>>2833362

You’re a pretty bad mercenary if “spite” is the reason you waste risk your life along with thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Any true mercenary would’ve given up and went home as soon as there wasn’t a government to pay him. But it seems this guy just wanted to smoke nigs.

The image does do a great job of showing why the Hind was such a great helicopter tho


 No.2842111

File: 9e8810734ac3fa1⋯.png (417.59 KB, 600x600, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

So do we have any pro-soviet tech memes to oppose shit like >>2777492


 No.2842124

File: 12486be19467fd0⋯.png (575.95 KB, 550x738, 275:369, ClipboardImage.png)

File: fe159123395dd87⋯.png (1.38 MB, 1200x932, 300:233, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 56009085856e90a⋯.png (109.57 KB, 380x500, 19:25, ClipboardImage.png)

File: d942a7e07d0c5b9⋯.png (634.43 KB, 700x481, 700:481, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.2842331

File: ca2210efaab9742⋯.png (1.87 MB, 1920x1200, 8:5, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 136ff4f5b467739⋯.png (707.64 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

File: aae65af3ceb76c6⋯.png (244.18 KB, 500x399, 500:399, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.2842338

File: e072a109c220b96⋯.webm (2.43 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, russian bias.webm)

>>2842111

They'll just scream "russian bias" at the top of their lungs.


 No.2842355

>>2774756

I think anybody that knows who IDF buys its toys from, knew what you meant.


 No.2842362

>>2777492

Proof that socialism is inferior to capitalism.


 No.2842485

Low key the T-80 U is the sexiest war machine ever made


 No.2842649

>>2842362

t.moron who doesn't actually study


 No.2843194


 No.2843250

>>2843194

Real question, are export abrams the full package or does the US screw over other countries by giving them inferior armor versions?


 No.2843697

>>2843250

Export abrams lack the DU armor in the front, HOWEVER the Saudis have full DU armor versions of the abrams as well as export versions, because they were given many of the tanks left over from Desert Storm of the US army.


 No.2843731

>>2843194

Cool pictures.


 No.2844465

>>2834187

How do you define shitty?

Compared to AT guns rocket launchers had:

Reduced weight

2-3 times higher penetration

lighter ammo

more compact


 No.2844602

>>2844465

True, but with stuff like the Panzerfaust, in practical use you had to get up-close to the tank to actually hit it reliably, while an AT-gun can hit a tank from long-range.


 No.2844782

>>2844602

However setting up an AT gun took very long

The zis-3 and M-42 could'nt penetrate late war german tanks, even the upgraded pz.4s because they had 80mm+ armor while the zis 3 could barely penetrate 80mm at 100m.


 No.2844789

>>2844782

>>2844465

Infantry rocket launchers of the 1940s were still experimental technology that had a lot of issues to work out. Accuracy at any kind of range was poor, setting them up to fire was slow and a relatively delicate task in some cases, and range suffered badly.

Not that I'm arguing they weren't useful, they were amazingly useful in urban combat, but that they were not nearly as clean and easy to use as they're portrayed.

Also the panzerfaust is a recoilless grenade launcher, not a rocket launcher, but that's just semantic.


 No.2844838

>>2837903

>The technology used on it has been developed since the 80s and tested extensively on the T-95

Actually the T-14 is part of a universal platform concept similar to the BMPT programme, the T-95 near its end was turning to something of a real life bolo with a 150mm main gun and several autocannons as coaxials and supposedly being over 10 metres long, it just got so damn expensive that the T-14 seemed cheap in comparison. The T-14 itself isn't that good mostly because it's on a chassis that's trying to be an SPAA, SPG, IFV, and a tank all at the same time and is the soviet equivalent of if the US decided to try and turn the m113 into a tank(that's sort of how the bradley came to be btw). It shares no resemblance to past designs since it uses a different chassis, engine placement, drive train, crew placement, materials, gun, ECM and even designers. While the original BMPT was based on the T-72 chassis and therefore interchangeable most of the time, the Armata is brand spanking new.

>Autoloaders have proven extremely reliable in extended periods of use

Not talking about the autoloader, the turret itself is actually radio controlled from the gunner in the crew "capsule" lodged in the hell, the turret is automated and the loading system isn't the same as on old soviet tanks

>"only" 1000mm of armor against APSFDS is exceptional value

It's pretty lackluster compared to most third generation MBTs and that's still only against kinetic rounds, the chemical resistance is also only 1000mm which is the real problem since HEATFS usually has more penetration

> the UFP of the T-14 is claimed to be 1500mm against APFSDS

Doesn't really make any sense since it's armour is physically 1000mm and has a 1:1 equivalency to RHS, so unless the slope of the front plate is more than 50 degrees(it might actually be I actually don't know) it's probably closer to 1000mm than 1500

> The T-64 and T-80 were utilizing new and experimental technologies which caused some problems

The T-64 had so many problems that it never was able to replace the T-62, its problems were fixed but only after they were streamlined and fixed with the T-72, plus the reliability factor for the soviets was the fact that they prioritized universal parts, drivetrain and engine reliability and durability, and crew survivability above something such as say speed and armour values. Soviet engineers instead tried to use conventional techniques such as sloping the armour back at almost 70 degrees to increase armour or using diesel to increase output rather than switching to gas turbines, or using ERA and ceramic instead of using depleted uranium since this was A: expensive and B: slowly killed the crews. Ultimately Soviet tanks were meant to fight over open large tundras where speed and the number of active machines able to keep pace would see it through rather than "tactical" super tanks. The Soviets understood that an MBT is not a heavy tank.


 No.2844841

>>2844602

AT require very specific materials and mechanisms such as high grade steel and machine tools for the barrel and rifling and recoil compensation, add that along with transportation for it on the battlefield, plus ammo carriers, etc and you're looking at a material cost that's quite close to an actual tank. In fact that's why AT guns fell out of favour, they were replaced by tanks and tank destroyers since the gun is actually the most expensive part of the tank since tank design is limited by turret ring size and strength, the hull in comparison is cheap. And an AT is basically a tank gun without the tank, so most nations in WW2 just decided to skip the middleman of the motorized transport and put it in a mechanized chassis of its own and that's how the tank destroyer was born. To give you an idea of how well the tank destroyer replaced AT guns, over 15 000 Stugs were built which is more than every other German tank combined. So by late war no nation was using AT guns, especially the Soviets since the Eastern Front was collapsing too quickly for conventional AT to keep up and instead they just focused on handheld AT rifles and mass producing the SU series. As for early rocket AT, you gotta understand how dirt cheap and light it was, you may miss 6 out of 10 shots but when you're able to produce literally 10 for every soldier you're still going to get 4 hits on target. A study showed that the Germans by late 1944 with all their industry destroyed was able to produce panzerfausts so quickly that they had more in their stockpile by the end than they did Mp40s since the panzerfaust is a small rocket motor with a shaped charge on the end, it requires only low grade steel, and some black powder. Black fucking powder. And it killed tanks. So although technically they sucked pretty bad, their cost/effectiveness ratio was probably the best in the war, since a $50 throwaway RPG could take out a $400 000 tank, it's the AT version of the AK but if you could throw it away after each use and pull another out of your back pocket. This is why AT guns disappeared from all armies by 1944, the British got the PIAT, the US the bazooka, etc. why make AT guns when you can make tank destroyers for just a little bit more? Or use the same gun and barrel as an AA gun such as the german 88 or Soviet 76? Or better yet just throw some men with short range shaped charges at it. It's a matter of cost/benefit, the AT might have been good early war when handheld AT wasn't quite there yet and heavy industry couldn't produce enough tanks or vehicles, but as the war went on it became obsolete.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/ussbsappa.html

For reference of the material cost of a high grade steel AT versus the run of the mill handheld rocket AT weapon, you can get the fuel and explosives for something like the panzerfaust from plants and waste.


 No.2845088

>>2844789

>>2844841

Oh right, the actual things about early rocket launchers, specifically the early Bazookas.

>In 1943, field reports of rockets sticking and prematurely detonating in M1A1 launch tubes were received by Army Ordnance at Ogden Arsenal and other production facilities. At the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, various metal collars and wire wrapping were used on the sheet metal launch tube in an effort to reinforce it. However, reports of premature detonation continued until the development of bore slug test gauges to ensure that the rocket did not catch inside the launch tube.[18]

Also, in order to arm a rocket, you had to carefully wrap a delicate wire off the back of the rocket to an electrical pin on the launcher, much more like a pipe bomb than an actual military weapon. Said wire could be accidentally pulled off or damaged, rendering the rocket useless.

I want you guys to understand that first generation rocket launchers were not nice pieces of equipment. They were literally things that you and I could produce in our garages in a few days of experimentation and came with all of the attendant dangers and failings. They are STENs but with the part where it's a fucking several pound pipe bomb right next to your head separated by a thin sheet of the cheapest steel they could get their hands on.


 No.2845107

>>2845088

Mind, I'm not arguing that early rocket launchers were useless. Just that they were shitty, almost improvised, dangerous weapons.

The Panzershreck originally required you to put a bag with a window over your head and thick gloves on cause it'd torch you with backblast because the rocket motor was going at full blast for a considerable distance past the muzzle.

All sorts of stuff was just bad about them. But yes they did hit tanks hard for cheap.


 No.2845137

File: 6605a0f0232fbe3⋯.jpg (173.61 KB, 960x655, 192:131, screech.jpg)

>>2774743

almost always 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧NATO🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 underestimating or outright being ignorant of soviet aircraft abilities, a lot of F-4 phantom II in vietnam pilots didnt get full analysis of enemy plane characteristics until planes were getting shot down it was almost assumed a jet from the previous generation isnt able to shoot you down, korean war doctrine basically did an about face when MiGs were discovered to you know, actually fly and defend airspace and not burst into flames by looking at it or whatever hell was going on in their heads at the time, soviet anti air basically funded most of the scientific advancements in the 20th century by making america dump billions of dollars in research to figure out how to get around it, at the same time a lot of outdated low tech soviet era equipment is naturally resistant to EMT attack without costing an arm and a leg like the eurocopter tiger

>>2774749

the M16 was sabotaged by its own ammo and the US armory procurement actively ignoring everything the manufacture told them not to do with the gun


 No.2845142

>>2776925

USSR always thought they were going to be forced into a land war, they actually acted like there was something going to happen after the bombs go off, thats why they effectively outproduced the world in armor and aircraft, paranoid US was waiting for a bomb to go off, but the only actual plan was to bomb the otherside, virtually no invasion plans or war plans exist outside of bombing people


 No.2845159

>>2844838

>the chemical resistance is also only 1000mm which is the real problem since HEATFS usually has more penetration

1000mm chemical armor means you'd need a liner with a diameter of about 170mm.


 No.2845411

>>2844838

>The T-64 had so many problems that it never was able to replace the T-62, its problems were fixed but only after they were streamlined and fixed with the T-72

The T-62 was never a common tank either m8, I think you mean the T-55. The T-64 did fix most of its issues, the 2 remaining problems it has is

1) Small road-wheels (higher ground presure, meaning the tracks get stuck in soft ground more easily.

2) The vertical placement of ammunition. While this allows for high-speed loading this also makes it more vulnerable to side-penetrations and makes moving around in the tank harder.


 No.2845413

>>2845142

> they actually acted like there was something going to happen after the bombs go off

Because something would. If we dropped the entire US nuclear arsenal on China today, with perfect precision of area (so no-shock-wave over-lap and hitting only highly-populated Eastern areas) They swould still only be able to destroy roughly 5% of China, and probably a fraction of the population. The same would apply to the USSR except even more so, since the USSR was massive, its air and space defenses are far superior to either the USA or China and its population was large enough to survive a nuclear attack, especially since most people didn't live in urban areas


 No.2845429

>>2845088

>>2845107

nobody's arguing that rockets were in anyway reliable, we're more arguing that their cheapness, rapid deployment, lightweight design, and being much more mobile than conventional AT weapons is what makes them better. The arguments about them being dangerous and unreliable is true but you can say the same thing about any rocket based weapon in WW2, in fact they were more reliable than the MRSs at the time, but nobody will ever argue that the katyusha didn't do its job well despite it being inaccurate, taking over an hour to load, and tendency to blow up on the rails, but the fact it was light and was effectively an SPG that was just a truck with some fireworks strapped to it outweigh these factors. As well you're talking more about the bazooka and the panzerschreck, but the panzerschreck was actually a german copy of the bazooka which itself was less effective than the rocket ATs of other nations. The panzefaust on the other hand was relatively reliable in terms of not blowing up your hands, in fact it was so easy children used it. The PIAT was also more effective than the bazooka due to the fact it realized that the system was only meant to get the shaped charge AKA the grenade on target, although it did this with a spring instead of a rocket motor and yet still remained just as inaccurate and took a lot longer to reload. Plus the panzerfaust is what would eventually evolve into the RPG-7 since it's an actual Rocket Propelled Grenade, whereas the bazooka was trying to be a recoiless rifle and would eventually evolve into stuff like the LAW and relied more an kinetic penetration than a shaped charge warhead which the PIAT, panzerfaust, and RPG-7 use.

>>2845159

With modern composite armour there's usually 700mm of chemical resistance for every 500mm of kinetic resistance, except for stuff like the T-64 and T-80U which have twice as much chemical resistance as kinetic resistance. The only way 170mm would have 1000mm of resistance is if it's actually a spaced armour skirt, and even then that's technically not chemical resistance just that it's detonating the HEAT round prematurely. The only tank I can think of that has that is the T-64b and that had a lot of issues.

>>2845411

The T-62 actually replaced the T-55 domestically and became the main tank of the USSR until the introduction of the T-72, the T-55 is more widespread because it was continued for exports and stayed with the reserves, that's why it's seen in Afghanistan since the Soviets didn't want to risk the new T-72Ms. The T-64's biggest problem was its price and its unreliable engine. It did pave the way for future technologies such as early ERA(albeit only in the form of sideskirts) and one of the earliest ECM kits, along with the first attempt at composite armour, but all of these proved to be too raw and unproven to justify making it production in the 1960s, it should have just been a testbed. The conventional design was absolutely brilliant though and actually the T-72 is just a T-64 without all the expensive bits on it, since the simple hull design and new internal ergonomics proved to be so effective. The T-64 is a great tank it's just that it suffers from over engineering, since it was only ever deployed with a few units in East Germany and a few tank regiments in Ukraine, which again is why the T-72 would supersede it; it was almost 40% cheaper to make, and even though the early versions of the T-72 were technically inferior and were just dumbed down T-64s it was much easier to field, maintain, and equip the whole army with. The T-64 is to the USSR as the MBT-70 is to the US and Germany. Good practical testbed for pioneering what would eventually be standard technology, not so good at being an actual MBT.


 No.2845566

>>2845413

russia along with european countries that arent retarded have civillian evacuation and protection plans, countries that rely on nuclear deterrence and airspace tactics basically have no plan for there civilian population outside of pretending to have one and only have procedures for 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧COG🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧


 No.2845689

It's kind of a moot point since NATO and the USSR had thousands of nukes pointed at each other. Their military equipment did serve them well in Afghanistan and other proxy wars, though.


 No.2845708

>>2845689

its not a moot point, Nato strategy revolved around air superiority, Soviet production and SAM technology made life hell for aircraft and the majority of government spending during the coldwar was trying to circumvent soviet made early warning, anti air and aircraft, and the reality of the end results of this is that even the most advanced aircraft patterns ever produced the A12/SR71 oxcart the fastest jet managed to be kissed by shrapnel by a cheap ass mass produced soviet SAM over vietnam and SR71s make a mad dash out of airspace whenever a Mig 25 or Mig 31 appears even though theyre really not even fast enough to actually attack reliably


 No.2845777

>>2845708

the MiG-25 was fast enough to intercept a SR-71, the problem was that the R-40 missiles were too short range to do pursuit. The MiG-31's R-33 missiles, which were only matched by the now defunct Phoenix AAM, could take down a SR-71, and in fact MiG-31s served as detterents during the last days of the USSR, intercepting incoming SR-72s and keeping them out of soviet airspace.


 No.2845780

>>2845429

>comparing the actually functional T-64 to the utter mess that was the MBT-70

Come on now.


 No.2845792

>>2845777

>fast enough to intercept

>cant actually perform the function of interception and destroy the enemy aircraft

deterrence is not actual interception


 No.2846552

>>2845792

the MiG-31 could shoot it down, but procedure was always warning before firing. If a MiG-25 just went in for an attack from the front the R-40 would probably hit. From behind less so. the R-33 could take down an SR-72 from any angle and from long range, no need to chase it down.


 No.2847207

File: ce4b60cadac7a83⋯.png (774.92 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, ClipboardImage.png)

>The SR-71 was specifically developed to replace the U-2 and the fact it could no longer outrun the new generation of missiles

>U-2 gets shot down

>SR-71 is faster but still can't quite outrun Soviet interceptors

>SR-71 is retired in the 1990s

>U-2 is still being used in 2019

excuse me but what? Why the fuck are they still using the U-2? That's just fucking retarded since even the plane meant to replace it has been made obsolete. How much money is Lockheed throwing at the US government to keep using the thing?


 No.2847288

>>2845429

No, I'm telling you that a HEAT round would need to be 170mm or more to have a real chance of reliably penetrating 1000mm RHAe armor. This is a considerably larger diameter HEAT round than any modern infantry weapon deployed anywhere. The RPG7 is only a 95mm, the RPG-29 is 105, and the RPG-32's is a tandem charge with the main one being 105. An American TOW is only 152. A Javelin is 127. Carrying around a HEAT missile that is 170mm wide would be ridiculously heavy and bulky.


 No.2847377

>>2847207

>U-2 is still being used in 2019

It's no longer used in the same way it was before, and its design is an energy efficient glider which is good for work in places that aren't advanced military powers.


 No.2849651

File: e5bcfabcdd62c62⋯.png (20.68 KB, 405x622, 405:622, rimon.png)

I keep seing this on /his/ What went so wrong for Soviet Union during Operation Rimon 20?


 No.2849676

>>2849651

>What went so wrong for Soviet Union during Operation Rimon 20?

squadron of Israeli aces hand picked for the operation ambush unprepared Soviets who didn't think the IAF would do it


 No.2849678

>>2849676

>Soviets who didn't think the IAF would do it

Good strategy by Israel and very poor one by USSR. Why such poor plan?


 No.2849707

File: 40c21616acd9ac5⋯.jpg (56.16 KB, 732x630, 122:105, a7db5f8d0e87580591a75b1ae7….jpg)

File: 40911eb232b965c⋯.jpg (110.64 KB, 941x768, 941:768, standard 9×18 PM, 7.62 SP-….jpg)

File: c890fe9124864b8⋯.jpg (167.93 KB, 800x525, 32:21, Ammunition cutaways. From ….jpg)

File: 36e457fddae0e21⋯.jpg (87.87 KB, 800x531, 800:531, nrs-fire.jpg)

Dear Reddit, not today I learned that Soviets created not just an almost completely silent compact pistol, but a sniper and an assault rifles too and even a fucking knife.

Some bright spark decided to reinvent the wheel. He looked at the usual barrel silencer and figured they're such crap because it doesn't make much sense to try to muffle the bang at the barrel's end, since it happens all the way back, as the compressed gunpowder explodes and the resulting gas violently expands. So he went and designed a fancy bullet case which trapped the gases inside itself, so it's actually more appropriate to say the technology is silent ammon rather than silent guns, the latter of which was designed after the former. They also were designed to minimize the secondary noise of that is the clang of moving parts, so it became inaudible beyond a few meters. Further, the third and last source of noise, case ejection, was wholly sidestepped by keeping the spent, gas-filled cases trapped in the gun itself, which further adds to the stealth. Add the complete lack of a muzzle flash, and it's as stealthy as it gets.

The downside is that it loses power and has lowered effective range, but with such a stealthy weapon, distance wasn't supposed to be a factor for the user. It's also, unsurprisingly, more expensive to manufacture than common ammo.

The prototype was named SP-1. That and SP-2 saw use only in Bond-style specialty guns, like the infamous cigarette case, the TKB-506 and TKB-506A. Later on, some different group ceated the PZ/PZA/PZAM round line, much bigger because they were intended to be used in a proper pistol, S4M, with higher ranges. To this, they added a clever detail: the projectile would resemble one fired by an AK-47 from at least a few hundred meters away, thus explaining the lack of a spent case and throwing off investigations. I don't know if this feature would be replicated later.

Still, the spooks weren't satisfied with these weapons because of their size. So the original guy went back to the drawing board and made the SP-3, to pack a good punch while being small. But only with SP-4 and the PSS pistol designed for it would silent ammo become a class of gun on its own. All previous rounds left a spent casing actually longer than an unspent one. With that out of the way, they could use clips, whereas beforehand, they could only hold, at most, two single-loaded shots. The SP-4 was so successful that they further developed the SP-5 round for the AS assault rifle and its sister, VSS sniper rifle, and later on, made an armor-piercing version, SP-6. Those three guns have updated designs after the break-up, and are still in use by spec-ops, spooks and such.

Because of the lower power, the PSS, AL and VSS have effective ranges of only about 25, 300 and 400 meters, respectively.

Besides that trio, the egghead behind the silent ammo and some of its guns designed a SP-4-using revolver in 2001. In 1994, a sniper rifle capable of using some common ammo as well as SP-5 and SP-6 was designed to be a lower-cost alternative to the VSS, the VSK-94. I haven't found any information as how the two of them compare, but they seem to have the same effective range.

These seem to be the only truly silent guns used in anything approaching large scale. It surprises no one that none of these have been sold commercially, and they're extremely rare, especially in the West. Not to mention the specialized ammo is similarly restricted. Speaking of which, the SP denomination has still been used for a while but starting from SP-7, they aren't silent, so I dunno why bother using that naming.

There are recent developments to replace the AL and VSS lines. In 2017, the Kalashnikov Concern (seriously, that's the company's name now, cyberpunk as fuck) showed a still-in-development assault rifle, AM-17, whose AMB-17 variant can use the same ammo as the VSK-94, and thus operate silently. More impressive is an unnammed sniper rifle shown in 2018 based on the MTs-116M, a rather redundant weapon, with a wholly separate design history from the rest mentioned here. This new one will use special, new ammo using the SP technique, but with a preposterous .50 caliber round, with an effective range of 700m. That's some serious shit. It's an investment in Russia's current, considerable advantage in sniper warfare, which will be particularly valuable in the coming decades, where the expected typical battle terrain will be urban centers. In one Russian New Generation Warfare Handbook, the suggested engegamenet when faced with a Russian sniper is: don't. "Any enemy marksman in an established position will create a minimum of two casualties per engagement with little to no repercussions", so the longer you take to leg it, the worse.


 No.2849708

>>2847207

Because they made good songs back in the day and it's hard to part with the past.


 No.2850509


 No.2852601

File: c359ce4ae283bb7⋯.png (11.9 MB, 3264x2448, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2847288

Allow me to introduce the khrizantema, capable of easily penetrating over 1000mm of RHA


 No.2852615

>>2852601

I don't know if you noticed but that's a rocket made to be put on armored vehicles, not infantry portable.


 No.2853283

>>2850509

Much obliged. Do you happen to know any specific battles in which Arab/Soviet armies won against 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Jewish🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 foes (most Arab victories that come to mind come trough Algerian war of Independence and Yemen independence war)


 No.2853373

>>2852615

>not infantry portable.

i don't think Yugoposter specified that


 No.2854154

>>2775768

More Abrams were lost to friendly fire incidents, in which 120mm guns firing sabot rounds easily penetrated hull and rear armor on the Abrams causing several cases of injured in action.

oh wow.


 No.2854158

File: ab4f94e1c1df03b⋯.jpg (58.32 KB, 640x342, 320:171, YxaLYJd.jpg)


 No.2854816

>>2778592

There are some good articles on Project Abakan if you'd like: http://master-gun.com/vashe-mnenie/na-puti-k-abakanu


 No.2858782

>>2852615

I mean there is the Kornet missile which IS infantry portable and penetrates roughly 800+mm easily, not to mention the RPG-29 which managed to go clean through the frontal plate of a Challenger II hull (thickest part other than turret front).


 No.2861040

File: 42c898dd99d0b97⋯.jpg (10.02 MB, 10144x6992, 634:437, Kiev class.jpg)


 No.2861231

bumping for interest


 No.2861243

>>2854158

Worst is when modern commercial producers reinvents the concept and presents it as their own innovation


 No.2861380

File: 0cac432b5038e31⋯.png (4.55 MB, 3246x1397, 3246:1397, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 23aeb5b01d88195⋯.png (435.52 KB, 800x589, 800:589, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 28e36ed9f0ccc43⋯.png (429.09 KB, 800x550, 16:11, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2861040

>Battle-carrier

Don't you get me fucking started.


 No.2861395

>>2861380

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits#Aircraft_carriers

>Under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits, but Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ship. In 1936, it was common for battleships to carry observation aircraft. Therefore, aircraft carriers were defined as ships that were "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea." The inclusion of aircraft on any other ship does not classify it as an aircraft carrier.

>To take advantage of this exception, the Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers." These ships were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which form the main armament of the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result was that that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft carrying cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, but at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


 No.2861396

File: 4fc005841b0468e⋯.jpg (10.6 MB, 10144x6992, 634:437, Moskva class b.jpg)


 No.2861456


 No.2862710

a small factbook in defense of the Yak-38: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1195766


 No.2863046

File: a974bea1afe8f79⋯.png (3.35 MB, 2048x1152, 16:9, ClipboardImage.png)

If you're ever wondering why Is(not)rael always cheats in wars, it's because they can't actually fight for shit. Example: Their homegrown "super" gen 2 MBT the Merkava mk I

>The claimed 800mm of armour is really just the engine block

>Actual frontal armour is only 80mm of cast steal, which is weaker than even standard RHS(this is the 1980s mind you)

>Has no stabilizer, something every tank has had since the 1950s

>Top speed is less than 40km/h

>horsepower per tonne is only 16(The IS-3 had 18)

> Main gun can only depress 8 degrees and elevate 21 degrees

>Main gun is the 105mm L7 local variant and due to low quality was prone to warping after only about 30 shots(plus the L7 was already outdated)

>Ammo rack placement was between the fuel and engine

>Turret being at the back of the tank means it cannot turn corners or hull down well.


 No.2863182

>>2863046

Nice deconstruction, got some sources for the sake of argument?

>just the engine block

That's one of the things about the Merkava never understood. I remember reading an interview with a soviet tank designer where he stated basically 'what did you think that we didn't think of an option like that?'

There was a reason this isn't a common system, you hit the engine, your tank is fuckin stuck, All the enemy has to do is hit the engine block from the side if they lack high penetration HEAT warheads and regardless, if the crew bails out they're good as dead on a battle-field.

>IS-3 had 18

…That's just sad, the IS-3 was actually considered UNDER-POWERED so that's retarded.

>only depress 8 degrees and elevate 21 degrees

On that topic I keep hearing the T-72 could only elevate 14 and depress 6 degrees but somehow that doesn't seem right (never seen a source for it) Got any info?

>Ammo rack placement was between the fuel and engine

Even most Western MBTs of the time weren't that poorly planned in terms of ammunition storage.

>Turret being at the back of the tank means it cannot turn corners or hull down well.

Huh, good point, that's really useful info.

IMO the Merkava is an over-armored, over armed APC that carries too few troops to be useful.

BTW Al Jazeera has a good documentary on the Merkava Tank and how the Palestinians fight it.


 No.2863220

File: d8048ae106918dd⋯.png (382.26 KB, 1024x441, 1024:441, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 00abeff12e18f85⋯.png (289.12 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.2863387

File: bb44f5c7b00d404⋯.png (368.88 KB, 600x369, 200:123, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2863182

>got some sources for the sake of argument?

Got most of my info from the '79/80 of Jane's Armour and Artillery, it's this odd military spec compilation that's been around since 1900 with ship specs, and all countries opt into it and give away information on their latest tech since everyone else will do the same. Otherwise I got most of my info from followups to the Lebanon War and probes into how Israel managed to lose so many tanks to T-62s

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84M00044R000200890001-1.pdf

http://www.bits.de/public/articles/cast06-02.htm

http://archive.is/yMse

Some stuff I forgot to add is that the turret design is so bad that even if it bounces a shot with its "spaced armour", the gun will jam due to the impact, and the overall shape of the turret acts as one giant shot trap, that's why they have the chains and balls at the back of the tank. As well, most modern MBTs have ERA and most Israeli tanks do as well, except for the Merkava, and the reason why it doesn't is because the armour on the Merkava is so thin that it can't physically withstand ERA, for if it were to explode(the thing it's supposed to do) the Merkava's armour wouldn't be able to withstand the blast.

>here was a reason this isn't a common system, you hit the engine, your tank is fuckin stuck

Not only that but the Merkava uses gasoline, meaning that if the engine's hit it's gonna catch on fire, good luck saving the crew then.

>That's just sad, the IS-3 was actually considered UNDER-POWERED so that's retarded

Yep, this MBT is 20 tonnes heavier than the IS-3 and has only 50 more horsepower (750-800), and the Soviets phased out heavy tanks because MBTs like the T-55 were faster and cheaper, and here the Israelis just fucking ignore that, even though they faced IS-3s in Egypt. You have to actively try to make a tank as bad as the Merkava.


 No.2864290

File: 61af8ec12cfba87⋯.jpg (333.94 KB, 1280x1003, 1280:1003, 1507670054035.jpg)

>>2863220

>vs-58

>"Oh god anon! Yes, swap out those mags!"

>"Wait, mags are dry? Fuck it! Ram those stripper clips right into my ejection port!"

L-lewd

Got any more?


 No.2864301

>>2864290

Not at the moment, sorry


 No.2864330

Why didnt the soviets Increase the T-35-85's hull armor which offered pathetic protection even against the ubiquitous pak-40?

The Americans increased the Sherman's armor from 51 to 63mm

Why did the T-34-85 and IS-2 have pathetic gun depression(-5 degrees and -3 degrees respectively)despite being very tall, almost as tall as the Sherman?


 No.2864333

>>2863182

>That's just sad, the IS-3 was actually considered UNDER-POWERED so that's retarded.

Well the T-72 and T-90 have 19hp/t so they're not much better


 No.2864337

>>2863387

>shit armor

>60 tons

Wait, what, how? Is it loaded up to its eyeballs with ammo? Did things get better?


 No.2864343

>>2864330

Would slow down production

Americans could afford it

Tanks designed for offense don't need gun depression or high reverse speed, defensive ones do


 No.2864368

>>2864330

>Why didn't increase

They did

>pathetic protection even against the ubiquitous pak-40

Considering that

A) the Pak-40 is a late war gun you're probably thinking about the Pak-38

B) the Pak 40 is derived from the Pak-38 which in turn was derived from an 88mm heavy anti-aircraft cannon. Both were only mounted on heavy tanks.

>Americans increased the Sherman's armor from 51 to 63mm

And that's still less than the equivalent armor of the T-34 because the M4's sloping was far less.

>he T-34-85 and IS-2 have pathetic gun depression

Sources on that?

If you want information on the T-34 and IS-2 I suggest this website: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/03/t-34-85-armour.html


 No.2864384

>>2864368

The Pak 40 was ubiquitous everywhere. It was mounted on stugs, Pz4s, hetzers, marders, etc. If anything, the 50mm guns were much rarer by 1943.

>And that's still less than the equivalent armor of the T-34 because the M4's sloping was far less.

The sherman's sloping was 42 degrees while the T-34's was 45 degrees.

>Sources on that?

Tankograd


 No.2864436

>>2864384

>Pak 40

oh fuck I fucked up my designations, I mixed up the Pak-40 and Pak-36.

However the Pak-40 didn't arrive in large numbers until later into the war, the t-34, meanwhile even in its original form, was immune to 50mm shells from every angle until ate 1941 when thy could be penetrated from behind and the side from VERY close range and with newer anti-armor rounds. The Pak-40 became more common in 1942, but it still lacked the power to take down a KV-1, not to mention that the the T-34's resistance to its shells was practically equal to the T-34s gun range, meaning that to penetrate the T-34 they had to be within range of the T-34's gun.

The T-34's 45mm frontal armor was angled at 60 degrees creating an equivalent of roughly 90 degrees or so of armor thickness

I'll cite you 2 German reports for context on that not being enough:

report from May 1942

"Characteristics of the T34.

The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.

Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible. Hits on the turret ring, even with high-explosive shells or machine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, armor-piercing shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the weld seams. The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells)."

from October 1941:

"For the first time during the campaign in the East, in these battles the absolute superiority of the Russian 26 tons and 52 ton tanks over out Pz.Kpfw.III and IV was felt.

The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open fire with their 7.62 cm gun on our Panzers already at a range of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with high accuracy.

Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can only achieve penetrations under very special favourable conditions at very close range under 50 meters. Our Panzers are already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters. Many times our Panzers Were split open or the complete commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is deficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Russian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.

In addition to the superior weapons effectiveness and stronger armor, the 26 ton Christie tank (T34) is faster, more maneuverable, and the turret traverse mechanism clearly superior. His wide tracks allow wading of fords that can't be crossed by our Panzers. The ground pressure is somewhat better than ours, so that in spite of the larger weight of the Russian tank the same bridges can be crossed as by our Panzers."


 No.2864442

>>2864384

>Tankograd

As in Chelyabinsk or Soviet Armor Blogspot?


 No.2867468

File: a734926c4aeec96⋯.jpg (10.41 MB, 10144x6992, 634:437, Oscar class.jpg)

File: 45c0e3e199a0d28⋯.jpg (57.94 KB, 680x413, 680:413, kursk interior.jpg)

File: 9ad0cf04531b202⋯.jpg (851.53 KB, 4000x1539, 4000:1539, kursk design.jpg)

File: 2fd730a97a5cb52⋯.png (768.6 KB, 940x601, 940:601, Screen-Shot-2018-03-04-at-….png)

soviet submarines were fucking awesome, the Oscar class submarine and it SN-22 sunburn cruise-missile literally makes the US aircraft carrier fleet obsolete.


 No.2871952

File: b7decc998c8c67c⋯.jpg (90.33 KB, 640x480, 4:3, internet pirate hook.jpg)

Anyone have information on KGB tools?


 No.2874870

>>2871952

https://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2017/08/09/27-western-spy-tools-confiscated-by-the-soviet-kgb_819768

I only have this…

I remember seeing a museum display with this marker size lock pic that was essentially a key that adjusted itself as per combinations on the handle.


 No.2875867

File: 48b0962294d9380⋯.png (512.12 KB, 800x399, 800:399, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2871952

There was that one time the KGB stuck a listening device in a wooden seal and gifted it to the US, and the US never found out cause it only ever worked unless an agent pointed a radar gun at it and so every time they sweeped the room the US could never find the device. Also it has the most unoriginal name in the world; "the thing".


 No.2875940

>>2875867

I remember the Theremin bug, a work of art for the espionage world.


 No.2876120

>>2875940

>Theremin bug

The what now?


 No.2876282

>>2874870

I wonder if smartphones make it harder on counterintelligence officers. No longer do you need to hide your sound recorder or camera, it's just an everyday item now to carry around in your pocket.


 No.2876285

>>2876120

This is Theremin bug: >>2875867

As it was constructed by Lev Theremin, the inventor of the theremin instrument (the OoooOOooooOOOooo thingy).


 No.2876505

>>2876120

it's basically a non-electronic passive bug that, as yugo pointed out was nearly undetectable.

Fun fact, the wooden eagle used for the bug was carved by Soviet Pioneers.


 No.2876705

>>2774786

that soldier is a fuckin stud is he a commie


 No.2876856

>>2864330

The Soviet Union by the time the T34-85 was being mass produced was already fast becoming outdated. They would rather keep up the massive production scale than slow output to a design already with a foot out of the door.


 No.2878009

>>2876705

He's a soviet soldier in Afghanistan as the image title says


 No.2878659

Why did the soviets during WW2 produce 3 76mm gun types with identical performance, the ZiS-5, ZiS-3, and F-34 instead of standardizing them to a single universal type for both tanks and AT guns, like the germans did with their 88mm, 50mm and 75mm guns?

Also why didnt the soviets produce heavy 100+mm open top self propelled howitzers like the germans did with the wespe and hummel? This would've made soviet artillery much more mobile. Could the Su-122 and ISU-152 have made rapid indirect fire or were they exclusively direct fire weapons?


 No.2878679

File: 1a682dc36200d47⋯.jpg (51.64 KB, 571x438, 571:438, brummbar-hit-by-ISU-152.jpg)

>>2878659

To answer the second part of your question(s) - Soviet artillery performance was more then capable and mobility wouldn't add much of an advantage (especially considering the sheer amount of towed artillery at Soviet disposal), it certainly didn't help out the Germans all that much all things considered. ISU-122 and it's more well endowed brother ISU-152 were both equally used as indirect fire platforms as they were tank destroyers, and I presume the predecessor, SU-122 would have as well. So in a way Soviets did effectively utilize 100+ mm mobile artillery during the fast shifting front-lines at the end of the war. Pic; semi related, a Brummbar absolutely demolished by a 152mm shell.


 No.2878680

>>2878679

However the ISU-152 and SU-122 since theyre were closed top pieces they were more cramped than the hummel and wespe(and M7 priest) so wouldn't they have had a much lower RoF than them?


 No.2878749

File: ae52b7369a4cdf3⋯.png (8.7 MB, 2560x1920, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 88b60b963db2b7f⋯.png (66.87 KB, 320x184, 40:23, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2878680

They're based on the KV-1 and IS-1 chassis with the turret replaced by a casemate, the thing about tanks is that most weight and space is taken up by the turret and the turret ring, the motor that turns the turret, the ammo compartment that has to be away from the turret etc. So a casemate of any given tank is roomy compared to the original, stuff like the Stug were also casemate and had higher rates of fire than the contemporary Panzer IV F2+, and stuff like the Sturmtiger shows that size is not a restraining factor since being able to load naval shell sized rockets in a tank at all is a feat, even if it too an external crane to do so. For the ISU-152 it was closed top because it was an assault gun with a howitzer loaded into it, it was meant to drive down a street and blow up bunkers at the end of that street and survive, it was an effective SPG because it was equipped with a howitzer, which have high drop rates and so the low elevation wasn't a problem since it could fire over roofs that were less than 500m away, the SU and ISU series were assault guns in the vain of the original Stug with the short 75mm and the Panzer II assault carriage with the 150mm gun. They are essentially mobile infantry guns, not mobile AT guns or otherwise, they were AT the same way the KV-2 was: sheer weight of the shell. As for why they didn't have more SPGs, it's because the Soviets already had "SPG"s in the early 1930s, they were just different in that they were a tank with an artillery gun, but an artillery piece with tracks and a motor, they could be entirely self–propelled at about 4 k/mh, or if attached to a premade engine section, could reach 17km/h, not the fastest, but given the number of guns used, rapid deployment was rarely even practical. Plus the Soviets tried putting some of their artillery in tanks, such as the S-51, and they found out that the tanks would literally blow themselves apart from the recoil because the Soviets used so much god damn primer for their shells.


 No.2878760

File: df894d366c110f7⋯.png (363.73 KB, 700x455, 20:13, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2878749

Forgot to mention that all Soviet assault guns except for maybe the SU-76 and SU-85 and lot were made because of the success of the KV-2 and were just improvements of the designs, the SU and ISU-152 were essentially turretless KV-2s without the gun shortened to fit in the turret, because the turret was useless on the KV-2 anyways because of its weight and size. AKA Soviet assault guns were squat KV-2s that were better armoured, faster, had longer guns, and were made in the hundreds instead of a few dozen. And remember, the KV-2 held off an entire battalion on its own, imagine what an entire wave of improved versions of it would do. Those poor nazies never knew what hit them.


 No.2882590

File: 47164591d255fe6⋯.jpg (233.49 KB, 1417x472, 1417:472, Kuznetsov compartments.jpg)


 No.2887520

File: e041d6e636f2309⋯.gif (69.47 KB, 750x360, 25:12, 1143.gif)


 No.2892963

File: 5b80060d1424f72⋯.png (1.23 MB, 1560x941, 1560:941, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 2ec8837e35327b2⋯.png (167.85 KB, 610x305, 2:1, ClipboardImage.png)

>Be US

>Use prop planes in the Vietnam War

>Lose 60% of air forces in operation rolling thunder

>Vietnamese Migs and Shilkas absolutely destroy the new F-4

>B-52s are too expensive too use more than 12 miles away from the DMZ

>tfw you tell the whole world you lost because the Viet Cong cheated

>tfw you tell the whole world you lost cause of politics back home

>tfw you lost air superiority to a country 1/50th your size

Jesus christ the US was retarded during the Vietnam war, even the trickle feed of weapon imports from the USSR was enough to beat back the entire USAAF and USAN, and Vietnam didn't have the luxury of being able to attack from airbases that were in other countries and therefore couldn't be attacked.


 No.2893351

>>2892963

>>Lose 60% of air forces in operation rolling thunder

Interesting

>>Vietnamese Migs and Shilkas absolutely destroy the new F-4

Kek

>>B-52s are too expensive too use more than 12 miles away from the DMZ

Kek, what?


 No.2893394

>>2892963

>60%

Source plz. Not even the notoriously poor helicopter loss rate is that high.


 No.2893505

This is a Channel 4 Equinox Documentary on the history of development of the NK-33 engines that were originally developed for the Soviet N1 moon rocket. The Atlas V RD-180 generation of rocket engines is now applying this 'closed cycle' or staged combustion principle in order to achieve much greater efficiency. Contains rare footage and interviews with veterans of the early Soviet Space program: including Vasily Mishin and Boris Chertok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM

TL;DW: despite better manufacturing capacities the US were the brainlets and the soviets were miles ahead of them


 No.2893680

>>2892963

>Vietnamese Migs and Shilkas absolutely destroy the new F-4

That was less about the aircraft and more about the missiles. The Soviet-made heat-seekers were agile, fire-and-forget, small enough that several could be carried without adding too much weight. In contrast, the American-made radar-guided AA missiles were huge, heavy, and about as maneuverable as an elephant on a dance floor. Also, they needed targeting radar to illuminate the target throughout their flights, which left American pilots flying very predictable patterns. The missiles were designed to shoot down HVAAs, not fighters. The only advantage that American radar-guided AA missiles had over Soviet heat-seekers was range, so when agile MiGs defeated sluggish AIM-7s, American fighters were at the mercy of the agile and deadly heat-seekers.

Of course, that is not to say that there were not significant differences between the MiG-21s and their counterpart F-4s. The MiG was a purpose-built interceptor, whereas the F-4 was designed to be a carrier-based strike frighter akin to the modern F/A-18. It utterly outperformed the F-4 as an air superority fighter. The Americans did not have anything equal to the MiG until the F-16 was developed after the war.


 No.2894054

>>2892963

Still looking for a source on the 60% claim. The highest I could find when I researched it was 39%.


 No.2894065

>>2893394

>>2893394

A dubious claim, since it was more of a campaign than a usual military operation and lasted three years, and that's not how losses work. Even if they did lose 922 aircraft with South Vietnam being a question mark.

Out of 11,835 helicopters US had serve in Vietnam, 5,607 were lost (47% loss). They also lost 3,744 planes, and 578 UAVs. South Vietnam lost 482 Helictopers, 536 planes, plus 877 aircraft captured after it fell. Australia lost 7 planes, 6 helicopters. 11,837 total, versus 154 lost MiGs by North Vietnam and maybe 1 Chinese. And fuckloads of S-75s. Press F to pay respects.


 No.2894066

Does anybody know what East Germany was producing?

I know early on they mostly used Soviet imports and designs but to my understanding by the 80s they started producing unique equipment.


 No.2894067

>>2894065

95 S-75 systems, 7,658 missiles.


 No.2894998

File: a2ccbf7b674dda8⋯.png (330.65 KB, 450x600, 3:4, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2894066

Their helmet was unique, that's what I know.


 No.2895606

>>2893351

>Kek, what?

Ya the US launched the B-52s from all the way over in Guam or Okinawa because they were afraid of losing any of them if they landed them any closer to Vietnam for some reason, and on top of this they only ever loaded them up with half-fuel load due to not wanting to waste money on the massive amount of fuel a single B-52 used up, AND on top of that wanted to make sure they operated within friendly air radar range, all of these factors meant that the massive strategic bomber that could hit targets half way around the world had an effective combat range less than that of a WW1 biplane cause it cost too damn much. I always giggle at that.

>>2893394

>>2894054

the 60% number is the total of inneffective airfraft due to the rolling thunder campaign, which is pretty high because it was 3 years long. Actual direct combat losses was around 5-9%, meaning only 1 in 20 aircraft was shot down and didn't make it back to base, but around 20-40% was indirect combat losses AKA planes that were damaged but made it back to base but still had to be written off from the damage, this includes aircraft that just folded due to attrition. The real kicker comes from the fact that it's counting both the army and the navy losses. The US navy used some of the worst aircraft ever seen, for most of Rolling Thunder they used the AD-1/AD-2/AD-4/AD-6 Skyraider, which was in fact a late-WW2 design that never made it to see combat but due to Douglas having a contract with the Pentagon, the US was obligated to use the Skyraider in some form until they completely ran out of them, so from '66-'67 the Navy just threw the things at North Vietnam, and took losses from even small arms fire due to being fucking prop planes, AND crashing on landing due to the fact they were too heavy and often fell short of the landing deck on the carriers so the number of Skyraiders lost is is basically all of, even if it's inflated due to the Navy dumping them intentionally. The plane that replaced the Skyraider in '68 was almost as bad, it being the Intruder AKA the jet that went slower than a turbo-prop. This was even worse than the Skyraider due to the fact that the Skyraider had the upside of that being a prop/turbo-prop heat-seekers had trouble locking on to them, but the Intruder was slow, fat, had no offensive armament, AND had a heat signature that rivaled the sun(while operating mostly at night) meant that the average Intruder lifespan was about 7 combat missions, so the numbers for actual losses are very skewed, but it's a jet that could be shot down by a DShK, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how bad it was. Also I have no idea what the figures for RoV were, but it'd be kinda cheating to count them.

>>2894067

Honestly surprised it's ONLY 95 S-75 sites considering the US spent years designing anti-radar missiles specifically to take them out, but then again it's made by the US, fucking up its one job is expected.


 No.2896997

>>2776221

They're still ideal for close to mid range air targets. Also they're extremely effective ground defense systems as well capable of suppressing and killing large groups of infantry and destroying light vehicles.

Most AA batterys aren't machine guns but Auto Cannons that shoot shells as big as your head.


 No.2898881

>>2896997

>shoot shells as big as your head.

not for a long time, most modern AAA is 30mm, with some rare examples of 40mm and 57mm




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / choroy / coz / dempart / fascist / sissy / truebrit / vichan ]