Soviet Military Equipment Which Impressed You! and Why?

[Abraham Gubler]

- 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 AK-630 system was not en par with a western CIWS. It’s a very impressive gun inside the Dalek looking mount but the system was way behind the western CIWS in concept. Firstly they fired standard HEI shells rather than the APDS ammunition of a proper CIWS. The difference is significant because the use of APDS ammunition was specific to shooting down missiles because they could cut through the solid propellant rocket motor of the missile causing the rocket to explode and disintegrate. Whereas a HE shell would mess up the front end of the missile but like a Kamikaze it would keep on coming under its own momentum until it hit your ship. Also by using offboard fire control the AK-630 system could not match the precise accuracy of CIWS like Phalanx and Goalkeeper while firing from a ship.

These two reasons is why the Soviet’s had to fit large batteries of AK-630 guns to their ships. Less accuracy, less lethality against missiles. So they made up for it with much larger scales of fire. Which cost a lot in weight and space.

 

[sferrin]

This bad boy was so far out of the West's scope, that they often attributed it too the MiG-25 'Foxbat'

Huh? The West had no need for such a drone, we had the Blackbird. B) If we'd really needed something like this we could have kept working on the D-21, which was faster, higher flying, and longer ranged than the Tu-123.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

"Out of the scope" meaning not known to the West. Many Tu-123 flights were wrongly attributed to MiG-25Rs, apparently, leading to false assumptions of the latter's capabilities.

 

[sferrin]

"Out of the scope" meaning not known to the West. Many Tu-123 flights were wrongly attributed to MiG-25Rs, apparently, leading to false assumptions of the latter's capabilities.

Yeah, I knew about that (I think it even mentions it in "Mig Pilot"). Just didn't know what he was trying to say.

 

[Rickshaw]

This bad boy was so far out of the West's scope, that they often attributed it too the MiG-25 'Foxbat'

Huh? The West had no need for such a drone, we had the Blackbird. B) If we'd really needed something like this we could have kept working on the D-21, which was faster, higher flying, and longer ranged than the Tu-123.

So, you're saying that the West used a plane which couldn't overfly the enemy's territory because of the threat of SAMs shooting it down and it had a drone which kept crashing and killing the crew of the plane which was supposed to carry it? :

 

[sferrin]

This bad boy was so far out of the West's scope, that they often attributed it too the MiG-25 'Foxbat'

Huh? The West had no need for such a drone, we had the Blackbird. B) If we'd really needed something like this we could have kept working on the D-21, which was faster, higher flying, and longer ranged than the Tu-123.

So, you're saying that the West used a plane which couldn't overfly the enemy's territory because of the threat of SAMs shooting it down and it had a drone which kept crashing and killing the crew of the plane which was supposed to carry it? :

Are you under the impression that they regularly overflew NATO territory with the Tu-123? That's just precious. As for "had a drone which kept crashing and killing the crew of the plane which was supposed to carry it?" please tell us how many B-52 crews were killed by the D-21. Also "kept killing" implies more than one so please provide a list of Blackbird crews lost to the D-21 as well.

 

[covert_shores]

HOKUM used to impress me. Something of a menace with a weapons fit and ejector seat to match it's looks. Like several other types the fact thef do little was known about it added to the appeal. Between this and FROGFOOT plus T-80s and Dolly Partons I had the image of an unstoppable wall of steel and bullets rolling mercilessly across the German countryside.

 

[Hot Breath]

This bad boy was so far out of the West's scope, that they often attributed it too the MiG-25 'Foxbat'

Huh? The West had no need for such a drone, we had the Blackbird. B) If we'd really needed something like this we could have kept working on the D-21, which was faster, higher flying, and longer ranged than the Tu-123.

So, you're saying that the West used a plane which couldn't overfly the enemy's territory because of the threat of SAMs shooting it down and it had a drone which kept crashing and killing the crew of the plane which was supposed to carry it? :

Are you under the impression that they regularly overflew NATO territory with the Tu-123? That's just precious. As for "had a drone which kept crashing and killing the crew of the plane which was supposed to carry it?" please tell us how many B-52 crews were killed by the D-21. Also "kept killing" implies more than one so please provide a list of Blackbird crews lost to the D-21 as well.

B-52 was second choice for the D-21 and IIRC most B-52 flights failed.

The D-21 was initially designed to be launched from the back of its M-21 carrier aircraft, a variant of the Lockheed A-12 aircraft.
[...]
Following a fatal accident when launched from an M-21, the D-21 was modified to be launched from a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Only four operational D-21 flights were made over the People's Republic of China before the program was canceled in 1971.
[...]
Operational history

Four operational missions with the D-21B took place under the codename of Senior Bowl. These were conducted over the People's Republic of China from 9 November 1969 to 20 March 1971 to spy on the Lop Nor nuclear test site. The USAF's 4200th Support Squadron, based at Beale Air Force Base, California, flew the missions, usually from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.[19]

The Chinese never spotted the D-21B, but it failed to turn around and continued straight on, crashing somewhere in the Soviet Union.[20] Another test flight was conducted on 20 February 1970 in a successful attempt to correct any problems. The second operational mission, however, was not until 16 December 1970. The D-21B made it all the way to Lop Nor and back to the recovery point, but the hatch had a partial parachute failure and was lost at sea.[17]

During the third operational mission, on 4 March 1971, the D-21B flew to Lop Nor and returned, jettisoning the hatch. It deployed its parachute, but the midair recovery failed. The destroyer that tried to retrieve the hatch from the water ran it down and it sank. The fourth, and last, flight of the D-21B was on 20 March 1971. It was lost over China on the final segment of the route.[21] Wreckage of this lost D-21B was found by local authority in Yunnan province, China. In 2010, after being dumped in the junkyard of China Aviation Museum for years, the wreckage was finally officially moved to the exhibition area.[22]

On 23 July 1971, the D-21B program was canceled, due to the poor success rate, the introduction of a new generation of photo reconnaissance satellites, and President Richard Nixon's rapprochement with China.[23] A total of 38 D-21 and D-21B drones were built with 21 expended in launches. The remaining 17 were initially stored at Norton Air Force Base, California, then moved to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base "boneyard" near Tucson, Arizona,[24] in 1976 and 1977. With the base open to the public, the D-21 drones were quickly spotted and photographed. The Air Force called them GTD-21Bs with the GT standing for Ground Training.[25]

The fate of the D-21 that had disappeared on the first operational flight was finally revealed in February 1986 when an official from the CIA returned a panel to Ben Rich that he had been given by a Soviet KGB agent. The drone had self-destructed over Siberia and the Soviets had recovered the wreckage.[26] The Tupolev design bureau reverse-engineered the wreck and came up with plans for a Soviet copy, named the Voron (Raven), but it was never built.[27]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21]

I'd hardly call the D-21 much of a success and I doubt the US ever relied on it.

The SR-71 stopped overflying enemy territory in the 1970s because of the fear of SAM interception. Again, hardly something to be relied upon...

 

[sferrin]

B-52 was second choice for the D-21 and IIRC most B-52 flights failed.

How many crews died? Oh right, none.

Following a fatal accident when launched from an M-21, the D-21 was modified to be launched from a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress.

Yes, yes, everybody on this board, with the exception of you, knows the history of the D-21. You seem to have listed only one fatal accident. Where are all the rest you implied?

I'd hardly call the D-21 much of a success and I doubt the US ever relied on it.

I'm guessing reading isn't your strong suit, nor is English your first language. Your inability to follow a simple conversation is almost painful to watch.

The SR-71 stopped overflying enemy territory in the 1970s because of the fear of SAM interception.

And? Is this suppose to be some kind of point?

Again, hardly something to be relied upon...

That would explain why it was retired due to cost, not capability. It also explains why Schwarzkopf asked how difficult it would be to put back into service during Desert Storm, and why it was put back into service in the early 90s. Because it couldn't be relied upon. :

 

[Arjen]

From Yefim Gordon's "Soviet/Russian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" (Midland, 2005):
- 52 aircraft built between 1964 and 1972
- in service with reconnaissance units in Madona (now Latvia) and Khmel'nitskiy (now Ukraine) from 1964 until 1979

The system proved its viability on numerous occasions during practice launches at training grounds.

No operational missions, apparently. Phased out in the early 80s because MiG-25RB and later variants could perform the same mission, 'had the advantage of being reusable' and 'could carry an offensive warload'. The MiG-25RB was produced from 1970 till 1972, so not available as a replacement earlier.

Wiki says the Tu-123 test flights were completed in December 1963, on active duty from May 23, 1964.

Dates from "Lockheed's SR-71 'Blackbird' Family - A-12, F-12, M-21, D-21, SR-71" by James Goodall and Jay Miller, Aerofax (Ian Allan), 2002:
- A-12's first operational mission was on May 31, 1967
- SR-71's first operational mission was on March 3, 1968
- D-21's first launch was from the M-21 on March 6, 1966; first operational mission on November 9, 1969

Blackbird and its kin may have had better specs, but the Tu-123 was there first. An impressive bird.

 

[Pioneer]

HOKUM used to impress me. Something of a menace with a weapons fit and ejector seat to match it's looks. Like several other types the fact thef do little was known about it added to the appeal. Between this and FROGFOOT plus T-80s and Dolly Partons I had the image of an unstoppable wall of steel and bullets rolling mercilessly across the German countryside.

I hear you my friend and thanks for your input!

The 'Hokum' was a radical departure in both design and role (air-to-air combat with NATO gunships)
It would have been interesting to have seen what numbers would have been pressed into operational service had the USSR not collapsed!
I too was and remain impressed by the Su-25 'Frogfoot' - its ruggedness, simplicity and firepower!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

HOKUM used to impress me. Something of a menace with a weapons fit and ejector seat to match it's looks. Like several other types the fact thef do little was known about it added to the appeal. Between this and FROGFOOT plus T-80s and Dolly Partons I had the image of an unstoppable wall of steel and bullets rolling mercilessly across the German countryside.

I hear you my friend and thanks for your input!

The 'Hokum' was a radical departure in both design and role (air-to-air combat with NATO gunships)
Regards
Pioneer

Weird thing is in the US they tested helicopters with AAMs back in the 80s, found out they were very effective, but then didn't really do a whole lot about. The Cobras can carry AIM-9s, and some Apaches Stingers but that's about it. They tested AIM-9s on CH-53s even.

 

[Pioneer]

HOKUM used to impress me. Something of a menace with a weapons fit and ejector seat to match it's looks. Like several other types the fact thef do little was known about it added to the appeal. Between this and FROGFOOT plus T-80s and Dolly Partons I had the image of an unstoppable wall of steel and bullets rolling mercilessly across the German countryside.

I hear you my friend and thanks for your input!

The 'Hokum' was a radical departure in both design and role (air-to-air combat with NATO gunships)
Regards
Pioneer

Weird thing is in the US they tested helicopters with AAMs back in the 80s, found out they were very effective, but then didn't really do a whole lot about. The Cobras can carry AIM-9s, and some Apaches Stingers but that's about it. They tested AIM-9s on CH-53s even.

Yes you are correct sferrin, but in the case of the US Army and USMC, I think the fitting of Sidewinder & Stinger was more to do with self defence, as opposed to the 'Hokum' being used in a more offensive air-to-air combat role.
P.S. very interesting regarding CH-53 being fitted with Sidewinder's! Ill have to see if I can find some pics of that!\
Thanks mate

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rafael]

A brief search only reported this, regarding Sidewinder

 

[sferrin]

P.S. very interesting regarding CH-53 being fitted with Sidewinder's! Ill have to see if I can find some pics of that!\
Thanks mate

Regards
Pioneer

A coworker of mine was friends with the pilot and crew chief of the aircraft that did those tests. As he recalls they launched two missiles.

 

[jsport]

Is this real?

 

[Archibald]

Tsybin RSR
M50 / 52 / 56 series
TKS manned ship
Burya cruise missile
N1F payloads
- L3M / DLB
- 4M / 5M Mars probes - rover and sample return
- MKBS space station

...and the 80's impressive (if not URSS bankrupting) achievements: Energiya, An-124 & 225, MiG-31, Typhoon submarine, Ullyanovsk carrier, Yak-41, Tu-160 Blackjack...

 

[rooster]

The Hind impressed me in Red Dawn when it took a missile hit and survived. I loved the Mig23 because it was so blatantly Russian looking and will probably be the worlds smallest swing fighter in history.

 

[helmutkohl]

speaking of strictly Soviet era and not Russian era..

Mi-24: this was a very unique looking aircraft and it represented how I, and many people viewed Soviet weapons. brutish, ugly, but mean. Also I found its concept to be very useful..a heavily armed assault copter that could protect the troops it carried. I wonder why not more designs keep utilizing this.

MiG-25: another big, brutish, a bit ugly, but powerful aircraft that fit the stereotype of Soviet weapons. it just had so much raw strength that it looked scary. One of the few soviet aircraft that also managed to down a US 4th gen aircraft

ZSU-23: guns, big guns, and a lot of them! they also did very well for its time

Kiev class: again, big, brutish, big missiles up front. too bad about its fixed wing aircraft though.

T-64: unlike the theme of big and brutish. this was a small and sleek tank and really advanced for its time. I was more impressed by it than the T-72 and even T-80

Tu-54: a really common mainstay of Soviet airliners, and I've always been a fan of trijets

Il-62: a boring looking aircraft.. but a very underrated one. for a jet of its time it had a pretty good safety record. but its overshadowed by the safety record issues of other Soviet jets

Typhoon: man this submarine is still pretty impressive today.

Il-76: a big cargo jet with guns in the rear! I also always liked its half glass nose. I liked its look more than the boring Antonov designs

Flanker: the Fulcrum and Flanker were the first two jets that didn't scream 'soviet' to me and looked like a very western designed aircraft, particularly American designs. Back in the old days, everyone was curious about the Fulcrum. I found it a bit boring. but was interested in its bigger twin the Flanker for some reason. I just felt the proportion was right, and it was just a sleek and beautiful aircraft on par with the F-14.

Yak-28: I think this might be the last of the podded engine fighters. it reminded me of a supersonic Me-262. one of my favorite early design jets

 

[Pioneer]

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...

Thank you for your personal experience and reflection gollevainen it's greatly appreciated.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

"Out of the scope" meaning not known to the West. Many Tu-123 flights were wrongly attributed to MiG-25Rs, apparently, leading to false assumptions of the latter's capabilities.

Yes, I've read that - especially in therm of the Middle East...

Regards
Pioneer

 

[stealthflanker]

The SA-6's 3M9 missile.

The first operational solid ducted rocket/ramjet missile in the world. It has so much potentials which remain untapped, mainly because Vympel stop making SAM's while Novator have no interest toward Ramjet despite developed the SA-4's missile. The 3M9 missile doesnt have a real "fuel control" and having almost no moving parts. Making it simple and reliable. The ramjet giving it persistence and maneuverability, AFAIk it is capable of taking down 8G maneuvering target.

The SA-6 itself was at least in my view a groundbreaking as Soviet tried to incorporate many lessons and technologies. Solid propellant, Monopulse semi-active seeker, mobility and jamming resistance.

 

[Bottleship]

I was quite impressed by this Soviet multi-tool axe.

https://imgur.com/a/PFHnR

View: 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.

Hammer, barbed wire scissors, mouthpiece, match-iron, flint-iron, torch and spear. Soviet bayonet knife.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PaRuJu3WdcQ

+ experimental Shilin 1945 knife:

魅夜直播入口,夜魅直播视频,夜魅直播平台官网入口,夜魅直播app官网下载

欢迎访问魅夜直播入口【prospb.com】网站,夜魅直播视频是一款非常适合广大宅男的直播、视频类软件,夜魅直播平台官网入口这款拥有很多全新影视的视频播放软件,在这里观看视频,可以给你带来不少的欢乐。

prospb.com

 

[riggerrob]

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.

I disagree.
Steel rusts while aluminum oxidizes. Either way, the metal slowly crumbles. They both crumble much faster when exposed to salt water. Magnesium might be lighter than either steel or aluminum, but it corrodes even faster when exposed to salt water.

Master Corporal (retired) R. Warner, CD, BA, etc. former Sea King helicopter wrench-bender

 

[KimIrSen]

I would say the P-700 granit and the platforms that deployed it like the Kirov and the 949A were very much ahead of their times. The P-700 was a supersonic sea skimming missile that was to be launched in a swarm with one missile to take a lead role and use its radar to home on its target and guide the other missiles. These things could also be guided by satellite and had absolutely massive warheads (they were armed with 500kt thermonuclear warheads during the cold war iirc) . Can't believe they were conceived back in the 70s! Seems like the soviets invented drone swarms before everyone else.

 

[sferrin]

I would say the P-700 granit and the platforms that deployed it like the Kirov and the 949A were very much ahead of their times. The P-700 was a supersonic sea skimming missile that was to be launched in a swarm with one missile to take a lead role and use its radar to home on its target and guide the other missiles. These things could also be guided by satellite and had absolutely massive warheads (they were armed with 500kt thermonuclear warheads during the cold war iirc) . Can't believe they were conceived back in the 70s! Seems like the soviets invented drone swarms before everyone else.

That's why I roll my eyes at the "carrier killer" hysteria around antiship ballistic missiles. I'd rather face a few of those than an Oscar II with 24 Shipwrecks or a regiment of Backfire-Cs loaded with Kh-32s.

 

[Pioneer]

"It was designed to give the weapon easy training of 360 degrees."
- Abraham Gubler

"My own guess is that the only usefull use of the tri-leg/360 train is in direct fire mode or anti-tank role."
- gollevainen

"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."
- Firefly 2

Gent's I think you are all correct in your analogy regarding direct-fire & anti-tank when it comes to the D30.
I've read that while indirect fire was the primary role, all Soviet artillery must be capable of direct fire anti-tank, just as all Soviet artillery is designed and deployed with HEAT rounds, as a consequence of WWII combat experience (as Firefly 2 alludes).

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

The Soviets surely build impressive antiship missiles: massive and ultra-fast. Kormoran, Penguin, Exocet, Sea Eagle ? meh. Subsonic firecrackers, in comparison.

And the Kirovs were impressive ships. I also like the Yak-41 (despite its utterly silly NATO codename: FREESTYLE, WTH ?)

 

[Stovepipe]

The PK feeds from right to left because the design was a straight out copy of the AK-47 scaled up to 7.62x54 and turned upside down. The action needed to be flipped so as to fit in a belt feed system and since the AK-47 extractor was on the right hand side it ended up on the left for the PK.

Yeah that makes complete sense now that you mention it :-X

The West had a similar plan just that the USA had a 30 year run of program failures (Vigilante to ADATS) and the British ran out of money. The Germans managed to introduce an arguably more capable system only a few years behind the Soviets: Stinger/Redeye, Gepard, Roland, HAWK, Patriot/Nike. Of course not to the same lavish scale as the Soviets.

Yeah I get what you are saying.........but at the end of the day the West failed and the Soviet's succeeded! What's more, while the West still flogs a dead horse with life extensions of the likes of HAWK and Nike, the Soviets moved well on and beyond in its SAM development in both terms of operational performance, mobility and numbers.

Thanks heaps Abraham Gubler for your time and input!!

Regards
Pioneer

the 7.62 x 54R round is rimmed so it has to be pulled out of the belt, not pushed. It's more akin to a Maxim function than an AK function.

 

[Stovepipe]

I think it's the designs basic simplicity - in terms of its basic radar system, its four 23mm cannons, and yet its combat proven effectiveness that the West (especially the U.S. Army) has completely and utterly failed to understand.

I'd just love to see you justify that statement, because the fact that the US Army published whole manuals on the systems effectiveness and possible countemeasures says you are dead wrong. Also the M163 is even simpler, much cheaper and still pretty effective anyway, also combat proven. In fact the effectiveness of the ZSU-23 was even used to justify spending money on new air defense guns in the 1980s, even though none of these systems can actually match the range of a helicopter armed with TOW, let alone Hellfire, which is a more then slight liability. In any even the simplicity of the ZSU-23 also meant it came with a radar that was pretty easy to jam. Both issues are why you see the Tunguska appearing with far superior radar, missiles, and a 10 million dollar pricetag.

Most Shilkas ended up being used as ground weapons, something done by the Germans in WW 2.

 

[Stovepipe]

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.

the tri-leg was copied directly from a Skoda design, that was planned by the Wehrmacht for a 1945 build.

 

[Stovepipe]

re the Mig 21? In many ways, very good, but it couldnt turn to save itself and when the Russians were given an F5, they tested it and found that it outflew the Mig 21 in every way. It's radar was better, the cockpit was much easier than the Migs to operate in and especially to see out of and it was easily as capable of rough field operation as the -21. Some of the Russian pilots even dared to say that they liked it very much and wanted the factories to copy it's best features.

 

[Archibald]

Their 1980's appetite for "the largest..." (or close)
- Mi-26
- Energiya
- Buran
- An-124 / 225
- Tu-160
- Polyus / Skif
- Typhoon
- Alfa
- Ullyanovsk
- Kirov
No surprise they went bankrupt by 1991 !
Earlier
- M50 / M52
- Tsybin
- Raketoplan
- Sukhoi T-4
- N1-L3M / DLB lunar base
- Mars 5M sample return
- MKBS space base

 

[perttime]

... ...
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...

Thank you for your personal experience and reflection gollevainen it's greatly appreciated.
...

The AK in general is certainly a robust and reliable small arm. In General....
Some time ago, the Finnish National Defence Training Association, purchased South Korean AK derivatives for voluntary reservist training. Now they have been taken out of use. There was a number of failures. Sounds like weak metals to me. Nobody was hurt, fortunately.

The Finnish RK 62 and RK 95 AK-derivatives are also pretty accurate, in addition to being robust and reliable. I suppose the Israeli Galil is pretty good too.

 

[Stovepipe]

G'day gents

Just for something a little different (and out of interest)

As a young 'Westerner' during the Cold War, I for a long time was mesmerised by the West's technological advancement over that of the Soviet's military equipment. As a young and somewhat gullible kid, I was taken by the perceived argument that quality over quantity argument!. But it would only be when I was older, read some more literature, with the demise of the Soviet Union - and hence the Warsaw Pact, that I come to appreciate, that the Soviet Military (in my opinion!), probably got a lot of things right in some of its weapons platforms design principles and philosophy.
One of the biggest turn a round's was the reading of the book The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet, by James P. Stevenson. Where he depicted that 'if quality over quantity argument was true, then why was it that the German's with the likes of there technically more advanced and higher performance Messerschmitt Me 262 was unable to prevail and regain air superiority over the numerically superior number of allied fighters like the P-51 Mustang's, P-47 Thunderbolt's, Spitfire's and Tempest's!
Eventually it would be numbers that would grind-down the Luftwaffe', and hence the German war effort.

So it is that I ask my fellow enthusiasts of everything military to highlight the military platforms of the former Soviet war machine, which impresses you; has no equivalent in the West; and why you like this weapon/weapons platform!

For me I have always been impressed by the following:

• The BMD Airborne Infantry Fighting Vehicle - This is due to the Soviet's ability to recognise and fully appreciate the vital importance of an airborne forces vulnerability, due to history's combat proven fact that due to lack of mobility and firepower, an airborne assault force is very vulnerable to counter-attack by heavier conventional forces! The fact that this small, compact and light armoured vehicle, with its performance and mobility (including full amphibious capability), along with its fire support (73mm Grom cannon - although sadly low-velocity), anti-armour (with Malyutka or latter Konkurs ATGM) and can be literally can be parachuted into combat and fighting minutes after hitting the ground. Sadly there is no Western equivalent (or want) for such a light and practical combat vehicle.
  
• The Soviet's ability to adapt and utilise a basic design/chassis as the basis of a vast variety of other weapons platform has never ceased to amaze me! With the only Western equivalent having to be that of the U.S's FMC's M113 chassis! Some of the best examples of this fortitude being that of the PT-76 light tank, which had its basic chassis utilised for the following armoured vehicles - ASU-85 airborne assault gun, 2K12 Kub mobile SAM system, BTR-5O APC, FROG SSM series TEL's, ZSU-24-4 SPAAG, Ob'yekt 914 experimental IFV (lost to Ob'yekt 765 aka BMP-1 IFV design), GPS-55 Amphibious Ferry, PMP Pontoon Bridge system, MT-LB APC/Artillery tractor, 2S1 Gvozdika 122mm SPH. Then there is the likes of the ZIL-135 8x8 and MAZ-543 8x8 heavy high mobility truck series, which has given the Soviet military such outstanding transport capability (weight and size wise), with so much cross-country mobility. The fact that these chassis have been utilised in so many applications and role is staggering in my opinion.

ZIL-135 applications - BM-27 Uragan 220mm MLRS,

• MAZ-543 application - A-222 Bereg 152mm Coastal Artillery system, MAZ-543P/ SS-12 'Scaleboard' MRBM TEL, BM-30 9K50 Smerch 300mm MLRS, S-300 SAM TEL, Mobile Command Post, etc.........
  
• 2S1 Gvozdika 122mm SPH I'm impressed by this simple, but effective SPH system - not just because it was one of the worlds first auto-loaded SPH, but also for its amazing amphibious capability - which once again is unmatched in the West!!
  
• MAZ-543 8x8 Transport Erector Launcher (TEL) vehicle design It has always fascinated me, with all the West's automotive, design and building know-how, that the Soviet's were and have been able to develop such a powerful and effective truck system since the mid 1960's. A capability and performance, which has only really been matched since the 1980's by the West. Let alone the Soviet's ability to make their surface-to-surface missiles so mobile!
  
• M-240 240mm mortar system - serving for some years as a mortarman, I can not but help imagine the power of this weapon in an offensive action (good bye command post and fortifications!). The only better thing than the M-240, would be the 2S4 Tyulpan SP 240mm mortar system!!
  
• The 9K31 Strela-1 (SA-9 Gaskin) /BRDM-2 short-range, low-altitude self-propelled SAM system, which was cheap, simple and effective. Being deployed around 1968, it is ironic it would take until around the late 1990's-2000, before the United States would field such a simple and effective equivalent - the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger SAM system.

More to follow!!!


Regards
Pioneer

the western equivalent is or was the German Weasel but their crews acknowledged that the armour is minimal and that shoot and scoot is the only possible way to fight the vehicle. The BMD has proved to be very flawed in combat in Ukraine.

 

[Pioneer]

G'day gents

Just for something a little different (and out of interest)

As a young 'Westerner' during the Cold War, I for a long time was mesmerised by the West's technological advancement over that of the Soviet's military equipment. As a young and somewhat gullible kid, I was taken by the perceived argument that quality over quantity argument!. But it would only be when I was older, read some more literature, with the demise of the Soviet Union - and hence the Warsaw Pact, that I come to appreciate, that the Soviet Military (in my opinion!), probably got a lot of things right in some of its weapons platforms design principles and philosophy.
One of the biggest turn a round's was the reading of the book The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet, by James P. Stevenson. Where he depicted that 'if quality over quantity argument was true, then why was it that the German's with the likes of there technically more advanced and higher performance Messerschmitt Me 262 was unable to prevail and regain air superiority over the numerically superior number of allied fighters like the P-51 Mustang's, P-47 Thunderbolt's, Spitfire's and Tempest's!
Eventually it would be numbers that would grind-down the Luftwaffe', and hence the German war effort.

So it is that I ask my fellow enthusiasts of everything military to highlight the military platforms of the former Soviet war machine, which impresses you; has no equivalent in the West; and why you like this weapon/weapons platform!

For me I have always been impressed by the following:

• The BMD Airborne Infantry Fighting Vehicle - This is due to the Soviet's ability to recognise and fully appreciate the vital importance of an airborne forces vulnerability, due to history's combat proven fact that due to lack of mobility and firepower, an airborne assault force is very vulnerable to counter-attack by heavier conventional forces! The fact that this small, compact and light armoured vehicle, with its performance and mobility (including full amphibious capability), along with its fire support (73mm Grom cannon - although sadly low-velocity), anti-armour (with Malyutka or latter Konkurs ATGM) and can be literally can be parachuted into combat and fighting minutes after hitting the ground. Sadly there is no Western equivalent (or want) for such a light and practical combat vehicle.
• The Soviet's ability to adapt and utilise a basic design/chassis as the basis of a vast variety of other weapons platform has never ceased to amaze me! With the only Western equivalent having to be that of the U.S's FMC's M113 chassis! Some of the best examples of this fortitude being that of the PT-76 light tank, which had its basic chassis utilised for the following armoured vehicles - ASU-85 airborne assault gun, 2K12 Kub mobile SAM system, BTR-5O APC, FROG SSM series TEL's, ZSU-24-4 SPAAG, Ob'yekt 914 experimental IFV (lost to Ob'yekt 765 aka BMP-1 IFV design), GPS-55 Amphibious Ferry, PMP Pontoon Bridge system, MT-LB APC/Artillery tractor, 2S1 Gvozdika 122mm SPH. Then there is the likes of the ZIL-135 8x8 and MAZ-543 8x8 heavy high mobility truck series, which has given the Soviet military such outstanding transport capability (weight and size wise), with so much cross-country mobility. The fact that these chassis have been utilised in so many applications and role is staggering in my opinion.

ZIL-135 applications - BM-27 Uragan 220mm MLRS,

• MAZ-543 application - A-222 Bereg 152mm Coastal Artillery system, MAZ-543P/ SS-12 'Scaleboard' MRBM TEL, BM-30 9K50 Smerch 300mm MLRS, S-300 SAM TEL, Mobile Command Post, etc.........
• 2S1 Gvozdika 122mm SPH I'm impressed by this simple, but effective SPH system - not just because it was one of the worlds first auto-loaded SPH, but also for its amazing amphibious capability - which once again is unmatched in the West!!
• MAZ-543 8x8 Transport Erector Launcher (TEL) vehicle design It has always fascinated me, with all the West's automotive, design and building know-how, that the Soviet's were and have been able to develop such a powerful and effective truck system since the mid 1960's. A capability and performance, which has only really been matched since the 1980's by the West. Let alone the Soviet's ability to make their surface-to-surface missiles so mobile!
• M-240 240mm mortar system - serving for some years as a mortarman, I can not but help imagine the power of this weapon in an offensive action (good bye command post and fortifications!). The only better thing than the M-240, would be the 2S4 Tyulpan SP 240mm mortar system!!
• The 9K31 Strela-1 (SA-9 Gaskin) /BRDM-2 short-range, low-altitude self-propelled SAM system, which was cheap, simple and effective. Being deployed around 1968, it is ironic it would take until around the late 1990's-2000, before the United States would field such a simple and effective equivalent - the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger SAM system.

More to follow!!!


Regards
Pioneer

the western equivalent is or was the German Weasel but their crews acknowledged that the armour is minimal and that shoot and scoot is the only possible way to fight the vehicle. The BMD has proved to be very flawed in combat in Ukraine.

Is it the case that it be flawed or is it more as to how they've been employed?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Stovepipe]

It's a very odd design; the infantry have to exit by climbing out over the engine and the interior is sized for no one taller than 5 foot, 6 inches. The only saving grace is a good gun and a decent engine. The diesel unit is very well thought out.

 

[Pioneer]

It's a very odd design; the infantry have to exit by climbing out over the engine and the interior is sized for no one taller than 5 foot, 6 inches. The only saving grace is a good gun and a decent engine. The diesel unit is very well thought out.

Agree on the perception of it being odd my friend, but one probably needs to appreciate it's unique purpose of delivering direct fire support fire and mobility to airborne units, rather than the conventional APC/IFV, all within as compact and as light as possible.
As I insinuated in my previous reply (Post#116), I find it odd that the Soviets/Russians have shown a tendency to use the BMD in a more conventional IFV manner rather than the shock-role it was design and fielded for. I understand the tendency of using such highly competent forces like airborne units (the British and US have done so also), with creat risk, like conventional forces, but by doing so, their military/political master do it with great risk.
I mean airborne/para units are supposed to seize ground with the element of suprise, but are intended to marry up or be relieved by heavier units, if you know where Im coming from...



Regards
 Pioneer

 

[yasotay]

I am shocked to find that no one on this venerable thread has added accolades for the tried and true Mil-8/17/171. It isn't sexy, it can be cantankerous (it is a helicopter after all), but it works. It has been, and remains, a mainstay of many countries air mobility. Like many workhorse aircraft, they will likely still be flying when all the glitter festone planes are in the boneyard.

 

[GTX]

I am shocked to find that no one on this venerable thread has added accolades for the tried and true Mil-8/17/171. It isn't sexy, it can be cantankerous (it is a helicopter after all), but it works. It has been, and remains, a mainstay of many countries air mobility. Like many workhorse aircraft, they will likely still be flying when all the glitter festone planes are in the boneyard.

Flying truck.