/hobby/ - Hobbies

Entertainment, Education, Games, etc.

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(129.36 KB 1024x629 fzwq934d9maz.jpg)
MilTech: Soviet Military Technology Anonymous Comrade 01/04/2020 (Sat) 04:07:11 No. 4949
Haven't seen this thread revived anywhere so I thought I'd bring it back myself ITT: Discussions about stats of Soviet military hardware, tactics etc. Not strictly limited to Soviet stuff despite name.
>>4949 Let’s talk about the scud missile systems and how despite being an old weapon from the 70s still managed to shot down imperialist over-designed garbage which would really affect how the US go around with the recent assassination of the Quds general. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Iranian_shoot-down_of_American_drone When did the Soviet extensive air defense system come about? How is it still so reliable that most of the world’s ballistic missile systems, vehicle and personnel AA is still based on it?
>>4951 >scud missile systems >Used as SAMs Fucking what? Scud missiles are short range ballistic missiles, they can't feasibly be used for SAM use unless you reconstruct the entirety of its internal structure and add a shit-ton of rudders on it. Regardless the article you posted was a Global Hawk shot down by either an S-125 or Raad/Buk missile. As for how the Scud so reliable? Lots of study of rockets and the prior combat experience of using MRLS' prompting short-range tactical ballistic strikes to deliver heavy strikes. Frankly its less a case of the Scud being that good - (it's an adequate missile for today) - and more a case that US air defense has been weak ever since the weapon's race moved on from AAA to missiles. More modern soviet short/medium-range BMs like the Oka or Iskander are much better. TL;DR: The missiles were built to be functional and simple, without fancy bullshit.
i wish i had saved the old thread :(
I heard Soviet technology is so good, some of it still gets used. Is that true?
(24.23 KB 330x497 Soyuz_TMA-9_launch.jpg)
(9.65 MB BasedOldPoland.mp4)
>>5142 Search about the Soyuz program dude. It's still the most widely used rocket out there while most US programs are trashed and put in storage in only a decade. Not to mention their pioneering unmanned probes, space stations, air defense, computer network, smart homes, and even mobile phones. On tank technology and anti-air, the red army dotrine is designed so that any division can take down western air forrce which weapons being the basis of most non imperialist air defense. >>5128 At least we still have the wayback machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20190630215144/https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/2774743.html
>>5142 BTR-60s, t-55s, t-72s, SA-3 and a the every famous AK-47 are just a few systems of the USSR used today regularly.
*opens Jane's warships 1908* Lemme tell you about how the french built French pre-dreadnoughts after the HMS Dreadnought had already outmoded them 2 years earlier
(293.17 KB 1200x900 frogs.jpg)
>>5378 The French are notorious for spending shit tons of money on useless outdated garbage. Most notable is their tank force. During the period from 1933-1939 France was renowned for having the "best" armoured force in the world, its tanks were on paper simply the best, the Infantry tank Char B1 was the best and most numerous heavy tank in Europe, its size also meant that it carried a two-way radio. Supplementing this was the Sa35, regarded as the best tank in the entire world, mostly due to its very good 47mm gun combined with its good armour and mobility, it was the best all-around tank, and the pinnacle of pre-war medium tank design that mid-war medium tanks would try and embody and would be furthered by MBTs. The problem with the French tanks is that although they were the best on paper, the French lacked any real practical experience in designing them. As a result French tanks were complete rubbish in an actual battle. Their guns, although very good, were slow to reload due to ALL french tanks having one man turrets, this meant that the commander was also the radio operator, the loader, and the gunner and could do none of those very well. As well French tanks had terrible off-road suspension, small ground clearance, and awkward hull shapes that tended to get them stuck in ditches or tip over on sharp inclines. As well they lacked radios beyond the B1, meaning that French tanks had to often communicate using signal flags or morse lamp. The Germans by 1939 were almost the complete opposite, their tanks were on paper dreadful, they were heavier, slower, and more lightly armed than the Allies's counterparts, with the best in service gun being the 3.7cm on the Panzer IIIs and Panzer 35(t)s/38(t)s with the 5cm universal gun being too expensive too see production at the time. However the Germans had built their tanks in cooperation with the Soviets and as such had extensive field experience with tanks, leading both the Soviets and Germans to prioritize ergonomics, off-road maneuverability, communication, and ruggedness. This meant that German tanks had 5 crewmen per tank compared to the French's 2-3. As well the brand new suspension created by Porsche allowed German tanks to travel over rough ground over large distances without needing replacement, something that French tanks found impossible due to their fragile suspension and low ground clearance. In 1940 France had 1240 "modern" tanks at its disposal with around 2000 slightly outdated tanks that could still pierce the armour of any German tank, while the German could muster only 570 modern tanks after Poland and 600 Czech models, bringing their practical strength to around 1100 tanks, the Panzer IIs and Is being redundant. However in reality the Germans had more tanks, entirely due to how divisional organization worked in both armies. In France tanks were not their own separate force, but integrated into the various arms of the army. Infantry and Cavalry tanks were not just monikers but quite literal descriptors, they were part of the Infantry and Calvary corps respectively. And they were in every single French division in the entire French army, working the same as any artillery or support division. In effect the French could muster anywhere from 20-80 tanks per division, with an experimental "Heavy" tank division mustering 200 tanks with 100 Char B1s, but only 2 of these every existed. What this meant was that the French, despite having more tanks than the Germans, were always outnumbered tanks wise. The Germans had concentrated their tanks into independent Panzer Corps, with supporting infantry and integrated aerial support to make up for heavy artillery, they were basically their own micro-army that could meet and overtake any opposing equivalent force with focus being on staying mobile. This meant that the Germans had 200 tanks per division against France's max 80 tanks per division, the French would have had to field at least 3 division for every German division, while more often they would have had to field, and coordinate 5 division to properly outmatch a single German division, and given the French's terrible communication system meant that was nearly impossible.
>>5383 Isn't that a copy+paste from the old thread? Cause I'm pretty sure I remember making that one lol.
is it true that soviets only got to space because of nazi rocket technology
>>5465 This is proven false by just a simple google search. Before ww2 the basis for multistage rockets and space flight has already been planned out by Tsiolkovsky and Korolev with even a few working prototypes in the GIRD series and later project 05 in 1933 pioneered by the same guy that designed Sputnik. On the whole Nazi science myth is pretty much a meme made of by Cold War warriors with not much evidence behind it. The R-1 was a V-2 but the rest of the designs look NOTHING like projected nazi rocket designs. The USA got almost all Nazi rocket scientists and tech from Peenmunde such as the nazi-sympathizing Wernher von Braun. The USSR got what were essentially lab assistants in the rocket science area.
not military, but related to the previous topic about stolen tech >In 1988 if you wanted to buy a factory-made 8-bit home computer, it would cost several monthly wages of a young engineer. >And it would be made mostly from outdated stolen western parts made with outdated stolen western equipment and plenty of manual labor. >If you study what goods USSR produced you will see that almost everything was stolen(rarely licensed) from the west and just copied. i'm guessing this is not true
>>5680 That might have some basis in reality as in 1988, Gorbashit was a huge fan Amerimutt shit so his reforms always try to emulate American trash products.
>>5680 >>5682 This reminds me that they reverse engineered gig tiger videogames to make their own with characters like the wolf and the rabbit from nu pogodi
>>4949 How effective was the Yugoslav AA systems fair against NATO during its breakup?
>>5680 The Soviet Union did reverse engineer some western tech, but most of their stuff they made/developed themselves. Their computers weren’t made of old western parts. They were designed in the USSR. Some of the design choices were influenced by stuff from the west, but most wasn’t.
>>6148 Fairly effective. The number of HARM missiles and other SEAD/AWACS based counter-systems was roughly 3x higher in expenditure than used by those same NATO forces in Iraq a few years earlier. Their airforce was fairly crippled unfortunately (old MiG-21s and export MiG-29s facing USAF F-15Es and F-16Cs with full AWACS and outnumbering them 5-1) however their SAMs were used to full potential. SA-3s and SA-6s were the main batteries used, they would get a long-distance scan, turn off as soon as a signal as caught and launch a missle blindly in the calculated trajectory, when the missle was roughly at intersect, the RADAR was flashed on and the missile guided the final dozen meters towards targets, nullifying any RADAR dazzler systems and preventing anti-radiation missiles from finding them. On top of that an old trick use was taking a microwave and with a generator turning it on in a field. This tricked HARMs into going after it instead. AAA was also used successfully against strike aircraft. Other than the A-10 ( I don't remember it operating there) no NATO strike craft had proper armor, meaning they were forced to do total indiscriminate strikes or inaccurate high-altitude drops.
>>6155 Ah so very similar to the AA during Nam. NATO probably fudged the numbers again just like they did during Linebacker. >According to Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau, the number of aircraft lost by the USAF is unconfirmed since the USAF figures are also suspect. If a plane was badly damaged, but managed to land, the USAF did not count as a loss, even if it was too damaged to fly again. During the operation, the USAF told the press that 17 B-52s were lost. But later, the USAF told Congress that only 13 B-52s were lost. Nine B-52s that returned to U-Tapao airfield were too badly damaged to fly again. The number of B-52s that managed to return to Guam but were combat losses remains unknown. The overall B-52 loss is probably between 22 and 27
(43.83 KB 600x606 ZPU-1 Vietnam.jpg)
>>6161 > the AA during Nam Yep. Both the Yugos and the Vietnamese got very creative with their Air Defense systems during the war, as did the Syrians. A really good example I found was this: In 1972, on December 22, a Vietnamese anti-aircraft unitshot down an F-111 with a single-barrel 14.5 mm ZPU-1. On top of that, the anti-aircraft gun had only 19 shells left when they spotted the American aircraft.
>>6360 Funnily enough there were interviews regarding this. When asked to how they did it, the gunners nonchalantly answer that the Americans on their sorties alway fly on the same path. All they had to do was timing the trajectory of the planes using their watch and shoot where the planes going to be. Also another good example would be that time where an entire air attack got lured into a trap and get destroyed during Spring High. https://www.historynet.com/operation-spring-high-thuds-vs-sams.htm
>Aircraft carriers Their only real use is to act as transport and launch pads for imperialist fleets to park off the coast of a smaller country and bomb it to shit. When face with an opponent of equal technological advancement or even slightly comparable technology these carriers are sitting ducks to cruise-missiles. https://www.quora.com/Why-have-big-battleships-e-g-USS-Iowa-and-the-Bismarck-become-obsolete-in-modern-navies/answer/Chuck-Garen
>>6488 Most modern US strategy is for asymmetrical warfare. Anything more advanced than even Iran can easily beat them to a pulp in a pitch fight.
>>6488 Well yeah, the Soviets specifically made the KH-22 to be able to sink US carriers in 2 hits max, doctrine usually called for firing in salvos but with the KH-22 they were supposed to fire only one at a time since it was guaranteed to hit its target since even modern US CRAM systems have a had time hitting supersonic munitions, plus if by some miracle the KH-22 was shot down it was designed so its fragments after destruction would continue travelling and likely either blind or damage the defence system that shot them down.
>>4949 Why does most new Russian military projects are just reboots of old Soviet ones? Like the Kirov rearmament, focus on anti-air weapons and the new shitty armata being clearly based on old Soviet object series like the 490. Are there any hope that they’ll revive the weaponized Ekranoplan projects?
>>7973 Those large ekranoplans look cool but they're probably really expensive to operated considering they had 6 jet engines. A missile truck like the old Tu-95 is probably a better option. The Armata has good ideas in it like simplifying logistics with the same hull for Tank, IFV, and SP artillery, but they don't have the funds to get many Armatas and they decided to cheap out and stick with using T-90 hulls for the SP artillery. Kind of defeats the purpose. War is unlikely between Russia and NATO so we'll likely never learn how good or bad the Armata design is.
(4.35 MB 370x296 zapusk_satanyi.gif)
Introducing the SS-18/Р-36M Воевода Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. To get a real understanding of the power wielded by the SS 18 this comparison gives a perspective; the Hiroshima bomb (Gun-shot type fission reaction of Ur 235) had an explosive yield of approximately 15 kilo-tonnes (KT) or 15,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent, and killed 70,000 people (at least) and affected the population of the area for decades. In comparison, a single SS-18 carries up to 10 separate thermonuclear warheads of around 750-1000 Kilotons each. Some missiles are armed with a single, humongous 20,000 KT warhead. During the early years of the missile age, the United States led in technology and numbers but by the early 1970s when the SS-18 started entering service in significant numbers, Moscow had closed the missile gap and pulled ahead. In 1990 Moscow had a stockpile of around 40,000 nuclear warheads (vs 28,000 for the US) but by just using the 3,000 warheads on its SS-18s it could wipe out all human life in the continental United States in 30 minutes or less. Codenamed Satan by NATO, the SS-18 weighs a gargantuan 209,000 kg. The highly accurate Russian missile can not only penetrate and destroy American missile silos, which are hardened to 300 psi, but its own silos are hardened to a stupendous 6000 psi, making the missile all but impregnable to a first strike. Amazingly, for a missile of its weight and length (102 feet) it can sidewind (move in a series of S-shaped curves) to evade anti-missile defenses and its micro-electronics are hardened to function even during the event of a nuclear attack, meaning even a nuclear bomb’s EMP wave won’t knock its systems out. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0-36%D0%9C A short history of its creation: https://pikabu.ru/story/mikhail_kuzmich_yangel__raketnyiy_akademik_sozdatel_r36msatana_6490436 The US equivalent ICBM to these missiles are the Minuteman series and the later Peacekeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper The former had no MIRV warheads in the first 2 models and its monoblock warhead had 1.2 Megatons. The 3-part MIRVs of the Minuteman III have only 171 Kilotons. The Minuteman is the only land-based ICBMs used today by the USA. The latter has 10-12 MIRV warheads, each having 300 Kiloton warheads with the undeployed W78 warhead increasing it to roughly 335kT, roughly 1/2-1/3 the capability of the SS-18.
>>10095 >Some missiles are armed with a single, humongous 20,000 KT warhead. This is awesome and all but holy fuck how did they cover the cost for making one of these babies?
>>10097 It's not that expensive considering the technologies. Currently the same explosive yield of the Tsar Bomba (for example) would be very easy to replicate with a much smaller (physically) unit.
Shouldn't this thread be in /tech/?
>>10270 wait nvm im retarded
(103.19 KB 1200x800 865qirkj1pq21.jpg)
I found this pro-US army site called Wearethemighty and holy fuck is it a bucket of laughs. The Sukhoi Su-25 is now apparently a copy of the Northrop A-9 and therefore loses to the A-10 warthog because it carries less weapons. (despite not presenting any feats on the Su-25 and some vague shit on the A-10) https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/the-battle-of-the-tank-busters-frogfoot-versus-warthog The idea that the Su-25 is a YA-9 ripoff is hilarious considering how they are only superficially similar. The Su-25 was the winner of a competition between Illyushin and Sukhoi based on their experience with the soviet pioneered shturmovik concept. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/meet-the-ilyushin-il-102-the-most-gorgeously-ugly-comb-1601030964 The 2 aircraft are honestly incomparable to one another: https://battle-machines.org/2015/07/26/a-10-thunderbolt-ii-vs-su-25-frogfoot/

Delete
Report

no cookies?