It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian Arms philosophy

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
One thing that has bothered me about the USA postwar is the happiness of the US military to copy German-style strategic planning.

Not that the Germans didn't pose an awesome threat.

But the Germans thought they could build up an overwhelming inventory or superior tech, then bowl over the rest of the world.

What happened was, once they became emmeshed on all fronts, their tech development stopped, and eventually they couldn't update their industrial output.

I think Hitler felt a time constraint in attacking the USSR. The Russians were modernizing rapidly, and Germany had to halt R&D in order to maximize tank output. In other words, the German advantage was fading daily.

Eventually, Germany's inventory and tech edge faded, and they lost.

aside from the politics of the Iraq deployment, I'm concerned that the USA thinks it can with with a superior inventory, and not really having the industrial capacity to restock.

Stories of unarmored Humvees I think were anti-war propoganda, but that is the sort of threat the USA faces in copying German style military philosophy; a lot of technical "magic wands" that are almost impossible to replace.

we're never going to turn out stealth bombers they way we did B-17's, back in the day.

[In that sense, especially in the WWII Africa campaign, American philosophy (and casualties) looked a lot more Russian than German. Whole battalions were lost in the desert, even though we were reading Rommel's orders. A lot of rusting US ( & Brit) tanks still lie in the Libyan desert.]




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I'd like to point out that during the African campaign, nearly all of the US army was conscripted and there was virtually no standing army before the outbreak of war. Thus, you have a nation that has had no combat experience and no standing army for over 20 years thrown into combat in harsh terrain.

I still say that doctrines are what make the Russian military so different, not equipment.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Actually, German equipment was generally suporior to the Russian equivilents anways up until the end of the war, cuz German craftsmanship was just that good, however the Sherman and the T-34 could be produced crudely and thus in massive numbers, Germany was essentially on both fronts facing a 1-5 disadvantage in tanks and would have to destroy 5-6 tanks for every one lost to make due.

They were killing only 4 for every one lost, the majority of German tanks about 75% were destroyed by enemy aircraft and engine breakdowns, running out of fuel, repairs etc.

Then there was the fact that they're weren't enough tanks to go around, Germany could never reach the 1000 Panther's a month that they aimed for, at best they got 700 then it slopped back downwards in the face of massive infastructure bombing.

And for any front at any time they was I believe only 500-800 Tiger's for use.

The King Tigers were used primarily in Berlin and that it is believed why so many Russian tanks were lost in Berlin due to the ease of replacing and repairing parts for King Tigers in Berlin itself.

Germany essentially had a tech advantage throughout the whole war and could'ver had a decend amount of me-262's and its own project ultra by 1941 if it wasn't for the "One Year Ban" inwhich anything that took more then a year wouldn't be researched since it was believed they would win the war in 1-2 years and would be a waste of effort.

Then there was the resources invested into V-2's that were essentially useless since they had poor aim and did relativeely minor damage, the other smaller AA SAM rockets in development favored by Albert Speer would've been much cheaper to build, easier to build in bulk and would've been able to dent the massive bombing raids on Germany.

Only in 1944 did Russia get a Heavy Tank (IS-3) capable of beating the Tiger series, with its upside down pan turret and 122mm gun with its 250mm armour (I think) it could outfight any other German heavy tank.

Also they're newest T-34 varients could fight the Panther and Panzer IV varients on even ground and had numerical advantage.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
This seems to sum up the Russian Armiy's attitude to the value of their soldiers.


After the war was over, in the first meeting between Marshal Zhukov and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the latter marveled at the difficulties the Russians must have had with the German minefields. How did they manage them? Ike asked.

"If we come to a minefield," Zhukov explained, "our infantry attack exactly as if it were not there. The losses we get from personnel mines we consider only equal to those we would have gotten from machine guns and artillery if the Germans had chosen to defend the area with strong bodies of troops instead of minefields."

And it was true. Usually these troops were members of punitive battalions, arrested by the NKVD for attempted desertion or some other military crime. They were often promised absolution from their crimes if they survived, but sometimes they were marched out at gunpoint


From the book " 199 Days : The Battle for Stalingrad " by Edwin P Hoyt


The Russians/Soviets have always seen their soldiers as just another expendible piece of equipment. Therefore they spend far less protecting them and seeing that they have some comforts.

Their nuclear subs are a prime exaample.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
Only in 1944 did Russia get a Heavy Tank (IS-3) capable of beating the Tiger series, with its upside down pan turret and 122mm gun with its 250mm armour (I think) it could outfight any other German heavy tank.


The IS-3 never saw combat in WWII only the older IS-1 and 2's did.



Also they're newest T-34 varients could fight the Panther and Panzer IV varients on even ground and had numerical advantage.


You are referring to the T34/85 with an 85mm gun. The Panther's long 75mm gun still had far more hitting power than the Soviet 85mm.
The Panther actually had thicker armour ( due to the angle it was sloped at ) than the Tiger I, therefore it had far better protection than the T-34 did in all variants. The Panther is widely regarded as the best medium tank of the war, even with its unreliable engine.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I'm sure it was the Panther J with the engine problems, I'm saying the T-34/8soemthing varient could fight it on even footing, but I implied that it still took numbers to effectively fight due to the comparably poor training of soviet tank crews compared to the Germans.

The IS-3 I am certain did indeed fight, but I may be confused with the IS-2.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
The IS-3 I am certain did indeed fight, but I may be confused with the IS-2.


Im sure the IS-3 made it's first appearance for VE day in Berlin.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I know it was definatly there, I'll have to take another look at ym book about the Russian Red Army.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Ah, I agree with the "Quantity over Quality" But the problem is that we have not seen Russia (Present Time) in a full scale war to judge her. BUt yeah I agree Russia has a history of "Quantity over Quality". But I think they also have "will power" which allowes them to do whatever they want at any cost.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
No guts no glory.

Some people suggest that western armies are soft in the idea that they will not commit troops to a situation or wont, even under the most dire circumstances send troops on a suicide mission. While the sheer validity of this can be questioned and argued, it is not a problem in the Eastern (not asian) armies, aka, the former bloc and the CIS.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Just curious if anyone here has been to the US Army's NTC at Ft. Irwin, or been trained in OPFOR FTXs?

My time in OPFOR was probably the most intriguing time for me in the Army, I learned a ton and found everything about Soviet warfare to be absolutely fascinating.

Reason I asked that is that I don't know how familiar you folks are with the general Russian military mindset and how it differs from the USA and NATO armies. It's far too detailed for me to get into here, and it's too late at night for me to do digging in Google, but the tactical philosophy is certainly one aspect that must be taken into consideration when discussing the materiel (yes, that is spelled correctly) philosophy.......



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I've read a wide range of military texts on the modern Russian Army, including general's memoirs. This doesn't make me an expert, or even give me an understanding of low level functioning in their army, but if anyone does know that sort of stuff, do tell...



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
Actually, German equipment was generally suporior to the Russian equivilents anways up until the end of the war,


In wich areas specifically as i would argue that on average Germany did not have a equipment 'edge' as such. This is certainly true for artillery systems, tanks and infantry rifles and i could probably argue for a overall Russian equipment superiority…..


cuz German craftsmanship was just that good, however the Sherman and the T-34 could be produced crudely and thus in massive numbers.


German craftmanship WAS good but somewhere between strategic conception and finished product the equipment and machines just got far more complex than they should have been.. German tanks were outproduced but what they had to contend with was far from crude and certainly on average not inferior.


They were killing only 4 for every one lost, the majority of German tanks about 75% were destroyed by enemy aircraft and engine breakdowns, running out of fuel, repairs etc.


All of these are problems mainly when you are retreating ( no recovery and repair possible) and does not explain why the retreating were happening.

[

Then there was the fact that they're weren't enough tanks to go around, Germany could never reach the 1000 Panther's a month that they aimed for, at best they got 700 then it slopped back downwards in the face of massive infastructure bombing.


Well I would love to see the document that called for the production of 1000 panther tanks per month!


And for any front at any time they was I believe only 500-800 Tiger's for use.


Only 1900 odd of all type ( chassis) built and if they had that on one front at any one time who knows what might have happened…… The most tigers they managed to roll out from the factories in one month was 104 and that was only in middle /late 1944.


Russian tanks were lost in Berlin due to the ease of replacing and repairing parts for King Tigers in Berlin itself.


Two words : " Urban fighting". Armor just do not do well in city fighting and heavy losses are expected if only to reduce infantry casualties.


"One Year Ban" inwhich anything that took more then a year wouldn't be researched since it was believed they would win the war in 1-2 years and would be a waste of effort.


Wich is not actually what happened. It was a ban as such but just a measure to make sure that long term projects did not eat into vital strategic resources. There was obviously some political manouvering and some research programs got the axe based on some rather limited reasoning.



Then there was the resources invested into V-2's that were essentially useless since they had poor aim and did relativeely minor damage, the other smaller AA SAM rockets in development favored by Albert Speer would've been much cheaper to build, easier to build in bulk and would've been able to dent the massive bombing raids on Germany.


A V2 could typically destroy a city block and they were impossible to stop….. The idea was to discourage allied air bombardments ( it was taking 7-8000 88 mm, even with radard etc etc, shells to bring down a allied bomber) by paying them back in kind… It has been argued by some that the V’s were created to carry the nuclear weapons Germany were building en mass…. I am not so familiar with the AA Sam’s programs but by middle 1943 the Germans were still inflicting reasonable casualties on the allied airforce ( with day/night fighters and conventional AA) and the fact that the allies kept sending more, when they were losing them in hundreds, could hardly have been predicted imo.


Only in 1944 did Russia get a Heavy Tank (IS-3) capable of beating the Tiger series, with its upside down pan turret and 122mm gun with its 250mm armour (I think) it could outfight any other German heavy tank.


The tiger were hardly that special and by the time it started contributing to the war effort Germany had already suffered some heavy setbacks. The KV-1 and the T-34 right at the start of the war did not managed to stop the German onslaught and to think that the Russians were winning because of better tanks in 1943 can not be supported imo.


Also they're newest T-34 varients could fight the Panther and Panzer IV varients on even ground and had numerical advantage.


The earliest T-34 version could outfight German tanks and the Russian armored forces were rarely, if ever, at such a technical disadvantage that the losses could be explained on those grounds. German victories in Europe came from superior strategic and tactical warfighting and not from superior weaponry as is commonly believed..

Stellar

[edit on 21-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by therainmaker
It's far too detailed for me to get into here, and it's too late at night for me to do digging in Google, but the tactical philosophy is certainly one aspect that must be taken into consideration when discussing the materiel (yes, that is spelled correctly) philosophy.......


Would love to hear more as the impression i got suggest alot of nasty shocks for those army units who first engaged OPFOR standard units in training. The Germans learnt the hard way that if you do not have a continues front ( wich they could not manage for long) you will spent most of your time rushing armored units around to cut of penetrations! Fix and bypass on a absolutely massive scale and it got the better of them despite all their strenghts.

Reading material would be appreciated. :0

Stellar

[edit on 21-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I'd say it was not equipment in any fashion that saved the USSR during the fall of 1941, but rather strategic depth. Hundreds of miles of land that can be traded for enemy lives, material, and time.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
after reading the first page of the forum I discovered that the international community has a lot of misconceptions about Russia


1 The First misconception is still today the international community fail to dirffrenciate between Russian(ie after break down of Soviet Union ) and Soviet strategy

I see comments like "the weapons are rugged,..... not sofisticated.... but effective blah blah " but these were the misconceptions(US propagated) about the Soviet arms industry many still bear that in mind.......

any one who keeps knowledge about modern developments in Russian arms industry know that today Russia's strategy is quite diffrent from the socalled "Quantity over quality" strategy (though it never had been soviet strategy too)
there are many examples to support my point starting from the development of PAK FA, Anti Terror Robots, Space suits, War Heads ,machine Guns etc ....but yes we always have the strategy to make it affordable


2 another misconception is that the soviet union believed on "quantity over Quality" strategy ......Its true that the soviet consumer goods were manufactured for the "mass" and not" class" but the defense Industry was an exception to this rule ...Else The USSR would never have made the Mig 29 Mig 31 and the Su 27

3 I feel One thing has remained steady in Russian strategy from the begining ...RUSSIANS ARE MORE PRACTICAL IN THEIR APPROACH ...i mean to say Russians didnt risk to experiment in their serially produced weapons (unlike the US) they rather used well eltablished effective strategies and their developments to make their weapons more reliable than sofisticated

4 Today the Russian strategy has changed becoz their political role and position has changed ...today Russia is going towards more sofisticated, effective weapons with a "QUALITY over Quantity +affordability " strategy which is influenced by the following factors
The decreased number of their troops ,
limited (but enough)funds ,
and Changed Political Role and Defense Need

All these points need vast elaboration for which I dont have time at present



[edit on 22-11-2005 by prelude]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
well, russian tech is somewhat special, is somewhat more practical than the american and european, but still it lacks of the quality western levels, but they are getting closer and closer everyday.

now we must analyse about "how thinks the russians", for example, the design of an combat UAV in the western contries, could start with different aerodesign, new engine etc, the russian tech is more "modular", i mean instead of all these changes the russian could just use only a new pod to install in the plane for remote direction.

sometimes their inventive goes above the new techs, like the mig29 with a superagility without the f16 unstable design-fbw configuration, the same about the flanker

i think that they will improve their modern designs,for example i think that the pakfa will have the same basic shape of the su27, but still it will works very good

but in other areas they are very creative and even radical with their solutions ,like the new concepts on ICBMs, these new investigations could end even in a very effective ABM shield, since the russians have some talent to use knowledge from other investigations and aplicate it in different developments

the russian tech love the low tech, but alicated in a smart way,so i wouldnt surprised if they deploy an small LF radars or even mirrors covers against lasers

but now, by the lack of money all that depends in the western technology development, i mean the russians will not have the initiative, they just wait and see, in a special kind of benchmarketing ,but not copying the designs, just making one better.....for them

the true is that the new western proyects are actually treathed by cancellations and delays



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I have waited to post, because I wanted to see which direction people will go.

This is my take, and this is the direction of my curiosity.

To bad I lost all my links from couple of years back when I was looking up stuff on optical multiprocessor research, because most of the cutting edge research led to Far East Russian institutes in Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. I was blown away by the stuff I stumbled upon. Research publications leading back to early 50s. Basically everything led to unparallel depth of research and understanding of physics. It’s like a massive industrialized culture of r&d which is not based on predictable patterns of market driven economy, and they got the best tools to work with. Science is their religion. Got a theorem? Russians got the gear to prove it, or not.

When I read that in early 80s Russians solved the problem of rarified plasma in optical multiprocessor core cells, I couldn’t help to think “what do you mean solved”? Publicly, to this day it is still in theoretical stage of research. The internet concept evolved from military strategic data linking, largely as a safeguard in case of nuclear attack, while Soviets opted in favor of stand alone “behavioral pattern” concept, the early form of AI, do to predicted vulnerability of remote system attacks, or “hacking” as we call it these days.

Now don’t tear me a new one, but the Stephen Wiesner’s quantum cryptography concept was being mentioned in Soviet research on strategic remote data linking much earlier then 70s, and the single photon counters were mentioned as a possible secure data transmission method, while predicting dark counts in both ultraviolet and near-infrared frequency ranges. Again, the cost of technology development and implementation did not warrant the expenditures at that time, thus the shift towards stand alone systems. Instead of pulling fiber to static sites, mobile systems with much higher survivability ratios were chosen.

I still couldn’t get over the discrepancies in apparent Soviet technological levels and research depths.

Russians unquestionably lead in neutron pulse research reactors,

www.scielo.br...

Kurchatov institute laid down the foundations for controlled fusion and high temperature plasma physics back in 51 and lead the way ever since.

www.kiae.ru...

This is where we are;

www.sns.gov...


This is a miniscule aspect of the Russian research base which utilizes pulse reactor tech.

www.vniief.ru...

Note US and European research involvement levels in the same field.


Just for example, most people, as I was, would be surprised to learn that high-tech companies of the world are lining up to lease time at Russian research facilities to test their theories, while Russians have done so “back in the days”. It’s clear that long ago they have perceived the theoretical limits of the microprocessor circuit, and while Moor’s law is basically a business plan, Soviets opted to dump all of their research into the “next step”, while allocating a small portion of the effort to reverse engineer what we have put all the work into. Make a lot of damn sense.

This little tidbit cracked me up though - micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

Among other things, and as ironic as it is, the Russian is misspelled.


Same goes for programming. Years ago a friend called me up and said that he absolutely has to bring me a computer game his son was playing. It was Su-27 Flanker 1.0 flight simulator. Unbelievable physics engine running on a 468, and for a kicker the programming was also done on 486 PCs. I couldn’t believe it. An absolutele marvel of programming.

We always blame Russians for reverse engineering our technology, all while we constantly recycle their research, which they them selves put on shelves.

Back in the early 60s Russian mathematician Pyotr Ufimtsev developed the concept of “stealth” through his method of calculating radar cross section, radar absorption and refraction materials, etc. After a full review Soviet defense department discarded the idea do to the astronomical manufacture cost of “stealth” aircraft, and its apparent vulnerability to the low frequency air defenses of that time.

The Kosovo incident showed it to be absolutely true, when a F117 was brought down by a SA-2 system. An existing radar “spoofing” system on a bear bomber was cheap, practical and effective. The system successfully “phased” the bombers radar signature in a radius of up to 300km from its actual position, thus forcing F-14 Tomcats to chaise “ghosts” and “shadows”.
The B-2 is an old concept as well, basically being a scaled up version of the German Horton HO IX / Gotha Go 299 Flying Wing Bomber from 1943.

The Horton was the first aircraft which specifically implemented “stealth” techniques, being constructed largely from wood in conjunction with lower RCS do to flying wing configuration.

It was a shocker when in 76 when Belenko defected in his MiG-25 though.

This just about covers it;

"My God! Look what this thing is made of! Why, the dumb bastards don't have transistors; they're still using vacuum tubes! These engines are monsters! Maybe the Sovs have a separate refinery for each plane! Jesus! See these rivet heads sticking out, and look at that welding! They did it by hand! Hell, the pilot can't see a thing unless it's practically in front of him! This contraption isn't an airplane; it's a rocket! Hey, see what they've done here! How clever! They were able to use aluminum! Why didn't we ever think of that? How ingenious! It's brilliant!"--- MiG Pilot : The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko”

The tube radar was EMP/jam proof and was so powerful it could burn through jamming signals emitted by approaching bombers.

MiG-31, (1975) was the first interceptor to carry phased array radar with encrypted digital link, allowing it to process and share target data with other platforms in real time. This allows MiG-31s to tactically engage various targets in a “pack”, and while one MiG for example tracks a target it can simultaneously fire on another target tracked by either another MiG or a by a ground/sea based radar, and vice versa. To this day MiG-31 it is the most capable interceptor platform.

So this whole idea that Russians are low tech is an extremely dangerous misconception.

Their welding technologies are unsuppressed to this day by the way. Most high tech welding methods we know of are of Russian military origin. Impact, double beam laser, vacuum laser, gas laser, etc.

This one is my favorite, and it originated from Russian submarine wielding technologies. I’m sure various research phases are conducted at Kurchatov institute or similar facilities;

“To improve the strength and service properties of welded joints, the Institute of Strength Physics and Materials Science of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences uses a new approach, based on controlling the process of electrode metal melting and transfer in pulsed welding. This approach uses a flexible energy process, which ensures control of the complex electrodynamic system that involves the power source, electrode, arc, and weld pool. The process uses instantaneous values of energy characteristics, feedback channels, and subsequent study of the influence of adaptive pulsed welding on the structure and properties of welded joints on high-strength steels.3,4,5

This study investigates pulsed welding's influence on the structure and the physical and mechanical properties of welded joints made from X67 and 17G1SU. The properties studied are strength under tensile static loading; microhardness of the structural components and its distribution in the welded joint zones; impact toughness at 20 degrees C and -60 degrees C; and these characteristics' compliance with oil and gas pipeline welded joint requirements.”

This one I picked up when I was searching for bicycle factory contractor that was doing their high quality welds dirt cheap while much faster then conventional methods. It turned out to be a Russian military spinof company called Litech.

oemagazine.com...

www.laser.ru...

This is an outtake of another excellent example of how it really is:

www.globalsecurity.org...

This is the type of blatant ignorance which creates our illusions;

“This comprehensive review characterizes and compares the cold war period (Soviet) with the current state of Acoustics Research and Development in Russia. "Soviet" R&D was overpriced, over-staffed and inefficient, but produced a lot of very original research results. Many of the results are still unknown in the West.”

Overpriced, over-staffed and inefficient, but we actually have no idea what the hell they were doing other then openly releasing “a lot of very original research results“ which we were to quick to adopt.

Russian industrial manufacturing capacity is also drastically misjudged.

I’m not going to go in depth, but just as an simple example of Soviet metallurgy and machining capabilities, other then making the best missile/submarine hauls and aircraft fuselages, Russians still have the longest range artillery technology dating back from the 50s, while we still have to rocket assist our shells just to match Russian unassisted range. Obviously we still can’t touch the range of Russian rocket assisted shells.

Comments?


































[edit on 3-12-2005 by iskander]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

The Kosovo incident showed it to be absolutely true, when a F117 was brought down by a SA-2 system.


I wasn't aware an SA-2 missile had shot down the F-117



The system successfully “phased” the bombers radar signature in a radius of up to 300km from its actual position, thus forcing F-14 Tomcats to chaise “ghosts” and “shadows”.


LOL, this quote is almost verbatim from the 80's movie " War Games ", I'd check my source on that one, seems someone is confusing movies with real life


The B-2 is an old concept as well, basically being a scaled up version of the German Horton HO IX / Gotha Go 299 Flying Wing Bomber from 1943.



The Horton was the first aircraft which specifically implemented “stealth” techniques, being constructed largely from wood in conjunction with lower RCS do to flying wing configuration.


I've never heard that the stealth characteristics were purposely implemented.


MiG for example tracks a target it can simultaneously fire on another target tracked by either another MiG or a by a ground/sea based radar, and vice versa. To this day MiG-31 it is the most capable interceptor platform.


The US datalink ( LINK 20 , I think it is now ) can do all that and more.


As for the rest I'm not sure. Sure theory is great, but it means nothing if you can't turn it into a practical application. Something the Russians really haven't done.

Anyway some interesting stuff, I'll have a deeper look into it.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
well, before the 90s the migs and sukhois and tupolevs datalinks were much above in the technology level than the american ones

and the active relay on the data link of the mig31 is still not matched by any western plane

there are missinterpretations about how great in a tech, for example the f14 radar, good range, but it had a crapy resolution , and it had-have a pathetic angle aperture, instead the mig31 radar is completely different and the mig29 and su27 have reached superb performance and overcome their limits with nice ideas

about the f117 i dont remember if was a sam2 or a sam3


[edit on 3-12-2005 by grunt2]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join