Soviet military hardware performance

quick resume?

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

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

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

The Vietnam War: (1964–1975)

US losses only

KIA: 58,300+

WIA: 153,300+

Planes lost: 3632

Choppers lost: 5229

Tanks lost: 600+

Afghan-Soviet war: (1979–1989)

Soviet losses only

14,500+ KIA

53,750+ WIA

125 planes lost

300+ Choppers

147 tanks lost

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

Attached: Soviet with stinger.jpg (850x1062 262.23 KB, 156.39K)

North Vietnam had no helicopters though.

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

Most of those losses weren't directly from enemy combat, most were from hardware failures and flying to low into the jungle.
Also Hard warfare is the least important factor in warfare, organization, discipline, and logistical production are far more important factors.

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

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

Vietnam
Area: 331,212 km^2
Population (1970, UN estimate) 45 million
Afghanistan
Area: 652,230 km^2
Population (1980) 13 million

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

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

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

good answer,

Dumping my stuff

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

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

MiG-25 and 31
The MiG-25 (NATO codename Foxbat) was to have been a response to the perceived threat from the American supersonic B-58 bomber and its upgraded replacements, which were capable of breaking through anti-aircraft defences of the time (SA-2 and SA-3) and inflicting a nuclear strike. The designers of the MiG-25 used their ample experience with the Ye-150 series to produce an aircraft capable of mach 2.85 cruising and mach 3 sprints (it was mach 3.2 capable but the engines burned through) and attaining a ceiling of 27 km, which made it comparable with the performance characteristics of the Valkyrie. A modified MiG-25 called the Ye-266M holds the record for highest altitude reached by a jet aircraft at 37.65km. This was done in a zoom climb of course, however it is notable regardless. To give an idea of what kind of speed this was; During the Gulf War of 1991 two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of 10 air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, and none reached them. Despite being several decades out of date the MiG-25 remained relatively effective in interdicting and disrupting US bombing runs, causing them to scratch the mission, even if they didn't shoot down many aircraft. Thanks to the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name Foxfire) radar had enormous power — about 600 kilowatts. It could literally 'burn' through ECM of the time and was very resistant to EMPs from nuclear blasts, its only issue was tracking and a lack of look-down/shootdown.

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

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

>web.archive.org/web/20041017122850/http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000588922/0000588922_0001.gif
>web.archive.org/web/20160812192407/http://aerospace.boopidoo.com:80/philez/Su-15TM PICTURES & DOCS/Overscan's guide to Russian Military Avionics.htm
>theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/
>rbth.com/articles/2012/09/03/foxhound_vs_blackbird_how_the_migs_reclaimed_the_skies_17363
>web.archive.org/web/20161108195250/http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:-l-r-lr&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8
>youtube.com/watch?v=9pxtQhOFqAU

The Kontakt-5 reactive armor was first used in 1985 with the T-80U. It was designed to "break" the long-ROD penetrator (APFSDS) of NATO tank ammunition, so that they couldn't penetrate the main armor of the T-80U where the Kontakt-5 covered the armor. It was very effective in the mid-80's and made early NATO ammunition quite ineffective. The American and European Main battle Tanks (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2) had no sufficient APFSDS munition to penetrate the Kontakt-5 ERA in 1985. For example, the early M1 Abrams used the M829A1 and the Leoaprd 2A4 used the DM33/43, both of which failed to penetrate the Kontakt-5. Only 6 years later, in 1991, the Americans first developed the new APFSDS penetrator M829A2. The only APFSDS that could effectively penetrate the Kontakt-5 plus the basic armor of the T-80U. However with the T 90 which through other tests has shown that its base armor is better at resisting tandem-warhead and APFSDS rounds than the T 80U and thus this data cannot be used to judge it.
Other NATO countries such as the UK and Germany still lacked sufficient APFSDS rounds to defeat the Kontakt-5 until 1999. For example, even the Leopard 2A5 in 1996 still used the outdated DM33/43 munition from the 1980's ERA, and the British Challenger 2 still used the outdated L-23/L-26 CHARM 1 APFSDS rounds from 1983 to 1999. Which means that neither Leo 2A4/2A5 nor Chally 2 had sufficient ammunition types to defeat the Kontakt 5 until the early 2000's. Only in 1999 the Germans finally developed a sufficient penetrator round, the DM53, for the longer 120mm L/55 gun used by the new Leopard 2A6 from 2001. And the British developed the more powerful L-27 CHARM 3 in 1999 for the Challenger II. Both of these ammunitions can now penetrate the Kontakt-5 however their stock is small.
In the first Gulf War, Iraqi T-72 crews performed pretty dismally. In his book Inside the Great Tanks, military writer Hans Halberstadt quotes Marc Sehring of the Patton Tank Museum, Fort Knox, Kentucky, “If the crews were equally well-trained (and that's really the key ingredient) the T-72 would probably have been the winner.” Remember, the T-72 was developed in the early 1970s while its main American rival in the Gulf War, the M1, was a whole new generation ahead of it. Add to that, that the Iraqi T 72s were stripped down, lacking some of its basic components such as the modern passive IR sights, an older autoloader and firing steel core penetrators decommissioned from soviet stockpiles in 1969 (the Gulf war was 1991) not to mention the fact that it used the non ATGM compatible 2A26 gun rather than the 2A46. These guns in turn had worn out their barrel life, in the Iraq-Iran war prior to that. In the 1982 Lebanon war, various types of Syrian T 72s faced the Merkava I, M48/M60 (equipped with Blazer ERA) and Centurion tanks, all its contemporaries. T 72 losses were miniscule with the IAF tanks getting destroyed at ranges beyond their own guns and failing to penetrate the Syrian tanks at all until the M111 sabot was put into service, and even then at ranges well within the T 72’s range fire. The only T 72s lost were from hits by TOW missiles at close ranges and 1 by tank fire from the side and that tank was only disabled and then sabotaged by its crew. The only genuine Syrian losses from tank-tank battle was their aging T 62s and T 55s

Attached: Uk and soviet tanks 1984 HEAT.png (762x1200 1.06 MB, 1.54M)

The first soviet Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot ammunition was made in early 1960s and put on the T-62. The first US APFSDS is from 1979 nearly 20 years late.
The T-64 sported composite armour as the first tank in the world in 1963 making it basically immune to HEAT ammo of the time which was the standard AT ammo for NATO tanks until the 1980s. The T-64B was able to fire anti tank missiles through it barrel, an idea originating from the 1960s experiments during the rocket/missile craze. The US fielded the M-551 Sheridan at around the same time, however its missile system was very glitchy and it didn't fire regular rounds all too well.

The M60A2 was another attempt at this, however the results were the same. This also plagued the joint US-German MBT-70 program. The US finally made it when they produced a120mm gun-missiles system for the M1A2 abrams, however they cancelled the program along with their autoloader experiments in 2012. There was renewed interest in 2015, but it is unlikely to go anywhere judging how the past several projects have gone.
The Israeli's in the meanwhile created the LAHAT system. The Soviets also pioneered Reactive armour, Active protection system, Autoloader. The T-55 from 1961 and every tank made after it in the Soviet Union featured two plane gun stabilization and CBRN defense, in the US the CBRN was first used on the M1A1 in 1985 and two plane gun stabilization on the M60A1 AOS in the 1970s. The Soviets were also the first to create a gas-turbine engine in the T-80. This was also implemented on the M1 Abrams, but far later.

>youtube.com/watch?v=e3shrIw2IOs
>btvt.narod.ru/2/t72istoria.htm
>btvt.narod.ru/2/syria1.html
>btvt.narod.ru/2/iraq_iran3.htm
>thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html
>reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/4haume/the_t72_a_bad_tank_some_history_and_misconceptions/

Attached: UK ATGM v tank.png (976x532 1.66 MB, 66.44K)

How well did Soviet armaments perform in Korean War?

Attached: MiG-15.jpg (780x432 299.25 KB, 63.99K)

In the Yom Kippur war the most decisive new weapon was the Russian SA-6 surface-to-air missile. The Israelis encountered it on the Sinai front while their US built F-4 Phantom and Skyhawk jets were attempting to knock out the pontoon bridges placed across the Suez Canal by the Egyptians. In the first two days of fighting, 40 Israeli planes were shot down near the canal, most of them by SA-6 batteries. The missile was equally devastating over the Golan Heights, protecting the Syrians and exacting a heavy toll of F-4 Phantom and Skyhawks. The missile batteries were manned by mostly Russian crews.
Bill Sweetman and Bill Gunston are counted among the world’s leading weapons experts. Almost 3 decades ago, they demolished the stereotype about Soviet weapons being technologically backward in comparison with Western ones. According to them, while the Soviet civilian economy was a command one producing average quality consumer goods, the military bureaus had to face real competition from each other, leading to cutting edge weapons that were far ahead of anything the West could come up with. Sweetman and Gunston write, “In the entire history of the human race, there has never been a fighting machine as formidable and terrifying as the air and rocket forces of the Soviet Union.”

Attached: модернизированного ЗРК С-125 - Печора-2А.jpg (768x1162 379.22 KB, 917.19K)

October 1951—dubbed Black Tuesday—MiGs took out six of nine B-29 Superfortresses. McGill’s first encounter with the craft had been typically brief. “One of the gunners called him out. He was a small silhouette,” McGill says. “That’s when I saw him…. [The gunners] were shooting at him.” McGill says the bomber’s centrally controlled firing system provided some protection against the fighters.
MiG-15 pilot Porfiriy Ovsyannikov was on the other end of the B-29’s guns. “When they fired at us, they smoked, and you think, ‘Is the bomber burning, or is it machine gun smoke?’ ” he recalled in 2007, when Russian historians Oleg Korytov and Konstantin Chirkin interviewed him for an oral history of Soviet combat pilots who fought in World War II and Korea. (The interviews are posted on the website Lend-Lease on airforce.ru.) The historians asked Ovsyannikov to rate the B-29’s defensive weapons. His reply: “Very good.” But MiG pilots were able to open fire from about 2,000 feet away, and at that distance, says McGill, they could savage a B-29 formation.
“The MiG-15 surprised the hell out of us,” says National Air and Space Museum curator Robert van der Linden. Compared to the North American F-86 Sabre, hastily introduced in combat after the MiGs showed up, “the MiG was faster, could out climb it, and had more firepower,” he says. And Sabre pilots knew it. “You’re damned right it was intimidating,” says retired Air Force Lieutenant General Charles “Chick” Cleveland, remembering his first encounter with a MiG-15. He was flying a Sabre with the 334th Fighter-Intercepter Squadron over Korea in 1952. Only weeks before, the squadron commander, high-scoring World War II ace George Andrew Davis, was killed by the Soviet fighter. (Davis was posthumously awarded a Medal of Honor.) Now, pulling a tight turn to evade the MiG, Cleveland violated the Sabre’s unforgiving stall margin, snapped over, and briefly entered a spin, as he puts it, “right there in the middle of combat.” Cleveland survived his mistake to become a Korean War ace with five confirmed MiG kills and two probables. Today, he’s president of the American Fighter Aces Association and still has respect for his adversary of 60 years ago. “Oh, it was a wonderful airplane,” he says from his home in Alabama. “You have to remember that the little MiG-15 in Korea was successful doing what all the Focke-Wulfs and Messerschmitts of World War II were never able to do: Drive the United States bomber force right out the sky.” From November 1951, B-29s stayed on the ground during the day; bombing missions were flown only at night and under the cover of heavy escort protection.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (712x1000, 1.42M)

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

How well did Soviet armaments perform in Korean War?

Attached: IS-2.jpg (1504x994 342.71 KB, 299.25K)

read

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

lmao

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

Nice job

THis thread is about Soviet military hardware and how it fared in real life battles of the Cold War. Whether it be proxy wars or direct conflicts this entire thread is relevant. Your argument is nonexistant.
Except that we've done xactly that all thread. do you think the US army and NVA weren't motivated? Or were badly trained? Or the Koreans and the UN? Or the Iraqi and Iranian forces?
STFU about stuff you don't know.

No.

Attached: 2nukes.PNG (206x212, 53.82K)

"STFU about stuff you don't know."
Irony in it's purest and most brazen form.

...

North Korea operated the same model aircraft as the USSR. The same applies to Vietnam, with the SA-3s being the same as the ones used in the USSR. The SA-6 in Syrian hands was the same model and crewed or directed by Russian officers, same as the NVA SAM units. etc. etc.
Also I'll add, the majority of aircraft were NOT export models in any of the wars mentioned. The Syrians got regular T-72s as did the Warsaw Pact. Also, despite the T-72 in Iraq being a monkey model export, the non-locally made versions displayed a level of defense capable of withstanding modern NATO tanks, and the only reason it failed was because they were deployed badly and most were taken out by aviation. READ MORE YOU DIPSHIT

what a bitch
They were motivated enough to burn down villages en masse and fight. Or for revenge of fallen GIs or other reasons.
They were literally fighting for their homeland, I'd call that motivated. By your logic the Soviet army in WW 2 wasn't motivated either.

You actually typed this and thought it was a legitimate point? what a faggot.
The soviet army hadn't been involved in a decades long continuous invasion by pretty much every surrounding neighbor to then be invaded by one of the most powerful militaries on the planet after having their militia forces overwhelmed.
And no, soviet troops were generally not motivated, there were several uprisings and desertion was common when the conscript could actually get away with it, the USSR didn't have the highest amount of executions among
non officer classes in their own army for nothing, if you think that the majority of USSR conscripts actually wanted to fight then your worldview has been corrupted by your political beliefs and desire to LARP.

the USSR had to have handlers placed in charge of conscripts during stalingrad in order to stop the conscripts from just fucking off.
Flown by pilots who were killing foreigners for foreigners in foreign interests.
Pffff gonna need a source on this you lying faggot.
But i thought the syrians were using amazing soviet AA missiles?

Lol @ your mindset fam

If you don't state the specific armament used and the specific target on the receiving end and the way in which the weapon destroyed the target and how repeatable that process is and how easy the weakness the target suffers from would be able to fix should it become a full pitched battle with genuine resources put into it when talking about military equipment and how effective it is in the real world you prolly should not go around telling other people to read more.
For instance you talk about t-72s in syria taking "modern nato tank" rounds but you WEIRDLY AND CONVENIENTLY forget to mention that the Sryians plaster modern ERA plates all over their tanks.
Weird that you say i need to read more yet you WEIRDLY and CONVENIENTLY forgot to mention that CRUCIAL game changing detail like modern ERA plates.

I'm not saying you lot have bias im just saying you're just going to say whatever it is you need to say in the moment as long as it doesn't require you doing genuine research that doesn't involve a 15 min google search and vague statements about how X beats X every time like it's some videogame or something with supporting data being small engagements in a scenario most of this equipment was not designed to be operated in while being operated by people who have not being trained to utilise this equipment properly in the environments they're used in.
A good example would be US tanks in vietnam, i don't know if this is known to you lot or not, but tanks aren't really designed to be used in jungles, and just because some retard gives the order to use tanks in an environment perfect for the use of RPGs doesn't mean that RPGs will be effective in any other environment, just like b-29s dropping below their flight ceiling and into danger (while armed with .50s) to drop bombs on strategic targets hidden in jungle would never happen in an actual pitched war against the USSR where they would be immediately scrapped and a jet bomber quickly rushed in its place because even the US knew at the time that the only thing they could work with as a bomber was the b-29 which was outdated the second the first jets were produced. In a real war scenario those would be turned into transport planes or mothballed or put into roles where they wouldn't be decimated because the US would be willing to spend that kind of money when in a war with the USSR to produce something that isn't crap which was not the case in Vietnam or Korea because those were considered "minor" wars to the US leadership.
Just like nobody here talks about the bt-7 or the t-26 or the t-28 or any number of soviet junk that was far outdated by the time of its use because most of you know damn well that realistically in a pitched battle against a equivalent force these assets would not be used (in a situation of a superior or inferior enemy these assets are rushed into service to stem the tide or used because they are deemed the cost effective way to fight a "inferior" enemy respectively)
Basically this is a shitty larping thread for people to gush about their favorite military vehicle and how it totally BTFO the enemy heck yea!
It's fucking gay LARPing and it's childish and embarrassing when the things you're talking about are killing machines that eat human souls in terrible probably avoidable conflicts and you treat it like a videogame or football or whatever.

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

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

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

That isn't what was posted though you brain-dead moron.
Tanks are meant to be armored fighting vehicles capable of traversing any terrain and defending from other tanks and anti-tank weaponry. Your argument is bullshit, Tanks are not used alone, they are supported by mobile infantry and air-cover. That is basic fucking knowledge.
Except RPGs are used in wars across the world in many different environments. They are designated medium-range infantry anti-tank weapons and do that job, be it in the deserts of the Middle East or the Jungles of Vietnam. The LAW rocket didn't even work well against soviet tanks in environments advantageous to its use, the RPG on the other hand did its job.
Except it would have because that is what plans like Operation Dropshot and other attacks on Post WW-2 USSR were like you dumb fuck. Also the B-29 wasn't bombing jungles, it bombed Korea, which was full of open spaces unlike Vietnam. The B-29s carpet bombed the entire country with complete indiscretion and at their flight ceiling and STILL got shot down. I provided sources to that effect, what did you bring? Vague statements.
yeah which is why the B-52 is still in service right? That's not how it works you ignoramus. Learn what M.A.D and the Nuclear Triad is before spouting conjecture you don't know.
You are a newfag aren't you?
The BT-7 wasn't junk and was superior to Japanese tanks even in WW-2. It was on par with the Panzer III prior to the upgrade, and outclassed its contemporary the Panzer II in all aspects despite being an older design. The T-28 was a good tank in its time and when utilized correctly could single handedly wreck German tanks. It was also being replaced by the T-34 and had been largely phased out by 1941. The T-26 was also a good tank. Keep cherry-picking, see where that gets you.
Except they were, at Khalkin Ghol (1939), and in the battles of 1941. Things take time to re-arm you idiot, it's not like a videogame where you scrap something and can use the materials to instantly make a newer one.
Your entire argument is a strawman based on cherry-picking, because the examples weren't an all out fight between the two… (y'know, except Korea where the UN and US faced off against large forces of the USSR and PRC with the DPRK and foguht one another to a standstill). Sorry honey but nuclear weapons are a thing. the USA's aircraft carriers wouldn't last a week in an actual war, that isn't my words, those are the words of the US Admiral Rickover who was the father of the US nuclear navy.

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

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

Attached: Disdain.PNG (490x482, 388.86K)

Attached: physical version of autism.png (187x200, 26.13K)

Some more on tank design in the USSR and NATO

Soviet tanks were designed for high intensity conflicts. To this point, they were safer than NATO tanks of the period, and still are to a certain extent. In general the location of the autoloader is quite good, because it is very unlikely to get directly hit (being located at the floor); between 2/3 and 3/4 of all hits are expected to occur on the turret. There even is a steel plate on the late T-72/T-90 tanks to prevent fragments and splinters from hitting the autoloader. The problem is the ammo not located in the autoloader, which is sitting higher in the hull (not on the floor) and is not protected against fragments/spall by any sort of additional steel plate.
In the Second Chechen War, the Russian used T-72 tanks with only the autoloader being filled, all other ammunition was removed from the vehicle. While this was certainly not ideal, reports show that the tanks survived being hit/penetrated multiple times, in one case, a T-72B was penetrated 11 times without ammunition explosion.
No modern tank was designed with urban combat in mind, even the Merkava 4 is just a retrospective design change to tanks designed to conventional warfare. The Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 all have their own problems in such a situation. The T-72/80/90 tanks for example have ERA ontop of the turret, which can be useful in assymetric warfare while the M1 Abrams' roof is about one inch thick steel only.
Armor at the hull ammo storage of a Leopard 2, Leclerc or Challenger 2 can only be penetrated by extremely powerful APFSDS projectiles and ATGMs, which would have enough power to kill the crew regardless of the ammo. The armor at the M1 Abrams' hull ammo storage can be penetrated by much smaller threats - i.e. RPGs and medium calibre ammo, which usually doesn't have the power to kill all crew members at the same time. That's why the Chrysler's engineers decided to put a blow-off panel and blast doors there.
In terms of post-penetration survivability, the Abrams also suffers from the usage of hydraulics rather than using electric drives for the gun and turret. When hit, the highly pressurized hydraulic liquids can catch fire (even though the Abrams uses "non-flammable" hydraulic liquids with a high flashpoint, there have been multiple fire incidents in the past years), which could burn the crew alive. On the older models of the Leopard 2, the hydraulics were contained in a separate compartment (like the turret ammo) with its own blow-off panel; later the Leopard 2 switched to electric drives. Machine gun ammo and grenades can also kill the tank crew when being set on fire by a penetrating round. The Abrams and most of the previously mentioned tanks don't bother to care about this issue and have no protection for this. The late Merkava models are the sole exception to this, but suffer from various other issues.
The only NATO tank that has completely isolated ammunition storage is M1 Abrams (both hull ammo and turret bustle). Challenger 2 has propellant in the crew compartment. Leclerc has 22 rounds in autoloader, 16 rounds elsewhere. Leopard 2 has huge number of rounds sitting beside the driver. C1 Ariete is very similar to the Leopard series, loads of rounds beside the driver. The Abrams also had unprotected ammunition in its original variant. Three rounds of 105 mm main gun ammo were stored in a thin metal box on the floor next to the commander's seat. When switching to the larger 120 mm ammo, the old container was too small and was discarded.
If we would remove the loader's compartment from the Abrams, keep the same profile, but fill up the newly gained space with additional DU/composite armor? Yes, it would be just as cramped as a T-90, but the tank might have just gained an extra ~100-200mm KE penetration resistance, without increasing the profile itself. This is why the T-90 has similar armor performance in the turret compared to the Abrams, even though it's noticeably smaller.

Attached: british cold war tank armor.jpg (995x804 112.32 KB, 192.58K)

As for the argument that a 4th crewman is more helpful outside of battle. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave that extra person at the base were he could be a proper technician who would help to service multiple tanks. Or do you suggest that fighter pilots should strap their technicians to their planes as well?
The only sources I can find for any claims that the T-64's original auto-loader (or a Russian auto-loader of any kind) was detrimental to crew safety is a small quote from Bryan Perretts, "Soviet Armour Since 1945" book.
"Early versions of the autoloader lacked safety features and were dangerous to the tank crews (especially the gunner, who sits nearby): Limbs could be easily caught in the machinery, leading to injuries and deaths. A sleeve unknowingly snagged on one of the autoloader's moving parts could also drag a crewman into the apparatus upon firing."
The quote itself to me is quite questionable in some areas, especially regarding that the gunner as far as I know is the man responsible for operating the auto-loader. I strongly feel this is kind of an "old wives tale" of military-myths. Not to mention that it could very much be a cold war "smear" campaign against the Russians that still gets spread around even today.
Про защиту «самых защищенных» из западных танков. Речь про британцев, цифры официальные и когда-то были секретные. Судя по контексту речь про защиту от БПС.
«Чифтен» – 250 мм ВЛД и башня.
«Челленджер-I» – 275 мм – ВЛД, 500 мм - башня.
«Челленджер-II» – 500 мм – ВЛД, 500 мм - башня.
Т-72Б (1984) 490 мм и 540 башня.
В середине 80-х БПС «Вант» пробивал бы Челленджер-II с дистанции 2 км, а «Манго» с 1-1,5 км. Хотя вопрос были ли они в войсках.
Why the Soviets didn't use bustles is a good question, likely to do with profile and weight. It increases the length of the turret by about double the internal turret floor design. That also adds a huge amount of vulnerable area on the tank. Most tanks are hit in the turret, and with this design not only is there a lot more turret, but it's a lot more vulnerable as well per the same weight. Not only is there effectively twice the target when fired at perpendicularly, but also when fired at from more than 30* a round would impact the long turreted tank whereas it would pass behind the short turreted tank.

Attached: leo-IIa4 detontation.png (698x1000 223.64 KB, 171.68K)

(me)
Actually I've done some research and apparently if the Iraqis had used proper tactics they would have devastated the American attack:
'simulated U.S. vehicle losses rise from only two in the base case to almost 50 (more than 70 percent of total U.S. strength), while Iraqi losses fall from 86 to about 30, even given the technological advantages of the M1A1, the effects of Coalition air supremacy, and the skilled handling of the U.S. attack'
comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

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

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

I've read it and it's cherry-picked trash that bases itself on old-wives tales about the Soviet Army.
This is largely correct: I actually posted screenshots of those tests

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

ok faggot here we go
Ok you supported by assertion that USSR troopers were heavily demoralized and demotivated after about a decade of conflict where as the NVA had suffered multiple decades of constant conflicts that involved entire generations of people living and fighting as soldiers where as in the USSR they would get sent home to families and have tings that typical NVA conscripts dreamed of.
But i thought they were modern NATO tanks? you meant modern for the time? you should have probably specified.
It really, really is, if you can't see that im sorry for you.
Notice how "capable" doesn't mean "best at" or "designed for"
I am capable of bending over and sucking my own dick, but i'm not going to do it because i would probably hurt myself in the process and im not very good at sucking dick.
And many of those enviroments aren't the best for the RPG to be used in, you missed the whole point of that entire post.
I'm trying to say you can't judge the combat effectiveness of a weapon based on small engagements, im not talking about the RPG specifically but using it as an example.
You are so obviously biased about this it's unreal, i mention USA stuff comparatively or as examples for making points and you just start spouting off about how shit they apparently are even thought it's completely detached from anything, the LAW being shit has nothing to do with the conversation other than you wanting to get a 1 up on someone you perceive to be a western shill because you are so invested in killing machines as a replacement for your manhood.
None of those are pitched battles in a genuine war against the USSR.
B-29 bombing sights are not designed to operate at their flight ceiling but ok.
No your post doesn't mention altitudes or anything specific about the engagement other than the losses taken and some prattling by a US pilot about how good the migs were.
Are you trying to imply here that the US still uses b-52 as genuine atomic bombers in the 21st century?
I can't name a single country that had inferior tanks to the Japanese other than the Italians so that's not much of an accomplishment.
Again, proving my point that people here talk about military vehicles in a vacuum, because once the upgrade was issued the BT-7 took such heavy losses that they were moved to a more appropriate environment where they wouldn't get decimated just like the USA wouldn't use b-29s to bomb USSR cities in a genuine war, they would re delegate the inferior machines to do less dangerous tasks like the British did with the blenhiems during the end years of the war.

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

Now i know for a fact you're a larping faggot, no human would ever allow these words to be typed onto a screen unironically unless they were politically and emotionally invested in this.
Again proving my point about training and motivation being at least %50 of the equation when fighting pitched battles against equally equipped enemies which USSR and NATO doctrines were designed for.
Because it was so shit, couldn't turn, had weak armour and had such a huge profile it basically became impossible to compete with other tanks, which as you've said in one of your earlier posts, is one of the main tenants that make a tank useful.
Again, it wasn't, if it was a good tank it would have led to further developments in it's design style, but it was such a bad tank that pretty much every design aspect of the t-26 was ditched apart from it's sloped front plate which pretty much every other nation was also doing at the time, you do not see that style of turret on a Russian tank after the t-26 after it.
I'm not the one cherry picking here when people in this thread mostly only talk about successful soviet designs and not the utter failures and pretend the inferior designs were totally fine for the time.
I specifically point this out.
Again you're so heavily invested in this that you feel the need to throw insults at Americans and be constantly making pointless jabs at american equipment even though the thread topic is USSR equipment and i only mention USA equipment to correct inaccuracies or to provide examples.
No it's not.
If it's not an all out real fight then it's not a measurable real world example of how the USSR militaries equipment works when it's designed to fight the US and they don't end up fighting the US in any large amount that could be used for real data gathering that can actually be used to come to conclusions.
We know for a fact semi automatics are better than bolt actions because we have had the combat experience in large scale wars to definitively prove that a semi auto is more combat effective than a bolt action, the same cannot be said for USSR and US equipment that was designed to compete but often ended up fighting against outdated older versions or used improperly. Migs shooting down a formation of bombers or a group of fighters that weren't expecting it or were designed for different eras proves nothing other than the importance of clandestine use of up to date equipment in shadow wars where the opposing side does not expect modern (for the time) equipment to be used.
Because they were going to get killed and because their society would pressure them into fighting, mothers wouldn't talk to their children if they refused to sign up, people would be jailed or sent to labour camps if they refused to sign up, we are not talking about world war 2 though we're talking about how people conscripted into service against their will typically aren't going to be the best fighters and they would typically get barely a few weeks training, hardly effective fighters who would feel confident when an mg-42 is firing into your general direction and you're expected to assault that position.
>

Well scuds are ballistic missiles, not planes, so i have no idea why you're talking about the application of anti ballistic missiles systems when im talking about AA systems designed to shoot down enemy planes which pretty much every country on earth has an effective way of doing but im going to guess its so you could bash US equipment again because in your deeply troubled mind im the enemy who must be insulted and belittled instead of just another user on an imageboard discussing things.
Imagine how much time you would have saved if you had used the word "modern" properly and added "for the time" on the end.
Saying "modern" implies current day.
If you were talking about a past time you say "modern for the time" or you don't use the word modern at all.

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

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

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

Actually 2 decades of conflict and struggle. The famines occurred because of war, and the lack of industry under the Tsar + economic global pressure created huge issues. Despite this the USSR did not collapse and had a standing army of several million people.
learn to read carefully, I literally cite dates of what I was describing throughout my posts.
A tank shouldn't be defeated by a weapon over a decade older than it. The M-60 and m-48 got CREAMED in almost all conflicts with competent enemies and contemporaries. Their design and specs were completely sub-par to their counterparts as well. I already pointed this out in a 5 part post about soviet and NATO tanks, backed by sources and images of documentation.
See this is why you should be quiet. You clearly don't understand Soviet military doctrine. Soviet doctrine matched their ATGM capability with that of the RPG-7. letting it cover the gap of the 1-200 meter area that ATGMs could not be used in.
No it's just that your point is bullshit arm-chair theorism that ignores reality.
What's your definition of a small engagement? Iraq and Iran are medium-Large size countries and had a full blown war, the Gulf War was the US literally using superior technology and tactics to overwhelm worn out troops of Saddam, whilst also outnumbering them.
Everyone is biased. That is irrellevant.
You didn't mention the LAW, I did. i mentioned it not because "it's garbage because muh evil West" but because it is objectively inferior to the RPG-7 and displayed this in combat.
No. not really. You're just blustering ignorant bullshit and I pointed it out.
Except that they were. Planned nuclera assaults along side conventional invasion. They wer abandoned because they lacked sufficient nuclear capability and the USSR had
acquired nuclear capability of its own.
As I said, they carpet combed EVERYTHING, literally everything.
The US B-29 bombers didn't go low to bomb jungles, they bombed Korea. And they were forced to fly at night only. The MiG-15 could reach their flight ceiling and devastated their formations low-level or high. And that is what my sources provide.
ad hominum that ignores the objective statements by battle-experienced veterans
That wasn't your point and that wasn't what happened here you dimwitted fuck. That also isn't what this thread is about. It is talking about Soviet hardware's military performance in conflicts. There is more to warfare than all out major war you twat.
Nothing to imply, it's a fucking fact. They made new modifications to bombs. Obviously B-52s are useless today, but the number of B1s and B-2s are so low and their usage so costly that B-52s would be used, mostly because, unlike Soviet aircraft, the US never fully developed a doctrine of nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
US tanks prior to the M4 sherman were trash. British tanks were mostly garbage that couldn't get to battle-field, required obsurd amounts of maintenance and had few produced, French tanks, like Japanese tanks, were innovative or had good ideas, but also like the Japanese had massive design flaws that made them easy targets.
Yes, but again that was in the middle of re-armament, proving my point. You're using WW-2 as your bench-mark when warfare has changed. It's like Judging WW-1 based on how its tactics would function in WW-2.
The Blenheim was a failure from the start

ftfy

On July 3rd, 1941 A Soviet T-28 tank seperated from its division and, made up of a ragtag crew of rookies and veterans, went through Minsk destroying dozens of German trucks and Panzer IIIs that were taken by surprise. The tank was finally knocked out, with most of its crew was killed, but two of them - Dmitriy Ivanovich Malko and Nikolay Evseevich Pedan who survived, both escaping to friendly lines (albeit seperately) and fighting up until the war’s end. T-28s were being phased out in 1941, but when they were built they were very capable tanks, and in the right hands could cause massive damage to superior tanks like the Panzer III.
Source: mihalchuk-1974.livejournal.com/19986.html
That wasn't our point. You just threw that out as if it was some secret, when we were talking about soviet hardware and how it performed in war and why. It's a discussion, and you just butt in with smart-ass bullshit that is plain unnecessary.
Pitched battles on the scale of WW-2 are never going to happen unless it's WW-3 which is the prelude to the apocalypse. Nuclear warfare is a thing and therefore it is retarded to talk about conventional military might in an all out war. The idea is ludicrous. You sound like those "limited nuclear war" retards from the Reagan era.
compared to what you buffoon? Tanks that were a generation newer? No shit, that's called progression. For its time the T-28 was one of the best tanks, but in 1941 it no longer held that position.
Not an issue, the T-28 was not much bigger than other tanks of its type later in WW-2. the Panther was a bigger tank despite both being mediums.
The T-26 was the culmination of earlier designs just because it is obsolete in 1941 does not make its design bad, but simply outdated. It's like judging the Wright Brother plane by comparing it to a Fokker tri-plane. Things progress. A Gatling gun of the US civil war era was an excellent weapon in its day and is still a good weapon, but over-shadowed by modern designs, because they have things not available before.
most of which were also ditched on foreign ones, does that mean that ALL tanks of the T-26 generation were garbage? Your comparisons make no sense. You whine about obsolesence, then claim a design is shit because it is obsolete when that isnt how you determine that.
Uhh no, the thread here mentions soviet military hardware used in combat, their success is not dependent on their designs.
Name one utter failure that was used in combat.
It's not pretend, it's fact. The BT-7 was better than its contemporaries, with innovative, design features that gave it an edge, like its Christie suspension. However thsi suspension was obsolete compared to the newer systems created afterwards. But that's just shifting goal posts.
Where did I insult americans in that statement? I only pointed out that by the words of their own admiral their aircraft carriers wouldn't last a week in an all out war:
Back in the 70s, Admiral Rickover, the ‘father of nuclear navy’, had to answer the question before the U.S. Senate, “How long would our aircraft carriers survive in a battle against the Russian Navy?” His response caused disillusionment, “Two or three days before they sink, maybe a week if they stay in the harbor.”
Uhh no, I compared them in terms of specs and then compared their performance in battle, with context of crew and date.
Your entire argument is STILL a bunch of strawmen based on cherry-picking and conjecture, salted with some opinionated nonsense.

That's not how the military works you retard. Not every military situation is an all out war.
That's the most retarded shit I've heard. Semi-auto was created and used because its designs provided an advantage. THEN it was proven. However, going by your statements, the AK-74 wasn't necessary, because the Vietnam war wasn't an all out demonstration.
The MiG-15 is literally 10 years older, the F-86 was a contemporary design, and the B-29 was upgraded repeatedly. The B-29 was designed to supercede the B-17 and it was nigh-untouchable by any Axis Air defenses.

I already debunked this bullshit before.

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

The soviets realized sooner than anyone else that 90% of infantry combat takes place at close range (

It is. Your statements are literal Solzhenitsyn levels of made-up bullshit.
My great-grandfather WAS a soviet veteran, so was his brother and his father-in-law. He DID fight in Stalingrad. Moreover I've studied that battle. You're just spouting the same anti-soviet garbage the Robert Conquest was.
I have read more soviet ww-2 memoirs than you know.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (500x707, 513.99K)

Are you actually this retarded?
The Patriot SAM is also an AA system you tard, and short-range ballistic missiles are also aerial targets. Planes aren't the only things being shot down you dip-shit.
You're projecting so hard it's hilarious.
the point is that US SAMs are inferior even compared to older soviet SAMs because they have not demonstrated the capability to shoot down a target they were DESIGNED to shoot down, while the soviet SAM compared was NOT designed to be able to shoot down F-117s, yet did one, and damaged another. The point was a comparison. The SA-3 being used was in real battle conditions, all out Kosovo war with NATO bombardment and technology overmatching Serbia's by a wide margin. meanwhile the Patriot missiles, far more autonomous and deployed in a comparatively peaceful and easy area was unable to shoot down a basic bombardment when it had literally NOTHING stopping it except its own design faults. The crews were Israeli and US (well trained), the missile was the top-tech of its time and the situation was such that they had no distractions or worries of being compromised during their efforts to conduct AA warfare (unlike the Serbs who were watching out for HARMs every time they risked using their SAMs). Despite this they failed to shoot down a SINGLE missile, despite being designed to do JUST THAT, and having nearly PERFECT conditions.
I didn't use it that often at all and I pointed out the dates of what I stated, as well as the countries and other specifics, Your lack of reading ability is at fault, not me.

Two different threads, one where a guy claimed the stinger had a 90% success rate which is obvious propaganda. The guy who countered him actually knew his shit and could tell that soviet helicopters could actually survive multiple hits in some cases and soviet troops preferred their own launchers over captured stingers.
In the other, someone who claimed the Tupolev-144 was inferior to the Concorde, got shut down by someone whose grandfather had been on a Tupolev-144 and was an aircraft engineer and knew all about it, pointed out how NASA preferred the Tupolev-144 for testing purposes and how the myth of Concorde superiority arose from a comparison made between a Concorde which had been modified against a semi-prototype version of the Tupolev-144.

If MIG's performed well in Korean war, how did Americans managed to bomb North Korea so much? According to wiki
During this period, U.S. Far East Air Forces (FEAF) B-29 bombers carried out massive aerial attacks on transport centers and industrial hubs in North Korea. Having soon established air supremacy by the destruction of North Korean aircraft in the air and on the ground, FEAF bombers encountered no resistance and "the sky over North Korea was their safe front yard."

What happened? How did Americans establish air dominance?

1) night bombing as I mentioned. The MiGs lacked sophisticated RADAR and thus had trouble combating night-fighters at the same time as taking down the Bombers.
2) The MiG-15 was introduced mi-way into the war, prior to that the North Korean forces were unable to stop B-29 bombing.
3) The B-29 has a massive payload
4) Strike fighters with 2 napalm bomb tanks on them often conducted low-level high-speed bombing (similar to the Vietnam war.

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

The USAF, just like in WW-2 bombed everything indiscriminately. Civilian housing and industry alike,
US propaganda. As I pointed out before, they inflated North Korean loss-rates many times over while denying their own losses and attributing them to "mechanical failures".

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

Also how effective were the AA guns?

After the MiGs arrived, yes, prior to that the US bombers had managed to fly their missions with acceptable loss-rates, with a limited Korean AF opposing them.
Well along side the biological weapons they deployed (nrt24.ru/en/news/available-first-time-general-public-evidence-about-use-us-biological-weapons-during-korean-war)
The end result of the Korean war was that the USAF dropped 635,000 tons of explosives on North Korea, including 32,557 tons of napalm.

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

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

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

The KS-19 is an AA autocannon. It's firing shells larger than your head.
When they were made they were capable of severely damaging planes. Both AA cannons and AA machine guns used ammunition designed to shred a plane to pieces from a distance. Flak may not have been effective at pursuing, but it could act as an area-denial weapon when concentrated into areas. An example would be the USAF catastrophe in the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, which lost 60+ bombers in 1 mission, and failed to achieve a meaningful result.
As planes became more powerful and flew higher, they became more obsolete. HOWEVER when SAMs came in, they became useful again, because planes, began to fly low to avoid RADAR and thus the SAMs, and came into range of things like the Shilka.

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

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

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

No, not really. The AK-12 is IMO better than the M4A4 by a wide margin.

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

How well did Soviet technology perform in Indochinese wars?

Attached: ZSU-57-2.jpg (3008x2000 94.77 KB, 3.6M)

That one never engaged in conflicts FYI

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

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

Attached: mig-21.jpg (1500x2180, 327.11K)

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

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

Attached: vietnam stamp.jpg (1389x1635, 1.11M)

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

Attached: Cuban-Missile-Crisis-631.jpg (631x300, 62.73K)

Pretty well from what I remember reading of it. Ever wonder why the planet is flooded with BTR's and AK's? It's because the Soviets expected to be nuked first, and their retaliation included an all out nuclear strike, bombarding Europe and America with biological and chemical weapons, such as caking the mainland with sarin, then shortly after rushing BTR's packed with Red Army over the wasteland. IIRC there were 10 BTR's to a single piece of NATO light armour.
They would have won but it would have been an end of days scenario. Revolution through a lead lined mask and a nearly non-existent atmosphere.

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

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

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

Attached: 05C37ED6-275D-4317-A2DD-960FF9059464.jpeg (960x742, 165.53K)

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

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

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

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

Fuck off burger. The f-15 has been shot down several times in A0A combat but it's been attributed to SAMs or mechanical failure. I can go on and on but the point is, that picture is the most basic bitch disinformation around.
The F-16 also has been shot down in A0A combat but as we see in the Korean war, the USA regularly hides its losses and inflates the losses of its opponents.

- Soviet electronic and counter-warfare equipment was better than the USA's, their flares worked on their own missiles and on Us missiles while US flares barely managed to trick their own missiles, let alone soviet ones.
- Soviet cruise missiles are better in every way, faster, longer range, tactically more efficient, bigger warhead etc.
- Soviet mobile infantry out-classed the USA up til the 1990s when the Bradley was introduced, and even then the Bradley is technically a worse machine, and its only success was in the Gulf war.
- Soviet technology was 2x cheaper and 2x easier to make. They had more of almost everything or were on equal standing.

Attached: 1384136409109.jpg (640x512, 87.43K)

Just my Korea example

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

Sources like ACIG are helpful
>web.archive.org/web/20161219172206/http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=47
>web.archive.org/web/20161219173824/http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47

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

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

>theboresight.blogspot.com/2016/03/swirl-of-controversy-cope-india-and-red.html
>rbth.com/blogs/2013/12/19/dogfight_duke_the_mig_that_forced_an_armys_surrender_31775
>rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2017/04/03/the-foxbat-that-buzzed-pakistan-20-years-ago_733386
>rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2016/07/26/how-the-iaf-dominated-the-skies-during-kargil-war_615175

A specific example:
2 pm, December 12, 1971 Jamnagar, a city on the west coast of India. Two F-104’s of the Pakistan Air Force entered Indian airspace with a mission to attack the forward airbase of the city. The first Pakistani aircraft dived towards the airfield and strafed it before being intercepted by a patrolling MiG-21 of the 47th Fighter Squadron. With the MiG on his tail, the Pakistani F-104 broke off the strafe, turned and attempted to shake the MiG off. The Indian pilot pulled the MiG-21 into a tighter turn inside the enemy plane and launched an air-to-air missile but missed. In the meantime, the pilot of the second Pakistani Starfighter, the wingman, fled at the arrival of another MiG-21, abandoning his comrade. The remaining Pakistani F 104 attempted to get away with a supersonic dash but the MiGs chased after, getting back on his tail. The Indian MiG fired a long burst with its twin barreled GSh 23 auto-cannons. Seconds later the Starfighter aircraft spinned out of control and crashed into the sea. The pilot had ejected safely, and the MiG pilot (Squadron Leader Bharat Bhushan Soni) contacted an IAF base to send a rescue team. Unfortunately the pilot (Wing Commander Mervyn Leslie Middlecoat) was not found. While not a factor of this dog fight, the original F 104s downward firing ejection seats (Stanley models B, C, and C1) made it nearly impossible for low level escape. 21 USAF pilots failed to escape from their stricken aircraft in such low-level emergencies. This was especially problematic for the West German air force who used the planes for low-level strikes and strafes.
>ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm