Invasion of the USSR

[DenisDenis]

I was wondering why the ussr had such an inmense spending in the military.
Was there a definite threat of invasion? Would the western countries have
invaded the USSR if stalin didn't keep an inmense arsenal of weaponry?
Wouldn't a nuke be enough to keep wanna-be invaders at bay?
I think it was money much-needed in other sectors!

I'd like to know your thoughts about this.

[scarletghoul]

Russia was invaded just after the revolution by 14 countries. The USSR was invaded by Germany and Japan in WW2.

What makes you think the capitalists would have stopped invading after that ? It's clear that the only reason they didn't invade was the huge military buildup

[DenisDenis]

yeah true but still, wouldn't the population of western countries be more opposed to an
invasion of the USSR after they just "helped" (read: almost all by themselves :p) defeat
the nazi war machine?

Don't forget the nukes the soviet union had after WW2.

[theblackmask]

The population of Western nations have been opposed to many things that still happened.

[Barry Lyndon]

yeah true but still, wouldn't the population of western countries be more opposed to an
invasion of the USSR after they just "helped" (read: almost all by themselves :p) defeat
the nazi war machine?

Don't forget the nukes the soviet union had after WW2.

True, but it wasn't until the late 1950's that the Soviet Union had ICBM's that could reach the United States to retaliate if the USSR was attacked. Before then the US was openly threatening the USSR by encircling it with military bases in Asia and Europe, and even placing nuclear missiles in Turkey(which were removed in exchange for Soviet missiles being taken out of Cuba).

[S.Artesian]

I was wondering why the ussr had such an inmense spending in the military.
Was there a definite threat of invasion? Would the western countries have
invaded the USSR if stalin didn't keep an inmense arsenal of weaponry?
Wouldn't a nuke be enough to keep wanna-be invaders at bay?
I think it was money much-needed in other sectors!

I'd like to know your thoughts about this.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Nope, the invaders had nukes too, and first
4. Always is, but it's not a question of choice.

[RadioRaheem84]

I still get wide eyes when I tell people the US invaded the USSR but the USSR never invaded the States.

The massive military build up was essential for the USSR to remain in tact. I mean imagine what the USA would look like if it was a capitalist nation in a sea of communist ones?

[ComradeOm]

By 1965 the USSR had 5,000 nuclear warheads; by 1975 they had 15,000; and by 1985 it was 40,000. Enough to defend itself? This was enough to destroy human civilisation several times over. Certainly it was enough to deter any invasion

Even accepting that this arsenal comprised a large percentage of the 'defence burden' it seems odd for the USSR to continue to prioritise spending on the likes of armour divisions well into the 1980s. Well, unless you recall that the nukes are for deterrence but armies are for force projection abroad

[Ocean Seal]

I was wondering why the ussr had such an inmense spending in the military.
Was there a definite threat of invasion? Would the western countries have
invaded the USSR if stalin didn't keep an inmense arsenal of weaponry?
Wouldn't a nuke be enough to keep wanna-be invaders at bay?
I think it was money much-needed in other sectors!

I'd like to know your thoughts about this.

To be quite honest an I'll admit to being very paranoid and I'll admit that I think that they USSR might have overdone it, but most of the money almost necessarily had to be spent on the military. I know that I sound like a military fetishist, but if we remember the USSR was invaded by the Western countries right after the revolution, and once again by the fascists during WWII. Additionally, the United States has had a tendency of taking advantage of countries who they thought were weak (Chile and Cuba). The United States also developed the NATO pact and spent equally as much as the Soviet Union. Remember General Mac Arthur's plan to develop a *****permanent***** nuclear belt around the yellow river? Why didn't Truman, who had already nuked a country and believed that victory was the most valuable thing "if you have the weapons to win a war use them," (okay paraphrased) let him do it? Because he feared he would draw the USSR into the war. Also leaders can change every 4 years in the United States. This means that you have to be prepared for everything.

[IndependentCitizen]

yeah true but still, wouldn't the population of western countries be more opposed to an
invasion of the USSR after they just "helped" (read: almost all by themselves :p) defeat
the nazi war machine?

Don't forget the nukes the soviet union had after WW2.

Have you ever seen western Anti-communist propaganda before? People probably would have thought they were doing a good thing in bringing 'freedom' and 'democracy' to the communists of the east.

The United States and the United Kingdom knew full well the Soviet army was better prepared for war than the U.S/U.K combined. The U.S virtually had no foot step into Russia unless it was via Alaska, and the far-east of Russia. Even then Russia and its allies could have prepared defences well before the NATO invasion even begun to engage the Soviet military.

The United Kingdom was vital for any future U.S operations against the Soviets, because it's literally a stepping stone into Russia, but the U.K is very small, and the Soviet's air force and navy could easily cripple the country by cutting off shipping channels and killing our economy without much blood loss.

There were very few nations who wanted to oppose the soviets because of their military power, and that's why no one leant a hand to the U.S or the U.K because of this.

The CIA and SIS had to use covert espionage in order to try and cripple the USSR, but even the soviets had their master spies.

[khad]

By 1965 the USSR had 5,000 nuclear warheads; by 1975 they had 15,000; and by 1985 it was 40,000. Enough to defend itself? This was enough to destroy human civilisation several times over. Certainly it was enough to deter any invasion
Certainly you have no idea what you're talking about. With the post-vietnam era, military thinkers, unlike the past, were openly talking about fighting and winning a nuclear war. The number of deployed warheads on both sides increased because nuclear weapons were being configured as tactical weapons.

[Thirsty Crow]

To be quite honest an I'll admit to being very paranoid and I'll admit that I think that they USSR might have overdone it, but most of the money almost necessarily had to be spent on the military.
Have you seen the data that ComradeOm provided, regarding the sheer scope of Soviet nuclear arsenal.
No one could convince me that it was necessary to acquire the arsenal of such a magnitude.

[khad]

Have you seen the data that ComradeOm provided, regarding the sheer scope of Soviet nuclear arsenal.
No one could convince me that it was necessary to acquire the arsenal of such a magnitude.
Why? Half of those would be obsolete and mothballed, a portion would be loaded onto bombers and tactical systems, and the rest would be loaded onto MIRV vehicles. You really end up with fewer than 2000 strategic missiles.

Are there more than 2000 important targets in the USA and all of NATO? You bet your ass there are. You will also have to factor in multiple shots against hardened sites.

Those stockpile figures are misleading as hell. What matters is the number of deployed warheads and how they're deployed.

[DenisDenis]

Why? Half of those would be obsolete and mothballed, a portion would be loaded onto bombers and tactical systems, and the rest would be loaded onto MIRV vehicles. You really end up with fewer than 2000 strategic missiles.

Are there more than 2000 important targets in the USA and all of NATO? You bet your ass there are. You will also have to factor in multiple shots against hardened sites.

Those stockpile figures are misleading as hell. What matters is the number of deployed warheads and how they're deployed.
But isn't it true that the world can take only that ammount of nuclear strikes?
I was always told that both the USA and USSR could destroy the world a couple of times with all the nukes they had. Once the world is uninhabitable
there is no more point in striking strategical locations, is there.

[Slav92]

Could economic factors also be prevalent here? In a society where unemployment is abolished, a military is a well of jobs, and one that will, well, ever run dry.

[khad]

But isn't it true that the world can take only that ammount of nuclear strikes?
I was always told that both the USA and USSR could destroy the world a couple of times with all the nukes they had. Once the world is uninhabitable
there is no more point in striking strategical locations, is there.
That's only assuming an even distribution of the entire stockpile. In reality, only 25-50% of those warheads would be able to launch, and among those, most would be concentrated on point targets. One MIRV launcher can hold up to 10-12 warheads. Since the 60s the trend has been to build smaller warheads but to mass more of them in every launch vehicle.

There would be a lot of fallout, but being generous and assuming that the USSR launches 1000 missiles at the USA, there could be still be massive swathes of the country left untouched, since nearly every warhead would have to be targeted at population centers and military and economic targets. It doesn't matter that people would die eventually from radioactive fallout--what matters is that they could be alive long enough to fight back, and this is why both countries kept such seemingly large stockpiles.

[S.Artesian]

By 1965 the USSR had 5,000 nuclear warheads; by 1975 they had 15,000; and by 1985 it was 40,000. Enough to defend itself? This was enough to destroy human civilisation several times over. Certainly it was enough to deter any invasion

Even accepting that this arsenal comprised a large percentage of the 'defence burden' it seems odd for the USSR to continue to prioritise spending on the likes of armour divisions well into the 1980s. Well, unless you recall that the nukes are for deterrence but armies are for force projection abroad

It seems odd until you recall that the USSR faced a combined infantry assault force of what? 80 divisions called NATO. It seems odd until you recall that the USSR had survived an armored invasion from the west by responding with overwhelming armor and artillery. It seems odd until you recall the Red Army strategic plan of "deep battle," of armored divisions punching through first and second ring defenses and operating deep within enemy territory.

[ComradeOm]

Certainly you have no idea what you're talking about. With the post-vietnam era, military thinkers, unlike the past, were openly talking about fighting and winning a nuclear war. The number of deployed warheads on both sides increased because nuclear weapons were being configured as tactical weapons.You're correct - the number of strategic warheads peaked at a mere 12,000 :rolleyes:

As for tactical weapons, the idea of a nuclear war remaining confined to a localised conflict was nothing but a fit of collective delusion


It seems odd until you recall that the USSR faced a combined infantry assault force of what? 80 divisions called NATOAre you joking? The USSR typically faced around 20 NATO divisions from Iceland to Turkey. Any further increase would involve mass mobilisation and the shipping of US Army divisions from the States. In turn the USSR maintained around 200 active divisions (granted many only so on paper) with the Soviet Army of Germany alone almost 20 land divisions

But really - 80 or 800, what's the difference when faced with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads?


It seems odd until you recall that the USSR had survived an armored invasion from the west by responding with overwhelming armor and artilleryAnd the relevance of this in a nuclear age is...? Did I miss something here? Were the Wehrmacht armed with nuclear weapons? Or are you condoning the Soviet general staff for planning to fight the last war?


It seems odd until you recall the Red Army strategic plan of "deep battle," of armored divisions punching through first and second ring defenses and operating deep within enemy territoryYes, hence their love for tactical nukes. But hey, don't get me wrong - tanks are of course needed when you're invading Western Europe

[S.Artesian]

You're correct - the number of strategic warheads peaked at a mere 12,000 :rolleyes:

As for tactical weapons, the idea of a nuclear war remaining confined to a localised conflict was nothing but a fit of collective delusion

Are you joking? The USSR typically faced around 20 NATO divisions from Iceland to Turkey. Any further increase would involve mass mobilisation and the shipping of US Army divisions from the States. In turn the USSR maintained around 200 active divisions (granted many only so on paper) with the Soviet Army of Germany alone almost 20 land divisions

But really - 80 or 800, what's the difference when faced with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads?

And the relevance of this in a nuclear age is...? Did I miss something here? Were the Wehrmacht armed with nuclear weapons? Or are you condoning the Soviet general staff for planning to fight the last war?

Yes, hence their love for tactical nukes. But hey, don't get me wrong - tanks are of course needed when you're invading Western Europe

No, I'm not kidding. US troop strength commitments to NATO were around 340,000 in 1987; Germany had [this is from memory] about 200,000 active duty, and a larger number reserves-- so adding in Canada, Turkey, Greece, UK, etc. 80 divisions did not seem that far off.

I'm not condoning anything. I think generals are always fighting the last war, hence the Soviets commitment to armor and artillery and deep battle.

As for Soviet intentions regarding an invasion of Western Europe-- if you mean an unprovoked, non-defensive reaction, but rather an attempt to conquer-- that's just horseshit. Worse than that, it's nothing but a replay of the Cold War propaganda. The fSU had no desire, and no need to invade western Europe. The entire history of their conduct is one of reaching an understanding, accommodate, a status quo with the capitalism in Western Europe.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In the fSU up until the late 1980s high school students, boys and girls,were required to be able to field dress, take apart and reassemble, an AK47 in 20 minutes. They expected an imminent American invasion until way into the 80s.

I have a few questions. They're probably a bit basic. I fully understand the USSR had no intention of, and weren't able to, invade Western Europe. As I understand the Red Army western supply system was dismantled in the late 40s.Also the fSU long since ceased being revolutionary. This was well understood by US and Western ruling classes.

In light of this, how real was the cold War? It obviously was a contest, but what exactly was being contested? Was it primarily to reinforce US capitalist hegemony?

Again, I know the "Fulda Gap Invasion scenario" was always a fantasy. If it actually happened, if the NATO propaganda scenario turned out to be true, what should a wesrern leftist do? As I understand the German RAF took subsidies from the DDR?

Finally, I know Putin isn't a socialist. He did appear to be somewhat anti-imperialist before Medvidev. Is Putin in this sense progressive? Should we support the Russians in Georgia, for example?

[khad]

I'm not condoning anything. I think generals are always fighting the last war, hence the Soviets commitment to armor and artillery and deep battle.
And that's their job--to have plans for the most extreme contingencies. People who have no clue how the military--or any military, for that matter--works have no grounds to criticize.


As for Soviet intentions regarding an invasion of Western Europe-- if you mean an unprovoked, non-defensive reaction, but rather an attempt to conquer-- that's just horseshit. Worse than that, it's nothing but a replay of the Cold War propaganda. The fSU had no desire, and no need to invade western Europe. The entire history of their conduct is one of reaching an understanding, accommodate, a status quo with the capitalism in Western Europe.The Soviet general command took the Kursk-Orel strategic defensive transitioning into strategic offensive as the basis of their national defense plans. Absorb the initial attack and follow up by launching an offensive with the intent of encircling and annihilating the opposing force. That's what's mechanized forces are for. It's common sense. How do you expect to conduct mobile warfare and operational maneuver without armor?


Yes, hence their love for tactical nukes. But hey, don't get me wrong - tanks are of course needed when you're invading Western EuropeWell, fuck you very much. I guess the Big Bad Reds were pushing so many tacnukes down Western European throats that one of the major developments in Soviet doctrine in the 80s was counter-nuclear maneuver. Obviously because Western Europeans would never do what godless commies were capable of.

[S.Artesian]

And that's their job--to have plans for the most extreme contingencies. People who have no clue how the military--or any military, for that matter--works have no grounds to criticize.

Not criticizing, not condoning. It's what the military does, it's what it's supposed to do. In event of a conflict, seek out, close with, engage, and destroy the enemy. Makes perfect sense to me. Chance, luck, fate, and history, favor heavy maneuver battalions.


The Soviet general command took the Kursk-Orel strategic defensive transitioning into strategic offensive as the basis of their national defense plans. Absorb the initial attack and follow up by launching an offensive with the intent of encircling and annihilating the opposing force. That's what's mechanized forces are for. It's common sense. How do you expect to conduct mobile warfare and operational maneuver without armor?

Yep. Better than common sense. Deep battle. It works.

[ComradeOm]

And that's their job--to have plans for the most extreme contingencies. People who have no clue how the military--or any military, for that matter--works have no grounds to criticizeSo now we're uncritically accepting everything the military does/says? Would you be willing to extend this uncritical acceptance to US operations in Vietnam or Iraq?

And, just for the record, I'm sure that you've been through the Soviet staff system at some point (little joke there) but that does not mean that you have some monopoly on knowledge relating to Soviet operational doctrine. So get off your high horse


That's what's mechanized forces are for. It's common sense. How do you expect to conduct mobile warfare and operational maneuver without armor?How do you do you expect to conduct a campaign of manoeuvre when every troop concentration is being hit by tactical nuclear warheads? You ever think to question the validity of Soviet assumptions?

Of course you don't. That would require independent thought in lieu of reflex Sovietophilia


Well, fuck you very much. I guess the Big Bad Reds were pushing so many tacnukes down Western European throats that one of the major developments in Soviet doctrine in the 80s was counter-nuclear maneuver. Obviously because Western Europeans would never do what godless commies were capable of.Is there an argument in there? I assume there is but extracting it from the bullshit would be too much effort. If you've got something to say about Soviet military doctrine then just spit it out

[BalticComrade]

It is nothing much to explain, it is fight of capitalism and communism, only one will rule in the world someday, so the fight will never end until the war is over, now we see battles that were in history and are today...

[S.Artesian]

So now we're uncritically accepting everything the military does/says? Would you be willing to extend this uncritical acceptance to US operations in Vietnam or Iraq?

Hey wait a minute. Khad is quite capable of handling himself, but I thought I'd weigh in to tell you how much bullshit your argument is.

First, nobody's uncritically accepting anything here, except you, who seem to buy into the "menace of Soviet aggression" mythology perpetrated by the US and its NATO allies. I think documents available on the National Security Archive website [affiliated with George Washington University, in the US] show how little aggressive intent there was in the Soviet military strategy regarding western Europe.

Secondly, the Soviet military commitment to deep battle as a strategy based on initially absorbing and checking an enemy advance while preparing for massive counterattacks was well known in US military circles even before the collapse of the fSU.

Thirdly, it's not the abstraction of the military from the social order that Khad, or I, am engaged in with explaining Soviet infantry and armor strength, but it is exactly such an abstraction you think you can make when you say: "Would you be willing to extend this uncritical acceptance to US operations in Vietnam or Iraq?"

The latter, the US military in Vietnam or Iraq, serves US capitalism. We certainly can make an assessment of its tactics and strategy, just as we are making an assessment of the fSU strategy and battle plan. What we cannot do is say, "Oh because the USSR believed in massed armor and infantry forces, therefore it intended to invade Western Europe."



How do you do you expect to conduct a campaign of manoeuvre when every troop concentration is being hit by tactical nuclear warheads? You ever think to question the validity of Soviet assumptions?

Eventually, comrade, [a little joke there] combat involves taking and holding territory. Somewhere in the battle plan, that dirty nasty ground engagement comes to the fore. The fSU had demonstrated the ability to absorb, and recover from, losses that certainly would have stopped any other social, military organization cold. I don't doubt for a second that the military and political leaders of the fSU would have absorbed enormous losses again and still have reorganized and pursued close quarters combat with any invading force. Any western military officer who doubted that would have been an idiot-- or in the air forces.



If you've got something to say about Soviet military doctrine then just spit it out

He did spit it out. It's called deep battle.

[ComradeOm]

Khad is quite capable of handling himselfThat's one thing that's not in question. I'm expecting a barrage of ad hominems any minute now


First, nobody's uncritically accepting anything here, except you, who seem to buy into the "menace of Soviet aggression" mythology perpetrated by the US and its NATO alliesYes, yes, the peace loving Soviet people had no intention of invading Western Europe. They simply maintained the world's largest army and detailed invasion plans to show off at parties :rolleyes:

Now frankly I don't care about who was more likely to start the war but pretending that the very concept of a Soviet invasion is a myth is bullshit. You do not maintain, at very high cost, a conventional army unless it is intended to do something that your equally impressive nuclear arsenal cannot. I am, in short, questioning the necessity of keeping millions of men under arms when your nuclear stockpile runs into the tens of thousands

Of course a far more mundane contributor to this is likely to be the unwillingness of the Soviet officer corps to put themselves out of work. They couldn't exactly turn around to the Strategic Rocket boys and say over to you. That would involve finding a new job :glare:


Secondly, the Soviet military commitment to deep battle as a strategy based on initially absorbing and checking an enemy advance while preparing for massive counterattacks was well known in US military circles even before the collapse of the fSU.Of course it was well known. Its well known to anybody who has even a cursory knowledge of Soviet military doctrine since the 1930s. I want to be clear here - throwing around "deep battle" is not impressing anyone

What is in question is not whether the Soviets had a military doctrine but whether it was a valid one; ie whether it was compatible with nuclear warfare. This is something that both yourself and Khad have refused to question, instead seeking refuge in the fact (read: shocking revelation) that there was indeed a Soviet defensive plan


Thirdly, it's not the abstraction of the military from the social order that Khad, or I, am engaged in with explaining Soviet infantry and armor strength, but it is exactly such an abstraction you think you can make when you say: "Would you be willing to extend this uncritical acceptance to US operations in Vietnam or Iraq?"Yes, an acceptance that underlies my own criticism of the USSR. I'm always surprised that even 'anti-revisionists' find it necessary to defend the post-Stalin USSR against all charges

Its also something I find startling given the massive drain (the 'defence burden') that maintaining this apparatus had on the Soviet economy and state. What a waste


Eventually, comrade, [a little joke there] combat involves taking and holding territory. Somewhere in the battle plan, that dirty nasty ground engagement comes to the foreWhich is dodging the question. I'll wait for Khad to answer this because you seem to have missed the point entirely. I am not talking about the necessity of putting boots on the ground but rather the survivability of such formations, as employed by Soviet war plans, in a nuclear war


He did spit it out. It's called deep battle.Khad can be a muppet but he's not stupid enough to repeat the same phrase over and over. The phrase that piqued my interest was "counter-nuclear maneuver" but the actual argument was lost in the bullshit

[S.Artesian]

Yes, yes, the peace loving Soviet people had no intention of invading Western Europe. They simply maintained the world's largest army and detailed invasion plans to show off at parties :rolleyes:

Now frankly I don't care about who was more likely to start the war but pretending that the very concept of a Soviet invasion is a myth is bullshit. You do not maintain, at very high cost, a conventional army unless it is intended to do something that your equally impressive nuclear arsenal cannot. I am, in short, questioning the necessity of keeping millions of men under arms when your nuclear stockpile runs into the tens of thousands

That's the contention, all right. The fSU had no intention, no need, to invade Western Europe. The fSU had experienced western Europe's need to invade it.

Everybody has invasion plans. That's what the military does. The question of invasion is not a question of battle plans, but of economic, social need.

And that's the point you miss, which is of course why you find it so convenient and harmonious to sing the NATO song of the "Soviet menace."



What is in question is not whether the Soviets had a military doctrine but whether it was a valid one; ie whether it was compatible with nuclear warfare. This is something that both yourself and Khad have refused to question, instead seeking refuge in the fact (read: shocking revelation) that there was indeed a Soviet defensive plan

Nope the question is not if the Soviet military doctrine was "valid," would have been successful against NATO. The question is if the fSU as a social, economic, entity intended, required, needed to invade Europe.


Yes, an acceptance that underlies my own criticism of the USSR. I'm always surprised that even 'anti-revisionists' find it necessary to defend the post-Stalin USSR against all charges

Nope again. Not against all charges, but against this specific charge, this propaganda of a "Soviet menace" spun by the bourgeoisie. I'm always surprised, although not that much, that anti-Stalinists find it so easy to repeat this propaganda without puking.


Its also something I find startling given the massive drain (the 'defence burden') that maintaining this apparatus had on the Soviet economy and state. What a waste

No doubt about that. And increasing that burden was one of the goals of Reagan's own ratcheting up of military spending and threats against the fSU.


Which is dodging the question. I'll wait for Khad to answer this because you seem to have missed the point entirely. I am not talking about the necessity of putting boots on the ground but rather the survivability of such formations, as employed by Soviet war plans, in a nuclear war

Nope again. You miss the point again. The USSR military, and the political leadership would have accepted massive losses, based on their ability to recover, re-equip, resupply and counter those losses by moving deep within the enemy's territory, those negating the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

[Psy]

Nope the question is not if the Soviet military doctrine was "valid," would have been successful against NATO. The question is if the fSU as a social, economic, entity intended, required, needed to invade Europe.

Well if the USSR was a revolutionary workers state then yes the USSR would eventually require to invade capitalist Europe at least in the defense of worker uprisings in capitalist Europe. For example if Paris May 1968 resulted in France becoming a workers state what good to the revolution would the USSR's forces be just sitting in the Warsaw pact while the much weaker French revolutionary army is fighting capitalist forces in Europe?

If the USSR was not a revolutionary workers state then why would imperialism not apply to it?

[S.Artesian]

Well if the USSR was a revolutionary workers state then yes the USSR would eventually require to invade capitalist Europe at least in the defense of worker uprisings in capitalist Europe. For example if Paris May 1968 resulted in France becoming a workers state what good to the revolution would the USSR's forces be just sitting in the Warsaw pact while the much weaker French revolutionary army is fighting capitalist forces in Europe?

If the USSR was not a revolutionary workers state then why would imperialism not apply to it?


Total nonsense.

[khad]

How do you do you expect to conduct a campaign of manoeuvre when every troop concentration is being hit by tactical nuclear warheads? You ever think to question the validity of Soviet assumptions?

Of course you don't. That would require independent thought in lieu of reflex Sovietophilia
Hence the development in Soviet military thought regarding counter-nuclear maneuver. I've mentioned this already. Perhaps this would be more of an discussion when you pay attention.

Khad can be a muppet but he's not stupid enough to repeat the same phrase over and over. The phrase that piqued my interest was "counter-nuclear maneuver" but the actual argument was lost in the bullshit
You don't know the first thing about Soviet military thought and now you feign interest? Deep battle and its operational analogue, deep operations are a cornerstones of Soviet military thought, and S. Artesian is on target when he reiterates that point. The Kursk-Orel defensive-offensive was the textbook example studied by and taught to generations of Soviet military thinkers--operational maneuver in defense, operational maneuver in offense. I know the maneuver school of warfare took about 30 years after WW2 to filter into the US/UK, but do try to keep up with the times.


What is in question is not whether the Soviets had a military doctrine but whether it was a valid one; ie whether it was compatible with nuclear warfare. This is something that both yourself and Khad have refused to question, instead seeking refuge in the fact (read: shocking revelation) that there was indeed a Soviet defensive planSuffice it to say that Soviet military doctrine throughout the postwar period was adapted to suit the increasingly technological battlefield. You can't seriously suggest that the USSR, which pioneered technologies like attack helicopters, ifvs, atgms, computerized logistics, and thermobaric weapons had no idea how to deal with technological realities. Counter-nuclear maneuver was a component of Soviet operational art added as tactical nukes started appearing on the battlefield in the 70s and 80s, emphasizing earlier commitment of exploitation forces and greater co-mingling with the enemy battle group.

Of course, you seem to want to argue that your ideal force of immobile leg infantry would be that much less vulnerable to nuclear attack.

Learn to read already and stop pestering me. I'm not any more favorably inclined towards your specious, sensationalist arguments than S. Artesian.

[Psy]

Total nonsense.
Please explain.

If the USSR's goal was global revolution then it would have need to have a plan of how to reinforce a revolutionary armies within Western Europe. The point of global revolution is to spread the revolution thus the USSR military would then have been responsible for defending revolutionary workers state as they overthrow capitalist states. Lenin and Trotsky didn't have the resources to reinforce revolutions outside Russia they barely had enough to defend Russia, yet if they had the resources the option of the Bolsheviks using the Red Army to aid worker uprisings abroad would have been on the table.

If the USSR was no longer a revolutionary workers state then one has to ask why wouldn't the USSR want to expand the capital it controls? Both the USSR and China went to war over a few islands on the Usrruri (and the other island on the border rivers), the USSR didn't want to give up these island while China invaded the USSR over them. The USSR even considered using nukes in this conflict, so if the USSR was willing to nuke China to defend relatively worthless islands (not that I'm defending China invading USSR over them) why would it be inconsiderable for the USSR to have in the very least some interest in fighting to acquire far more valuable land in Western Europe? Or are we to assume that USSR saw China as a grave theat and saw these islands as a buffer?

That is not to say the USSR needed to invade western Europe (unless we say it was a revolutionary workers state then it would have to given revolutions in western Europe) but there were incentives for the USSR to do so.

[S.Artesian]

No, I'm not going to explain. Pointless. Your either/or dichotomy has nothing to do with the economic organization of the fSU, nor with the real history of its actions, intentions regarding Europe.

[Psy]

No, I'm not going to explain. Pointless. Your either/or dichotomy has nothing to do with the economic organization of the fSU, nor with the real history of its actions, intentions regarding Europe.
Why?

If the USSR was a revolutionary workers state it would have intentions in overthrowing capitalists states. If the USSR was not a revolutionary workers state then why would it be any different from any other nation state in this regard? Meaning if given the chance are you suggesting the USSR would not have gone with reunification of Germany under the Warsaw pact? If so what would the USSR had done if the west gave west Berlin to the USSR?

[Kayser_Soso]

Why?

If the USSR was a revolutionary workers state it would have intentions in overthrowing capitalists states. If the USSR was not a revolutionary workers state then why would it be any different from any other nation state in this regard? Meaning if given the chance are you suggesting the USSR would not have gone with reunification of Germany under the Warsaw pact? If so what would the USSR had done if the west gave west Berlin to the USSR?

The USSR wanted a unified, neutral, unoccupied Germany. It was the west that demanded division. This is more or less admitted by mainstream scholarship; they try to qualifying it by the usual method of reading Stalin's mind and determining that it must have been some secret plot to capture all of Germany(why he didn't do the same thing in Austria, which accepted just such a deal, is a mystery).

[Psy]

The USSR wanted a unified, neutral, unoccupied Germany. It was the west that demanded division.

While Bolsheviks (when they still had power) wanted a revolutionary Germany as they saw it as they only way the Russian revolution could survive in the long term.



This is more or less admitted by mainstream scholarship; they try to qualifying it by the usual method of reading Stalin's mind and determining that it must have been some secret plot to capture all of Germany(why he didn't do the same thing in Austria, which accepted just such a deal, is a mystery).

Stalin also didn't capitalize on the unrest among the proletariat around the world following WWII.

[khad]

If the USSR was no longer a revolutionary workers state then one has to ask why wouldn't the USSR want to expand the capital it controls? Both the USSR and China went to war over a few islands on the Usrruri (and the other island on the border rivers), the USSR didn't want to give up these island while China invaded the USSR over them. The USSR even considered using nukes in this conflict, so if the USSR was willing to nuke China to defend relatively worthless islands (not that I'm defending China invading USSR over them) why would it be inconsiderable for the USSR to have in the very least some interest in fighting to acquire far more valuable land in Western Europe? Or are we to assume that USSR saw China as a grave theat and saw these islands as a buffer?
In 1962 Khrushchev offered to give away a number of those islands, including Damansky island, the one eventually fought over. The deal would have gone through had Mao not sabotaged the talks by claiming that the PRC would accept no deals over what were formerly Qing dynasty lands.

You're really an incredible creature, Psy. It's incredible that everything that comes out of your mouth is pure horseshit.

[Psy]

In 1962 Khrushchev offered to give away a number of those islands, including Damansky island, the one eventually fought over. The deal would have gone through had Mao not sabotaged the talks by claiming that the PRC would accept no deals over what were formerly Qing dynasty lands.

You're really an incredible creature, Psy. It's incredible that everything that comes out of your mouth is pure horseshit.

Actually the deal was withdrawn around July 1964 after Mao stated Tsarist Russia had stripped China of vast territories and the USSR has not reimbursed China for the territories Tsarist Russia it took from China and the USSR occupied.

This also does not chance the fact the USSR was willing to defend these islands and push China towards NATO rather then pull back and negotiate with China despite China resorting to violence since at the time China was no major threat to the USSR.

[Kayser_Soso]

While Bolsheviks (when they still had power) wanted a revolutionary Germany as they saw it as they only way the Russian revolution could survive in the long term.

Unfortunately this revolutionary Germany failed, and nobody has since been able to articulate exactly how this would help Russia survive in the long run.




Stalin also didn't capitalize on the unrest among the proletariat around the world following WWII.

Perhaps not as much as he should have.

[khad]

Actually the deal was withdrawn around July 1964 after Mao stated Tsarist Russia had stripped China of vast territories and the USSR has not reimbursed China for the territories Tsarist Russia it took from China and the USSR occupied.

This also does not chance the fact the USSR was willing to defend these islands and push China towards NATO rather then pull back and negotiate with China despite China resorting to violence since at the time China was no major threat to the USSR.
Again you're full of shit. Those are claimed to be Chinese lands by nationalists, but those were in fact Manchu lands. Throughout the Qing dynasty period, Chinese viewed the Manchus as foreign conquers, and the Manchus in return treated them as second class citizens. This fashionable fuckwittery of demanding rights to manchu lands is a modern obsession, since it is as ridiculous as claiming Mongolia as part of the PRC because Genghis Khan once subjugated the Chinese and established the Yuan Dynasty.

Hey look, Russia and Ukraine can demand land from Sweden now, because back in the 9th century Swedish vikings settled Novgorod and Kiev.

[Psy]

Again you're full of shit. Those are claimed to be Chinese lands by nationalists, but those were in fact Manchu lands. Throughout the Qing dynasty period, Chinese viewed the Manchus as foreign conquers, and the Manchus in return treated them as second class citizens. This fashionable fuckwittery of demanding rights to manchu lands is a modern obsession, since it is as ridiculous as claiming Mongolia as part of the PRC because Genghis Khan once subjugated the Chinese and established the Yuan Dynasty.

And how am I full of shit? I stated that Mao stated that those lands belonged to China. Who had rightful claim to the land doesn't change that in 1964 Mao claimed that China originally owned these lands and I stated previously I didn't support China's invasion of the USSR.



Hey look, Russia and Ukraine can demand land from Sweden now, because back in the 9th century Swedish vikings settled Novgorod and Kiev.
You are kinda missing the point.

China's force was in no long term threat to the USSR even while during China's surprise attack. At best China would have been able to to dig in and defend the islands that was in dispute but China had no hope in pushing into the USSR's mainland especially if the USSR dug in on its side of the river instead of trying to counter-attack.

Was the USSR retaking of the islands worth pushing China towards being more friendly towards NATO and more hostile towards the Warsaw pact? As this could be seen as a huge train wreck of Stalin's theory of socialism in one country as neither side in this case acted in the interest of building a international socialism.

[Psy]

Unfortunately this revolutionary Germany failed, and nobody has since been able to articulate exactly how this would help Russia survive in the long run.

Well the reasons for a revolutionary Germany still existed in 1945 as even in 1945 Germany still had a more concentrated proletariat then the USSR and surrounding Germany in 1945 was a sea of unrest within the working class that extended to Brittan meaning a revolution in Germany could have spread all throughout the British empire.

[Optiow]

They USSR spent a lot on military because it was needed for the Cold War against the USA. It was important for the USSR to show its military prowess, just as it was for the US to show theirs.

The Red Army was also used to keep their communist influence 'under control' and to settle civil unrest. This is seen in 1956 Hungary Rising, when the Red Army stepped in and regained control of the country.

[Kayser_Soso]

They USSR spent a lot on military because it was needed for the Cold War against the USA. It was important for the USSR to show its military prowess, just as it was for the US to show theirs.

It was largely a waste though. The mentality of the USSR played right into the hands of those in the US who theorized that the USSR could be taken down by an arms race.

Sometime in the 1960s the US felt that it would not be able to match the number of Soviet tanks, helicopters, and so on. They came to believe that technology would be a "force multiplier." The performance of US technology in the first Gulf War validated this theory, when single Abrams tanks could waste dozens of T-72s and M-84s(Yugoslav T-72 copy) without suffering a single knocked out tank, often destroying their targets before the they could even fire a round.



The Red Army was also used to keep their communist influence 'under control' and to settle civil unrest. This is seen in 1956 Hungary Rising, when the Red Army stepped in and regained control of the country.

If Khruschev hadn't helped disgrace Rakosi and if the Hungarians had arrested a small band of traitors at the Petofi club, this could have been avoided entirely.

[Nolan]

It was largely a waste though. The mentality of the USSR played right into the hands of those in the US who theorized that the USSR could be taken down by an arms race.

Sometime in the 1960s the US felt that it would not be able to match the number of Soviet tanks, helicopters, and so on. They came to believe that technology would be a "force multiplier." The performance of US technology in the first Gulf War validated this theory, when single Abrams tanks could waste dozens of T-72s and M-84s(Yugoslav T-72 copy) without suffering a single knocked out tank, often destroying their targets before the they could even fire a round.

But those were just cheap export models. They didn't show the true ability of Soviet-made tanks at the time.

[Roach]

But those were just cheap export models. They didn't show the true ability of Soviet-made tanks at the time.
Probably, but the US certainly had a more developed computer industry, therefore a greater capability of arming itself with it.

[khad]

Sometime in the 1960s the US felt that it would not be able to match the number of Soviet tanks, helicopters, and so on. They came to believe that technology would be a "force multiplier." The performance of US technology in the first Gulf War validated this theory, when single Abrams tanks could waste dozens of T-72s and M-84s(Yugoslav T-72 copy) without suffering a single knocked out tank, often destroying their targets before the they could even fire a round.
Actually, the Soviets held qualitative armor superiority until 1985 or so, and they were planning a new generation of MBTs for service by the mid-90s. Before 1980, it was pure dominance on every level for Soviet armor--mobility, firepower, and fire control. So I don't know where you get this crap. Probably just some more self-hating garbage from the Russian media, in fact. I'll repeat myself here and repost what I posted a long time ago, but this will be instructive.


This is an interesting article I dug up in a recent debate.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87134


Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
Many of you may be puzzled by this, since the standard Western propaganda line is to claim that all Soviet tanks pop like eggs when so much as grazed. I think this article illustrates just how advanced Soviet military technology was. The Iraqi export models, which were severely downgraded, did not give an accurate assessment of the performance of Soviet main battle tanks.

I will be going into some of the figures to explain how these results work, but first a note on Soviet tank philosophy and history.

The Soviet school of tank design always attempted to strike compromise between firepower, protection, and mobility. The lessons of WW2 had taught the importance of speed and operational flexibility, so their vehicles were designed with that in mind. They were somewhat smaller than their western counterparts, but very well armored for their size. They were generally less than 45 tons, so as to be able to cross many of the bridges in Europe which could not carry any heavier. Their armor was heavily concentrated on the frontal arc, even more than comparable designs from the West.

In the postwar era, the major Soviet tank models were:

T-54/55 (introduced in 1947) - The most mass produced tank in history, this was an easy to maintain vehicle that was still quite effective when upgraded. Russia still produces upgrade packages for the numerous armies employing this vehicle.

T-62 (1961) - The slightly tougher younger brother of the T-55. It featured more armor, a powerful 115mm smoothbore, but it was also slower and about twice as expensive. For that reason it never really caught on well in terms of arms sales. It's effectiveness over the T-55 was quite marginal, especially with the latter's ammunition upgrades.

T-64 (1966) - This was the revolutionary design that epitomized Soviet tank design in the latter half of the Cold War. It featured a 125mm main gun, with a new carousel autoloader, as well as composite armor. It was the toughest tank on the battlefield for well more than a decade.

T-72 (1973) - Cheaper and superficially similar tank intended to fill second-line formations in the USSR. It was mechanically distinct from the 64 and didn't have many of the luxuries of the more expensive tank, but it shared its composite armor and its powerful 125mm main gun.

T-80 (1977) - Upgraded T-64 with a gas turbine, called the "flying tank" for its impressive maneuverability and speed. The T-80's maneuverability was unexpected revealed in public when a battalion of them appeared on a highway leading to Berlin during military exercises and were able to keep up with the traffic. At 27.2 hp/tonne, the T-80U had the highest hp/weight ratio of any tank in the Cold War


For the purposes of this investigation, I will focus on the latter 3 designs, for they represent a period of qualitative dominance for Soviet armor. The 125mm outclassed the US/UK 105mm M68/L7, and the composite armor made these Soviet tanks virtually immune to most anything the West could throw at them from the ground.

ARMOR PROTECTION

As stated before, armor protection has become a much more complicated calculation these days since tanks are no longer made of pure steel. Protection ratings are given as a Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA) rating, essentially equating armor to the thickness of solid steel slab. These are estimated protection levels for Soviet tanks of the cold war, measured in the frontal arc:

T-55A 230mm (late 40s/early 50s)
T-62 280mm (early 60s, last of the pure steel tanks)
T-64 400mm (late 60s)
T-64A 450mm (late 60s)
T-64B 450mm (mid 70s)
T-64BV (w/K1) 480mm (mid 80s)
T-64B1V* (w/K5) 700mm (late 80s/early 90s)
T-72A 400mm (early-mid 70s)
T-72 export ~300-350mm (this is based on my estimate given that the Iranians couldn't deal with them with their chieftains using likely L-15 ammo, but they were easily taken out by M833 during the Gulf)
T-72B 480mm (mid 80s)
T-72BV (w/K1) 520mm (late 80s)
T-72B* (w/K5) 730mm (early 90s)
T-80 450mm (late 70s)
T-80BV (w/K1) 550mm (mid 80s)
T-80B/U* (w/K5) 750mm (late 80s/early 90s)

*K5 or Kontakt-5, is a type of hardened reactive armor adopted by the Soviet Army in 1985 that added approximately 250mm of armor rating against kinetic projectiles (armor piercing) and 500mm against chemical projectiles (HEAT). This addon armor gave late Soviet tanks a huge boost in protection.

And the comparable western models

M48 150mm (early 50s)
M60 260mm (early 60s)
M1 Abrams 400mm (early 80s)
M1A1 440mm (late 80s)
M1A1HA 660mm (early 90s)

Centurion 160mm (late 40s)
Centurion Mk5 260mm (mid 50s)
Chieftain 350mm (mid 60s)
Challenger 1 600mm (mid 80s)

Leo1 210mm (mid 60s)
Leo1A4 270mm (mid 70s)
Leo2 550mm (early 80s)
Leo2A4 700mm (late 80s/early 90s)

Here are some sample matchups by time period, Soviets in red.

1960s

T-64 400mm (late 60s)
M60 260mm (early 60s)
Chieftain 350mm (mid 60s)
Leo1 210mm (mid 60s)

1970s
T-64B 450mm (mid 70s)
M60 260mm (early 60s)
Chieftain 350mm (mid 60s)
Leo1A4 270mm (mid 70s)

Mid 1980s
T-64BV (w/K1) 480mm (mid 80s)
T-72B 480mm (mid 80s)
T-80BV (w/K1) 550mm (mid 80s)
M1 Abrams 400mm (early 80s)
Challenger 1 600mm (mid 80s)
Leo2 550mm (early 80s)

Early 1990s
T-64B1V* (w/K5) 700mm (late 80s/early 90s)
T-72B* (w/K5) 730mm (early 90s)
T-80B/U* (w/K5) 750mm (late 80s/early 90s)
M1A1HA 660mm (early 90s)
Challenger 1 600mm (mid 80s)
Leo2A4 700mm (late 80s/early 90s)


As one can see, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, advanced Soviet tanks had a decisive protection advantage over their western counterparts. The West evened it up with their adoption of composite armors in the 1980s, though the Soviets responded with hardened reactive armor upgrades. What this shows was that the Soviets were capable of matching Western developments tit-for-tat right until the end.


AMMUNITION

These figures assume penetration against a flat slab at 0 degrees. DU=Depleted Uranium

Soviet 125mm 2A46M
3BM-22 DU? 430mm at 2km (1976)
3BM-29 DU 470mm at 2km (1982)
3BM-32 DU 560mm at 2km (1984) -most common round in Soviet arsenal in 1980s
3BM-42 Tungsten 500mm at 2km (1986)
3BM-42M Tungsten 600-650mm at 2km (1990)
3BM-46 DU 650mm at 2km (1991)

120mm British L11A5
L-15 steel 340mm at 2km (1965)
L-23 tungsten 450mm at 2km (1983) -most common round in the British cold war arsenal in 80s
L-26 DU 530mm at 2km (1991)
L-27 DU 720mm at 2km (1999)

UK/American 105mm
M-392A2 APDS steel 225mm at 2km (early 1970s)
M-728 APDS steel 240mm at 2km (mid 1970s)
M-735 tungsten APFSDS 300mm at 2km (1978)
M-774 DU 375mm at 2km (1981)
M-833 DU 440mm at 2km (1984)
M-900 DU 520mm at 2km (1991)

American 120mm
M829 DU 550mm at 2km (1987)
M829A1 DU 610mm at 2km (1991)
M829A2 DU 730mm at 2km (1994)
M829A3 DU 765mm at 2km (2003)

Sample matchups by time period, Soviets in red.

1970s
3BM-22 DU? 430mm (1976)
L-15 steel 340mm at 2km (1965)
M-728 APDS steel 240mm at 2km (mid 1970s)
M-735 tungsten APFSDS 300mm at 2km (1978)

Early 1980s
3BM-29 DU 470mm (1982)
3BM-32 DU 560mm (1984)
M-774 DU 375mm at 2km (1981)
M-833 DU 440mm at 2km (1984)
L-23 tungsten 450mm at 2km (1983)

Late 1980s/Early 1990s
3BM-32 DU 560mm (1984)
3BM-42 Tungsten 500mm (1986)
3BM-42M Tungsten 600-650mm (1990)
3BM-46 DU 650mm (1991)
M-900 DU 520mm at 2km (1991)
L-26 DU 530mm at 2km (1991)
M829 DU 550mm at 2km (1987)
M829A1 DU 610mm at 2km (1991)

The pattern here is similar to the armor matchup. Soviet firefower dominated in the 1970s and slowly ceded this edge in the 1980s, though they were by no means rendered obsolete. NATO ammunition surpassed Russian ammunition in performance following the collaspe of th USSR.


PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Sample matchups from 1991, when the USSR collapsed

Challenger 1: 600mm protection vs 650mm penetration from 125mm 3BM-46 = possible penetration
M1A1HA: 660mm protection vs 650mm penetration from 125mm 3BM-46 = possible penetration
T-72 (bare, not export): 400mm protection vs 530mm penetration from 120mm L-26 = clear overpenetration
T-80B (bare): 500mm vs 530mm penetration from 120mm L-26 = possible penetration
T-72 w/K5: 400mm (base armor) + 250mm (K5 KE rating) vs 530mm penetration from 120mm L-26 = round does not penetrate; tank survives.
T-80B w/K5: 500mm (base armor) + 250mm (K5) vs 610mm penetration from M829A1 = round does not penetrate; tank survives.

For the test that the US Army did, they used the M829A2 with an RHA penetration rating of 730mm vs an uparmored T-72.

T-72B w/K5: 480mm (base armor) + 250mm (K5 KE rating) vs 730mm penetration from 120mm M829A2

This is 730mm of armor vs 730mm of penetration, which should go either way, but the tests showed that the Kontakt-5 equipped tanks were invulnerable. What explains this? Against projectiles of that era, Kontakt-V defeated piercers by both breaking them up and inducing yaw. The M829A3 round was introduced in 2003 to compensate and should be more effective in breaking through hardened reactive armor. However, Russia has also introduced a newer type of ERA called Relikt. Its characteristics are completely unknown to the public at this point in time.

Anyway, the conclusion is a fairly prosaic one--the test results by the US military showing that late model Soviet tanks were practically invulnerable to NATO tanks' main guns should be expected, given what we know about about their characteristics. Up until the end, Soviet designs were quite capable of taking on their counterparts, though since the collapse the West has taken the opportunity to decisively widen the lead. It is unlikely that Russia, having lost more than a decade in military development, will catch up any time soon.

People in the West should be a bit more humble. A victory against downgraded steel armored T-72s lacking laser rangefinders, composite armor (the Iraqi tanks only had steel), and depleted uranium ammunition is hardly a victory worth bragging about. Of course a fully upgraded Western MBT from 1990 would shred a gimped tank from 1970.

Against the tanks that T-72s were designed to fight, namely the M60 and the Chieftain, those export grade models managed to outclass the older western tanks thrown at them. They were an absolute terror on the battlefield. Even with the Iranians with their Centurions found the T-72 an incredibly hard nut to crack, and they eventually had to resort to close range RPG runs from motorcycle.

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=30547&pid=746479&mode=threaded&start=#entry746479

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_214.shtml


The town was captured, but held only very briefly, as the Iraqis were swift to react with a major counteroffensive of their elite Republican Guards units, which deployed their brand-new T-72 tanks, recently delivered from the USSR, driving them directly from Baghdad. Initially, the Iranians had no effective weapons against the T-72, except TOW-armed Cobras and motorcycle-riding RPG-7 teams. Both were apparently ineffective against the front armour of the T-72s, so they had to search positions which would enable them to engage from the flank. This considerably complicated the matters for Iranian fliers and fighters, and another IRIAA AH-1J was shot down by Iraqi ZSU-23-4s indeed while operating against Iraqi T-72s. The losses of Iranian anti-tank teams of course, were appropriately higher.
I am going by memory here, but from what I remember the few significant armor on armor clashes did not go particularly well for the iranians. Now from what I remember this might have been more tactics than anything else but insofar it can be gauged (caveats apply) the Chieftains did not not seem to really dominate the T-72s in any way, shape or form. It also seems Chieftains exhibited about the same degree of reliability of late war heavy german armor, though the environment was taxing and technical services may have been shaken a bit...

It is worth noting that the iraqis were pretty willing to use captured M109s, M113s etc but except for a handful which were issued to a militia Chieftain were dumped; though to be fair M60/M47 shared the same fate.The export T-72s also dominated the older tanks in the Israeli arsenal in the Lebanese Civil War.


Meanwhile, furhter to souther-east, two Syrian armour brigades encircled south of Lake Karoun were fighting for their naked survival, keeping the main group of Israeli forces busy. In the words of Syrian officers that survived this battle, the fighting was savage: the two front T-62-companies from his battalion were completely destroyed, and his company lost several tanks as well. In return, the Syrians destroyed six and captured three M-60s. By the noon, their situation worsened when surviving Syrian tanks began to run out of ammunition and fuel while under increasing Israeli pressure. Concerned with the situaiton of the 76th and 91st Tank Brigades, the Syrian General Headquarters ordered a brigade of the 1st Armoured Division, equipped with T-72 tanks, and moving along the road from Damascus towards the Lebanese border, to move straight ahead, cross the border and hit the right flank of the Israeli units advancing along the eastern side of Beka'a.

The Syrian counterattack that came from east towards west, passing few kilometres north of Rashayya, is described as the "most savage tank battle of the whole war" by Syrian veterans. The T-72s clashed with several companies of M-60s, destroying some of these in process while suffering only a few losses in exchange: in fact, the officer in command of one of leading Syrian companies was subsequently decorated for his unit successfully penetrated the Israeli ring around the 76th and 91st Brigades, without loosing a single tank in the process. During the Syrian breakthrough south and east of Lake Karoun, on the afternoon of 9 June, several officers noticed an Israeli F-16A falling in flames behind the Israeli lines, the pilot ejecting in the process - only to be recovered by IDF ground troops. The cause of this loss remains unclear until today, but no local air-defence units claimed any kills, while a number of Syrian veterans - interviewed independently - recall this event very vividly.

Despite the Syrian success, and the fact that the two armoured brigades managed to escape throught the corridor that remained open for several hours, the 10th Armoured Division of the Syrian Army paid a heavy price, losing almost 200 T-62s in the course of the fighting. At least 90 of these were captured intact. Eventually, this unit has had to be pulled back and swiftly re-armed with T-55 tanks from strategic reserve stocks. In turn, the 1st Armoured Division was ordered back behind the Syrian border, to regroup and continue its trip to Zahle.

[Kayser_Soso]

Most Soviet tanks of the time were T-72s or lower. The whole design of the T-72-80 is inferior because its rounds are weaker and the carousel loading mechanism is easily set ablaze by rounds penetrating the turret. Even to this day many Russian tanks do not have Kontakt-5 ERA and a tank with Chobbam armor is far more likely to survive than any tank with ERA. The performance record of the M1A1 easily proves this. ERA would also do little to protect from 30mm DU rounds fired from an Apache or A-10. Once the plates are detonated and gone, the armor is exposed.

[khad]

Most Soviet tanks of the time were T-72s or lower. The whole design of the T-72-80 is inferior because its rounds are weaker and the carousel loading mechanism is easily set ablaze by rounds penetrating the turret. Even to this day many Russian tanks do not have Kontakt-5 ERA and a tank with Chobbam armor is far more likely to survive than any tank with ERA. The performance record of the M1A1 easily proves this. ERA would also do little to protect from 30mm DU rounds fired from an Apache or A-10. Once the plates are detonated and gone, the armor is exposed.
1. Actually, the carousel is almost impossible to set ablaze, and it's clear you don't know a goddamn thing about any tank. You say: "carousel loading mechanism is easily set ablaze by rounds penetrating the turret." Well, the autoloader is recessed deep into the body of the tank, not in the turret. No turret penetration will EVER hit the autoloader. The problem with ammo explosions is the traditional additional spare ammo storage in the corners of the turret itself, which has been minimized by the practice of not carrying spare ammunition--or in the Ukrainian case, building a blow-out bustle in the rear of the turret.

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/2491/ukrainskiczolgoplotm.jpg

Also, read the data for yourself. It was not until after the cold war that western ammunition began surpassing Soviet ammunition. The Soviet gun was an older gun that had reached its technological limit, but up until the end qualitative improvements were at least keeping up with Western developments. The USSR was planning to upgrade to 152s in the 1990s.

Soviet 125mm 2A46M
3BM-22 DU? 430mm at 2km (1976)
3BM-29 DU 470mm at 2km (1982)
3BM-32 DU 560mm at 2km (1984) -most common round in Soviet arsenal in 1980s
3BM-42 Tungsten 500mm at 2km (1986)
3BM-42M Tungsten 600-650mm at 2km (1990)
3BM-46 DU 650mm at 2km (1991)

120mm British L11A5
L-15 steel 340mm at 2km (1965)
L-23 tungsten 450mm at 2km (1983) -most common round in the British cold war arsenal in 80s
L-26 DU 530mm at 2km (1991)
L-27 DU 720mm at 2km (1999)

UK/American 105mm
M-392A2 APDS steel 225mm at 2km (early 1970s)
M-728 APDS steel 240mm at 2km (mid 1970s)
M-735 tungsten APFSDS 300mm at 2km (1978)
M-774 DU 375mm at 2km (1981)
M-833 DU 440mm at 2km (1984)
M-900 DU 520mm at 2km (1991)

American 120mm
M829 DU 550mm at 2km (1987)
M829A1 DU 610mm at 2km (1991)
M829A2 DU 730mm at 2km (1994)

2. Who do you think pioneered composite armor? The soviets did of course. They had composite armor on their tanks a good 15 years before the Americans developed their own. The 400-500mm frontal RHA equivalent of the standard Soviet T-72s and T-80s was equivalent to the early model M1s, before the M1s themselves were uparmored in the late 80s. It's clear you didn't even bother to read the table. The bare T-series with sandbar composite was very comparable to Western models in the frontal arc through the mid-80s.


1960s
T-64 400mm (late 60s)
M60 260mm (early 60s)
Chieftain 350mm (mid 60s)
Leo1 210mm (mid 60s)

1970s
T-64B 450mm (mid 70s)
M60 260mm (early 60s)
Chieftain 350mm (mid 60s)
Leo1A4 270mm (mid 70s)

Mid 1980s
T-64BV (w/K1) 480mm (mid 80s)
T-72B 480mm (mid 80s)
T-80BV (w/K1) 550mm (mid 80s)
M1 Abrams 400mm (early 80s)
Challenger 1 600mm (mid 80s)
Leo2 550mm (early 80s)

3. Also, no 30 mm round can penetrate a T-series tank from the front. Read it your goddamn self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications


Armor penetration:

69 mm at 500 meters
38 mm at 1000 meters

The A-10's cannon kills tanks by attacking the tops and rear, which are weak on any armored vehicle. Your blaming Soviet armor for being weak to air attacks is pretty ridiculous.


This is why I rarely bother to write seriously for revleft, because of ungrateful pricks who neither want nor care about facts.

[Kayser_Soso]

Ok maybe you'd like to explain why so many T-series tanks in Iraq had their turrets blown off so easily? DU rounds easily reached the ammunition carousel. And besides, the Abrams outranges the T-72/80 gun by about a thousand meters, so they would be able to get more hits.

By contrast, in one incident a disabled M1A1 had to be destroyed by other tanks in its unit. They were firing from the rear with their DU penetrator 120mm rounds, and couldn't destroy it. In another case an Apache fired a Hellfire at an Abrams by mistake, hitting it in the rear and still not destroying it. And Abrams can usually only be destroyed by attacks to the top armor, large anti-tank mines, or with a good ATGM to the side under the loader's hatch, or the commander's hatch on the other side. (Or by pulling the emergency fire extinguisher switch on the outside, but getting that close is a challenge).

[Salyut]

The A-10's cannon kills tanks by attacking the tops and rear, which are weak on any armored vehicle. Your blaming Soviet armor for being weak to air attacks is pretty ridiculous.

Don't forget the anti air assets Khad. :p

To be honest I'd say the combat losses in a hypothetical mid-80's Third World War would be a damper on CAS operations by both sides.

[khad]

Ok maybe you'd like to explain why so many T-series tanks in Iraq had their turrets blown off so easily? DU rounds easily reached the ammunition carousel.

No, they did not, you fucking moron. They detonated the spare ammo stored in the turret which cooked off the turret. This was clarified in long discussions and debates on Tanknet, and it is basic logic. Do the exposed rounds in the turret cook off first, or does the carousel in the body? As stated before, the Russian army in Chechnya stopped carrying rounds in the turret to minimize this risk, and the Ukrainians have built blowout ammo bustles into their turrets. T-72/90 autoloader is horizontal, limited to the lowest part of the hull and almost completely protected by roadwheels from side hits. The drawback is the smaller capacity (22 instead of 28 rounds). If the ammo is limited to the autoloader only a very lucky shot in the narrow gaps between T-72s (larger) roadwheels will cause an ammo explosion. A hit higher than the wheels will penetrate above the compartment floor and therefore not ignite the charges in the loader. In the Second Chechen War where Russian tankers only carried ammo in the autoloader, there was not a single case of ammo-explosion.

Even in their standard configuration, Russian armor proved quite survivable. In the initial march into Grozny that ended up in disaster for the Russian army, knocked out tanks received on average between 3-6 "lethal" hits by RPGs in vulnerable areas. Of the 62 tanks lost in the first month of fighting in Chechnya in 1994, not one was killed in the frontal arc, and most of the personnel casualties occurred when the crews were gunned down as they were trying to bail. This was a problem of tactics and coordination in a force not expecting urban combat (or any combat for that matter), not armor failure.

In the late Cold War context, a "bare" up-to date Soviet T-72 or T-80 would have been resistant to the British 120mm L11's L-15 and L-23 rounds, as well as the USA's 105mm M-728, M-735, M-774, and M-833 rounds. The upgraded 120mm, which began to be issued in the late 1980s, could penetrate bare Soviet tanks at ranges upwards of 2km, but the Soviets were compensating through the use of hardened ERA, a stopgap measure intended to tide the tank fleet over until the next generation of MBTs would come along in the mid-90s. The USSR collapsed and the project never really came to fruition, but that's another story.


And besides, the Abrams outranges the T-72/80 gun by about a thousand meters, so they would be able to get more hits.1. Iraqi tanks were downgraded exports without composite armor--they had cast steel turrets which only provided about 300-350mm of protection instead of 400-500mm.

2. Many of the Iraqi T-72s were locally produced knockoffs called "Lion of Babylon" tanks.

3. The Soviet Union's standard issue APFSDS rounds for their 1980s force was the 3BM-32, a depleted uranium penetrator with an RHA penetration equivalent of 560mm @ 2000m. The export grade ammunition given to Iraq was the 3BM-17 or 3BM-18, an older steel penetrator used only for training purposes in the Soviet army. This particular round was rated at 290mm RHA @ 2000m. You can read up on the nomenclature here:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

4. Iraqis tanks were not issued FCS equipment like modern stabilizers or laser rangefinders. Moreover Iraqi crews neglected some basic maintenance tasks such as zeroing their guns, which made their weapons very inaccurate. At a muzzle velocity of more than 1700m/s, the 125 smoothbore was the original point and shoot weapon--they should not have had any right missing shots from under 500m, but they did. From reports I've read about Czech tankers going in to train Iraqis, the the skill level differential was massive. At first the Iraqis were all like "we're all veterans, so what can you teach us?" One demo shut them the fuck up.


By contrast, in one incident a disabled M1A1 had to be destroyed by other tanks in its unit. They were firing from the rear with their DU penetrator 120mm rounds, and couldn't destroy it. In another case an Apache fired a Hellfire at an Abrams by mistake, hitting it in the rear and still not destroying it.5. Just how much shit do you have piled up? If the rear armor was so uber badass to resist 120mm penetrators, then why has the US army admitted to losing tanks to side and rear RPG hits? There is no tank in the world that is invulnerable from the sides and rear.

You can see this Abrams get completely fucking OWNED by a SIDE RPG hit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z6l6SwU_k0

You can read the thread on tanknet discussing this attack. At least 1 crewman KIA with the rest likely WIA. Many of the people over there have served in tank crews, and none of them are as jaw-droppingly stupid as you to believe that their vehicles are invulnerable from the sides and rear.

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=30144&st=0


Nasty hit, just in the NBC system, perforation is more than certain, I wonder what is crew status, I hope that there were no KIA's.
I think it's fair to say based on the location of the hit alone that the tank *is* indeed in big trouble. If there are indeed reports of some armor crew fatalities on this day (BLAH, can you elaborate on this please?) it's quite probable this is from this tank.
The point of impact is definitely an ominous sign for the crew; it's total overmatch against the sides of the turret sans ERA.
It might not be him, or he could have been the TC of the tank that day, or the TC was wounded along with the gunner who was killed. No one may have been killed, but spall would have been thrown around inside the tank, that's for certain. Many tanks operated with 3 man crews.
Behind armor debris cloud is usually cone-shaped. In close proximity to the inner side of armor, that was penetrated by HEAT jet, near apex of this cone, spall is condensated, but not spread wide. If unlucky, crewman gets all the jet and spall. But it is much more chance that he would be outside of this "death zone". Deeper into battle compartment BED cone diameter rises, spall is spread wide, but also less condensated. And do not forget residual jet that would be lethal for any living on it`s path. Anything more your self-hating ass would like to add?

Edit: Actually, I recant that last statement. With your fascination with the APL, you are most likely an American born and raised. If you were Russian, you would obviously have the basic military experience from conscription to at least understand the internal layout, nomenclature, and capabilities of some of the most common equipment in the army. As such, you are just a chauvinist western jackass talking about things he can't even begin to grasp.

[Kayser_Soso]

No, they did not, you fucking moron. They detonated the spare ammo stored in the turret which cooked off the turret.

Tard, why do you think it cooked off so easily?



As stated before, the Russian army in Chechnya stopped carrying rounds in the turret to minimize this risk, and the Ukrainians have built blowout ammo bustles into their turrets. T-72/90 autoloader is horizontal, limited to the lowest part of the hull and almost completely protected by roadwheels from side hits. The drawback is the smaller capacity (22 instead of 28 rounds). If the ammo is limited to the autoloader only a very lucky shot in the narrow gaps between T-72s (larger) roadwheels will cause an ammo explosion. A hit higher than the wheels will penetrate above the compartment floor and therefore not ignite the charges in the loader. In the Second Chechen War where Russian tankers only carried ammo in the autoloader, there was not a single case of ammo-explosion.

We are talking about Soviet era tanks, not tanks built since the collapse of the Soviet Union.



Even in their standard configuration, Russian armor proved quite survivable. In the initial march into Grozny that ended up in disaster for the Russian army, knocked out tanks received on average between 3-6 "lethal" hits by RPGs in vulnerable areas. Of the 62 tanks lost in the first month of fighting in Chechnya in 1994, not one was killed in the frontal arc, and most of the personnel casualties occurred when the crews were gunned down as they were trying to bail. This was a problem of tactics and coordination in a force not expecting urban combat (or any combat for that matter), not armor failure.

In the late Cold War context, a "bare" up-to date Soviet T-72 or T-80 would have been resistant to the British 120mm L11's L-15 and L-23 rounds, as well as the USA's 105mm M-728, M-735, M-774, and M-833 rounds. The upgraded 120mm, which began to be issued in the late 1980s, could penetrate bare Soviet tanks at ranges upwards of 2km, but the Soviets were compensating through the use of hardened ERA, a stopgap measure intended to tide the tank fleet over until the next generation of MBTs would come along in the mid-90s. The USSR collapsed and the project never really came to fruition, but that's another story.[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you basing this on? For one thing, you can see from photographs of field exercises that in the 1980s many Soviet tanks weren't equipped with the Kontakt reactive armor.




5. Just how much shit do you have piled up? If the rear armor was so uber badass to resist 120mm penetrators, then why has the US army admitted to losing tanks to side and rear RPG hits? There is no tank in the world that is invulnerable from the sides and rear.


You can see this Abrams get completely fucking OWNED by a SIDE RPG hit:

9z6l6SwU_k0[/QUOTE]

What kind of RPG? I can't see the video where I am so I am basing this on previous stories I have read- and that RPG was most likely one of the newer models with the tandem-charge warhead. Also, it is very easy to get a mobility kill on an Abrams, but knocking it out is another story.



You can read the thread on tanknet discussing this attack. At least 1 crewman KIA with the rest likely WIA. Many of the people over there have served in tank crews, and none of them are as jaw-droppingly stupid as you to believe that their vehicles are invulnerable from the sides and rear.

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=30144&st=0

Did anybody here say "invulnerable"? Nope. You lose.



Anything more your self-hating ass would like to add?

Yes, admitting problems of military technology equals self-hatred. This is literally the stupidest thing I've heard on this board and you know how many Trots and Anarchists I've got into it with.



Edit: Actually, I recant that last statement. With your fascination with the APL, you are most likely an American born and raised. If you were Russian, you would obviously have the basic military experience from conscription to at least understand the internal layout, nomenclature, and capabilities of some of the most common equipment in the army. As such, you are just a chauvinist western jackass talking about things he can't even begin to grasp.

Wow, way to display your book-knowledge which is useless in the real world. If you knew anything about Russia you'd know that many Russian youth these days avoid service, often paying a great deal of money to do so. Furthermore Russian military training is extremely job-focused which means that unless you were actually trained in armor you wouldn't know much about the technical aspects of technology you did not directly work with. THAT information can be found in books available in the West incidentally.

Apparently you confuse Communism with Russian nationalism, Comrade Brezhnev. A true "Tankie" if there ever was one.

[Kayser_Soso]

And all those wonderful tanks couldn't keep the USSR from being conquered by businessmen. Maybe if they had spent half that amount of money on political education instead of invading Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan that wouldn't have happened.

[BeerShaman]

Well, the USSR had a need for building a strategic system able to fight back the nazis and the need to research for tecnhology able enough to do this. The soviets had neither before the attack of the nazis in middle Russia about 1943, for example by the 1st atttack on Leningrad and blah blah. The soviets' having poor weaponry and ammunition was not a myth. Thus they needed to create a powerful army rapidly. As a result spending so much for war tech was a need. Then, the soviets have had also some imperialistic motives during the end of the war and after it, so, possibly they wanted to use their tech for this too. And of course, there is the reason of protecting their state.
America almost never attacks powerful states, it makes deals with them. That's why they have built such a powerful state. Stalin wasn't much of an able politician before he accepts some of his advisors and starts changing his mind because of the great hits that the nazis managed to them in war before the winter. But Stalin always knew this tactic of dealing and killing about America. So, he wanted to enforce his state.
That's more than a hypothesis. Check those books: Laurence Rees: The Nazis,
Niall Ferguson: War in the world.

[khad]

Tard, why do you think it cooked off so easily?
Seriously, if you don't get it after I explained the internal layout of these vehicles--the autoloader is separated from the fighting compartment beneath the turret floor...well, I never expected you to be this much of an idiot. Suffice it to say, Russian tankers understood what made their turrets pop, and it wasn't the autoloader. In fact, only storing rounds in the autoloader and not in the turret itself was what prevented ammo explosions, period.


We are talking about Soviet era tanks, not tanks built since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The internal layout is the same. Both the vertical and horizontal carousel were developed in the days of the USSR.


What the hell are you basing this on? For one thing, you can see from photographs of field exercises that in the 1980s many Soviet tanks weren't equipped with the Kontakt reactive armor.Only a fucking moron like you would confuse Kontakt applique ERA with sandwich composite (usually made of some silica or boron compound)

All soviet MBTs since the T-64 in the 60s were equipped with composite materials (the first being the famous silica-based combination K), which was layered armor built into spaces in the turret itself. The formulas improved over the years, and the spaces were refilled with more up-to-date materials as tanks were upgraded.

Composite inserts were a standard feature of Soviet MBTs, and the frontal armor rating of a BARE mid-80s T-72/80 was between 400-500mm RHA (compared to the 300-350mm rated cast steel turrets of export models). Every round on this list which has a certified penetration below that was not guaranteed to penetrate frontally, but I guess you really have problems reading or even doing a bit of basic math. It wasn't until the late 80s and early 90s that Western ammo upgrades allowed NATO's tanks to decisively defeat Soviet composite armor. Kontakt applique was a stopgap measure intended to tide the tank force over until the T-95 series would be introduced in the mid-90s.

120mm British L11A5
L-15 steel 340mm at 2km (1965)
L-23 tungsten 450mm at 2km (1983) -most common round in the British cold war arsenal in 80s
L-26 DU 530mm at 2km (1991)
L-27 DU 720mm at 2km (1999)

UK/American 105mm
M-392A2 APDS steel 225mm at 2km (early 1970s)
M-728 APDS steel 240mm at 2km (mid 1970s)
M-735 tungsten APFSDS 300mm at 2km (1978)
M-774 DU 375mm at 2km (1981)
M-833 DU 440mm at 2km (1984)
M-900 DU 520mm at 2km (1991)

American 120mm
M829 DU 550mm at 2km (1987)
M829A1 DU 610mm at 2km (1991)
M829A2 DU 730mm at 2km (1994)


Wow, way to display your book-knowledge which is useless in the real world. If you knew anything about Russia you'd know that many Russian youth these days avoid service, often paying a great deal of money to do so. Furthermore Russian military training is extremely job-focused which means that unless you were actually trained in armor you wouldn't know much about the technical aspects of technology you did not directly work with. THAT information can be found in books available in the West incidentally.Well, you did state you were living in Moscow in the 90s, so it's clear you are a bit of an older guy and not an 18 year old draft dodger. That said, the conscription service was pretty darn universal under the USSR.

And I'm sure it's common for conscripts to confuse INTERNAL composite armor (ie combination K, "kvartz") with VISIBLE kontakt reactive armor bricks sitting on top of tank hulls, like you just did. I'm sure those poor, mis-educated infantrymen couldn't tell the difference when every unit in the USSR was mechanized, with integrated tank companies in every battalion. I'm sure they wouldn't know a damn thing about what their own tanks even looked like.


Apparently you confuse Communism with Russian nationalism, Comrade Brezhnev. A true "Tankie" if there ever was one.Spoken like a true Western hoxhaite. Whine whine whine about Brezhnevites when cornered like a rat and caught up in your pretensions.

Never address me again, Western pig.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This thread is interesting and important. I've booked marked it. Thanks to Khad, S. Artesian and umm...everyone else. I respect anyone who knows more than I do, which in this case means about 3/4 of everyone on RevLeft.

I have to say the insult trading is hilarious. I didn't know leftists still talked that way. Two guys, probably at least a decade past military age, trading viscous insults over the technical specs of Soviet tanks made 40 years ago. Okay.

That's what I like about the revolutionary left. Conservatives rant and pontificate, liberals hold hands, sing Gumbaya, and feel sorry for everyone, but only us commies know how to play the nines.

BTW, Kayser your blog is quite interesting. The writing is good and insightful, once you get beyond the Hoaxist nonsense. I'm Amerikkkan. I went though a tankie phase and lived in the fSU for a few years myself.

[Kayser_Soso]

If I had no life I could browse and assload of forums about tanks and come back with all kinds of counter-data but something tells me that all the USSR's tanks didn't do a damn bit a good against businessmen.

Seriously I've never seen someone throw such a hissy fit on this board over a disagreement about technical specs that are totally irrelevant now. The Soviet Union collapsed, its armored divisions turned out to be worthless(ok not totally worthless, they did a good job killing Russians in the streets in Moscow).


I ought to point out that the "blog" you are referring to is not my own.


And Khad, go back to playing Red Alert for the glory of mother Russia.

[khad]

If I had no life I could browse and assload of forums about tanks and come back with all kinds of counter-data but something tells me that all the USSR's tanks didn't do a damn bit a good against businessmen.

Seriously I've never seen someone throw such a hissy fit on this board over a disagreement about technical specs that are totally irrelevant now. The Soviet Union collapsed, its armored divisions turned out to be worthless(ok not totally worthless, they did a good job killing Russians in the streets in Moscow).

I ought to point out that the "blog" you are referring to is not my own.
As I said, I do not want to see a moronic poser like you addressing me ever again. You may try to pass yourself off as Russian to the fools on revleft, but no one with half a brain is really fooled. You're just the latest in a long line of arrogant, disingenuous western pricks on revleft slumming it up in the "Third World."

And Khad, go back to playing Red Alert for the glory of mother Russia.
I have more roots in the former communist world than you ever will, and no amount of wishing that your ancestors were buried with the party flag will change that fact.

[Adi Shankara]

Kayser, you live in Moscow, right? Esli vasha semya zhivut (moy pravopisaniy gov'no lol)???

also, did sdelal vash dedushka uchastiya in the Velikaya Voyna? (the second not the first)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ya dumayo shto on Amerikanits. Ya toze dumayo shto on prepadeval anglisky yazik vi Belarus.

Izviniti, ya zabila moya Russky.

[Adi Shankara]

Ya dumayo shto on Amerikanits. Ya toze dumayo shto on prepadeval anglisky yazik vi Belarus.

Izviniti, ya zabila moya Russky.

K (ya?) russkiy, no rodilsya e vyros v Amerika.

PS: Vash russkiy velika e slava lol

[Kayser_Soso]

As I said, I do not want to see a moronic poser like you addressing me ever again. You may try to pass yourself off as Russian to the fools on revleft, but no one with half a brain is really fooled.

Moron, I have never tried to pass myself off as Russian. Perhaps nobody told you but foreigners are allowed to live in Moscow. And don't assume that everyone else here believes the oversimplistic Russia=Communism bullshit. So unlike you I have no need to "pose."



You're just the latest in a long line of arrogant, disingenuous western pricks on revleft slumming it up in the "Third World."

Moscow is not the "Third World."



I have more roots in the former communist world than you ever will, and no amount of wishing that your ancestors were buried with the party flag will change that fact.

Nobody gives a shit where your "roots" are. You sound like a nationalist with bullshit like that. Now go back to playing Red Alert and reading armor penetration tables. It's so hilarious to see you throw a crying fit because someone dared question the glory of Mother Russia's TANKS!! Oh by the way, did you ever compare the number of Russian tank losses since the 90s that were total-write offs to Abrams losses which were recoverable?

What a fucking caricature.

[Kayser_Soso]

ya dumayo shto on amerikanits. Ya toze dumayo shto on prepadeval anglisky yazik vi belarus.

Izviniti, ya zabila moya russky.

Я тоже так думаю, что он Американец, но у него Русская клавиатура.


А никогда был в Беларуси.

[khad]

Moscow is not the "Third World."
Hence the quotation marks. Nevertheless, with how corrupt, and criminal that society has become, together with its mafia activity and human trafficking, it may as well be, especially when compared to what it was.


Nobody gives a shit where your "roots" are. You sound like a nationalist with bullshit like that. Now go back to playing Red Alert and reading armor penetration tables. It's so hilarious to see you throw a crying fit because someone dared question the glory of Mother Russia's TANKS!! Oh by the way, did you ever compare the number of Russian tank losses since the 90s that were total-write offs to Abrams losses which were recoverable? You want to do this, you American nationalist? Well, let's. According to RUSSIAN sources, there was only one write-off during the entire Second Chechen campaign, and that was an older T-62M. There was not a single case of ammo explosion in the T-72 series of tanks due to the policy of only carrying ammunition in the carousel autoloader. Here are examples from the repair yard which demonstrate the tanks' survivability.

Tank 613: Hit 3 times by RPG. Returned to duty after engine replacement.

Tank 611: Hit 3 times from ATGM Konkurs(one at left side under the turret) and 6 hits from various RPGs (3 to sides: 2 left, 1 right) and remained operational.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/6625/93318240.jpg


During the second campaign, federal forces lost a total of 15 tanks, with 14 returned to service. One tank, a T-62, was written off from damage received in the battle for Grozny.


What a fucking caricature.What a fucking caricature of an American chauvinist. You go over to another country, sit your ass down with your American money, and feel that you have the right to trash the local society and history. The Soviet Army did its job and did its job well, and the equipment they designed was if anything capable. Your chauvinism is just another example of a consistent policy on the part of the West to claim that the communist world was incapable of doing anything involving a modicum of technological prowess, even down to making a roll of toilet paper. A cultured tourist like you obviously can't be bothered to consult any Soviet/Russian source about their own military history and policy.

[Salyut]

Oh by the way, did you ever compare the number of Russian tank losses since the 90s that were total-write offs to Abrams losses which were recoverable?

Care to drop the stats? I'm interested.

[khad]

Care to drop the stats? I'm interested.
The Second Chechen campaign is probably the most comparable to the American experience in Iraq, since in the first Chechen War, the Russian army was facing a similarly equipped, well organized and trained army with armor and air assets. It doesn't matter how survivable your tanks are when you are cut off inside a city with RPGs and ATGMS raining down on turret roofs and engine decks--your tanks will burn and you won't be able to retrieve them.

In the second Chechen campaign, federal forces reported a total of 15 tank losses, with 3-5 of them being the older T-62s. Of those 15, 14 were returned to service after repair. No T-72 was written off, even after sustaining multiple hits and even catching on fire. There was not a single case of ammunition explosion. Both tanks pictured above suffered penetrations into the thinner armor of the top and rear, without crew fatalities.

[The Author]

I was always under the impression that the failure of the T-72s in Iraq was due mainly to the ineptitude of the Iraqi army and not the equipment. For instance, when the American airforce confronted the Soviets in Korea in the early 1950s, the MiGs beat the shit out of them. The Gulf of Sidra incident of 1986 involving the Libyans was another matter entirely, resulting in the opposite case. That was another example of ineptitude, this time on the part of the Libyans. I think the right kind of training, morale, and devotion to the cause lead to better results with the equipment you're given. For example, a genius can drive a particular car model with good fuel mileage, efficient steering, mechanical care, and accelerating and decelerating at the right moments. A dumbass on the other hand will crash the thing within minutes. Bad example, but I'm not a military expert, I'm only stating opinion.

The Americans never summoned the nerve to fight the Soviets head-to-head, which is why it devoted so much attention to ideological subversion. The American military has no experience in fighting real wars in really intense situations; they came into World War I in the last year, in World War II they let the Soviets and the Partisans do most of the fighting in Europe, and the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese and other nations do most of the fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific. American wars always revolve around either fighting third-rate powers, countries already on the verge of defeat, or its own civil war which was a sloppy ordeal. It never experienced a true invasion, or actual confrontation with a power of equal might.

[Kayser_Soso]

Hence the quotation marks. Nevertheless, with how corrupt, and criminal that society has become, together with its mafia activity and human trafficking, it may as well be, especially when compared to what it was.

I wouldn't disagree with this characterization, but then again it would be idiotic to pretend that this situation came about entirely independently of the society fostered under Kosygin, Brezhnev, et al.



You want to do this, you American nationalist?

American Nationalist? Put down the crack pipe.



Well, let's. According to RUSSIAN sources, there was only one write-off during the entire Second Chechen campaign, and that was an older T-62M.

Problem number one: Russian sources. Problem two, the Second Chechen Campaign. I said compare the track record of Russian tank losses beginning in the 1990s, and this is not excluding other operators of Russian tanks such as the Georgian army. Basically Abrams from 1991, vs. T-72 and variants since 1991.




What a fucking caricature of an American chauvinist.

Uh yeah, because I don't take a bunch of armor penetration tables at face value I'm an American chauvinist. This is literally the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board. Were you aware that Chobbam armor was developed in the UK and the run on the Abrams is made by Rheinmetal in Germany?



You go over to another country, sit your ass down with your American money, and feel that you have the right to trash the local society and history.

I arrived in Russia with roughly 50 bucks, so no. I've been paid in rubles ever since. And I rarely trash the local culture more than the average Russian does.



The Soviet Army did its job and did it's job well, and the equipment they designed was if anything capable.

Yes, they did a good job of intimidating the people, acting like a capitalist imperialist army, and eventually ensuring the smooth transition of the means of production into the hands of capitalists.



Your chauvinism is just another example of a consistent policy on the part of the West to claim that the communist world was incapable of doing anything involving a modicum of technological prowess, even down to making a roll of toilet paper.

Gee that's funny, where did I ever say that? Oh right, nowhere. Learn to read.



A cultured tourist like you obviously can't be bothered to consult any Soviet/Russian source about their own military history and policy.

Yes, that's why I have the memoirs of Zhukov and Chuikov on my fucking bookshelf. I don't consult any Russian or Soviet sources.

Goddamn, take your Paxil.

[Kayser_Soso]

I was always under the impression that the failure of the T-72s in Iraq was due mainly to the ineptitude of the Iraqi army and not the equipment. For instance, when the American airforce confronted the Soviets in Korea in the early 1950s, the MiGs beat the shit out of them. The Gulf of Sidra incident of 1986 involving the Libyans was another matter entirely, resulting in the opposite case. That was another example of ineptitude, this time on the part of the Libyans. I think the right kind of training, morale, and devotion to the cause lead to better results with the equipment you're given. For example, a genius can drive a particular car model with good fuel mileage, efficient steering, mechanical care, and accelerating and decelerating at the right moments. A dumbass on the other hand will crash the thing within minutes. Bad example, but I'm not a military expert, I'm only stating opinion.

The Americans never summoned the nerve to fight the Soviets head-to-head, which is why it devoted so much attention to ideological subversion. The American military has no experience in fighting real wars in really intense situations; they came into World War I in the last year, in World War II they let the Soviets and the Partisans do most of the fighting in Europe, and the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese and other nations do most of the fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific. American wars always revolve around either fighting third-rate powers, countries already on the verge of defeat, or its own civil war which was a sloppy ordeal. It never experienced a true invasion, or actual confrontation with a power of equal might.

What has the American failures in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq taught us? In the future, technology has a limit to how well it can fight wars. This limit also affects Russian technology as well. This is why Chechnya proved to be such a disaster(in fact their "success" in the end rested on turning an important member of the Chechen leadership).

[khad]

Problem number one: Russian sources. Because American ones are that much better, right?

Problem two, the Second Chechen Campaign. I said compare the track record of Russian tank losses beginning in the 1990s, and this is not excluding other operators of Russian tanks such as the Georgian army. Basically Abrams from 1991, vs. T-72 and variants since 1991. American armor never faced a modern version of any T-variant. They faced stripped down and locally produced copies without composite inserts, modern FCS or depleted uranium ammunition.

So let's see, a fully modernized 1990 tech tank vs the gimped 1970 tanks of the Iraqi army firing steel core training ammo--yes, that's a really fair comparison.

But this is how it always works. I give you data with documented photographic evidence, and you reject it because it's Russian.


Uh yeah, because I don't take a bunch of armor penetration tables at face value I'm an American chauvinist.The lists have been compiled from American, Russian, and UK sources. These are officially accepted data, so we might as well deny that men landed on the moon then.


This is literally the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board. Were you aware that Chobbam armor was developed in the UK and the run on the Abrams is made by Rheinmetal in Germany?Were you aware that the USSR beat them both to the punch in developing composite armor in the 1960s with combination-K for the T-64? Were you aware that composite layered armor, of which chobham is a type, was pioneered by the USSR? Were you aware that the use of cast steel does not in any way obviate the use of composite armor and that Soviet tanks had their composite inserts continually upgraded throughout their service life?

No? I thought so. Take your ass elsewhere, Western shit.


I arrived in Russia with roughly 50 bucks, so no. I've been paid in rubles ever since. And I rarely trash the local culture more than the average Russian does.

Yes, they did a good job of intimidating the people, acting like a capitalist imperialist army, and eventually ensuring the smooth transition of the means of production into the hands of capitalists.LOL. Why aren't you in Albania, you Hoxhaite?


Yes, that's why I have the memoirs of Zhukov and Chuikov on my fucking bookshelf. I don't consult any Russian or Soviet sources. Yes, American Hoxhaites just love Stalin that much that Soviet military history began and ended with the GPW. I guess the Soviet army turned into a big ball of shit the moment Stalin died.


Goddamn, take your Paxil.Goddamn, what a show of pure western chauvinism.

[Kayser_Soso]

Because American ones are that much better, right?
American armor never faced a modern version of any T-variant. They faced stripped down and locally produced copies without composite inserts, modern FCS or depleted uranium ammunition.

Did I say only American? I'm sorry, there's also the Lepard II, the LeClerc, the Challenger III.





The lists have been compiled from American, Russian, and UK sources. These are officially accepted data, so we might as well deny that men landed on the moon then.

Real combat and tests are two different things. I suggest you look into something called the Pentagon Wars.



LOL. Why aren't you in Albania, you Hoxhaite?

Why would I live in Albania? It seems to me you are like some sort of National Bolshevik, stuck in a nationalist struggle typical of Brezhnevism. If only you could explain Marx as well as you do tank data. After all, tanks couldn't save the USSR.



Yes, American Hoxhaites just love Stalin that much that Soviet military history began and ended with the GPW. I guess the Soviet army turned into a big ball of shit the moment Stalin died.

Did I say that? Oh wait, I forgot, you can't read. Incidentally as early as 1943 Konstantin Rokossovsky expressed serious concern about the introduction of shoulder-boards, gold braid, and officer-specific orders.



Goddamn, what a show of pure western chauvinism.

Yes, Enver Hoxha and various other people around the world who criticized the way the Soviet army developed into a bourgeoisie imperialist army were "Western chauvinists." Because we all know there's nothing that says "Western" like Albania and China.

[khad]

Did I say only American? I'm sorry, there's also the Lepard II, the LeClerc, the Challenger III.
Your love of everything about the west is telling.


Real combat and tests are two different things. I suggest you look into something called the Pentagon Wars.
What a ridiculous statement with yet another American book recommendation. I guess because the T-80 never saw modern tank-on-tank action and was never frontally penetrated--for that matter the T-72Bs and T-90s have not either--no one has any right to really comment on the combat potential of any of those systems in armored warfare. Those Georgian tanks taken out in the most recent war were taken out through heavy aerial bombing and theater missile strikes, so those don't count as tank-on-tank action either.

Soo...it's rather puzzling.

Because based on the performance of stripped down Iraqi tanks in Gulf War I, you feel like you have the need to:

1. Comment on the effectiveness of standard Soviet combination-k and boron carbide composite armor based on the pure cast steel turrets of Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks.

2. Comment on the effectiveness of Soviet depleted uranium ammunition based on the performance of the Iraqis' steel training ammo.

3. Comment on the soviet laser range finders and sighting equipment that the Iraqis never operated.


Why would I live in Albania? It seems to me you are like some sort of National Bolshevik, stuck in a nationalist struggle typical of Brezhnevism. If only you could explain Marx as well as you do tank data. After all, tanks couldn't save the USSR.

The strength of the Soviet army was what kept NATO's aggression in check. But who am I kidding talking to you? You're a hoxhaite--you don't even believe that the USSR or *gasp* Tito contributed to the liberation of Albania by tying down and destroying huge sections of the Axis forces.


Did I say that? Oh wait, I forgot, you can't read. Incidentally as early as 1943 Konstantin Rokossovsky expressed serious concern about the introduction of shoulder-boards, gold braid, and officer-specific orders.
And which soviet army won? The force of 41-42 or the one after 1943? The doctrinal and theoretical evolution of the soviet army was drastic because of necessity. Stuff like shoulderboards and military regalia I can see as a problem, but those are superficial concerns when you're dealing with the much larger command and control issues of vast mobile assets conducting coordinated expoitation maneuver. Your complaint about officer-specific orders is really a sign of ultraleft fantasy. The summer offensive of 1944 that finally crushed the back of the Wehrmacht was so secret that only 5 people in the entire Soviet army knew about the planned series of operations. Successful maskirovka demanded very careful control of intelligence on every level.


Yes, Enver Hoxha and various other people around the world who criticized the way the Soviet army developed into a bourgeoisie imperialist army were "Western chauvinists." Because we all know there's nothing that says "Western" like Albania and China.
Because I generally accept the conclusions of the Soviet military academy in coming to grips with the modern, technological face of war. On a nuclear and chemical battlefield, people's war will only send a lot of good heroic people to a blistered, irradiated death. Mechanization, mobility, as well as the command and control to coordinate them was a response to the demands of modern warfare.

[Kayser_Soso]

Your love of everything about the west is telling.

Uh yes, there is certainly enough evidence from my posts that I love everything from the west. It's like I'm actually becoming Russian.




What a ridiculous statement with yet another American book recommendation.

You never bothered to look up that book did you?



Because based on the performance of stripped down Iraqi tanks in Gulf War I, you feel like you have the need to:

1. Comment on the effectiveness of standard Soviet combination-k and boron carbide composite armor based on the pure cast steel turrets of Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks.

2. Comment on the effectiveness of Soviet depleted uranium ammunition based on the performance of the Iraqis' steel training ammo.

3. Comment on the soviet laser range finders and sighting equipment that the Iraqis never operated.

I was aware of the differences between the Iraqi tanks(some of which were actually Yugoslav M-84s) and the Soviet kinds, and I am well aware of what ERA is. But if the design were really so great don't you think they would have at least killed ONE Abrams? After all, many of the Abrams in use at the time weren't the souped up M1A2s anyway. Some may have been using the 105mm guns as well.




The strength of the Soviet army was what kept NATO's aggression in check. But who am I kidding talking to you?

It also induced pressure on Warsaw Pact countries to conform with the reforms of the USSR, and follow their bidding(such as seeking loans from the west), which eventually led to the same destruction of their systems in line with Perestroika reforms in the USSR.

Moreover, it is clear on several occasions that NATO was fine with the existing spheres of influence in Eastern Europe so long as they had a free hand in other areas.



You're a hoxhaite--you don't even believe that the USSR or *gasp* Tito contributed to the liberation of Albania by tying down and destroying huge sections of the Axis forces.

Yes that's right, I spend a great deal of my time explaining how the USSR destroyed 70-80% of the Wehrmacht and then act like this had nothing to do with the liberation of Eastern Europe. Yet another fucking brilliant statement. You are totally oblivious that you are making yourself look like a Red Alert playing Soviet-Empire user.

Moreover, the Germans and the Italians were only going to put so many units into Albania anyway. Do you really think they would have greatly reinforced Albania in 1944 as opposed to oh I don't know- FRANCE? ITALY?



And which soviet army won? The force of 41-42 or the one after 1943?

Broke the record for stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board.



The doctrinal and theoretical evolution of the soviet army was drastic because of necessity.

That doctrine had began development in the 1930s. From 1941 it only had to be tested and refined in battle.



Stuff like shoulderboards and military regalia I can see as a problem, but those are superficial concerns when you're dealing with the much larger command and control issues of vast mobile assets conducting coordinated expoitation maneuver.

It was a problem after the war. In case you didn't notice, despite winning WWII, the USSR collapsed in 1991. It collapsed due to class antagonisms in which the military and particularly officers played a role.



Your complaint about officer-specific orders is really a sign of ultraleft fantasy.

Ah yes, the battle of Stalingrad never could have been won without the Order of Nevsky, a Muscovite Russian hero who in fact gained his power by being a loyal vassal and enforcer to the Golden Horde(this was changed in the film about him).



The summer offensive of 1944 that finally crushed the back of the Wehrmacht was so secret that only 5 people in the entire Soviet army knew about the planned series of operations. Successful maskirovka demanded very careful control of intelligence on every level.

None of this necessitated Russian nationalist propaganda(especially since the offensive you are referring to, probably Bagration despite the fact that there were far more major offensives in the same year, took place mainly on Belarussian soil), nor gold braid, nor ass-kissing of officers. Nor did that one offensive "break the back of the Wehrmacht." It destroyed Army Group Centre.



Because I generally accept the conclusions of the Soviet military academy in coming to grips with the modern, technological face of war. On a nuclear and chemical battlefield, people's war will only send a lot of good heroic people to a blistered, irradiated death. Mechanization, mobility, as well as the command and control to coordinate them was a response to the demands of modern warfare.

How many nuclear wars have we seen lately?

[khad]

Uh yes, there is certainly enough evidence from my posts that I love everything from the west. It's like I'm actually becoming Russian.



You never bothered to look up that book did you?
And you never bothered to read a damn word I wrote. I'll demonstrate the degree to which you are an illiterate fool in the following response.



I was aware of the differences between the Iraqi tanks(some of which were actually Yugoslav M-84s) and the Soviet kinds, and I am well aware of what ERA is. But if the design were really so great don't you think they would have at least killed ONE Abrams? After all, many of the Abrams in use at the time weren't the souped up M1A2s anyway. Some may have been using the 105mm guns as well.You still think composite armor is ERA? I'm throwing pearls before a fucking pig.

Let me set this straight for you. Composite armor is a layered armor that uses materials other than steel--ceramics, silica, rubber, etc to enhance protection beyond that offered by steel. Soviet tanks were built with cavities in the hull which were filled with composite silica or boron compounds. In the 1960s with the T-64, the USSR introduced the first production composite armor known as combination-k, which generated a Western response in the form of Chobham composite in the 1970s. By the end of that decade the USSR had begun to shift over to using boron carbide-based fillers, which enhanced protection for an equivalent amount of mass compared to combination-k.

Explosive Reactive Armor was developed in the 1980s and was applique, meaning that it was applied OUTSIDE THE TANK HULL. Kontakt and the hardened version, Kontakt V, were developed in the last decade of the Cold War.

Iraqi tanks neither had composite armor nor reactive armor. They were pure cast steel, though they sometimes were fitted with anti-rpg skirts. So what can a cast steel tank tell you about the performance of composite armor?

I'll answer that for you: NOTHING. Based on tests, however, the composite-protected frontal arc of Soviet tanks had an RHA protection rating of 400-500mm in comparison to the 300-350mm of the cast steel versions. This is BEFORE adding any Kontakt ERA.

In a number of tests, the bare T-72B was invulnerable to the American 105mm at 1500-2000m. These were the East German T-72s, which were fitted with boron carbide composites.

Also, about the Iraqi ammunition--the export grade ammo was a steel penetrator that had about half of the penetration power of the standard soviet depleted uranium penetrators. It was a round relegated to training duty in the USSR. The most common round in the Soviet arsenal in the 1980s was the 3BM-32, with an estimated penetration of [email protected], which overmatched the American 105mm's M-833 round (440mm, 1984) and was roughly comparable to the M829 of the 120mm (550mm, 1987). Only with the M829A1 (610mm, 1991) and M829A2 (730mm, 1994) did NATO acquire the decisive edge in penetration power.

But that's why the USSR was slating an upgrade to the 152mm maingun for the mid-90s.

That all said, how the steel iraqi training ammo gauges the performance of Soviet depleted uranium APFSDS is only a leap of logic you're willing to make.

I'll address your misinformation regarding the GPW in the next post.

[S.Artesian]

Moreover, it is clear on several occasions that NATO was fine with the existing spheres of influence in Eastern Europe so long as they had a free hand in other areas.

It, NATO "was fine" means only what Khad said it means: that Soviet mechanized strength, heavy maneuver battalions made the cost of NATO aggression prohibitive to NATO. That's all "fine" means.

The original issue was why did the Soviet Union maintain such massive conventional forces in the "nuclear era." The answer has been provided:


The doctrinal and theoretical evolution of the soviet army was drastic because of necessity

Soviet military and political strategies evolved from the experiences of actual ground combat. That central lesson of that experience is the importance of applying overwhelming tactical superiority in weapons and mobility and logistics to achieve strategic goals. Logistics means the ability to resupply, re-equip, re-fit, reintroduce further superiority in weapons and mobility to the battlefield.

Tactical nuclear weapons did not and do not negate, abolish, the importance of mechanized and armored forces, and of the logistics to support those forces.

Oh... and this:

Nor did that one offensive "break the back of the Wehrmacht." It destroyed Army Group Centre.

is kind of silly. Destroying Army Group Centre was breaking the back of the Wehrmacht.

[Adi Shankara]

...Problem number one: Russian sources...

I'm sorry, but this offended me. are you insinuating that we are incapable of telling the truth?

[khad]

It also induced pressure on Warsaw Pact countries to conform with the reforms of the USSR, and follow their bidding(such as seeking loans from the west), which eventually led to the same destruction of their systems in line with Perestroika reforms in the USSR.
Hoxhaite wankery take #34897238. It's revleft. We've all seen it before. Nothing new, move along.


Yes that's right, I spend a great deal of my time explaining how the USSR destroyed 70-80% of the Wehrmacht and then act like this had nothing to do with the liberation of Eastern Europe. Yet another fucking brilliant statement. You are totally oblivious that you are making yourself look like a Red Alert playing Soviet-Empire user.Hold that thought. The clue train will come back to pick you up in a moment, so sit your little American ass down and pay attention.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1846223#post1846223) And which soviet army won? The force of 41-42 or the one after 1943? Broke the record for stupidest thing I have ever seen on this board.Yes, it is a dumb question, because I would think that most people would have the mental faculties to come to the obvious answer. All except for you, of course.


That doctrine had began development in the 1930s. From 1941 it only had to be tested and refined in battle. How do I explain to someone who is as ill-read as you?

Ok, the basic principles of deep operations were developed in the 1930s, but at that stage with thinkers like Triandafillov, Tukhachevsky, and Isserson, but the specifics of practice, organization, and training had be developed in the Second World War. Comparing their suggestions to eventual practice shows marked distinctions, and unit composition was modified continuously. For one, original theories of deep battle differed significantly in their employment of armor. Tukhachevsky really fetishized mission-specific vehicles, and listed no less than 6 categories of tanks for specific tasks in the enemy rear. What emerged during the war was the concept of the main battle tank deployed in tank armies. WW2 also revealed the vulnerabilities and limitations of airborne forces, and Soviet employment of paratroopers was thus very limited.

It is also worth noting that men like Tukhachevsky emerged from aristocratic backgrounds and represented a very professionalized core of the Soviet Army. In fact Tukhachevsky was often criticized for his tendency to centralize authority, both personal and among the officer corps. Tukhachevsky himself was one of the biggest critics of drawing lessons from the Civil War, which was fought on improvisation and revolutioanary spirit. What deep battle proponents were proposing, massive combined arms operations that would stretch the field of battle past the tactical and into the operational and strategic zones, was a type of warfare that required a very large and well trained officer corps. To maintain force cohesion with an army stretched out hundreds of kilometers from the front into the ememy rear areas would require exceptional command and control. This was the Soviet way of war, and this is why a massive professional officer class emerged during WW2 and continued into the cold war.

The defensive attrition orientation of the Soviet army in 1941 was in large part a material response to the gutting of the Soviet officer corps in the purges. It wasn't just that Tukhachevsky was killed and that his thought had fallen from favor--it was the fact that the Red Army simply did not have the number of trained officers to create the sort of unit composition that would lend itself to deep operations.

Always, soviet divisions tended to be unit for unit significantly smaller than their western counterparts for reasons of operational flexibility, and this in turn generated a massive need for command (or if you prefer, bureaucratic) overhead. Every division, after all, needed its own staff, and more units needed their own commanders.


None of this necessitated Russian nationalist propaganda(especially since the offensive you are referring to, probably Bagration despite the fact that there were far more major offensives in the same year, took place mainly on Belarussian soil), nor gold braid, nor ass-kissing of officers. Nor did that one offensive "break the back of the Wehrmacht." It destroyed Army Group Centre. Now, time to get on the clue train. Bagration was a broad offensive consisting of multple staggered offensives lasting from June to August of 1944: Vibtesk-Orsha, Mogliev, Bobruysk, Minsk, Polotsk, Siauliai, Vilnius, Belostock, Lublin-Brest, Kaunas, Osovets. The destruction of Army Group Centre, the primary objective, resulted in the liberation of Minsk and the recapturing of Belarussia.

So what OTHER offensives in Belarussia are you talking about, you fool?

You also say you defend the USSR for their killing of 70-80% of Nazi troops. Well, let's take a closer look at those numbers according to the latest demographic study by Rudiger Overmans, which only goes to 1944 due to the collapse of German casualty accounting:

Losses on the Eastern front

The below figures include only those killed, not those taken prisoners or wounded.

June 1941 25.000
July 1941 63.099
Aug 1941 46.066
Sep 1941 51.033
Oct 1941 41.099
Nov 1941 36.000
Dec 1941 40.198
Total 1941 302.495 (11,0%)

Jan 1942 48.165
Feb 1942 44.099
Mar 1942 44.132
Apr 1942 23.066
May 1942 38.099
June 1942 29.033
July 1942 38.066
Aug 1942 62.165
Sep 1942 45.033
Oct 1942 25.000
Nov 1942 31.198
Dec 1942 78.759 (Stalingrad offensive)
Total 1942 506.815 (18,4%)

Jan 1943 180.310 "
Feb 1943 68.330
Mar 1943 46.066
Apr 1943 16.000
May 1943 19.066
June 1943 13.066
July 1943 71.231 (Kursk defensive)
Aug 1943 59.198
Sep 1943 57.429
Oct 1943 53.264
Nov 1943 67.363
Dec 1943 49.330
Total 1943 700.653 (25,6%)

Jan 1944 70.330
Feb 1944 64.429
Mar 1944 93.660
Apr 1944 73.264
May 1944 48.363
June 1944 142.079 (Bagration)
July 1944 169.881 "
Aug 1944 277.465 "
Sep 1944 70.561
Oct 1944 92.528
Nov 1944 45.363
Dec 1944 85.253
Total 1944 1.232.946 (45,0%)

So, do you want to argue numbers here to figure out what the most decisive defeat suffered by the Wehrmacht was? Do you see a more destructive offensive in that year or any year before? Don't make me do the fucking math for you. I would also like to point out that 1944 was the most difficult year because that was when German war production peaked.


Ah yes, the battle of Stalingrad never could have been won without the Order of Nevsky, a Muscovite Russian hero who in fact gained his power by being a loyal vassal and enforcer to the Golden Horde(this was changed in the film about him). Well, I do admit that I misinterpreted what you meant by order, but really, does it fucking matter? So? It's a fucking piece of metal given out as a token to appease nationalist sentiments in an existential war in which every last man was needed.

Muslim leaders in the USSR declared jihad against the Nazis. Do you want to accuse Stalin of pandering to "Islamofascism" now?


How many nuclear wars have we seen lately?I thought we were arguing about the Cold War? Your evasions about pretty much everything are tiresome. I know I'm wasting my breath on that thick skull of yours, but for the rest of folks who appear moderately interested in the real information contained within my posts, I'll restate the fact that in response to the threat of NATO's tactical nukes, the Soviets moved towards greater mechanization and mobility. It's harder to hit a moving target, and you don't want to hit something that's right next to your bases.

[Kayser_Soso]

Hoxhaite wankery take #34897238. It's revleft. We've all seen it before. Nothing new, move along.

Do you need to re-install your copy of Red Alert II?



Hold that thought. The clue train will come back to pick you up in a moment, so sit your little American ass down and pay attention.

You ever hear this phrase "Workers of the WORLD unite?" Oh that's right, you're not a Communist, just a National Bolshevik wargamer.



Ok, the basic principles of deep operations were developed in the 1930s, but at that stage with thinkers like Triandafillov, Tukhachevsky, and Isserson, but the specifics of practice, organization, and training had be developed in the Second World War. Comparing their suggestions to eventual practice shows marked distinctions, and unit composition was modified continuously. For one, original theories of deep battle differed significantly in their employment of armor. Tukhachevsky really fetishized mission-specific vehicles, and listed no less than 6 categories of tanks for specific tasks in the enemy rear. What emerged during the war was the concept of the main battle tank deployed in tank armies. WW2 also revealed the vulnerabilities and limitations of airborne forces, and Soviet employment of paratroopers was thus very limited.

Retard, what does this have to do with the fact that Deep Battle doctrine started in the 1930s, and had fuck-all to do with giving officers more power, or their own orders, and so on?



This was the Soviet way of war, and this is why a massive professional officer class emerged during WW2 and continued into the cold war.

And look how that turned out.



Always, soviet divisions tended to be unit for unit significantly smaller than their western counterparts for reasons of operational flexibility, and this in turn generated a massive need for command (or if you prefer, bureaucratic) overhead. Every division, after all, needed its own staff, and more units needed their own commanders.

Thanks for your incredibly grasp of the obvious.



Now, time to get on the clue train. Bagration was a broad offensive consisting of multple staggered offensives lasting from June to August of 1944: Vibtesk-Orsha, Mogliev, Bobruysk, Minsk, Polotsk, Siauliai, Vilnius, Belostock, Lublin-Brest, Kaunas, Osovets. The destruction of Army Group Centre, the primary objective, resulted in the liberation of Minsk and the recapturing of Belarussia.

Yes, it was also one in a series of offensives stretching back to late 1943. Ever hear of Lvov-Sandomir, Jassy-Kishenev, or any other offensives of 1944?



So what OTHER offensives in Belarussia are you talking about, you fool?

I wasn't talking about any, you illiterate tankie moron.



So, do you want to argue numbers here to figure out what the most decisive defeat suffered by the Wehrmacht was? Do you see a more destructive offensive in that year or any year before? Don't make me do the fucking math for you. I would also like to point out that 1944 was the most difficult year because that was when German war production peaked.

Hmm...what ELSE happened in 1944 besides Bagration? Jassy-Kishenev, Lvov-Sandomir, and half a dozen other major offensives.



Well, I do admit that I misinterpreted what you meant by order, but really, does it fucking matter? So? It's a fucking piece of metal given out as a token to appease nationalist sentiments in an existential war in which every last man was needed.

It matters, because these perks went to the officers heads and some of those marshals helped Khruschev come to power.



Muslim leaders in the USSR declared jihad against the Nazis. Do you want to accuse Stalin of pandering to "Islamofascism" now?

It would have been better to declare jihad and support Belorussian/Ukrainian propaganda, if any.



I thought we were arguing about the Cold War? Your evasions about pretty much everything are tiresome.

Because nobody gives a shit about all your tables and semantic arguments.




I'll restate the fact that in response to the threat of NATO's tactical nukes, the Soviets moved towards greater mechanization and mobility. It's harder to hit a moving target, and you don't want to hit something that's right next to your bases.

Lot of good all that did for the USSR huh?

[khad]

Do you need to re-install your copy of Red Alert II?
AHAHAHAHAAHAHA.

So you have provided everyone nothing but the distorted Western myths about Soviet history, and then you accuse me of doing nothing but playing Red Alert?

Quick, articulate to me the distinctions and relationships among political directive, military doctrine, military science, and military art in the structure of Soviet military thought. Even a simple diagram would do.


You ever hear this phrase "Workers of the WORLD unite?" Oh that's right, you're not a Communist, just a National Bolshevik wargamer.You ever hear the phrase "Yankee go home?"


Retard, what does this have to do with the fact that Deep Battle doctrine started in the 1930s, and had fuck-all to do with giving officers more power, or their own orders, and so on?Are you a closet idealist? I think you are because you seem to think military theory can be adopted without the industrial and institutional support behind it. Do you just think Tukhachevsky just thought up deep battle and revolutionized the Red Army overnight?

No, the man spent years consolidating his power in the officer corps and positioned himself to direct crucial pieces of Stalin's five-year plans so that he could even begin to do what he needed to move the Red towards maneuver warfare. The expansion, specialization, and professionalization of the officer corps was one effect of deep battle and deep operations. If you cannot see how deep operations placed demands on force structure and unit composition and how those in turn placed demands on the structure of the Soviet officer corps and even the economy--if you cannot see how the material conditions of the Soviet Union also impinged upon and limited what was conceivable and executable in terms of military theory--then there is no hope for you.

Ideas are meaningless without the material bases behind them.


Yes, it was also one in a series of offensives stretching back to late 1943. Ever hear of Lvov-Sandomir, Jassy-Kishenev, or any other offensives of 1944?None of which produced the massive irrevocable casualties that Bagration did. Total German strength opposing the Lvov-Sandomierz operation numbered 900,000 men, Jassy Kishnev significantly less than that.

The annihilation of Army Group Centre alone claimed nearly 900,000 in killed, wounded, and captured. I think it's safe to say that Bagration was the most significant victory of 1944. I have a sense of perspective, do you?


It would have been better to declare jihad and support Belorussian/Ukrainian propaganda, if any.Right, so you suggest trying to win over nationalists who were already helping the Nazis? I'm glad you never tried your hand at politics.


Because nobody gives a shit about all your tables and semantic arguments.You just say that because you don't want to hear facts, because let's face it, all you have are your American myths, your cultural chauvinism against the peoples of the former combloc, and your hilarious raging that anyone who knows a thing or two about Soviet military history must be a Red Alert player.

To be perfectly frank, I've never played a minute of that game or any of its incarnations. But I suppose you have, American. You seem to make a lot of reference to it, at least, and perhaps that's where you pick up a lot of your Western myths about Soviet history.


Lot of good all that did for the USSR huh?And if it were you in charge, the USSR would have been toppled by Western coup by 1948.

Basically by saying this, you acknowledge that you got exposed and thrashed in front of the entire forum and that you don't have the maturity to duck out of this debate with a shred of your dignity intact. Come on, by then end you were arguing for philosophical idealism? Give me a break. :lol:

[Communist]

Retard
No more of this KS, you know that isn't acceptable.

Verbal warning.

.

[Kayser_Soso]

AHAHAHAHAAHAHA.

So you have provided everyone nothing but the distorted Western myths about Soviet history, and then you accuse me of doing nothing but playing Red Alert?

Please cite the "Western myths about Soviet history" I have provided.



Quick, articulate to me the distinctions and relationships among political directive, military doctrine, military science, and military art in the structure of Soviet military thought. Even a simple diagram would do.

It would need to be pretty damned simple wouldn't it? Since you fail to understand basic Marxism and apparently think being a Communist has something to do with your national origin(the way you keep calling me American like it's a bad thing), I doubt you're going to understand anything that involves historical analysis.



Are you a closet idealist? I think you are because you seem to think military theory can be adopted without the industrial and institutional support behind it. Do you just think Tukhachevsky just thought up deep battle and revolutionized the Red Army overnight?

Do you actually select the stupidest thing you can say before posting it?

What they hell ever made you thought I made that argument?



No, the man spent years consolidating his power in the officer corps and positioned himself to direct crucial pieces of Stalin's five-year plans so that he could even begin to do what he needed to move the Red towards maneuver warfare. The expansion, specialization, and professionalization of the officer corps was one effect of deep battle and deep operations. If you cannot see how deep operations placed demands on force structure and unit composition and how those in turn placed demands on the structure of the Soviet officer corps and even the economy--if you cannot see how the material conditions of the Soviet Union also impinged upon and limited what was conceivable and executable in terms of military theory--then there is no hope for you.

HOLY SHIT, MILITARY THEORY TAKES TIME TO DEVELOP? I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT!!! I CERTAINLY NEVER WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THAT SEVERAL POSTS BACK!! I JUST DECIDED IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN ON A BAR NAPKIN!!!



None of which produced the massive irrevocable casualties that Bagration did. Total German strength opposing the Lvov-Sandomierz operation numbered 900,000 men, Jassy Kishnev significantly less than that.

What...the...fuck...is...your...point? Jassy Kishenev saw losses of up to 250,000 men in a short amount of time.



The annihilation of Army Group Centre alone claimed nearly 900,000 in killed, wounded, and captured. I think it's safe to say that Bagration was the most significant victory of 1944. I have a sense of perspective, do you?

And I also pointed out that it was part of a series of ten major offensives. Is there anything wrong with that?



Right, so you suggest trying to win over nationalists who were already helping the Nazis? I'm glad you never tried your hand at politics.

Oh yeah, because it's not like nearly 1 million Muscovite Russians didn't end up helping the Germans in the course of the war.



You just say that because you don't want to hear facts, because let's face it, all you have are your American myths, your cultural chauvinism against the peoples of the former combloc, and your hilarious raging that anyone who knows a thing or two about Soviet military history must be a Red Alert player.

Let's face it, you are a tankie, and a teenager and probably an American yourself, most likely a Russian wannabe. You are more of a National Bolshevik and you belong in OI for your reactionary views and stereotypes.



To be perfectly frank, I've never played a minute of that game or any of its incarnations. But I suppose you have, American. You seem to make a lot of reference to it, at least, and perhaps that's where you pick up a lot of your Western myths about Soviet history.

Again, you keep calling me American like it's some kind of insult. And please inform me of what "Western myths" I have been spreading.



And if it were you in charge, the USSR would have been toppled by Western coup by 1948.

Yes, it needs a genius like you, so adept at Red Alert.



Basically by saying this, you acknowledge that you got exposed and thrashed in front of the entire forum and that you don't have the maturity to duck out of this debate with a shred of your dignity intact. Come on, by then end you were arguing for philosophical idealism? Give me a break. :lol:

Uh yeah, you are the one throwing a fit over the technical aspects of tanks and talking about your "Communist" roots and I need to salvage my dignity.

[The Author]

What has the American failures in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq taught us? In the future, technology has a limit to how well it can fight wars. This limit also affects Russian technology as well. This is why Chechnya proved to be such a disaster(in fact their "success" in the end rested on turning an important member of the Chechen leadership).

The Americans lost Vietnam because it did not have an armed force that was dedicated to protecting its own country from an invader but was acting as the invading party, and its troops did not have the spirit and dedication to the fight as the Vietnamese liberation fighters did. Even with their best equipment, it wasn't the technology that failed, it was the fact that there were soldiers who were drafted into a war they knew was not their own and had no serious interest in fighting except for the gung-ho idiots who volunteer to fight and naturally are the first to get killed. I can be some soldier who drives the most high-tech tank out on the field that military science has to offer. But if I don't give a shit about the war, if my thoughts wander elsewhere to saving my own life and not acting like a stupid brainwashed drone who thinks he's playing a video game with million-dollar equipment, then even the best technology means nothing no matter how good or bad it is, it all depends on the person behind the wheel or holding the gun.

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, it's pretty much the same as above. Granted, the people resisting the war aren't holding red flags and reading Marx, and I have my serious misgivings about what the resistance fighters are actually fighting for, but that doesn't excuse Western imperialism's meddling in the affairs of these two countries.

As a matter of fact, now that I realize it as I've been reading both sides in this debate, if the Warsaw Pact still existed and the pre-1991 order was still in place, both Gulf Wars, the War in Afghanistan and the wars in Yugoslavia never would have happened because NATO and the US would not have been allowed to get away with the kind of shenanigans it committed throughout the 1990s and the 2000s- daresay, even 9/11 may not have happened. I may not have agreed with the leadership of the Warsaw Pact ideologically if it continued unchanged, but then we wouldn't have neocons from the Pentagon and the White House shedding blood over three continents for the sake of monopoly and finance capital, and the world would not be as chaotic as it is now.

[khad]

Please cite the "Western myths about Soviet history" I have provided.

It would need to be pretty damned simple wouldn't it? Since you fail to understand basic Marxism and apparently think being a Communist has something to do with your national origin(the way you keep calling me American like it's a bad thing), I doubt you're going to understand anything that involves historical analysis.
For someone content to spread myths and deny facts, you certainly think you have a lot to say about history.


HOLY SHIT, MILITARY THEORY TAKES TIME TO DEVELOP? I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT!!! I CERTAINLY NEVER WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THAT SEVERAL POSTS BACK!! I JUST DECIDED IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN ON A BAR NAPKIN!!!This is what you wrote: "Retard, what does this have to do with the fact that Deep Battle doctrine started in the 1930s, and had fuck-all to do with giving officers more power"

Here you deny the institutional and political-economic dimensions which enabled deep battle, one of which was the empowerment of a professional officer corps. Tukhachevsky himself was in the position to oversee numerous aspects of Stalin's five year plans--that is how powerful the officer corps became, and that's actually part of the reason why the purges were launched.

You are a philosophical idealist who cannot recognize the material bases for theory.


What...the...fuck...is...your...point? Jassy Kishenev saw losses of up to 250,000 men in a short amount of time. Which is lower than the total for the series of operations composing Bagration. Also, one must remember that the Romanians defected as a nation to the Soviet side during that one, so that tends to inflate the combat effectiveness of the Soviet army in that operation.


And I also pointed out that it was part of a series of ten major offensives. Is there anything wrong with that? Because here's what you said: "None of this necessitated Russian nationalist propaganda(especially since the offensive you are referring to, probably Bagration despite the fact that there were far more major offensives in the same year, took place mainly on Belarussian soil"

By the way the Germans were dying in Bagration, it was the major Eastern front offensive of 1944. No serious war historian would dispute that. You, however, seem to suggest less intense offensives like Lvov-Sandomierz and Jassy-Kishnev were the "more major" offensives in the same year.


Let's face it, you are a tankie, and a teenager and probably an American yourself, most likely a Russian wannabe. You are more of a National Bolshevik and you belong in OI for your reactionary views and stereotypes. Hilarious. I'm probably older than you are, so I think I'll call you boy from now on because of your immaturity.

Just because I can present sources and data that you discount because "it's Russian" obviously means I'm a Nazbol, when you sit there trashing everything the Soviet union has ever done since the GPW. I present you Russian sources with documented photographic evidence, and you hate it because "it's Russian."


Again, you keep calling me American like it's some kind of insult. And please inform me of what "Western myths" I have been spreading.Yes, you are American, because you spread American propaganda and use stupid American phrases like "in the ballpark of 250,000 US dollars."

As for your propaganda, it's just about everything you wrote in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1844660#post1844660
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1844706#post1844706
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1845861#post1845861
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1846209#post1846209
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1846230#post1846230

I've already proven in great technical detail where exactly you were mistaken. Autoloaders are not prone to explosion, Iraqi armor was not an accurate representation of soviet armor (owing to their lack of composite armor, du ammunition, modern fcs, and training), and deep operations had everything to do with the political-economic development of the Soviet officer corps.


Yes, it needs a genius like you, so adept at Red Alert.You love that game sooooo much, don't you boy? What is it with you hoxhaites and this crap? At least two hoxhaites I know here are obsessed anime nerds, another is stalking teenage anarchist girls on youtube, another is endlessly running games of diplomacy that turn to crap, and another just got recently banned for being a rapist. Is Hoxhaism just a cover for being a deviant?


Uh yeah, you are the one throwing a fit over the technical aspects of tanks and talking about your "Communist" roots and I need to salvage my dignity.Well it's clear you never had any to begin with. I present facts backed with data, you present myths. I'm even owning you by quoting your own words. Backpedaling, boy, isn't going to work.

[khad]

The Americans lost Vietnam because it did not have an armed force that was dedicated to protecting its own country from an invader but was acting as the invading party, and its troops did not have the spirit and dedication to the fight as the Vietnamese liberation fighters did. Even with their best equipment, it wasn't the technology that failed, it was the fact that there were soldiers who were drafted into a war they knew was not their own and had no serious interest in fighting except for the gung-ho idiots who volunteer to fight and naturally are the first to get killed. I can be some soldier who drives the most high-tech tank out on the field that military science has to offer. But if I don't give a shit about the war, if my thoughts wander elsewhere to saving my own life and not acting like a stupid brainwashed drone who thinks he's playing a video game with million-dollar equipment, then even the best technology means nothing no matter how good or bad it is, it all depends on the person behind the wheel or holding the gun.
Be that as it may, one of the decisive moments in that war was the surrender of Camp Carroll and the collapse of the South Vietnamese firebase line in 1972. That was actually enabled in large part by deployment of the 130mm M46, which had a range double that of American artillery and could shell ARVN positions with impunity. The final offensive which crushed South Vietnam was a combined air and mechanized one. NVA forces were actually outnumbered in 1975 but held the decisive advantage in firepower and mobility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_Offensive


By 3 May 1975, North Vietnamese forces controlled all of South Vietnam, just 55 days after opening their attack on Ban Me Thuot. During that time period, an army of approximately three-quarters of a million men had been defeated by a force only one-fourth its size. Since the end of the war, there has been much historical recrimination and discussion as to how and why such a lopsided victory had occurred.

...Key to the defeat of South Vietnam was the ability of the officers and men of the People's Army of Vietnam. The highly-motivated and newly modernized PAVN was, for the first time, freed from the restraints of previous combat doctrine. What had begun as an essentially conservative strategy, devised in Hanoi, was outrun by its local successes. Battlefield commanders were then given a new flexibility, which increased the tempo of operations and allowed them to quickly apply concentrated power at strategic points. These combat successes were made possible due to improved all-arms tactical coordination, modern communications, and increased transport and logistical capability. The result was that North Vietnamese commanders achieved the ultimate goal of military leadership, the quick application of massive force leading to the utter defeat of the enemy at little cost in manpower. During the entire campaign, the North Vietnamese suffered relatively few casualties. According to General Dung: "The numbers killed and wounded was very small in proportion to the victories won, and the expenditure in terms of weapons and ammunition was negligible.[119] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_Offensive#cite_note-118)Idiots like Kayser Soso want to make it out to seem as if political and technotactical solutions are mutally exclusive. The reality is you do both. Weapons win the battle. Politics secures the win. Even the Taliban had an air force during the 90s when they were pounding the mujahideen into shit.

[Kayser_Soso]

For someone content to spread myths and deny facts, you certainly think you have a lot to say about history.

What "myths" moron?



This is what you wrote: "Retard, what does this have to do with the fact that Deep Battle doctrine started in the 1930s, and had fuck-all to do with giving officers more power"

Here you deny the institutional and political-economic dimensions which enabled deep battle, one of which was the empowerment of a professional officer corps. Tukhachevsky himself was in the position to oversee numerous aspects of Stalin's five year plans--that is how powerful the officer corps became, and that's actually part of the reason why the purges were launched.

If you went back further you would have remembered that we were speaking of perks given to officers beginning in 1942. So the fact that Deep Battle doctrine was developed in the 1930s(in other words, before all these perks heaped upon officers beginning in 1942-43 and hence independent of them).



You are a philosophical idealist who cannot recognize the material bases for theory.

Yes you seem like someone well acquainted with both philosophy and theory.



Which is lower than the total for the series of operations composing Bagration. Also, one must remember that the Romanians defected as a nation to the Soviet side during that one, so that tends to inflate the combat effectiveness of the Soviet army in that operation.

Moron, where did I dispute this? Please show me.



By the way the Germans were dying in Bagration, it was the major Eastern front offensive of 1944. No serious war historian would dispute that. You, however, seem to suggest less intense offensives like Lvov-Sandomierz and Jassy-Kishnev were the "more major" offensives in the same year.

WHO GIVES A SHIT? FACT; Bagration was not the only major offensive of 1944. FACT: 1944 was the most destructive year for the Wehrmacht. FACT: The Red Army destroyed 70-80% of the German forces in the course of the war.



Hilarious. I'm probably older than you are, so I think I'll call you boy from now on because of your immaturity.

Wow, you act like a child and now you claim to be older? That's even worse. Keep in mind you're throwing this idiotic tantrum because I insulted your beloved tanks.



Just because I can present sources and data that you discount because "it's Russian" obviously means I'm a Nazbol, when you sit there trashing everything the Soviet union has ever done since the GPW. I present you Russian sources with documented photographic evidence, and you hate it because "it's Russian."

First of all you are like a Nazbol because you see nationality as more important than doctrine, and you resort to stereotypes. Furthermore, I could just as easily walk over to my bookshelf and start transcribing pages of documentation gained from the Soviet archives by such well-recognized historians as David M. Glantz and others but I don't because:

1. I have a life.

2. I AM NOT DISPUTING ANY FACTS ABOUT THE GPW.



Yes, you are American, because you spread American propaganda and use stupid American phrases like "in the ballpark of 250,000 US dollars."

Oh no, I'm American!! And you are a wannabe Russian who probably lives in America.




I've already proven in great technical detail where exactly you were mistaken. Autoloaders are not prone to explosion, Iraqi armor was not an accurate representation of soviet armor (owing to their lack of composite armor, du ammunition, modern fcs, and training), and deep operations had everything to do with the political-economic development of the Soviet officer corps.

First of all, I read this shit about Iraqi tanks years ago, and used to argue the same thing. Still, the Abrams has a better performance record in combat. This is a fact.



You love that game sooooo much, don't you boy? What is it with you hoxhaites and this crap? At least two hoxhaites I know here are obsessed anime nerds, another is stalking teenage anarchist girls on youtube, another is endlessly running games of diplomacy that turn to crap, and another just got recently banned for being a rapist. Is Hoxhaism just a cover for being a deviant?

Squirm Brezhnevite, squirm.



Well it's clear you never had any to begin with. I present facts backed with data, you present myths. I'm even owning you by quoting your own words. Backpedaling, boy, isn't going to work.

What myths?

[khad]

What "myths" moron? Everything you wrote. I've outlined it before.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1844660#post1844660 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1844660#post1844660)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1844706#post1844706 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1844706#post1844706)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1845861#post1845861 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1845861#post1845861)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1846209#post1846209 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1846209#post1846209)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1846230#post1846230 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1846230#post1846230)


WHO GIVES A SHIT? FACT; Bagration was not the only major offensive of 1944. FACT: 1944 was the most destructive year for the Wehrmacht. FACT: The Red Army destroyed 70-80% of the German forces in the course of the war.Because you do nothing but backpedal, boy, when you are confronted with facts. Look how you aren't claiming that there are "more major" offensives than Bagration now.


First of all, I read this shit about Iraqi tanks years ago, and used to argue the same thing. Still, the Abrams has a better performance record in combat. This is a fact.
About Iraqi tanks, which I have proven to be a flawed point of comparison. The T-80, T-72B, and T-90 were never frontally penetrated in combat either, so this makes your analogy even more specious.

Addressing two of your myths here, on the armor and armament of Iraqi tanks and the differences between their models and standard Soviet models.


Let me set this straight for you. Composite armor is a layered armor that uses materials other than steel--ceramics, silica, rubber, etc to enhance protection beyond that offered by steel. Soviet tanks were built with cavities in the hull which were filled with composite silica or boron compounds. In the 1960s with the T-64, the USSR introduced the first production composite armor known as combination-k, which generated a Western response in the form of Chobham composite in the 1970s. By the end of that decade the USSR had begun to shift over to using boron carbide-based fillers, which enhanced protection for an equivalent amount of mass compared to combination-k.

Explosive Reactive Armor was developed in the 1980s and was applique, meaning that it was applied OUTSIDE THE TANK HULL. Kontakt and the hardened version, Kontakt V, were developed in the last decade of the Cold War.

Iraqi tanks neither had composite armor nor reactive armor. They were pure cast steel, though they sometimes were fitted with anti-rpg skirts. So what can a cast steel tank tell you about the performance of composite armor?

I'll answer that for you: NOTHING. Based on tests, however, the composite-protected frontal arc of Soviet tanks had an RHA protection rating of 400-500mm in comparison to the 300-350mm of the cast steel versions. This is BEFORE adding any Kontakt ERA.

In a number of tests, the bare T-72B was invulnerable to the American 105mm at 1500-2000m. These were the East German T-72s, which were fitted with boron carbide composites.

Also, about the Iraqi ammunition--the export grade ammo was a steel penetrator that had about half of the penetration power of the standard soviet depleted uranium penetrators. It was a round relegated to training duty in the USSR. The most common round in the Soviet arsenal in the 1980s was the 3BM-32, with an estimated penetration of [email protected], which overmatched the American 105mm's M-833 round (440mm, 1984) and was roughly comparable to the M829 of the 120mm (550mm, 1987). Only with the M829A1 (610mm, 1991) and M829A2 (730mm, 1994) did NATO acquire the decisive edge in penetration power.

But that's why the USSR was slating an upgrade to the 152mm maingun for the mid-90s.

That all said, how the steel iraqi training ammo gauges the performance of Soviet depleted uranium APFSDS is only a leap of logic you're willing to make.


First of all you are like a Nazbol because you see nationality as more important than doctrine, and you resort to stereotypes.
This is hilarious, coming from a chauvinist American tourist who feels the uncontrollable urge to scream about how "commie equipment sucked sucked sucked and that it's a wonder they managed to even put a roll of toilet paper together."

I'm sorry, I also have to laugh at this:
"Retard, what does this have to do with the fact that Deep Battle doctrine started in the 1930s, and had fuck-all to do with giving officers more power"

I have shown how Soviet deep battle theory was linked to institutional and political economic conditions within the Soviet Union, namely in Tukhachevsky's role in centralizing and enhancing the power of the officer corps as well as his determining stake in the execution of Stalin's Five Year Plans.

You apparently know history through superficiality and minutiae. Yes you point out that some worthless scraps of metal given out in 1942, but really the enhanced power of the officer corps came through the restoration of unitary command. Men like Tukhachevsky were pushing throughout the interwar years to professionalize the Red Army and in particular its officers, as they explicitly stated they did not feel that revolutionary fervor was sustainable or reliable.

Stalin's purges as well as his installing of political officers to oversee military commands was a brief reversal in which civilian authorities clamped down on military affairs, but the conditions of the war continued the evolution of a massive, powerful officer corps in line with what Deep Battle theorists wanted. Operational flexibility demanded smaller, streamlined units, and more units required more commanders and staff. This is why the Soviet Army needed to have the largest officer corps in the world.


I could just as easily walk over to my bookshelf and start transcribing pages of documentation gained from the Soviet archives by such well-recognized historians as David M. Glantz and others but I don't because:And I could tell you exactly where Glantz--a good if perfunctory historian--misattributes his citations, but I won't because that would really be throwing pearls before swine.


1. I have a life.Correction. You don't have a life. I on the other hand am a historian by training and have been working out ideas on the relationship between theory and the military, and in this thread in particular on professional officer elites like Tukhachevsky and their role in breaking down civilian control under Stalin's administration. The role of the empowered officer corps in shaping the political economy of the early USSR is not something that is often addressed, and it's really not even brought up in histories of Stalin's purges. It's been entertaining for me to sort of work through these ideas, as well as putting you in your place with the logic of data--whereas you revel in western chimeras.

You do not have a professional excuse to engage in this debate, and at this point, the only conceivable rationale is your wounded sense of American chauvinist pride--that someone who was born in a former communist country would dare to talk back to you. You, an American, who is obviously privileged by virtue of being from the West, who obviously feels entitled to claim to know the history of the communist world better than the people there and trash them for it.

[S.Artesian]

This:


I on the other hand am a historian by training and have been working out ideas on the relationship between theory and the military, as well as professional officer elites like Tukhachevsky and their role in breaking down civilian control under Stalin's administration. The role of the empowered officer corps in shaping the political economy of the early USSR is not something that is often addressed, and it's really not even brought up in histories of Stalin's purges.

is a point of critical importance, and is worth a thread of its own.

Perhaps rather than start another thread, if and when Khad get's some time he can direct me to some sources so I can look into this myself. Thanks.

[S.Artesian]

Couple of things here--

The OP asked a straight-forward question. Khad answered it, and in detail. To every subsequent concrete question, Khad has also provided answers in detail. The numbers, and the details are what the numbers and details are. KS hasn't refuted a single point of Khad's analysis of the fSU's armored capability and superiority prior to its collapse.

If we want to explore the reasons for the collapse, that's one thing. But if we want to understand why the fSU organized its military as it did, equipped it as it did, and the capability of that equipment and that organization to achieve the tactical demands, and the strategic goals of the fSU, then Khad's analysis stands until it can be refuted by somebody or bodies able to produce numbers and details to the contrary of Khad's, not by KS's posing and posturing.

I know practically nothing about the capability and the strength of Soviet armor in comparison to that of NATO. And it seems to me KS doesn't know anything either. Nothing wrong with not knowing, just admit it and shut up and learn.

[Kayser_Soso]

Couple of things here--

The OP asked a straight-forward question. Khad answered it, and in detail. To every subsequent concrete question, Khad has also provided answers in detail. The numbers, and the details are what the numbers and details are. KS hasn't refuted a single point of Khad's analysis of the fSU's armored capability and superiority prior to its collapse.

Yes I have, the real combat record of the Abrams is better than that of the T-72.



I know practically nothing about the capability and the strength of Soviet armor in comparison to that of NATO. And it seems to me KS doesn't know anything either. Nothing wrong with not knowing, just admit it and shut up and learn.

I do know I just don't care to spend as much time as that loser posting tons of data. The thing is if the moron had just been polite when providing his data I would have been appreciative because he did bring up a few issues I had not seen before. But being a moron, he had to get all upset and then accuse me of "spreading Western myths", which he won't name. After that, all bets are off.

He's a grown man throwing a tantrum over a debate about technical specifics of tanks. That's all one needs to understand about this "debate."

[Kayser_Soso]

Everything you wrote. I've outlined it before.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1844660#post1844660 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1844660#post1844660)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1844706#post1844706 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1844706#post1844706)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1845861#post1845861 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1845861#post1845861)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1846209#post1846209 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1846209#post1846209)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/invasion-ussr-t140476/index.html?p=1846230#post1846230 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.html?p=1846230#post1846230)

Insufficient. What myths was I spreading?



Because you do nothing but backpedal, boy, when you are confronted with facts. Look how you aren't claiming that there are "more major" offensives than Bagration now.

Never made that claim moron.



About Iraqi tanks, which I have proven to be a flawed point of comparison. The T-80, T-72B, and T-90 were never frontally penetrated in combat either, so this makes your analogy even more specious.

When has a T-80 or T-90 been in combat with an Abrams? Oh right.



Addressing two of your myths here, on the armor and armament of Iraqi tanks and the differences between their models and standard Soviet models.

I was already aware of most of these differences.





This is hilarious, coming from a chauvinist American tourist who feels the uncontrollable urge to scream about how "commie equipment sucked sucked sucked and that it's a wonder they managed to even put a roll of toilet paper together."

Nope, never said anything of the sort. Because you are an imbecile, you draw the most bizarre conclusions such as that.




I have shown how Soviet deep battle theory was linked to institutional and political economic conditions within the Soviet Union, namely in Tukhachevsky's role in centralizing and enhancing the power of the officer corps as well as his determining stake in the execution of Stalin's Five Year Plans.

Moron, please explain how the development of Deep Battle could be retroactively affected by changes in organization which occurred long after the development began.



You apparently know history through superficiality and minutiae.

Yes because if I don't post something here it must mean I don't know it.



Yes you point out that some worthless scraps of metal given out in 1942, but really the enhanced power of the officer corps came through the restoration of unitary command. Men like Tukhachevsky were pushing throughout the interwar years to professionalize the Red Army and in particular its officers, as they explicitly stated they did not feel that revolutionary fervor was sustainable or reliable.

Wow, thanks for telling me another thing I already knew, which has no bearing on what I said earlier.



And I could tell you exactly where Glantz--a good if perfunctory historian--misattributes his citations, but I won't because that would really be throwing pearls before swine.

Gee that's funny because you love posting walls of text otherwise.



Correction. You don't have a life. I on the other hand am a historian by training and have been working out ideas on the relationship between theory and the military, and in this thread in particular on professional officer elites like Tukhachevsky and their role in breaking down civilian control under Stalin's administration.

Really? Last time I checked you're posting constantly on and internet forum about the specifics of various tanks, which you possibly never even saw in person much less worked with.



You do not have a professional excuse to engage in this debate, and at this point, the only conceivable rationale is your wounded sense of American chauvinist pride--that someone who was born in a former communist country would dare to talk back to you.

In your bizarre fantasy world perhaps.



You, an American, who is obviously privileged by virtue of being from the West, who obviously feels entitled to claim to know the history of the communist world better than the people there and trash them for it.

Please show me where I did this.

By the way, why don't you tell us where you are from and where you live? You sound pretty American to me.

From now on all your responses will meet with the cut and paste phrase: "You are a grown man throwing a hissy fit over a disagreement regarding the technical qualities of tanks, posting furiously on an internet forum."

[Il Medico]

I am I the only one who finds it extremely sad that someone with as much knowledge as khad can still make himself look like a fool by having the maturity level of a three year old?

[khad]

Insufficient. What myths was I spreading?

Never made that claim moron.

When has a T-80 or T-90 been in combat with an Abrams? Oh right.

I was already aware of most of these differences.

Do you walk backwards for a living? Because here is what I said:

"Because based on the performance of stripped down Iraqi tanks in Gulf War I, you feel like you have the need to:

1. Comment on the effectiveness of standard Soviet combination-k and boron carbide composite armor based on the pure cast steel turrets of Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks."

To which you replied:

"I was aware of the differences between the Iraqi tanks(some of which were actually Yugoslav M-84s) and the Soviet kinds, and I am well aware of what ERA is."

You clearly did not know the difference between ERA and composite.


Moron, please explain how the development of Deep Battle could be retroactively affected by changes in organization which occurred long after the development began.Are you even a materialist? Tukhachevsky, Isserson, and other deep battle theorists were throughout the 1930s positioning the officer corps in an expanded role in the state and economy. The theory was made possible by their professionalization of the Soviet Army. The purges were a momentary reversal as civilian authorities attempted to reassert control, but the trajectory was already set.

It's funny that you love deep battle so much when someone like Tukhachevsky was probably one of the worst examples of bureaucratic precedent in the USSR--a military officer branching out into political economy? How's that for officer power? I think any government would have viewed him with suspicion.


Yes because if I don't post something here it must mean I don't know it.

Wow, thanks for telling me another thing I already knew, which has no bearing on what I said earlier. Actually, you most likely didn't know, because you vigorously deny the institutional basis for military theory:

"Retard, what does this have to do with the fact that Deep Battle doctrine started in the 1930s, and had fuck-all to do with giving officers more power"

I was the one who had to bring up the role deep battle theorists and the position in the debates over the professionalization of the Red Army in the 1930s. Again, you seem to think that somehow the army miraculously transitioned from a revolutionary army in the midst of ww2.


Gee that's funny because you love posting walls of text otherwise. As others have noted, you love bringing no evidence to the table.


Really? Last time I checked you're posting constantly on and internet forum about the specifics of various tanks, which you possibly never even saw in person much less worked with.But I for one do not discount the experiences of people who have. The source photgraphs and some of the data I've provided in this thread, for instance, was an article written by a guy who actually served in the armor component of the 27th guards motor rifle regiment.

But obviously, here is your Western chauvinist response to that:

"Problem number one: Russian sources"


In your bizarre fantasy world perhaps.

Please show me where I did this.Like the part where you claimed NATO was "satisfied" with existing spheres of influence and that the combloc suffered paranoid delusion. There's too much of your bullshit to list.


By the way, why don't you tell us where you are from and where you live? You sound pretty American to me.I've already volunteered far more information about myself in this thread than you, so baiting me isn't going to work.


From now on all your responses will meet with the cut and paste phrase: "You are a grown man throwing a hissy fit over a disagreement regarding the technical qualities of tanks, posting furiously on an internet forum."By all means, do it, boy. That way your posts would be even more transparently full of shit.

[Kayser_Soso]

Do you walk backwards for a living? Because here is what I said:

"Because based on the performance of stripped down Iraqi tanks in Gulf War I, you feel like you have the need to:

1. Comment on the effectiveness of standard Soviet combination-k and boron carbide composite armor based on the pure cast steel turrets of Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks."

To which you replied:

"I was aware of the differences between the Iraqi tanks(some of which were actually Yugoslav M-84s) and the Soviet kinds, and I am well aware of what ERA is."

Dumbass, you made a reference to Kontakt-5 armor in a previous post. I was clearly addressing that.

You clearly did not know the difference between ERA and composite.



Are you even a materialist?

Oh I can see you are a great master of materialist thought.



Tukhachevsky, Isserson, and other deep battle theorists were throughout the 1930s positioning the officer corps in an expanded role in the state and economy. The theory was made possible by their professionalization of the Soviet Army. The purges were a momentary reversal as civilian authorities attempted to reassert control, but the trajectory was already set.

It's funny that you love deep battle so much when someone like Tukhachevsky was probably one of the worst examples of bureaucratic precedent in the USSR--a military officer branching out into political economy? How's that for officer power? I think any government would have viewed him with suspicion.

This is not connected with events in 1942-43 and onward.



I was the one who had to bring up the role deep battle theorists and the position in the debates over the professionalization of the Red Army in the 1930s. Again, you seem to think that somehow the army miraculously transitioned from a revolutionary army in the midst of ww2.

Strawman, yet again. The problem is you are too stupid to understand any response of mine unless I practically draw you a diagram showing what each individual word is referring to.




But obviously, here is your Western chauvinist response to that:

"Problem number one: Russian sources"

Actually many Russians say the same thing.



Like the part where you claimed NATO was "satisfied" with existing spheres of influence and that the combloc suffered paranoid delusion. There's too much of your bullshit to list.

Moron, the US and USSR were cooperating in maintaining their respective spheres of influence.



I've already volunteered far more information about myself in this thread than you, so baiting me isn't going to work.

No, you have stupidly claimed "Communist roots"(idiotic, nationalist concept), and keep whining about America, where you most likely reside. And if you are truly a historian- where are your published works?

Till then, I'm going to assume you are American, live there, and are quite bitter about this fact.

Oh and almost forgot-

"You are a grown man throwing a hissy fit over a disagreement regarding the technical qualities of tanks, posting furiously on an internet forum."

[Il Medico]

But obviously, here is your Western chauvinist response to that:

"Problem number one: Russian sources"

.
This keeps coming up and frankly I don't understand. You are calling him a western chauvinist because he doesn't go with Russian sources on how awesome Russian tanks are. Would you trust American sources to be unbiased on how awesome American tanks are?

[khad]

Dumbass, you made a reference to Kontakt-5 armor in a previous post. I was clearly addressing that.
No, you weren't. Actually you said this:

"Even to this day many Russian tanks do not have Kontakt-5 ERA and a tank with Chobbam armor is far more likely to survive than any tank with ERA."

You treated ERA and composite as mutually exclusive categories. You were the one who kept bringing up kontakt even as I was talking about composites. Here I was referring to "bare" T-72s, meaning no applique armor and just the composite hull:

In the late Cold War context, a "bare" up-to date Soviet T-72 or T-80 would have been resistant to the British 120mm L11's L-15 and L-23 rounds, as well as the USA's 105mm M-728, M-735, M-774, and M-833 rounds.

Your response:

"What the hell are you basing this on? For one thing, you can see from photographs of field exercises that in the 1980s many Soviet tanks weren't equipped with the Kontakt reactive armor."


Oh I can see you are a great master of materialist thought.
As I pointed out before, you are an idealist if you don't see the structural bases that made the deep battle theory possible.


This is not connected with events in 1942-43 and onward.
Yes it was, or do you ignore the constant criticisms on the part of the 1930s deep battle school of the undisciplined, loose command of the revolutionary army? Tukhachevsky himself warned against drawing conclusions from the army of the civil war.


Strawman, yet again. The problem is you are too stupid to understand any response of mine unless I practically draw you a diagram showing what each individual word is referring to.
Again, facts or shut the fuck up.


Actually many Russians say the same thing.

And look, there are Mexicans who hate other Mexicans:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/people-racist-against-t140093/index.html

This is right up there with the "I have black friends" defense.


No, you have stupidly claimed "Communist roots"(idiotic, nationalist concept), and keep whining about America, where you most likely reside. And if you are truly a historian- where are your published works?
Here you bait me for docs again. I'll throw you this little bone, though. I currently have a piece under contract--and another if things go well.


Till then, I'm going to assume you are American, live there, and are quite bitter about this fact.

Assume anything you want. There are people here who know who I am, and I don't need validation from some American tourist who struts around like he's some kind of big fish in a small lake.


Oh and almost forgot-

"You are a grown man throwing a hissy fit over a disagreement regarding the technical qualities of tanks, posting furiously on an internet forum."
What began as a dispute in tank specifications has evolved into a much larger and far more interesting discussion on the political economy of military theory and the positionality of the deep battle school in the context of the professionalization of the Soviet officer corps in the 1930s.

Of course, this discussion has been largely one-sided, because you apparently aren't able to claim anything besides "Retard, what does this have to do with the fact that Deep Battle doctrine started in the 1930s, and had fuck-all to do with giving officers more power."

[khad]

This keeps coming up and frankly I don't understand. You are calling him a western chauvinist because he doesn't go with Russian sources on how awesome Russian tanks are. Would you trust American sources to be unbiased on how awesome American tanks are?
I call him a chauvinist because he keeps insisting per the American propaganda line that Iraqi armor was representative of Soviet armor.

Well, if you want American sources on how Soviet armor was distinct from the armor faced in Iraq, here's an article on the soviet composite armor configurations:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.knox.army.mil%2Fcenter%2Focoa %2Farmormag%2Fbackissues%2F1990s%2F1999%2Fja99%2F4 warford99.pdf&rct=j&q=combination%20k%20soviet&ei=3zt5TMq5L8G78gaEnNieBg&usg=AFQjCNEf8h7OLhGRmz47T8v1N8VbK-_B7Q&cad=rja

Soviet-Russian Tank Turret Armor:
The Cold War Shell-Game
by James M. Warford

While battle damage assessment conducted
during and after Operation Desert
Storm provided a wealth of information
concerning the armor protecting many of
the tanks employed by the Iraqi Army,
including the 5-layer laminated glacis [my note: extra steel plates welded on the hull for rpg protection]
armor carried by the T-72M1 MBT, details
of the armor protecting the turrets of
many Soviet/Russian MBTs remained a
mystery. Since no photos have appeared
showing any internal detail of these turret
armor designs, most of the analysis over
the years has been based on speculation.
This all changed with the historic collapse
of the Soviet Union. Suddenly,
Russian sources were available at an unprecedented
level to help clear away
some of the mystery. Russian books like
Obozreniye Otechestvennoi Bronetankovoi
Tehniki, 1905-1995, by A. Karpenko,
and Main Battle Tanks, 1993, by V. I.
Murankhovski, have helped to both confirm
and deny some earlier speculation.
According to Murankhovski, the T-72’s
turret frontal armor (referring to variants
developed after the T-72 Base Model and
T-72M/T-72G MBTs, which have allsteel
turrets), is a three-layer composite,
an outer layer of steel, a center layer of
sand or kvartz (quartz), and an inner layer
of steel. Murankhovski also describes the
T-64A MBT’s turret frontal armor as a
similar although more advanced threelayer
composite known as “Combination-
K.” It consists of inner and outer layers of
steel, with a center layer of combined
steklotekstolit (a glass fiber material) and
a package of ceramic plates. According to
Karpenko, the ceramic material used in
the T-64A’s composite armor is called
“corundum,” which is a very hard native
alumina.
...
While the shape of Soviet tank turrets
went through some not-so-subtle changes
over the years, these internal cavities
remained invisible. The well-kept secret
of their existence was unexpectedly
made-public with an improved frontal
armor design that was incorporated into
several of the more recent Soviet Cold
War tanks; including the T-72B1, T-72B,
T-72S, T-80U, and T-90S MBTs. On
these tanks, the cavities actually come
through the turret roof, where they can
easily be seen when viewed from above.
On the T-72B-based variants (T-72B1, T-
72S, and T-90S), the cavities have been
covered by armor plates inset below the
top of the turret, leaving two large depressions
in the turret roof.
On the T-80U series (T-80UD, T-
80UM, and T-80UK), the cavities are still
visible but they are covered by plates that
are fitted flush with the turret roof, effectively
deleting the two depressions. This
change in turret armor design may have
been based on the desire to allow the
contents of each cavity to be easily upgraded
during the life of the tank.

[Il Medico]

Well, if you want American sources on how Soviet armor was distinct from the armor faced in Iraq, here's an article on the soviet composite armor configurations:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.knox.army.mil%2Fcenter%2Focoa %2Farmormag%2Fbackissues%2F1990s%2F1999%2Fja99%2F4 warford99.pdf&rct=j&q=combination%20k%20soviet&ei=3zt5TMq5L8G78gaEnNieBg&usg=AFQjCNEf8h7OLhGRmz47T8v1N8VbK-_B7Q&cad=rja

Soviet-Russian Tank Turret Armor:
The Cold War Shell-Game
by James M. Warford

While battle damage assessment conducted
during and after Operation Desert
Storm provided a wealth of information
concerning the armor protecting many of
the tanks employed by the Iraqi Army,
including the 5-layer laminated glacis
armor carried by the T-72M1 MBT, details
of the armor protecting the turrets of
many Soviet/Russian MBTs remained a
mystery. Since no photos have appeared
showing any internal detail of these turret
armor designs, most of the analysis over
the years has been based on speculation.
This all changed with the historic collapse
of the Soviet Union. Suddenly,
Russian sources were available at an unprecedented
level to help clear away
some of the mystery. Russian books like
Obozreniye Otechestvennoi Bronetankovoi
Tehniki, 1905-1995, by A. Karpenko,
and Main Battle Tanks, 1993, by V. I.
Murankhovski, have helped to both confirm
and deny some earlier speculation.
According to Murankhovski, the T-72’s
turret frontal armor (referring to variants
developed after the T-72 Base Model and
T-72M/T-72G MBTs, which have allsteel
turrets), is a three-layer composite,
an outer layer of steel, a center layer of
sand or kvartz (quartz), and an inner layer
of steel. Murankhovski also describes the
T-64A MBT’s turret frontal armor as a
similar although more advanced threelayer
composite known as “Combination-
K.” It consists of inner and outer layers of
steel, with a center layer of combined
steklotekstolit (a glass fiber material) and
a package of ceramic plates. According to
Karpenko, the ceramic material used in
the T-64A’s composite armor is called
“corundum,” which is a very hard native
alumina.
...
While the shape of Soviet tank turrets
went through some not-so-subtle changes
over the years, these internal cavities
remained invisible. The well-kept secret
of their existence was unexpectedly
made-public with an improved frontal
armor design that was incorporated into
several of the more recent Soviet Cold
War tanks; including the T-72B1, T-72B,
T-72S, T-80U, and T-90S MBTs. On
these tanks, the cavities actually come
through the turret roof, where they can
easily be seen when viewed from above.
On the T-72B-based variants (T-72B1, T-
72S, and T-90S), the cavities have been
covered by armor plates inset below the
top of the turret, leaving two large depressions
in the turret roof.
On the T-80U series (T-80UD, T-
80UM, and T-80UK), the cavities are still
visible but they are covered by plates that
are fitted flush with the turret roof, effectively
deleting the two depressions. This
change in turret armor design may have
been based on the desire to allow the
contents of each cavity to be easily upgraded
during the life of the tank.
I know, I don't disagree with you. But when it comes to things of national pride (like the military) you can't blame someone for not trusting the nation in question's sources.

[khad]

I know, I don't disagree with you. But when it comes to things of national pride (like the military) you can't blame someone for not trusting the nation in question's sources.
I pulled the Russian source, which was written by a Russian tanker, in response to KS's claim that autoloaders were prone to catastrophic explosion.

KS: Most Soviet tanks of the time were T-72s or lower. The whole design of the T-72-80 is inferior because its rounds are weaker and the carousel loading mechanism is easily set ablaze by rounds penetrating the turret.

My reply: T-72/90 autoloader is horizontal, limited to the lowest part of the hull (not the turret) and almost completely protected by roadwheels from side hits. The drawback is the smaller capacity (22 instead of 28 rounds). If the ammo is limited to the autoloader only a very lucky shot in the narrow gaps between T-72s (larger) roadwheels will cause an ammo explosion. A hit higher than the wheels will penetrate above the compartment floor and therefore not ignite the charges in the loader. In the Second Chechen War where Russian tankers only carried ammo in the autoloader, there was not a single case of ammo-explosion.

That article talked about the author's experiences in the 2nd Chechen campaign and had some detailed information regarding the combat damage his unit suffered. Those two tanks pictured were both penetrated (1 from top, 1 from rear), but neither suffered ammunition explosion because of the policy of just carrying ammo in the autoloader.

That idea of autoloader cookoff is as much a myth as that notion that the autoloader would chew off your arm. While I don't have a direct Russian source on failure rates, I did speak to a guy who had been in the Finnish army (Note: Western source!), and his assessment was that they had maybe a couple of minor malfunctions with the autoloader per year out of their entire T-72 fleet (some 200 vehicles).

[Red Commissar]

Not meaning to interrupt this, but what would have been a probable Soviet plan in the event of a war with NATO?

[Nakidana]

the autoloader would chew off your arm.

Yeah, when I first heard this myth I was at a complete loss of words. The guy I was talking to was saying it with a straight face but it just seemed so ridiculous to me. :laugh:

I wonder where it originates from.

[chuzhoi]

I think that here, you are american and probably are perverse english teacher in Moscow. You are bitter because you have to live in Russia and don’t have american cheeseburgers that you love.
Why live in Russia if you hate it?
One day after work I heard an american talking with russian school ‘dvornik’ and he was saying him that in soviet union times school children wanted to become cosmonautsand doctors but presently they want to be prostitutes and gangsters. The american said this was a good thing. Americans have entertainment to hate russians.

[Adi Shankara]

Я тоже так думаю, что он Американец, но у него Русская клавиатура.


А никогда был в Беларуси.

way to use google translate, asshole.

[Roach]

This thread is cleary degenarating into a mere exchange of insults.

[Adi Shankara]

From what I can gather, Kayser REALLY hates Russians. he constantly says how we are fools who play into American arms races, when in fact, we DID have superior weaponry for many years; the arms race was a direct response to this, not an effort to get Russia bankrupt; I don't know of any Russian who honestly believes the bullshit that the arms race bankrupt the soviet state; no, that was all glasnost and perestroika. To believe we "lost" the arms race is Reaganite propaganda.

[Adi Shankara]

Moron, I have never tried to pass myself off as Russian. Perhaps nobody told you but foreigners are allowed to live in Moscow. And don't assume that everyone else here believes the oversimplistic Russia=Communism bullshit. So unlike you I have no need to "pose."

Not everyone in Russia is communist, but we're very proud of our history; even the far-right parties commemorate important Soviet dates such as the siege of Stalingrad, the October Revolution, etc.




Moscow is not the "Third World."

Moscow isn't...but Sransk, Kyzyl, and Zheleznodorozhne are. do you ever leave the comfort of your upper class apartment to see how real Russians live?




Nobody gives a shit where your "roots" are. You sound like a nationalist with bullshit like that.

No offense, but it's a bit ironic you call others nationalist considering your avatar is of an ultra-nationalist Stalinist like Choybalsan, who hated foreigners with a passion.

[khad]

From what I can gather, Kayser REALLY hates Russians. he constantly says how we are fools who play into American arms races, when in fact, we DID have superior weaponry for many years; the arms race was a direct response to this, not an effort to get Russia bankrupt; I don't know of any Russian who honestly believes the bullshit that the arms race bankrupt the soviet state; no, that was all glasnost and perestroika. To believe we "lost" the arms race is Reaganite propaganda.
Don't forget how he thinks sources are no good because they happen to be Russian. :rolleyes:

[Roach]

From what I can gather, Kayser REALLY hates Russians. he constantly says how we are fools who play into American arms races, when in fact, we DID have superior weaponry for many years; the arms race was a direct response to this, not an effort to get Russia bankrupt; I don't know of any Russian who honestly believes the bullshit that the arms race bankrupt the soviet state; no, that was all glasnost and perestroika. To believe we "lost" the arms race is Reaganite propaganda.
Sorry,but this is ridiculous.He is criticizing the Soviet Union for spending it's resouces on an arms race.While if those resources were spent on political education,like he said, the Soviet Union could have avoided the capitalist restoration.This means that if the Communist Party of the Soviet Union spent more time raising their people's class conciousness,(not only the russian people but also the ukranians, azerbaijanis, turcomens, armenians, georgians, kazakhs and many more) instead of pursuing it's social-imperialist objectives,it could still be socialist today.Yes!The Soviet Union had to defend itself both extarnally and internally(this is the reason of the supposed rascism of Kayser post).
I don't know anything about tanks,my post about the american military and computer industry was just an assumption,I don't know if Kayser Soso is right on this futile debate about outdated military equipment.
BTW I'm not going to post on this madness any more,I want to keep my sanity.

[Kayser_Soso]

Not everyone in Russia is communist, but we're very proud of our history; even the far-right parties commemorate important Soviet dates such as the siege of Stalingrad, the October Revolution, etc.

Not really. And the far-right parties also commemorate things like ganging up on Tajiks 20 to 1 and killing them.






Moscow isn't...but Sransk, Kyzyl, and Zheleznodorozhne are. do you ever leave the comfort of your upper class apartment to see how real Russians live?

I've lived both in small towns and visited numerous cities in Russia including places like Rostov-na-Donu, Volgograd, and so on.

I don't live in an "upper class" apartment. I don't even have a lift in my building.

I think what would be better is for Muscovites to go around the country and see how real Russians live.



No offense, but it's a bit ironic you call others nationalist considering your avatar is of an ultra-nationalist Stalinist like Choybalsan, who hated foreigners with a passion.

I call Khad nationalist because he is a nationalist who thinks it is right to divide people by country and stereotype them. The fact is that many Russians don't trust their own sources these days so what I wrote is no different than what a dozen Russians might write when confronted with news from the Chechen war.

[Kayser_Soso]

way to use google translate, asshole.

It's not Google translate. I see you are going to get all butt-hurt because I dared question GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA too huh? Maybe it's you who needs to spend some more time in Russia and see how "Russophobic" Russians are. Then you can ***** about them.

[Kayser_Soso]

From what I can gather, Kayser REALLY hates Russians. he constantly says how we are fools who play into American arms races, when in fact, we DID have superior weaponry for many years; the arms race was a direct response to this, not an effort to get Russia bankrupt; I don't know of any Russian who honestly believes the bullshit that the arms race bankrupt the soviet state; no, that was all glasnost and perestroika. To believe we "lost" the arms race is Reaganite propaganda.

Is there at least ONE among you who can properly interpret ONE comment I made correctly? I haven't seen anyone here directly address or even interpret any point I have made in this entire thread.

[Kayser_Soso]

I think that here, you are american and probably are perverse english teacher in Moscow. You are bitter because you have to live in Russia and don’t have american cheeseburgers that you love.

Oh yeah there's no cheeseburgers in Russia. I guess we all know YOU don't live there now.



Why live in Russia if you hate it?

Why do so many Russians live there when they hate it?



One day after work I heard an american talking with russian school ‘dvornik’ and he was saying him that in soviet union times school children wanted to become cosmonautsand doctors but presently they want to be prostitutes and gangsters. The american said this was a good thing. Americans have entertainment to hate russians.

Ah yes, there are only two countries in the world, America, and Russia. And we all know how superior Russia is, yet for some reason people work their ass off to leave Russia. And of course any criticism of Russian society MUST be a criticism of the Russian people as a whole.

This inferiority complex is hilarious. What kind of a proud people is so goddamned sensitive? Most Americans don't even think about Russia, whereas the reverse is not true.

Maybe instead of focusing on things such as what Americans(which don't constitute a hive-mind collective) think about Russia, people here should put a little more concentration into fixing their own social problems, for example, making sure cops aren't robbing and occasionally killing or raping people. Priorities.

By the way, you can hear just as many stupid comments on Russia from Canadians, Germans, Englishmen, etc. Of course the only ones which are important are those that come from Americans, because there are no other countries in the entire world!!!

[Brother No. 1]

It's not Google translate.

Then are you using some program to type in english/Russian? We'd like to know honestly, for we can assume google translate since...it is the program I know if someone is going to type Russian.



I see you are going to get all butt-hurt because I dared question GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA too huh?

Where was the Daring again..?

For I only saw you were agaisnt posting of Russian Articles and instead promoting the posting of english articles for khad. What the fuck is wrong with Russian articles is the question we beg to ask.




I haven't seen anyone here directly address or even interpret any point I have made in this entire thread.

You made points? The only 'points' I saw were vauge points on how American tanks were better then russian or somewhere along that line.



Oh yeah there's no cheeseburgers in Russia. I guess we all know YOU don't live there now.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/2/128910741724170428.jpg



Why do so many Russians live there when they hate it?

This doesnt answer the question annnd how does this make a point?



Ah yes, there are only two countries in the world, America, and Russia.

Ah yes this makes a fucking completely relevant point to his post doesnt it?:rolleyes:



And we all know how superior Russia is, yet for some reason people work their ass off to leave Russia.

Once again this doesnt have to do with any fucking thing to the post, and rather your just attacking a 3rd world nation which is already in bad shape. Actually why the fuck do you live there?



And of course any criticism of Russian society MUST be a criticism of the Russian people as a whole.

wut.



Most Americans don't even think about Russia,

Most Americans are being shitheads politically currently, or havent you been readinh up much on where you came from? They think they are superior to Russia, to everyone, and anyone. Patriotic in the sense of their 'democraically helping Iraq and Afghanistan'.



their own social problems, for example, making sure cops aren't robbing and occasionally killing or raping people. Priorities.

Yes, yes why dont you mock Kofi and people beat up by the police further by saying the Russian people focus too much on the American view.

[Kayser_Soso]

Then are you using some program to type in english/Russian? We'd like to know honestly, for we can assume google translate since...it is the program I know if someone is going to type Russian.

You don't need any kind of program. My computer was built here and uses the Russian version of windows. You hit shift-alt and switch the keyboard to Russian.





Where was the Daring again..?

For I only saw you were agaisnt posting of Russian Articles and instead promoting the posting of english articles for khad. What the fuck is wrong with Russian articles is the question we beg to ask.

Then you didn't see. And actually it was Khad who insisted that anything "Western" or that which he believes to be "Western" can't be trusted. Actually I found some of his data helpful and informative but the problem is instead of politely pointing out these things he had to throw a temper tantrum and start name calling. Then it's on.

I assume he's just pissed off because he lives in America and wants to be something else. It's a big problem in America.




You made points? The only 'points' I saw were vauge points on how American tanks were better then russian or somewhere along that line.

Then you weren't reading carefully enough.



This doesnt answer the question annnd how does this make a point?

It does answer the question. The question is nothing like the old American patriot's Love it or Leave it bullshit.



Once again this doesnt have to do with any fucking thing to the post, and rather your just attacking a 3rd world nation which is already in bad shape. Actually why the fuck do you live there?

Oh shit, you just fucked up son, you called Russia a 3rd world nation and said it was in "bad shape"!! You must hate Russians. Now prepare to get a flood of various articles from the Russian media proving that the standard of living in Russia is the highest in the industrialized world!





Yes, yes why dont you mock Kofi and people beat up by the police further by saying the Russian people focus too much on the American view.

Ah yes, the police in America are no different than the police in Russia, right.

[Brother No. 1]

My computer was built here and uses the Russian version of windows. You hit shift-alt and switch the keyboard to Russian.You forgot "Now you know!"




Then you didn't see. And actually it was Khad who insisted that anything "Western" or that which he believes to be "Western" can't be trusted. Actually I found some of his data helpful and informative Well sometimes 'western' sources can not be trusted but I believe he was going on how Western Sources on the military race between America and the Soviet Union shouldnt be trusted as much since the acedmica is inheirtly anti-communist. Unless somehow I can trust sources that will say to me American tanks were 'far better' then Soviet Tanks from the 60s to the 80s. It was a Cause Effect reaction to which they created something the other would respond and make something else. but I dont see how you arent isolated out of the fucking name calling.



Then you weren't reading carefully enough.
Toooooo much Hoxhaite insults were in there, so I didnt give a shit of most and skimmed the major points of your posts.




It does answer the question. The question is nothing like the old American patriot's Love it or Leave it bullshit. How the Fuck does that relate to the post? In any case the point might have been to Russians living in America but of course Russians would 'hate' the living conditions they are under who fucking wouldnt?


Oh shit, you just fucked up son, you called Russia a 3rd world nation and said it was in "bad shape"!! You must hate Russians. Now prepare to get a flood of various articles from the Russian media proving that the standard of living in Russia is the highest in the industrialized world! Russians all know this. But you are saying this as someone who was not born in the Combloc(like my fucking father) just makes you an arrogant who doesnt mind your bussniess. I'm sure this is how you talk down to black people too.

In any case, I dont think anyone would really suggest that Russia is the most highly industrlized nation, unless you could provide some proof.


Ah yes, the police in America are no different than the police in Russia, right.
Oh I'm sorry does the Russian police shoot a black muslim in Flordia university for no reason at all other then 'just because' you fucking peice of shit? They might shoot someone of another people but still this is fucking mocking the fighting my friend did to get kofi into a hospital and not being sent to jail for a ludicrous trial of just being "loud".

[Kayser_Soso]

Toooooo much Hoxhaite insults were in there, so I didnt give a shit of most and skimmed the major points of your posts.

What "Hoxhaite" insults? And maybe you just use that "Maoism" tag for style but didn't you hear that many of China's criticisms of the USSR(which apparently means 'Russia' in this thread) were identical to those of Hoxha?




Russians all know this. But you are saying this as someone who was not born in the Combloc(like my fucking father) just makes you an arrogant who doesnt mind your bussniess. I'm sure this is how you talk down to black people too.

Bizarre gibberish.



In any case, I dont think anyone would really suggest that Russia is the most highly industrlized nation, unless you could provide some proof.

Never heard of sarcasm huh?



Oh I'm sorry does the Russian police shoot a black muslim in Flordia university for no reason at all other then 'just because' you fucking peice of shit? They might shoot someone of another people but still this is fucking mocking the fighting my friend did to get kofi into a hospital and not being sent to jail for a ludicrous trial of just being "loud".

Were the police drunk like the one who beat an Abkhaz man to death last year?

See this is exactly the problem with the nationalists here. First a criticism of the USSR becomes an attack on Russia, and then we can't even criticize modern fascist Russia because EVEN RIGHT-WING GROUPS COMMEMORATE STALINGRAD!!!

Why should Russians be allowed to complain about their society but someone else who lives there can't? Because I'm an immigrant? So I guess all the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. can't complain either. Besides, anything I say about Russia is far more positive than what the average Muscovite would say.

[Il Medico]

way to use google translate, asshole.
oh lawl. He lives in Russia dude. His computer can type in Russian.


Oh I'm sorry does the Russian police shoot a black muslim in Flordia university for no reason at all other then 'just because' you fucking peice of shit?
Well, no, cause Florida university isn't in Russia. Cops in France beat North African immigrants, cops in Russian beat Tajiks and other immigrants, and cops in America beat blacks, Hispanics, and whoever the else they feel like. Cops are bastards, pigs, and scum, no matter where they're from.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

From what I can gather, Kayser REALLY hates Russians. he constantly says how we are fools who play into American arms races, when in fact, we DID have superior weaponry for many years; the arms race was a direct response to this, not an effort to get Russia bankrupt; I don't know of any Russian who honestly believes the bullshit that the arms race bankrupt the soviet state; no, that was all glasnost and perestroika. To believe we "lost" the arms race is Reaganite propaganda.


It's not Google translate. I see you are going to get all butt-hurt because I dared question GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA too huh? Maybe it's you who needs to spend some more time in Russia and see how "Russophobic" Russians are. Then you can ***** about them.

http://www.embacubalebanon.com/images/che032.jpg

[Adi Shankara]

It's not Google translate. I see you are going to get all butt-hurt because I dared question GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA too huh? Maybe it's you who needs to spend some more time in Russia and see how "Russophobic" Russians are. Then you can ***** about them.


I am Russian, and while I was born and raised in the USA, I still have much family in the former USSR and I visit once every blue moon but long enough to check up on things.



Well, no, cause Florida university isn't in Russia. Cops in France beat North African immigrants, cops in Russian beat Tajiks and other immigrants, and cops in America beat blacks, Hispanics, and whoever the else they feel like. Cops are bastards, pigs, and scum, no matter where they're from.

Cops very rarely are involved in racially motivated beatings--more often than not, they are the ones beating on skinheads by orders of Putin and Medvedev who wants to increase the image of their country, and Russia is strange where, at least from where I can see it, state-sponsored racism is pretty rare, where as common racism isn't.

[Adi Shankara]

Were the police drunk like the one who beat an Abkhaz man to death last year?

There is no proof that the beating of the Abkhaz man was racially motivated, and it's not just endemic to Russia even if it was; the entire region is breaking down into fascist violence:

http://en.trend.az/news/cis/georgia/1255341.html

here is those innocent Abkhazi's beating to death Georgians for being Georgian.

[Adi Shankara]

Ah yes, there are only two countries in the world, America, and Russia. And we all know how superior Russia is, yet for some reason people work their ass off to leave Russia. And of course any criticism of Russian society MUST be a criticism of the Russian people as a whole.

This inferiority complex is hilarious. What kind of a proud people is so goddamned sensitive? Most Americans don't even think about Russia, whereas the reverse is not true.

Maybe instead of focusing on things such as what Americans(which don't constitute a hive-mind collective) think about Russia, people here should put a little more concentration into fixing their own social problems, for example, making sure cops aren't robbing and occasionally killing or raping people. Priorities.

By the way, you can hear just as many stupid comments on Russia from Canadians, Germans, Englishmen, etc. Of course the only ones which are important are those that come from Americans, because there are no other countries in the entire world!!!


You wouldn't even know the level of racism many slavs in America get. I myself, not so much since I speak English without an accent, but my cousins get the INS called on them at least twice a year, sometimes much much more, they have been treated like they are mentally challenged for not knowing english very well (the kids at least), they get harassed by the police all the time since they don't dress like Americans and don't speak English; being Russian in America isn't easy; maybe not as hard as being black in America, but that poster has a point, American media portray's us all as criminals or as third world corrupt dingpots.

Now as to people leaving Russia; my family came to the USA as refugees back in the late 1980's (I think) to avoid what they thought would be a civil war; thankfull it never came, but most people leave Russia because they want opportunity abroad, not because they dislike Russia; and when the Soyuz collapsed, opportunity collapsed; there was nothing left keeping my family in Russia seeing as my father lost his job. so the entire family left, but it wasn't because of Russian society; It was the total loss of everything they lived and grew up with, everything they worked for, only to have it collapse.

now then, I don't care whether or not you live there right now, it's not your prerogative to comment on how to fix Russia, seeing how you have zero roots in Rodinamat, and considering the ghettos in the USA are just as bad at times. sure, there is no malnutrition, but the crime is just as dangerous.

[Blackscare]

Which is dodging the question. I'll wait for Khad to answer this because you seem to have missed the point entirely. I am not talking about the necessity of putting boots on the ground but rather the survivability of such formations, as employed by Soviet war plans, in a nuclear war
Don't know where this thread went yet, still on page two, but I'd just like to say one thing.


You've never heard the term "putting all your eggs in one basket", have you?


Honestly even if there was an initial ground invasion or some skirmish somewhere, that everyone thinks would immediately cause nuclear war, the leaders of both countries (while being uncomfortably closer than before), would still hesitate at least a bit to step it up and unleash a nuclear holocaust, considering MADD and all. Maybe you never considered that it may occur to soviet leaders what an immense toll a nuclear war would take, and that they might not be eager to set the planet on fire if it weren't necessary.

Seems to me, both sides at least claimed to keep nukes for the purpose of retaliation in case they were attacked with nukes. So if follows logically that, if invaded on the ground, they may seek to solve things that way before going ahead and stepping the war up to a new level. Also, fallout etc basically render any land useless and would ruin the economic potential of the USSR. The Soviets knew the USA knew this, and since they understood the imperialist nature of the USA, they knew that if the USA invaded it would be, in the long run, for economic gain, which you can't really achieve if you've just conquered an irradiated glass crater. They were prepared for land battle and the use of nukes, because they had to be for both. You can't know exactly how someone is going to think, but you can formulate hypothetical lines of reasoning they MAY follow and prepare for that. The USA could have invaded or nuked them, depending on how they analyzed things.

Military leaders have to prepare for every eventuality.

[Blackscare]

Ah I posted a response to a shitfest I kinda cared about and hoped was still going on, and found that instead it was replaced by a more herp-derp shitfest I don't care about. :crying:

[Blackscare]

If I had no life I could browse and assload of forums about tanks and come back with all kinds of counter-data but something tells me that all the USSR's tanks didn't do a damn bit a good against businessmen.

Seriously I've never seen someone throw such a hissy fit on this board over a disagreement about technical specs that are totally irrelevant now. The Soviet Union collapsed, its armored divisions turned out to be worthless(ok not totally worthless, they did a good job killing Russians in the streets in Moscow).



Defeat conceded in typical butthurt internet form.

Lose an argument?


It was all irrelivant anyway! I can't believe you're such a loser that you'd actually participate in an argument that I also fueled!


Also, he wasn't throwing a hissy fit. You were wrong, he knew you were wrong, he proved it, and you basically admitted to it. This is a discussion forum, if you don't want people to debate then don't say anything. If you say something blatantly false, especially about tanks, expect Khad or someone else to call you out.


[edit]

Sorry about the three post! I'm done.

[Kayser_Soso]

Also, he wasn't throwing a hissy fit. You were wrong, he knew you were wrong, he proved it, and you basically admitted to it. This is a discussion forum, if you don't want people to debate then don't say anything. If you say something blatantly false, especially about tanks, expect Khad or someone else to call you out.
.

Since the Abrams and the T-72 models he mentions never actually met in combat it's a moot point.

[Kayser_Soso]

Cops very rarely are involved in racially motivated beatings--more often than not, they are the ones beating on skinheads by orders of Putin and Medvedev who wants to increase the image of their country, and Russia is strange where, at least from where I can see it, state-sponsored racism is pretty rare, where as common racism isn't.

Absolute bullshit. Here we go from phony communism to nationalist defense of Putin-Medvedev's fascist regime. Watch police in Moscow when they stop people, asking for bribes. Rarely will you ever see them stopping anyone European looking unless that person is drunk in public. Often times you will see them stopping entire groups of Uzbeks or Tajiks.



You wouldn't even know the level of racism many slavs in America get.

Actually I would, being Slavic, and spending my most of my teenage years and adult life in America with Slavic immigrants. And not just any Slavic immigrants.

Were you aware of a recent study by Tim Wise which shows that immigrants with lighter skin tend to do better financially than those with dark skin?



I myself, not so much since I speak English without an accent, but my cousins get the INS called on them at least twice a year, sometimes much much more, they have been treated like they are mentally challenged for not knowing english very well (the kids at least), they get harassed by the police all the time since they don't dress like Americans and don't speak English; being Russian in America isn't easy; maybe not as hard as being black in America, but that poster has a point, American media portray's us all as criminals or as third world corrupt dingpots.

Here's the difference. In America there are certain Constitutional protections. There is someone you can go to if someone tries to screw you over, even if that someone works in the government. Here, you have no rights or power as a foreigner(and getting citizenship does little more) and they can do whatever they want to you unless you have a lot of money.



Now as to people leaving Russia; my family came to the USA as refugees back in the late 1980's (I think) to avoid what they thought would be a civil war; thankfull it never came, but most people leave Russia because they want opportunity abroad, not because they dislike Russia; and when the Soyuz collapsed, opportunity collapsed; there was nothing left keeping my family in Russia seeing as my father lost his job. so the entire family left, but it wasn't because of Russian society; It was the total loss of everything they lived and grew up with, everything they worked for, only to have it collapse.

A tragic story and a good reason to leave, but nowadays you run into people with good jobs, apartments, and even cars- yet they want to leave. For a while I didn't quite understand this, but then I came to realize that unless you are seriously rich, there are still many problems you can't escape.



now then, I don't care whether or not you live there right now, it's not your prerogative to comment on how to fix Russia, seeing how you have zero roots in Rodinamat, and considering the ghettos in the USA are just as bad at times. sure, there is no malnutrition, but the crime is just as dangerous.


TRANSLATION: SLAVA ROSSII!! SLAVA POBEDA!!!!

Yeah we're uncovering fascists on this board real quick now. Open the GULag gate!

PS- Karl Marx and Engels had "zero roots" in Rodina-mat, unlike me they never even set foot in Russia. It's clear that anything less than GLORY TO THE ALMIGHTY RUSSIAN SOVIET UNION isn't going to satisfy these Brezhnevite-Nationalists, who are going to have a real hard time explaining how easily their perfect superior country degenerated into the world's brothel/resource clearing house.

[Invader Zim]

This thread is cleary degenarating into a mere exchange of insults.

Which, in my experience, is typical of any thread that has either Khad of KS participate in them for any length of time.

I see that they have driven Om from the thread, which is a shame, because undoubtedly s/he knows more about history, and how to conduct him/herself better, than either of them.

[Roach]

Which, in my experience, is typical of any thread that has either Khad of KS participate in them for any length of time.

I see that they have driven Om from the thread, which is a shame, because undoubtedly s/he knows more about history, and how to conduct him/herself better, than either of them.

I disagree it was a snowball effect, first one talk in a bullshit form then the other one can only aswer in a bullshit form.But this thread should be closed anyway.