162 replies to this topic

[Alias]

And US stuff isn't?
Look at the M16.

Russian weaponry is built on the concept of reliability.

Edited by Memento Mori, 26 July 2008 - 04:19.

[chmsc girl maldita]

I hope comrade gives 1 Russian general a cleaner-looking and more powerful grad MRLS in its armament. than the GLA warlord general here are some Russian MRLS.. :chillpill2:



I hope the grad for 1 Russian general,



A BM-27 Uragan


Smerch

[CommanderJB]

 TheGrimKnight, on 26 Jul 2008, 14:00, said:

Russia makes me laugh... some of there stuff is like lawl budget cuts or can we get that done cheaper somewhere else???
These are models mostly concepts that the Ussr never built but there still cool
I like air power soo check out USSR Planes
*Images*

To be entirely honest it really ticks me off when people downplay Russian engineering as 'just playing catch-up to the U.S.' or 'just copies of American technology' or 'they're nowhere near as good, never were and never will be'. It's wrong. Blatantly, plainly and simply wrong. In fact, at least half the time it was the Russians who made the biggest advances in the Cold War and it was NATO who was scrambling to catch up. If the Cold War had gone hot in 1985 then the Americans had virtually nothing which could pierce the Kontakt-5 ERA deployed on Russian armour at the time, which was more numerous if not superior one-on-one (though it was close - Russian tank designs tend to be faster, longer ranged and more economical than Western ones but with thinner armour and often slightly worse fire control) and they seriously underestimated the R-27 Vympel which was about twice as capable as the equivalent AIM-9 Sidewinder, combined with the Su-27 and MiG-29 virtually ensuring USSR air superiority in dogfight scenarios, never mind the air defence side of the coin. NATO has nothing (and never has) to match Russia's expertise in air defence; there is simply no equivalent to the SA-10/12 Grumble/Gladiator, and these and the sheer number of SA-6, SA-11, SA-13, ZSU-23-4 (which was first built in the '60s and is still considered a serious threat to helicopters and low-flying jets even today) and the dozens of other systems they fielded would have made NATO CAS missions virtually suicide. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, obviously R&D and production efforts slowed to a craw, but then so would any nations' when unemployment gets to 40% as it was in 1998. But then by 2003 it was at 12%, and these days the Russian economy, particularly the domestic sector, is booming, and so they're back in the technology game, as their recent ballooning spending and array of new projects have highlighted.

Russian tech isn't worse. But it's not necessarily better, either. It's simply different. Instead of pouring all their resources into a brand-new, absolutely top-of-the line design, they tend to spread out their advantages; they can for example produce 10 Su-35BMs, a 4++ generation fighter outranking everything else in the sky, for every one F-22A Raptor America builds. Same with their tanks - they didn't actually replace their entire armoured division with a new T-95 a la Abrams, they do evolutionary updates to the whole fleet, ensuring that the older designs often get the better upgrades in order to ensure they can operate everything on a level, while fielding enough new models (T-90) to bridge any foreseeable gap. It's not revolutionary thinking, like America approaches a new tank/plane/helicopter/ship/whatever, where they go to the drawing board and start from scratch, Russian design philosophy is strongly evolutionary, developing designs constantly and only rarely starting afresh.

My apologies for the spiel, but you have to understand that different nations and different ways of thinking approach the same problem or requirement in vastly different ways, and come up with end results that you can't really always directly compare, because the thinking on how to use them varies just as much as the thinking on how to build them.

[D.K.]

Exactly what you said, JB.

One thing that people should know about difference between Russia and USA, is that Russians will send hordes of iron and steel towards opponents, and USA will sit back on their carriers and launch B-52 with cruise missiles and TLAMs... So if it's easier, let's define Russians as "steamrollers" and USA as turtles (as they will alert half of the world to protect one carrier - gigaturtles.)

Russians like to keep it simple and sturdy - I remember when my dad was in war 15 years ago, they got some artillery from british and some from russians. Since the situation was delicate, they had to move the arty around - british one couldn't stand such "treatment" and was going apart, but russian one was acting like it just came out of the factory. Hell, whatever is made either by Germans or Russians is top of the class...

Just a word from me...

Edited by DrugKoala, 27 July 2008 - 08:31.

[CommanderJB]

Now, back on topic, how about these?



This is a TEL vehicle for the 2K12 Klub anti-ship/anti-surface cruise missile. It's a bit like the Iskander, but obviously the weapon it carries is very different. Obviously not a lot of use in RotR, but the concept of a multi-VLS cruise missile TEL vehicle is interesting nonetheless.



Here's an SSC-3 (4K51 Rubezh) anti-ship cruise missile launcher, again a coastal defence TELAR vehicle. This is much older and carries the venerable old SS-N-2 Styx AShM, but I have to say it looks pretty darn cool.



This is the PLA version of the above.



This is the Pantsyr-S1 point-defence SPAAG/SAM system (without the SAMs loaded). This is actually replacing the Tunguska-M1s in service beginning this year.



Here's an 8x8 truck version of the same system (missiles loaded this time).

[DerKrieger]

 Memento Mori, on 26 Jul 2008, 4:18, said:

And US stuff isn't?
Look at the M16.

Russian weaponry is built on the concept of reliability.

I'm calling bullcrap on the M-16 being unreliable. The early Vietnam era M-16s had reliability problems because the Army cut corners and got crappy ammo that left heavy residue in the fire chamber. The Army also didn't follow Eugene Stoner's specifications and cut costs by not chrome plating the rifles chamber, thus making the gun even more vulnerable to fouling. Furthermore, soldiers were informed that the M-16 "cleaned itself" which was clearly false. Newer models of the M-16 are much more reliable.

 CommanderJB, on 26 Jul 2008, 12:41, said:

It really ticks me off when people downplay Russian engineering as 'just playing catch-up to the U.S.' or 'just copies of American technology' or 'they're nowhere near as good, never were and never will be'. It's wrong. Blatantly, plainly and simply wrong. In fact, at least half the time it was the Russians who made the biggest advances in the Cold War and it was NATO who was scrambling to catch up. If the Cold War had gone hot in 1985 then the Americans had virtually nothing which could pierce the Kontakt-5 ERA deployed on Russian armour at the time, which was more numerous if not superior one-on-one (though it was close - Russian tank designs tend to be faster, longer ranged and more economical than Western ones but with thinner armour and often slightly worse fire control) and they seriously underestimated the R-27 Vympel which was about twice as capable as the equivalent AIM-9 Sidewinder, combined with the Su-27 and MiG-29 virtually ensuring USSR air superiority in dogfight scenarios, never mind the air defence side of the coin. NATO has nothing (and never has) to match Russia's expertise in air defence; there is simply no equivalent to the SA-10/12 Grumble/Gladiator, and these and the sheer number of SA-6, SA-11, SA-13, ZSU-23-4 (which was first built in the '60s and is still considered a serious threat to helicopters and low-flying jets even today) and the dozens of other systems they fielded would have made NATO CAS missions virtually suicide. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, obviously R&D and production efforts slowed to a craw, but then so would any nations' when unemployment gets to 40% as it was in 1998. But then by 2003 it was at 12%, and these days the Russian economy, particularly the domestic sector, is booming, and so they're back in the technology game, as their recent ballooning spending and array of new projects have highlighted.

Russian tech isn't worse. But it's not necessarily better, either. It's simply different. Instead of pouring all their resources into a brand-new, absolutely top-of-the line design, they tend to spread out their advantages; they can for example produce 10 Su-35BMs, a 4++ generation fighter outranking everything else in the sky, for every one F-22A Raptor America builds. Same with their tanks - they didn't actually replace their entire armoured division with a new T-95 a la Abrams, they do evolutionary updates to the whole fleet, ensuring that the older designs often get the better upgrades in order to ensure they can operate everything on a level, while fielding enough new models (T-90) to bridge any foreseeable gap. It's not revolutionary thinking, like America approaches a new tank/plane/helicopter/ship/whatever, where they go to the drawing board and start from scratch, Russian design philosophy is strongly evolutionary, developing designs constantly and only rarely starting afresh.

My apologies for the spiel, but you have to understand that different nations and different ways of thinking approach the same problem or requirement in vastly different ways, and come up with end results that you can't really always directly compare, because the thinking on how to use them varies just as much as the thinking on how to build them.

Not so fast on the cold war analysis. The Kontakt ERA was only equipped on the new T-80U tanks (and possibly several T-72s) at the time-most Soviet tanks were T-72s or T-62s. The Su-27 and MiG-29 are comparable to the F-16 and F-15; I wouldn't say better. Furthermore, the biggest aspect of all this is training-US and European troops were far more competent than their Soviet counterparts. For example, Soviet officers were the only ones who knew how to read a map! The US was also able to outspend the USSR, that's why it fell. The USSR didn't have the technological advantage that you claim- Western researchers were astonished in the 1970's to discover that the MiG-25 used vacuum tubes.

[CommanderJB]

Do you know why the MiG-25 used vacuum tubes, though? It wasn't because they couldn't pay for the normal solid-state electronics and obviously not because they didn't have the technology; it's actually because the vacuum tubes were found to be more reliable in the temperature environment that the fighter entered at the extreme altitudes it was designed to operate in; they were also easier to replace in remote airfields and were even more resistant to EMPs, and also allowed the fighter's radar to have extraordinary power. NATO had absolutely nothing which could catch it, and the missiles were considerably more capable than almost any American model save the AIM-154 Phoenix, the infamous 'million-dollar missile', that could only be deployed on F-14s. Only upon the introduction of the undeniably excellent F-15 did the MiG-25 have a serious threat, but even then it remains I believe the fastest combat aircraft in regular service today.
And about the Kontakt-5, it wasn't deployed on all Soviet armour, true; but it was certainly capable of being so, and paired with the T-80U/UK and their extreme speed and unique missile capabilities would have made an extremely dangerous combination.
And regarding the MiG-29 and Su-27, given that they were developed specifically to counter the 'teen-series' fighters, I'd be surprised if they didn't have a noticeable advantage in at least some areas, and probably most.

Basically, the Soviets would probably have lost a Cold War in 1985. I don't disagree here. Training is a large part of this, though I think you'll find that they still won in World War II even though their forces were far more poorly trained than the German military. All I'm disagreeing with is the seemingly common supposition that every element of their forces would have got instantly owned by the kick-ass NATO/U.S. forces with their superior technology they would have opposed; instead, as you say, they would have found out the hard way the same lesson that Japan learned in the years following 1941; that you simply can't out-build the U.S. of A.
I didn't claim that Russia had an overall technological advantage; just that NATO didn't, either.

[The Wandering Jew]

As an additional to what CommJB said, almost all citizens of the "civilized" world has been infected with the "Western propaganda and false media", one way or another. Why is it the Russians the Bad Guys and the Americans the Good Guys? It does not make sense. (Well, if your a movie maker and you want to produce a movie in Western shores, would you create a movie that presented the Westerners as losers? Certainly not. Not unless if you're brave enough like Oliver Stone of Platoon. Or present it the way like in Thin Red Line.)

As for technological superiority, yes, the West may have an ace there. But take a look what happened in Vietnam. And what happened in the Falklands Island War between Argentina and UK. Both the US and UK have technological advancements, but the outcome of the war immediately put some doubts (Needless to say what happened to the US after Vietnam War. The UK encountered serious headaches in their logistics after winning above Argentina.)

Technology does not make up for military tactics and strategy. Military genius is doing more with less.


And by the way:
I'm also trying to point out here that we are in the MILITARY EQUIPMENT thread. I repeat: EQUIPMENT MILITARY THREAD.

So, back at topic (to avoid any misnomers here):

The Tunguska is to be replaced by Pantsyr S1 (the tracked version). However, Russian military doctrine may not entirely decommission Tunguskas in their arsenal (I have to verify this.)

As for the TEl vehicle, I thought a treaty between the US and Russia limited their Anti-ballistic missiles. Based from the images, it suggests that TEL is ABM in nature.

[chmsc girl suplada]

Quote

russian tanks

well here are some white russian models uhh ukrainian :wahhhhhaa:


The T-72AG



T-84 oplot

[Russianroots]

This site has some awesome Russian war songs. Listen to the song The Sacred war. It's powerful!


http://www.marxists....ry/ussr/sounds/

Edited by Russianroots, 29 July 2008 - 19:35.

[partyzanpaulzy]

To T-72: it's interesting how old tank with range 2 kms (around 1.3 miles) which can't resist shot from modern Abrams MBT can be upgraded to MBT with range 5 kms, larger speed and only dangerous tank shell against it is SABOT (but not necessary deadly). I heard czech version T-72 M4 CZ (posted before in this topic) has original just steel (everything else has been changed). Wikipedia has nice article about this tank:here read how many modifications has it (that Zuzana howitzer don't have T-72 chassis, but Tatra truck chassis)
BTW, T-55 The Hammer was modernized in Czechoslovakia in 1980's and it's still training tank (like many good old tanks around the world)...

These the best looking I found on web:
Belarussian m. (now outdated probably)

Czech m.

Indian modernization

Georgian m.

Polish m.

Serbian m.

Ukranian m. (see 2nd post before this my post)

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 29 July 2008 - 20:07.

[DerKrieger]

 The Wandering Jew, on 28 Jul 2008, 11:58, said:

The Tunguska is to be replaced by Pantsyr S1 (the tracked version). However, Russian military doctrine may not entirely decommission Tunguskas in their arsenal (I have to verify this.)

Was there some sort of design flaw with the Tunguska? It entered service barely 20 years ago and they just upgraded the Tunguska to the M1 variant according to Wikipedia.

(PS. The US never lost a battle in Vietnam, and the Brits handily crushed Argentina in the Falklands conflict).

[BeefJeRKy]

Technically, the US did have a long dragged out war in Vietnam even though they constantly had an edge kind of like how it is in Iraq now. I also believe the Brits easily crushed the Argentinian air force with their harriers.

One of Hezbollah's abandoned T-55s.

[Dauth]

This is not really any longer about ROTR so I'm moving it to the Warfare forum, feel free to continue there.

[CommanderJB]

I thought the general idea was that it was left in the RotR forum in order to provide a background resource for the team? I know they have unit lists and all, but the topic of the thread has stayed the same throughout (my apologies for the little rant and accompanying discussion if that's what prompted the move, but it's still serving its original purpose as I see it), and it was left here for some considerable time previously for interest value if nothing else.
(At least it gets more views in the RotR forum anyway!)

[Dauth]

There's an awful lot of repeats in here now, there has been a large discussion, the newest ones are no longer Russian, this thread is so far away from it's original intent that moving it was the most sensible action to take. If the ROTR team want it back they can move it.

[chmsc girl komunista]

ok then I hope we can post another topic such for only users can post ideas on russian-made weapons that are used by other countries


well back to the topic; i hope, russian cargo vehicles the biggest in the world..


the antonov cossack said to be the biggest plane



Mi-26 the largest helicopter

Edited by chmsc girl komunista, 31 July 2008 - 00:15.

[edsato82]

very nice

Edited by edsato82, 31 July 2008 - 01:02.

[CommanderJB]

 chmsc girl komunista, on 31 Jul 2008, 9:59, said:

the antonov cossack said to be the biggest plane

Ah, the An-225 Mriya. I've never seen anything else with six jet engines in separate pods. Only one operational, and they were built to carry the Buran space shuttle, and almost scrapped with the collapse of the program, but it's still going and definitely holds the record for largest operational aircraft and the largest ever when measured by gross takeoff weight (the failed Hughes H-4 'Spruce Goose' is biggest dimensions-wise overall). They're reconditioning another one, too, so they're certainly going to be around for a while yet.

Edited by CommanderJB, 31 July 2008 - 03:28.

[Pav:3d]

gsus that thing is a flying monster 0o

[chmsc girl suplada]

For another buzzer beater; I have another russian tidbit ive found :stickattack3:





The Lun Class Eraknoplan

Wing-In-Ground (WIG) effect craft take advantage the fact that the aerodynamic efficiency of a wing, and particularly its lifting capacity, improves dramatically when is operated within approximately one-half of its span above ground or water, in what is termed ground effect. If the wing’s natural accelerated flow passing over it is further accelerated by the high-velocity exhaust of a turbojet engine, the lifting capacity of the wing is even more greatly enhanced. In 1966 the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau under Rostislav Alekseev produced a gargantuan "ekranoplan" ("surface plane") combining the smooth hull form of a ship with stub wings, a large vertical fin and horizontal tail. The craft featured ten engines: eight mounted in two clusters of four directly behind the cockpit to provide augmented lift, and two on the vertical fin to provide cruise power. This machine, which American intelligence organizations dubbed the Caspian Sea Monster, could lift 540 tons and cruise at over 300 mph at an altitude of over 10 feet.

[Sicarius]

Ah yes, the Ekranoplan is one of my favourite soviet planes ever.
Here's some pictures of the real thing:

[CommanderJB]

I have to agree, the Ekranoplan design is simply amazing. The trouble of course comes when you encounter rough water, but even that doesn't seem to have deterred Beriev and their seaplane specialisation:

They've taken the concept to extremes with their Be-2500 heavy cargo transporter; it's supposed to be able to lift two and a half thousand tons at liftoff, though I doubt whether it will ever be built. They also do a line of much more traditional amphibious aircraft, such as the A-40:

This is an amphibious patrol bomber used by the Soviet air force for ASW work, though I don't believe it's in service these days. It's also the largest multipurpose amphibian plane in the world.

Edit: Oi! Where'd my images go?

Edited by CommanderJB, 14 August 2008 - 08:06.

[chmsc girl komunista]

a reply to my ate's ("big sister's")-an acronym for older girls, and seniors in the same school) post;

the last lun class was improved actually that it can travel in rough waters, an grade 7 storms (I forgot the website I visited affirming this.)


Lun class fitted with powerful anti-ship missiles



Lun class firing its asw weapons



A squad of Lun-Class unloading its deadly cargoes...

[CommanderJB]

That last image is actually from the World in Conflict: Soviet Assault trailer, you know... but yes, the Lun cass is an extremely capable vehicle.