PDA

View Full Version : Technology level of the USSR during the 70's



LongTimeLurker
10-13-2009, 03:27 PM
I've read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier)that the Soviets were relying on stealing US technology to keep their military at level. Is it true? And if so, how comes that the USSR was lagging behind the USA? Has it always been the case since the beginning of the Cold War?

Robert.V
10-13-2009, 03:38 PM
No, and while the soviets lagged behing in some areas they were ahead in others.

fhaye
10-14-2009, 05:02 AM
I think during the cold war some private military are deployed and even those who are in a boys military schools (http://www.***********************/military-schools/summer-military-schools.html) where also there. Cold war with its primary participants' military forces never officially clashed directly, they uttered the conflict through military alliance, tactical conventional force deployments, surveillance, a nuclear arms race, propaganda, and technological competition.

shadowsrider
10-14-2009, 10:51 AM
Depends which branch you take into consideration.
If for instance you take tanks these were Soviets who were one step ahead the West until 3rd tank generation. Even first Abrams version had armor comparable with T-64s od T-80s in line. The breaktrough was with M1A1.
Soviet metallurgy was better so for long time they did not need composite armor. But in 70s they had definitelly the superiority.

As for AVFs when BMP-1 was introduced there was no Western match at all for a long time.

If you take airplanes first Soviets needed German engineers and designes until 50s, then there was moreover the balance again when modern avionics introduced.

Mango Madness
10-14-2009, 11:24 AM
Military Soviet technology or technology in general? In military tech the SU was at the forefront throughout the entire cold war.

Robert.V
10-14-2009, 11:38 AM
Military Soviet technology or technology in general? In military tech the SU was at the forefront throughout the entire cold war.

Bull****, utter ****ing bull****.



Depends which branch you take into consideration.
If for instance you take tanks these were Soviets who were one step ahead the West until 3rd tank generation. Even first Abrams version had armor comparable with T-64s od T-80s in line. The breaktrough was with M1A1.
Soviet metallurgy was better so for long time they did not need composite armor. But in 70s they had definitelly the superiority.

As for AVFs when BMP-1 was introduced there was no Western match at all for a long time.

If you take airplanes first Soviets needed German engineers and designes until 50s, then there was moreover the balance again when modern avionics introduced.



Yep, soviet sub force was also generally regarded to have been ahead.


It's pretty much like I said though the soviets lagged behing in some areas they were ahead in others.

In non militery tech though Soviet Union was In most areas light years behind.

oldsoak
10-14-2009, 11:41 AM
Russians are a law unto themselves. They have some of the most brilliant engineers and scientists going, however the old Soviet system was not conducive to the spread of ideas - so the brilliance was not as seminal as it might have been elsewhere. Now, its the comparitive lack of funding that holds them back, not their brains.
For fighting a war in western Europe up until the 80's there was little to lack in what they produced - good weapons, tanks, armour, planes, missiles etc. Their comms stuff seemed a lot more basic than ours though - possible because of the lack of consumer electronics driving technology. Their DF, ESM and ECM gear was VERY good though.
They really need to be treated with respect. The reason why we pursue expensive high tech is because the Russians are not as far back in the race as we would like them to be.

Robert.V
10-14-2009, 11:52 AM
Russians are a law unto themselves. They have some of the most brilliant engineers and scientists going, however the old Soviet system was not conducive to the spread of ideas - so the brilliance was not as seminal as it might have been elsewhere. Now, its the comparitive lack of funding that holds them back, not their brains.
For fighting a war in western Europe up until the 80's there was little to lack in what they produced - good weapons, tanks, armour, planes, missiles etc. Their comms stuff seemed a lot more basic than ours though - possible because of the lack of consumer electronics driving technology. Their DF, ESM and ECM gear was VERY good though.
They really need to be treated with respect. The reason why we pursue expensive high tech is because the Russians are not as far back in the race as we would like them to be.



You also make a good point allot of discoveries that SU scientists made ended up sitting on the shelf. And some of those works where published in scientific papers that later American engineers applied for gods sakes.

Mr Gently Benevolent
10-14-2009, 02:45 PM
I don't know much about 70's Soviet tech but 40's and 50's Soviet spy tech had the US and UK's best boffins flumoxed, take the Great Seal listening device of 1946 by Lev Termen now that was just out there.

omghihi
10-15-2009, 09:22 AM
well I think western tech leaped past the soviets in 1980s. the soviets sure had the numbers though.

Drez
10-15-2009, 02:31 PM
In my opinion you can't steal high end technologies and use it properly without your own high quality scientists who also do researches by their own.

Kilgor
10-15-2009, 07:08 PM
By the 70s and 80s the soviets couldn't keep up with the massive boom in the integrated circuit, cpu and electronics in the west.

blilov
10-15-2009, 07:40 PM
And they still managed to build in the early 80s the best aircraft radar then(the one on the MiG-31).

GazB
10-15-2009, 08:28 PM
By the 70s and 80s the soviets couldn't keep up with the massive boom in the integrated circuit, cpu and electronics in the west.

Hahahaha, that is an interesting comment. What sort of computer chip do you think the F-15C carried?
I remember having discussions about this stuff in the 1990s with guys going on about the western planes all having the latest pentium processors while the Soviet planes not.
The amusing thing was that even into the 21st Century most "modern" aircraft were using 286s or 486s. Chips that were developed in the late 1980s.
The reality is that planes of the 1970s and 1980s actually generally had custom chips like the chips in a dedicated electronic calculator. Chip speeds were not fast enough to be software based all purpose chips. These days chips are so fast that you don't need things hard wired into them to make them fast enough, they can pretty much do all sorts of calculations.

What is the difference I hear you say. A hard wired dedicated chip will be fast for what it is designed to do, but if you want to give it new features or new capabilities you pretty much needed a new chip which means years. With a faster non specialised chip like the CPU of a micro computer an update can be completely software based and can be uploaded to the entire fleet in the front line in a matter of days.

Soviet electronics in the military was not far behind the west in many areas and ahead in some. Soviet electronics was larger and heavier generally.

cavsalute
10-15-2009, 08:32 PM
You can say what you want about soviet armor. I thought they were really good until I heard of catastrophic kills on T-72s by the 25mm of an M2 Bradley. The Bradley was using DP rounds though. Still you would think an MBT could take hits from an APC and survive.

cavsalute
10-15-2009, 08:37 PM
My bad 'DU' rounds not DP.

John1980
10-15-2009, 09:24 PM
You can say what you want about soviet armor. I thought they were really good until I heard of catastrophic kills on T-72s by the 25mm of an M2 Bradley. The Bradley was using DP rounds though. Still you would think an MBT could take hits from an APC and survive.

"catastrophic kills on T-72s by the 25mm of an M2 Bradley", wow. Thats a first one, even here. rofl

Cheers.

asch
10-15-2009, 09:28 PM
it's a matter of time till we hear about T72 catastrophic kills by '50 cal.

cavsalute
10-15-2009, 09:33 PM
LOL. Ask some Bradley crewmen that fought in Iraq. I have heard it from a few of them. Maybe catastrophic is too strong a term but they did set them on fire and get the ammo to cook off. I didn't believe it either at first. You will at least concede that tank killing aircraft carry a similar cannon armament and nobody argues with their ability to destroy tanks.... well not yet anyways. I'm interested in what you have to say about that.
If you want to hear about catastrophic kills from a .50 then go look at some people who have been hit by them :)

Kilgor
10-15-2009, 09:35 PM
Soviet electronics in the military was not far behind the west in many areas and ahead in some. Soviet electronics was larger and heavier generally.

Thank you, that confirms what I said.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 03:10 AM
Hahahaha, that is an interesting comment. What sort of computer chip do you think the F-15C carried?
I remember having discussions about this stuff in the 1990s with guys going on about the western planes all having the latest pentium processors while the Soviet planes not.




Seriously ? Pentium familey cpu's have never gain a foot in the
Military Market. It was IBM's market mostly in the 90's.

Oh, and a lot of Russian 80's supercomputer know-hows were carried out in the Pentium familie.

GazB
10-16-2009, 03:45 AM
You can say what you want about soviet armor. I thought they were really good until I heard of catastrophic kills on T-72s by the 25mm of an M2 Bradley. The Bradley was using DP rounds though. Still you would think an MBT could take hits from an APC and survive.

No tank on the planet has equal armour all round it in 360 degrees and top and bottom. The general rule of thumb is that the front 60 degrees of a tanks armour is designed to protect it from the main gun of the current enemy tank. The side is designed to protect the tank from the main heavy cannon of the enemy IFV and the rear will generally stop HMG from over 500m.
For many tanks that latter isn't even achieved as HMG fire can start engine fires that can destroy a tank just as effectively as any frontal penetration.


LOL. Ask some Bradley crewmen that fought in Iraq. I have heard it from a few of them. Maybe catastrophic is too strong a term but they did set them on fire and get the ammo to cook off. I didn't believe it either at first. You will at least concede that tank killing aircraft carry a similar cannon armament and nobody argues with their ability to destroy tanks.... well not yet anyways. I'm interested in what you have to say about that.
If you want to hear about catastrophic kills from a .50 then go look at some people who have been hit by them

I believe those kills were T-55s and not T-72s. And the aircraft you are talking about would be the A-10 with a 7 barrel gatling gun firing 30mm rounds that are rather larger and more powerful than the 25mm gun on the Bradley.


Seriously ? Pentium familey cpu's have never gain a foot in the
Military Market. It was IBM's market mostly in the 90's.

Contrary to popular belief you don't actually want the fastest latest processor in an aircraft. The older chips are less sensitive to dust and heat and of course moisture simply because of the technology used to make them. As the number of transistors increases and they of course get smaller and closer together they become faster but also more fragile. They will likely move to Pentiums eventually in some systems but even the slowest 486 can do a rather good job of processing data if it is well programmed.


Oh, and a lot of Russian 80's supercomputer know-hows were carried out in the Pentium familie

Indeed, a lot of the brains working on the Boeing 787 are Russian... and it was Soviet technology that was used for the vectored thrust nozzle for the F-35 and for the ejection system that needs to operate at low level at almost any angle to ensure the pilot is thrown clear of any wreckage.

martinexsquaddie
10-16-2009, 04:45 AM
tbf
There might have been more lantern jawed soviet super soldiers with super HI tech tanks and jet fighters.
but they had to go home.
meanwhile the Decadent GI with kit from the lowest bidder and the hungover tommy with frankly comedy kit is still there

oldsoak
10-16-2009, 04:51 AM
@Gaz - their comms kit ( the stuff we looked at after the wall came down ) was less sophisticated. Certainly man packs and vehicle borne stuff was not as sophisticated. I cant recall seeing a microwave comms link either, although this would not have been beyond them at all. It was speculated that the reason for this was the way they conducted warfare - a lot less reliance on comms. It really depends how you measure technology - eg deployed in quantity or not.

TR1
10-16-2009, 04:52 AM
This thread has potential.


word.

shadowsrider
10-16-2009, 05:21 AM
There was a time I was living in conviction of total outclassing of Soviet tanks by Western ones.
Until time I compared armor equivalent which should be compared by years when tank appeared.
So simply it is not very fair to compare M1A2 or even A1 to Iraqi T-72 which were versions B with depleted ammo of Yugoslav or Polish production with armor penetration capabilities up to 300mm.
M1A2 should be rather compared to T-90, M1A1 to T-80. Earlier versions of Abrams had armor penetration factor circa 400-500mm (same Leo2 earlier versions) which is not so much better than Soviet tanks of the time.

This what made the difference was definitelly the crew training: several years vs several months.

Holycrusader
10-16-2009, 05:28 AM
On 26 March 2003 near An Najaf, a Bradley Fighting Vehicle shot 25 mm DU
rounds into the engine compartment of an Abrams tank (B24) attached to 3rd
Battalion, 7th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division.8 “The 25mm
[DU] rounds hit the Abrams’ ‘ready rack’ of 120mm main gun ammunition in the
turret, igniting some main gun rounds. But the blast doors contained the explosion
and the crew survived unscathed except for fume inhalation.”9
Sean D. Naylor, “Abrams destroyed by friendly, not Iraqi, fire,” The Army Times, 30 May 2003.

Bradley that get catastophic kill on Abrams with 25 mm ;)

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 06:09 AM
There was a time I was living in conviction of total outclassing of Soviet tanks by Western ones.
Until time I compared armor equivalent which should be compared by years when tank appeared.
So simply it is not very fair to compare M1A2 or even A1 to Iraqi T-72 which were versions B with depleted ammo of Yugoslav or Polish production with armor penetration capabilities up to 300mm.
M1A2 should be rather compared to T-90, M1A1 to T-80. Earlier versions of Abrams had armor penetration factor circa 400-500mm (same Leo2 earlier versions) which is not so much better than Soviet tanks of the time.

This what made the difference was definitelly the crew training: several years vs several months.

Yep, and when T-72 was introduced it wasn't the best nor the main Russian tank.

T-72 was meant for Warsaw pact nations mainly and as a export version to friendly nations and if needed it would be the mass production tank in case of war.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 06:26 AM
Hahaha... you made spill my chocolat milk with rum.

TR1
10-16-2009, 06:31 AM
Yep, and when T-72 was introduced it wasn't the best nor the main Russian tank.

T-72 was meant for Warsaw pact nations mainly and as a export version to friendly nations and if needed it would be the mass production tank in case of war.
Well, by number it was certainly the main Russian tank. Anyways for some reason people think T-80/T-64 were magically better in every way, truth is not quite so simple.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 06:48 AM
Well, by number it was certainly the main Russian tank. Anyways for some reason people think T-80/T-64 were magically better in every way, truth is not quite so simple.


True, yeah it quickly became apparent that to equip the entire Soviet tank army with T-64 and later T-80 would be too expensive.

blilov
10-16-2009, 07:16 AM
Well, they had to retool all tank factories for this to happen(T-64 was built only in Kharkov, there was an idea to make it everywhere, but the realities of the Cold War stopped this from, because that would mean that USSR should stop building tanks for long, while retooling).

Mango Madness
10-16-2009, 07:26 AM
Bull****, utter ****ing bull****.



Yep, soviet sub force was also generally regarded to have been ahead.


It's pretty much like I said though the soviets lagged behing in some areas they were ahead in others.

In non militery tech though Soviet Union was In most areas light years behind.

The Soviet Union and the United States maintained more or less the same technological parity throughout the cold war, in practically all weapons systems. There were minor differences in military tech but there was no "generational" differences. As one country developed a new generation weapons platform the other quickly developed its own and as one country moved slightly ahead in a weapons system the other developed a counter, and so on. You are right in that there were minor differences between them.


well I think western tech leaped past the soviets in 1980s. the soviets sure had the numbers though.

On the contrary, not only did the Soviet Union maintain a huge numbers advantage over the US, but by the 1980s the Soviet Union had narrowed what was left of the minor gap between it and US tech - "In the past, the United State relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to offset Soviet technological advances, however [the Soviets] are narrowing the technological gap between both countries." - Heritage 1983 "New Evidence of Moscow's Military Threat" http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/EM27.cfm

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 07:34 AM
Not what you ****ing said.



In military tech the SU was at the forefront throughout the entire cold war.

Mango Madness
10-16-2009, 07:38 AM
Not what you ****ing said.

I don't see the inconsistency. The Soviet Union was at the forefront of military tech in the world, along with the US.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 07:39 AM
Alright, i'm fine with that.

Kilgor
10-16-2009, 07:40 AM
The USSR gave cosmonauts pencils. US spent millions on special pens.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalmdotjpg

GazB
10-16-2009, 07:49 AM
@Gaz - their comms kit ( the stuff we looked at after the wall came down ) was less sophisticated. Certainly man packs and vehicle borne stuff was not as sophisticated. I cant recall seeing a microwave comms link either, although this would not have been beyond them at all. It was speculated that the reason for this was the way they conducted warfare - a lot less reliance on comms. It really depends how you measure technology - eg deployed in quantity or not.

Their technology was not applied evenly.

When UK troops were amazing Argentine officers by setting up a satellite link in the Falklands so they could talk directly to number 10 downing street from the middle of nowhere the Soviets had a system in service called Legenda. It consisted of a group of Satellites that scanned the worlds oceans and any OSCAR class sub could move to within 100m of the sea surface and capture the data they collected. In time of war that data could be fed into the 24 enormous Granit cruise missiles the OSCARS carried and if there were US carrier groups within 500km of its location it could ripple fire them all in a salvo. Once airborne the missiles would climb to about 100m and remain at that altitude flying to a calculated intercept point based on the targets location, direction and speed. Once the missiles got to within radar horizon range for an aircraft at 300m one of the missiles would climb and switch on its radar and do a quick scan. It would then uplink that radar image to any satellites passing overhead and calculate which targets were priorities and hand of target data to the other missiles in the flight and drop down and all of the missiles would close on the targets radar silent till the calculated point where their respective targets should become radar visible at the height they are operating at... at which time all missile will light up their targets and fly at them... at mach 2.8. Some missiles will not have HE warheads. Some will have jammer payloads, others will have nukes. All will have chaff and flare dispensers to confuse incoming interceptors. Some will be active radar homing and some will home on jamming signals.
A very sophisticated system that has no equivelents in the west even today.

The S-300 systems the west is so afraid of Iran getting its hands on entered service in the late 1970s. Everyone goes on about how sophisticated Stinger was, well Igla was better and earlier. When they captured Stingers in Afghanistan the normal procedure would be to examine it and copy anything useful. AFAIK they didn't copy anything from Stinger when it was captured in the 80s.
Equally the Sparrow was compromised from Vietnam and a Soviet missile design bureau manufactured a copy in the competition to make the Mig-23 and its weapons suite. In the end the R-23 was superior to the early model Sparrow and the R-24 was even better. Later a further modified Sparrow went up against the R-27 and lost to that too.

As I said in certain areas they surpassed the west. If you look at the contents of the Shilka you would laugh at the old vacuum tubes, but can you laugh at its performance? The electronics in the M163 were probably far superior, but the capability of the system is rather marginal except in the ground to ground role.
Equally the US wanted to build a compact SAM missile system but it failed because of overheating and problems with packing that much electronics into such a small vehicle.
TOR was the first air defence vehicle with a 3D search radar and a phased array tracking radar antenna, not to mention 8 ready to launch vertical SAMs.

my name again
10-16-2009, 08:09 AM
GazB, ever thought about writing a book?
I would buy it p-)

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 08:10 AM
Heh, good old Garry. Thanks I never knew about Legenda.

Holycrusader
10-16-2009, 09:01 AM
GazB, ever thought about writing a book?
I would buy it p-)

GazB could write something simmilar to Tom Clancy "Red Storm" :)
That would be cool...

I just read ospreys "Tank War - Central Front - NATO vs. Warsaw Pact 1989". GazB version would be cool because Zaloga make all things to easy for NATO.

socom6
10-16-2009, 10:45 AM
During the 70s to early 80s Soviet military technology was very advanced and ahead in many areas. I very much agree with GazB's analysis of the situation.

The military guys at the Pentagon must have briefed Reagan on what was going on and frightened him sufficiently to do something about it.:)

oldsoak
10-16-2009, 11:43 AM
@GazB
Amazing Argentine Officers ? I get your drift but the UK was really not a yardstick when it came to satcom. We did experience Argentine ECM, and it did screw over our radio nets at times, so at some levels their equipment was better than ours. The US was the NATO yardstick - they has satcom in with high speed data links long before we did.
The west had no Sov CBG's to attack, certainly the main UK main thrust at sea being countering land based aircraft and subs while providing SLBM's. so while the example provides proof of great ability, it doesnt really give a true idea of the comparitive technical levels as we fielded no equivalent due to there being no need. MANPADS and SAMs are however areas where comparisions can be made , and certainly the WARPAC missile based air defences were very formidable, which helped spur the development of cruise missiles.
The anecdote about Stinger is interesting - certainly there was concern about the technology falling into Soviet hands, however the US administration might have known that the compromise was not that great - possibly due to having obtained late model Iglas via the ME.

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 11:52 AM
There was a time I was living in conviction of total outclassing of Soviet tanks by Western ones.
Until time I compared armor equivalent which should be compared by years when tank appeared.
So simply it is not very fair to compare M1A2 or even A1 to Iraqi T-72 which were versions B with depleted ammo of Yugoslav or Polish production with armor penetration capabilities up to 300mm.
M1A2 should be rather compared to T-90, M1A1 to T-80. Earlier versions of Abrams had armor penetration factor circa 400-500mm (same Leo2 earlier versions) which is not so much better than Soviet tanks of the time.

This what made the difference was definitelly the crew training: several years vs several months.

There's more to it than quality of armor. USSR overall did not come close. This was after the Reagan modernation program, of course.

cavsalute
10-16-2009, 12:35 PM
I agree with Vet. Before the Reagan era advancements the US lagged behind in some areas. Especially in armor. After that the US leapt ahead in terms of technology.
The only field of technology that Russia leads the US in is probably mobile surface to air missiles and other air defense systems. Russian doctrine calls for them to be used heavily to deny the enemy use of the air.
US doctrine does not call for the heavy use of such assets so they have been overlooked.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 12:48 PM
There's more to it than quality of armor. USSR overall did not come close. This was after the Reagan modernation program, of course.

Really ? Optics Is the only thing I can think of where USSR lagged behind.

What other areas ? Gun ?

Wait I think I read you wrong.

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 12:57 PM
I agree with Vet. Before the Reagan era advancements the US lagged behind in some areas. Especially in armor. After that the US leapt ahead in terms of technology.
The only field of technology that Russia leads the US in is probably mobile surface to air missiles and other air defense systems. Russian doctrine calls for them to be used heavily to deny the enemy use of the air.
US doctrine does not call for the heavy use of such assets so they have been overlooked.

You nailed it.

Frutzel
10-16-2009, 12:59 PM
You nailed it.

What did he nailed? Except some general statement I can't see a specific field you mentioned.

cavsalute
10-16-2009, 12:59 PM
The russians had quality guns on their tanks. They lagged behind in gun stabilization and accuracy on distant targets. US tanks in the gulf war and OIF1 were able to accurately fire on russian made Iraqi tanks outside of the Iraqi tanks engagement range. The US tanks just held out of range of the the Iraqi guns and took them out.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 01:03 PM
But again Iraqi T-72 were monkey models and outdate at that, at that time. So not a fair comparisons. I do know that soviet tanks did lag in optics.

cavsalute
10-16-2009, 01:08 PM
It may not be a fair comparison but it's the reality of the situation. I like using actual combat results as opposed to conjecture. Until there is actual combat between comparable systems there is scant info to go on.

blilov
10-16-2009, 01:31 PM
GazB could write something simmilar to Tom Clancy "Red Storm" :)
That would be cool...

I just read ospreys "Tank War - Central Front - NATO vs. Warsaw Pact 1989". GazB version would be cool because Zaloga make all things to easy for NATO.

Anyone knows where I can get this book(download I mean). Thanks!

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 01:40 PM
Look alot of Russians were brainwashed by the USSR to believe alot of things that were not true. I mean Russia still uses the T-55 to a small extent. That says alot. I don't mean to be disrespectful. By the 90s the USSR was nowhere close to the West in anything but SAMs.

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 01:44 PM
It may not be a fair comparison but it's the reality of the situation. I like using actual combat results as opposed to conjecture. Until there is actual combat between comparable systems there is scant info to go on.

The USSR would have been a logistical nightmare if war would have ever occurred. They would not have had American land lease to help them like in WW2. The USSR realized this too.

TakeIt
10-16-2009, 01:44 PM
The russians had quality guns on their tanks. They lagged behind in gun stabilization and accuracy on distant targets. Real life example: T-64 after repairs on the range, target was 3x2m simple plywood sheet on two beams, ~1,5km distance. 2 shots - both beams cut. Anybody, that've been on Rovno polygon could observe standing tall metal pipe ~0,8m in diameter on the tank range with lots of hit marks.. Last time i was there it was forbidden to shoot at it, because it could fall and nobody wished to clear the range.

my name again
10-16-2009, 01:52 PM
Look alot of Russians were brainwashed by the USSR to believe alot of things that were not true. I mean Russia still uses the T-55 to a small extent. That says alot. I don't mean to be disrespectful. By the 90s the USSR was nowhere close to the West in anything but SAMs.


Yeah sure, the SS-N-19 is cheap fireworks :roll:
And as of the T-55 , show me sources that they are used in actual combat missions or are stationed anywhere where an engagment wth supirioir tanks is a possibility.

TakeIt
10-16-2009, 01:56 PM
Do not start flamewar. Vet have his own ideas, but some of us actually do have experience with soviet equipment. No need to get hot over personal thoughts.

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 01:58 PM
Do not start flamewar. Vet have his own ideas, but some of us actually do have experience with soviet equipment. No need to get hot over personal thoughts.

Oh, I've seen it and blown some of it up myself.

TakeIt
10-16-2009, 02:00 PM
Oh, I've seen it and blown some of it up myself. When and where blowing up stuff made you an expert in soviet logistics?

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 02:02 PM
When and where blowing up stuff made you an expert in soviet logistics?

Seriously the USSR was a powerful nation but do not make its equipment to be something it was not.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 02:04 PM
Guys relax, Vet is just having some fun. :)

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 02:07 PM
Guys relax, Vet is just having some fun. :)

p-)

message you have entered is too short

cbiwv
10-16-2009, 02:14 PM
Guys how much better is the T-90 from the other models? Educate me please as I have not researched it because I am busy.

cavsalute
10-16-2009, 02:45 PM
Real life example: T-64 after repairs on the range, target was 3x2m simple plywood sheet on two beams, ~1,5km distance. 2 shots - both beams cut. Anybody, that've been on Rovno polygon could observe standing tall metal pipe ~0,8m in diameter on the tank range with lots of hit marks.. Last time i was there it was forbidden to shoot at it, because it could fall and nobody wished to clear the range.


Accuracy on the range is not the same as in combat :) And i'm sure that russian tanks can hit reasonable targets with their main guns. That was not the point I was making. There is a very big difference between maximum range and maximum accurate range. I was saying that the computer stabilization and aiming system on US tanks was superior. That allowed them to stay out of range of the Iraqi tanks guns while being able to return fire accurately.

Wojtop
10-16-2009, 02:47 PM
My university teacher told us a story about SU technology and I probably wouldn't believe if it wasn't told by a professor and renowned scientists who used to work in SU in the 80s.

He told us that regarding mass production of electronics SU had the necessary technology and had a will to produce it. But they faced horrible problems with production because of low technical culture of labourers. On average 90 to 100% of microchips produced by the factory he worked in for some time was thrown straight in a trash bin. Why? Because a minimal amout of cigarette smoke destroys chips while in production and the smoke can't be filtered out because it has too small particles to be caught by any filter. And it was impossible to stop labourers from smoking in toilets, on stairs etc. regardless of policies, punishments, strict recrutation process, monitoring etc... In addition management was more interested in politics than in production output which didn't help neither.

So the things that required simple production process were well done. The stuff with production technology requiring very strict technological regime was seldom successfully mass produced. Soviet science was for sure very advanced and ahead of the West in many things, but industry wasn't equally good.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 02:52 PM
My university teacher told us a story about SU technology and I probably wouldn't believe if it wasn't told by a professor and renowned scientists who used to work in SU in the 80s.

He told us that regarding mass production of electronics SU had the necessary technology and had a will to produce it. But they faced horrible problems with production because of low technical culture of labourers. On average 90 to 100% of microchips produced by the factory he worked in for some time was thrown straight in a trash bin. Why? Because a minimal amout of cigarette smoke destroys chips while in production and the smoke can't be filtered out because it has too small particles to be caught by any filter. And it was impossible to stop labourers from smoking in toilets, on stairs etc. regardless of policies, punishments, strict recrutation process, monitoring etc... In addition management was more interested in politics than in production output which didn't help neither.

So the things that required simple production process were well done. The stuff with production technology requiring very strict technological regime was seldom successfully mass produced. Soviet science was for sure very advanced and ahead of the West in many things, but industry wasn't equally good.


Yep, all true, the facilities most of the time were also lacking.

cavsalute
10-16-2009, 03:00 PM
That's interesting. I didn't know that. I knew the soviets were able to come up with very good technology and that they had great engineers. I chalked it up to keep it simple though. I have always admired them for that. Sometimes simplicity and reliability are better. But sometimes they aren't :)

deathil93
10-16-2009, 03:37 PM
The Ruskis sometimes stole western tech but it was on extremly rare ocasions, mostly they checked what the US had and developed their own equivilent.

TakeIt
10-16-2009, 04:09 PM
Accuracy on the range is not the same as in combat :) Indeed. Where soviet tanks with soviet crews showed inferior results in combat compared to western counterparts in 70s?


That allowed them to stay out of range of the Iraqi tanks guns while being able to return fire accurately. I thought Iraq was independent country and not part of SU, also never knew, that US tanks invaded Iraq in the 70's. p-)


The stuff with production technology requiring very strict technological regime was seldom successfully mass produced Nuclear reactors? Titanium hulls? Space thingies? BK-010-01's? DVK's? What amount is meant under "mass production" in that remark?

cavsalute
10-16-2009, 04:15 PM
"Space thingies" ROFL

"I thought Iraq was independent country and not part of SU, also never knew, that US tanks invaded Iraq in the 70's."

-I see your point. Lets return to the thread topic. I was just trying to apply some of my personal knowledge.

TakeIt
10-16-2009, 04:27 PM
"Space thingies" ROFL It was faster to write that way.p-)


Lets return to the thread topic. I was just trying to apply some of my personal knowledge. I understand. Same here, yet there are little to none examples of a direct confrontations between two superpowers, let alone rest of the blocks, also quality of operators is playing the major role in any conflict. I believe if Saddam having M1 faced US T-72's/80's result would be the same.

Yet we've focused on military tech, and while it was on par with counterparts, civilian part was far from brilliant, especially mass-consumer goods. From furniture, to home appliances. In that area SU really was lagging alot, mainly due to the planning system and it's rigidness.

cavsalute
10-16-2009, 04:36 PM
Yeah I have never heard anything good about their quality of life or consumer goods. The Russian mafia and black market are probably a result of having to become a criminal in order to get nice things.

Robert.V
10-16-2009, 04:51 PM
Quality of life in SU verried from place to place. Consumer goods were **** for the most part mines Motorcycles.

HellToupee
10-16-2009, 05:02 PM
The russians had quality guns on their tanks. They lagged behind in gun stabilization and accuracy on distant targets. US tanks in the gulf war and OIF1 were able to accurately fire on russian made Iraqi tanks outside of the Iraqi tanks engagement range. The US tanks just held out of range of the the Iraqi guns and took them out.


Russian tanks had gunlaunched ATGMs that would actually give them the range advantage. Iraqi tanks were downgraded export models.

Jaguar
10-16-2009, 05:15 PM
Yet we've focused on military tech, and while it was on par with counterparts, civilian part was far from brilliant, especially mass-consumer goods. From furniture, to home appliances. In that area SU really was lagging alot, mainly due to the planning system and it's rigidness.

Now you nailed it. This is where SU was really behind western Europe/USA.

SU aircrafts didn´t have night attack cappability in A-stan in the 80s, I don´t know much about NATO situation at the same time but guess it was better. Might be completely wrong though.

About Soviet ASMs, as GazB already said one almost can´t believe what they were capable of! Really amazing stuff, in this case I´ve got to agree to WarNerd (aka Gary Brecher), had Cold War become hot US ships in general and carriers in particular would have been "history’s most expensive floating targets" (http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/). Anyone interested should take a look at this paper Russian/Soviet Sea-Based ASM (http://www.dtig.org/docs/Russian-Soviet%20Naval%20Missiles.pdf/).

HellToupee
10-16-2009, 05:23 PM
Yeah I have never heard anything good about their quality of life or consumer goods. The Russian mafia and black market are probably a result of having to become a criminal in order to get nice things.


Well their quality of life was not to levels of western Europe and the US but it wasn't that far behind. Russian living standards today tho improving are still lower than what they were in 1989.

oldsoak
10-16-2009, 06:26 PM
We have to be very careful in comparing technologies that we dont fall into the trap of assuming superiority in one device means superiority accross the board. We had access to a lot of Russian kit from the GDR after re-unification. Some of it was worrying - tank armour and AAM's for instance, but some stuff like Night Vis, TI, comms etc not so.


as an aside - while Reagan certainly added impetus to the US war machine, there was a lot underway before he came in. The Carter administration saw the introduction of the F15 eagle, F16 etc.

Jaguar
10-16-2009, 06:36 PM
We have to be very careful in comparing technologies that we dont fall into the trap of assuming superiority in one device means superiority accross the board. We had access to a lot of Russian kit from the GDR after re-unification. Some of it was worrying - tank armour and AAM's for instance, but some stuff like Night Vis, TI, comms etc not so.

That can be true even within the same system. The Mig-29 for instance, poor avionics (relying heavily on GCI) while its HMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing System) was superior to anything NATO had.

Jaguar
10-16-2009, 06:43 PM
Btw, would like to see Lokos opinion on this subject because I guess some of the technical issues here (as my previous post) can be also a question of doctrine, i.e., one didn´t need expensive avionics in a airframe that will last only some days (hours?) in combat.

oldsoak
10-16-2009, 07:05 PM
the Soviets were/are very pragmatic. We were amazed that the engine life on their jets was much lower than that on equivalent western engines. Considering their abilities in metallurgy and engine design, this was suprising. It was explained to us that the Russian approach was that they viewed high wastage as a fact of war, and therefore designed accordingly - ie dont build something to last 2000 hours without maintenance when it wont last 200 in a real punch up. They therefore designed for high turn around rates and light field maintenance. It is labour intensive in peacetime, but it pays dividends in war.

Mig29 is still my favourite Russian fighter - underrated and very capable.

Kilgor
10-16-2009, 08:08 PM
"We communists have to string along with the capitalists for a while. We need their credits, their agriculture, and their technology But we are going to continue massive military programs and by the middle 1980s we will be in a position to return to a much more aggressive foreign policy designed to gain the upper hand in our relationship with the West". -- Leonid Brezhnev, remarks in 1971 to the Politburo at the beginning of détente.

This answers the question posted ...

wicked_hind
10-16-2009, 08:11 PM
Would the MiG-25 Foxbat count as 70's tech (with regards to the PD and PDS variants) , even though it was developed in the 60's?

Shadowstorm
10-16-2009, 08:47 PM
Guys how much better is the T-90 from the other models? Educate me please as I have not researched it because I am busy.
T-90 is basically advanced variant of the T-72 tank. T-90 projected started out as a "stop gap measure" until the next-generation MBT like the T-95 enter service, while at the same time supplement the T-80 fleet. However, the Russian Army was oppose to the T-90 project saying the T-80 was good enough, but after the disappointing showing of the T-80 tanks in Chechnya. They've decided to continue the T-90 development while at the same did not want the tank deployed to Chechnya fearing that the T-90 wouldn't do any better and could of ruin it chances in the export market where buyer's wanted a modern battle tank. Despite this, The T-90 is considered one of the advanced battle tanks in world along M-1 Abrams and Leopard II and other main battle tanks.

TakeIt
10-16-2009, 09:10 PM
"We communists have to string along with the capitalists /.../ Leonid Brezhnev, remarks in 1971 to the Politburo at the beginning of détente. It would be good if it ever was proven to be real. What always amused me, how year in which Brezhnev supposedly said that varies: 1971, 1972, 1974. Everybody could pick one that suits him better.


This answers the question posted ... Evidently not.

GazB
10-18-2009, 12:31 AM
The anecdote about Stinger is interesting - certainly there was concern about the technology falling into Soviet hands, however the US administration might have known that the compromise was not that great - possibly due to having obtained late model Iglas via the ME.

Iglas were not deployed to the ME in the early 1980s...

The captured MANPADs from the ME that were deployed in Afghanistan through Pakistan were Strelas.


There's more to it than quality of armor. USSR overall did not come close. This was after the Reagan modernation program, of course.

The western estimates of the armour of Soviet tanks during the 70s and 80s assumed they were not composite and were just RHA. Their estimates were very wrong.


They lagged behind in gun stabilization and accuracy on distant targets. US tanks in the gulf war and OIF1 were able to accurately fire on russian made Iraqi tanks outside of the Iraqi tanks engagement range. The US tanks just held out of range of the the Iraqi guns and took them out.

That had little to do with gun range and everything to do with the fact that the US tanks had thermal night vision capability while the obsolete Iraqi tanks had Image intensification night vision sights. You can't fire back at what you can't see. Equally the Iraqi tanks were using ammo that was obsolete in the Russian Army for 20 years. Add to that the armour they used was inferior and that the model itself was the cheap mass production tank to be built in large numbers to replace older tanks in service.

Compared to its US contemporary, the M60, the T-72 was an excellent tank.


Look alot of Russians were brainwashed by the USSR to believe alot of things that were not true. I mean Russia still uses the T-55 to a small extent. That says alot. I don't mean to be disrespectful. By the 90s the USSR was nowhere close to the West in anything but SAMs.

Yeah, the fact that you can admit that the USSR lied is good, because they did. The fact that you think your government told the truth proves they were better at propaganda than the Soviets ever were.

In the 1990s the airforces of NATO got a real shock when they looked at the Mig-29. In WVR combat is was pretty much unbeatable by any NATO fighter because of its HMS and R-73 high offboresight AAMs. BVR were not particularly reliable weapons so it was assumed most combat would be a WVR. Within minutes of WWIII starting and NATO fighters and other aircraft started falling from the skies they would have consoled themselves because NATO BVR missiles were better.... but they weren't. The R-27, particularly in the R-27E models were better than any model SPARROW.



The USSR would have been a logistical nightmare if war would have ever occurred. They would not have had American land lease to help them like in WW2. The USSR realized this too.

Lend lease had no effect on the outcome of WWII for the Soviets. By the time anything had arrived the Soviets had already stopped the Germans at the gates of Moscow.


Oh, I've seen it and blown some of it up myself.

In Russian or Soviet service?

There are plenty of instances where a tank is needed operationally but a modern tank is not needed. Afghanistan is a good example where the firepower of a tank is needed, but the latest tank is not.


Guys how much better is the T-90 from the other models? Educate me please as I have not researched it because I am busy.

You have already told us it is inferior to western tanks... you are obviously the expert... you tell us.


The Ruskis sometimes stole western tech but it was on extremly rare ocasions, mostly they checked what the US had and developed their own equivilent.

The only times the Soviets copied western tech was when they had nothing like it in service and needed time to absorb the ramifications of the new technology, or when the new technology met exactly their needs as it was without modification.
In the former you can put the sidewinder missile. Compared to earlier Soviet missiles the Sidewinder was a revelation. It was simple and basic and modular. The equivelent earlier Soviet missiles were complex and difficult to work on and build. They built their own Sidewinder (called AA-2 Atoll by the west) because they needed to change the way they designed AAMs from the ground up, which would take time. They copied the tiny rolleron stabilisers from the Sidewinder but used Soviet IR seekers and rocket motors because they were better. They copied the entire shape and structure etc... because to wait for a new modular system to be built would take too long. With the R-27 they took the modular concept even further with choices of rocket motors and seeker heads being interchangable.
An example of a new technology meeting their needs was the Tu-4, though it still used Soviet engines because they were more powerful, and they used more effective 20mm guns instead of the 50 cal guns of the original for the same reason.
The Soviet Space shuttle looks the same as the US space shuttle because NASA spent 2 billion dollars developing its external design. The final products were totally different, with the US shuttle being an aircraft with a large external fuel tank and RATO bottles to get airborne. The Soviet shuttle was a glider on a rocket so for building a space station the glider could be left on earth and a 100 ton space station component could be launched in one piece. Considering the difficulty in construction in space that is a huge advantage.


In that area SU really was lagging alot, mainly due to the planning system and it's rigidness.

And probably its low priority.


Russian tanks had gunlaunched ATGMs that would actually give them the range advantage. Iraqi tanks were downgraded export models.

The missiles were a copy of contemporary western thinking, but again the goals were the same. You could argue all day who thought of gun tube fired missiles first, or if they were related or independant. The fact is that the US and French systems were failures because they were supposed to create super tanks. An APC with HOT or TOW could have done the same thing at a fraction of the cost. The Soviet purpose was to add to the options of a tank commander to extend his reach if needed. It also gave an anti helo option previously not available.

The Soviets neglected the Thermal imager, though they are catching up rather quickly. The Soviets focused on LLTV instead which led to autotracking software that can be applied to many digital technologies too.
The auto target tracker is used in the Tunguska and the TOR and in Russian tanks as upgrades.


SU aircrafts didn´t have night attack cappability in A-stan in the 80s, I don´t know much about NATO situation at the same time but guess it was better. Might be completely wrong though.

Actually the Soviets had quite a mix. All their tanks and armoured vehicles had night vision devices. Cheaper image intensifiers rather than the more expensive thermal sights, but still night capable, but they rarely trained or fought at night. (Before desert storm the west rarely operated large scale at night either). There were versions of the Mig-27 and Su-24 that were every bit as good as the western jaguar and Tornado, but because the Army rarely operate large scale at night they were not used. Special forces operated whenever it suited them of course.


The Mig-29 for instance, poor avionics (relying heavily on GCI) while its HMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing System) was superior to anything NATO had.

Poor avionics relying on GCI is only a disadvantage when operating outside that GCI environment. Remember a GCI environment actually helped Britain win the battle of britain during WWII.


the Soviets were/are very pragmatic. We were amazed that the engine life on their jets was much lower than that on equivalent western engines. Considering their abilities in metallurgy and engine design, this was suprising. It was explained to us that the Russian approach was that they viewed high wastage as a fact of war, and therefore designed accordingly - ie dont build something to last 2000 hours without maintenance when it wont last 200 in a real punch up. They therefore designed for high turn around rates and light field maintenance. It is labour intensive in peacetime, but it pays dividends in war.

The Germans derided Soviet engineering during WWII. The difference in quality of the T-34 compared to the Panther was embarassing. The expected life span of either was only a small fraction of their engineered life span so most of the extra effort on the Panther was wasted.
The same can be said for guns. The Soviet guns tended to be lighter and faster firing and more powerful than western or german guns in the same class. They didn't last as long operationally, but operationally that wasn't an issue because they lasted better than the vehicle they were mounted in, and if they didn't they could easily be replaced.

CaptMorgan68
10-18-2009, 12:47 AM
Iglas were not deployed to the ME in the early 1980s...




Gaz thanx for your posts man. They are a significant part of why I end up wasting my time on this forum on a day-today basis))

cavsalute
10-18-2009, 01:04 AM
That had little to do with gun range and everything to do with the fact that the US tanks had thermal night vision capability while the obsolete Iraqi tanks had Image intensification night vision sights. You can't fire back at what you can't see.

I politely disagree :) While you cannot shoot what you cannot see. Shooting moving targets that can hit you on the move adds a level of complexity to the battlefield you are not accounting for. That is in addition to the greater accuracy at the distance the US Abrams tanks enjoyed. But I covered this earlier with my agreement that it's not a fair comparison between the Abrams and the Iraqi Lion of Babylon copy of the Russian T-72. I highlight copy because it was a cheap version of an export tank so it was not on par with the Soviet systems.

GazB
10-18-2009, 05:25 AM
Shooting moving targets that can hit you on the move adds a level of complexity to the battlefield you are not accounting for. That is in addition to the greater accuracy at the distance the US Abrams tanks enjoyed.

T-72s can hit targets that are moving. The velocity of the APDSFS rounds means that the target actually doesn't move much during the projectiles time of flight anyway.

The fact that the German Panzer IIs and IIIs killed a large number of superior French and British and Soviet tanks shows crew training is at least as important as the vehicle design they operate.

Kilgor
10-18-2009, 06:35 AM
Lend lease had no effect on the outcome of WWII for the Soviets. By the time anything had arrived the Soviets had already stopped the Germans at the gates of Moscow.

.

Consider Stalingrad or at worst Kursk the point at which the soviets didn't need anymore "help".

GazB
10-18-2009, 06:53 AM
Stalingrad was proof they didn't need outside help.
Stalingrad was a trap to draw the Germans into a city and wear them out. The forces that were used for the pincer movement that trapped Paulus and his men didn't just fall from the sky. The Soviets kept the level of their forces low within the city to keep Hitlers focus and Paulus's focus on taking the city so they wouldn't see the large forces being built up and equipped to form a pincer movement and capture those German forces within the city they were trying to take.

Kursk was even more so proof they didn't need external help anymore. They fought the Germans in open combat on flat plains where tank tactics could defeat a better equipped numerically superior enemy... just as Germany had done so several times before. This was the sort of combat that the Soviets and the British and the French and everyone else who had faced the Germans before had failed at.

Lend Lease really only effected the distance and rate at which the Soviets could advance across Europe. Without Lendlease the Soviets would have kept the focus on Tanks and aircraft, but that lack of focus on trucks would have slowed its advance eastwards. However unlike the Germans who had the problem of moving from good roads to mud puddles the Soviets were moving from mud puddles to good roads.
Without lend lease the advance would have slowed and the western allies could have taken their time to get to the Rhine. More Soviet soldiers would have died, but also more Germans and more European civilians.


which the soviets didn't need anymore "help".

If it really was help then it would have been free.

Kilgor
10-18-2009, 07:27 AM
Zhukov said himself that without lend lease, the SU would not have been able to continue the war.

Robert.V
10-18-2009, 07:32 AM
Do you have a quote of what he exactly said ?



Lend Lease really only effected the distance and rate at which the Soviets could advance across Europe. Without Lendlease the Soviets would have kept the focus on Tanks and aircraft, but that lack of focus on trucks would have slowed its advance eastwards. However unlike the Germans who had the problem of moving from good roads to mud puddles the Soviets were moving from mud puddles to good roads.
Without lend lease the advance would have slowed and the western allies could have taken their time to get to the Rhine. More Soviet soldiers would have died, but also more Germans and more European civilians.


There wasn't any lack of focus on trucks. They just couldn't make damn enough of them.

domokun
10-18-2009, 07:55 AM
Okay GazB has pretty much covered almost all detail far better than how I could do that.

As very short answer on topic: Soviets were ahead on metallurgy and fluid dynamics. West was ahead on electronics and ergonomics.

Kilgor
10-18-2009, 07:35 PM
Do you have a quote of what he exactly said ?



There wasn't any lack of focus on trucks. They just couldn't make damn enough of them.

Russia's life-saver: lend-lease aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II By Albert Loren Weeks

TR1
10-18-2009, 07:38 PM
lol, I would love to see the original Russian print of that. Translations have a funny way of coming out the way you want them.

Anwyays, it's irrelevant. War was settled by the German failure of 1941 through late 1942. Allied aid was relatively minimal in the critical periods of survival.

TakeIt
10-18-2009, 08:13 PM
Stop responding to the troll and derailing the thread.

To clarify things: text, Kilgor trying to present as genuine, is a compilation of two texts. One part is taken from the discussions with Simonov, other from report by one of the KGB agents, ewesdropping on Zhukov during times of power struggle. When confronted over those words he refuted them. End of story. Another fail on the part of Kilgor. Sometimes i'm amazed how doubt over anything out of KGB, or SU for that matter, is taken as false by default, yet anything that could favor certain view is presented as truth.

Elbs
10-18-2009, 08:17 PM
Stop responding to the troll and derailing the thread.

To clarify things: text, Kilgor trying to present as genuine, is a compilation of two texts. One part is taken from the discussions with Simonov, other from recorded by one of the KGB agents, ewesdropping on Zhukov during times of power struggle. When confronted over those words he refuted them. End of story. Another fail on the part of Kilgor. Sometimes i'm amazed how doubt over anything out of KGB, or SU for that matter, is taken as false by default, yet anything that could favor certain view is presented as truth.

That's funny, I don't see the source you posted to back up what you're saying, whereas Kilgor posted his for everyone to see.

TakeIt
10-18-2009, 08:46 PM
That's funny, I don't see the source you posted to back up what you're saying, whereas Kilgor posted his for everyone to see. I don't have to. Anyone familiar with Zhukov's bio know this. However since i'm feeling generous here you go: first sentence taken out of Simonov's "To Zhukov's biography" part 1 (1987) and was supposedly spoken in 1965 or 66, he doesn't state the exact date, the rest is taken out of report by Semichastniy, addressed to Hruschev on 27/05/1963. Case closed.

domokun
10-18-2009, 10:30 PM
lol, I would love to see the original Russian print of that. Translations have a funny way of coming out the way you want them.

Anwyays, it's irrelevant. War was settled by the German failure of 1941 through late 1942. Allied aid was relatively minimal in the critical periods of survival.

Yes, translations often can change tone of statements, but whole reversal of content is quite rare.

Lend-lease was quite critical to Soviet Union. Mechanized warfare is quite impossible with bad supply of food, fuel and ammo. Lend lease aircraft were quite important to Soviet army in war also, but non weapon part of allied support was quite important factor in Soviet war effort. US and British aircraft made up between 15% and 20% Soviet air force,if I remember correctly, if it wasn't that much, deliveries were at least significant. Allies also delivered about half of explosives used in Soviet ammunition production. Without lend-lease Soviet defense could have collapsed or at least offensive phase of war would have been lot slower.

Truth lies somewhere between official Soviet and western accounts of what happened. Supplying stuff to Soviets and hampering German war production was possibly biggest part of US war effort in Europe.

Kilgor
10-18-2009, 10:46 PM
Stop responding to the troll and derailing the thread.

To clarify things: text, Kilgor trying to present as genuine, is a compilation of two texts. One part is taken from the discussions with Simonov, other from report by one of the KGB agents, ewesdropping on Zhukov during times of power struggle. When confronted over those words he refuted them. End of story. Another fail on the part of Kilgor. Sometimes i'm amazed how doubt over anything out of KGB, or SU for that matter, is taken as false by default, yet anything that could favor certain view is presented as truth.

Of course he would have refuted the words, even in post Stalin times the idea that Lend lease allowed the continuation of the war would have been the heigh of blasphemy. Zhukov probably made light of soviet "facts" privately, which of course had to be denied publically.

If one has seen the percentages of vitial equipment and materials supplied such as radio's , avaiation fuel and trains what Zhukov said is completely believable. Let alone such luxuries as one can of Spam meat, per red army soldier, per day.

Kilgor
10-18-2009, 10:50 PM
Yes, translations often can change tone of statements, but whole reversal of content is quite rare.

Lend-lease was quite critical to Soviet Union. Mechanized warfare is quite impossible with bad supply of food, fuel and ammo. Lend lease aircraft were quite important to Soviet army in war also, but non weapon part of allied support was quite important factor in Soviet war effort. US and British aircraft made up between 15% and 20% Soviet air force,if I remember correctly, if it wasn't that much, deliveries were at least significant. Allies also delivered about half of explosives used in Soviet ammunition production. Without lend-lease Soviet defense could have collapsed or at least offensive phase of war would have been lot slower.



80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.

Thats a short version of the list.

Holycrusader
10-19-2009, 04:24 AM
80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.

Thats a short version of the list.

To put things in perspective - small example. First locomotives come to USSR in 1944... For sure they were decisive factor in war ;)

Eztyga
10-19-2009, 04:32 AM
The first ship I served on in the late 80's and early 90's still used valve technology for its weapons systems. This was a result of the solid state upgrade not being as reliable, and the fact that valves could withstand EMP.

Robert.V
10-19-2009, 05:03 AM
To put things in perspective - small example. First locomotives come to USSR in 1944... For sure they were decisive factor in war ;)


And I believe also his percentages are wrong.

TakeIt
10-19-2009, 05:14 AM
Of course he would have refuted the words, even in post Stalin times the idea that Lend lease allowed the continuation of the war would have been the heigh of blasphemy. BS.


Zhukov probably made light of soviet "facts" privately, which of course had to be denied publically. "Probably"? Another BS. You quoted words, never ever have been proven to be spoken by man. A case strikingly similar to Brezhnev's.


If one has seen the percentages of vitial equipment and materials supplied such as radio's I will not bother to show where and how wrong your data is. I just repeat: this thread is not about lend-lease and delusions (from both sides) connected to it.

Robert.V
10-19-2009, 05:38 AM
http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm


Well for one; it looks like the truck transport figures are wrong. 77 % of trucks in Soviet service were domestic production by the end of the war 4% captured and rest imported. (19%)


The aviation fuel figure is also wrong, it should be actually higher.


And i'm pretty sure the rest of you're percentages are wrong also.

Jaguar
10-19-2009, 10:53 AM
And there goes the thread...

I guess in no way can we come back to the original subject?

shadowsrider
10-19-2009, 11:09 AM
True, yeah it quickly became apparent that to equip the entire Soviet tank army with T-64 and later T-80 would be too expensive.

Exactly - price and complexity level was the issue. I bet that T-80 and T-64 costed 3 times the price of T-72 (although prices were not visible in Soviet system).
From what I've read Polish factory Bumar-Labedy in 80s was offered a license for T-80. The factory was already producing T-72Bs (or M) massively. After analisys the license was not purchased due to much higher complexity and difficulty level in comparision to T-72.



Equally the Sparrow was compromised from Vietnam and a Soviet missile design bureau manufactured a copy in the competition to make the Mig-23 and its weapons suite. In the end the R-23 was superior to the early model Sparrow and the R-24 was even better. Later a further modified Sparrow went up against the R-27 and lost to that too.


Well.... refering R-27 especially earlier variants they rather proven to be completly ineffective, just read Etiopia-Eritrea war. Both sides (Su-27s and MiG-29s) were shooting salvos of R-27s (even 10 in salvo) with no single hit.


GazB could write something simmilar to Tom Clancy "Red Storm" :)
That would be cool...

I just read ospreys "Tank War - Central Front - NATO vs. Warsaw Pact 1989". GazB version would be cool because Zaloga make all things to easy for NATO.

Good book, but the initial combat is presented in comfort circumstances for NATO.
It presents a battalion of T-80s advancing against a dug-in platoon of M1A2s ending with total annihilation of the Soviet battalion.
The circumstances there are extremally in US favor.
First- line of sight is more than 4000 meters while average LOS in Europe is 2000 meteres which makes a huge difference for tanks with worse stabilization and penetration capabilities.
Second: whole battalion is advancing bravely despite exploding tanks one by one.
Third: dug-in M1A2s will definitelly have great hits numbers but they will not be everywhere. Armored strikes would hit weaker areas.


There's more to it than quality of armor. USSR overall did not come close. This was after the Reagan modernation program, of course.

When? As I wrote in latest stage indeed West had superiority. But until early 80s or 70s...? Can M60 be a match for T-64?


Guys how much better is the T-90 from the other models? Educate me please as I have not researched it because I am busy.

Newer variants of T-90s can be in line with M1A2. Estimated armor equivalent is 1000-1500mm. The tank is able to hit targets on distances to 4000meters also with ATGMs. Although penetration level is not as high as with uranium ammo afaik.
What the tank is lacking is definitelly ergonomy - it is still based on T-72 design so it is a coffin for a crew but also it makes tank smaller.

TakeIt
10-19-2009, 11:33 AM
Exactly - price and complexity level was the issue. I bet that T-80 and T-64 costed 3 times the price of T-72 (although prices were not visible in Soviet system). If we're speaking about 70's, that statement is incorrect. Price for T-64x was ~155-165k rubles, for T-72x - ~164-175k. You lost your bet :)



Well.... refering R-27 especially earlier variants they rather proven to be completly ineffective, just read Etiopia-Eritrea war. Both sides (Su-27s and MiG-29s) were shooting salvos of R-27s (even 10 in salvo) with no single hit. There goes credibility of the sources. You cannot shoot salvo, especially 10 missiles at once, of R-27.



When? As I wrote in latest stage indeed West had superiority. But until early 80s or 70s...? Can M60 be a match for T-64? It depends. Yet on European terrain - hardly.

Jaguar
10-19-2009, 11:34 AM
About T-72, according to Baron Harkonnen (I suppose he is Harkonnen from other forum):


Contrary to the basic believe of the western and even Russian public T-72 is not a development of T-64A (the Soviet Main Battle Tank). T-72 vas development of Ural design bureau experimental tank that lost the competition to T-64 predecessor o. 430. That is why T-72 use the 22 rounds autoloader previously planned for modernized T-62. A completely different drivetrain and different turret.

The T-72 series itself was a “mobilization” tank of the soviet army. It was designed for mass production in war time in huge numbers.

Basically the first automatic fire control and gun-lunched missile appeared on T-64B in 1976. Then it was installed on T-80. The automatic fire control was never installed on T-72 or it’s versions.

The same story with armor – while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U …

So the key idea is that T-72 was not the primary Soviet tank, it was exported worldwide to any nation possible. While no T-64 or T-80 was ever exported (After Soviet Union T-80U was exported to ROK, Cyprus and T-80UD to Pakistan)…

shadowsrider
10-19-2009, 11:36 AM
There goes credibility of the sources. You cannot shoot salvo, especially 10 missiles at once, of R-27.

I am basing on acig.org


If we're speaking about 70's, that statement is incorrect. Price for T-64x was ~155-165k rubles, for T-72x - ~164-175k. You lost your bet

At the same year without inflation difference? Was it the real value? Can be... but if the money would be the only factor then why to produce T-72s?

Mousepad
10-19-2009, 12:26 PM
At the same year without inflation difference? Was it the real value? Can be... but if the money would be the only factor then why to produce T-72s?

Actually, one must account Soviet pay-grade system, when a worker making a simple T-72 gets the same amount of money as a worker making a complicated T-80, it's not a problem of rubles, it's a problem of lack of qualified workers.

TakeIt
10-19-2009, 12:41 PM
I am basing on acig.org No, really, you just can't fire a salvo of 10 R-27. No single plane is carrying that much. And to have 10 R-27 in the air at once for the purpose of shooting down locked target you have to have 5 planes in the air. Or the pilots were really horrible and never ever even peaked inside the book covering the work of H-001E.


At the same year without inflation difference? Was it the real value? Yes, second half of 70's, 76 or later.


Can be... but if the money would be the only factor then why to produce T-72s? Oh, there was so much went on during that times. Rivalry and so on. Also, of course the final price of the unit only to some degree reflected the manufacturing cost.

GTX-Typhoon
10-19-2009, 01:12 PM
It is difficult to discuss this becasue tech levels in the USSR in the 70's varied significantly.

Average computer/car tech for example was below the western countries yet higher then in the poorer 3rd world countries.

The sectors that had the highest amount of tech were the Military, Aerospace and special industrial sectors linked to those main sectors.

In military terms speaking the techt that the USSR had was the highest in the world including T-64 and 72 tanks which were the most advanced tank designs in the world. Also the BMP-1, worlds first IFV contributed highly to that.

GazB
10-20-2009, 04:03 AM
True, yeah it quickly became apparent that to equip the entire Soviet tank army with T-64 and later T-80 would be too expensive.

They intentionally chose to produce capable and expensive vehicles and cheap but good enough vehicles. It was the same in the motor rifle units. One high priority unit had BMPs and a lower priority unit had BTRs. Differences in firepower, armour and performance... but mainly cost.


To put things in perspective - small example. First locomotives come to USSR in 1944... For sure they were decisive factor in war

Exactly. The vast majority of material arrived too late to be essential and as it was lend lease rather than a gift it was PAID for.
This wasn't charity or some special present from the west.


Well.... refering R-27 especially earlier variants they rather proven to be completly ineffective, just read Etiopia-Eritrea war. Both sides (Su-27s and MiG-29s) were shooting salvos of R-27s (even 10 in salvo) with no single hit.

Should Milan ATGMs be judged by their performance in Afghanistan in the 1980s? We don't know enough about the storage or state of the weapons in question to make any sensible determination. For example half a dozen Phoenix missiles were fired in combat at targets in Iraq and no hits were scored. I would not suggest Phoenix along with F-14s were useless.
Sparrow, against modern, manouvering, aware targets doesn't have a very good record either.
As mentioned even if half were IR guided the passive radar homing had not been cleared for export by then so to fire 5 SARH missiles would need 5 Mig-29s or Su-27s to aquire the locks to guide the missiles.
BTW the IR seeking version of the R-27 uses the same seeker as the R-73. Because of the larger body when used in the R-27 it has a +-55 degree field of view which is even better than the +-45 degree FOV for the export model R-73.


Good book, but the initial combat is presented in comfort circumstances for NATO.

I don't rate Clancy at all.


I am basing on acig.org

Home of Mig-29 haters and general Russophobes.


At the same year without inflation difference? Was it the real value? Can be... but if the money would be the only factor then why to produce T-72s?

Purpose was not to be cheap ineffectual tank. It was to be a good overall tank that could be mass produced in large enough numbers to reduce the average age of large tank parks.


The sectors that had the highest amount of tech were the Military, Aerospace and special industrial sectors linked to those main sectors.

In the space sector the Soviets had spacesuits that were far better an newer US suits copy the design of the Soviet suits.
The US design was rigid sections, with a section for each joint, so glove and wrist is one piece. Forearm is another piece and elbow joint is another piece. The upper arm and shoulder joint attach to the chest piece etc etc.
To put it on it has to be put together piece by piece with each joint checked for a good seal. It took hours to put the entire suit on.
The Soviet design the backpack opened like a door and the cosmonaut jumped in from behind and the backpack was closed and the seals checked. Took about 30minutes to get in and check the seals.

shadowsrider
10-20-2009, 04:31 AM
Should Milan ATGMs be judged by their performance in Afghanistan in the 1980s? We don't know enough about the storage or state of the weapons in question to make any sensible determination. For example half a dozen Phoenix missiles were fired in combat at targets in Iraq and no hits were scored. I would not suggest Phoenix along with F-14s were useless.
Sparrow, against modern, manouvering, aware targets doesn't have a very good record either.
As mentioned even if half were IR guided the passive radar homing had not been cleared for export by then so to fire 5 SARH missiles would need 5 Mig-29s or Su-27s to aquire the locks to guide the missiles.
BTW the IR seeking version of the R-27 uses the same seeker as the R-73. Because of the larger body when used in the R-27 it has a +-55 degree field of view which is even better than the +-45 degree FOV for the export model R-73.

Ok, telling about a salvo of 10 missiles it was a sort of poetry. But formations of MiG-29s and Su-27s when closing to each other were firing a salvo of R-27s (of course I was nowhere suggesting that it was done by one plane). I gave the source with pretty good descriptions of Ethiopia -Eritrea war providing even names of pilots. Any better source?

To be just: it was early variant of R-27.




Home of Mig-29 haters and general Russophobes.


Err. come on... where? I haven't noticed (propably because I'm Pole so I am Russian-eater by default ;) )
Rather acid is giving more score to Arabs using Soviet equipment agaist Israelis than official version.

Holycrusader
10-20-2009, 04:43 AM
I don't rate Clancy at all.



We do not talk here about Tom Clancy book, but about Stephen Zaloga (I think) book...

TR1
10-20-2009, 04:44 AM
Yeah, I saw that Zaloga book as well, some real NATO fantasies in there, ideal scenarios in which Thermal sights annihilated WarPac divisions. :)

shadowsrider
10-20-2009, 04:46 AM
Yeah, I saw that Zaloga book as well, some real NATO fantasies in there, ideal scenarios in which Thermal sights annihilated WarPac divisions. :)

In fact it was a platoon of dug-in M1A2s :)

Holycrusader
10-20-2009, 04:51 AM
Good book, but the initial combat is presented in comfort circumstances for NATO.
It presents a battalion of T-80s advancing against a dug-in platoon of M1A2s ending with total annihilation of the Soviet battalion.
The circumstances there are extremally in US favor.
First- line of sight is more than 4000 meters while average LOS in Europe is 2000 meteres which makes a huge difference for tanks with worse stabilization and penetration capabilities.
Second: whole battalion is advancing bravely despite exploding tanks one by one.
Third: dug-in M1A2s will definitelly have great hits numbers but they will not be everywhere. Armored strikes would hit weaker areas.



There is more mistakes in that book, soviets battallion shoot from full speed not from short stops. Soviet tanks do not use terrain to hide their movement. Smoke grenades do not block termovision.
Soviet artillery do not use cassete ammunition. No support from rocket artillery etc. etc.

GazB
10-20-2009, 06:01 AM
To be just: it was early variant of R-27.

Early variant?

The early unupgraded model Mig-29s could only carry the short range R-27R SARH model which requires a lock on the target from launch to impact. It can't even carry the IR guided model let alone the extended range R-27E models.

We don't know anything about how the weapons were stored or handled, Strelas used in Afghanistan turned out to be rather ineffectual despite having not too bad a record in the Middle east where they hit a significant number of aircraft though most of those hit were only damaged because of the small warhead. Poor handling and poor storage in Afghanistan led to very poor performance. Very simply the Afghan rebels relied on their Afghan Army training for skills in weapon handling but they had never been trained to use something as delicate as a MANPAD. Rough handling led to very poor results.

TakeIt
10-20-2009, 06:48 AM
Ok, telling about a salvo of 10 missiles it was a sort of poetry. Of course. But such poetry obviously devaluate any information given and is a sign of biased approach.


But formations of MiG-29s and Su-27s No large formations ever fought there. Especially considering small numbers of R-27 carrying planes available to sides(10 MiG-29x vs 8 Su-27x). There were interceptions by single fighters and rare occasions (literally 2 or 3) of 2 on 2 engagements.


Any better source? No, unfortunatly. There are no reputable sources on that conflict. All are sketchy at best.

oldsoak
10-20-2009, 07:45 AM
An unfortunate effect of under-rating Russian technology is complacency. If we cannot realistically appraise their technology, the Bear will b*gger us in the tech field. However, the need to develop finger mounted death rays because some major industrial player thinks we should "because the Russians are doing it" needs to be guarded against too. I am also of the view that the west and Russia may have to mend some broken bridges as there other problems facing both of us.
70's Russian tech had plenty to scare us with - and I'm quite sure the reverse was true.
I'm glad I got to see some of it at lectures and demonstrations rather than in a series if very load bangs ! :-)

Jaguar
10-20-2009, 08:59 AM
In fact it was a platoon of dug-in M1A2s :)

Yep, this is not Zaloga brightest work, much to the contrary actually, he entered what some call the Clancyverse, where the laws of reason operate differently.

-Max2-
10-20-2009, 07:18 PM
BVR were not particularly reliable weapons so it was assumed most combat would be a WVR. Within minutes of WWIII starting and NATO fighters and other aircraft started falling from the skies they would have consoled themselves because NATO BVR missiles were better.... but they weren't. The R-27, particularly in the R-27E models were better than any model SPARROW.

And on what do you base your claim ? :roll: Russian sources ? lol. Take it with a grain of salt...

Unlike the R-27, the AIM-7 is combat proven and scored ~130 confirmed kills during the Vietnam War, Israeli-Arab Wars, Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War I. The R-27 saw action once and performed mediocrely. You can blame its lousy performances on poor handling and storage but your claim that the R-27 is superior to the AIM-7 remains largely theoritical considering its poor combat record so far...

shadowsrider
10-21-2009, 05:20 AM
Of course. But such poetry obviously devaluate any information given and is a sign of biased approach.

No large formations ever fought there. Especially considering small numbers of R-27 carrying planes available to sides(10 MiG-29x vs 8 Su-27x). There were interceptions by single fighters and rare occasions (literally 2 or 3) of 2 on 2 engagements.

No, unfortunatly. There are no reputable sources on that conflict. All are sketchy at best.

I provided the source.
If you have different information, please provide it.

TR1
10-21-2009, 05:53 AM
And on what do you base your claim ? :roll: Russian sources ? lol. Take it with a grain of salt...

Unlike the R-27, the AIM-7 is combat proven and scored +100 kills during the Vietnam War, Israeli-Arab Wars and Gulf War I. The R-27 saw action once and performed mediocrely. You can blame its lousy performances on poor handling and storage but your claim that the R-27 is superior to the AIM-7 remains largely theoritical considering its poor combat record so far...
American sources? lol, Take it with a grain of sault.

shadowsrider
10-21-2009, 06:53 AM
American sources? lol, Take it with a grain of sault.

acid.org - do you know the origin of this service? It is independent service gathering data from different relations and sources, not connected to any official organization; do you Russian friends check anything before discussing or you just know already everything?

I know that in Russia everything what has domain .org .com may appear as evil US and NATO :-*$ but it this case it is not

TR1
10-21-2009, 07:05 AM
nah, that was just a response to someone ridiculing the notion of Russian sources.

shadowsrider
10-21-2009, 07:07 AM
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_189.shtml

II Ethiopian Eritrean War, 1998 - 2000
By Tom Cooper & Jonathan Kyzer, with additional details by Nadew & Alexander Mladenov
Sep 2, 2003, 10:53

(...)
With the re-appearance of the EtAF fighters over the battlefield, it became clear to the Eritreans and their Ukrainian instructors, that they would have to fight down the newly-arrived Ethiopian Su-27s, or the ERAF would not be able to effectively support the war effort. Therefore, on the morning of 25 February four MiG-29s were sent to intercept two Su-27s which were patrolling along the front-lines at Badme. Both Sukhois, flown by Ethiopian pilots, detected the appearance of their opponents in time and attempted to disengage, when - all of a sudden - they came under an attack by several R-27/AA-10 missiles. None of the weapons fired by the Eritreans � which were meanwhile inside the Ethiopian airspace � hit, but after evading them, the Ethiopians decided to turn back and fight. The lead, Maj. Workneh, acquired the enemy and fired what was reported as a "salvo" of R-27s, targeting one MiG-29 after the other. However, all the missiles missed and the only result was that the Eritreans were forced to break their attack - only to be pounced by the faster Su-27s. The result of following dog-fight was one Eritrean MiG-29 shot down, probably by an R-73/AA-11 IR-homing, short range air-to-air missile (fired again by Maj. Workneh). The ERAF fighter came down near Ethiopian Army positions. The fate of the pilot, rumoured to have been the commander of the Eritrean Air Force, Brig. Gen. Habte Zion Hadgu, was not reported by either side. Like his deputy, Col. Abraham Oqbaselassie, Hadgu used to be a EtAF MiG-23-pilot during the Derg regime. He was never again mentioned in the public, but was apparently replaced by Maj.Gen. Teklay Habteselassie, who remains Commander-in-Chief ERAF until today.

(...)

On 16 May 2000 Eritrean Air Force flew couple of counterattacks against the Ethiopian �left hook�, advancing against the western flank of Eritrean positions. Even MiG-29s were deployed in air-to-ground sorties, and seen harassing Ethiopian ground forces several times: one of two incoming MiG-29s were intercepted by EtAF�s Su-27s, however, and it seems that another air battle occurred. This was a situation which the Eritreans and the Ukrainians wanted to prevent when they started the fight for battlefield air superiority a year earlier, by challenging Ethiopian Su-27s: they wanted to prevent a situation in which ERAF aircraft would not be able to attack Ethiopian troops on the ground because of the presence of Ethiopian interceptors in the air. Such concerns proved right as during this battle at least one MiG-29 was damaged sufficiently to crash-landed at Asmara, obviously after being damaged by R-27. The ERAF remained stubborn: only two days later, two MiG-29s were scrambled to intercept an incoming formation of EtAF MiG-21s. The leading Eritrean pilot missed with his R-27s, but then shot down at least one of Ethiopian fighters, using the 30mm gun during a short dogfight. Nevertheless, only minutes later, the same MiG-29 was in turn intercepted by a pair of EtAF Su-27s. As the Sukhois engaged, one of them collided with an Africa Buzzard (a very large bird), and had to return to base after sustaining heavy damage. The other Sukhoi � flown by one of former Derg-pilots � continued, engaging the MiG and shooting it down by a single R-73.

(...)
and here the conclusion about R-27:

Interesting is also, that most - if not all - Eritrean MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights, where MiGs were supposed to have some advantages over larger and heavier Sukhois. Finally - except one - all the air-to-air kills were reportedly scored by R-73, even if quite a few (up to 24) R-27s were fired, pointing to some possible problems with R-27s, which is otherwise highly praised by quite a few air forces around the world! Supposedly, there should be no significant differences between early and new - or domestic and export - versions of R-27s, however, it seems, that this type so far has a worst combat record than even US Vietnam-era AIM-7Es or AIM-7Fs! This was certainly no good news for the Russians, which were keen to try out their new mounts and weapons under conditions of conventional warfare, and against a well organized enemy.

shadowsrider
10-21-2009, 07:08 AM
nah, that was just a response to someone ridiculing the notion of Russian sources.

I'm ridicouling only the responses questioning and ridicouling my statements without giving any other source.
If you've got sth in Russian on this topic I will gladly read.

TakeIt
10-21-2009, 07:08 AM
If you have different information, please provide it. Ok, i'll try to find links. Afair, there was even a report from MiG personnell, sent to check planes and damage after conflict..

shadowsrider
10-21-2009, 07:14 AM
And refering previous mentioning of poor Phoenix performance here is Phoenix records from Iran-Iraq war.
What I've read after launching many of them Iranians kept them for bigger targets because fighters were able to outmaneuvr them. Although as you see there is a quite number of Iraqi fighters shot down by Phoenixes.

Again acig.org

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml

Elbs
10-21-2009, 07:31 AM
A lot has been written about the supposed dismal record of the AIM-7 Sparrow in combat. Taken into context it isn't at all surprising though. The models used in Vietnam were early variants, more often than not fired from inadequate ranges due to the restricting rules of engagement, and suffered from being carried in a climate they were not designed for (hot, humid as opposed to cold ocean weather).

By the mid 1970s, the US was introducing the much more improved -7F which would form the basis of the excellent SkyFlash and Aspide. I don't have my Russian reference text on air weapons at the moment, but the Soviet counterpart R-23 was just entering service as the F-model Sparrow, and IIRC had some of the same drawbacks as the early Sparrows.

John1980
10-21-2009, 02:14 PM
To put things in perspective - small example. First locomotives come to USSR in 1944... For sure they were decisive factor in war ;)

Well, in effect and reality, the war was only won in the late 1944/ early 1945, so. And during the red armys push trough Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and into Germany, logistics and troop movement by rail proved vital, so decisive indeed, the fact that you are clueless to the fact and try to imply it wouldnt be doesnt change the fact.

Cheers.

TR1
10-21-2009, 03:41 PM
Well, in effect and reality, the war was only won in the late 1944/ early 1945, so. And during the red armys push trough Belarus, Ukraine, Poland and into Germany, logistics and troop movement by rail proved vital, so decisive indeed, the fact that you are clueless to the fact and try to imply it wouldnt be doesnt change the fact.

Cheers.
Nonsense, utter and complete. The war was won in 1943, and survival was assured by 1942. From then on, it was a matter of time, and nothing else.

CJackson
10-21-2009, 09:42 PM
Interesting stuff so far. I had a query about the USSR's naval capability in relation to the USN after the introduction of AEGIS. Did the Soviets have an equivalent system? And how did they compare overall with the USN on the surface?

shadowsrider
10-22-2009, 06:01 AM
Interesting stuff so far. I had a query about the USSR's naval capability in relation to the USN after the introduction of AEGIS. Did the Soviets have an equivalent system? And how did they compare overall with the USN on the surface?

I think comparing US and Soviet naval capabilities is pointless due to completly different priorities and asymetrical Soviet navy composition. Of course Soviet navy had no chance in surface to surface combat but it was not their goal.

eATS
10-22-2009, 11:23 PM
talk about on the fringe of the rules... :cantbeli:

Plus sidetracked to WWII from 1970's somehow...

RAND has a document about the 1970's USSR military.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/2007/N1000.pdf

Robert.V
10-23-2009, 05:53 AM
talk about on the fringe of the rules... :cantbeli:

Plus sidetracked to WWII from 1970's somehow...

RAND has a document about the 1970's USSR military.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/2007/N1000.pdf

If you said that document was from 1969 instead of 1979 I would have believed it. The West really didn't have much intellegents on the SU it seems.

domokun
10-23-2009, 11:20 AM
Cold war era western book about Soviet military weren't too accurate, for number of reasons, besides often bad or misinterpreted intelligence and public was usually deliberately misled. Soviet military was far better if that suited to military and military industry, helps in getting more funding.

LS1 Miata
10-23-2009, 08:58 PM
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_189.shtml

II Ethiopian Eritrean War, 1998 - 2000
By Tom Cooper & Jonathan Kyzer, with additional details by Nadew & Alexander Mladenov
Sep 2, 2003, 10:53

(...)
With the re-appearance of the EtAF fighters over the battlefield, it became clear to the Eritreans and their Ukrainian instructors, that they would have to fight down the newly-arrived Ethiopian Su-27s, or the ERAF would not be able to effectively support the war effort. Therefore, on the morning of 25 February four MiG-29s were sent to intercept two Su-27s which were patrolling along the front-lines at Badme. Both Sukhois, flown by Ethiopian pilots, detected the appearance of their opponents in time and attempted to disengage, when - all of a sudden - they came under an attack by several R-27/AA-10 missiles. None of the weapons fired by the Eritreans � which were meanwhile inside the Ethiopian airspace � hit, but after evading them, the Ethiopians decided to turn back and fight. The lead, Maj. Workneh, acquired the enemy and fired what was reported as a "salvo" of R-27s, targeting one MiG-29 after the other. However, all the missiles missed and the only result was that the Eritreans were forced to break their attack - only to be pounced by the faster Su-27s. The result of following dog-fight was one Eritrean MiG-29 shot down, probably by an R-73/AA-11 IR-homing, short range air-to-air missile (fired again by Maj. Workneh). The ERAF fighter came down near Ethiopian Army positions. The fate of the pilot, rumoured to have been the commander of the Eritrean Air Force, Brig. Gen. Habte Zion Hadgu, was not reported by either side. Like his deputy, Col. Abraham Oqbaselassie, Hadgu used to be a EtAF MiG-23-pilot during the Derg regime. He was never again mentioned in the public, but was apparently replaced by Maj.Gen. Teklay Habteselassie, who remains Commander-in-Chief ERAF until today.

(...)

On 16 May 2000 Eritrean Air Force flew couple of counterattacks against the Ethiopian �left hook�, advancing against the western flank of Eritrean positions. Even MiG-29s were deployed in air-to-ground sorties, and seen harassing Ethiopian ground forces several times: one of two incoming MiG-29s were intercepted by EtAF�s Su-27s, however, and it seems that another air battle occurred. This was a situation which the Eritreans and the Ukrainians wanted to prevent when they started the fight for battlefield air superiority a year earlier, by challenging Ethiopian Su-27s: they wanted to prevent a situation in which ERAF aircraft would not be able to attack Ethiopian troops on the ground because of the presence of Ethiopian interceptors in the air. Such concerns proved right as during this battle at least one MiG-29 was damaged sufficiently to crash-landed at Asmara, obviously after being damaged by R-27. The ERAF remained stubborn: only two days later, two MiG-29s were scrambled to intercept an incoming formation of EtAF MiG-21s. The leading Eritrean pilot missed with his R-27s, but then shot down at least one of Ethiopian fighters, using the 30mm gun during a short dogfight. Nevertheless, only minutes later, the same MiG-29 was in turn intercepted by a pair of EtAF Su-27s. As the Sukhois engaged, one of them collided with an Africa Buzzard (a very large bird), and had to return to base after sustaining heavy damage. The other Sukhoi � flown by one of former Derg-pilots � continued, engaging the MiG and shooting it down by a single R-73.

(...)
and here the conclusion about R-27:

Interesting is also, that most - if not all - Eritrean MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights, where MiGs were supposed to have some advantages over larger and heavier Sukhois. Finally - except one - all the air-to-air kills were reportedly scored by R-73, even if quite a few (up to 24) R-27s were fired, pointing to some possible problems with R-27s, which is otherwise highly praised by quite a few air forces around the world! Supposedly, there should be no significant differences between early and new - or domestic and export - versions of R-27s, however, it seems, that this type so far has a worst combat record than even US Vietnam-era AIM-7Es or AIM-7Fs! This was certainly no good news for the Russians, which were keen to try out their new mounts and weapons under conditions of conventional warfare, and against a well organized enemy.

Oh ****. And I thought the AIM-7 was bad.:lol::lol:

shadowsrider
10-24-2009, 01:06 PM
Oh ****. And I thought the AIM-7 was bad.:lol::lol:

Although these some earlier variants of R-27. The missile had several upgrades and is still in use.
But the war also proven that R-73 is a deadly missile.

LS1 Miata
10-24-2009, 08:41 PM
Although these some earlier variants of R-27. The missile had several upgrades and is still in use.
But the war also proven that R-73 is a deadly missile.

Early model AIM-7's have a better record compared to early model R-27's.

CaptMorgan68
10-24-2009, 08:45 PM
I think comparing US and Soviet naval capabilities is pointless due to completly different priorities and asymetrical Soviet navy composition. Of course Soviet navy had no chance in surface to surface combat but it was not their goal.


x2 .......................

Mordoror
10-25-2009, 07:52 AM
Early model AIM-7's have a better record compared to early model R-27's.

not to enter in OT but you are comparing apple and orange
on one side : AIM-7
statistical number : hundred fired
maintenance : purely US AF or Navy teams
area of use : SE Asia
stockpiling time : almost nil during VietNam war

on the other side : R-27
statistical number : barely 20-30
maintenance : mercenaries without appropirate maintenance deck, if any maintenance was existing
stockpiling time : well i guess that the R-27 used in 90s during Erythrean-ethiopian war were not just exactly youth but more likely bought several years (tenth of ?) years ago to fit the previous Mig21/23
area of use : Africa Sahel area


not exactly a good statistical situation to conclude whihc one was the worst .....

shadowsrider
10-26-2009, 05:02 AM
Almost correct but... Neither MiG-21 nor MiG-23 carries R-27 (for 23 there was some experimental variant capable to do that but I bet $100 against 1c that Ethiopia did not have this variant)
I guess it was some badly maintained stock in Ukraine and Russia. MiGs and Su-s came from Ukrainian and Russian army stocks if I recall. We all know what was the state of the armies of those countries in early 90s.

Although...although.... I remind that R-73 coming from the same stock I guess were performing perfectly.

Jaguar
10-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Although...although.... I remind that R-73 coming from the same stock I guess were performing perfectly.

Yes, but although its maintenance is not exactly simple I think IR missiles might be a lot more easy to handle and store than semi-active ones. Not to mention its use in real combat...

LS1 Miata
10-26-2009, 12:47 PM
not to enter in OT but you are comparing apple and orange
on one side : AIM-7
statistical number : hundred fired
maintenance : purely US AF or Navy teams
area of use : SE Asia
stockpiling time : almost nil during VietNam war

on the other side : R-27
statistical number : barely 20-30
maintenance : mercenaries without appropirate maintenance deck, if any maintenance was existing
stockpiling time : well i guess that the R-27 used in 90s during Erythrean-ethiopian war were not just exactly youth but more likely bought several years (tenth of ?) years ago to fit the previous Mig21/23
area of use : Africa Sahel area


not exactly a good statistical situation to conclude whihc one was the worst .....

The AIM-7's fired over Vietnam were nearly 20 years older compared to the R-27's fired over Africa. The AIM-7's also were not operating under ideal conditions either. The electonics in them were most likely older and less reliable. The simple fact is that the AIM-7 has a better combat record compared to the R-27.

blilov
10-26-2009, 02:09 PM
Well, the T-62 was better tank than the Centurion, but that didn't stop the arabs from losing A LOT of them vs. Israel. It's the same with the rockets(with the exception that the etiopians are probably even less trained to use them).

oldsoak
10-26-2009, 02:38 PM
You cant quite compare the the Cent with the T-62.
Centurion design began in 1943, and it entered mass production in 1945. A better comparison would be the Chieftain or M60.

blilov
10-26-2009, 03:07 PM
That's the point. The IDF destroyed much more advanced tanks, than it possessed. It's not the weapon, it's how you use it.

Mordoror
10-26-2009, 03:52 PM
The AIM-7's fired over Vietnam were nearly 20 years older compared to the R-27's fired over Africa. The AIM-7's also were not operating under ideal conditions either. The electonics in them were most likely older and less reliable. The simple fact is that the AIM-7 has a better combat record compared to the R-27.

again statistically it is false
you cannot compare from a statistical (scientific) point of view the achievment of hundred of missiles with the achievment of barely 20 missiles
the groups should be quite the same number which is not the case
so you conclusion is false.period

TheArmenian
10-26-2009, 03:58 PM
The whole R-27 over Africa is a fabricated one.

Some time ago I looked into finding the original source of the story. Nothing from Ethiopian or Erithrean military archives, nothing from pilot stories.....

Just one "unsubstantiated" claim by an aviation writer and the whole story gets repeated so many times and people believe it is a fact.

You know how it goes: A lie that is told and repeated a number of times becomes the truth.

Jaguar
10-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Thanks for the info Armenian.

LS1 Miata
10-26-2009, 05:05 PM
again statistically it is false
you cannot compare from a statistical (scientific) point of view the achievment of hundred of missiles with the achievment of barely 20 missiles
the groups should be quite the same number which is not the case
so you conclusion is false.period

I'm talking about early model AIM-7's vs early model R-27's. The early model R-27's still had a 10-20 year advantage in technology, plus ideal operating conditions, yet they were not able to achieve the same kill ratio that the AIM-7 did during the Vietnam war. To be fair, both missiles had terrible records.

shadowsrider
10-27-2009, 05:21 AM
The whole R-27 over Africa is a fabricated one.

Some time ago I looked into finding the original source of the story. Nothing from Ethiopian or Erithrean military archives, nothing from pilot stories.....

Just one "unsubstantiated" claim by an aviation writer and the whole story gets repeated so many times and people believe it is a fact.

You know how it goes: A lie that is told and repeated a number of times becomes the truth.

Sorry but I believe ACIG more that such statements. You just say it is a lie but nothing more.

shadowsrider
10-27-2009, 05:45 AM
I hope it will help you how to compare tanks



Centurion, production years 1945-62 (although fought in 1965 & 1967)
Chieftain, production: 1967-circa 1980
M47/48, production: 1952-1959 (fought in 1967 as well)
M60, production: 1957 - circa 1980
Leopard 1, production: 1965-1978
Leopard 2, production: 1979-
Challenger, production: 1983-
Abrams, production: 1980-


T-54/55, production: 1946-1977 (Soviet Union, Poland until 1981)
T-62, production: 1963-1975 (78 in Czech)
T-64, production: 1964-1987
T-72, production: 1973-
T-80, production: 1976-