Did the soviet military industrial complex ever design and produce any weapon systems that weren't inferior to their western counterparts?
Actual mass produced and deployed military equipment, not just wacky propaganda pieces like the tsar bomba?
Of any class?
At any time?

>>63968692 (OP)
there were certain periods where the USSR had definite technical superiority in multiple fields, especially metallurgy, but eventually they just started getting left behind really really fast.

>>63968692 (OP)
The AK literally changed the direction of small arms development, cheap, reliable easy to produce at mass scale.

>>63968705
literally no one tried imitating the AK, vastly overrated mediocre design that still lives on only through copying technology its original designers couldn't comprehend

>>63968705
I think you mean StG-44 did.
It always comes down to nazis in the end.

>>63968705
if anything, the kraut gun they took heavy inspiration from did that, the AK has obviously had a very succesful run, but many of it's best features were already present in earlier guns.

>>63968692 (OP)
>nottudissushittoagen.jpg
We only turned the tide in the 1980s with really superior technology
Until then they could have ploughed through Europe even without nukes, and it would have taken great luck and massive loss of life to stop them
The Soviet Big Seven was good enough to use against in-service Western equipment of the time

>>63968692 (OP)
Soviet SAMs were better than their western counterparts at certain times.

>>63968742
I'd say the Soviet high water mark was in the early 70s.

>>63968692 (OP)
tanks were pretty good, if cramped and unergonomic. T-54 was pretty much on par with its contemporaries like M47, M48 and Centurion. there were notable differences like practical rate of fire, ammo capacity, gun depression. optics and tank height but they more or less evened out due to immaturity of new tech and situational usefulness. T-64 had good armor at the time and T-64B's daytime fire control system was very modern. they were a pretty substantial advantage on the soviet side once the whole debacle with their engines got more or less sorted out circa 1973. Had MBT-70 been finished and adopted it'd be a different story but against legacy tanks it compared quite well.

soviet rocketry was also decent at times, although the only moment they got ahead was early in the space race when US weren't taking them seriously and were focusing on improving ICBM designs instead. various soviet copies of western missiles were at times pretty adequate too.

quite notable that all of these things were wholly situated, developed and produced in Ukraine. really makes you think, doesn't it?

>>63968692 (OP)
Their idea of "hey lets design an ATGM to fit the gun barrel vs build a gun to fit the ATGM" was kind of revolutionary which will likely upset some Starship fags.
>>63968705
RPD had arguably way more of an impact in the direction of small arms than the AK did.
Everyone was pretty much coming up with something similar to the AK in terms of concept.

>>63968742
the cold war is over and modern russia is nearly a corpse, you don't need to further this lie anymore, mr CIA.

China is the new big threat to wave at politicians to milk them for those sweet sweet budget funds.

>>63968705
by ak do you mean the cartridge it used?
or do you mean.... what? Because multiple nations were already going in the direction of an intermediate cartridge, nothing in the ak is explicitly unique, just it's ubiquitousness because the soviets made so many.

>>63968766
>Their idea of "hey lets design an ATGM to fit the gun barrel vs build a gun to fit the ATGM" was kind of revolutionary
both are unworkable garbage that were made obsolete at the same time they entered service.

>>63968758
>Soviet SAMs were better than their western counterparts
not really. they were simply much more widely used because soviet aircraft couldn't do jack squat in the air besides ambushing and running away to inflict any kind of attrition.

>>63968773
LAHAT begs to differ.

Early guided missiles? If there was any time the Soviets were ahead its probably the 1970's. But still not much. i am thinking along the lines of the Malyutka and maybe AA.

>>63968780
still pointless, literally just upgrage your tank gun instead. at least SPIKE has NLOS capabilities that might net it a niche while this is simply a waste of time, money, internal space and electronics.

if your tank gun is so shit that you need to rely on ATGMs then why not do away with it entirely and stick to an autocannon with an ATGM strapped to the CROWS on top?

>>63968721
>>63968725
>>63968728
>>63968766
>>63968770

WE'RE GONNA USE FALS AND G3!
We use AK
WE'RE GONNA USE M14!
We use AK
WE'RE GONNA USE AR!
We use AK
WE'RE GONNA USE LESS SHITTY AR
We use AK
WE'RE GONNA USE EVEN LESS SHITTY AR
We use AK

>>63968775
I sspecifically said
>at times
And the reason you state is why the west really did not invest heavily in SAMs.

>>63968787
malyutka was like 8 years behind similar European MCLOS ATGMs from the 1950s and SACLOS malyutka is exactly contemporary to the TOW. nuff said.

hard to say much about soviet TOW counterparts prior to cornet because they hardly saw any use compared to malyutkas while going off of paper stats is a futile delusion for soviet shit.

>>63968692 (OP)
Wasn't the early mig-15, that used the british engine copy, only time when vatnik airframes came close to be comparable with western counterparts?

>>63968758
>I'd say the Soviet high water mark was in the early 70s
Possibly
Just make sure you also take into consideration how common the equipment was.
The Falklands is a good indicator of, for example, actual British SAM capabilities in 1982.
You have Seadart for killing Bear bombers with, Seawolf for killing incoming antiship missiles, and Seaslug and Seacat for praying to.

In the US Navy you have oodles of Tartar and SM1s, but where is USS Ticonderoga? Well, the first AEGIS cruiser is only commissioning in 1983.

In other areas? The Abrams and Bradleys will only be available in large numbers by the mid-80s. The AIM-9L too. Many other examples...

>>63968790
a number of african countries still use Kar98k's, your point?

>>63968796
and you're still wrong
>why the west really did not invest heavily in SAMs
you're retarded.

>>63968790
>WE'RE GONNA USE EVEN LESS SHITTY AR
That's extra funny because the latest AKs are going in the EVEN MORE SHITTY direction.

>>63968790
lol seething

>>63968769
>please stop arming
>we're not a threat
>please believe

>>63968800
no matter how you slice it soviet shit was even worse

naval technology is ten times more so, with the few guided missile ships they had having a dinky command guided short range missile that's incapable of even reaching a bomber at altitude and rate of fire unable to fend off a ww2 plane attack, let alone an actual anti-ship missile. others outright didn't work most of the time. soviet navy was a pathetic larp.

>>63968692 (OP)
Every good Soviet weapon developer just moved to the West to get a fair salary.

Soviet system
>I'm a welfare retard
>Here's your bowl of rice
>I'm a weapon developer
>Here's your bowl of rice

The Capitalist West
>I'm a welfare retard
>okay starve
>I'm a weapon developer
>Here's your beef, wine, beer, sports car, vacation trip, Armani suit, Rolex watch

>>63968790
lol how many rando prototypes that are just AK+junk or HYPER SUPER BURST that were never adopted? Also ar to less shitty are to even less shitty are... you're talking about the states, but then why start with the fal/g3? many nations used those for 30 years, like are you just a soviboo or what

>>63968824
>noooo muh puccia stronk
>here's another GAP we've constructed after numerous others were proven to be wrong, often intentionally so
keep doing what you're doing, you don't have to be feeding into enemy propaganda for that.

>>63968790
>WE'RE GONNA USE FALS AND G3!
>We use AK
At this point the West had already surpassed the Soviets in small arms, from here on the gap just grows larger and larger.

>>63968836
it's not like West wasn't surpassing the soviets when they were using M1 Garands or STG-44s.

AK took a decade to flesh out, so rather than the intial "adoption" date of 1949 it's better to look at the adoption of AKM in 1959 when it stopped being a niche specialty weapon for the soviets.

>>63968692 (OP)
The West pulled ahead in planes fairly early but that gives a mistaken impression. Superiority in things like PGM's and even tanks is a late 80's thing. Most NATO armies were still rocking tanks without even composite armor as their mainline tank going into 1985, these were undoubtedly inferior to many of their Pact counterparts.

>>63968770
>because the soviets made so many.
They also gave the plans to their vassals, which resulteed in AK lookalikes in China and Czechosloovakia alongside actual copies and clones from a dozen or so nations.

>>63968844
>Superiority in things like PGM's and even tanks is a late 80's thing.
having PGMs when your opponent doesn't is superiority

>>63968807
Where are those western cold war SAMs?

>>63968848
There's still a question of availability. NATO had better PGM's by the '80's, but did not produce them in the numbers to make a strategic difference until the mid-late 1980's. The Soviets also had PGMs, they just were never able to produce them in the numbers the West eventually did.

>>63968851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodhound_(missile)?useskin=vector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-3_Nike_Ajax?useskin=vector
I could repost at least 20 more not including Patriot but i don't feel like it. I hope you'll kill yourself now you brainrotten vatnigger retard.

>>63968853
you dojn't know anything you coping loser.

US dropped tens of thousands of PGMs just in Vietnam.

>>63968692 (OP)
>Did the soviet military industrial complex ever design and produce any weapon systems that weren't inferior to their western counterparts?
Soviet rocket engines were very good, and definitely better (in terms of efficiency/thrust) for significant periods of time vs Western equivalents. Arguably up until recently in fact, the Shuttle SSMEs were truly remarkable feats of technology but stupid expensive and hobbled by fucking retarded decisions about everything else in that vehicle. There were decent reasons until SpaceX that Russian (ie, Soviet) rocket engines still played a real role in US launch.

Of course in practice when it came to overall capability, the superior performance of Soviet rocket engines was hobbled by NEEDING that extra performance merely to even vaguely approach parity due to having shittier everything else. Worse, heavier electronics for example. So the extra mass margin would get eaten, and that trend only accelerated since US R&D was more incentivized to be frugal and efficient with mass usage as well as being superior in every other way.

>>63968866
>There were decent reasons until SpaceX that Russian (ie, Soviet) rocket engines still played a real role in US launch.
Because US cut their own domestic programs and started buying russian in another feat of appeasement that only emboldened them to act like niggers?

>>63968847
i mean the chinese one still used a bunch of stuff from the SKS, and the VZ aren't compatiable at all, like *just* the cartridge is, if i recall correctly.

>>63968692 (OP)
>systems that weren't inferior to their western counterparts?
A few. Soviet bridging and river-crossing equipment was generally decent and sometimes exceptionally good, and they did innovate in this field, inventing and fielding the folding float bridges (ribbon bridges) - those were actually later copied in the West. Soviet DUKW copy was improved over the original by having a rear ramp (build quality probably sucked to compensate for that but whatever) and their tracked amphib carriers were quite impressive.

RPD was basically a Minimi 30 years before a Minimi, and Soviet Army went to Hungary with lightweight compact select-fire rifles and LMGs for an intermediate cartridge while the free world lugged around WWII surplus (bolt actions + mag-fed LMGs in many cases, ten-pound self-loaders if lucky).

M46 130 mm guns were the longest ranged field artillery for a couple years and even then only outranged by the 175 mm M107 until the late 70s. In general Soviet conventional and rocket artillery didn't suck and provided adequate performance throughout the Cold War.

Good AT mines and hand grenades, but those are hard to completely fuck up.

>>63968800
Even by the 70s they were markedly behind. They lacked early processors and CNC mills so they were struggling to retain parity, which was primarily done by claiming figures that have long since been disproven since the collapse of the USSR.
They were lying for a long ass time after the 60s to try and pretend they were keeping up with the West but the truth is that after the T-64B, their MBTs were lacking any significant advantage over the West and their airframes, navy and general technology were already behind.
The USSR played itself by claiming retarded specs on its equipment as the West had the ability to supercede it while the Russians couldn't even hope to produce it.

>>63968860
Yes and they were way worse than the ones that they had by the time of the Gulf War you dumb retard. The Soviets had plenty of those as well, so that's not a superiority.

>>63968875
>RPD was basically a Minimi 30 years before a Minimi
no. just no.

>Good AT mines and hand grenades
they are still using steel case mines even today. also, hand grenades without silent fuses are ww2-tier and so are F-1 copies.

>>63968826
You're comparing NATO defensive equipment with Soviet defensive equipment, but what about NATO defensive equipment against Soviet offensive equipment?
It may be suicide for eighty Bears and Badgers to attack a Nimitz CSG, but if they sink it nonetheless?

>>63968876
Even into the early 80's, the Soviets could have relied upon thousands of T-64B, T-80's, and T-72's while most of the NATO nations were mainly fielding tanks with nothing in the way of composite armor and many only just receiving upgrade kits for 2nd gen night-fighting. There is a ten year period or so from 1975-1985 where Soviet tankers enjoy a definite qualitative advantage over all but a few hundred NATO tanks.

>>63968832
You can't pull off your usual bullshit when we're talking about a retrospective look at Soviet equipment whose performance we KNOW now for a fact

>>63968888
Then this board would be inhospitable for a week, from all the American slide threads.

>>63968877
>Yes and they were way worse than the ones that they had by the time of the Gulf War
20ft CEP is not bad by any metric, soviet junk could only dream of such performance.
>The Soviets had plenty of those as well
soviets literally didn't have a single one until the 80s, you coping pidor scum.

choke on your own shit vatnigger shill.

>>63968875
if it was the minimi 30 years before the minimi why was it phased out so quickly, and why are minimis still in usage today? (: i am happy to wait for your reply anon. also why did they go to hungary if it was the *soviet* army? Surely that's just the USSR and not nationalism somehow?

>>63968892
>*this board would be inhospitable for a week, from all the
turdie reflected-glory chest thumping

>>63968888
If they sink it then US would have 15 more the next week while soviets would have exhausted their entire offensive capability on it.

>>63968893
The Soviets begin introducing PGMs in 1975.

>>63968875
M46 was garbage at range though, the shells are as powerful as 122mm ones but the CEP is massive and only good for spooking the unprotected crews of some other field guns at best.

>>63968904
sure, as long as you count bullpup-tier MCLOS piece of shit as """"""PGM""""""

i'm sure soviets copers did back in the day much like you are doing now.

>>63968889
composite armor means jack shit if it's incapable of protecting you from contemporary threats. digital fire control and night fighting capabilities with up to date ammunition are infinitely more valuable than a half assed attempt at up-armoring.

>>63968889
are you saying that crew comfort and action inside the tank is unimportant? because there has never been a soviet, nor russian tank for that matter that isnt' an insufferable shithole inside. Western tank design tanks into account the human aspect of it, holy fuck even china takes more "oh hey there are people inside" than any soviet system did.

>>63968898
The Soviets had a hundred bombers for every carrier NATO had

>>63968920
no they didn't, and it'd take them at least this much to trade with them.

subsonic badgers and the absolutely unusuable blinder were basically nothing to carrier air wings, especially once Phantoms started to be supplanted by Tomcats.

>>63968920
yes, and? are you saying NATO had *less* bombers than the soviets who LITERALLY PAINTED DIFFERENT NUMBERS OVER COPY-PASTED b17s?

what the fuck are you talking about

>>63968913
Composite armor was at least capable of protecting against 1st gen ATGM's and some shaped charges. This is more than can be said about almost any tank NATO was fielding in 1980. We know from wars in the middle east that this could be a major factor, and many Western tanks were still lacking proper digital fire control and night fighting. The M60A3 is still fewer than 800 tanks in 1982.

>>63968935
>no they didn't
Yes they did
Strategic and Army bombers could be added to the maritime strike role as well
> it'd take them at least this much to trade with them
That was what they anticipated, yes

>>63968939
>what if the Soviets are lying or our Intel about their bomber inventory isn't accurate?
You're arguing hypotheticals when we already have the facts because this is a retrospective look at HISTORY
>yes, and?
Try to keep up with the reply chain

>>63968946
1st gen ATGMs aren't a factor because they were all long replaced by the 1980s you are so fixated on. If you are retarded know nothing nigger and meant early ATGMs instead of the MCLOS gen 1 then the armor was still inadequate against anything except tank HEAT shells and shoulder fired recoilless shaped charges which would typically be used against the completely unprotected sides of the tank regardless.

it's literally a meme once your opponents start using better shaped chargets and APFSDS.

>>63968957
>Yes they did
no they didn't you fantasizing nigger. not even if you count all the unusable variants, prototypes and other shit that soviets couldn't use.
>Strategic and Army bombers could be added to the maritime strike role as well
AHAHAHA, no they couldn't, because soviet shit is not interchangeable and air force aircraft cannot be used for naval strike roles without a refit.
>we already have the facts because this is a retrospective look at HISTORY
so far you've spouted nothing but lies and cope, tankie tranny. how about you off yourself like all your sisters do?

>>63968965
>so far you've spouted nothing but lies and cope
>how about you off yourself
The same to you

>>63968973
i've completely disproven any pathetic weaseling trick you tried to pull, vatnigger scum so you don't get to say that.

>>63968844
Ukranians have been pretty positive about leo 1s performance in ukraine. This is a realistic peer to peer war and closest cold war ever got hot outside the first gulf war

>>63968978
>*i've completely made unverifiable claims and thrown a tantrum like a child

>>63968986
>vatnigger uses projection again
>it's not very effective
don't have any more cope about PGMs, pidor?

>>63968985
Leo 1s with greatly upgraded optics and radios
In fact even refurbed Uke tanks are getting modern satcoms and burst encrypted radios; that doesn't prove shit about T-series tanks however

>>63968872
Nta but there wasn't anything to replace the stupid expensive shuttle with until crew dragon came along

>>63968988
That's not me, kiddo
Soviet PGMs were ridiculously inaccurate it's true

>>63968828
You have the wrong impression of the soviet system.

The weapon developer might earn a lada after a 10-year waiting period. Especially if he's more of a party man than a competent worker.

>>63968996
well then, where are the 2500 soviet naval bombers that they supposedly had then?
>inb4 he pulls out total production numbers summed up

i've once made this neat table for fun, the green helicopter carriers are ww2-era carriers that weren't refitted with a catapult and angled flight deck.

>>63968875
>and their tracked amphib carriers were quite impressive
I like how you specifically avoided mentioning actual examples like the BMP. This must be the first time anybody claims anything good about those unergonomic shitboxes with paper armour

>>63969002
>bombers
Add up the Army and Strategic fleets
And no, before you say hurr durr REFITS, they can sling AS6s as well as any other bomber can, all they need is for a Bear to radio them the coordinates to throw at

>graph
Who gives a damn about helicopter carriers? What are they going to do - pull a Hostomel in Murmansk?
It's the fifteen or so fixed wing CATOBAR carriers that are relevant

>>63969003
Not him but anything that is said about the BMP-1 is nearly as bad as the M113 save for the unergonomic troop compartment

>>63968859
Go on, post them faggot.

Patriot in the 80s was S-300 level shit, and all the Britissh systems were dogshit even in the 60s and 70s.

>>63969020
>all they need is for a Bear to radio them the coordinates to throw at
NTA but that setup barely even worked in staged excercises.

>>63969020
>Add up the Army and Strategic fleets
even if you did this doesn't add up. you're talking out of your ass nigger.
>they can sling AS6s as well as any other bomber can
>all they need is for a Bear to radio them the coordinates to throw at
oh this is peak comedy, slinging completely incompatible missile under a bomber with no provisions for even launching it and trying to get it into position via radio.

it's so absolutely stupid that soviets might actually have tried it.

>What are they going to do - pull a Hostomel in Murmansk?
like i said, they could be refitted into catobar carriers or launch Harriers quite easily.

>>63968960
If composite armor isn't a factor and is a meme then why did all of the NATO countries put it on the generation of tanks they were introducing at the time?

>>63969025
M113 is a much more useful and versatile vehicle though, while BMP-1 is a stillborn meme.

>>63969039
because they put enough of it to matter against contemporary threats. it seems vatnigger shills can't even read two posts up reply chain.

>>63969003
I can't speak for BMPs but I can vouch for BTR-60 from personal experience.
They are pretty great as amphibious vehicles. The only problem is that they sink and kill everyone trapped inside.

>>63968851
>>63969027
you're studiously ignoring the Nike systems anon posted aren't you?
there's also Hawk
those could kill Soviet bombers easily, although they wouldn't do so well against low-level fast types

>>63969036
>that setup barely even worked in staged exercises
balanced by 70s-era NATO SAMs not being able to kill anything faster than a bomber

>>63969037
>this is peak comedy
quite, and I'm not going to engage with the comedian any longer

>>63969027
if i post them, will you post a video of yourself eating shit live here?
>and all the Britissh systems were dogshit
they were still decade or more ahead of what soviets had technologically.

Haven't been in on the discussion about the carriers but I'm not sure how relevant is. The Soviets were aware that they were not going to be contesting the high seas from the USN. They were going to have submarines operating in places like the arctic, but the Soviet Navy's mission was to protect the USSR's littoral zone and internal seas (the Black Sea, Sea of Othosk, the Baltic, and the Barents), and for this it would probably have had a fighting chance (though obviously a lot more limited in the Barents). It was not a power projection force like the USN or like what the PLAN hopes to be, it was meant to secure the Marginal Seas near the USSR where they could deny them to the USN and also be supported by land-based assets.

>>63968692 (OP)
Their early war
>pre 1980s howitzers were good or excellent
>aircraft autocannons
>RPGs
>many of their portable ATGM of the 1970s
>the PK family
>automatic grenade launcher.
>Smoothbore field guns and tank guns 100 mm, 115 mmm and 125 mm (if you use it without that autoloader)
>At least good SAM coverage (from MANPADS to S-200), even if in the end their missiles couldn't hit but they're enough to AD against any pre 1970 doctrine..
>BMD-2 (if used properly)
>Alfa-class submarine
>liquid fuel ICBMs and nukes (if not expired)
>Tu-16
>A lot of Antonovs, Mi 8
Many of their aircraft were ok before they were forced to use the bad turbofans of the 1970s-1990s but they never modernized the avionics to be on par, only the MiG-31 got a decent radar pre Su-27, the rest wast stuck in the late 40s to 50s.

>>63969049
>balanced by 70s-era NATO SAMs not being able to kill anything faster than a bomber
NATO SAMs were intercepting supersonic targets back when soviets couldn't even make theirs fly straight.
>quite, and I'm not going to engage with the comedian any longer
the difference is that i'm the comedian but you are the clown because only a clown would insinuate that completely different models of bombers with completely incompatible armament systems from different service branches were meant to be used for the same roles together. and neither did you post any actual numbers and just kept coping about carriers over and over like a slimy weasel. good to know that you understand how full of shit you are enough to try to hide it.

>>63969061
>Their early war
>pre 1980s howitzers were good or excellent
their early war howitzers and until the 1990s, before lighter howitzers became the norm. *

>>63969048
They're also pretty shitty in WARNO, desu

>>63969058
US subs were literally running circles around soviet shit until the mid 80s and they didn't even know it until one fag leaked half of navy's classified info to them.

The only safety soviet vessels had was the willing retreat of US forces to GIUK gap during the 70s.

>>63969058
>The Soviets were aware that they were not going to be contesting the high seas from the USN. They were going to have submarines operating in places like the arctic, but the Soviet Navy's mission was to protect the USSR's littoral zone and internal seas
under the assumptions that they were going to use nukes

if nukes are taken off the table then it becomes imperative that they try to interdict REFORGER

it's also a better use of assets than to leave their maritime strike bombers either attacking NATO buildings in Germany, because the instant the US Navy VFAs realise they're not needed to protect REFORGER, they will be deployed over Germany

>>63968692 (OP)
>RPK
>PKM
>RPG-7
>BM-21 Grad
>SVD
>SA-18 igla

>>63969095
>trash
>decent
>mediocre
>Germans did it better
>trash
>why is it even on the list
you tried/10

beware of chink / vatnik reverse psychology:
>ackshually Soviet equipment sucked balls
>US equipment was way more advanced at all times
>the bomber was false, therefore all gaps were false
>Americans need only have lifted an eyebrow and Soviets would have known everything
>therefore, the vast majority of American military spending back then was MIC corruption
>this is continuing today
>American technology is far ahead of any other military on the planet
>therefore, the vast majority of American military spending today is MIC corruption
>therefore, you need to stop spending on the American military and on weapons
>little China is no harm to anyone, and will never be, no matter how far you disarm
>please disarm

>>63969061
aircraft autocannons that still to this day hit themselves. Why don't you talk about the polystyrene balls they use to make sure they can't fucking eject while just being on the tarmarc for some of their aircraft.

>>63969109
if you're referring to my posts i've already addressed it in >>63968832

>>63969076
I mean the Soviets were going to use nukes, this was never even a question. The Soviets didn't see a boundary between conventional and nuclear war. As for Reforger, I think it's more likely they would have targetted the staging depots for their equipment than the actual personnel flights themselves.

>>63969113
most of the depots were quite well protected so targeting them wasn't as easy as it'd seem

but that anon seems to misunderstand what REFORGER is and how it's supposed to work there.

>>63968692 (OP)
They were ahead in rocketry for ~20 years which was thanks to a Ukrainian and a Latvian.

>>63968692 (OP)
BMP-1 for a few years until the west caught up and started making IFVs after it made APCs obsolete.

>>63969111
You're thinking in the Shipunov autocannon, I'm talking about their dual and rotaring autocannons (Gryazev-Shipunov)

>>63969172
It's incredible how this meme persistsdespite being debunked time and time again.

>>63969111
>. Why don't you talk about the polystyrene balls they use to make sure they can't fucking eject while just being on the tarmarc for some of their aircraft.
Because I didn't mention the Su-24 or problematic weapons dumbass. I've mentioned the problem of their rushed and never fixed designs like that example of the Su-24.

>>63969186
my point was you didn't acknowledge that the host successor of 99% of the ussr's equipment, still has produced the *same* problems that existed 70 years ago. So fuck off anon,

>>63969211
And that never was my point dumbass.

>>63969215
so a criticism of one of your points isn't valid because..... it isn't one of your points?
is USSR equipment just immune to glaring fucking issues like SHOOTING ITSELF because you think it's good?

>>63968692 (OP)
Russia made the best general purpose military van.

>>63969398
My point is >>63969061, a reply to "Did the soviet military industrial complex ever design and produce any weapon systems that weren't inferior to their western counterparts?" I'm sure I added enough nuances related to the problems for weapons I mentioned... shove your "whatabout the boooolls" up your arse.

> SHOOTING ITSELF because you think it's good?
I already replied to that, dumbass.

>>63969434
Nothin good even came out of UAZ

>>63969444
UAZ gave thousands and thousands of russians good cancer. It must be worth something.

>>63968692 (OP)
https://archive.org/details/the-soviet-war-machine-1976

The PKM was better than most GPMGs.

>>63968836
Then we invaded Vietname and thought a lighter spray and pray round was better than punching through jungle brush.

>>63969102
Germany didn't have anything like Grad
Also
>Igla
When igla came out it's the best manpads out there. Stinger is very cumbersome z Mistral isn't meant for shoulder fire and the rest of the western world didnt even try (Starburst, RPB-70 is a fucking beam riding manpads and britsh blowpipe sucked balls)

>>63969579
>Stinger is very cumbersome
lmao

>>63969113
>more likely they would have targetted the staging depots for their equipment
Possible
Then the US Navy would probably land-base its Phantoms and gone after the bombers together with the might of all the other NATO air
If i were the Soviet commander I'd have taken my chances at sea instead of roll the dice; at least carrier sorties are more limited

>>63969120
Reforger included maritime transfer of assets too, mainly reinforcements as it was expected that by the time the convoys reached Europe most of the prewar and POMCUS formations would be dead
Stateside formations include 10th Mountain, 101st Airborne, 24th Infantry for example, and various National Guard units
Their equipment would have to be convoyed over by ship

>>63969579
>Germany didn't have anything like Grad

>>63969049
>ignoring the Nike systems
>there's also Hawk
>70s-era NATO SAMs not being able to kill anything faster than a bomber
Exactly my point.
I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out that these systems were not better than their Soviet counterparts, and in practice were inferior because most Soviet systems were at least somewhat mobile.
And the Soviets could at least threaten fighter-sized targets even if they were supersonic.

Iron Hand and later Wild Weasel came into being for a reason

>>63968742
>Until then they could have ploughed through Europe even without nukes, and it would have taken great luck and massive loss of life to stop them

>citation needed

>>63969705
>I'm pointing out that these systems were not better than their Soviet counterparts, and in practice were inferior
>And the Soviets could at least threaten fighter-sized targets
the sheer delusion

>>63969705
>Iron Hand and later Wild Weasel came into being for a reason
the reason being continuous air superiority over enemy air assets

>>63968770
>multiple nations were already going in the direction of an intermediate cartridge
And then got stuck with a full power cartridge because of NATO standardization and American retardation. There's not really much point talking about what could have been. If it wasn't for the AK it's likely we would had been stuck with full power catridges forever.

>>63968692 (OP)
This thing was the best field gun in the world though most of the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. It outranged American artillery in Vietnam, everything except a small number of 203mm-class guns.

Others include the AK-47, RPG, SA-7 Igla/Grail, mortars, Hind gunship, and the BMP, which was the first IFV. Sagger was the first widespread/combat-tested ATGM, for all its faults. Soviet tanks in the 70's (T-64, T-72) were generally reckoned as good or better than their NATO counterparts in the 1970's. Their air transports and helos such as Hip were as reliable as anything the West used.

Some of that you can split hairs on, but the Soviets could often be very innovative in design. Where they fell down hard on was actual manufacturing standards and maintenance. They built their gear tough because they knew once in the field, Private Conscriptovitch was going to treat it like hell...One reason Soviet gear is so popular in the 3rd World.

Latter on, in the 70's and going into the 80's and 90's, the Western edge in electronics began making a real difference.

>>63969709
Basic military history. Tank spam was the ultimate tactic in land war before computer chips were applied to technology. Tac nukes were a bad cope.

>>63969756
>If it wasn't for the AK it's likely we would had been stuck with full power catridges forever.
nobody copied the AK and soviets stole the SCHV concept from Americans, much like bunkertroons like you try to steal credit for modern assault rifles today

>>63969713
They did that over Vietnam with SA-2s, and they made their systems mobile from SA-3 on.

>>63969720
It was actually the need to suppress and destroy the Soviet SAMs in order to dominate the air.

>>63969758
literally all of what you described is inferior garbage jerked over by underage shitskings drooling over paper stats
>Soviets could often be very innovative in design
yeah, when they were copying the British, the Americans or the French

>>63969770
>It was actually the need to suppress and destroy the Soviet SAMs
soviet planes were too shit to defend their own airspace which is why their sams were pressured

>>63969709
NATO war plans explicitly called for the use of tactical nukes to break up Soviet/WP formations in most scenarios, for most of the Cold War, precisely because NATO could not match the massive numbers the Reds would bring to the field. You can't fight force-on-force with comparable equipment but unequal numbers forever, not unless you're damn lucky.

NATO and the Americans would have fought hard, but most wargames showed them getting ground up conventionally in days or weeks. It didn't start changing until the 80's with much better sensors and smart weapons and the Reagan buildup, along with a plan for a "flexible response"...and it would still have been ugly.

>>63969770
>They did that over Vietnam with SA-2s
how does this make them more mobile than Nike?
>and they made their systems mobile from SA-3 on.
guess what, NATO had smaller mobile SAMs too. you just never hear about them because next to no soviet shitplane ever managed to get close enough to put them into practice.

>>63969770
>>63969705
>these systems were not better than their Soviet counterparts, and in practice were inferior because most Soviet systems were at least somewhat mobile.
Hawk was in practice more mobile than Soviet systems which had longer setup and packing/unpacking times
> the Soviets could at least threaten fighter-sized targets even if they were supersonic
so could Nike and Hawk, it's just that by NATO standards, they weren't reliable for the role
you have to understand that the Soviet and Russian claims of "X can do Y" =/= NATO claims of "X can do Y" because of very real differences in operational reliability, Pk, and so on
Nike and Hawk for example could also intercept ballistic missiles. Zeus had in fact intercepted itself. but they weren't really billed as such.
>Iron Hand and later Wild Weasel came into being for a reason
yeah, because the sheer masses of missiles and AAA the Soviets could fling into the sky would eventually bring down more US aircraft than the public was comfortable losing

>>63969709
>citation needed
the US Army created AirLand Battle because they thought Active Defense was too much a roll of the dice
also, bear in mind that NATO Europe forces might not be as heavily upgraded or as operationally ready as American forces

>>63969790
>precisely because NATO could not match the massive numbers the Reds would bring to the field
weird way to call soviet nukes they would be using on day one
>You can't fight force-on-force with comparable equipment but unequal numbers forever
good thing soviets didn't have a numbers advantage without relying on their slaves-allies from the pact
>ut most wargames showed them getting ground up conventionally in days or weeks
you niggers should've learned by now

>>63969771
Sure, they copied (or stole) a lot, but they also had their own ideas. I'd say generally that the more "basic" a weapon system was ( a gun, a tube, a tank, etc) , the better & more original they were.

Higher-end platforms (aircraft, ship systems, missiles, sensors, etc) is where they started copying homework when and where they could more. But even then, they'd put their own twist on it.

>>63969818
>but they also had their own ideas
those were the really shit ones

also, posting a German plane with a British engine next to the sabre is the worst example you could choose

>>63968721
>>63969765
OP didn't ask whether there were any systems that the West made copies of you butthurt goalpost-moving retard.

>>63969837
you keep pretending AK was somehow influential with absolutely nothing to show for it

we've already established it was absolutely nothing compared to western guns of the time.

how about you load a mag in it and try to blow your brains out with it, if you even own guns? you have 30 attempts, and you're gonna need them.

>>63969436
Where is the nuance it's just a list and then a cope about their aircraft. If you're talking about the tank guns.... what the fuck how do you miss out the tanks being utter garbage. & for the bmd-2 "if used properly" that's again a huge red flag, and liquid fuel "If not expired" that can be said for literally any balistic modern weapon, just abit you're a fucking vatnigger.

the bottom line of this thread from all the posts is that soviet shit is great if you ignore all of its faults and deficiencies and also ignore all the western contemporaries it had at the time. then soviet gear is truly the best, no matter what it is.

>inb4 this continues until the thread hits the bump limit

>>63968721
>literally no one tried imitating the AK
Come on now, what about the Valmet, Galil, FNC, K2, I'd argue the SG550 counts, and there's probably more. These have all borrowed some design features of the AK.

>>63969756 i was gonna reply in good faith but after reading "if it wasn't for the ak it's likely we would had been stuck with full power catridges forever" proves you're a thirdy, or retarded, because there were INTERMEDIATES BEFORE THE AK. if there was no USSR there wouldn't have been nato standardization either, you fucking thirdy.

>>63969879
>Valmet
forced onto the Finns
>Galil
used a better round
>FNC
not even slightly an ak
>K2
ditto
>SG550
used a better round

so basically until Americans invented SCHV ak stayed where it belonged - in the garbage dumpster that are conscript armies of the east

>These have all borrowed some design features of the AK.
AK doesn't have a single original feature in its entire design so it doesn't mean anything.

>>63968721
>literally no one tried imitating the AK,
Galil, Vektor R4, RK62 and RK95, the SG5XX series of rifles is similar in mechanism too. So not only are you being a faggot and screeching about shit unrelated to the thread but you're also straight up fucking wrong

>>63969909
refer to >>63969901 and suck my balls AK tranny

>>63969790
>Team Yankee
Time to shamelessly shill for that comic adaptation that David Drake wrote!

>>63969909
oh shit, the AK just straight up uses the M1 garand bolt, that means that the AK has to suck garands dick into eternity.

>>63969398
>is USSR equipment just immune to glaring fucking issues like SHOOTING ITSELF because you think it's good?
Are you talking about the wobbly Ka-52 with the flexing Shipunov autocannon? The only soviet aircraft that could damage itself while in flght that I can think of is the MiG-27 with the pants on head retard 6000 ROF but that was from the vibrations of firing, it could not physically hit itself unless you count flying low enought that you get splashed by your own shell fragments.

>>63969997
the vibrations also disassembled the aircraft mid flight piece by piece

>>63969890
It's pretty simple. No competition means no innovation. Full power cartridges would had been good enough and there would had been no need to change.

>>63970019
are you insinuating that there would be world peace if not for russia's existence here?

>>63969997
can confirm my dad flew those and apparently the floor panel came off once after firing

>>63968692 (OP)
PKM is still the best GPMG out there. It has no compromises from being so light yet nobody else can manage the same. The only downside is the non-disintegrating links but that's more of a personal preference thing.

>>63970040
the barrel change is ass and the non disintegrating belt is hot garbage

it's also less steady, accurate and durable than MAG

it's only really notable for being light

>>63970014
>>63970022
How hard would it be to just cut the rate of fire from 4000-6000 down to 2000-3000? The moment the soviet would have done that they would instantly have improved the flight safety record and improved service life. It makes sense for a really high rate of fire when shooting at aircraft since you would only have a second or so when they are infront of you so you need as much firepower per burst as possible in a dogfight. But against ground targets? 6000 rounds to strafe trucks and other soft shit?
The A-10 get's away with since it was built for it and it does not kill itself mid air everytime it fires.

>>63969790
>It didn't start changing until the 80's with much better sensors and smart weapons and the Reagan buildup
There's an interesting 1976 training film that's kind of a good example of this. Some entertaining examples of soon to be obsolete advances in tank gunnery standards as well as everyone still being clearly spooked by the Yom Kippur war ("IT'S A SAAAAAAGGEEEEEER!"). It's still pretty candid that at the time US Ground forces only had a very marginal tech advantage over the Soviets (more SACLOS ATGMs and slightly better tank FCS), and that the newer Soviet stuff was still massively deadly while being available to them in much greater numerical quantities. With the proposed solution to all that being somewhat worringly amounting to "git gud at combined arms".
https://youtu.be/G7phKrXY8Ik?si=e28MxMETEnzk6uNv
It's a pretty interesting contrast to the confidence you'd see in the following decade that new technology gave NATO ground forces some concrete qualitative advantages they could leverage against the Soviets. Though it increases my confusion as to what the hell the Reformers were smoking at the time.

>>63970101
>But against ground targets?
a high ROF is still needed for two reasons: 1stly, the aircraft will still be flying fast enough that shot density might result in ground targets escaping damage, and 2ndly because the aircraft is still flying fast enough that the pilot has only brief seconds to strafe before he must pull up or risk ploughing into the ground
>How hard would it be
the Soviet motto is MOAR DAKKA, so less of that treasonous talk, comrade, do you want to end up in Siberia?
WAAUGH, comrade, WAAUGH

>>63970127
>what the hell the Reformers were smoking at the time
their own dicks, mainly
Sprey for example never stopped trying to portray himself as a military insider

>>63968872
>Because US cut their own domestic programs and started buying russian in another feat of appeasement that only emboldened them to act like niggers?
No? We used them long before the end of the shuttle, and simultaneously with other fully domestic rockets like Delta, and during a period long before they began their most recent chimpout when it certainly appeared we'd won (and before we began the absolute fucking retardation that was the GWOT which also emboldened the shit out of shitheads the world over). It's because they had good engines. We didn't use their rockets, we only bought the engines, but the RD-180 was a solid performer.

Most stuff the Russians do is a fucking joke but they managed to keep up with an ok rocket industry (thanks to generous US subsidies) for longer before their soviet lostech all rotted. In defense of the US, we did successfully bridge the soviet retirement gap and help ensure a lot of skilled rocket people either came to work for the west or stayed working in Russia vs fanning out across the globe. From "slow down everyone else's possible ICBM programs" it probably wasn't a bad call and the expense was relatively low.

>>63970127
The Reformers attitude of being skeptical of whether a few potentially unreliable technological toys could win out against cheaper and more numerous weapons is a good attitude to have. How many projects have we seen end in tears because of untested technology being pushed too hard and too fast? They just took it way too far since there's always a point at which new technology becomes as cheap and reliable as the technology that preceded it, and modern technology now allows for a small edge in quality to beat out a large edge in numbers. Also Pierre Sprey was indeed completely insane.

>>63968872
>feat of appeasement
the US success in Marshal Planning Germany and Japan that one time they won the world war and became a true superpower addicted them to the doctrine; ever since then they've always repeated it and refuse to understand why it doesn't always work

>>63970182
I mean it'd be one thing if the Reformers were just taking healthy skepticism of emerging technology way too far. But it also feels like they were conspiciously ignoring the sheer scale of the conventional material advantage the Warsaw Pact had over NATO. You can say mass producing loads of cheap "rugged" weapons is the key to victory, but what's the actual plan to use that to win (or deter or manage a draw) against the Soviets when they got that shtick down so well already? The reformers seemed pretty mum about arguing for going total war economy in order to manage conventional parity with the Soviets on a numerical basis.

>>63969997
the dual autocannons on hinds have hit themselves, again due to rof / "wobble" the ka-52 was notable because it was caught in modern cameras really.
the mig-27 is the big example, where you were only supposed to do a tiny burst, and yet saying "it could not physically hit iself *unless* is retarded, because it did hit itself. I'm not talking about flying low, i mean that hte gun firing caused so much vibration it would hit itself. That's an issue that should have been ironed away extremely quickly, but no it's just accepted as "ussr" quirk bullshit. Again, there's no defense for this sort of shitty equipment.

>>63970019
So the chinese wouldn't have pushed development? Why do you assume full power cartridges would have been the norm, when there was a push to have smaller arms for crew / non infantry? You have a fundemental misunderstanding of weapons in the west if you think that.

Oh yeah, and the fact that THERE WERE INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGES IN THE WEST ANYWAY.

Fuck off you zigger shill.

>>63970291
>The reformers seemed pretty mum about arguing for going total war economy in order to manage conventional parity with the Soviets
because the Reformers were stupid, but even they were not so stupid as to go "just spend more duh"

>>63970291
they were also ignoring their total ignorance of the emerging technology. They assumed that any stealth was going to be a total failure, when even at that point people knew that not to be the case. Reformers a shit. total sprey death, dude was a fucking lying p.o.s.

>>63970318
>but even they were not so stupid as to go "just spend more duh"
That's kind of the strategy you're logically left with in that context if you value mass production above all else. That, or go for the armies age old back up plan of tactical nuke spam.

Though I think that runs into the dirty secret that the Reformers mainly appealed to (and were championed by) people who were primarily interested in defense spending cuts, not folks interested in conventional defense strategy against the Soviets. That crowd was sold as soon as they heard "cheap" in cheap weapons, and was largely unconcrmed with how much cheap stuff you'd actually need to deal with the soviets.

>>63970365
>They assumed that any stealth was going to be a total failure
Which is kind of funny since one of their original core tenants was that BVR air combat was going to be impossible because radar guided missiles would be too unreliable. Logically their problem with stealth shouldn't have been that it wouldn't work, but that it'd be redundant. But I suppose that's professional contrarians for you.

>>63970291
>The reformers seemed pretty mum about arguing for going total war economy
Really? I pretty sure that was one of the cornerstones of their argument. The entire intention was to set up systems suitable for a war economy. The whole thing just doesn't make any sense without it. Even today people say that our weapon systems are not suitable for mass production (putting aside whether nowadays it even makes sense for that in the context of a modern war which can be won quickly). After all, the Soviet Union didn't have an inherent advantage in terms of numbers. America would win in a war of numbers if it chose to go down that route.

>>63969901
IDK man I think you're shifting goal posts. Especially with the used a better round part. It's like your criteria of "no one tried imitating the AK" is for western countries to have made a 1:1 copy of it.

Even by that logic, you could cite literally every non USSR country who produced their own AKs (E. Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Egypt, China, etc etc).

>>63970445
>Really? I pretty sure that was one of the cornerstones of their argument.
You would think. But in practice the political figures actually buddying up with the reformers and giving them time in congress tended to be major advocates of reversing the Carter and Reagan defense spending increases. The people in favor of the budget increases tended to side with the Pentagon on the high tech weapon systems.
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/23/us/the-speech-gary-hart-let-us-choose-a-new-path.html
>We need to replace our reliance on nuclear arms with a conventional military that can deter the battles of the future, not one that can replay World War II.
>That's why I have pioneered the military reform movement, to rebuild our conventional forces. We need more simple, reliable and affordable weapons - not more $2 billion supercarriers. We need new strategies based on out-thinking our possible opponents, not just overpowering them.
>My military reform proposals can accomplish this - can give us a more effective military - while cutting the Reagan defense budget by more than $100 billion over the next five years.

>>63968692 (OP)
>ever design and produce any weapon systems that weren't inferior to their western counterparts
Yes.

>>63970296
>the dual autocannons on hinds have hit themselves
But how? I remember reading that they specifically made the barrels for the dual 30mm gun side mounted on the hinds 1 meter longer and also added clamps that would keep the barrel steady, it is long enough that it protudes past the aircraft skin. And if it is the variants with the dual 23mm instead of the 12.7mm minigun mount then I cant really think of a situation of it striking itself since it is mounted in a way where it cant really hit itself unlike the KA-52 since it is so far forward.


> i mean that hte gun firing caused so much vibration it would hit itself
Well, then again if it has such recoil that parts inside the cockpit falls off then it should be plausible then the gun mount will flex enough that it could strikes itself. But then again I have not read anything about the MiG-27 gun striking itself, only it vibrates hard enough it dissasembles itself mid air and the 30mm HE round have enough fragmentation effect that it could damage itself if it flew low enough (200 meters or something).

>>63968828
The Capitalist West
>I’m a weapon developer
>Can you buy a production machine shop outright? No? Then fuck you, you stupid fucking retard. Enjoy designing legally distinct Great Value(tm) versions of already made innovations because the patent holder won’t do shit with it for some god forsaken reason. Your salary will be 60k/yr.

>>63968790
Bow and arrow confirmed to be the best ranged weapons there is. They have been in active use for at least 9000 years straight.

>>63970707
Ka-52 gun placement is shit compared to the hind when it comes to safety for the heli.

RPG-7 mogs hard

>>63970673
At the end of the day it's still an argument about which path produces a stronger military. This doesn't sound anything like an argument for budget cuts to me (more like a pivot away from nuclear), regardless of who his political allies were. Sure, you can argue that if you have less of a budget than the Soviet Union then you can't hope to win on numbers and have to desperately gamble on technology no matter how bad you think the odds are.

>>63970778
>This doesn't sound anything like an argument for budget cuts to me
Wut?
>My military reform proposals can accomplish this - can give us a more effective military - while cutting the Reagan defense budget by more than $100 billion over the next five years.
>cutting the Reagan defense budget by more than $100 billion

what about the p-700 vs harpoon

>>63968721
>literally no one tried imitating the AK
Did you just blow in from stupidville

Why were the Soviets so good at theoretical physics, mathematics, and engineering but suck the fattest dick ever at actual applied engineering? A non-trivial amount of our glownigger black projects started out as Soviet research. All the cool Soviet stuff seems to be exclusive to nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

>>63970849
They had a good education system.
But once you're out of school it's all just corruption from Kaliningrad to Cape Dezhnyov.

>>63970832
He's advocating his path here, not advocating budget cuts. No doubt the technologists were saying the same thing, because they are in fact using the same argument - if you [rely on technology/ rely on numbers] it's more bang for the buck. It's like if someone tells you he has a car with better mileage. There's only two ways to explain it and that is to either say you can spend less on gas or you can go further with the same amount of gas.

>>63970875
Then how did Sakharov, Zel'dovich, Vesalago, Ufimtsev etc. get to do actual physics? Nepotism actually work for once?
>You are Hero of Soviet Union, just give him position so he not cause trouble
And how in the fuck is the KGB so shitty at defense related information security? Probably nepotism, lol.

>>63970942
>Cutting 100 billion from the defense budget is not a budget cut
You're either a bot, or the platonic example of how effective obfuscating political smokescreens like this can be. Or a retard.

>>63970778
I would be all for defense spending if some of it trickled down to consumer applications like it did post WWII. The only consumer applications of military technology I can think of now is the Internet, GPS, Lasik eye surgery, and EUV lithography (thanks, SDI).

>>63970976
idk I'm not an expert on this or anything.

But the trick is staying in school, ie. academia.
You're mostly left alone to do your pointless research thing in peace and if something like nuclear physics happens to be that thing, then you might get to apply your knowledge in a relatively productive setting if the party decides they need nuclear bombs.

>>63970849
>Why were the Soviets so good at theoretical physics, mathematics, and engineering but suck the fattest dick ever at actual applied engineering?
I dunno, the bureaucracy? Education in communist systems was actually ruthlessly competitive, because that's the main ticket to social mobility, rather than making a lot of money. There's somewhat of an overlap between schooling and making a lot of money in capitalist countries (like studying accounting or finance), but either way, you weren't starting your own business, you had a job assigned to you after graduating. You went to some big state-run rocket institute rather than going into a start-up.

>>63969877
Basically.

Soviet nukes would've taken away a lot of capability from the US but id argue it would've hurt the Russian more. Massed formations and depots were a Soviet thing so if nukes are flying the dispersed survivors in NATO equipment+ training likely would've wiped the floor with whatever the soviets could push up to the front.

I think there's a big detach in thinking that Soviet nukes would've destroyed our stockpiles yet ours wouldn't do the same for their massed formations.

>>63970993
He's just saying what a better military would allow to happen.
If you think about it, if your concern is being able to churn out more war machines in a war economy, it doesn't really matter. Much like how a country that relies on fast mass mobilization doesn't need a large standing army.

You claimed he was
>mum about arguing for going total war economy in order to manage conventional parity with the Soviets on a numerical basis.
but this is clearly a speech for a peacetime budget. The way you put it made it sound like he wasn't advocating for a total war economy in the middle of a hot war.

>>63969877
The thread's just vague shitflinging.
Nobody knowledgeable is posting well thought-out comparisons and analyses of both sides.
Just presenting a one-sided view which is then countered by another anon with the opposite view.

Basically
>>x was good
>no x was shit
Repeat ad nauseam

>>63971079
You're replying to a low effort shitpost. If he really thought the thread produced a clear conclusion he wouldn't had felt the need to explain to everybody what the conclusion was.

>>63971011
Milovan Djilas (a high-ranking communist official in Yugoslavia who turned against it) described a contradictory attitude towards scientific development in communist regimes. On the one hand, communist regimes identified with scientific progress™ as emerging from the Enlightenment. These were atheist states that believed in Darwin and Newton. The whole idea behind Marxism-Leninism is that it's a science (or supposed to be). But once it got into anything like politics, sociology, philosophy, economics, etc. it became very ideological.

You know how BioShock created a fictional underwater city based on the works of Ayn Rand? This is a nerd vidya reference but Atomic Heart is a lot like how communists imagined themselves in the 1950s:
https://youtu.be/RdsKoWUNcIk

They were also extremely pro-industrial which necessarily required the training of a technical intelligentsia. HOWEVER they didn't want the engineers to form their own social class, because that's dangerous. Also there was a total monopoly on thought, which meant every new idea was dangerous too. So this was a system that stimulated technical progress and provided a lot of resources and training for it, but also hindered every research activity where people thought freely (which is necessary for applied engineering). This sounds contradictory, because it is. It was a system based on a single philosophy, which by definition made it hostile to new discoveries as that could threaten the hegemony of the philosophy, even though it claimed to be scientific.

>>63971061
>He's just saying what a better military would allow to happen.
Yes. Like 100 billion in defense spending cuts. Which you are going through somewhat surreal levels of mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging was what he was explicitly arguing for. I can't tell if this is embarrassment over your profoundly bad reading comprehension skill level, or if it's simply a matter of programming. Cause it's kind of strange for a random poster on /k/ of all places to start immediately stanning for a reformer who was also an anti-nuclear Democrat Senator.

>>63971152
You're the one who is disingeniously implying he didn't want a total war economy (in war time by implication, because anything else would be insane). What has this speech got to do with that? Or are you really going to imply that it makes any sense (even for the Reformer path) to shift to a total war economy in the middle of a cold war?

>>63968798
Don't forget the fuckhuge wing fences, to keep the airflow from defecting off the wingtips to freedom.

>>63971264
>fuckhuge wing fences
Check these babies out

>>63968798
They had good engines during the 1950s, comparable to western engines. Improved casting created the engine gap after the mid 1960s.

>>63971196
>You're the one who is disingeniously implying he didn't want a total war economy
No. I'm implying he wanted billions in defense spending cuts. But that he didn't want to look like he was weak on defense while doing so. So it was convenient to find back alley "experts" who could make the snake oil salesman argument that you could make the military stronger while slashing the budget and building simple weapons. Whether this would actually work against the Soviets (who were building simple weapons...on a gargantuan defense budget) likely had very little to do with anything.

It's why the training video from 1976 that I posted previously is kinda relevant. It's US troops with simple Reformer friendly kit (i.e. mostly par with the more numerous soviet equipment), and the general consensus is "hold onto your butts and get good".
>>63970127

>>63971391
Are you going to pretend this isn't you? >>63970291
>The reformers seemed pretty mum about arguing for going total war economy in order to manage conventional parity with the Soviets on a numerical basis.
It's pretty bad form to pretend you're someone else when you're shifting goalposts like this you know.

>>63968692 (OP)
MT-LB

>>63971435
Sure. It's me. How is that a goal post shift though? The Reformers advocated for building a lot of simple mass produced weapons, but generally skirted around just how much simple mass produced shit you'd need to get parity with the Soviets (who basically on semi-wartime level defense spending levels for most of the Cold War) . At the very least the guys championing the Reformers in Congress certainly were sidestepping the issue. Including your personal hero, Senator Gary "never argued for 100 billion in defense cuts" Hart. Is that last point the hill you're still planning to die on anon?

>>63968692 (OP)
ur gay

>>63971524
You argued that he didn't argue for a total war economy (during war, implied) when in fact that's one of the central tenets of the Reformer's creeds. And your evidence is that he advocated for a spending cut during peace time. Which obviously has nothing to do with your argument at all. And in fact makes perfect sense in the context of a weapon system that can be spun up and massed produced in a total war economy.

>>63968692 (OP)
the RPD is a great piece of kit
soviet mortars are excellent without exception, the self-propelled ones were all much better than contemporary western ones

>>63971580
>You argued that he didn't argue for a total war economy (during war, implied)
Okay. So you take umbrage at something I didn't actually assert (that Senator Gary Hart would argue against more defense spending in the event of literal WW3), but vaguely feel I implied. But when Gary Hart explicitly argues for 100 billion dollars in defense spending cuts, you don't feel he was "really" arguing for 100 billion dollars in defense cuts. Is that about the sum of it?

>>63971618
Let's get this straight, your evidence for
>The reformers seemed pretty mum about arguing for going total war economy in order to manage conventional parity with the Soviets on a numerical basis.
Are politician(s) supporting them as a reason for defense cuts? What has this got to do with a total war situation? This is in defiance of the fact that one of the foundations of the Reformer's arguments being a total war economy.

>>63971604
>soviet mortars are excellent without exception,
Only if you ignore they're as heavy as a field gun of the Second World War.

>>63971604
Surely you mean the PKM. I love the RPD but it is a finicky WWII gun. I really wish the commies had made a proper SAW, first in 7.62x39, then inevitably in 5.45 but the RPD really can't deliver the goods, as neat as it is.

>>63968790
WE'RE GONNA USE M14, FALS AND G3!
We use AK
>Western choice was better at this point.
WE'RE GONNA USE AR!
We use AKM
>Western choice was better at this point.
WE'RE GONNA USE LESS SHITTY AR, FAMAS, AUG
We use AK74
>Western choice was better at this point
WE'RE GONNA USE EVEN LESS SHITTY AR, AUG, G36, L85
We use AK
>Western choice was better at this point.
Where was he going with this?

>>63971697
>>63971697
>I really wish the commies had made a proper SAW, first in 7.62x39
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAD_machine_gun
Not 7.62x39 but 7.62x25. Close_Enough.jpg.

>>63971719
>Arguing that battle rifles are a better choice than even an average assault rifle
lol, lmao

>>63969027
There Wikipedia pages for it you retard lol:
27 US Cold War SAMs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_surface-to-air_missiles_of_the_United_States
15 Cold War USSR SAMS:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Surface-to-air_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union

>>63969027
>and all the Britissh systems were dogshit even in the 60s and 70s.
The Bloodhound had a range of 52km (Mk1) and 190km (Mk2). Meanwhile the Soviet equiv (S-25 Berkut) had a range of 32km-40km. It was replaced by the S-300. With only the S-300PMU2 and S-300VM having a larger range than the Mk2 Bloodhound. With the PMU2 introduced in 1997, six years after the Bloodhound was retired. So you managed to catch up to the Bongs six years after they retired their system.

>>63971734
They are, and only manlets or people whose knowledge about one or both of them is second-hand disagree. The only thing assault rifles are better for is assaulting, and even then only after the point of break in, unsurprisingly.

A single line of assault rifle mythology has been regurgitated so many times in so many books that it's received wisdom at this point. SCHV assault rifles were never better at any range than battle rifles, just easier to use on full auto. Why do you think that McNamara's Morons in Vietnam bailed off battle rifles onto M16s, but Australians in the same environment stayed using FALs until 1989, and did far better in infantry engagements for the entirity of the Vietnam War against the same enemies despite this supposed disadvantage?

There are some assault rifles that are better than some battle rifles, and battle rifles that are better than some assault rifles, but the idea that assault rifles are a straight upgrade, like a +1 to infantry, and always better than battle rifles is an absolute load of horseshit.

>>63971692
>Are politician(s) supporting them as a reason for defense cuts?
If those are the politicians actually giving them speaking time in congressional committees? Then yes. It undermines the Reformers (already amazingly questionable) credibility to be nominally all about mass production stronk while buddying up with political leaders advocating for defense cuts. Particularly at a time when the Warsaw Pact had a 3-1 advantage over NATO in armored fighting vehicles. Especially when most of those Western AFVs didn't have much of a technological edge over what the Soviets had (if anything without the techno crap the Reformers hated they were outright outclassed by the newer Soviet MBTs like the T-64/72).

Though to clarify. Senator Gary Hart *was* arguing for defense spending cuts?

>>63971762
Oh my god, an actual battle rifle believer. Incredible. How come you never appear in the NGSW threads?

>>63971775
>an actual battle rifle believer
Probably not in the way you mean.
>How come you never appear in NGSW threads?
Because no one is interested in a conversation there. They've already made their minds up, and are convinced they know everything there is to know. I do post about machineguns there and elsewhere sometimes.

>>63971774
None of that has anything to do with going into total war.

>>63971762
No one ever said that they're a straight upgrade in every situation. They have obvious advantages. But assault rifles are still obviously the better small arms choice for any army, except possibly one that completely lacks GMPGs. You've constructed a strawman just so that you can argue that anybody would choose a battle rifle for the service rifle.

>>63971812
>They've already made their minds up, and are convinced they know everything there is to know.
And this thread is so different? Sounds like you're making excuses for your bullshit to me.

>>63968692 (OP)
>Did the soviet military industrial complex ever design and produce any weapon systems that weren't inferior to their western counterparts?
the T-64 was actually produced while the MBT-70 ended up never leaving the prototype stage
the west wouldnt really catch up until the leopard 2 and M1 abrams entered production in 1979

soviets also produced long rod ammunition before the US did, with their T-62 getting one in the 60s
the US was testing their own design, but it never left the drawing board
the US did eventually surpass the soviets in this field, finally adopting an all-tungsten monobloc penetrator in the 80s while the soviets still used composite steel/tungsten rounds, but the soviets held the advantage for nearly 20 years before then

>>63971839
>No one ever said that they're a straight upgrade in every situation. They have obvious advantages. But assault rifles are still obviously the better small arms choice for any army, except possibly one that completely lacks GMPGs.
I'm not going to have a totally-not-NGSW-by-proxy argument about whether we should have ARs or BRs as service rifles right now.
>You've constructed a strawman just so that you can argue that anybody would choose a battle rifle for the service rifle.
I haven't. I've explained why I think it's valid to state that M14, G3 and FAL were all better than early AKs. Now why it's not just valid but also true would be a way longer and more detailed conversation since we'd be cross comparing, like, 6 or 7 rifles to each other in detail. It might be fun in another thread that isn't 2/3s to bump limit another time when I have more free time, but it's not really what this thread is or where it went.
>And this thread is so different?
It's not guaranteed to be the same, which, without prior knowledge of how threads will go, is different yes.

>>63971814
>A three to one advantage in armor, with the outnumbered party having no technological force multipliers because "muh simple reliable weapons", is irrelevant in a total war scenario. So lets go ahead with those "not actually defense budget cuts".
Admittedly the Russians might have indeed figured out a way to botch using a high-low mix of T-80s and T-54's to roll over inferior numbers of reformer friendly M48 pattons (supported by fighter jets armed with nothing but guns). But that doesn't make betting the farm on it at the time a smart idea.

>>63968704
>especially metallurgy

The spring steel in 1950s era Soviet small arms is inferior to the spring steel used in the US Krags 50+ years earlier. That's pretty fucking sad.

>>63971882
And still not relevant to your claim that the Reformers wouldn't go for a total war economy in the case of war.

>>63968985
Yeah, but they're firing modern(ish) APFSDS at the enemy. The NATO 105mm guns originally fired APDS that couldn't frontally penetrate something like the T-64 point blank.

>>63971841
It wasn't the only time that the lack of decision forced the US (and anyone using the US as reference) to use subpar tanks for years.
During the 60s there's a debate of ATGM vs guns, HEAT/HESH in general vs kinetic (old full bore was dead, APDS had serious drawbacks and the US ignored its own research related to darts and composite armor), in the end the resulting MGM51 was also killed by the usual lack of decision on the matter and the US Army simply licensed a German tank gun. At least the MGM-51 was a good basis for the TOW.

Meanwhile the Soviet Union took all approaches kek. Although they never took full advantage of the 115 length, they simply used the same darts of the 125. It's also hard to explain why they never replaced the engine after developed a natural improvement for the BMPs.

>>63971895
See my previous post.
>>63971618

>>63968985
>Ukranians have been pretty positive about leo 1s performance in ukraine.
The Leo 1s the Ukies got are 1A5s though. That's a 90's era upgrade that adds all the nice sensor and fire control type systems of the Leopard 2 to an admittedly less well armed and armored tank. Back in the cold war the Leo 1s had to rely on stereoscopic rangefinders and much less advanced night vision. A head on fight between them and even monkey model T-72Ms is kinda asking for their crews to make a heroic example of their skills as panzermen.

>>63968692 (OP)
The MiG-15 might have been at best equal to if not worse than it's direct counterpart, the F-86, but it was technically better than a number of other jet fighters in US use during Korea so that sort of counts.
The T-64, despite being dogshit when it first came out, was superior to Western MBTs that were in mass production and field use at the time. However, the West did mitigate and eventually close the gap by the late 70s and by the 80s were superior.
As far as small arms go, I'd say the PKM counts and it's respectable even to this day. The light weight is a decent tradeoff when stacked up against the MAG/M240.
>>63968705
The design elements of the AK that mattered were developed prior to it, and were being implemented in parallel to the AK by other countries with their own designs.
>>63968790
nigga did not just say that in the day and age where ARs are actually replacing AKs en-masse across the globe.
I actually believe that within a few decades, ARs will be more widespread and have amassed a greater total production volume than the AK family.
>>63969879
The K2 action is essentially a short-stroke M16, it took some AK elements but it has way more in common with the AR-15 than with the AK or even the AR-18.
>>63969901
>not even slightly an ak
The BCG and gas system is clearly based on the AK. That said, it's categorically better than the AK precisely because it took the form factor of the AR + certain FAL design elements.

>>63968766
>Their idea of "hey lets design an ATGM to fit the gun barrel vs build a gun to fit the ATGM" was kind of revolutionary
Makes me wonder why they bothered with that instead of just sticking a couple ATGM's on each side of the turret, that means you still get 4 ATGM's without taking space from the storage of conventional ammo or limiting the size of the missile, that's basically having your cake and eating it too.
>which will likely upset some Starship fags.
I don't think those exist.

>>63970713
>goes through all that riggamarole for a measly 60k
>is living better than the highest party bosses in the USSR, possibly better than the premier

>>63970127
>With the proposed solution to all that being somewhat worringly amounting to "git gud at combined arms".
oh i love listening to those fearful 1970s reports of the soviet might that never turn out true while western intelligence community flubbed the two important things that were worth discovering, namely the T-64 and the Delta subs.

>>63970291
there was nothing healthy about reformers and there's nothing good or cheap or rugged about most soviet gear

>>63970479
>E. Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Egypt, China, etc etc
>all communist shitholes with even less money than brains

>>63970778
>At the end of the day it's still an argument about which path produces a stronger military.
there is no argument, slave driving niggers can hardly be considered a military at all and have disgraced themselves in every conflict they got themselves into
>desperately gamble on technology
projection, the ones desperately gambling are the retards who shun the one meaningful driver of military advancement in favor of trying to match meat wave armies in number of bodies.

>>63970849
they weren't really, all this crap about sekrit soviet beginnings of western tech is coping garbage, typically nitpicked from some soviet black projects copying US black projects from the 50s.

>>63970976
they got it right by accident and despite all this

they also didn't achieve that much

>>63972111
>I don't think those exist.
I like Starship visually, but it was a Starshit. Probably why the fantasy idea of 105 Starship appeals to me.

>>63971604
this post is a joke

soviets had jack shit in terms of mortars until the 1980s. heavy self propelled mortars are fucking garbage and the only soviet "mortar carrier" was this nigger rigged thing

>>63971774
>Particularly at a time when the Warsaw Pact had a 3-1 advantage over NATO in armored fighting vehicles
tanks, not AFVs. and without sufficient infantry support those would be driving into kill zones and get blown up much like they did nin 2022.

rememeber the defender's advantage and know that soviets couldn't even manage 2:1 numbers without relying on their slave-allies from the pact, using decades obsolete equipment that was hardly maintained, troops that didn't care to fight for them and couldn't even communicate with them properly.

>>63971841
soviet long rod ammunition wasn't anything impressive and didn't really perform better than 105mm APDS, and the very first APFSDS like M111 and M735 were already miles ahead of the soviet ones technologically. they could also penetrate soviet armor with little effort.

>>63970778
>At the end of the day it's still an argument about which path produces a stronger military
A strong military is when you have Engineers and Mechanics chat at the same tables, officers and soldiers shooting at the same ranges, and and politicians who are neighbors with the voters who sent their sons to basic. So Equestria, with the amount of fucking magic unicorns you're gonna need to make it happen.

>>63972204
>perform better than 105mm APDS,
Non-brittle long rods performs far better against sloped armor, the most common armor, comparing 0º penetration for cold war munitions is retarded.

>>63972204
>M111 and M735
Not enough against T-64Bs. It's the M833 that's the first one actually modestly capable against them.

>>63968844
Prevailing idea in the west from 50's on was chasing armor protection was moot in the age of the ATGM.
Western tanks prioritized mobility, fire control & gunlaying, smart ammo stowage, and hulk down capability.
Everybody was using the excellent 105mm L7 which was a threat to every soviet MBT ever made
The Brits were the only ones who chased the armor genie - and it paid off with Dorchester/chobham

>>63971972
Leopard 1A4 came out in the 1974 and had proper ballistic computer and integrated fire control, lacking only a laser range finder, which would slow down its firing sequence a little but not hamper it greatly. It's disingenous to pretend that this is at all comparable to the T-72 which had no ballistic computer at all and had to be manually aimed with correction for every shot.

>>63972222
>Non-brittle long rods performs far better against sloped armor
soviet steel tungsten rods were crap against that too
>comparing 0º penetration
i didn't.
>>63972224
>Not enough against T-64Bs
more than enough against it, in fact soviets had to weld thick steel plates on the front just to reduce the penetration range to about 1km against them. considering glaring vulnerabilities of soviet armor scheme majority of tank's projection would be readily penetrated by that point, and it'd remain so even despite armor upgrades like on the T-72B

>>63972233
T-72s had laser range finders thoughbeit

>>63972146
>while western intelligence community flubbed the two important things that were worth discovering, namely the T-64
The Team Yankee comic adaptation coming couple years after the novel is funny in that regard since it makes a well meaning over-correction in thinking the T-64 was the primary Soviet MBT and that the T-72 was export only. There was a lot of fog of war.

>>63972188
>tanks, not AFVs
No.The graph has MBTs and armored infantry transports in different categories. The Warsaw Pact had roughly the same advantage in the latter category as the former.

Also keep in mind that we're entertaining Reformer wish fulfillment fantasies. Western IFVs have been scrapped for being filthy multi roles. So you're primarily looking at M113s APCs vs tens of thousands of Soviet BMPs. Soviet kleptocracy undermining them isn't impossible, but you're making things harder on yourself if you're primarily counting on it.

>>63972244
and all it did was give you a range number. it was ass, a worse solution than even the mechanically linked coincidence rangefinder on the M48 and electrically driven one on the M60 that automatically adjusted the elevation based on range readings.

>>63972242
>post a 1975 round when I'm talking about the 15 years long period when NATO didn't have a dart...
Apocryphal retard kun...

>i didn't.
Then you're wrong... apocryphal double retard kund

>>63972253
No, it also corrects for range as well automatically, and indexes the elevation correctly depending on what you have in your AZ.

>>63968692 (OP)
>>63968692 (OP)
>Of any class?
>At any time?

Beside the point. Sino-Soviet (and their continuation states) doctrine define Nukes (and other WMDs) as The decisive instrument of warfare. Conventional forces are only there to exploit such openings. Current day Russian armed forces were tolerated to degrade by graft and negligence because they could be afforded to (unlike the nukes); this is underscored by deliberate targeting of civilians, rape and torture, as well as tolerance of stupidly high casualties as displays of Will which Western European pinko ruling castes couldn't ever tolerate without inducing civil unrest. Read picrel.

>short answer

Spycraft, active measures, strategic deception ("false liberalization" described by Golitsyn, Sejna, Bukovsky ...) some competitive jets at times, decent large payload SSBNs (which tended to get 'loud' after a year or two notwithstanding)-- and nukes, lots of them and always cheating arms control treaties.

>>63972250
>thinking the T-64 was the primary Soviet MBT and that the T-72 was export only
this isn't exactly wrong though, until the 80s T-72 was a less common and less produced tank than T-64 which was technologically superior in many ways while T-72 was dragged on like a cheap tank that churka monkeys at UVZ could produce themselves. it's only into the 80s when T-64 production was being scaled down and shut down completely that T-72 overtook it and T-72 was indeed the export tank for the soviets too.
>No.The graph has MBTs and armored infantry transports in different categories.
i'm going off of real data here.

>>63972264
ok, it's not that bad then but it still has nothing on an actual integrated fire control

>>63968876
>They were lying for a long ass time after the 60s to try and pretend they were keeping up with the West but the truth is that after the T-64B, their MBTs were lacking any significant advantage over the West and their airframes, navy and general technology were already behind.

With sheer mass combined with tactical and intermediate yield nuke deployment, they ought've saved the resources earlier and put it toward training CBRN bum rushing a lot sooner. There was the Abel Archer '83 NATO excercises where they almost bet the farm (before the new intermediate NATO missile deployment), but Brezhnev had cancer and the Party & Security elements were paranoid about getting coup'd in the fallout bunkers by the Military.

>>63972259
>I'm talking about the 15 years long period when NATO didn't have a dart...
i've already addressed that too. soviet darts weren't worth talking about, nothing impressive or advanced about them.

>>63972242
The M111 could only penetrate the glacis of the T-64A, not the turret. The T-64B with the applique armor was then also more than enough against the inferior (to M111) M375, rendering NATO impotent against the Soviet tanks until 1984, and then the Soviets start fielding ERA a year later to throw another wrench into the gears.

>>63972276
>. soviet darts weren't worth talking about, nothing impressive or advanced about them.
Still better than the APDS... in specs and from the strategic resources POV.
During that period NATO was focused on chemical rounds and the kinetic munitions were obsolete for more than one decade.

>>63972275
>where they almost bet the farm
that's a meme, soviets never actually did anything when they were actively being pushed back against and prepared for and only chose to act when their opponents were compliant and fearful of them to actually give them ground. this remains true even today.

>>63972278
>The M111 could only penetrate the glacis of the T-64A, not the turret
the turret has very poor armor scheme that is adequate only against APDS. APFSDS would render it largely ineffective even if there were some spots in armor which could still resist it.
>rendering NATO impotent against the Soviet tanks until 1984
ignoring that ATGMs were much more pressing threats to tanks than other tanks, this simply isn't true. 120mm Leo 2s and M777 came out in the 1979/1980 and could defeat soviet armor at virtually any range.

here's a T-72B, with essentially the strongest armor scheme the soviets ever produced(and which they today still use) penetrated at >2km by an obsolete APFSDS that's at best on par with M777.

>>63972275
Brezhnev died before AA83.

>>63970713
The USSR
>Your one of our top designers and have come up with many successful ideas. Therefore, we are accusing you of political crimes and sending you to siberia because on this occasion your idea didn't work out.
>while in Siberia feel free to carry on creating things that we will use and in 20 years we may pardon you and release you before you die from illnesses you contracted during your imprisonment

>>63972294
>APFSDS would render it largely ineffective even if there were some spots in armor which could still resist it.
Not the M375 and equivalent ones. Even the Israeli monobloc M111 could only penetrate the glacis, but failed against the turret. The NATO 105mm guns were simply entirely inept against the T-64. It was just a superior tank.
>ignoring that ATGMs were much more pressing threats to tanks than other tanks, this simply isn't true
This is blatantly false considering intended Soviet doctrine and tactics and the expected mobile nature of WW3, combined with the available assets on NATO side. NATO tanks were just in general vulnerable against almost everything, while being anemic against Soviet tanks. The BMP-1s dogshit main gun could frontally penetrate contemporary NATO tanks, for crying out loud.

>>63972272
>ok, it's not that bad then but it still has nothing on an actual integrated fire control
Sure. Which is why it was meh next to the digital FCS, automatic lead and thermal optics on the Abrams/Leo 2 and M60A3. It's a bit more dicey if you're ride or die on Leo 1s and older Pattons with optical range finders.

>>63972282
US were focused on HEAT shells, the bongs were using APDS more widely alongside HESH, none of which were obsolete against T-55s and 62s. T-64's armor is the real stand out here because it was designed around those threats. If it were the T-62s fighting the T-64s it'd have some advantages compared to western tanks but otherwise the point is moot.
>in specs and from the strategic resources POV.
i concur, this is a reasonable assessment, not that tank ammo is a very big drain on strategic resources in peace or wartime.

>>63972272
This is true, bear in mind though that until the leopard 1a5 came around, leopard 1s didn't have a true integrated fire control (automatic elevation, stabilized super elevation/lead on the reticle) ala Leopard 2s, M1s (didn't have horizontal reticle stabilization until the M1A2), T80s/T64s. Optical range finding to find your range which was perfectly doable and functional, but azimuth correction also didn't exist on Leopard 1s up until the 1a5, which had the leopard 2 fire control system transplanted into it, making it a very effective tank.
The Russians had a interesting way of inducing lead on their tanks for moving targets: you'd laser and get your range and the sight would automatically adjust for it, and then the ballistic computer would read how much the turret was traversing at the time of lazing. It would then display an azimuth hold. Say you laser a target moving from right to left: it's at 900 meters. The reticle moves down to adjust for elevation and displays +4.0. you lay your reticle onto your target, then slide it left until the tick labelled "4" is laid on. Then fire.
It's a budget way of implementing a proper automatic FCS.

Meanwhile you have the T64B and T80 fire control systems which were on par with the FCS of the Leopard 2s and M1s (save for the glaring lack of thermals)

>>63972317
>Not the M375 and equivalent ones
they could defeat the weak spots in the T-64's armor all the same. it wasn't designed againt APFSDS at all.
>The NATO 105mm guns were simply entirely inept against the T-64.
Even 105mm APDS had 25% chance of defeating a T-64 frontally at 1km per soviet calculations, any new ammunition would turn this percentage on its head.
> It was just a superior tank.
it was a tank with superior armor, that's true. nothing more.
>This is blatantly false considering intended Soviet doctrine and tactics
pfffft, you're a fucking joke, mate. the only thing soviet doctrine would do is get them slaughtered en masse squandering any tactical advantages they could have. you should've learned it by now, with how many blow out pidors are littering the Ukrainian fields.

>>63972318
>>63972333
Leo 1A4 had digital FCS, just because it relied on an optical range finder for ranging doesn't mean it didn't have it.

>>63972333
>The Russians had a interesting way of inducing lead on their tanks for moving targets: you'd laser and get your range and the sight would automatically adjust for it, and then the ballistic computer would read how much the turret was traversing at the time of lazing. It would then display an azimuth hold. Say you laser a target moving from right to left: it's at 900 meters. The reticle moves down to adjust for elevation and displays +4.0. you lay your reticle onto your target, then slide it left until the tick labelled "4" is laid on. Then fire.
Does it work though? A ton of soviet shit was designed to look good on paper and would be basically unusable in its intended role in the field, with users retuning to much more primitive and limited solutions that actually functioned with primitive soviet gear.

>>63972343
>they could defeat the weak spots in the T-64's armor all the same.
And real life isn't your War Thunder game where you get to leisurely aim at weak areas with perfect visual clarity and optimal, modern FCS.
>it wasn't designed againt APFSDS at all.
Yet it was superbly protected against 105mm guns until 1984.
>Even 105mm APDS had 25% chance of defeating a T-64 frontally at 1km per soviet calculations
A 25% chance of being defeated when you defeat your enemies tanks with +90% likelihood on any impact is not a good equation for the NATO troops going up against these. It's suicide.
>it was a tank with superior armor, that's true. nothing more.
A better gun, more accurate than contemporary NATO ones, so forth. NATO equivalents had NOTHING going for them.
>the only thing soviet doctrine would do is get them slaughtered en masse
And that is what they planned for. Casualties do not matter, only achieving the objective. The next echelon will advance over their bodies and keep rolling forward, further and further West. Any rapid forces (tanks) the NATO troops could throw at them, would again not be able to stop them, because they can't even penetrate them frontally.

>>63972370
>And real life isn't your War Thunder game where you get to leisurely aim at weak areas with perfect visual clarity and optimal, modern FCS.
when your tank has more weak spots than those that are armored you have a problem
>A 25% chance of being defeated when you defeat your enemies tanks with +90% likelihood on any impact is not a good equation for the NATO troops
NATO troops aren't attacking so they ultimately have a massive advantage by default. T-64's weren't even deployed outside USSR until 1976 when the new APFSDS appeared in NATO service.
>A better gun
a bigger gun
>more accurate than contemporary NATO ones
lmao
>And that is what they planned for. Casualties do not matter, only achieving the objective. The next echelon will advance over their bodies and keep rolling forward, further and further West.
like i said, laughably delusional thinking.
>NATO equivalents had NOTHING going for them.
i love how slavaboos always hyperfocus on tanks when tank on tank battles have been a meme since ww2 because that's literally the only straw they have to grasp in their copium fueled delusions.

>>63972267
>decent large payload SSBNs (which tended to get 'loud' after a year or two notwithstanding)
Soviet planning placed them relatively close to home in 'bastions' where NATO SSNs would be relatively hard pressed to stay on them.
And the Deltas (infamously) could actually launch from the pier.

>>63972406
see >>63969075
and by the 1980s US had awoken from their slumber and took the fight back to them, literally parking a carrier within strike range of soviet SSBN bases and pushing them around.

>>63972294
>here's a T-72B, with essentially the strongest armor scheme the soviets ever produced(and which they today still use)

Doesn't that title belong to the T-80U series? The Kontakt-5 coverage is better versus the T-72B 1989 model and the turret roof is stepper since they did not copypasta the T-80B turret but got a new turret design instead hence reducing some of the turret roof weakspot (except the commanders cupola i guess) and the composit armor has comperable performance to the T-72B spaced steel,rubber,steel nera combination. The only thing it did worse was having a wider drivers vision block weakspot.

>>63972181
you are a joke

>>63971697
the PKM was utter trash
the PKT now...
>finicky
nonsense
literally all you have to do is stick a linoleum liner to the front plate of the drum mag so the rounds don't jiggle about

>>63972474
>Doesn't that title belong to the T-80U series?
they're pretty much the same effectively. t-80 has more advanced armor but the advances are used to make it lighter, not to improve protection. i didn't really include ERA since i was talking about base armor but on both tanks the ERA leaves the most vulnerable spots exposed. on another note, the useless shtora IR dazzler lights reduce the ERA coverage even more right in the middle of the turret.
>got a new turret design instead hence reducing some of the turret roof weakspot
actually T-80U still has the same weak spots, the turret roof angle was only redesigned with the T-80UD and later the T-90.

>>63972495
not only can't vatniggers read but they'll post meme tech that was adopted after the fall of Berlin wall to try to make a point

>>63972495
>late cold war SPM when they would be lucky to shot twice and survive the counter battery fire

>>63972360
it works
TCs loved it because training churkas to elevate manually is a pain in the ass and training them to range accurately is impossible so the TC had to do that on every previous Soviet tenk

>>63972514
Nona-S entered active service in 1981
>>63972514
like half the point of it is it shoots once and drags its own ass to somewhere else

>>63972541
>>63972531

>>63972495
look at what they have to do to imitate 1% of my power

>>63972505
>actually T-80U still has the same weak spots, the turret roof angle was only redesigned with the T-80UD
Damn really? From all the images I have seen angle wise the T-80U and UD roof looks similar (T-80UD got different ERA roof layout and an remote weapon station for the commander) but if that is the case then the Kharkiv tank plant in soviet ukraine was truly the only ones that could innovate in tank designs that got mass produced in the soviet union.
>T-34, Kharkiv tank plant
>T-54, Kharkiv tank plant
>T-64 family, the design that spawned the T-72 and T-80, Kharkiv tank plant
>T-80UD, Kharkiv tank plant

>>63972674
yep, i remember reading this in the same article that had >>63972294 pic related included. that article also talked about ERA developments and how easily they can be bypassed with modern means and the future developments of that. i can't seem to find it right now.

i believe it was written by Ukrainians and this was years before the war.

>>63972695
You talking about btvt? It is a ukrainian website with alot of stuff from the soviet era
https://btvt.info/

Infact I just found an english article on the T-80U devlopment history
https://btvt.info/7english/Unknown_T-80U.htm

>>63972695
Found it via image search on btvt but 4chan doesn't let me post the link no matter how i format it.

it talks about how Relikt is obsolete from the moment of its arrival in service and can't deal with modern anti-ERA measures and mentions that T-80UD reduced the roof angle. apparently even the original t-90 didn't change that and only the welded t-90A followed the suit and fixed that.

>>63972709
i remember reading the original article on some other website but i found the article in there now

>>63968946
>muh tanks
>muh tank combat
>AIIIIIIIIE WHY ARE YOU STRIKING MY TANKS WITH PGMS AND ATGMS FROM OUTSIDE MY RESPONSE RANGE?
>AIIIIIIIE WHY ARE TOW MISSILES ACTUALLY DOING THEIR JOB?
>AIIIIIIIIIIIE WHY ISN'T OUR ARMOUR ACTUALLY WORKING AS INTENDED VS SHAPED CHARGES AND WHY IS SAND LEAKING INTO MY TURRET WHERE THEY REPLACED THE COMPOSITE WITH FILLER?
Any war with NATO would have blown the entire USSR military to shit. NATO had such an advantage in PGMs, ATGMs, BVR munitions and artillery by 1980 that the minor advantage of "oh you can't frontally pen my tanks (even tho you can) so I can just drive forward through your minefields and tank traps and win" would never manifest, just like it hasn't manifested in Ukraine where Russia had a massive material and manpower advantage and all its done is make Russia look like a laughing stock as the 2nd most powerful army in the world.
I'd honestly hand that over to Changs now because they can actually produce carriers, tanks, frigates, destroyers, decent SAM systems and cruise missiles independent of their allies while Russia has been begging Iran for their shitty moped powered drones for 3 years now and has already backstabbed them over a mutual defence agreement because Russia clearly can't help Iran when they can't even beat token resources given to Ukraine.

>>63972674
>ukraine was truly the only ones that could innovate in the soviet union.
ftfy, all the top 4 rocket scientists in USSR were Ukrainian: Korolev, Chelomey, Yangel, Glushko. bonus points for Georgian Nadziradze for developing soviet solid fuel ICBMs for them that form their backbone mobile fleet.

The USSR peaked in the 1960s :
>AKM was better than M16
>RPK was better than M60
>SVD was better than M14
>SA-6 was better than HAWK

It all went downhill since leading to the present AK12 and T-14 failures.

>>63968692 (OP)
no they weren't trying to either

>>63972765
>SA-6 was better than HAWK
inferior in every aspect. only the Kub-M4 and Buk were somewhat comparable.

>>63972267
the moment soviets managed to get "enough" nukes they started to retire their scientists that's why soviet scientists lived like shit from 70s onward

>>63972771
The Kub is the Russian name for the SA-6 you moron.

>>63972788
yes and kub-m4 is the one variant that is decent due to unification with buk, you vatnigger shitstain

>>63972792
It's the exact opposite. The SA-6 was good in the 60s because it was relatively small therefore fast to move and easy to conceal, compensating the inferior range compared to US equivalents. When SEAD capabilites progressed in the 70s it made it much less of a threat and that's why it was discontinued.

>>63972807
the altitude limit of early kubs is pathetic, might as well stick to cheap and more mobile SA-8 instead of larping as a proper SAM if you're going to get bombed from altitude regardless

>>63972765
in the 60's but... M16A1 adopted in 67?
RPK is a automatic rifle, and not a beltfed weapon so?
SVD is a dedicated DMR, not just a rifle.
and even then i would still say the M16 was better than a AKM. I mean it was what, 1959 when they changed to the AKM? it really took them a decade to figure out "yeah some muzzlebreak would be good." fucking moron

>>63971507
Not the combat frog...

>>63972907
That's a lot of words to say you're retarded.
>what does it matter if the RPK isn't belted ? It fits the same role as an infantry LMG and is vastly superior in weight, reliability and ammo carrying capacity
>SVD is a DMR just like the M14 was converted to after the US Army realized it was a shit rifle
>the main difference between AK47 and AKM is not the muzzle brake but the manufacturing process

>>63972952
RPK is hot garbage and anyone who so much as suggests it's viable as a weapon should be publicly shamed and laughed at.

>>63972959
Still better than an the 10kg M60 POS.

>>63972976
A GPMG rules the battlefield. The RPK is an obese AK that larps as something else.

A lot of you know fuck all about the Cold War. Watching Soviet era equipment get blown up in Ukraine by equipment with 40 years more development does not give you any idea about how things would have gone in Fulda gap.

>>63973022
That's right. Puccia's still hecking stronk and valid.

>>63972352
I think the point of concern was that the Warsaw Pact had plenty of MBTs with FCS systems more advanced than what was on the Leo 1 and M60A1. And more armor and gun as well. And a shitload of less advanced but still dangerous T-54/62 in support. That doesn't make the Leo1 and older Pattons useless, but you ARE riding a lot on better quality crew training. Which could also be placed in pic related.

>>63973105
>the Warsaw Pact had plenty of MBTs with FCS systems more advanced than what was on the Leo 1 and M60A1
they didn't. it's only T-64B and T-80s, both of which started to arrive in late 70s. neither of those were in warpact, only with the soviets. by that same time NATO were fielding very capable FCSs and retrofitting older tanks with them, along with extensive use of thermals on both tanks, ATGMs and aircraft. Germans lagged behind a bit on thermals but their leos had great commanders' sights on the other hand. there's lots of other stuff in there too, attack helicopters armed with ATGMs were amassed by NATO at the same time and soviets didn't have good answers to that.
>And more armor and gun as well
you really don't have to meet armor with armor. by the 70s US had extensive and capable aerial mining capability and could cock block soviet advances just with that. not saying better tanks don't matter but you can absolutely do mostly without on the defensive. soviets had a lot of tanks but dealing with tank rushes was also the primary tactical scenario NATO forces were preparing for.

>>63973118
add in rapidly growing stocks of 155mm DPICM shells since the mid 70s into the mix, again made specifically to deal with soviet armor.

soviets started expanding theirmilitary substantially in the early 70s and by mid 70s NATO were actively working on a response. by the early 80s the balance of troops had returned to the level where it was in the late 60s before the soviet buildup, just with a lot more troops present on both sides.

>>63973118
>they didn't. it's only T-64B and T-80s, both of which started to arrive in late 70s. neither of those were in warpact
Again. T-72M had a laser range finder and FCS that calculated distance automatically. Not unsurmountable when you consider NATO was applying modernization packages to their older tanks...except going back to how this conversation started.
>along with extensive use of thermals on both tanks, ATGMs and aircraft.
You have made Pierre Sprey man very angry.

>>63973151
>Again. T-72M had a laser range finder and FCS that calculated distance automatically.
it's not really better than M60A1 and pre-A4 Leo. it's also just started being sold in the 1980 and it'd take years before warsaw pact set up their own production. it's nothing but a trickle.

>>63972559

>>63969003
Oh, no, I know BMPs too well to think it's any good. I meant stuff like picrel.

>>63968913
>>63968946
T-64 and later tanks were tough targets for 105mm gun.
ATGMsv with 400mm+ RHA pen and 120mm HEAT overmatched Soviet composite armor. Hense Kontact ERA spam

>>63968960
>it's literally a meme once your opponents start using better shaped chargets and APFSDS.
105mm APFSDS and HEAT weren't good vs Soveits tanks frontal armor.

>>63972749
>NATO had such an advantage in PGMs, ATGMs, BVR munitions and artillery by 1980
NTA but no, most of these weapons were only just coming into service in 1980 and not rolled out across NATO yet
a few tip of the spear formations and squadrons would have access to a small number of these weapons, but the rest would have to fight on a more equal footing

>PGMs
Desert Storm was nearly the maximum effort of LGB deployment, and that was in 1991. go look up the number of PGMs dropped then vs the ratio of conventional bombs dropped, and you will have some idea of how rare LGBs were in 1980
better yet, look up how many aircraft were equipped to dropped LGBs and their production histories
>ATGMs
Improved TOW only just entered service in 1978, in small numbers. look up the problems with early-generation TOW for an idea of its lower Pk then. it's TOW-2 that was a really exemplary weapon, and it was introduced in the mid/late 80s
>BVR munitions
in 1980? you only have the AIM-7F. the 7M used in ODS is a couple of years away. your real Pk is not above 1 in 3
(similarly, most NATO fighters will be launching the AIM-9G Sidewinder, as the first batches of 9Ls will not roll out in Europe until late 82)
>artillery
still mostly operating on brute HE
no guided MLRS or ATACMS, the first combat units of which only arrive in 1983. you get the MGM-52 Lance which most posters here have never heard of
tube artillery, in 1980 the most common NATO SPH is the M109A1, all of 15km range
you're actually OUTRANGED by the D20 and early 2S3 152mm systems
oh, and no guided shells. Copperhead begins production in 1982

as I keep saying, it is only in the mid-80s that we really truly outstripped the Soviets in tech

>>63968692 (OP)
Yes, multiple systems. That ended in the 1970s, though.

>>63969521
>we invaded Vietname
By “we” I’m assuming you’re referring to China? I don’t see how that’s relevant to the topic at hand.

>>63973161
>it's not really better than M60A1 and pre-A4 Leo
Maybe in the context of a firing range with a really well drilled crew on one side and a bunch of conscriptovichs on the other. But the East Germans were regarded as being fairly proficient, and a more streamlined gunnery procedure seems a bit less prone to the accuracy penalties even trained soldiers tend to suffer in combat because they're worried/anxious about getting killed. A gunner calmly working the optical range finder to get an accurate input for the ballistic computer when they might eat a sabot or ATGM at any second takes some real discipline and cool...and that kind of guy will probably be even more effective if his gunners sight looks like pic related.

>it's also just started being sold in the 1980 and it'd take years before warsaw pact set up their own production. it's nothing but a trickle.
New platforms taking time to get adapted at proper scale isn't unusual. Roll out for the Abrams and Leo-2 were also gradual. NATO keeping pace (and actually surpassing) with the Pact was obviously not insurmountable since that's what happened, but it is something the NATO countries had to put some effort into.

>>63975048
>Maybe in the context of a firing range with a really well drilled crew on one side and a bunch of conscriptovichs on the other
>ut the East Germans were regarded as being fairly proficient
East Germans were using the T-54 into the 1980s. They had a stadiametric rangefinder on their dinky low magnification scope and that's it.
>and a more streamlined gunnery procedure seems a bit less prone to the accuracy penalties even trained soldiers tend to suffer in combat
Sure but coincidence rangefinders aren't that hard to use. Instead of a push button you have a knob you turn until the picture aligns and then the system works all the same.
>New platforms taking time to get adapted at proper scale isn't unusual
This is worthless cope. Less than 100 T-72Ms spread over several dilapidated militaries wouldn't change jack shit.

>>63973827
>the coping tankie pidor lies about dates and numbers to cope about his failed shithole ever having even an inch of an advantage where in reality it had none

>>63973768
Read, nigger, read. >>63972294

>>63976533
Well yes but
>operated by Syrians

>>63976603
oh i love this cope so much

>>63976533
>you're lying!!
>no proof
>posts totally unrelated pic?

>>63976699
proof of what? your complete bullshit claims about PGM, artillery ranges or ATGMs? they are complete bogus, you didn't get a single thing right you disgusting tranny.

>>63976713
>they are complete bogus, you didn't get a single thing right
>take my word for it

>>63976747
why should i waste my time disproving obvious lies that you pulled out of your ass?

M107A1 alone outranges russian guns you named by several kilometers

>>63976757
>M109A1*

>>63976757
>M109A1 alone outranges russian guns you named by several kilometers
wrong

>>63976774
check RAP next, dumb stinky tranny

>0913 CEST
>Thread immediately turns to shit again
Euros really are no better than animals

>>63976787
it was a shitty excuse for vatnik wank thread from the very start

>>63976781
the Soviets had other artillery pieces instead of relying on M109A1s with RAP for long range as many NATO nations did

>>63976781

>>63976840
cool goalpost movement but NATO had superior artillery here too

soviets simply sucked, backwards mongoloiod mutt monkeys that couldn't even steal and copy things right

>>63976851
>cool goalpost movement
>t. shifts from comparing 15cm artillery to 20cm artillery
I can play too

>>63976869
ok vatnigger tranny, M198 and FH70 had more range than russian towed garbage gun

not that range is all there is to artillery but this is enough for you to choke on your semen drink and join the 41%

>>63976869
>to 20cm artillery
M107 is 175mm, dipshit

>>63976877
hardly matters

>>63976873
>M198
equal performance without RAP
>FH70
in service: 1980
>not that range is all there is
no, but you started off with a discussion of range

>>63976883
>equal performance without RAP
again with the cope
>in service: 1980
1978 actually, the same as all the vatnigger wunderwaffen that never amounted to anything and thus were lucky to not be exposed as absolute garbage like the rest of russian equipment
>no, but you started off with a discussion of range
no, i just called out your idiotic lie with the most clear example. your bullshit about PGMs, TOW or AIM-7 is just as false.