Is anyone else a little forlorn about the absolute state of Russian military hardware?

Is anyone else a little forlorn about the absolute state of Russian military hardware?
From poorly designed AK-12s, to rusting and explosion-prone tanks, to slapped-together Su-57s, as someone who was always a closet slut for Soviet military hardware, seeing this shit kinda hurts.
Was the pre-collapse Soviet stuff better and anywhere approaching Western quality? Or was it always shit?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the pre-collapse Soviet stuff better and anywhere approaching Western quality? Or was it always shit?
    soviet grand strategy was to have a massive army but only a small amount of regulars

    so the regulars trained year-round and had well-maintained equipment while their reserves would only put in the bare minimum to keep their weapons readied
    this meant they could have a large army on paper but not shoulder its exorbitant cost 24/7

    after the dissolution of the USSR, the regulars shrank even more while the reserve units put in even less effort, leading to the massive rusted out army you see now
    and corruption was always a problem but shot up through the roof after the dissolution, leading to rampant pillaging of their reserves and even active units

    the idea of a high-low style army made sense in the context of WW3, but the destruction of the "high" by corruption leading to only "low" units and an inability to maintain readiness has led to a pitiful showing far worse than during soviet times

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >soviet grand strategy was to have a massive army but only a small amount of regulars
      the main mission of the Soviet Army was to harvest crops (look it up)
      So no, their shit was always trash

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BUKs, OSAs, etc seem to be doing fine vs Russian air force. MLRS systems seem fine for what they were made for. Tocka-U seems to be surprisingly usable in ukie hands. Small arms vary from adequate to great(PKM).
    The ones that have aged worst seem the armored vehicles. Bad visibility, bad sensors, low survivability, uncomfortable, hard to maintain. APCs are hard to get in and out of because they are so cramped. Tanks with their 5km/h reverse. BMP-2's were no doubt fearsome when they first came out, and the 30mm gun is still terrifying, but it has really seen its best days.

    Modern equipment on the other hand seems more of a hit and miss. The procurement process seems really corrupt, and actual number of equipment seems to vary a lot. I'm most surprised at how many modernized T-72's russia has, while their infantry seems more like ragtag teams of gypsies.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russian tanks and IFVs would look a lot better if they loaded less ammo in them, and didn't leave ammo lying around

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    only around 50-60s did soviets actually have parity with the US
    then the US poured everything it had into defense while soviets stagnated economically, socially, and especially technologically
    by the 80s the difference was so vast and they were still using an obsolete doctrine with even further obsolete technology
    it really doesnt help how adverse soviets/russians are to change and need to keep the status quo at all times, nostalgia for the old times have ensured their ultimate demise

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the pre-collapse Soviet stuff better and anywhere approaching Western quality? Or was it always shit
    Well, if you spent 55-60% of your GDP on the military you can get something decent. But it always was a poor man's trick.
    AK's fire switch is the epitome of soviet hardware: it can cut your finger, but it does the job and is made in the most technological way

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nato was, is, and will be unbeatable. You know what's sad? Russians tricked us into spending trillions while half of that budget would have already sufficed to bury them 100 times over.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      right??? who the fuck are we going to use all this cool shit on? china?? the norks? jesus beating the north koreans would be like beating a retarded baby

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Should have gone to space weapons development, at least you would have cool stuff like 'rods from God'. Not that much useful but cool as hell.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        On the up side we should be getting a shit load of mil surplus soon from countries that will be throwing away all their old Russian shit as they trade up for US made shit. Mean while NATO gets money and keeps lots of people employed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        china, I want the Ukes to demolish the russian army so we dont have to deal with retards for another 30-40 years and we can fuck on chinks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The euros next time they go off the rails, obviously.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US government confirms it's tracking UFOs
        Oh sure we're preparing to fight Chinese manlets with a worse military than Russia and not ayys yeah sure uh huh

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        China massively began to reform starting after Iraq 1, and Russia did (kinda). It turns out Russia didn't have the money for it outside of fighting rebel farmers and even though China throws money at the problem it just doesn't have the expertise needed.
        Korea 2 would be Iraq I on steroids.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No one wants to fight NK because no one wants to shoulder millions of backwards, malnourished, diseased North Koreans. Even China doesn't like NK, they're a border crisis waiting to happen and they have a fuck ton of artillery and nukes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Possibly everyone. Remember that permanent US control over the planet hasn't been implemented yet. Depending on how things shake down, we may still see a future where the US fights every other country on the planet at once, and wins.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine a future where a Ukraine involved NATO ends up helping a feudalistic series of former Russian warlord states fend off an invading, land hungry, China.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >tricked us into spending trillions

      Yeah about that. It was a money for sure. But the money didn't go away. Much of it was spent hiring workers, buying from subcontractors, paying taxes from the profit, buying raw materials, and the remaining profit was then used to invest in more industry needing more workers, parts, raw materials, subcontractors. Much as I dislike the fat cats on top of the MIC, the money isn't largely ending up ending up in shady bank accounts in Tel Aviv. That would be the Russian model.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also, the US defense budget is still less that 4% of GDP per year. It will always be easily affordable.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was always shit. Gulf War in 91 already proved this. Why cant you into history?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i unironically fell for the russian monkey model cope

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon.... Then I have magic beans that will make your pp grow 6 inches. Just send me the money.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this country claims to be success to the state that developed Buran
    i just dont get it...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      inheritors of failure

      apt as fuck my moron

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Their tanks used to be on par with, or even on occasion were better than western ones. That was back in the sixties, though. Americans then did their usual thing and overcompensated while the Russians slowly bankrupted themselves trying to keep up.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I would say the soviets had the tank parity up until the 80s
      In the late 70s they would have had T-72A with simple laser rangefinder FCS and T-64B, T-80B with a much more advanced 2 plane stabilised FCS (similar to Leopard 2A4), + composite armour that was resistant to the NATO 105mm + 120mm APDS and 105mm HEAT.
      Meanwhile for NATO, they were still using APDS rounds, didn't have the thermals advantage, and the only tank with a modern FCS were Chieftains fitted with either TLS or IFCS. The Leopard 1s and M60s used coincidence range finders and all the NATO tanks used homogeneous steel for protection.
      It was really in the 80s that western MIC went leaps and bounds above what Soviet MIC could do.
      The difference from Leopard 1 to Leopard 2, or M60 Patton to M1 Abrams is massive. The difference from T-80B to T-80U is not so much

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >all the NATO tanks used homogeneous steel for protection.
        The later Chieftains had a form of composite, at least on the turret face.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Yukari

        T-72A didn't enter service until 1979 at which point the Abrams had entered LRIP and the M60A3 had an LRF already
        no Russian tank ever had thermals while the US had thermals in 1980

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The T-80U had a very primitive thermal gunner's sight but only appeared in the late 80s.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Unless you're talking about protoshit the USSR Agava thermals were reserved for the T-80UK models which were produced in the 1990s after the collapse. They were horrible dogshit even compared to the 1979 M1 Abrams thermals.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its mostly outdated as fuck, but I think the user is more at fault then the hardware, ukies have been using alot of the same gear for the past 6 months with much better results

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ukies have been using alot of the same gear for the past 6 months with much better results
      Of course, but they've been also lucky that the russians are so incompetent at all levels. If their soldiers were able to use their own ATGMs properly, ukie tanks would also be fucked because of the flawed design of those metal coffins.

      A tank which can't take a single pen hit without instantly burning out, giving almost no chance to its crew to bail out is not a real "tank", just an uppity SPG

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Or was it always shit?
    It was always shit.
    You bought into it due to decades of RUSSIA STRONK memes.

    The reason the UDSSR/Russia managed to produce something viable from time to time is not the norm, but more like a "Despite it being boggled down by corruption and nepotism".

    And here is the thing you can see people making the same mistake with china when its exactly in the same position.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's a boom-bust cycle of russia

      >Russia good in 1700s, beats Turkey and Iran, thinks they are hot shit and become complacent
      >BTFO by Napoleon, they learn from their mistakes
      >1812 Russia defeats Napoleon with good strategy, thinks they are hot shit and become complacent
      >BTFO in the crimean war, they learn from their mistakes
      >1878 they score wins in the Balkans
      >1905 humiliation
      >1914-1918 they are somewhat competent considering they fought against the best army in the world and god's chosen people
      >1938-40 loses
      >Competent in WW2
      >Rekt in Afghan and First Chechenya
      >Competent in 2nd Chechenya and 2014
      >Rekt in 2022

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Competent in 2nd Chechenya and 2014

        Second chechen war was won by buying chechen asses, 2014 happend because ukraine had the same army, but smaller and even poorer and even more corrupt than russian

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        in 2nd Chechenya
        uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not really bro.
        The 2nd Chechen war were Warcrime-Olympics until they finally managed to convince the Chechens which they hadn bribed to a ceasefire.
        Chechnya still hast has the most autonomy out of all the regions in russia, that should tell you all you need to know.

        >and 2014
        Mercs and FSB not Military.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Competent in WW2
        Only winning due to massive numerical superiority and help from America without which they would have been screwed, isn't being competent. They had the advantage in manpower and supplies in every battle from 1942 on and still kept taking more casualties in nearly all of them for the remainder of the war.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia good in 1700s, beats Turkey and Iran, thinks they are hot shit and become complacent
        Beating Sweden was their pinnacle. They had to westernize the fuck out out of their forces, still lost their whole army in the first battle and suffered a grueling series of defeats in Poland until they finally got lucky and still barely managed it.

        >1914-1918 they are somewhat competent considering
        Completely wrong. They got completely rekt by token German forces, spent 80% of their war effort trying to knock out Austria-Hungary, failed and imploded from war weariness. This was an army that Germany had Feared before the war, kek.

        >Competent in 2nd Chechenya
        Not being a complete fuck up does not make one competent. Having the Kadyrov clan switch sides was what won that war.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I still don't think there's anything truly wrong with the hardware, it's just bad use of it. Sure, they might be less advanced, but they ARE cheaper. But of course, if you roll out a tank alone in a field, with poorly trained crew and a bad setip (no reactive armor), then yes, the tank will behave like shit. With a crew and service up to western standard, and used in a way that fits the hardware, I'm sure they would perform perfectly fine.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Ukranians are as much a descendant of the USSR as the Russians and use much of the same equipment.
    It's fundamentally a user problem.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the pre-collapse Soviet stuff better and anywhere approaching Western quality? Or was it always shit?

    There's an old Polish joke from the communist times:
    >What is it, doesn't glow and doesn't fit in the ass?
    >A Soviet contraption for glowing in the ass.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's the funniest shit I've heard in a week.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah waiting for war with the Russians is kind of like having sex with the 10/10 you've always been eyeballing. From a distance she looks amazing but when you finally get intimate her breath smells like pepperoni dogfart, feet like limurger cheese and those immaculate teeth don't look so charming anymore when the dentures they're attached to are dangling along with your flacid member after the most underwhelming orgasm of your life.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can't relate, but ok

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I CAN HAS SLAVI?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russian hardware was always garbage.
    The Kalashnikov was only good because 90% of the design was copied from Nazi Germany.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Kalashnikov was only good because 90% of the design was copied from Nazi Germany.
      Which parts of the design were copied from the Germans, anon? Be specific.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >same styled 30 round mag
        >first russian gun to use intermediate cartridge just like stg
        >same sights
        >same styled piston

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not that anon, but it's obvious that the entire concept of the weapon was a copy, despite the mechanical differences which are irrelevant.

          >Both use a long-stroke gas piston.
          >Have literally nothing else in common.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nothing else in common
            you're focusing in mechanical details instead of the "assault rifle" + intermediate cartridge concept, which is the actual innovation russians copied, even if for them was an evolution of their SMG squads

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This is like claiming the Krag-Jorgensen and Lee-Enfield are both copies of the Lebel because they are magazine-fed rifles chambered for smokeless cartridges.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you're focusing in mechanical details
                because thats whats important

                an actual example of "copying" would be the licensed built AK-clones in china

                That's playing semantics.
                >because thats whats important
                Wrong. The soviet "copied" the concept of the assault rifle from the germans, because that was their real innovation from a military POV, following the use of SMG squads in the eastern front. Self-loading and magazine-fed automatic rifles weren't an innovation by that point, it was the new concept.

                To put another example, when Apple released the IPhone in 2007 it defined the concept of what a smarphone should be and everybody copied it, despite their rivals having similar or even better tech but without nailing the key combination of factors yet.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Wrong. The soviet "copied" the concept of the assault rifle from the germans
                the only thing they copied was the intermediate cartridge

                >To put another example, when Apple released the IPhone in 2007 it defined the concept of what a smarphone should be and everybody copied it,
                and no one is going to call the galaxy a copy

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the only thing they copied was the intermediate cartridge
                Were the FAL or the G3 not real assault rifles despite being pretty much used the same way but with a full rifle cartridge? The concept of the weapon is what mattered, despite the "battle rifle" name given to those.
                >and no one is going to call the galaxy a copy
                plenty of people did and still do, with good reason

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The concept of the weapon is what mattered, despite the "battle rifle" name given to those.
                to be a copy would require actually copying the innards rather than merely taking 1 or 2 components

                >plenty of people did and still do, with good reason
                android OS has pretty much nothing to do with iOS and anyone who claims its a knockoff is lying or deliberately stirring things up

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >to be a copy would require actually copying the innards
                this is were the soviets, Apple's rivals and me differ from you. If you have already your own tech pipeline or can't copy the innards for legal reasons, you just add the key factors that make the "new thing" a success.

                You can copy a concept without literally copying its execution. Many times this is just gradually naturally evolving concepts so it doesn't seem too apparent, but sometimes there are faster key product design breakthroughs (like in the case of the Stg and the IPhone) that made everyone follow suit.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                then why did they switch from stamped to milled ? even with all the stolen stamping lines they couldnt stamp parts like the stg

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They are both copies of the Mauser G88.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Is this bait or are you just that clueless about the development of those 3 rifles?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >you're focusing in mechanical details
              because thats whats important

              an actual example of "copying" would be the licensed built AK-clones in china

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >literally a stick mag like any used for decades by that point
          >completely differrent sights
          >completely different design of the piston

          Wow, you got 1/4 right. And then it's just a basic-bitch "use a weaker cartridge" idea that had been done before in dozens of projects, too.

          not that anon, but it's obvious that the entire concept of the weapon was a copy, despite the mechanical differences which are irrelevant.

          >the entire concept of the weapon was a copy

          LMAO. Fedorov did it in fucking 1915 already. Guess the Germans copied him.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not that anon, but it's obvious that the entire concept of the weapon was a copy, despite the mechanical differences which are irrelevant.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >mechanical differences which are irrelevant

          Are they now?

          But all this doesn't matter. Every gun EVER was based on the knowledge of as many previous gun designs as were available to the designers. One knows what one wants, and looks at how others have solved that before starting to put pen on paper. Be it guns, cars, shovels, pencils, spacecrafts.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Or was it always shit?
    They're using outdated equipment, with a outdated doctrine with poor leadership and planning.
    At the height of the cold war they might have rolled over everything. But after 1980 (I think) it was a toss up where their armored thrusts would get totally fucked by NATO.

    Also this shit we're seeing is so much fucking propaganda that we have very little idea of the conditions on the ground. Ukrainians has lost a shitload of material as well. Both sides are taking staggering losses (with the russians obviously underperforming incredibly) and plugging those by having volkstrum-tier units to fill up the front lines.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the pre-collapse Soviet stuff better and anywhere approaching Western quality? Or was it always shit?
    1950s and 1960s their stuff was decent. 70s is when America outpaced them hard in terms of electronics. By the 80s they couldn't keep up with America at all. Modern Russia just continued the trend with added brain drain from losing all the republics like Ukraine. It didn't help either that corruption became even worse than before. The final nail were the 2014 sanctions.
    The cherry on top is also how Russians employ Arab tier tactics of sending 1-3 tanks at a time with no infantry support.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Feint takeoff.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What the hell went wrong here?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If I'd guess some debris from the field got sucked into the engine and caused a flameout. Not an expert though so willing to hear from people who are.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Some other anon responded to this question with “hydraulics failure in the control stick” in another thread.

        I have no fucking idea about planes but I could believe it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/xc9m80/russian_su25_crashes_shortly_after_takeoff/io3xm1p/

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wake turbulence led to the pilot dropping his cigarette.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They flew too fucking close together. The entire thing was completely unnecessary, but they just had to look cool during takeoff.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Gonna guess that one plane accidentally flew into the other's wash because they were too close.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's Ukraine tho. Russians don't fly manned aircraft any longer. Not efficient enough, they use cruise missiles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Here’s your (you)

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cheer up.

    Russian tech will survive....in the hands of the Ukrainians, lol.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the pre-collapse Soviet stuff better and anywhere approaching Western quality? Or was it always shit?

    I had always been shit. But of much better quality that what russians are producing.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I always thought Russia's claims to be able to overrun continental Europe in a week to be completely ridiculous, even at the height of its power as the USSR in the 1980s, but I never believed they would shit the bed this hard and this spectacularly trying to pacify its next-door neighbor.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is anyone else a little forlorn about the absolute state of Russian military hardware?
    Not really. Everything went to shit in the 1990s for them. Seeing rusted and beat to shit equipment reflects just how bad things were for them during that time frame. At the same time, I also like the ingenuity of their equipment. The Orlan drone is using a canon camera lense, cheap thermal optics, and a single cylinder piston engine. It does the same job as comparable western UAVs but at a fraction of the cost. That being said, many of the problems Russia faces in Ukraine are due to user error and incompetence. I am not sure what the fuck Putin has been doing for the 20 years he has been in charge but obviously the Russian military is still ran by crooked people and it is showing on the battlefield.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly, finding out their issiles only work 60% of the time was disappointing, but when I found out it was because they were using the looted washing machines for their semiconductors to do things like repair missiles that came to them non-functional, I was kind of impressed, ngl. very Metro/ Fallout jank

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest." -Vladimir Putin

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, there were Russian troops in Kiev. They were dead obviously, but he's not entirely lying.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      to be fair he never said in one piece

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. We stand no chance against russian superior tech.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      aight aight there's legit reasons to shit on Russia but this here's a dummy, dummy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But why the fuck would you make a wooden dummy of an empty truck?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There's plenty of reasons to use dummies. Perhaps a TB2 was operating in the area and they wanted to draw it out, perhaps they wanted the Ukrainians to attack that position for whatever reason etc etc

          You can clearly see a mannequin, too.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Besides vacuum tubes, what the fuck else does russia make and export that as good as the quality of USA, Germany, and even China?

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it was always meant to be cheap and easy to produce in huge quantities - compare size of t90 to abrams (or armata) t72(t90) is tiny compared to them

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm hoping that after the war the Ukrainian Defense Industry will take off. They've shown themselves capable of making some very good stuff but just lacked funding. They could make a killing off of upgrades for post-soviet stuff.
    If they integrate into NATO standards, I want them to mass-produce Yatagans. Biggest thing is it completely deletes the carousel autoloader for a Leclerc-style bustle mounted design, with blowout panels and a 120mm gun. Stuff them with western optics, FCS and a proper APS and you'll have one hell of a tank.
    Wonder if a similar upgrade can be done to the other T-Series tanks. Worth a shot considering how many russia "donated".

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think they may even overtake Russia in arms exports for things like missiles. Their Neptune missiles got a lot of press for demolishing Moskva.
      And yes the Ukrainians already have a lot of different upgrade kits for T-64s,, T-72s and T-80s which they can actually manufacture locally. Russia is going to have one hell of a time getting anyone interested in buying their garbage, at least Ukraines locally made gear functions as intended.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a little forlorn too.
    But, the Hind keeps me going. Just love this little bro like you would not believe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the pre-collapse Soviet stuff better and anywhere approaching Western quality?
    For much of the 50-60s it was actually better and their new tanks and jets (especially T-54/55s, MiG-15s) caused the west to shit its pants multiple times. By the late 70s NATO had surpassed them in everything for obvious reasons though.
    The thing is the actual soldiers and crews were always dogshit compared to NATO standards

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Remember back in the 80's and 90's when all military hardware TV shows sucked the dick of russian tanks and hardware
    >Oh yeah they would have crushed the west if WW3 was a thing
    >Russian stuff is unbeatable and is better by default
    >it was so lopsided and obvious that even as a kid I realized this was bullshit

    boy it feels really good to know everyone who thought that and made those shows is a retard, and that myth is long dead and can be put to rest

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's a well known fact the only times in history russian army was successful was when the west supplied them with arms. Soviets literally rode into berlin on land-leased US shermans and and also vehicles supplied by the Brits.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        then for some reason in in the immediate cold war period the soviet equipment got this legendary stigma of being the best in the world and the Western equipment like tanks were inferior in comparison. This was the analyst accepted opinion for the rest of the decades to follow. Even after the desert Storm there was the monkey model cope from these retards. If you want to see what I'm talking bout check out the old shit discovery channel show Fields of armor. The cold war episode is pure cringe. Another good shit show was the greatest military clashes show, and a third was some top ten show where they claim the AK is the best because a magazine made in China will work on a gun made in russia... yes that was what some bong expert actually proclaimed

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >then for some reason in in the immediate cold war period the soviet equipment got this legendary stigma of being the best in the world and the Western equipment like tanks were inferior in comparison
          there was a period of time in the 70s when the best US tank was the M60A1 and the russians had the T-72 ural
          and before that, the soviets had T-64s and the americans were still using the M60A1

          the absolute trashing the iraqis got was because they were fighting the much more modern M1 abrams which only first appeared in 1979 and the US marines had the more modern M774 APFSDS that equalized their odds against T-72s by allowing hull penetrations which they didnt have available to them back in the late 60s

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The M60A1 would have performed well against the T62, esp with the tactics being used by both armies. The T72 admittedly was a more advanced tank for the time as it was next generation, however the 60 can still hold it's own as could the Centurion. The Problem for the west would have been with the numbers of enemy tanks being faced. Number wise the west was at a clear disadvantage. However that doesn't mean the russian equipment was better, just more numerous. I think some mystique and fear was with the unknown as getting ahold of soviet equipment was not really an easy venture

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              not arguing that soviet equipment was much better in fact, mind you

              just that there was a pretty good reason to think the soviets had a lead back in the mid-60s to late 70s, when the T-64 and T-72 were already rolling out and they would have been opposed by the M60A1
              that certainly meant that fears of superior soviet equipment was a totally justified fear, even if hindsight we know the gap was narrower than we thought

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah I think we are on the same page

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes 🙁

    I wanted to see tonks being tonks. I wanted to see the 1st tank guards go all out and try to hold izyum with overwhelming artillery firepower in support and entrenched infantry.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the longer term future of the Russian military ?

    Damn near all of their best, most modernized, equipment got wiped out in the dash to Kiev back in March. The most usable equipment from their Soviet stockpiles are being burned through now. Russia doesn't (can't?) produce significant numbers of new equipment even over a longer timeframe of 5-10 years.

    They're crippled, even if they can (and this is increasingly unlikely) walk away from this with a slice of Ukraine. Can they ever recover? Can Russian society unfuck itself to allow major reform and less corruption?

Your email address will not be published.