Soviet Military Equipment Which Impressed You! and Why?

[kcran567]

completely agree with the other comments here. The ruggedness, practicality, functionality, and simple economic design of much Russian equipment makes me dissapointed that the west has missed the point.
Mig-29, AK-47, Makarov pistol, The current in development Pakfa, Mi-28 there are others if I had time to research. Past fighter aircraft may have suffered from cockpit ergonomics which was missing.
I also see the point that the Russian arircraft are built for combat harshness. The victories of western systems over Russian/Soviet systems could be more to bad training and tactics, not inferior design.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

completely agree with the other comments here. The ruggedness, practicality, functionality, and simple economic design of much Russian equipment makes me dissapointed that the west has missed the point.

I'm not. The dark side of a lot of the things that made/make soviet/russian tech worth having was the same reason it wasn't popular in the west. Soviet equipment could be rather "hard on people" to put it mildly, There are systems the soviets produced that would NEVER be replicated in the west due to health and environmental hazards, short cuts on safety, and short life spans of the weapon systems themselves along with the people who used them. I say this as a fan of Russian equipment.

There is plenty of ruggedness, practicality, functionality, and simple economic design in western designs too, not to mention western designs that pushed new boundaries, or even weapons fielded that the USSR never bothered with, for example CVN/CTOL carrier capable aircraft, which only made their appearance at the tail end of the USSR. There is also no more a harsh environment than carrier ops were toughness is a rule and the US fielded some very tough aircraft capable of ops in harsh environments themselves.

This isn't me trying to start a fight, or an argument, just pointing out that there is a reason the west made weapons the way they did, and there is a reason the USSR/Russia made and make weapons they way they did. Both sides have reasons to envy the other, and both sides of reasons not to envy the other.

 

[gollevainen]

Back in my conscription days (almoust ten years ago!) I had the luxury to operate both western and soviet made artillery pieces as our "main group weapon".
The soviet version, D30 122mm Howitzer was a architypical of soviet grude and rough piece of metal which made us conscripts loose will to live many, many times in the cold finnish winter. But one thing it never did was break down or mailfunction. It worked no matter how much hate we poured on it, no matter how cold, wet or muddy it was.

Where as the western equalent, 155K98, a finnish made 155mm gun-howitser with APU did had all these fancy computerized FCS, hydraulics with APU behind them (so the 14ton gun took its fireposition simply by pressing the buttons) and so on. But it was prone to failures. Even slightest grains of sand between the breech and it was jam, the gyrocompass based firecontrol kept going berserk time to time and not to mention of those wierd "you all need to be 30m away from the gun each time you fire it and before you can go to load the next round, a group of specialist will inspect the system" type of incidences.
For me, in the end if I would have to go to war and my life is depended on the weapons we use, I'd choose the D30 hands down. To have something that works in all situation is IMO in the end more important than having something that can do marvelous things if it works.

PS: I think there's isen't enough praize over Kalashnikoviks, back in the army days I once had my rifle (Finnish version called Rk62) lying in the mud during field training and everytime we had to go and shoot with it, it worked like it used. Back in the garrison when I had time to clean it, I found complete pinecone inside it...

 

[F-14D]

Things that always impressed me about the Foxbat.. Yes, it was inefficient, yes you wrecekd the eninges if you wnet too much > M2.8, yes, it wasn't "smooth", and yes, the electronics were behind ours. BUT... they managed to produce a M2.8 aircraft that could operate from a semi-prepared field and could be built in a truck factory by people with less than the equivalent of a high school education.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The soviet version, D30 122mm Howitzer was a architypical of soviet grude and rough piece of metal which made us conscripts loose will to live many, many times in the cold finnish winter. But one thing it never did was break down or mailfunction. It worked no matter how much hate we poured on it, no matter how cold, wet or muddy it was.

The mechanical reliability of Soviet artillery goes back to Imperial Russian days. They invested in a large group of highly competent engineers to build artillery and gave them the man-days to make sure it all worked very well before issue to the troops. This system remained in force through the Soviet era probably because of the high prestige associated with artillery. But they cut corners when they had to. The D30 has perhaps the worst muzzle blast of any artillery piece in the world. While hell on the ears of any crew using it this also has a tactical problem in that is makes sound location of the firing position a lot easier and therefore counter battery fires. I’m not sure if cutting ~500 kg of carriage and recoil assembly from the gun is worth that muzzle blast.

 

[gollevainen]

Yeah the "punch" of the Howitser was indeed formidable. Firing it actually felt more like "firing an artillery piece" than firing the bigger 155mm/52cal 155K98. Always remembering the first rounds we fired with the D30. First we fired the so called "4th charges" which only had the minium of explosives in the cartirdges and you could actually see the offgoing grenade, it was so slow velocity. But then we moved straight to the "full charge" which was the maxium ammount of explosives...and I literaly fell over my ass when I fired the gun.

One major flaw in D30 was that tri-leg arragment. It had little usefull purpose and it just made deploying the gun more complicate than standard two-leg carriage.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

One major flaw in D30 was that tri-leg arragment. It had little usefull purpose and it just made deploying the gun more complicate than standard two-leg carriage.

It was designed to give the weapon easy training of 360 degrees. In a conventional arrangement the trails need to be lifted up and the gun spun on its wheels to provide off axis fires. Which can be harder than it sounds if the gun has recoil spades that have dug into the ground after a few rounds.

PS this wasn't Soviet innovation it was designed by Skoda works during WWII.

 

[gollevainen]

Thats the catch. At least in Finnish army we never used to just train the gun in 360 degrees with the training wheel. The proplem in in-direct fire is that aiming the gun you need a collimator to fix your gunsight (a spyglass type of device atop of tripod) which is located on the left side of the gun. When you train over 180 degrees, you cannot see the collimator from your gunsight.
There was a method of using auxiliary/emergency aiming board with was simple plate with dots which you could use instead of the collimator. But it required turn the whole gun around with it's legs up like with conventional two-leg howitser. One of the favorite excercise was that "emergy turn-around" where after a command, we had to lift the gun up with its central axis jack, turn the whole thing around with balancing from the legs, hammer the spades down again, use the auxiliary aiming plate and fire...and turn back around to the normal direction and vice versa for the whole day..
My own guess is that the only usefull use of the tri-leg/360 train is in direct fire mode or anti-tank role. Then you aim with simpler direct aiming sight wich is in it's simplicity like optic sight in a rifle.

 

[Firefly 2]

My own guess is that the only usefull use of the tri-leg/360 train is in direct fire mode or anti-tank role. Then you aim with simpler direct aiming sight wich is in it's simplicity like optic sight in a rifle.

I always assumed this was a result of experiences in WWII, where normal artillery pieces had to engage panzers. A sort of emergency anti tank secondary role.

 

[Michel Van]

What impressed me of Soviet Military Equipment

AK-47
that is THE weapon, you need if end civilization comes
Simple, easy, extreme robust and world is full Ak-47 ammunition.

Mil Mi-24
of all battle-chopper, is this a monster !
not only armed to tooth, it carry also troops to Battlefield.

R-7 Semjorka
As ICBM useless, but it brought the First satellite and first human in space, it still bring human in space, so a good faithful rocket.

AN602 aka Zar-Bomba
the Biggest H-bomb of all time and it was only the prototype for a 100 MT Warhead ! alone the idea...

T-34 tank and its successor, the T-54/55 and it Chinese cousin
It was the most-produced tank of the war, and the second most-produced tank of all time
simple, easy to build and to drive, not like German WW2 tanks with gear-box, with a complexity of a swiss clock...

 

[piginapoke]

I Have to say the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" was the most impressive piece of kit to me at the time. Whilst I knew little about it technically at the time, and still don't, it had an awesome reputation in the literature of the time.

Agreed. A nightmare to face I would imagine.

 

[piginapoke]

I was quite impressed by this Soviet multi-tool axe. http://imgur.com/a/PFHnR
It was demonstrated to us at the KGB Museum in Prague last week. You have an Axe, Chisel, Hammer, Saw and Baton plus I think the hole in the axe is also for barbed wire bending. The museum guide/owner didn't explain it that well but his collection is incredible!

The simplicity of the PPS submachine gun also impresses me. Using stamped steel and machine processes to reduce the amount of steel needed and the time needed for production makes good sense when in a war with limited resources.

That is a great idea! I like it

 

[piginapoke]

Designs that impressed me or i like the look of or captured my imagination

SHKVAAL super fast torpedo
Zsu-23 Shika
Typhoon sub
Su-27
Hind Havok and Alligator helicopters
Il-76
AK-47
Tu-95

Lots more....

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5dyf88H8HZ4
Some footage (in Russian) of the BM-27 Uragan during training at the Chebarkul firing range.
(h/t Raden5/MilitaryPhotos.net)

 

[Pioneer]

Its been a while since someone's posted something on this forum, so I'll add another Soviet engineering marvel which impresses me -

- The Soviet engineers where able to design, and more importantly field, some incredible Transport Erector Launch (TEL) vehicles, which the United States could never match to this day. Be it wheeled (MAZ 543 TEL/SS-12 'Scaleboard'; MAZ-547A TEL/SS-20 'Saber'......) or tracked (?????[TEL derived from the heavy T-YUM tank] TEL/SS-15 'Scrooge'; 8U218 TEL/SS-1b 'Scud-A'; 2P25 TEL/SA-6 'Gainful'; 9A316 TEL/Buk; 9A85 TEL/SA-12 'Giant'....)
But then again the Soviet's fully appreciated the critical importance of mobility of its weapons systems if they were going to survive a 'real war.'

Take for example the simple, cheap, but highly effective Soviet 9K31 Strela-1
(SA-9 'Gaskin') mobile SAM system. I think its amazing that only in the past 10-15 years has the West attempted to recognise, let alone implement such a light and cost effective system! Sure, now there's a plethora of light and cheap self-propelled VSHORAD like theAN/TWQ-1 Avenger, Yi Tian, Poprad, Type 93/Kōkidōsha, VBL/Mistral....., But I think it goes without saying that the 9K31 TEL/9K31 Strela-1 combination was original and before its day!!

More to follow.......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

Wish there was more about this guy out there.

 

[stealthflanker]

P.705 Lyra submarine. basically underwater Su-27.

She's basically..very exotic, advanced and powerhouse.

 

[covert_shores]

Well thinking back, I was mightily impressed by the Kitov class, and the Typhoon Class. And Slava Class. The sheer scale and number of weapons. For the surfafe ships their CIWS (I know, I know) was always much more credible than a couple of phalanx in my book.

For aircraft there was excitement re Su-27, and it deserved the reputation as it turned out. Foxhound and Foxbat of course, and flagon and fished were seen as having merits too.

SA-10 of course.

Personally I always liked the SA-4 Ganef, but only aesthetically. The missile to launcher size ratio was just awesome.

For tanks, t-80 was a real menace. And t-64 too. T-72s were seen as crapper which rubbed off on me, making me less impressed with the T-90 as well when it arrived on the scene.

Now, from my new perspective, I'd add the triton-2 SDV. The rest of their SDVs snd underwater kit is interesting, but only that one stands out for me.

 

[moonbeamsts]

Hello
As a submarine guy served on 688 subs as ST. The USSR/Russ subs that today and are the biggest headache are the Kilo/improved with AIP.
New model Akula and Gepard if properly maintained and operated would be a big threat. The skoval torpedo used in right tactics could be a carrier killer.

 

[DrRansom]

Pioneer - I agree entirely. The mobility of the Soviet (and Russian) air defense systems is very impressive, especially compared to the lackluster mobility in their US counterparts.

Every picture of the Patriot missile system pains me, because I see a fixed target. The Patriot appears so much more vulnerable to low complexity precision strike than it's Russian equivalent.

 

[Hot Breath]

For tanks, t-80 was a real menace. And t-64 too. T-72s were seen as crapper which rubbed off on me, making me less impressed with the T-90 as well when it arrived on the scene.

Which version of the T72? The real Warsaw Pact version, the East German version or the exported Soviet version? Not all T72s were made the same and what was supplied to Iraq for the first Gulf War was very much a "Monkey-model", with thinner armour, worst fire control, ammunition and guns. When the Germans tested the East German version of the T72, they found it was invulnerable to all NATO standard AT weapons over it's frontal quarter. Something even the US Army was forced to admit when they carried out tests.

 

[Pioneer]

When the Germans tested the East German version of the T72, they found it was invulnerable to all NATO standard AT weapons over it's frontal quarter. Something even the US Army was forced to admit when they carried out tests.

Very interesting my friend!
Have you any literature on the W/German/American tests or where I can find it?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Pioneer - I agree entirely. The mobility of the Soviet (and Russian) air defense systems is very impressive, especially compared to the lackluster mobility in their US counterparts.

Every picture of the Patriot missile system pains me, because I see a fixed target. The Patriot appears so much more vulnerable to low complexity precision strike than it's Russian equivalent.

Completely and utterly agree DrRansom!!
It was the West German's that impressed me (and obviously recognised this, when they mounted their Patriot systems on the MAN 8x8 trucks! I'm afraid that the U.S. has put way too much emphasis and reliance on its 'fighter' aircraft to both win and hold air superiority, at the expense of combat reality in my opinion

Regards
Pioneer

 

[DrRansom]

Completely and utterly agree DrRansom!!
It was the West German's that impressed me (and obviously recognised this, when they mounted their Patriot systems on the MAN 8x8 trucks! I'm afraid that the U.S. has put way too much emphasis and reliance on its 'fighter' aircraft to both win and hold air superiority, at the expense of combat reality in my opinion

Regards
Pioneer

It is more than just the loss of air superiority. A mobile patriot batter will be more survivable against ballistic / cruise missile attack than a fixed site. The US already knows the problems that mobile air defenses pose, but that isn't being applied to the US own's air defenses? A Patriot site on Guam which can be moved in under 5 minutes poses a much nastier targeting problem on the Chinese than one which requires 30 minutes to move and re-emplace. That level of survivability enhances the missile sink that is an air defense site. But with fixed Patriots, well, much easier to suppress them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just because the Patriot elements are mounted on trailers and not vehicles does not mean they take longer to deploy and break down than a complex air defence system with self propulsion. These systems are not artillery pieces or self contained air defence systems that require - comparatively - very little set up. All of these types of systems, including the self-propelled models, require levelling, antenna extension, plugging in to major coaxial type cables, connection to off board generators, warm up and warm down of computers, missile launcher deployment from travel configuration and so on. The act of reversing a tractor up to the towing eye is the least time consuming step in moving a Patriot type battery.


Further the towed system has the survivability advantage of being a much smaller target when deployed and when mobile just looking like every other truck convoy in the army. Self-propelled systems are much larger when deployed and very distinctive, high value targets, when moving.


Finally the most important element of consideration is that high level GBAD systems like Patriot do not rely on mobility for survivability. Standard means of combat deployment is to provide another GBAD battery, of a shorter range system, to defend the system. The system's location is broadcast whenever it is operational and providing protection. It doesn't "unmask" when operated like over systems so displacement just reduces its coverage potential. Russian high level GBAD are not self propelled for survivability but rather to enhance their mobility in highly concentrated lines of communication. A by product of their offensive, fast moving, deep operations way of warfare.

 

[covert_shores]

For tanks, t-80 was a real menace. And t-64 too. T-72s were seen as crapper which rubbed off on me, making me less impressed with the T-90 as well when it arrived on the scene.

Which version of the T72? The real Warsaw Pact version, the East German version or the exported Soviet version? Not all T72s were made the same and what was supplied to Iraq for the first Gulf War was very much a "Monkey-model", with thinner armour, worst fire control, ammunition and guns. When the Germans tested the East German version of the T72, they found it was invulnerable to all NATO standard AT weapons over it's frontal quarter. Something even the US Army was forced to admit when they carried out tests.

soviet models. I was remembering pre-desert storm. The threat was presented as numbers whereas T-80 was presented a quality too. All doom and gloom though with vast hordes rolling across the Central European plain. Not in a position to get into tanker debates, just recalling it as I remember it.

Tungusta had an allure in the 1980s too.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

When the Germans tested the East German version of the T72, they found it was invulnerable to all NATO standard AT weapons over it's frontal quarter.

No they didn't. The testing of Soviet tanks post Cold War found that with the Kontakt-5 ERA could defeat the second generation 120mm smoothbore APFSDS-DU rounds at the outer edge of combat range. Combat range for these guns is considered 3,000m. And the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" round which was defeated by Kontakt-5 can only penetrate around 570mm of just RHA steel at 2,000m down to around 460mm at 4,000m. At closer ranges (1m to ~>2,000m) the M829A1 could still defeat the heaviest Soviet era frontal armour protected by Kontakt-5.

The shortfall in penetration at long ranges was rectified by the introduction of the M829A2 in 1993 which could defeat Kontakt-5. The German L55 barrel and DM53 round enable defeat of this target at ranges up to 4,000m. The Russian's have developed new ERA but also new technology has been introduced to the latest long rod penetrators that address the effect ERA has on them. Rather than simply upping the kinetic energy to provide overmatch.

Further even though the Soviet's had a theoretical background in ERA they never would have introduced it en masse without the example of the Israeli Blazer ERA. If the Israeli 90th Division's 362nd Tank Battalion hadn’t been cut off, losing a tank company, on the last night of the Israeli-Syrian fighting in the Bekka in June 1982 there would never have been a Kontakt 5. The Syrians captured an operational M48 with Blazer ERA and three living Israeli soldiers. They paraded the tank and POWs through Damascus and then executed the POWs in cold blood.

Anyway irrespective of this Syrian atrocity Kontakt-5 is based on Israeli ingenuity so really doesn’t belong in a discussion about Soviet innovation worthy of admiration.

 

[hs1216]

I don’t believe that the T-72 is that good. However, I don’t believe it was intended to be that good. I believe that Soviet design philosophy was to produce tanks that were not superior or even equal to NATO contemporaries, but good enough. For example, towards the end of WW2 the T-34/85 was inferior to the German Panther; but it had enough firepower and armor to fight the German machine at a reasonable range. Combined with better mobility and numbers, you have a war winning design. I believe that philosophy was carried on into the T-72 and T-80. They are not up to par with Western Tanks, but they have enough capability to take them on with a reasonable chance of success. Numbers with make up for the rest.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Further even though the Soviet's had a theoretical background in ERA they never would have introduced it en masse without the example of the Israeli Blazer ERA. If the Israeli 90th Division's 362nd Tank Battalion hadn’t been cut off, losing a tank company, on the last night of the Israeli-Syrian fighting in the Bekka in June 1982 there would never have been a Kontakt 5. The Syrians captured an operational M48 with Blazer ERA and three living Israeli soldiers. They paraded the tank and POWs through Damascus and then executed the POWs in cold blood.

Anyway irrespective of this Syrian atrocity Kontakt-5 is based on Israeli ingenuity so really doesn’t belong in a discussion about Soviet innovation worthy of admiration.

Nii Stali had produced experimental ERA in the early 70s,and were still studying it in the late 1970s, but there was implacable opposition at the time from certain people in the army to the very idea of exploding armour. Nii Stali's own material admits that they were given Blazer units to study in 1982, but "Kontakt" wasn't just a clone, rather a synthesis of reverse engineering from the Blazer units with some existing NII Stali ideas. Kontakt-5, which followed very soon after the initial Kontakt, was quite a bit better than Blazer.

I think the key point of Blazer in 1982 was not the technology transfer (ERA isn't that technically difficult), rather it showed the Soviets that a relatively small cost applique armour could greatly enhance the protection of their existing tank fleet without the huge cost of replacing all their tanks with Chobham armoured tanks. Adoption of ERA was inevitable given the Soviet investment in large numbers of T-64/72/80 tanks which were increasingly outmatched in the mid 80s by Western tanks and ATGMs, pending development of a next generation design.

 

[hs1216]

With regards to Chobham type armor, how much did the soviets incorporate ceramic armor into their tanks. I have heard that the T-80 and T-64 have some, but based on dominance of curved shapes it cannot be much.

 

[Pioneer]

Some very interesting points and an education for me re reactive armour!!
Thanks gents

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS)

Although the American's were meant to have first utilised it in their DUKW amphibious truck design.
I think it goes without say that it was the Soviet military that took and fully utilised the Central Tire Inflation System for military use like no other military.
The Soviet's undoubtedly fully appreciated and incorporated Central Tire Inflation System not just in its excellent range of off-road trucks, but even incorporated it into its Antonov An-22 military transport aircraft, so as to min its ground-pressure and operation on and out of rough airfields.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Hot Breath]

When the Germans tested the East German version of the T72, they found it was invulnerable to all NATO standard AT weapons over it's frontal quarter. Something even the US Army was forced to admit when they carried out tests.

Very interesting my friend!
Have you any literature on the W/German/American tests or where I can find it?

Regards
Pioneer

It was mentioned in Jane's way back in 1990 which is where I read about it.

 

[Hot Breath]

When the Germans tested the East German version of the T72, they found it was invulnerable to all NATO standard AT weapons over it's frontal quarter.

No they didn't. The testing of Soviet tanks post Cold War found that with the Kontakt-5 ERA could defeat the second generation 120mm smoothbore APFSDS-DU rounds at the outer edge of combat range. Combat range for these guns is considered 3,000m. And the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" round which was defeated by Kontakt-5 can only penetrate around 570mm of just RHA steel at 2,000m down to around 460mm at 4,000m. At closer ranges (1m to ~>2,000m) the M829A1 could still defeat the heaviest Soviet era frontal armour protected by Kontakt-5.

Except the model of T-72 tested was not protected by Kontakt-5 armour... Kontakt-5 was introduced on the T-80U tank in 1985, not T-72s.

 

[Pioneer]

When the Germans tested the East German version of the T72, they found it was invulnerable to all NATO standard AT weapons over it's frontal quarter.

No they didn't. The testing of Soviet tanks post Cold War found that with the Kontakt-5 ERA could defeat the second generation 120mm smoothbore APFSDS-DU rounds at the outer edge of combat range. Combat range for these guns is considered 3,000m. And the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" round which was defeated by Kontakt-5 can only penetrate around 570mm of just RHA steel at 2,000m down to around 460mm at 4,000m. At closer ranges (1m to ~>2,000m) the M829A1 could still defeat the heaviest Soviet era frontal armour protected by Kontakt-5.

Except the model of T-72 tested was not protected by Kontakt-5 armour... Kontakt-5 was introduced on the T-80U tank in 1985, not T-72s.

Thanks gents
Very interesting analogy

Here it is in the flesh -
https://youtu.be/i0p3vFgObxU


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Soviet PMP Bridging System
This system was so good, even the American's copied it - 'Ribbon Bridge'!
Sadly and pathetically, my army does not have this simple, but very effective engineering equipment in its inventory :-[

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Soviet PMP Bridging System
This system was so good, even the American's copied it - 'Ribbon Bridge'!
Sadly and pathetically, my army does not have this simple, but very effective engineering equipment in its inventory :-[

PMP is just a pontoon bridge. Been around since antiquity. The thing about PMP that separates it from most pontoon bridges is that the pontoon folds out from a storage configuration to a floating configuration. This was actually invented by the Americans during their Civil War. The Cumberland Pontoon.

 

[Pioneer]

Soviet PMP Bridging System
This system was so good, even the American's copied it - 'Ribbon Bridge'!
Sadly and pathetically, my army does not have this simple, but very effective engineering equipment in its inventory :-[

PMP is just a pontoon bridge. Been around since antiquity. The thing about PMP that separates it from most pontoon bridges is that the pontoon folds out from a storage configuration to a floating configuration. This was actually invented by the Americans during their Civil War. The Cumberland Pontoon.

I appreciate your point and comment my dear Abraham Gubler, but it with the simplicity and speed in which the Soviet 'PMP' system gives any engineering unit to deploy such a pontoon/bridging system that surpasses the basic design. Even the Cumberland Pontoon was not able to span a water way 227m, with a carrying capacity of 60-ton in 50 minutes!
The other thing I see as being important is that the Soviet's persisted in making their PMP's out of steel, as opposed to the American obsession of making theirs out of aluminium! Give me steel anytime

Regard
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Here a couple more-

- The AK-630 30mm automatic close-in weapon system It was the world's first CIWS, accepted into operational service in 1972.
In comparison, the West took another eight years before operationally fielding its equivalent Phalanx 20mm CIWS.
On top of this, I've been just as impressed in the volume that the Soviet's were willing to deploy the AK-630's in terms of units per-ship (up to eight x units on the Kirov and Kiev class). Compare this to an average of four x Phalanx 20mm CIWS at most on an American aircraft carrier!

- The Tupolev Tu-123 Yastreb long-range, high-altitude supersonic strategic unmanned reconnaissance drone.
This bad boy was so far out of the West's scope, that they often attributed it too the MiG-25 'Foxbat'
https://youtu.be/oPZwtxGBjfc

Regards
Pioneer

‎

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I appreciate your point and comment my dear Abraham Gubler, but it with the simplicity and speed in which the Soviet 'PMP' system gives any engineering unit to deploy such a pontoon/bridging system that surpasses the basic design. Even the Cumberland Pontoon was not able to span a water way 227m, with a carrying capacity of 60-ton in 50 minutes!

Well they didn't have trucks and tanks back in the American Civil War. The PMP is functionally identical to the Cumberland Pontoon. It is just made 100 years later. So it is not an example of Soviet innovation.

The other thing I see as being important is that the Soviet's persisted in making their PMP's out of steel, as opposed to the American obsession of making theirs out of aluminium! Give me steel anytime

Well aluminium doesn’t corrode in water. A pontoon bridge spends a lot of time going in and out of water when it is being used then sitting in storage for a long times in between. Ideal circumstance for promoting rust without extensive labour after use. With a bridge made of aluminium alloy you don’t have to worry about this.