Light hearted look at Soviet Equipment

alanmcqueen

http://www.cracked.com/article_19473_5-unintentionally-hilarious-soviet-versions-good-ideas.html

ReacherCreature

For Cracked, it's an interesting read! Huge glaring error about the lack of a roof for the BTR. Just fundamentally no protection.

Morlar

I have always liked the Soviet Supersized engineering approach. It's like they looked at regular plans and said, 'ok that's fine just make it 20% bigger !'

ReacherCreature

Morlar wrote: »

I have always liked the Soviet Supersized engineering approach. It's like they looked at regular plans and said, 'ok that's fine just make it 20% bigger !'

I think that relates with the B-29 Superfortress which the Tu-4 Bull emerged from and the above coupled incfluenced the Tu-95.

Probably a case of "bigger is better" indeed!

Stovepipe

I know the roofless BTR looks daft but you're forgetting that it was an evolution of the earlier BTRs, which also had both roofless and roofed versions. The -60 wasn't long in evolving into a roofed vehicle, anyway.The guy who made up the list is also forgetting the two main influences on Soviet postwar basic APC design were the American M3 and the German Sdkfz 251, both of which were roofless.
The Western armies were not short of stupid projects, either.

regards
Stovepipe

alanmcqueen

Stovepipe wrote: »

I know the roofless BTR looks daft but you're forgetting that it was an evolution of the earlier BTRs, which also had both roofless and roofed versions. The -60 wasn't long in evolving into a roofed vehicle, anyway.The guy who made up the list is also forgetting the two main influences on Soviet postwar basic APC design were the American M3 and the German Sdkfz 251, both of which were roofless.
The Western armies were not short of stupid projects, either.

regards
Stovepipe

Quite true. So maybe we could try for top ten western ones?

Capt'n Midnight

alanmcqueen wrote: »

Quite true. So maybe we could try for top ten western ones?

Every other cold war VTOL jet apart from the Harrier family.

The Falklands showed that the use of aluminium for structure and nylon for uniforms is bad news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_45_torpedo
nuclear warhead in a wire controlled torpedo. except the wire is a tad short. You may not get the enemy but you will probably get yourself.

Canvasser

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Every other cold war VTOL jet apart from the Harrier family.

The Falklands showed that the use of aluminium for structure and nylon for uniforms is bad news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_45_torpedo
nuclear warhead in a wire controlled torpedo. except the wire is a tad short. You may not get the enemy but you will probably get yourself.

The Royal navy had perfectly good uniforms before huge cuts to the British Defense budget began. The tory government decided tax cuts for the rich were more important than safe uniforms for sailors.

tac foley

Look up the USMC 'Ontos'.

tac

Avgas

ReacherCreature wrote: »

I think that relates with the B-29 Superfortress which the Tu-4 Bull emerged from and the above coupled incfluenced the Tu-95.

Probably a case of "bigger is better" indeed!

I always thought Reacher that the Tu95 and the semi-civvy Tu114 had swept wings and giant contra-rotating props..so were.more influenced by an entire German design team which the Russian brought (i.e. Kidnapped) with them after 1945. The Tu4 was a verbatim clone of the B29 and a stop gap-very different. The idea of swept wings and big contras was also looked at by USAF but they were just in love with jets and it had to be a jet...even though fuel consumption was lousy until 1950s... just what i read various places....

Point- Ruski stuff doesn't always suck!

Capt'n Midnight

tac foley wrote: »

Look up the USMC 'Ontos'.

tac

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

Cork boy 55

tac foley wrote: »

Look up the USMC 'Ontos'.

tac

It was of its time and filled a niche.
In 1949 the USMC wanted a simple, light, mobile, fast Tank destroyer for it's anti-tank battalion but with enough firepower to kill the biggest Red tanks.
The "ontos" met all requirements.
The tank destroyer concept was rendered mostly obsolete by ATGM and ATR and AT helicopter gunships post 1970.

It had it's disadvantages for sure(external loading, light armour) and not sure how it would have worked out in a conventional all-out armour war. The USA army rejected it because of it's light armour and I would say
it would have been very vulnerable in such a war , but if you increased its armour
it would be too heavy for what the USMC wanted and needed. Every AFV had to strike a balance
between Armour, mobility and firepower for its intended role.


In its secondary role as a direct fire support for infantry it was battle tested
in the defense of Vietnam and had some great successes.
It could go where tanks could not go It's ability to fire six 106mm shots rapid fire was ideal for suppressing NLF positions. It played a major role in the Liberation of Hue city(1968)
Good article on it here

RE HUE wrote: »

Regimental commander Colonel Stanley Hughes went even further when he claimed the Ontos was the most effective of all the supporting arms the Marines had at their disposal.

http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/Brush/Ontos.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0t-0l0Zv0I

Manic Moran

I'm not sure the US Army rejected it as much as just didn't like the recoilless rifle battery idea. The armour certainly doesn't seem to have been an issue, they accepted M56 Scorpion SPAT for pretty much the same role, and that had no armour at all.

Manic Moran

By and large, I disagree with most of that list.

alanmcqueen wrote: »

Quite true. So maybe we could try for top ten western ones?

Davey Crockett has got to be in that list. Or more specifically, the spotting rifle that was attached.

Cork boy 55

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure the US Army rejected it as much as just didn't like the recoilless rifle battery idea. The armour certainly doesn't seem to have been an issue, they accepted M56 Scorpion SPAT for pretty much the same role, and that had no armour at all.

Ya
i would say it was a vareity of reasons some of them are listed in link
in last post "Others felt it was too lightly armored, underpowered, and incapable of sustained combat"
...
vehicle’s high profile, the limited ammunition supply, and external reloading procedures.


My point was it would have been too light for a standard USA army division in West Germany facing the Fulda Gap. I think they would like something with a least a few more tons for armour and if it had more armour it would not need so many Guns to guarantee a kill.
Assuming they where looking for one.


Re The M56 Scorpion
That was only issued to USA airborne units AFAIk
It is another niche vehicle even more so given their air-transportable
limits.
It is only 7 tons while ontos is 10 tons given it the advantage for this role.
It not even a AFV as such merely an anti-tank gun on a track
This extra less weight gave it a air-transportable advantage.

The ontos is a tank destroyer / infantry support assualt gun
The M56 is a mobile anti-tank gun on a track with no armour.
The Scorpion would see limited action in Vietnam and its exposed nature did create problems whereas the Ontos performed brilliantly and achieved legendary successes so the USMC had to retire them and not replace them lest their weak infantry egos suffer.

---

Re the thread

The soviets airborne anti-tank gun equivalents of the period was the 15 ton ASU-85



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASU-85

Cork boy 55

Given all the data available form the various "little" hot wars of the cold war
and the Arab-Israel wars and the gulf wars.
Would it be far to say that NATO weapons outperformed WARSAW pact gear
Especially at the high end tanks Jet fighters and missiles?

Canvasser

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Given all the data available form the various "little" hot wars of the cold war
and the Arab-Israel wars and the gulf wars.
Would it be far to say that NATO weapons outperformed WARSAW pact gear
Especially at the high end tanks Jet fighters and missiles?

The IDF using American weapons to murder arabs is probably a real turn on for your sort.

Capt'n Midnight

The Brits had a Chicken-Powered Nuclear Bomb

juan.kerr

Incredibly, none of the ships were destroyed during World War II, presumably because the Allies decided they should just leave them alone and they would eventually do more damage to themselves.

:rolleyes:

tac foley

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

I didn't write that it was 'stupid' - I wrote to bring folks attention to a rather odd piece of military equipment.

If you REALLY want something that seemed like a good idea at the time, but plainly was not, look up 'Giant Panjandrum'.

tac

tac foley

Canvasser wrote: »

The IDF using American weapons to murder arabs is probably a real turn on for your sort.

Careful......your prejudice is showing.......

tac

Stovepipe

@corkboy55,
In a lot of ways, Western weapons did outperform Soviet weapons but in other ways, the Sovier weapons were better/tougher/easier to use. The Russians have a different mentality in weapon design. They design for conscript users/servicemen and for durability. The human interface is not a priority. An example would be the MiG generation that fought in Vietnam. American fighters were bigger, had better missiles, better radar and so on but the MiG-17/19/21 gave the Yanks a fright and compelled them to completely revise fighter training (Top Gun). Some of the American aircraft were unsuitable as dogfighters and paid the price. The MiGs never got a good short-range missile and never had an equivalent to the Sparrow but they had very good 23 and 30mm cannon in very manouverable aircraft. The Americans and SVNAF lost most of their aircraft to WW II vintage anti-aircraft guns, aimed by eye. The AK-47 surpassed the M16 and was rugged, easily learned and maintained and delivered a heavy punch.
As far as tanks went, Western tanks are designed around their users whereas Russian tanks are designed to deliver a shell from a big gun behind thick armour and to do so as cheaply as possible, yet be maintained by semi-literates. All this doesn't mean that Western weapons are flawless. Far from it. The serviceability rate of Western weapons has often been embarrassingly bad but, at least, a crewman in a Western tank has a better chance of surviving a hit.

regards
Stovepipe

Capt'n Midnight

Stovepipe wrote: »

@corkboy55,
In a lot of ways, Western weapons did outperform Soviet weapons but in other ways, the Sovier weapons were better/tougher/easier to use.

How many times did the west get a huge shock when they actually got a chance to inspect stuff close up ?

little things like the Mig25 radar using valves.
How quaint and backward. Except it would have been extremely resistant to EMP.

or that a lot of mortars had slightly wider barrels so they could use captured ammunition, but Soviet ammunition would jam in the western equilivent



A brand new M16 is more accurate than an AK74
though it may be a different story after a couple of weeks in the mud / desert / Arctic.

BlaasForRafa

Canvasser wrote: »

The IDF using American weapons to murder arabs is probably a real turn on for your sort.

Yeah, those American Centurion and AMX tanks, those American-made Dassault Mirages and Ouragons, those UZI sub-machine guns and FAL rifles made in the good ol' USofA?

Maybe you should actually gain some knowledge before uttering more stupid stock phrases eh?

BlaasForRafa

Stovepipe wrote: »

@corkboy55,
In a lot of ways, Western weapons did outperform Soviet weapons but in other ways, the Sovier weapons were better/tougher/easier to use. The Russians have a different mentality in weapon design. They design for conscript users/servicemen and for durability. The human interface is not a priority. An example would be the MiG generation that fought in Vietnam. American fighters were bigger, had better missiles, better radar and so on but the MiG-17/19/21 gave the Yanks a fright and compelled them to completely revise fighter training (Top Gun). Some of the American aircraft were unsuitable as dogfighters and paid the price. The MiGs never got a good short-range missile and never had an equivalent to the Sparrow but they had very good 23 and 30mm cannon in very manouverable aircraft. The Americans and SVNAF lost most of their aircraft to WW II vintage anti-aircraft guns, aimed by eye. The AK-47 surpassed the M16 and was rugged, easily learned and maintained and delivered a heavy punch.

The Migs were a shock for the Phantom and Thunderchief pilots alright but some planes like the US Navy and Marine Crusaders had a good record against the migs. The Israelis in the 60's and 70's though had the right aircraft for the job in the Mirage which was as nimble as the Migs and the Israeli's emphasised gun kills so had a community of pilots that were able to dogfight.

As far as tanks went, Western tanks are designed around their users whereas Russian tanks are designed to deliver a shell from a big gun behind thick armour and to do so as cheaply as possible, yet be maintained by semi-literates. All this doesn't mean that Western weapons are flawless. Far from it. The serviceability rate of Western weapons has often been embarrassingly bad but, at least, a crewman in a Western tank has a better chance of surviving a hit.

regards
Stovepipe

I wouldn't argue with any of that but another design consideration of the soviet tanks was to make them as low and small a target as possible while cramming in that big gun and engine into that thick armour. That made the fighting compartment cramped and uncomfortable compared to Western tanks and must have let to lower crew performance due to heat, fatigue and stress.

Some of the tanks had design flaws as well like the T-62's gun barrel not being able to depress very much which led to problems when the Egyptians and Syrians fought the IDF in mountainous terrain. The IDF captured hundreds of T-55s and T-62s and converted most of them to armoured personnel carriers rather than keep them as tanks.

Manic Moran

Canvasser wrote: »

The IDF using American weapons to murder arabs is probably a real turn on for your sort.

[Mod]You've been on my radar before, and have used up your warning. Come back in a week.[/mod]

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many times did the west get a huge shock when they actually got a chance to inspect stuff close up ?

For tanks, I can think of three occasions. 1956, when a T-55 drove into the British embassy in Hungary and they realised that they needed more powerful tank cannons, early 1990s when they finally were able to shoot at non-export T-72s and realised they needed more powerful ammunition, and mid-2000s, when they were able to properly test a T-80U.

or that a lot of mortars had slightly wider barrels so they could use captured ammunition, but Soviet ammunition would jam in the western equilivent

I believe this not to be the case. Soviets were using 82mm long before the development of NATO.

As to Ontos/Scorpion, I still don't see a huge difference in the roles. Both were primarily designed to be easily transported anti-tank vehicles to be used in cases where proper tanks were not available. Both the Army and the Marines had perfectly serviceable tanks (and in the case of the Marines, heavy tanks) to use in high-intensity situations where transport was available.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote: »

I believe this not to be the case. Soviets were using 82mm long before the development of NATO.

ahh http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/94719741501

This myth originates from WWII where Soviet forces found that the Germans were able to use Soviet ammunition in German weapons. Swearing that this should never happen again, the Soviets made all subsequent weapons such that the calibres didn't match those of their enemies'.

Doubt this is how the myth originated as the Soviet 82mm mortar (Model 1937) was fielded in - you guessed it, 1937, prior to Germany and Russia going at it. And . . . the German 8 cm Schwerer Granatenwerfer 34 (actually an 81.4mm mortar, despite the 8 cm name) was fielded in 1934. So the calibers were set long before hostilities began. And long, long before the Cold War.

In fact, both of these Soviet and German mortars were knock offs of the very same French Brandt mle 27/31 81.4mm mortar. If the 0.6mm larger bore of the Soviet mortar was designed to keep the Germans from using Soviet ammo in German mortars, it proved of marginal success. The Germans absorbed large quantities of the Soviet 82mm mortars into the Wehrmacht under the name 8.2 cm Granatwerfer 274/1. So they had plenty of tubes from which to fire captured Soviet ammo.

In the pre soviet days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Tank

EI_Flyboy

Soviet clockwork ejector seat vs western ejector seats. No injuries from supersonic ejection vs almost certain death. When they get it right, they get it very right indeed. It has to be said that not having to build to a budget and no need to make huge profits sometimes put the soviets way ahead of the game. Also the caspian seamonster had the Yanks browning their shorts, +400mph with zero radar or sonar signature carrying several nukes to within striking distance of the U.S. without any warning whatsoever. The SU27 and it's derivatives, said to be the most aerodynamically perfect aircraft and simulations have shown them to be capable of besting the best of current generation U.S. aircraft.

Cork boy 55

Manic Moran wrote: »

As to Ontos/Scorpion, I still don't see a huge difference in the roles. Both were primarily designed to be easily transported anti-tank vehicles to be used in cases where proper tanks were not available. Both the Army and the Marines had perfectly serviceable tanks (and in the case of the Marines, heavy tanks) to use in high-intensity situations where transport was available.

NTM

We will agree to disagree

The "mobile gun" or whatever they are calling it seems to be making a bit of a come back in the USA army


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

Whats your opinion on the M1128 Mobile Gun System
Whats the thinking here?
Is the age of the MBT over?

Stovepipe

I thought that mobile gun system was now out of favour because of cost?
regards
Stovepipe

Manic Moran

MGS isn't a tank destroyer, though, and neither pretends to be nor is assigned the role.