Western armament >overengineered, complicated crap >gets

File: 1488743017255.jpg (4MB, 3300x2550px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3300x2550px

What did the West do right that the rest of the Soviets got so wrong?

>>3311187
>virtually zero demand for it by foreign armies

USA, UK and Germany sell a lot of military hardware, including outside of NATO.

>>3311187
>Continued use = Never gets obsolete!
Bullshit. Third world armies and shite militias & terror groups use what they can get their hands on. That does not mean the shit they use never gets obsolete.

Also Western armaments also have high demand for licence contracts. It's only that you usually have to be an industrialized country to be able to produce such weapons.

Hell, that goes the same for Slavshit. You think African or Middle Eastern people manufacture Soviet stuff themselves? Its mostly Russia or China that ever does.

>>3311232
>cheap labor relative to total economy size
>low capacity to produce plastic, high capacity to produce metals
>philosophy to keep it simple and not add convinces, the soldier can handle it

These combined do ensure that soviet tech is pretty reliable.
You are absolutely correct to address the "never obsolete" shit, but also completely wrong to dismiss soviet arms entirely. They are in fact more durable, by design and by make.

File: soviet-tank-graveyard-kharkov-ukraine-2.jpg (231KB, 1024x647px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1024x647px

>>3311187

>never gets obsolete

>>3311252
Are these obsolete, or just no longer required due to the Cold War ending and nobody needing that much arms?

>>3311258
The armor is easily penetrated even by modern IFVs.

File: Biggest_arms_sales_2013.png (46KB, 575x519px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 575x519px

>What did the Soviets get so right that rest of the world got so wrong?

They collapsed as a country and flooded the world with cheap arms which rose to prominence in wars in the the third world.

Likewise the Western Military Industrial complex likes to downplay just how huge and pervasive it is so it pushes the russian weapons meme.

>>3311268
But its still an all terrain self propelled gun, that already exists and you don't need to pay for.
At worst you can use it as a mobile bunker by putting bags of dirty around it when you entrench. Its not trash.

>>3311270
>They collapsed as a country and flooded the world with cheap arms which rose to prominence in wars in the the third world.
And what, the Angolans were using Leopards in the 1970s?
>Likewise the Western Military Industrial complex likes to downplay just how huge and pervasive it is so it pushes the russian weapons meme.
Thats mainly due to inflated price of western equipment, rather than volume.

>>3311290
>inflated price of western equipment

It includes the high worker wage in it.
Hard to outsource gun production, the locals may decide to keep the guns and throw your imperialist ass out.

>>3311276


>it's not trash
>hundreds of them rotting away because no one wants tgem

>>3311298
No one needs them. Ukraine doesn't need 5000 tanks all the sudden. Or can't afford to run them anyways.

>>3311298
>hundreds of them rotting away because no one wants tgem
Tens of thousands actually, they sell of a few hundred now and then.

>>3311300
>needs
SHALL

>performs so well in combat that it's still used in modern warfare with little or no drawbacks

lmao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

>>3311252
Since that's in ukraine it's just simply a case of them not being used. If that pic was pre-2014 it probably looks a bit different now.

>>3311305
Yea, yeah, I am sure you wuz kangz nigga, stay proud.

>>3311312
>USA army still has cavalry regiments

Had no idea.

>>3311316
>If that pic was pre-2014 it probably looks a bit different now.
All missing their turrets

>>3311322

If you think they go into battle on horseback, you're going to be disappointed.

>>3311325
Nah, I saw its basically motorized infantry, but still. Its called cavalry.

>>3311323
Why would they take the guns, but leave the car that carries said gun? Sounds stupid.

>>3311322
In name only, same with Britain kinda. When they're doing parades they're on horseback but obviously they use tanks and armoured vehicles in actual combat.

>>3311290
>And what, the Angolans

You mean a country that was politically aligned with the USSR?

>Thats mainly due to inflated price of western equipment, rather than volume.

Do you have a source for that? Or are you focusing on a particular year?

Check out

http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

The US sells supplies vastly more aircraft and armored vehicles than Russia does.

File: 467623384.jpg (436KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1024x681px

>>3311330

>>3311323
You joke but apparently they are bringing some of them back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7uGRwC-Qhc

File: 7640138486_441b98a4f4_b.jpg (475KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1024x681px

>>3311330

If trolling, lol.
If not trolling, the turrets on Soviet tanks are notorious for exploding and flying off when they get hit in combat.

File: 1503395728111.png (242KB, 530x530px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 530x530px

>>3311312
>On 26 February 1991 British artillery units unleashed an hour long artillery strike on Iraqi positions. It was the greatest British artillery display since World War Two. That same night the British 7th Brigade fought a night tank battle against an Iraqi tank battalion from the Iraqi 52nd Armored Division. After ninety minutes of battle over 50 Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers were destroyed.
>After ninety minutes of battle over 50 Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers were destroyed.

Out-fucking-skilled

>>3311342
What was the iraqi government even hoping for? Old ass, poorly maintained tanks, constantly getting dunked by artillery and air.
Why waste all those lives?

Western armament
>Cutting edge technology
>Constantly outdoing itself, thus needs replacing
>Very expensive but very good

Soviet Armament
>Cheap, proven designs, but outdated
>Easy to make and use
>Little effort at modernizing
>Cheap and easy enough that shitty countries can afford them to gun down rebels

The Gulf War proved just how good Soviet tanks were OP

>>3311276
>At worst you can use it as a mobile bunker by putting bags of dirty around it when you entrench. Its not trash.
It's not WW2 anymore, that shit would just be destroyed by a missile or deep penetrating artillery.

Honestly I've no idea how a modern and symmetrical war would work, fortifications are basically useless short of deep underground bunkers.

>>3311365
You are just spoiled by desert wars, where mobility is key and a jeep is worth more than an artillery piece.
Things would be very, very different in a government-on-government war in "the west".

>>3311354
The Iraqis actually thought that it would be impossible for the coalition forces to launch a successful attack across such a large area of desert, they thought it would be a logistical nightmare as it was extremely difficult to do in the WW2 Africa/Middle East campaign.

The problem is, they did not account for the lessons learned in that war. According to that wikipedia page, the coalition forces also had access to thermal optics which meant that when the sandstorm rolled in they could still see everything.

The technology was just superior in every way and the Iraq government was too stupid to realise it. They couldn't even flank properly because they were just getting blown to pieces by the extremely accurate artillery covering the US and UK troops.

>This technology had never before seen battle, but the results were staggering. The world's fifth largest army had been defeated in less than 96 hours.

>>3311378
Still doesn't make fortifications useful.

Air power and missiles is all that matters, people even argue tanks are obsolete now.

>>3311383
DANGER!!! OPINIONS AHEAD!!!!
Tanks were always obsolete. They were only good enough to effectively (considering their cost in resource, manpower, labor, fuel and training) int heir infancy, during WW1, as they were ahead of time and nobody could properly counter them.

>fortifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov%27s_House
This is the fortifications of the future, selling a city as expensively as possible, fighting for every house. Syria showed as much.

Gosh who would have guessed as soon as actual statistics on arms sales come up you disappear

>>3311399
Who is (You) here? I made some posts you may consider pro-east tech, and I am still here, and I always knew about sales numbers.

>>3311389
>hey were only good enough to effectively (considering their cost in resource, manpower, labor, fuel and training) int heir infancy, during WW1
I'm quite sure they were good in WW2.

Tanks are the new cavalry.

>>3311389
>They were only good enough to effectively (considering their cost in resource, manpower, labor, fuel and training) int heir infancy, during WW1, as they were ahead of time and nobody could properly counter them.

I think you've actually got this the wrong way round. Tanks in WW1 weren't actually that effective, artillery was far, FAR more effective. WW1 tanks were unreliable and expensive.

Tanks and armoured vehicles really became essential in WW2, especially in the Africa campaign and the invasion of mainland Europe towards the end.

>>3311409
The poster in
>>3311290

>>3311424
WWI tanks won the war in the west. German elastic defense was defeated with them.

>>3311429
Oh, that one isn't me. I responded to him here >>3311296 explaining the price difference.

>>3311417
>Tanks are the new cavalry.

If tanks are cavalry, we are in the WWI period.

>>3311432
I think its just another tankie/sovietboo I did give him the benefit of the doubt though as you did

>>3311435
They take on the same role, faster, and heavy hitting

File: Armscor 1911.45.jpg (150KB, 2031x1113px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 2031x1113px

>>3311248
You still need to be at the very least some sort of industrialized country or a country able to do some sort of heavy manufacturing.

Niggasweatshops won't do unless we're just talking small arms. Anyone can do that. Heck Flips do that with Western small arms.

>le gulf war proved Soviet equipment is uselessXDDDDD
how's the view on top of Mt. Stupid?

>>3311389
>Tanks were always obsolete.
t. I've watched shite arab militias deploy them shittily and I think they're obsolete.

or

t. most wars nowadays are low intensity conflicts and guerilla shitfights and I know think they're obsolete.

>>3311218
this reminds me of when my dad told me the story of how the swedish airforce border patrol brought down a russian mig. He said the pilots got bored and familiar with each other, so they started playing games after a while. One time the swedish plane dove down towards the water before swooping up. The russian plane did the same thing, but it couldn't turn up as fast so it crashed in the baltic.

File: draken under bridges.jpg (77KB, 750x523px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 750x523px

>>3311613
like dis?

>>3311700
I assumed it was over the sea but yeah probably that sort of J-shaped maneuver

File: viggen2.jpg (213KB, 960x725px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 960x725px

>>3311825
Yeah I kinda understood, just wanted to the show their fucking balls

>>3311187
>soviet armament

I'm not rich enough to buy cheap trash.

File: 1464725437160.jpg (122KB, 689x960px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 689x960px

>>3311365

>Honestly I've no idea how a modern and symmetrical war would work, fortifications are basically useless short of deep underground bunkers.

Hmm hard to say. There are predicitions that regular air forces (if we assume that the war had a forerun were the sides rearmed properly) would just destroy the opposing sides industry.

Modern industries are very vulnerable and are easily knocked out when you destroy a few key components. And modern air forces have a lot of precision and firepower compared to earlier times.

So you might have a situation were the high tech armaments can't be replaced and both sides return to producing simpler weapons.

The Airforces of the world might be too optimistic though. So lets assume the opponents of our modern symmetrical warare able to keep their industries going.

>MASSIVE pool of trucks and cars (and people able to drive them) ensuring unprecedented long term mobility of the supply (all your fancy schmancy military vehicles are pretty useless if they aren't properly supplied)

>oilis of much greater importance, ensuring the flow of it is crucial even more than in WW2
>defense won't work either because ALL battles probably would be fast paced manouver battles

>fixed defenses are proabably a thing of the past
>bunkers might offer a temporary area denial but bunker busters probably would be very common

>>3311359
>Cutting edge technology
That explains why US is still using a tank design from 70s.

>>3311312
>The 9 M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no American losses.[16]
Talk about efficiency.

File: Modern_Cavalryman.jpg (58KB, 600x363px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x363px

>>3311325
Acutally...

Since you never know when you need them. Though they're also the most gutted arm of the military for understandable reasons.

File: woj.png (622B, 112x125px) Image search: [Google]

622B, 112x125px

>>3312372
>that horse's eye

>>3311389
FAST AS THE WIND, THE OPERATION HAS BEGUN

>>3312658
>>3311312

File: russian_t-80bv.jpg (596KB, 780x492px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 780x492px

>>3311187
>simple
>not over engineered
hi

File: Leo.jpg (455KB, 963x620px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 963x620px

Americans destroy soviet export models - soviet tech sucks.
ISIS destroys Iraqi Abrams and Turk leopards - but you see those were outdated models with poorly trained crews, you can not use those examples really.

>>3312372

Is that dude civil affairs? All I can think of that would make sense if that's in-country.

File: Engines.png (195KB, 681x488px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 681x488px

>>3311187
>Soviet Armament
>Durable

Anon what

>>3313824
>guerillas with TOW and other ATGM missile capabilities destroy tanks not equipped to deal with these

Imagine my shock

>>3311187
Dude what?
I'm Russian-American, and I have a tendency to be biased toward Russian stuff because of my ethnicity, but I respect the truth.
If I had to use a weapons system and I knew nothing about it other than whether it was Russian or American, I would pick the American.
Actual combat performance of weapons systems doesn't support your claims.
The Soviets made some good stuff, don't get me wrong. But their tanks were usually death traps with shit ergonomics, going back to WW2. Maybe this has finally changed with the Armata systems, maybe not.
We've all seen how well the T-72 does in combat. Turret blown off when you so much as breathe on it, crew killed horribly. The T-90 is just a souped-up version with more armor, active defense, and a few other features. Would I rather be sitting behind Chobham armor? Fuck yes.
Even the famous T-34 gets overrated sometimes. It was an ergonomic nightmare with bad-to-mediocre optics. There are some very good arguments for taking the M4 Sherman over it.
You can find militaries using old Western gear too, you're just not looking hard enough. Israelis were using M60s until just a few years ago.
>overengineered, complicated crap
>gets obsolete every 5 years so it needs to be constantly upgraded to work
If you want a modern military you have to spend on it, one way or another. There are probably no shortcuts, and if there are I don't think Russians have found them. All this "rugged reliable" Soviet stuff you love will get your soldiers killed in a real fight. "Oh boy," people say, "This old AK works after you leave it in a swamp for ten years." But so what? If your supply chain is so shit that your soldiers have to use old AKs they dug out of swamps, you're probably not going to win the war anyway unless you're an insurgent.

>>3311187
Of course third world dictators like buying cheap Soviet gear. But they're not designing their militaries mainly to win conventional wars. They're designing their militaries mainly to keep them in power against internal opposition. If your enemy is the equivalent of a national guard plus some angry regular citizens, riding a T-72 isn't that bad. It's just that your Soviet gear will suffer horrible loss ratios in a battle with any serious military.

>>3312195
>What are upgrades??
>Whatdya mean A1 and A2??
>What's TUSK??

>>3312393
What's wrong with it? I don't know jackshit about horses

>>3311381
There's a good writeup of Russian generals feeling heatenings after seeing how badly Iraq got ruined.

>>3311187

Russians also killed the bourgies and kulaks. I wish we could do that here in the west.

File: 1496466035888.jpg (104KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 960x639px

>>3311187
>virtually zero demand for it by foreign armies, low export except to allied countries who are obliged to buy this crap

Much of Latin America and Southeast Asia rides on Westernshit. Maybe with only the exception of Myanmar and Burma.

In addition you can buy westernshit off cheap from the largest licensed copier of Western Arms in the planet: South Korea. Its what everyone in Non-Commie SEA is doing.

>>3312810
What's wrong with this apart from the turbine engine and price?

>>3314289
Can you link it?

>>3314082
Autism

>>3314803
>>3314289

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm I think this is it.

>>3312195
>he says while his country uses a T-72 with a new welded turret and more electronics/ERA

>>3311276
>that already exists and you don't need to pay for.

How old are you ?
Real life is not like a fucking pc game.

>>3312134
>fixed defenses are proabably a thing of the past

Whats a practical way to destroy underground bunkers and bomb shelters?

>>3315178
If there is a parking full of tanks, I think its safe to assume that these tanks that are there exist, and that you don't need to pay for a factory to hire people and buy materials to construct them.
Yes, things that exist are real. They are there. They don't need to be created if they are there. No hable ingles?

>>3311218

Would like who the pilots of those soviet jets were though, very likely all of them were third world monkeys..

>>3315216
90% arabs for these stats.

>>3315211
Does refurb, maintenance and crewinh not cost money?

>>3315219
Refurbishing, maintaining and crewing existing tanks cost less than designing, building, maintaining, training and crewing new tanks.

Why is it that Russian-built tanks have a tendency to blow their turrets away?

>>3315815
Its not a russian thing, its an era thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack-in-the-box_effect

Basically until a point in time, all tanks did that. After that point, people built them not to do that.
But since most russian-built tanks in use today are from before that time, they still have the flat. More modern tanks wouldn't have it.

>>3315178
That's actually a concern in the real world and many military vehicles are based on conversions from existent designs.

File: merkava_on_fire.jpg (71KB, 380x246px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 380x246px

>>3313884

>Yeah, but those rebels could never hope to destroy with a western trained crew in a western built ta-

>>3316202
That's sad, merkavas are cool.

>>3315815
Real answer: The autoloader stores ammunition in this big carousel right under the turret. If something penetrates and hits the carousel, then the turret goes flying.

>>3311187
But Soviet armament still sucks

>>3311305
NOT

low Population + high Domestic Income = Quality
high Population + low Domestic Income = Quantity

The choice of either of these models is the result of an adaptation to economic and demographic constraints.