Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage

>>34653569
I remember Gorbatschow saying that Chernobyl was a major contributor to the crash of the rubel.

Other than that, no Idea. Maybe some other Anon has more Details.

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?
they did not
the Soviet was chasing a different goal from the American

for example
they invested tons of money into passive night sight for tank, gun launch ATGM, ERA, APS

meanwhile the west developed thermal sight and effective ballistic com

>>34653569
Money. They started to run out and the US didn't.

The US Moon Missions helped with that as did disasters in the USSR.

>>34653569
>this is what slavaboos actually believe

File: Su-27 early.jpg (789KB, 2710x1800px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 2710x1800px

>>34653618

Is true

>>34653618
>>34653629

4 post in and the the war between American internet defend force and Russian troll bot already begin

File: iyf.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>34653569

hey its roger posting from my asus (model name unknown) featuring Intel Inside Quadcore i7 multiple core processing and sonic master stero speakers

first of all this is a great question and very insightful and i am happy because i havent seen smoething so careful and specific on here in a long time. careful and specific is practically my middle name, at least according to your mom, based on how i direct her to perform rim jobs.

so anyway military technology is hard to pin down but let's look at what you've got

>nucular missiles

the reason this was an edge for the soviets before 1980 was because they had less of them which but told us they had more, so we were scared and just destoryed them, because gerald ford can't sit down on a handciapped toilet without literally demolishing the building its in

after 1980 they actually had more which caused gorbochov's head to get this really weird scab and the soviety union immediately colapsed. rasputin may have been involved

>military

the US only had a paltry 3.5 million in the 60s and early 70's while the soviets had 5 million men and because the soviets are known for taking numbers advantages and defeating finland and japan they would have surely won this

>navy

the US was fooled into building 11 carriers in the 60s while the soviets were smartly developing one carrier that could smoke so much it fell off radar/looked like an armada, plus they figured out how to make torpedos with peroxide that go so fast they blow up immediately . advantage soviets

>air power

honestly the us couldnt even build a plan with counter-contra-rotating rotators, its not even worth talking about. i don't know this but im pretty sure the f4 lost every battle it ever fought due to not having a gun

>so as you can see

clearly soviets were better before 1980 because they succered the US into having better technology and more of it which forced them to have "brain drain" caused by "group think," and the vietnam war was lost

>>34653569
I once saw an article that claimed that the US found out in the early 90's that their current tank rounds were largely ineffective against Kontakt-5 ERA, which led to new generations of projectiles being developed.

Any truth in that or bullshit?

>>34653618
>typical provocative post with absolutely no argument; or evidence backing up said claim
this is what amerifats actually believe

>>34653569
No idea about technology advantage but I once saw a tv program with a bunch of cold war generals and one of them said that until the late 70's they expected that the Soviets would win a limited European mainland war.

>>34653569
1. Militarization of most of the industry

2. Money

>>34653629
The USSR lost any claim to an air advantage after the Korean War

File: Su-27 Flanker.jpg (100KB, 1280x638px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1280x638px

>>34653720

File: Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg (308KB, 1280x1003px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1280x1003px

>>34653629
13 years earlier...

>>34653741

>An unarmed reconnaissance vehicle

>>34653750
So? He wanted to cherry pick the Sukhoi so I cherry picked a state of the art reconnaissance vehicle from that time period.

>>34653699

you are inadvertently describing OP

jesus christ russia

>>34653750
Also it was only made because Russia shit their pants when they found out about the F-15

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?

they literally copied US designs and put red stars on them

>>34653825

Tu-4, sure

Give one other example.

File: AKM_automatkarbin,_Ryssland_-_7,62x39mm_-_Armémuseum.jpg (379KB, 2050x1300px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 2050x1300px

It's all in the rifles, mate

>>34653569
a big reason the USSR fell was *because* they were spending so much to keep a technical edge. The USSR was far larger that the US, square km-wise, and they were spending so much of their GDP on military gear and hardware, it couldn't keep up.

A big part of the reason for the fall of Soviet government was the policy of Glasnost, which was essentially a re-branding of Soviet-Communist ideology. Part of the problem with any "revolutionary" political movements is stagnation after the revolution succeeds. A key problem with the Soviet system was a large part of people's time and effort in the USSR was spent gaming the system. For example, in my college studies we had to do a thesis on this. At the end of the 1980s the Soviets built some really solid engines; gas, diesel, etc. However, they were heavier than western contemporaries. This is because Soviet government planners started measuring production output from state factories in tonnage of engines produced rather than numbers; including spare parts, so they didn't have to count every individual piston and rod and lifter, etc.
The engineers caught onto this, and as people are wont to do, and gamed the system. And just as we have governmental laxity and laziness in the west, the same was true over there. Only because private interests have no place in Soviet ideology, there was no one crossing the Ts and dotting the Is so to speak.

>>34653795
And in turn the F15 was developed because of the MIG25.

>>34653859
*the perceived threat of
the MiG-25 was never the uberfighter that the F-15 was built to kill. It's fast, and nothing else. The F-15 program was nothing more than a huge mistake with a great payout

>>34653858

As a visibly bewildered Mr. Gorbachev tried to explain why he had failed to save the Soviet Union, he spoke of a “totalitarian” system that prevented Soviet Russia from becoming “a prosperous and well-to-do country.” But he failed to acknowledge the role of Lenin, Stalin, and other Communist dictators in creating and sustaining that totalitarian system.
He referred to “the mad militarization” that had crippled “our economy, public attitudes and morals,” but accepted no blame for himself or the generals who h spent up to 40 percent of the Soviet budget on the military.

Furthermore, I don't know what they really thought would happen when a culture that had drilled "GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST" into generations of citizens suddenly wants to pretend its Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

But let me be clear: When Mr. Gorbachev became the general secretary of the Soviet Communist party in 1995, he took command of a very bad government attempting very radical reform.

But for his policies of glasnost and perestroika to work, Mr. Gorbachev had to replace old ways with new ways of thinking, -something that requires diversity, debate, and freedom-, concepts virtually unknown in the Soviet Union, except for the uppermost echelons of the ruling party.

File: 1480908778746.jpg (202KB, 750x645px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 750x645px

>>34653900
I've always loved that
We were terrified of something that just turned out to be an interceptor and we built one of the best fighters to ever exist out of the fear of that thing that turned out to be an interceptor

>>34653930
>the best fighters to ever exist

Not sure if that's considered a good thing, since it terrified the Soviet Union into creating THE best 4th gen fighter to exist.

>>34653825
I hate slavaboos as well but you're thinking of china lad, well, mostly.

>>34653942
>(Citation needed)

File: jewtin.jpg (122KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1600x1000px

>>34653590
wrong, it was low energy prices and high defense spending, same reason russian economy is collapsing today again. Of course a russian kike is going to blame anything but themselves.

File: sex with wings.jpg (424KB, 768x525px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 768x525px

>>34653671
Truth. The T-72-M's that got massacred in Iraq were made of steel only, had gimped fire control computers and NV equipment, gimped guns and 1960s ammo. The Soviets never used T72Ms or T55Ms or other "M for Monkeyed" models which were built exclusively for export (but marketed as the same thing, despite being de facto totally different vehicles with a fraction of the capability of the original designs).
The actual Soviet T-72B had modular armour packages of composite armours which were on par with or better than western composites of the same period, though obviously there are lots of western types and different years.
Kontakt ERA was in addition to all of the above.
>>34653569
Generally speaking, Soviet tech was on par with NATO tech. Depending on your specific snapshot, it is sometimes slightly better or worse, but the Soviets always had different priorities. Pic related is a good example. Aerodynamically decades ahead of its NATO contemporaries but with inferior radar and missiles. Sure an Su-27 can out-fly an F-15 but they can't out fight them. MiG-25 is a similar story, agility over electronics/armament range. In retrospect we can see that the F-14/15 style of missile platform is probably superior, especially given the performance of the F-4 in Vietnam. The 'low' initial kill ratios were still positive, and with some adaptation it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
Likewise naval tech, the Soviets built vastly more subs than NATO, and few carriers. Soviet naval thought believed they could sink US carriers with SSGNs. Soviet subs were designed differently too, with a variety of specialist types for different roles. Long range deep-diving nuke boats to attack NATO SSBNs, cheap SSKs to act as ASW pickets defending sov bases. The Soviets built Titanium hulled boats with horrifyingly volatile nuclear reactors to go super fast and super deep, NATO invested in sensor platforms, clever torpedoes and signal processing.

File: 1200px-F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.jpg (115KB, 1200x700px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1200x700px

>>34653731

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?
They didn't. They held a military numbers advantage through the war, but were largely outclassed by NATO tech by the mid sixties. This isn't to say that they weren't still a significant power or weren't technologically advanced, they just had more and more trouble keeping up. While they had bigger nukes, more tanks, etc., the NATO countries tank fire control, missile guidance (both ICBM and AAM), ICBM intercept, etc. technologies were well ahead of the Soviets.
>Why did they lose that edge in the last decade of the Cold War (the 80's)
The Soviets lost their edge in the early seventies due to economic and cultural stagnation as a result of the inherent flaws in a top down economy and socialist culture. Military expenditures as a fraction of GDP was twice what the U.S. spent, and this had long term deleterious consequences on their economy as a whole. Additionally, despite spending more as a fraction of GDP, the U.S.A. was able to spend more in total dollars than the USSR.

Most soviet premiers were concerned about the nuclear capabilities and defenses of the Americans. The field trials of Soviet gear vs NATO gear in the various proxy wars also showed a distinct technological advantage for many western systems. The soviets may have had high tech planes and tanks, but most of their gear was last generation due to it being cheaper to mass produce. Leopards and Abrams can make short work of T-72s, which were one of the biggest production models of tank for the Soviets.

File: theRealSexwithWings.jpg (5KB, 327x190px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 327x190px

>>34654122
this was the real one 30 years ago

>>34654650
There is room for two in a tango.

File: c3bb37bca7adf5191fef78e37e889afb.jpg (80KB, 455x675px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 455x675px

>>34653930
>Victor Bolenko gets tired of queuing for toilet roll and having to defrost his morning Pravda before he can read it
>Jumps in his Foxbat and defects to Japan
>Western analysts eagerly descend to study the mysterious Russian super-fighter
>they open up the avionics bay and find it resembles the inside of a 50's vacuum tube radio
>Flight tests show it handles like a fucking cart horse on a rocket sled

File: f-104-starfighter-large-56a61c555f9b58b7d0dff7a8.jpg (54KB, 768x506px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 768x506px

>>34654688
But it had a fucking stronk radar and solid missiles that were appropriately maneuverable for intercepting B-52s and Vulcans. It was also phenomenally fast.
MiG-25's were high altitude interceptors. Pic related handled like HAL-9000, and you can make similar strawmen out of both sides.

>>34653671
This is a myth born out of M829A2 entering service around the time the US got ahold of some T-80U's (which were the only Soviet tank equipped with K5)

>>34653731
Now lets look at the Flankers actual record against Western aircraft.

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?
>implying

>>34653900
>Building an interceptor out of stainless steel

Why are Slavs so backward?

>>34654688
>having to defrost his morning Pravda before he can read it

Maximum kek

>>34654893
Semi-unironic answer: the obshchina/zadruga systems were communism before communism was a thing, and resulted in unusually high rates of inbreeding.

>>34653636
even being somewhat of an ameriboo, i equally despise both

>>34653569
They ran out of cash in the 80's. The 60's, and 70's were definitely a time the Soviets could steamroll the entire world. 50,s were relatively anyone's game.

Btw, this is coming from someone who was born, and raised in a former Soviet Republic just in case of "muh sekrit dokumentz n' sheit!"

>>34655063
Which SSR are you from? One of the stans? or YKPANHA or Belarus?

>>34655063
>The 60's, and 70's were definitely a time the Soviets could steamroll the entire world

That's cute, but retarded.

>this is coming from someone who was born, and raised in a former Soviet Republic

Oh, now it makes sense.

>>34655063
Not really. If the USSR tries anything during the 50s (or even 60s) they are getting nuked back to the stone age.

>>34655063
/k/ is so full of inbred mouthbreathers that you cannot ever say anything even remotely appraising the soviet union or russia in any capacity at any time without getting attacked for it: >>34656240

It's been a problem here for years, exacerbated by trolls. Idiots who refuse to accept that Russia is actually a genuinely formidable adversary and has been for the past 50+ years. If they weren't, the country would've been steamrolled by now.

I'll never understand this arrogance - constantly underestimating their opponents and treating them with disdain and disrespect; it actually makes these people sound insecure and childish. I'm frankly glad that the actual pentagon brass take Russia more seriously than the chucklefucks on /k/ do.

>>34656357

The thing is, that even if someone thinks there was some sort of American advantage in overall forces, the geography of the matter, with so much of US forces being at least an SSN infested ocean away from Europe, means the Warsaw Pact would always have an advantage. Oh, Americans who sneer at Soviet conscripts, without acknowledging that considering the issues with Vietnam draftees NATO would end up with similar problems, is deluded.

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?
Education.
https://books.google.ru/books?id=PlYEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false
Soviet math school was one of the best on planet.

>>34656501
They have an advantage on the ground in europe. Problem is, that the real adversary is the US, and the USSR cant reach that. The US, who control both the air and the seas, can.

>>34656555
US was far away from "control" in European airspace. It would be tough battle in extreme conditions of Soviet dominance in AA and ballistic missile technology. And around 70th Soviet fleet had all chances to wipe out any surface fleet by highly advanced ASM.

>>34656555

The "second world" was more or less self-sufficient, and with a few exceptions (like Cuba) was contiguous on Eurasia. The USSR's SSN & SSK fleet would have been enough to disrupt first world trade, and the loss of Western Europe (which at the time was still over a quarter of the world's economy) would have permanently drastically shifted the balance of power.

>>34654466
I'd agree with you but until the Abrams came into service the T-72 was the best tank around, And before that the T-64

>>34653942
Is the pak-fa really that good?

File: Bait.jpg (304KB, 2824x1277px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 2824x1277px

>>34653569
They didn't hold the advantage technologically. They held it numerically.

>>34653569
They didn't have a technology advantage, especially after the computing improvements in the west.

>>34656357
Your selective memory is very evident.

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?

They didn't have technology advantage at any point, in earlier days of cold war they had bit more common sense when came to deploying new tech, but starting in 70's civilian sales took over and ran far past military when it came to electronics and computer development. Soviet Union never had civilian industry to run development like that. They had military industry and space program, that was their entire high tech sector. In west consumer goods started to fund high tech.

>>34653590
>I remember Gorbatschow saying that Chernobyl was a major contributor to the crash of the rubel.

Chernobyl was expensive as fuck, but lack oil crisis to drive up price of their main exports fucked up their income of foreign currencies. Without Yom Kippur War and first oil shock in early 70's Soviet economy would have collapsed in 70's. Without Iranian Revolution they wouldn't have lasted 80's. Thanks to those two events their economy managed last until early 90's.

>>34656357
Russia has only existed as an independent nation since the 1990's. So how has it been a threat for more than 50? Reminder, Soviet Union =/= Russia.

>>34657343
It's close enough.

>>34656357
Yeah, I got you. I just let the Murican Burgerstanis shitpost all they want. Doesn't bother me any lol.

>>34655098
From Estonia, not born in the time of the Soviet Republic. I still got some good stories from my Grandpa who was a member of the Estonian SS back in the day. Lots of shitty time for my country during the aftermath. Thankfully, we've recovered better than most of the other Republics due to tech industry, and our brother country of Finland.

Remember, Communism, not even once.

File: T-80U 4th Brigade.jpg (3MB, 2250x1430px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1430px

>>34656866

>Until the Abrams

The M1 was still inferior to the T-72

The M1A1 was the T-72's equal and it wasn't until the M1A2 that the T-72 was surpassed.

But by the then the T-80 andnT-90 were out.

File: DisNiggaSerious.jpg (62KB, 544x517px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 544x517px

>>34658099

>>34658124

>Post-1960
>Building a MBT with a 105mm gun

Only the Americans are this dum

>>34653750
Information is power you turbotard

>>34658099
the t-80 beat both the abrams and leopard 2 into service

>>34658142
>Only the Americans are this dum
and the germans. and french.

>>34653834
The atom bomb. They were able to construct their first using insider knowledge.

>>34658235
T 80 was kind of mediocre. was a less armoured, and modernized T 72 if I'm honest. Abrams was certainly better in the 80's.

File: putinpill.jpg (83KB, 1680x945px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1680x945px

burgers out in full force today

>>34658099
I'm sorry but have you ever heard of what went down in 1991? The Abrams DESTROYED the T72. They were massacured and the Abrams suffered more losses to friendly fire then to actual enemy fire. This is in conjunction with the fact that they were better armored from the start and the T72's gun couldn't pen them frontally ever. so even with the infirior gun they still would have destroyed the T72. It never was better than the Abrams and that is expected because it came out well before the Abrams and upgrades only do so much. It isn't as modular as the Abrams because that was not a major design goal. It is not because the Russians were dumb, just they were working with what they had and the Americans were working with more. Time marches on and It did in the 70's as it does today. When the Abrams was built it had better fire control, electonics, better protection and the same would be true if the Russians built a tank (with the same goals in mind) during the early 80's. It would have had comparable qualities with differences in the confidential technology used.

>>34658485

The 1989 Abrams destroyed the equivalent of an inferior early 70s T-72.

>>34658518
..built by iraqi mohammeds and shooting steel and concrete ammo.

>>34657343
>the soviet union or russia

It's literally right there in the first sentence. Jesus christ, he was right. This place really is full of low IQ mouthbreathers.

>>34658333
Thanks, Britain!

>>34658485
You also forget that they're fighting Arabs. Arabs are notorious for being ineffective at combat, especially with tanks that have Russian inscriptions. They can't even read their imported equipment. Not to mention the lack of ERA, and training. A Soviet, or modern Russian crew would be pretty on par with a U.S. crew of back in the day, or today.

Everyone also seems to forget that tanking isn't even about skill, it's about who has initiative. If you're spotted first, you're dead.

>>34654688
>having to defrost his morning Pravda before he can read it
pls no buly

>>34653858

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

>>34653569
You're begging the question.

File: 1441369040281.jpg (28KB, 500x245px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x245px

>>34653569
Larger number of men in military service, larger defense spending per GDP (averaging between 8% by 1988 and 15% in the 60s/70s). This combined with NATO having a massive retaliation doctrine and the US missing out on an entire maintenance and modernization cycle in the 70s lead to a parity moving towards a tilt.

>>34658518
>inferior early 70s T-72.

But the T-72A was built in 1979

>>34658545

True. They were Polish and Czech kit tanks at best, rumored to be using the crudest locally manufactured.

>>34654122
> Mig-25 agility
The Mig-25 has no agility. The Mig-25 was a decision that fast was better than being able to turn, see, and shoot.

As for the K5 myth see>>34654798

>>34655063
Not even close. Remember even in the Soviet union times the population advantage lied with NATO not the USSR (approximately 2:1). Thus any strategy designed to accept higher casualties inherently is a losing strategy for the USSR. Now its hilariously one sided (10:1)

>>34656357
if Russia is strong because they haven't been invaded by the US despite annoying them, then this means that Russia is only as strong as Venezuela or Cuba. Nice to know you just admitted Russia is a third world paper tiger.

>>34656501
>>34656735
someone needs to post the story of the Russian navy for you to realize how much of a joke this is.

>>34658099
hahahahaha. Real world results say something very different from what you think.

>>34658439
vatniks already giving up?! For shame, I thought you were paid by the post!

>>34658518
Which comprised the majority of tanks in service with the USSR. Just because a new version comes out doesn't mean all tanks magically get upgraded like in your stupid strategy games.

>>34658674
Russian conscripts didn't perform any better. See Chechnya. It is only after realizing that a professional volunteer military is superior, has Russia's army gotten to a reasonable quality.

>>34653653
quality post, Roger.

>>34653750
The armed version came beforehand.

>>34654122
>Mig-25
>agile

>>34654775
It actually handled pretty well if you went super fast. The last versions also had upgraded engines which allegedly allowed it to do close to mach 2.5 at high altitudes.

>>34656501
>conscripts
I never understood the "Soviet conscripts are illiterate and ill-equipped" meme. IIRC by the mid-1930s 9 out of 10 Soviet men were literate. If the Reds were as stupid as some anons claim, their industrial society wouldn't even function.

>>34658912
>Chechnya
the Ruskie military was an absolute shitshow during the 1990s. Chechnya-era conscripts are hardly comparable to WARPAC troops in their prime, and if you unironically think otherwise it's time to stop posting and pick up a book.

>modern Russian army
>reasonable quality
o I am laffin

>>34659087
It pulled 11Gs once.
The plane was bent like a banana and wrecked for good, but it did it.

File: 1466115445171.jpg (299KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1462x1462px

>>34654688
>and having to defrost his morning Pravda before he can read it

>>34659164
First, WARPAC troops composed of troops from numerous occupied countries, whose loyalty to the WARPAC enforced via the barrel of a gun means that in any conflict their loyalty was dubious at best. Hence, why the USSR planned to lead with WARPAC units from other countries; however, it would not have surprised anyone if most of them surrendered to NATO and fought against the remaining USSR forces.

Second, Conscripts have in every war they've ever been in performed worse than volunteer armies. WARPAC, a poor conscript army with very has little training, would have been BTFO from 72 onwards by the more professional NATO army, which had better tech, more training, a better NCO corps, and more esprit de corps given how they weren't forced to join NATO at the barrel of a NATO members guns.

WARPAC units were scary because we knew very little about them. Now that the wall has fallen, we know just how much of a paper tiger the USSR and WARPAC really were. It's actually something the USSR did way better than NATO was deceiving their enemy about the real quality of their military. The Ruskies probably did a better job of deception than any other country throughout history.

>modern Russian army
>reasonable quality
you're right they are terrible, barely better than Ukraine.

File: MiG-25_3.jpg (173KB, 1280x1001px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x1001px

>>34654893
well as much as I'm not a fan of Soviet slavshit, I can understand their thinking

>soviet shit designed for fuckheugh production numbers

>lack advanced materials compared to West

>overcome this disadvantage with extreme numbers

They were probably thinking early on that this jet would be produced like the MiG-21, so when SHTF and the Cold War becomes WW3, they can thwart the threat of B-52 ACLM spam and B-1s, and whatever supersonic strategic bomber that could come along (perhaps of the USAF decided to reactivate some B-58s).

Completely false. USA had military advantage until the 60s then again in the 1980s. The cuban missile crisis for example was a result of us military being ahead at ballistic missiles numerically and technologically so russia had to place some of theirs in cuba to get americans to back off.

File: 1495555074687.jpg (278KB, 1280x869px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1280x869px

how do i into cold war us-soviet military tech?

ww2 is getting a bit boring for me.

>>34659709
>USA had military advantage until the 60s then again in the 1980s
vietnam fucked the us military

File: cheeki_breeki.jpg (187KB, 777x777px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 777x777px

>>34653844
does the AKM still do things better than a ak74?
>inb4 replying to an 11 hour old post

>>34659813
Vietnam War didn't start until the 60s you illiterate retard and that's irrelevant.

>>34659849
so the thing that fucked the us military from the 60s to the 80s didn't start until the 60s? you're shitting me!

>>34659164
>I never understood the "Soviet conscripts are illiterate and ill-equipped" meme
I think it refers to the fact that many of the conscripts were taken from the various Republics, which spoken dozens of languages, which made communication difficult.

>>34659977
>Not wanting proud and great Kyrgyztani warriors in your army

>>34659709
the cuban missile crisis was due to american missiles having been already secretly deployed in turkey
usa had better jets and navy and that's it
soviets had a huge numerical advantage in weapondry (including nuclear missiles) until the 1980s
the reason: the USSR wasn't about to allow themselves to get assraped like in operation Barbarossa again. their foreign policy and economy was tuned for a slow encroachment on all continents with a huge military budget too make sure they'd succeed

meanwhile the US just flipflopped from one poor military doctrine to another until they finally caught up with the kremlin just before it crashed

>>34660088
>soviets had a huge numerical advantage in weapondry (including nuclear missiles) until the 1980s
No they didn't. It's a historical fact that American had vastly more nuclear missiles until the 60s. You are aware that Americans had a head start with nukes right?

>>34656866
T-64 was better than the 72.

64 was given to elite guard units while 72 was given to warsaw pact and motorised units.
>>34658099
Everything else you say is also
nonsense.
M1 with 105 was roughly equal to a t-72 but faster and with better gun stabilization.

Later versions of m1 were better in every way especially in target aqusition and fire control.

Also while the t-64 would beat a m1 head to head, if it was hit between the 3rd and 5th road wheels it would violently explode and kill everyone inside due to the autoloader. It was also far more expensive then the 72 for only a moderate gain in most areas.

M1a2 and on are better in nearly everyway than comparable Russian tanks.

>>34653834
Jet engines

>Good job bongs

File: 1500304932139.jpg (106KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x765px

>>34653653

>>34653653
The Soviet union at it's peak had 4 flat tops - one CV and 3 LHA's

File: t-64.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>34660121
>T-64 was better than the 72.

No. T-72 was more streamlined, cheaper, up-armored and was more easily made ready for further upgrades like the welded turrets and glacis plate. The only advantage the 64 may have had is the autoloader variant.

>>34660121
>M1 with 105 was roughly equal to a t-72 but faster and with better gun stabilization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtiKcw9sqd4

various upgrades show pretty good gun sabilizaton....

File: XB-70_6.jpg (184KB, 1417x1152px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1417x1152px

>>34658912
>fast was better than being able to turn, see, and shoot

The MiG-25 is an interceptor. Intended to shoot down pic related. It didn't need maneuverability. It just had to get there fast.

File: 1494103754785.jpg (46KB, 352x604px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 352x604px

>>34656357
>Idiots who refuse to accept that Russia is actually a genuinely formidable adversary and has been for the past 50+ years.

The USSR has been a formidable adversary.
Russia is a fucking joke that just tries to capitalize on the past where it mattered, and anyone who pretends otherwise is either a FAS-stricken Russian or a retard who takes RT seriously.

>>34659164
>Chechnya-era conscripts are hardly comparable to WARPAC troops in their prime

Only an absolutely minor fraction of WARPAC troops had anything remotely resembling useful training and motivation.
The rest was a bunch of young people who desperately awaited the end of their training that would put an end to the hazing cycle and allow them to return to their actual lives, and in the meanwhile putting a show on for the brass and playing soldiers.
When the society started sobering up from communism in the 60's, there was also a good chance any given conscript would either evade draft or defect.

The idea that the Soviet conscript was a disciplined, well trained and motivated fighter is usually promoted by senile idiots who will also try to tell you that communism worked and they miss it, and by westerners who have never met a conscript.
In reality they were either unmotivated youth eager to throw the rife and uniform away the moment they can (or in case of the Asian SSR's, half-civilized savages only interested in getting dead drunk, fucking anything with a hole in it and stealing all the watches they can).

t. person who grew up in an actual Soviet and later post-Soviet country

>>34656357
The USSR was a serious threat. Modern Russia isn't a threat to the US in any real way unless they resort to ICBMs. They have zero overseas force projection. They cannot menace any real military power that they can't invade by land.

File: 1487201760029.gif (871KB, 245x230px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 245x230px

>>34654688
>implying anyone used Pravda and Paбoтничecкo дeлo for anything other than toilet paper.
We even had a Schtirlitz joke here in Bulgaria about that:
Schtirlitz is sitting down and longingly remembers the great soviet paper
Pravda, Izvestia, Krasnaia Zvezda
Oh, those unforgetable columns
>Let's turn the words in to action plenum of the Central cometee of CPSS, The portret of the Chieftain on the front page
For how long has he been denied such pleasures!
Unfortunatelly, he was again forced to content with discusting german toilet paper

>>34653569
During the Cold War, the USSR spent a far more % of its GDP on the army. Upwards of 25-30% compared to about 4-6% for US

>>34653569
And where exactly is the proof of this military advantage? Russia sort of had the advantage in the mid to late 1940s (which wouldn't last should the war break out), but by time of Chruschev that was gone, Russians at the very best of times had a parity, thanks only to their nuclear arsenal, they weren't worth the trouble. Especially when the few strengths they had could be inflated by fourfold to justify another lucrative weapons program (i.e. Bomber Gap, Missile Gap, etc)
By the 1980, Russian military was near its breaking point, much like the larger economy and society. The reason.
The armed forces were continuously weakening, with entire branches of service falling into disrepair, and incompetence and corruption reigning supreme on all levels of command. All this ultimately culminated to bad performance in Afghanistan and a horrible total defeat in the First Chechen War. Russian military have been making some baby steps towards recovery since then, but they are too late, to little, as exemplified by mediocre performance against the Ukrainian military.

Depends what usually

US missile tech was consistently better than the Soviets, especially in the early period. The USSR really only caught up with the US in ICBM/SLBM tech by the mid-80s.

US/Western naval tech was superior
Western fighter jets were consistently better as were their pilots, as seen in the K:L ratios

US/Western Command & Control and EW tech was significantly better. The Soviets had little if any EW tech during the cold war.

Soviets had better counter/area denial tech, such as Anti-Ship missiles and SAM's (until the advent of the Patriot anyway). Tanks were also better until the 70s/80s, but meme weapons like the BMP were pretty much BTFO everywhere it was seen.

File: very mad.gif (331KB, 340x500px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 340x500px

>>34656866
>what the FUCK is a T-80?

File: chk_jschl.jpg (73KB, 1358x515px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1358x515px

>>34660854
>>34653569
I actually served in the Russian "military", as did my father, uncle and grandfather. It's a paper tiger, and always was, since the 60s at least. A typical Motorized Rifleman would only fire his weapon a couple of times during the entire service, have very poor fitness and absolutely no knowledge of tactics or weapon systems. In fact, most of his "service" is consumed by marching (that's right), doing pointless manual labor and worthless duties, digging foxholes and (in the older days) being forced to listen to Marxist-Leninist propaganda, which is a blessing because at least he is not being hazed or forced to clean boots of Maga from Dagestan. I served in a better unit than that (considered elite, what a joke), but believe me it wasn't much better.

Russia has maybe a couple divisions worth of well-equipped contract soldiers (units like the 45th Separate VDV regiment), which are the ones fighting in Syria and Ukraine. The rest are basically non-combatants wearing uniforms. That extends to every branch of service.

File: 1499438782697.jpg (83KB, 917x731px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 917x731px

>>34660088
>soviets had a huge numerical advantage in weapondry (including nuclear missiles) until the 1980s
Not true, the real aggressive nuclear proliferastor was America, contrary to popular propaganda and years of brainwashing.

Reaganite military policy in the 80s contributed greatly to the western overtaking of the USSR I'd say, that plus the fact the USSR was quickly going from pretty shit economy to absolutely shit economy

>>34660854
>>34661539
More details and examples please, faggots.

>>34661845
This doesnt take into consideration the fact that the US had the capacity to use their nuclear weapons with impunity throughout early cold war, as the USSR did not have a reliable transport method for their nukes.

>>34661539
Are there people who actually believe that the russian military is uniform in its capacity?

File: 1495825058115.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

>>34658485
Read the thread
>>34654122

>>34660121
>T-64 was better than the 72.
I can discard the rest of your post.

The T-64 was a much better than than the T-72 during the entire period of its service life. The T-64 was the no-expense spared tank, while the T-72 was designed as a way to uparm the rest of the warszaw pact with "modern" tanks and was thusly designed as a budget T-64. The T-80 was then designed as a replacement to the T-64.

>>34662361
Yes, actually. No professionals among those people, but it's quite a popular notion with civilians in the West, from what I gather. There are even articles by, I think, The New York times, talking about how Russia is on the rise and implying that the special forces that annexed Crimea are representative of the modern Russian military.
Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, in some ways the armed forces as a whole are now worse off than they were in the 80s and 90s, because now conscripts only serve a single year, and they learn even less than they used to. The high command is trying to rely on contractors, but they can't afford enough of them. They can't make the conscripts useful either, so often the officers just give up. I have a friend who served in VDV, and not only has he never actually parachuted, he never even fired his rifle, and his physical training was minimal; his whole battalion, as far as he could tell, spent the whole year marching, cleaning latrines and painting fences. 90% of Russian conscript units are basically prisons with slightly different cultural customs, their soldiers and officers alike are empty uniforms.

>>34658912
>Which comprised the majority of tanks in service with the USSR. Just because a new version comes out doesn't mean all tanks magically get upgraded like in your stupid strategy games.

hahahahaha

alright

hahaha, damn senpai

>>34657303
>Chernobyl was expensive as fuck, but lack oil crisis to drive up price of their main exports fucked up their income of foreign currencies. Without Yom Kippur War and first oil shock in early 70's Soviet economy would have collapsed in 70's. Without Iranian Revolution they wouldn't have lasted 80's. Thanks to those two events their economy managed last until early 90's.
Underrated pos.
Also, today Russia is a fucking Zimbabwe with nucler missiles tier.

>>34662547
More like Austria-Hungary in the beginning of the 20th century, really.

File: comment_YtjrR4U5Tv80wxgWeJtzuIwL9bq1Ju92.jpg (481KB, 680x1225px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 680x1225px

>>34660254
>That cringey vid
Who makes those?
PT-91, although significant improvement to T-72M, is not a match for today T-90 or T72B3. The reason lies mainly in gun stabilisation, which sucks. A lot. Funnily, more in X than in Y axis. The aged and ineffective ammo is another hot topic atm, and there comes native russian tanks flaws.

But, with new batshit insane head of MOD, we may actually start spending on real army and not EU lobbying team.

>>34662454

It's not just a slow roll out of upgrades to their T-64 & T-72.The majority of Warsaw Pact tanks as of 1982 were still T-54/55 and T-62, even those based on the main central Europe front line.

>>34653859
Nice Avro Arrow dawg

>>34662340
My uncle was serving in supposedly elite Airborne in late '80. Although physical training was quite tense, the combat application... Well, during the inter-unit exercises uncle used to swap places with conscript of similar shape and face. He is a quite capable shooter, but that other guy was much better runner; and together they got some prize for the whole unit. Exept it wasn't a team exercise at all.
Other stories include constant fighting with MP; and why the nunchuck > tonfa in such application; story about heartbroken conscript that AWOL to his ex gf wedding with loaded PKM and how internal security forces finally got him in some shack. Later his bloodied and shot uniform was handed over to the unit as a reminder.


>>34662658
But at least we keep the price of modernisation somewhat reasonable. Unlike the Czechs and T72Moderna: Electric Boogaloo

>>34653569

so many butthurt burgers.... Why you`re so mad anyway?

One thing that seems to be ignored is the US having a huge lead in digital technology.

Even in the 60s this was making a difference, as it allowed the US to have for its time insane jamming and electronic warfare capability. It is also one of the things that allowed the US to do night vision, stealth, and numerous other things first.

>>34660208
You don't know shit. T-64 had better armour had better FCS better mobility. T-72 offered much more reliable elevator autoloader but it couldn't load Long Rod apfsds whereas T-64s lever autoloader could. T-64 later became T-80. While T-72 stayed shit as always and change it's name to T-90 but stay shit.

>>34659842
5.45 master race

>>34662905
Tu-22M crew are using off-the-shelf I-Pads with Google Store apps to navigate via GPS. I wouldn't have believed it if one hasn't told me.

File: I must know.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

>>34660591
The hell is this diagram?

>>34663053

Chart showing you how fucked up your hand will be if a fuse goes off in your hand.

It's basically saying "Carry a fuse with only your last two fingers, so that if goes off at least you still have your thumb and first two fingers"

>>34653750
Which could outrun every missile the soviets shot at it.

Really, the only reason we stopped using them is because they tend to explode.

>>34663061
Did fuses just go off at random or some shit? Jesus.

>>34659813
The US won every battle of vietnam so technologically the US was ahead. It was a strategic failure that lost Vietnam. The war wasn't actually winnable with the restrictions congress demanded.

>>34660306
Unfortunately, the XB-70 Valkyrie never saw production

>>34663112
It's in Russian. Figure it out.

>>34663112
Yes, actually. It's always a risk with electrical fuses but soviet fuses were often built by underpaid, unmotivated, unskilled laborers who honestly didn't have any reason to give a damn about his work.

File: 69f.jpg (27KB, 796x464px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 796x464px

>>34662746
You fail to realise that the "main central Europe frontline" forces were always seen as monkey units to be thrown at/hold back a western assault. The real attack units would then come from Russia proper and "blitz" or whatever. This was of course revised somewhat during the USSRs' lifespan, but the thought of the warsaw pact countries' units as disposable garbage units held throughout its history.

Imo its dumb, but then again, im not a soviet general either.

>>34663112
They still do, and its not just russian ones. all handgrenades using the fuse, spoon grenade formula with assembly required has this weakness.

The tip of the fuse has to be sensitive to physical force for the spoon to be able to light it. Decently common (even in the west) that a fuse will pop while being screwed into the spoon, usually due to a damaged part/dumb soldiers. Since you most often are holding the fuse while its going of... well, i think his picture shows it rather well, explosive hand injuries are nasty as hell.

File: 60930740-63c0-4238-8d6e-7d63093e4fc0.jpg (14KB, 328x455px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 328x455px

The Soviets were retarded but not as retarded as the autists in the west.

The soviets had mechanized airborne, a whole plethora of specialized special forces for every niche imaginable and could field them in great quantities, and all around among all sorts of other things. The Soviets also practically just glommed on to what the germans did right in WW2, and really you couldn't blame them.
Also, their weapons systems were designed to be used in combat, they didn't shape their combat around the weapons systems they fielded.

>>34654775
Yes, the Foxbat was exactly that. But the point I'm making is that western analysts saw those barn door tailfins and believed it was some sort of highly maneuverable air superiority fighter with enormous top speed. Only when they actually flew it did they find the fins were there because it wobbled like a shopping trolley at high mach numbers without them.

>>34653731
>introduced in 1990

>>34656357
>Idiots who refuse to accept that Russia is actually a genuinely formidable adversary

It's the hangover from our Cold War agitprop. We had to walk the fine line between demonizing our potential enemies, yet making them seem beatable. Part of that is comparing their equipment to ours, and doing a point-by-point listing of Slavshit flaws and faults. Yes, their gear is inferior to ours, if you try to integrate it into our doctrine. Just like our gear fails when integrated into their doctrine, but we don't talk about that.

The Russian, then Soviet, then Russian again mindset has always been paranoid and defensive in nature. They never forgot that we put troops in Russia in the 20s, siding with the Whites against the Reds.

I sincerely doubt that Russia will ever try for global hegemony, they just don't think that way. They'll be a serious regional pain in the ass if they think they can improve their strategic security with a land grab, but they're not going to be doing a lot of military adventurism just for the sake of getting more expedition ribbons. All of that empire building they did after WW2 was a knee jerk paranoid reflex to the perceived threat of the increasing global influence of the US.

>>34654688
>he doesn't keep his backup turaletnaya Pravda with him in case of emergencies
lmao

>>34664336
>we put troops in Russia in the 20s, siding with the Whites against the Reds.
Nigger, do You realize the 1921 Red Army was dressed and fed by British joint venture?

>>34662361
yes. They are called vatniks. They see one reasonably competent Russian and assume all are equally skilled and equipped. see>>34662454
who believe tanks magically get upgraded as soon as a new version comes out. T-72A come out boom, all RUssian tanks are T-72A, T-90 comes out, boom all Russian tanks are now T-90, armata comes out, boom all Russian tanks are now armatas, etc.

>>34662454
see>>34662746
Also there were more non T-72s until never. Literrally Russia has never had a majority of their tanks as T_72s. That said, after the cold war caused them to put most of their arsenal in storage, they only left out the more advanced tanks, which is when the T-72 became the standard active service Russian tank. There are still more T-62/64 than T-72s in Russias inventory. When you've built 35000 T-62/64s, and they are working just fine, you don't throw them all in the garbage heap unless you are really poor.

>>34662905
>>34662994
optics, gps, all modern jamming ECM, etc. in these areas even Russian generals admit they are decades behind.

>>34663231
okay, so now you've backpedaled from the majority of WARPAC tanks were T-72s to only the "important" attack units in reserve were T-72s.

>>34663338
hahaha, are you really asserting the BMP was a good machine?! It gets penetrated from the front by 50 cal armor piercing rounds. Its a complete death trap with easily ignited fuel tanks on the exit. Its so bad Russians developed a butt plate so that they could ride entirely on top of the BMP rather than in it.

Like all USSR equipment, it looks good and scares NATO, but performs terribly.

>>34653618
Soviets had superior arms and better military coordination until the 80s, this is just a fact.

>>34665021
Where exactly have the Russian military shown itself to be superior to the American one?

>>34658518
>muh monkey models


everytime, without fail

>>34659164
>never understood the "Soviet conscripts are illiterate and ill-equipped" meme. IIRC by the mid-1930s 9 out of 10 Soviet men were literate. If the Reds were as stupid as some anons claim, their industrial society wouldn't even function.

because everyone with half a brain stayed as far away from soviet military and politics as possible lest they be thrown to a meat grinder or purged by their own

>>34658439
Yup. Yesterday was National Hot Fudge Sundae day, so we're all sugared up and ready to rock. What do you want to argue about? Not that it matters, you're already wrong.

File: 1366868249114.jpg (323KB, 500x877px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 500x877px

>>34653653

>>34664673
>the 1921 Red Army was dressed and fed by British joint venture?

That I was not aware of. It kind of looks like everybody was picking sides and deciding who to back. I suspect there was a profit motive.

Woodrow Wilson claimed nothing but the most altruistic reasons for putting troops in Russia. Makes you wonder what the resl reason was.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

>>34664673
That's not really true. A large part of the entire russian armed forces pre-october revolution was dressed, fed and equipped by allied, mainly british, materials. Once the revolution started, most of the imperial army went over to the red side and took their equipment with them.

The british were on the white side the whole time, even having troops fighting the red army until 1919 and supported them the rest of the conflict.

>>34658235
>leopard 1 designed in 1959 with a 105mm gun
>leopard 2 designed in 1970 with a 120mm gun
>M1 Abrams designed in 1972 with a 105mm gun
americucks are dumb

>>34659709
except the cuban missile crisis was a response of US ICBM's in Turkey, which is the equivalent of Russia's Cuba.

Are americucks really this dumb?

File: IMG_5006.gif (3MB, 351x197px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 351x197px

>>34658545
>concrete ammo
I'm interested

>>34666486

Actually the German 120mm gun was the result of a failure.

>Between 1972 and 1975, a total of 17 prototypes were developed. The new 120 mm gun's ten-year development effort, which had begun in 1964, ended in 1974. Ten of the 17 turrets built were equipped with the 105 mm smoothbore gun, and the other seven were equipped with the larger 120 mm gun. Another program aimed to mount the 152-millimeter (6.0 in) missile-gun was also developed in an attempt to save components from the MBT-70, but in 1971 the program was ended for economic reasons. Instead, the Germans opted for Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/44 smoothbore tank gun.
That was replaced as "ineffective" in 1994 by the L/55.

>3,273 M1 Abrams were produced 1979-85.

Sometimes it's better to go with what you have that works, you know?

>>34665005
Hey, im not backpedaling anything, i just came into the thread with that post. And i was confirming what you wrote; that the warsaw pact armies' were neglected.

File: AKM.jpg (112KB, 900x263px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 900x263px

>>34659788
you could start by buying an old rifle or handgun

Soviets:
Handguns
>Tokarev TT33 or clone (which was WW2 surplus and phased out, but used by China and other communist countries for a while longer)
>Makarov PM or clone

Rifles
>SKS or clone
>AK type (you have a lot to choose from)

US
Handguns:
>M1911A1 (WW2 used until Gulf War)
>Hi-Power (not super common in US, but used by a lot of NATO countries)

Rifles
>M1 Carbine (the Korean War variant has an adjustable rear sight and a bayonet lug, while the WW2 versions don't)
>M1A (civilian M14)
>certain ARs (styled as M16A1 and A2)
>AR-18 (not really used by US DOD, but was hoped to be a big time export for US-allied developing countries)

If you want to get into learning about things you can't feasibly buy yourself, I suggest finding a Cold War conflict (like Korea or Vietnam) and branching out from there. Youtube has a ton of documentaries and fan-made videos talking about Soviet tanks and other ground equipment.

I just come here and listen to people shitpost about said things.

Treadhead (spelling?) threads are specifically made for detailed explanations of armored vehicles.

>>34665005
>hahaha, are you really asserting the BMP was a good machine?! It gets penetrated from the front by 50 cal armor piercing rounds. Its a complete death trap with easily ignited fuel tanks on the exit. Its so bad Russians developed a butt plate so that they could ride entirely on top of the BMP rather than in it.

>Also, their weapons systems were designed to be used in combat, they didn't shape their combat around the weapons systems they fielded
Every single time

>>34653569
Soviet lost cold war becouse of soviet revisionism after the stalin era

>>34665641
>>34665738
The real reason is British politics, that focus turning Central Europe into unhabitable land.
For example, the happy collaboration in Holodomor.

File: 1492792094087.jpg (752KB, 3300x2550px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 3300x2550px

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?

>oh

>>34654122

informative

>>34667232
>funny picture on the internet
a reliable source of objective information!

>>34667232

>Using the American claims for Vietnam Air War losses

No bias here, no sir!

>>34653569
while people like to talk up how competition leads to innovation, the focused command economy of the Soviet Union had a distinct advantage in scientific development over the United States. The massive, professional, bureaucracy of the Soviet State was able to allocate resources and personnel to specific projects regardless of market forces or personal desires. This functionally eliminated time wasted by multiple firms on parallel development.

File: Capture.png (75KB, 539x122px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 539x122px

>>34667427
>>34667389

File: Hey_look_a_Foxbat_killme.jpg (73KB, 624x416px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 624x416px

>>34658912
>>34659087
I meant MiG-29, which was produced to the same requirement specification as the Su-27. Hence similar priorities. Sorry, old thread but I was tired when posting.

Yes the MiG-25 was a straight line interceptor, of course.

File: 1494382702763.gif (120KB, 600x487px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 600x487px

>>34667389
>citation is provided
>can't read or too butthurt

>>34667427
>topic is about technology not integrity of armies

also, refer to >>34667547

Russia has always had a weak army that relied on weather, size of Russia and the stupidity of the enemy to defeat invaders.

The soviets had a massive army, better equipped with more advanced technology than the Nazis but lost a horrific amount of men and material. They are just bad at war.

File: I hope my eyes deceive me.jpg (44KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x300px

>>34667708
>better equipped with more advanced technology than the Nazis

File: 1457234152019.png (41KB, 825x635px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 825x635px

>>34667427
If you feel it is wrong, please provide a citation to the contrary. /oh wait

>>34667708
>Inferiority complex: The Post.

>>34667726
Uh yeah.

the 1970s where the last years the Soviet Union had any realistic chance of winning (or atleast occupying Europe) against NATO, after that they had fallen too far behind numerically and technologically.

What did the US even have during the early 70s to beat them back beyond using nukes? the Abrams still wasn't in service and the m60s where huge piles of shit.

>>34663134
again, vietnam fucked the military, esp the army. it missed an upgrade generation in equipment, and the morale and staffing was in the shitter for the rest of the decade.

>>34666486
leo1 entered service in 1965; you said "build," not "design." and you totally ignore the french part of my post. way to cherry pick and move the goalposts, dipshit

>>34665005
>Its a complete death trap with easily ignited fuel tanks on the exit
ITT people who have never heard of ferry tanks.
The fuel tanks on the back of the BMP and visible on most Russian tanks are the tanks that drained 1st.

>>34665422
Are you implying that a tranche 1 Eurofighter could hold its ground in A2A as well as a tranche 3? Or that an M1 could happily deal with an M1A2 SEP Because that is the level of this post

>>34661539
bull-fucking-shit
i have personal accounts of my father and a few uncles that they did train with their weapons all the time. They went to the shooting range at least once a week. And they weren't in some "elite" unit. They weren't even in the civlised part of the UDSSR. If i remember correctly it was in south siberia.

When i served in the bundeswehr i got to shoot life ammo 4 times in 9 months for comparison. Yeah superior NATO training...

>>34653653

Always enjoy reading your posts Roger.

File: flanders finger.png (182KB, 442x341px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 442x341px

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?
Because it was a gargantuan socialist economy focused on military industrial complex.
>Why did they lose that edge in the last decade of the Cold War (the 80's)
Because being a gargantuan socialist economy focused on military industrial complex can only get you this far. By the late 80s when the US began to gain one advantage after another the SU was in a deep economic crisis Gorbachev tried to reform it and people were willing to give it a chance to evolve into a democratic federation, but the country was practically force-collapsed by a bunch of wannabe future oligarchs and criminals that parasite on the country's shards to this very day.

>>34667511
>Competition didn't exist in SU
Found a unitedstatian talking out of his ass.

>>34672294
Not that guy but dad told me when he was conscripted back in the good 'ol day Russia, shooting live ammo was a rare occasion, marching and digging was the name of the game.
Maybe it changed over the years how important the brass thought rifle training was.

>>34672579
It didn't. Maybe >>34672294 dad served in one of the few units that actually do something (depends on his age too, if it was in the 70s or earlier, situation was a lot better then compared to now). Now it is absolutely like I described, in 90% of the conscript army. I served in 2014 and so did a few of my friends, and this is exactly how it was: hazing, menial tasks, marching, shitty PT that is more likely to hurt you than train endurance or strength, a lot of cleaning and sewing uniforms. Most of my friends only trained with live ammo five or six times during the whole service. I served in a different unit, but what we did there is in absolutely no way indicative of the state of the army.

>>34672415
Pretending to pay people pretending to work is not capitalism.

>>34672579
well my realtives did their service all back in the late 70's. Only one did his service somewhere around 88. But even he said they did a lot of stuff with their guns and equipment and he was a just a driver for a tank truck of one of those ICBM trucks

>>34672613
ahh you are talking about the current age. I was thinking you meant the former soviet union. My bad. Kepp on then i have no info about the current state.

File: 68c75b8cc60a59af19bc3315eba5cbadbab5e390.jpg (237KB, 2500x1780px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 2500x1780px

>>34661471

That just speaks volumes about both the efficiency of planned economy and the quality of Soviet equipment.

>>34672294
>They went to the shooting range at least once a week.

Total and utter bullshit. Next time your "uncles" will tell you they fought polar bears barehanded as a rite of passage.

>>34653569
The USSR never had an edge on technology over the USA. The main reason was simply that the USA had a much better economy and thus more money to spend on research.

It started slowly collapsing during the late 1970s / early 1980s because people were fed up by its system - it's during that time that the first ethnic troubles started in Soviet Republics.

>>34657343
I've seen this name make this statement literally a hundred times.

If you think anybody other than Russia was relevant at all in the USSR, you're wrong.

>>34653569
>Why did the Soviet Union hold the military technology advantage for most of the Cold War?


They did not which is why the Israelis armed with US stuff kept raping arabs armed with soviet stuff

>>34669669
You're the retard who's cherry picking and moving the goalposts, you fucking autistic nigger.

It's even WORSE that the US designed a tank with a 105mm gun when Bongs, Germans and Russians have been using higher calibres. Even now, the US is using a licensed German gun

File: burning_russian_bmp2-700x466.jpg (38KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 700x466px

>>34672119
lol, this meme again. Sure the door fuel tanks drain first, and sure they were supposed to not go into combat with them full. Which is a great plan if you know exactly when you are going into combat, not so good if you have no clue. In the relatively static fights of the Iran-Iraq war, and the current civil war in Syria, you can know very well when you're going to encounter enemy fire. However, in all other conflicts: Ukraine war, Georgia war, Iraq invasion 2003, yugoslavia, checnya, etc. you have no fucking clue when you're going to encounter the enemey. Which means either you never fill the tanks making them utterly worthless, or you use them, and run the risk of a flaming deathtrap. At best they are useless, at worst they kill everyone inside. Not a good design bud.

>>34665472
>implying avoiding the meat grinder was a choice during Dubya-Dubya Two
>implying the majority of the population could skirt the mandatory term of service during the Cold War
really makes you think

>>34674122
When crossing ground in friendly territory they make perfect sense, perhaps you haven't heard Russia is quite a bit larger than your average country, time between fuel depots can be huge if you need to redeploy.

>>34672672
>Moving goalposts from competition to capitalism
Just admit you were talking out of your ass and move on.