Reply With QuoteThere is nothing wrong with the log. But his reference on overly expensive western equipment beared a striking similarity with the well known story of "the Space ball pen"Originally Posted by Mousepad
.
Wat's wrong with the log? it proved itself damn effective, chain+log ftw.Now that reminds me the story of the space pen...
And space pen trembles in comparrison with space laptop.
There is nothing wrong with the log. But his reference on overly expensive western equipment beared a striking similarity with the well known story of "the Space ball pen"
Actually a saw a time ago interview with Leonov, and he said about that joke, that Americans used pencils too, and order on ball pen was just mind game for inventive mind and was't set as top priority.There is nothing wrong with the log. But his reference on overly expensive western equipment beared a striking similarity with the well known story of "the Space ball pen"
Is the damaged Su-25 Georgian or Russian? And, was it damaged on the ground or in the air?
Russian and Yes in the air
Strong!!!
Please be specific about what countries and items you are thinking of for making such a generalisation.
I don't know about others but as for us the strategy has always been to put the buck where it makes most difference, while everything else is kept on a more basic and economic level. Reason being that old stuff often works just as good or even better than new, and most importantly it won't make a difference in terms of combat efficiency.
E.g. guys may be riding around in the newest CV9040C with all the gadgets but at the same time parts of their platoon equipment and personal gear might be WWII era.
In this particular example the ruskies might also think of building vehicles that don't get stuck all the time.
Last edited by Thor; 08-23-2008 at 09:26 AM.
Wasn't aimed at Folkhem, don't worry.
Just a mentality thing that reflects on many levels, not only militarily. Think of Lada. Bring it to west and it seems to be a scrappy car with bad ride, poor engine and plenty of maintenance. In Russia, it can negotiate bad roads with decent ground clearance, it is warm in the winter and the maintenance can be done with a sledgehammer and a screw driver, the bigger the problem, the bigger the sledgehammer.
Look at Russia's assault weapon, the AK-47 or 74. It's simple, easy to maintain and reliable under severe conditions. Compare it to, say, L85A2 and see the difference. Western equipment is often suited to western circumstances, thus is not always the best choice for certain conditions. Russian equipment usually works everywhere, but lacks top-end performance in optimal conditions.
Sure, the assault weapon one is perhaps the most common one and I'll give you that one. And there's a general difference in design philosophy, especially perhaps inbetween US and Russia.
On the other hand ask a MT-LB crew what they think about it's reliability? Is it basic and reliable or is it just cheap and crappy?
My original point was that I think there's an exaggeration when people think of this. Most NATO armies have limited budgets and until recently many had large conscript armies as well. I don't know but I doubt there were any $2M logs.
I'd say projects like RAH-66 or Crusader have been those 2M logs.
BTW what's good about MT-LB is that it goes where BV-206 goes and gives some sort of protection from rifle fire, although crappy has been the word i've heard it being described as well
Well, my guess is that those huge projects don't really apply to the everyday life of an infantry soldier.
I've heard MT-LB mobility being described as "decent". The tracks are too narrow and they can't put on wider tracks without rebuilding the thing. I know there are versions with wider tracks out there though.
Now I'm going to just sit back and let the fanboys post their pics.
Who have vehicles which dont stuck in the mud? btw, wider tracks:
http://www.ipix.lt/images/17665292.jpg
In Georgia there were MT-LB's fitted with wider tracks.
And in Georgia there was other version of MT-LB with original wider tracks. Anyone have photos?
I don't think anyone thinks that, most would say Russian equipment is workman-like meaning it does it's job without the over-engineering sometimes shown on more expensive designs.....That's the point I was making, if you think "western" tanks don't follow the same philosophy take a look at any British tank in combat from WWII to Iraq....I'm sure you'll see the good old log present....and the tea-brewer on Brit' vehicles
Posting Permissions
