View Full Version : Soviet Air Power:Tactics and Weapons Used in Afghanistan
Sayeret
06-14-2006, 06:10 PM
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/jan-feb/nelson.html
p$ycho+log!cal
06-14-2006, 07:22 PM
reading it right now, nice find!
:D
Lifeinasmallbox
06-16-2006, 04:35 AM
theres such thing as a 15,000 pound bomb? and i thought the russians got rid of the hind WAY back in the day... *rubs chin* interesting stuff broha
Ironically, the Soviets may be copying U.S. transport tactics used in Vietnam. Soviet sources have suggested that An-12 Cub transports have been used as bombers by rolling bombs down and off the tail ramp while in flight.5 In Vietnam, the United States used 15,000-pound bombs dropped from C-130 transports to clear helicopter assault zones in the jungle.
The bombs dropped were not large. They were just trying something new. They used Tu-16 bombers to drop their heavy weight bombs (FAB-3000, FAB-5000, and FAB-9000, with FAB meaning roughly HE fragmentation bomb and the number giving the bombs weight in kgs... ie the FAB-9000 is a HEFRAG bomb that weighs 9 metric tons.)
After the firing pass, they would break away in a sharp evasive turn or terrain-hugging flight before repositioning for another firing pass. The Soviets used these tactics with several Hinds in a circular pattern, similar to the American "wagon wheel" used in Vietnam. Such tactics may still be used in some parts of Afghanistan, but by and large they have been changed.
Suggesting that the Soviets were again copying an American method... ignoring the fact that the Soviets used similar flight tactics during WWII with their Shturmovicks.
The bombing raids, flown in support of Soviet ground forces advancing into the valley, signal an apparent willingness on the part of the Soviets to use any conventional air power available to support their ground operations.
So the Soviets using conventional theatre bombers like the Tu-16 shows desperation... wonder what US use of conventional strategic bombers like the B-52 shows...
Reportedly, many Soviet antipersonnel mines are camouflaged as toys, watches, ballpoint pens, or even books, which explode when picked up, blowing off fingers, hands, arms, etc. According to some accounts, these weapons have been aimed also at some of the civilian population in an effort to demoralize those who are pro-guerrilla.41
Yet the only piece of evidence to support this crap was a ball point pen fitted with an explosive charge. It was later shown to have been made in Japan.
This article is not new and reveals nothing of interest that wasn't already known, while containing bits that are simply wrong or misleading. You'd do better to have a chat to some people on this forum for much better information.
I'mOnlyHalfPolish
06-18-2006, 06:56 PM
i found the part that talked about transport protection very informative...the use of the helicopters to position spotters further up roadways on high ground to spot and hopefully neutralize potential ambushes...seems like a simple idea but very good thinking, i wonder if the US used a similar tactic for moving about in A-stan? i assume the US relied mainly on air transport and would avoid long ground convoys or am i wrong?
Very interesting article! It is always interesting to read things written in the past that reflect on the thinking of the time.
After the firing pass, they would break away in a sharp evasive turn or terrain-hugging flight before repositioning for another firing pass. The Soviets used these tactics with several Hinds in a circular pattern, similar to the American "wagon wheel" used in Vietnam. Such tactics may still be used in some parts of Afghanistan, but by and large they have been changed.
Suggesting that the Soviets were again copying an American method... ignoring the fact that the Soviets used similar flight tactics during WWII with their Shturmovicks.
A bit defensive, aren't we? Remember that this article was written in 1985, to an American military audience. The wording suggests that it is merely illustrative rather than there to imply "copying". But, you would see that as some sort of assault on Soviet innovation rather than a simple illustration to help American officers to visualize the maneuvers.
So the Soviets using conventional theatre bombers like the Tu-16 shows desperation... wonder what US use of conventional strategic bombers like the B-52 shows...
Uh, are you sure we're reading the same article? I don't see any mention of desperation anywhere in that section. All that paragraph points out is that Soviet forces were willing to use air power in support of ground operations. Considering that in Vietnam the United States did the same thing, I don't think this was in any way some sort of assault in need of a defense by a Kiwi Russophile.
This article is not new and reveals nothing of interest that wasn't already known, while containing bits that are simply wrong or misleading. You'd do better to have a chat to some people on this forum for much better information.
With respect, you're missing the point. This article was written in 1985 by a USAF Lt. Colonel. It's interesting to see what opinions and information were circulating at that point in the US military. I don't believe it is some attempt to assail the very fiber of the Federation you seem to oggle.
Have a good one
A bit defensive, aren't we? Remember that this article was written in 1985, to an American military audience.
No, not defencive, just stating facts. US "experts" repeatedly claim the Soviets copy most things from them. Such methods of "education" purpetuate such myths.
I don't see any mention of desperation anywhere in that section.
flown in support of Soviet ground forces advancing into the valley, signal an apparent willingness on the part of the Soviets to use any conventional air power available to support their ground operations.
Suggests a no holds barred approach, yet strategic nuclear bombers like the Blackjack or the Bear were never even considered for any role in Afghanistan. Nor did they use their PVO or air defence interceptors in Afghanistan. That is a conventional "air power" they had but never used. There were no Su-15s nor Mig-31s operating over Afghan airspace.
With respect, you're missing the point. This article was written in 1985 by a USAF Lt. Colonel. It's interesting to see what opinions and information were circulating at that point in the US military. I don't believe it is some attempt to assail the very fiber of the Federation you seem to oggle.
Have a good one
With respect back but this is not much of a find. The US made no secret of its opinions and information at the time or since. This article sheds nothing new while at the same time dredges up myths that should have been laid to rest long ago. A waste of time for most who are interested in the subject.
5 minutes talking to Hist2004 (I think that is his handle) or ObnSP16 or something (the members list is currently offline) you'd learn 1,000 times more than you'd get from that site.
No, not defencive, just stating facts. US "experts" repeatedly claim the Soviets copy most things from them. Such methods of "education" purpetuate such myths.Well, not without a reason, just remember what happened with B-29s (on which a whole family of Soviet strategic bombers was based), AIM-9s, data on radars like APG-65 etc. that fell into Soviet hands... Even the first mock-up of Mi-24 was little more but a copy of UH-1....
Lokos
06-20-2006, 10:21 AM
No, Coop, you're absolutely right. Everything good that ever came out of the SU had its origins in the West. Hell, even Communism was invented by a German. Those ugly, subhuman Russians wouldn't know innovation if it smashed them in the face.
Get off my planet.
Lokos
JVeld
06-20-2006, 11:18 AM
Good find man.....
No, Coop, you're absolutely right. Everything good that ever came out of the SU had its origins in the West. Hell, even Communism was invented by a German. Those ugly, subhuman Russians wouldn't know innovation if it smashed them in the face.
Get off my planet.Oh man, what a "powerful" piece of argumentation - but not that Serbs can do any better.
If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. If you can't, just **** off.
Well, not without a reason, just remember what happened with B-29s (on which a whole family of Soviet strategic bombers was based), AIM-9s, data on radars like APG-65 etc. that fell into Soviet hands... Even the first mock-up of Mi-24 was little more but a copy of UH-1....
Ohh, please Tom... surely you know better than that. The Mi-24 was based on the Mi-8 transport helo... are you telling me that the Mi-8 is a huey copy? The B-29 was copied by order of Stalin who wanted strategic bombers in the shortest time. Tupolev wanted to start from scratch but there was no time and he certainly didn't want to go to a gulag just to defy Stalin. He was proved right with all the problems they had converting the B-29 from imperial measurements to metric. Again with the AIM-9 the captured missile was so different from what they had made up until that point it was going to take time to absorb all that that learned from it. The Sidewinder was a simple design that seperated functions to different areas... ie nose = seeker and front control fins, then warhead, then rocket motor then rear fins. In comparison Soviet missiles were complex and difficult to design and maintain. The use of modules and modularity reached its peak not in a US weapon but in the R-27 where there are interchangable rocket motors and seeker heads to make almost a dozen different missiles.
And of course there is the old chestnut that Russian aircraft radars in the Mig-29 and Su-27 were copies of the radars fitted to the F-16 and F-15 respectively. Of course Russian radar technology absorbed ideas and features from all sorts of sources... just as the US got its jet and radar technology from the British, and everyone got ideas from the Germans.
After NASA spent 2 billion dollars testing hundreds of designs for the Space Shuttle it would be arrogant for the Russians to ignore it. The design they came up with looks to a passing observer to be a copy, but it is a completely different design... it benefited from having more time and better engines being available to the Soviets. The Space Shuttle is like a horribly overloaded aircraft that carrys a huge belly mounted external fuel tank and needs two huge solid propellent rocket to get airborne. The Soviet Buran is a glider that sits on a rocket that gets it airborne. The result is that the Soviet shuttle can carry a much larger payload but is lighter and it doesn't carry the dead weight of enormous engines through space and back to Earth. In fact if the Russians wanted to send a payload the weight of their entire shuttle they could simply put it in a fairing on their Energya rocket and launch that into space. The US can't do that without developing a new rocket comparable to the Energya.
Lokos
06-21-2006, 09:38 AM
Oh man, what a "powerful" piece of argumentation - but not that Serbs can do any better.
Argumentation aside, if you ever again insinuate anything about me based on my ethnic and racial background, I will not hesitate to report you to the moderators. Trailer trash like you has no place on this forum.
Lokos
oldsoak
06-21-2006, 10:01 AM
Firstly whats wrong with copying ? Why spend billions on developing something you can copy ( eg the B29 ) ? If you are recovering from a world war that devastated large areas of your country while facing off the West, do you allow yourselves the luxury of re-inventing the wheel ? What would you do ?
That said, the USSR as it was had some very impressive design teams responsible for a huge range of home grown technology. The Moscow institute of Hydrodynamics helped design their first nuke sub which was nothing like the Nautilus, Yaklovev designed the Yak28 which has no real western design equivalent, Tupolev produced the worlds second jet airliner which was nothing like the Comet. In helicopters they had numerous designs that owe nothingto the west, ditto their tanks. The list goes on and on. They are not mere plagairists - if so why do we develop weapons to counter theirs ?
If one has ever viewd the USSR/Russians as a threat, then you have to take them seriously and that means giving credit where its due.
mi35d
06-21-2006, 11:04 AM
The problem is that during the Stalin era and into the later 50's, the USSR would quite often lay claim to inventing just about everything. Propaganda was rampant in the controlled "Eastern Block" to shore up the "worker's paradise" concept.
Roll into some third world country and say, "here is a new tractor!"
- But it looks just like that American tractor over there!
"No, no, no comrade! Those evil Westerners COPIED the People's Tractor and claim it as their own!
- But it says, "Ford" on it.
"Yes, yes. Comrade Ford! He is a good Russian."
----
Yes, there's copying that goes back and forth. The problem arises when neither side wants to admit it or reality such as the copy being made 20 years later so that improvements make the copy better than the original creeps into the picture.
There's also form following function. Example: If a wind tunnel test proves that twin rudders on an aircraft make it more stable its bound to happen that both sides will start producing aircraft with twin rudders.
Argumentation aside, if you ever again insinuate anything about me based on my ethnic and racial background, I will not hesitate to report you to the moderators."Argumentation aside"?
So, what is the purpose of your appearance here? Insult and personal attacks?
Go and report me: not that my world would crumble if somebody bans me from here - like yours surely would...
I mean, it's nothing new that a great majority of Serbs hold themselves for superhumans, but what kind of a special "race" are you now - and show me where did I start with this...?
Sigh, to be sincere, I can't care less about your holly ethnic or "racial" Serbian feelings being hurt: that's your own problem. So, report yourself first: you started with insults, and now you can **** off straight back to that lovely pest hole of a "holly" Serbia to join other superhumans of your holy Serbian race....
Trailer trash like you has no place on this forum."Trailer trash"?
Why don't you talk about your actual problem, Lokos? It's very simple: you can't get any pussy since ages because Belgrade chicks like guys with cash and new BMWs, so you either ought to be a war criminal or a foreigner to have something to sniff at.
Ohh, please Tom... surely you know better than that. The Mi-24 was based on the Mi-8 transport helo... are you telling me that the Mi-8 is a huey copy?As first, my name is not "Tom". As second, thank you, but if you're another of paranoids seeing "Tom Cooper" everywhere around, I'd strongly recommend the soonest possible visit of your doctor.
As third, should you ever care to take a look, there are two particularly clear photos on the page 44 of WAPJ Volume 37 (Summer 1999), showing the (appropriately coded) mock-up of Mil V-24, strikingly resembling the UH-1 - but in no way the Mi-8.
Should you be in condition to deny these photos, and explain us they are not showing the first idea for what later became the Mi-24, then let us all know. That would be THE revision of history of that helicopter. Thank you very much in advance.
The B-29 was copied by order of Stalin who wanted strategic bombers in the shortest time. Tupolev wanted to start from scratch but there was no time and he certainly didn't want to go to a gulag just to defy Stalin. He was proved right with all the problems they had converting the B-29 from imperial measurements to metric.You know that this is not truth, but, frankly speaking, I doubt you care. Even your own holly Russian sources, like St. Kandalov in "Tupolev, The Man and His Aircraft" depict a completely different picture about the process under which the Tu-4 came into being - just not the rape of your keyboard you typed above.
Page 94:
In 1944, Tupolev had begun work on a large, long-range bomber with four turbocharged engines under the designation ANT-64, but the programme did not go ahead. While the industry of the Soviet Union had made considerable advances in the previous twenty years, the country's leaders were well aware that Western industry, and particularly that of the United States, was still well ahead in terms of technology... With three virtually complete examples of one of United States' more advanced aircraft at his disposal, the Soviet leader, Josef Stalin, decided that this could be a key to modernizing the Soviet aviation industry....Tupolev was instructed to build a duplicate B-29 and to give the Soviet Union a strategic bomber He was also given Stalin's authority to carry out whatever he deemed necessary, including a full industry modernisation, for the task.
So, this "lack of time" you're talking about was caused by the fact that their technology was not up to the task. And, Stalin was clever enough to prevent useless spending on Tupolev's ideas they could not realize, preferring instead to make use of Tupolev as a genious organizer, and advance their technology - by copying B-29s impounded in the USSR.
Again with the AIM-9 the captured missile was so different from what they had made up until that point it was going to take time to absorb all that that learned from it. The Sidewinder was a simple design that seperated functions to different areas... ie nose = seeker and front control fins, then warhead, then rocket motor then rear fins. In comparison Soviet missiles were complex and difficult to design and maintain. The use of modules and modularity reached its peak not in a US weapon but in the R-27 where there are interchangable rocket motors and seeker heads to make almost a dozen different missiles.(Yawn...) Who is talking about "use of modules and modularity"? I'm talking about Soviet copying US systems - more often than enough, and not without piles of good reasons.
Or would you like to say, that Gennadiy Sokolovskiy (then head of Vympel)was lying when he said (article "From Alkali to AAM-L, Part 1", AirInternational Oct. 1994),
The Sidewinder was for us an university of missile design. It improved our technical intellect and developed the modern approach to the design of future missiles.
And of course there is the old chestnut that Russian aircraft radars in the Mig-29 and Su-27 were copies of the radars fitted to the F-16 and F-15 respectively. Of course Russian radar technology absorbed ideas and features from all sorts of sources...Should you have a problem to accept this, let me know: there are yet more citates like the ones posted above.
After NASA spent 2 billion dollars testing hundreds of designs for the Space Shuttle it would be arrogant for the Russians to ignore it. The design they came up with looks to a passing observer to be a copy, but it is a completely different design... it benefited from having more time and better engines being available to the Soviets. The Space Shuttle is like a horribly overloaded aircraft that carrys a huge belly mounted external fuel tank and needs two huge solid propellent rocket to get airborne. The Soviet Buran is a glider that sits on a rocket that gets it airborne. The result is that the Soviet shuttle can carry a much larger payload but is lighter and it doesn't carry the dead weight of enormous engines through space and back to Earth. In fact if the Russians wanted to send a payload the weight of their entire shuttle they could simply put it in a fairing on their Energya rocket and launch that into space. The US can't do that without developing a new rocket comparable to the Energya.Aha. This is the newest joke of all the Russo-crazies around. Yes, Space Shuttle is a piece of junk. Still, it flew few dozens of missions more than the Buran - seven of which were built, but only one of which ever flew...and which definitely bankrupted the USSR for nothing and nothing again...
Congratulations - for the Soviets/Russians are certainly the only nation that ever managed to bankrupt itself through obtaining "superior" technology...
Lokos
06-21-2006, 01:18 PM
I mean, it's nothing new that a great majority of Serbs hold themselves for superhumans, but what kind of a special "race" are you now - and show me where did I start with this...?
Sigh, to be sincere, I can't care less about your holly ethnic or "racial" Serbian feelings being hurt: that's your own problem. So, report yourself first: you started with insults, and now you can **** off straight back to that lovely pest hole of a "holly" Serbia to join other superhumans of your holy Serbian race....
1) You were fairly warned.
2) The word you're looking for is 'holy'. Not 'holly'.
3) Where did I '[start] with the insults'? Telling you to get off my planet for your blatant racism? What an interesting concept you raise. I started with the insults by responding to a blatant insult? Which school of rational thinking did you graduate, Coop?
Why don't you talk about your actual problem, Lokos? It's very simple: you can't get any pussy since ages because Belgrade chicks like guys with cash and new BMWs, so you either ought to be a war criminal or a foreigner to have something to sniff at.
Oh, very nice, Coop. You really shattered me with that nugget. Congratulations. I really respect a man who can put down on that level. Tell me, are you twelve, or are you thirteen? I have difficulty deciding.
So, this "lack of time" you're talking about was caused by the fact that their technology was not up to the task. And, Stalin was clever enough to prevent useless spending on Tupolev's ideas they could not realize, preferring instead to make use of Tupolev as a genious organizer, and advance their technology - by copying B-29s impounded in the USSR.
So, in other words, exactly what GazB said?
more often than enough
Is this meant to be 'more often than not'? Apart from the missile, the strategic bomber and a helicopter design that was rejected, exactly what else did the Soviets copy that makes the above anything but festering dung?
Congratulations - for the Soviets/Russians are certainly the only nation that ever managed to bankrupt itself through obtaining "superior" technology...
As opposed to bankrupting themselves through obtaining inferior technology?
Lokos
California Joe
06-21-2006, 01:29 PM
Lets try to keep the thread on topic shall we?
Coop, lose the attitude. Or you can go away.
That is all.
1) You were fairly warned.
2) The word you're looking for is 'holy'. Not 'holly'.Thanks, I appreciate that.
3) Where did I '[start] with the insults'?
Oh, I see: "get off my planet" is a new word of appreciation in Belgrade?
Telling you to get off my planet for your blatant racism?What "blatant racism"?
Show me "blatant racism" in the following sentences: Well, not without a reason, just remember what happened with B-29s (on which a whole family of Soviet strategic bombers was based), AIM-9s, data on radars like APG-65 etc. that fell into Soviet hands... Even the first mock-up of Mi-24 was little more but a copy of UH-1....
And where did I mention the word "race" at all? What kind of "insult" is it to say that the Soviets were copying US technology at each and every opportunity - except your are one of idiotic Russian or Serbian chauvinists?
I started with the insults by responding to a blatant insult? Which school of rational thinking did you graduate, Coop?Searching for a way out, huh?
Come on, show your rationale: what kind of insult can you point at in the following text, stupid?
Well, not without a reason, just remember what happened with B-29s (on which a whole family of Soviet strategic bombers was based), AIM-9s, data on radars like APG-65 etc. that fell into Soviet hands... Even the first mock-up of Mi-24 was little more but a copy of UH-1....
Oh, very nice, Coop. You really shattered me with that nugget. Congratulations. I really respect a man who can put down on that level.As if I'd care what do you respect or not....?
For third time (I'll repeate this few times more if needed, perhaps you'll understand then): you started with insults, and I don't care. Now you can **** off whichever way you like - in giant leaps or quietly.
Lets try to keep the thread on topic shall we?
Coop, lose the attitude. Or you can go away.
That is all.Fine. It's, after all, me who has to hear that I'm "stupid" and I should "get off the planet" from S'13 and Lokos, every time I post something. If it's so that launching such personal attacks is "OK", and responding to these is "wrong" and "losing the attitude", then you can ban me immediately.
Lokos
06-21-2006, 01:48 PM
Where's the 'blatant racism'?
I'm sorry, you're right. It's not really blatant. Not to anyone who's unused to seeing it. I am, though. Let's see...
GazB said:
No, not defencive, just stating facts. US "experts" repeatedly claim the Soviets copy most things from them. Such methods of "education" purpetuate such myths.
And you responded with:
Well, not without a reason, just remember what happened with B-29s (on which a whole family of Soviet strategic bombers was based), AIM-9s, data on radars like APG-65 etc. that fell into Soviet hands... Even the first mock-up of Mi-24 was little more but a copy of UH-1....
Oh, those evil little Soviet copy cats. Look at them. They can't do anything right without stealing it first. It's the insinuation that makes it racism. It's the negative intonation that gives it potency. 'Well, not without a reason...' -> You establish that it is your opinion that the argument GazB mocked about Soviets copying 'most things' from US experts is meritous.
Then you provide examples, reinforcing the point, and creating the impression that the exceptions mentioned are part of a general trend.
How much deeper do you want me to go, language analysis-wise?
Oh, I see: "get off my planet" is a new word of appreciation in Belgrade?
Oh, surely, that was an insult. The thing is... I didn't offer the first one.
As if I'd care what do you respect or not....?
I'm glad we've established that you don't mind the fact that I don't respect you. Because, seriously, it was keeping me up at night.
Now you can **** off whichever way you like - in giant leaps or quietly.
I'll take option c).
And where did I mention the word "race" at all?
A clever racist never mentions the word itself. And I truly do think you're a clever one.
What kind of "insult" is it to say that the Soviets were copying US technology at each and every opportunity - except your are one of idiotic Russian or Serbian chauvinists?
You honestly can't see where the insult is? Seriously?
Yes, of course, I am a chauvinist. Because I dislike discrimination against any people based on disgusting generalizations that have less to do with reality than with the twisted fantasies of particular individuals. Forgive me, please.
Lokos
If this is really the way you think, if this is that much prised rationale of yours, don't worry, you are just paranoid - and a chauvinist.
Well, no surprise: I know a teacher from St. Petersburg, who is seriously convinced that the first man who built a plane that flew was "Mr. Avionovich" - a Russian. And, of course, that the word "avion" comes from his name...
I think I should stress again, then it's important: he is a teacher, teaching in one of local primary schools.
Not that this is going to make you sleep better, but there are (not few) Serbs with similar ideas - and it's that way of thinking that makes people like you come to the idea to consider anything of what I said for "racism".
Whatever: again, if you can't deny anything of what I say about Soviets copying US technology, doctrine and tactics, stop losing my time and find yourself something else to post about.
Lokos
06-21-2006, 02:26 PM
Coop, you're just digging your own grave here, faster and faster. It's a worrying self destructive tendency...
I once had an English teacher who liked to take suggestive photos of very young girls. Does this mean all Anglic peoples are pedophiles at heart? Or that pedophilia is a tremendous and prolific problem in Anglic societies?
What are you trying to prove with that story? That Russian schoolkids are being taught that 'Mr. Avionovich' invented the airplane? Why don't you ask asch (Russian living in Vladivostok), for example, what kind of education he received on the subject? As much as I love your little anecdotes, they mean two things: diddly and squat.
Not that this is going to make you sleep better, but there are (not few) Serbs with similar ideas - and it's that way of thinking that makes people like you come to the idea to consider anything of what I said for "racism".
That way of thinking? What is that, exactly? And what gives you any authority whatsoever to make any kind of generalization about anyone, let alone Serbs?
Whatever: again, if you can't deny anything of what I say about Soviets copying US technology, doctrine and tactics, stop losing my time and find yourself something else to post about.
Now we've included DOCTRINE and TACTICS, too? I don't really specialize in Cold War equipment - so you may have an advantage there - but I'm more than fine with Soviet doctrine and tactics. Enlighten me. What was 'copied'? Hmm?
Lokos
Coop, you're just digging your own grave here, faster and faster. It's a worrying self destructive tendency...Oh, really, and: since when are you so much worried about me?
All the time since you've started participating in this thread, you do nothing else but explain I should "get off your planet", I'm a "racist" and whatever, and "digging my own grave"...
You Mr. "Lokos", are absolutely unable to cope with the topic; you completely dislike even the naked idea of somebody explaining that the Soviets have copied the West all the time, and because of this all of your participation is babbling about "racism", insults, and making yourself wet about all possible things but the topic at hand.
But, I'm having "worrying self destructive tendencies"?
Listen: go and find YOURSELF a doctor. I told you to **** off - already three times. Why don't you finally follow what is actually a very friendly advice?
I once had an English teacher who liked to take suggestive photos of very young girls. Does this mean all Anglic peoples are pedophiles at heart? Or that pedophilia is a tremendous and prolific problem in Anglic societies?Who say it isn't?
What are you trying to prove with that story? That Russian schoolkids are being taught that 'Mr. Avionovich' invented the airplane?In the case of schoolkids teached by that teacher - yes, they are. Given that he's teaching since something like 25 years, that's plenty of kids...
Why don't you ask asch (Russian living in Vladivostok), for example, what kind of education he received on the subject? As much as I love your little anecdotes, they mean two things: diddly and squat.That's your problem, not mine.
That way of thinking? What is that, exactly? And what gives you any authority whatsoever to make any kind of generalization about anyone, let alone Serbs?Plenty, plenty of first-hand experience with them (Serbs).
Now we've included DOCTRINE and TACTICS, too? I don't really specialize in Cold War equipment - so you may have an advantage there - but I'm more than fine with Soviet doctrine and tactics. Enlighten me. What was 'copied'? Hmm?If you're not "specilized in Cold War equipment", then what to hell are you searching for in this thread? What is the purpose of your participation?
Lokos
06-21-2006, 04:07 PM
Oh, really, and: since when are you so much worried about me?
For those of us who aren't gifted in textual nuance: that was me being facetious, Coop.
completely dislike even the naked idea of somebody explaining that the Soviets have copied the West all the time
Because it's rubbish?
Listen: go and find YOURSELF a doctor. I told you to **** off - already three times. Why don't you finally follow what is actually a very friendly advice?
Umm... no.
Who say it isn't?
I live in an Anglic society. I say it isn't. Prove me wrong.
In the case of schoolkids teached by that teacher - yes, they are. Given that he's teaching since something like 25 years, that's plenty of kids...
'Taught' by the teacher. The past tense of teach is 'taught'. So, assuming this gentleman teaches each and every class he conducts that a Mr. Avionovich invented the plane... what? Is something supposed to become apparent to me? What's the point you're trying to make? That a deluded old man is lying to kids and that they'll have to find out eventually what a doddering old fool's been doing to their general knowledge one day?
It's a tragedy, I agree.
That's your problem, not mine.
It becomes your problem when your anecdotes are being used to prove a point, doesn't it?
Plenty, plenty of first-hand experience with them (Serbs).
Did we hurt you in some way, my little friend? I can just imagine the venom being spit out of your mouth as you finally manage to articulate 'them', amidst all the hissing.
If you're not "specilized in Cold War equipment", then what to hell are you searching for in this thread? What is the purpose of your participation?
Honestly? I'm doing it to be the mean Serb you know me to be. To be evil... and stuff. Yeah.
Hey, after you finish looking at that eight word segment of the quoted passage, could you have a look at the rest of it, and answer the question asked? There's a good Coop.
Lokos
First of all, I'm not your "little friend": don't forget that you should use this expression only when taking a look down into your underwear.
You know exactly what I want to say, where and why. And, you know exactly what is the purpose of your appearance and insults, dumbass: to provoke. That, namely, is all you and similar jerks can do when out of means and clue against well-supported argumentation.
And, yes; that's typical for your "race".
Therefore, again: **** off.
Lokos
06-21-2006, 04:34 PM
Therefore, again: **** off.
I'll try it in German: Nein.
Russian: Nyet.
Would Swahili help? I feel like you're not hearing what I'm telling you.
don't forget that you should use this expression only when taking a look down into your underwear.
*giggles* You're so cool, Coop, you can make ***** jokes, too! I wish I was like you. Then I, too, could say to someone: 'You've got a small *****!' - but in that cool roundabout way you've got going. And then they'd feel all offended and I'd be like, 'Yeah. Showed YOU. Yeah'
You know exactly what I want to say, where and why.
You're a book to me, Coop. A badly written, poorly edited book. But a book nonetheless.
And, you know exactly what is the purpose of your appearance and insults, dumbass: to provoke.
I've got to admit, as you've taken this farther and farther, that has become a corrolary aim.
That, namely, is all you and similar jerks can do when out of means and clue against well-supported argumentation
You mean when I and all similar jerks aren't noticing that you've failed to answer some questions that clearly go towards the debate you wish to conduct? So how about that doctrine and tactics copying, Coop?
And, yes; that's typical for your "race".
I'm just quoting it, so that you don't 'accidentally' delete this little gem, my KKK cowboy. K?
Lokos
Oh, what a series of eloquent answers, Lokos: you didn't forget to congratulate the person in mirror too? I'm sure you spend most of the day in front of one...
BTW, you can try it in Hindu as well, but the message is always the same: **** off.
James
06-21-2006, 11:02 PM
Ok, the hijack is over...
RomanS
06-22-2006, 01:29 AM
Found that photo Coop was talking about
The mockup that never went into production
http://www.aeronautics.ru/m/mi24007.jpg
And here is Mi-24 Hind A (the early Hind)
http://www.aeronautics.ru/m/mi24011.jpg
Here is UH-1
http://www.yuzbasicafer.com/ucak2/uh-1/09.jpg
Here is Mi-24 Hind A (the early Hind)
http://www.aeronautics.ru/m/mi24014.jpg
Here is Mi-8
http://www.kareliacopters.ee/en/Mil%20Mi8.jpg
Im not a helicopter expert, But I am a proffesional artist with many years of experience. And can tell that GazB is right
Mi-24 has nothing in common with UH-1
Mi-24 looks closer to its big brother Mi-8
Someone help me if Im wrong...
The two Mi's look almost Identical. I don't know diddley about helis either, but I have eyes, and in my eye, that's just how it looks.
James
06-22-2006, 09:33 PM
Well, the Hind and the HUey both have rotors on the tail and on top...
Hehe
the V-24 Hind prototype, although superificially related to the Huey, was completely different technically and in its intended role. Not a simple transporter, but a flying AFV- hence the anti-armour missles and heavy cannon mounted on skids.
claiming that the Hind evolved from what was a direct copy of the Huey has gotta be the most retarded comment I have ever seen on Mp.net
As third, should you ever care to take a look, there are two particularly clear photos on the page 44 of WAPJ Volume 37 (Summer 1999), showing the (appropriately coded) mock-up of Mil V-24, strikingly resembling the UH-1 - but in no way the Mi-8.
And I have particularly clear photos of the rival for the new BVR missile (in the early 80s) to be carried by the Flanker and Fulcrum generation fighter in the Soviet Union that looks exactly like a Sparrow. It lost the competition against the R-27. What is your point? Are you saying that the R-27 evolved from the Sparrow? They were competing designs. If you have a picture of a competing design for the Mi-24 that looks like a Huey then congrats. It just means that the Huey design was tested as an alternative and it lost. Presumably because the result was inferior to the alternative Soviet design.
Should you be in condition to deny these photos, and explain us they are not showing the first idea for what later became the Mi-24, then let us all know.
Perhaps if you understood Soviet weapons development processes better I wouldn't have to help you.
So, this "lack of time" you're talking about was caused by the fact that their technology was not up to the task.
So starting a bomber design from scratch in 1944 was going to be much quicker than copying a design they had already had access to? Did they copy the B-29 because although taking longer than developing from scratch it was based on better technology? Surely if that were the case then taking the B-29s to bits to see what made them tick and incorporating those things that were advances into the new design would make more sense... unless there was a time factor. Even though he was instructed to copy the B-29 he didn't do an exact copy. The Tu-4 had more powerful engines than the B-29 and it had more powerful defensive guns in the form of 20mm cannon instead of HMGs.
And, Stalin was clever enough to prevent useless spending on Tupolev's ideas they could not realize, preferring instead to make use of Tupolev as a genious organizer, and advance their technology - by copying B-29s impounded in the USSR.
So Tupolev was just an administrator?
Or would you like to say, that Gennadiy Sokolovskiy (then head of Vympel)was lying when he said (article "From Alkali to AAM-L, Part 1", AirInternational Oct. 1994),
The Sidewinder was for us an university of missile design. It improved our technical intellect and developed the modern approach to the design of future missiles.
First of all Vympel didn't build the R-13 copy of the sidewinder.
It also said:
"A major influence in development of Soviet air to air missiles came with the capture of the American AIM-9B Sidewinder missile on September 24th, 1958 by communist China. The missile launched from a Taiwanese F-86F Sabre hit a PRCh Mig-17 without exploding and was subsequently presented to Toropovs design team. The result was one of the most successful Soviet air to air weapons, the K-13.
The captured sidewinder taught the Soviet designers many valuable lessons. They were particularly impressed by the modular concept of its design, which was far easier to manufacture and service. The AIM-9Bs simple construction compared to the sophisticated Soviet versions came as a great surprise;"
(article "From Alkali to AAM-L, Part 1", AirInternational Oct. 1994)
As I said it taught them that an AAM could be simple and modular and still be effective and capable. The IR seeker the US missile used wasn't that much better than existing models in the SU, but the gyroscopes were much smaller in the sidewinder. The biggest thing they learned from the sidewinder was not how to make smaller gyroscopes but to adopt a more modular approach to design and manufacture of AAMs. Which is what I thought I said before...
Should you have a problem to accept this, let me know: there are yet more citates like the ones posted above.
I don't doubt it. The western aviation reporters were constantly claiming the only way the Mig-29 or Su-27 could have been developed was through copying the west. The idea they might have deveopled their radars themselves is absurd. Unless the whole concept that the Soviets copied western equipment without developing ideas of their own was wrong.
If they were copies however can you explain why they were so different operationally?
The Soviet radars didn not have any track while scan capability, nor did they have all the different operating modes the western radars did. They had no air to ground capability at all. Only more modern upgrades of the radars for the Mig-29 and Su-27 have air to ground modes... modes the F-18 and F-16 radars have always had.
Aha. This is the newest joke of all the Russo-crazies around. Yes, Space Shuttle is a piece of junk. Still, it flew few dozens of missions more than the Buran - seven of which were built, but only one of which ever flew...and which definitely bankrupted the USSR for nothing and nothing again...
The Buran was built because the Soviets believed the Space Shuttle had a military mission and they wanted parity. That is all. Once developed they continued to use standard rockets to support their space stations and to launch satellites as they were more cost effective than shuttles.
Congratulations - for the Soviets/Russians are certainly the only nation that ever managed to bankrupt itself through obtaining "superior" technology...
What a poor grasp of history you have.
Has superior technology always won the day?
I know a teacher from St. Petersburg, who is seriously convinced that the first man who built a plane that flew was "Mr. Avionovich" - a Russian. And, of course, that the word "avion" comes from his name...
I know a teacher who thinks Israel is in North Africa. Big deal. Ignorance is a problem everywhere.
I think I should stress again, then it's important: he is a teacher, teaching in one of local primary schools.
So what? One of my maths teachers wouldn't know History if it sat on his head. Don't tell me this primary school teacher was teaching advanced aviation, or history to primary school students. Personally I can't remember a thing from primary school except reading and writing.
There are plenty of American kids on the internet who believe the US invented everything.
you completely dislike even the naked idea of somebody explaining that the Soviets have copied the West all the time
Perhaps he dislikes the idea of someone claiming the Soviets copied the west all the time because it is wrong? Just as wrong as suggesting the Soviets never copied anything from the West. Are you going to stop going on roller coasters or using the periodic table simply because they were invented in Russia?
claiming that the Hind evolved from what was a direct copy of the Huey has gotta be the most retarded comment I have ever seen on Mp.net
It is a common problem. A bit like the Soviets legally buying Christies tank design, at a time when the US wasn't even interested, and then using Christies suspension in the BT-1, and then all the subsequent BT series tanks, with modifications all the way through to suit the different designs of different weights, till the suspension was finally used in the T-34... which some americans say proves the T-34 was a christie design so it was an american tank design. Of course that means that the M1A2 Abrams is a German/British hybrid tank with German gun and British armour and computers probably made in Taiwan...
Kilgor
06-24-2006, 04:09 AM
So starting a bomber design from scratch in 1944 was going to be much quicker than copying a design they had already had access to? Did they copy the B-29 because although taking longer than developing from scratch it was based on better technology? Surely if that were the case then taking the B-29s to bits to see what made them tick and incorporating those things that were advances into the new design would make more sense... unless there was a time factor. Even though he was instructed to copy the B-29 he didn't do an exact copy. The Tu-4 had more powerful engines than the B-29 and it had more powerful defensive guns in the form of 20mm cannon instead of HMGs.
The TU4 wasnt a close copy in some cases but almost a exact copy, down the the famous "bullet hole". And by the time the soviet version was in production the B-50 version was using far more powerful engines, almost 1000 hp better than the soviet power plants in the TU-4.
The B29 was copied not because it was only better, but also because of its capability to deliver the "special" bomb.
I know a teacher who thinks Israel is in North Africa. Big deal. Ignorance is a problem everywhere.
He was refering to the period in soviet history where many of the inventions of the US were re-written into a orwellan history to be soviet.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.