Russian military equipment? Best roar for your buck? How come so angelic?
Russian military gear- AK47, Kord 12.7 mm, ShKAS, RPG's- the list goes on and on of fantastic, albeit slightly primitive, but outstandingly effective weapons.
Simple, rugged, reliable, effective- just what the doctor ordered soldiers' weapons.
How come the Russians do it so well on such a tight budget- but the US and the UK squander millions on attempting the same thing but regularly nowhere near as good as the Russian version- an example (albeit a porrish one) the weak comparison of the AK-47 to the M-16- which would you rather be shooting with?
Kord 12.7mm versus the Browning M2- Kord lighter, more accurate and more powerful?
Compare the AK47 or even the AK74U to the SA-80? SA-80 is total shite! SLR be much better (Belgian).
Answers:
I'd have to disagree next to a lot of what you say. For a start, they AK-47 and RPG familial of weapons were base in part on designs contained by service or in prototype with the German Armed Forces during WW2. Like the British and Americans, the Soviets get their hands on every German scientist they could, and used them in their military-industrial complex. Post-war, the US focus be on ballistic missile technology (and the Space race), the UK focus was on multi-role aircraft and naval anti-submarine warfare systems (amongst other things). It just happen that the Soviets got their hands on some of the German scientists and engineers involved contained by the manufacture of infantry weapons. Hence, they run with what they had, and made a right job of it.
Historically, Russian infantry weapons hadn't be that highly regarded - systems such as the Moisin-Nagant rifle and the Degtyarev wheel machine gun weren't lauded as being at the adjectives edge of technological finance.
As to budgetary constraints, don't assume that the Soviets achieved desgin successes without lavish. In the absence of a system of unrestrained capitalism, they didn't have to verbs about, or publicly disclose, their costs. Unlike the US and UK, where military expenditure is unscrew to public oversight and scrutiny, the Soviets were centrally-funded, not publicly accountable, and weren't subject to commercial pressure sin expressions of time and wastage (although the penalties for failure below the Stalinist regime were pretty grim). How does anyone know how much time, money and effort be wasted in the nouns of certain Soviet weapons systems?
I estimate you've hit the nail on the head by referring to 'slightly primitive, but notably effective soldiers' weapons'. The key to the Soviet arms industry be the ability to mass-produce relatively simple and robust weapons. The prime examplar of this be the T-34 tank during WW2. The key to its effect be its robust nature and the Soviet ability to produce more of them than the German forces could ever destroy (over 11,000 in 1944 alone). It be a very good prevailing conditions tank, but it was outclassed by 1943 when the German Panther and Tiger types be in service no the Eastern Front. However, the ability to mass-produce them intended that, even if the German tank force could destroy a dozen T-34s for respectively Panther or Tiger lost (a loss-rate which the Germans in fact achieve very rarely, despite the public perception), at hand would be ample replacements. In fact, the primary limiter on the growth of the Soviet tank force be their ability to turn out trained tank crews: here were always adequate tanks.
In a similar way, the Soviets produced some deeply effective weapons post-1945, whose switch features were, again, relative simplicity, robustness and power to be mass-produced. The AK series of weapons was produced below license in msot Warsaw Pact countries, hence there are still millions of them something like. If the M-16 or the SA-80 had been mass-produced to impossible to tell apart scale by nations excluding the US or UK, they'd probably now be seen as 'market leaders' (albeit complex ones), within the same way that you seem to be to view the AK-47.
The comparison of the SA80 and the SLR is possibly a bit irrelevant. They were designed to different things. Yes, the inspired SA80 had serious problems, but the upgraded SA80A2 is widely accepted as an extremely potent weapon, routinely over-performing against the upgrade spec. The Belgian FN-FAL specifically had the automatic capability machined out within UK production to become the SLR. This gave it a single-shot mode and a 3-round burst mode. As the name suggests, it be a Self-Loading Rifle (ie, as opposed to bolt-action), NOT a fully automatic weapon such as the SA80 was designed to be.
yea, we all saw how good russian military equipment does when used surrounded by war.
just look at the three arab israeli war.
Look at afghanistan in the 80's
Look at the gulf war
look at Iraq
Russian military equipment have never been used in a sucessful time of war.
other than WW ll.
russia was other notorious for building equipment that you could hammer into the ground and still work beside they never had the options of trial and error unlike us soppy buggers.
Total mass produced, stamped steel junk. I'll take a Ma Deuce over anything that ever come out from behind the Iron Curtain. I suppose that's why Charlie had a reward offered for any M-2 taken surrounded by combat so they could use it against us. AK-47 is tough, but really inaccurate & fired on full auto, is basically useless. Source(s): 82nd Airborne Vietnam '68-70.
The Russian stuff is simpler meaning there is smaller quantity to go wrong and when it does go wrong it is easier to fix. Kalashnikov rifle - enormously few working parts. Pretty much soldier-proof! SA80 and M16 very fancy weapons next to lots of moving parts and more to go wrong. They are very transparent as well! Russian aircraft have simple engines and vacuum tubes whereas NATO aircraft enjoy all fancy electronics systems that would be rendered useless in a nuclear exchange! Source(s): served contained by Russian military
Probably because the guns are so simple to use.
When a Russian [Old Soviet Union] is told to build something "fit for purpose" that's exactly what they do, knowing what will happen if they acquire it wrong !
A good job or a lifetime contained by Siberia, that'll be the incentive !
On the cheap: they have cheaper labor and used the cheapest methods of production. They used the simplest methods of design. All these things reduce costs.
Their average soldier (or rebel they be selling it to) was uneducated and undisciplined, so they designed their arms to function without too much maintenance but the tradeoff is a insufficiency of accuracy. In those same hands, it be a good thing as okay.
The west desired accuracy and precision, therefore the artillery require higher maintenance. They cost more because of that as very well as the fact that we pay our workers closely more.
Versions of the AK are now being made within the US and they're by NO means, cheap.
SLR be a proper bit of kit but too heavy and semi auto simply (UK version) unless adapted. Stopping power was superb. SA-80 total crap unless using hollow tip as calibre is too small and round has a tendancy to go past through target.
AK-47 also useless in full auto as recoil cause barrel to rise.
The point is, all missiles have plus and minus points. the key is to use mission specific arms if possible.
Communism, no massive corporate business using colossal rear legs handers to get the contract
Related Questions:
In construction, where on earth can I find the OSHA regulations relative to Personal Protective Equipment?
What do you guess is the impeccable set -up for a BBQ within vocabulary of equipment, method, and materials?
Where can I rent windsurfing equipment and/or go and get module within Marsa Alam, Egypt?
How accurate are the calorie counters on exercise equipment?
Whats the most favorable passageway to nouns the purchases of production equipment & plant expansion?
Simple, rugged, reliable, effective- just what the doctor ordered soldiers' weapons.
How come the Russians do it so well on such a tight budget- but the US and the UK squander millions on attempting the same thing but regularly nowhere near as good as the Russian version- an example (albeit a porrish one) the weak comparison of the AK-47 to the M-16- which would you rather be shooting with?
Kord 12.7mm versus the Browning M2- Kord lighter, more accurate and more powerful?
Compare the AK47 or even the AK74U to the SA-80? SA-80 is total shite! SLR be much better (Belgian).
Answers:
I'd have to disagree next to a lot of what you say. For a start, they AK-47 and RPG familial of weapons were base in part on designs contained by service or in prototype with the German Armed Forces during WW2. Like the British and Americans, the Soviets get their hands on every German scientist they could, and used them in their military-industrial complex. Post-war, the US focus be on ballistic missile technology (and the Space race), the UK focus was on multi-role aircraft and naval anti-submarine warfare systems (amongst other things). It just happen that the Soviets got their hands on some of the German scientists and engineers involved contained by the manufacture of infantry weapons. Hence, they run with what they had, and made a right job of it.
Historically, Russian infantry weapons hadn't be that highly regarded - systems such as the Moisin-Nagant rifle and the Degtyarev wheel machine gun weren't lauded as being at the adjectives edge of technological finance.
As to budgetary constraints, don't assume that the Soviets achieved desgin successes without lavish. In the absence of a system of unrestrained capitalism, they didn't have to verbs about, or publicly disclose, their costs. Unlike the US and UK, where military expenditure is unscrew to public oversight and scrutiny, the Soviets were centrally-funded, not publicly accountable, and weren't subject to commercial pressure sin expressions of time and wastage (although the penalties for failure below the Stalinist regime were pretty grim). How does anyone know how much time, money and effort be wasted in the nouns of certain Soviet weapons systems?
I estimate you've hit the nail on the head by referring to 'slightly primitive, but notably effective soldiers' weapons'. The key to the Soviet arms industry be the ability to mass-produce relatively simple and robust weapons. The prime examplar of this be the T-34 tank during WW2. The key to its effect be its robust nature and the Soviet ability to produce more of them than the German forces could ever destroy (over 11,000 in 1944 alone). It be a very good prevailing conditions tank, but it was outclassed by 1943 when the German Panther and Tiger types be in service no the Eastern Front. However, the ability to mass-produce them intended that, even if the German tank force could destroy a dozen T-34s for respectively Panther or Tiger lost (a loss-rate which the Germans in fact achieve very rarely, despite the public perception), at hand would be ample replacements. In fact, the primary limiter on the growth of the Soviet tank force be their ability to turn out trained tank crews: here were always adequate tanks.
In a similar way, the Soviets produced some deeply effective weapons post-1945, whose switch features were, again, relative simplicity, robustness and power to be mass-produced. The AK series of weapons was produced below license in msot Warsaw Pact countries, hence there are still millions of them something like. If the M-16 or the SA-80 had been mass-produced to impossible to tell apart scale by nations excluding the US or UK, they'd probably now be seen as 'market leaders' (albeit complex ones), within the same way that you seem to be to view the AK-47.
The comparison of the SA80 and the SLR is possibly a bit irrelevant. They were designed to different things. Yes, the inspired SA80 had serious problems, but the upgraded SA80A2 is widely accepted as an extremely potent weapon, routinely over-performing against the upgrade spec. The Belgian FN-FAL specifically had the automatic capability machined out within UK production to become the SLR. This gave it a single-shot mode and a 3-round burst mode. As the name suggests, it be a Self-Loading Rifle (ie, as opposed to bolt-action), NOT a fully automatic weapon such as the SA80 was designed to be.
yea, we all saw how good russian military equipment does when used surrounded by war.
just look at the three arab israeli war.
Look at afghanistan in the 80's
Look at the gulf war
look at Iraq
Russian military equipment have never been used in a sucessful time of war.
other than WW ll.
russia was other notorious for building equipment that you could hammer into the ground and still work beside they never had the options of trial and error unlike us soppy buggers.
Total mass produced, stamped steel junk. I'll take a Ma Deuce over anything that ever come out from behind the Iron Curtain. I suppose that's why Charlie had a reward offered for any M-2 taken surrounded by combat so they could use it against us. AK-47 is tough, but really inaccurate & fired on full auto, is basically useless. Source(s): 82nd Airborne Vietnam '68-70.
The Russian stuff is simpler meaning there is smaller quantity to go wrong and when it does go wrong it is easier to fix. Kalashnikov rifle - enormously few working parts. Pretty much soldier-proof! SA80 and M16 very fancy weapons next to lots of moving parts and more to go wrong. They are very transparent as well! Russian aircraft have simple engines and vacuum tubes whereas NATO aircraft enjoy all fancy electronics systems that would be rendered useless in a nuclear exchange! Source(s): served contained by Russian military
Probably because the guns are so simple to use.
When a Russian [Old Soviet Union] is told to build something "fit for purpose" that's exactly what they do, knowing what will happen if they acquire it wrong !
A good job or a lifetime contained by Siberia, that'll be the incentive !
On the cheap: they have cheaper labor and used the cheapest methods of production. They used the simplest methods of design. All these things reduce costs.
Their average soldier (or rebel they be selling it to) was uneducated and undisciplined, so they designed their arms to function without too much maintenance but the tradeoff is a insufficiency of accuracy. In those same hands, it be a good thing as okay.
The west desired accuracy and precision, therefore the artillery require higher maintenance. They cost more because of that as very well as the fact that we pay our workers closely more.
Versions of the AK are now being made within the US and they're by NO means, cheap.
SLR be a proper bit of kit but too heavy and semi auto simply (UK version) unless adapted. Stopping power was superb. SA-80 total crap unless using hollow tip as calibre is too small and round has a tendancy to go past through target.
AK-47 also useless in full auto as recoil cause barrel to rise.
The point is, all missiles have plus and minus points. the key is to use mission specific arms if possible.
Communism, no massive corporate business using colossal rear legs handers to get the contract
Related Questions: