Discussion:
Things Western industry learned from the Soviets?
(too old to reply)
Thomas Womack
2008-06-14 23:18:13 UTC
Permalink
There are a number of pretty well-attested examples of Soviet
industrial espionage against the West - the Tu-4 clone of the B29 is
probably the best example.

There are a few vague claims of successful Western medium-scale
sabotage against the Soviet Union, generally relating to hardware for
running oil pipelines.

In HUMINT there are success stories on both sides, Philby and
Penkovsky, but I can't think of a well-told tale of a Western
quasi-success against the Soviets comparable for example to the
various stories of Soviet bugging of Western embassies in Moscow.

Are there even dimly-attested claims going the other two directions -
successful Soviet sabotage against the West, or successful Western
capture of Soviet industrial secrets? I suppose I'd expect the former
to tend to fall under the dark and seldom-pierced veil of TOP SECRET
EMBARRASSING, and the latter to be in defence fields, probably
submarines, and so unavoidedly dim and to be discussed only
tangentially and laconicly, but I'm a bit surprised that I can't think
of *anything*.

(I suppose a better way and place to ask this question might be
po-Russki in certain bars in Kiev or Warsaw, but I have not the
language skills and would be thoroughly unwelcome in the bars)

Tom
Dennis
2008-06-15 19:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Womack
Are there even dimly-attested claims going the other two directions -
successful Soviet sabotage against the West, or successful Western
capture of Soviet industrial secrets? I suppose I'd expect the former
to tend to fall under the dark and seldom-pierced veil of TOP SECRET
EMBARRASSING, and the latter to be in defence fields, probably
submarines, and so unavoidedly dim and to be discussed only
tangentially and laconicly, but I'm a bit surprised that I can't think
of *anything*.
Did the Soviets have any industrial secrets *worth* stealing? The
only thing I can think of might be some aerospace technology. For the
rest, there would just be the intelligence value of knowing their (lack of)
capabilities.

Dennis
dott.Piergiorgio
2008-06-16 08:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
Did the Soviets have any industrial secrets *worth* stealing? The
only thing I can think of might be some aerospace technology. For the
rest, there would just be the intelligence value of knowing their (lack of)
capabilities.
mh.... I think that if something is worthwile in the Soviet technology
is the proverbial solidity & resistance to mistreatment of equipment,
esp. mechanical. Something like an US 1950s car.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 12:03:01 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 16, 4:09 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
           Did the Soviets have any industrial secrets *worth* stealing?  The
only thing I can think of might be some aerospace technology.  For the
rest, there would just be the intelligence value of knowing their (lack of)
capabilities.
mh.... I think that if something is worthwile in the Soviet technology
is the proverbial solidity & resistance to mistreatment of equipment,
esp. mechanical. Something like an US 1950s car.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
Aircraft? Please. Ships? I don't think so. Trucks and cars?
You've got to be kidding me.
guy
2008-06-16 12:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
On Jun 16, 4:09 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
           Did the Soviets have any industrial secrets *worth* stealing?  The
only thing I can think of might be some aerospace technology.  For the
rest, there would just be the intelligence value of knowing their (lack of)
capabilities.
mh.... I think that if something is worthwile in the Soviet technology
is the proverbial solidity & resistance to mistreatment of equipment,
esp. mechanical. Something like an US 1950s car.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
          Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
          Aircraft? Please.
Ilya Mourmoretz maybe?

Guy
Ships? I don't think so. Trucks and cars?
Post by d***@aol.com
You've got to be kidding me.
William Black
2008-06-16 12:12:29 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:14d20065-ff04-4815-a61c-***@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.

--------------------------------------

Not exactly.

The USSR had a single tank corps equipped with diesel powered Shermans that
was used for long distance breakthrough exploitation.

However it is arguable that the tactics were developed to fit the tank
rather than anything else.

They had a resource and they used it in a reasonable manner.

The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.

Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
on the tin'.

Their small arms were exceptional, their body armour was far superior to
the Western stuff, and used a technology we can't mimic because we don't
have access to cheap titanium.

They were building EMP resistant electronics into military aircraft half a
century ago.

The SS-20 was pretty good as well...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 12:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
          Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
--------------------------------------
Not exactly.
The USSR had a single tank corps equipped with diesel powered Shermans that
was used for long distance breakthrough exploitation.
However it is arguable that the tactics were developed to fit the tank
rather than anything else.
They had a resource and they used it in a reasonable manner.
The BMP was revolutionary,  and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
Post by d***@aol.com
Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
on the tin'.
It broke down constantly, the autoloaders had a tendancy to load
the gunner's arm, and the three man crew made maintenance a nightmare.
Not to mention lousy ventilation which made the inside an inferno
unless it was winter.
Post by d***@aol.com
Their small arms were exceptional,  their body armour was far superior to
the Western stuff,  and used a technology we can't mimic because we don't
have access to cheap titanium.
I'll give you that.
Post by d***@aol.com
They were building EMP resistant electronics into military aircraft half a
century ago.
The SS-20 was pretty good as well...
Was it? It was good on paper....we really don't know how well it
would perform in actual conditions....the same can be said for a lot
of US/western equipment, too.

Soviet equipment looks good on paper but has consistently
underperformed when actually used. The Soviets got by with this by not
using it very hard during training....which led to other problems when
it had to be used, but that's for a different thread.
Post by d***@aol.com
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
2008-06-16 12:51:10 UTC
Permalink
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.

-----------------------------------

None of that matters if you're the only game in town.

Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
on the tin'.
It broke down constantly, the autoloaders had a tendancy to load
the gunner's arm, and the three man crew made maintenance a nightmare.

--------------------------------

You're showing your age here.

Wheat you're reporting are early defects with the T-72 only.

----------------------------------

Not to mention lousy ventilation which made the inside an inferno
unless it was winter.

---------------------------------

Designed for use in Russia.

----------------------------------
The SS-20 was pretty good as well...
Was it? It was good on paper....we really don't know how well it
would perform in actual conditions....the same can be said for a lot
of US/western equipment, too.

--------------------------------

Well thank God we never had to find out in the case of the SS-20
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 12:58:18 UTC
Permalink
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
    The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
It was the first IFV....which doesn't make it "the proverbial
robustness, etc" which was the point I was addressing.
Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
on the tin'.
    It broke down constantly, the autoloaders had a tendancy to load
the gunner's arm, and the three man crew made maintenance a nightmare.
--------------------------------
You're showing your age here.
Wheat you're reporting are early defects with the T-72 only.
Not the "broke down constantly".... that was a feature of 34s,
44s, 54/55s, etc, etc.
----------------------------------
Not to mention lousy ventilation which made the inside an inferno
unless it was winter.
---------------------------------
Designed for use in Russia.
It gets pretty hot in Russia during the summer.
----------------------------------
The SS-20 was pretty good as well...
     Was it? It was good on paper....we really don't know how well it
would perform in actual conditions....the same can be said for a lot
of US/western equipment, too.
--------------------------------
Well thank God we never had to find out in the case of the SS-20
Amen.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
2008-06-16 13:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
It was the first IFV....which doesn't make it "the proverbial
robustness, etc" which was the point I was addressing.

---------------------------------

It was a hell of a lot more robust than any other IFV for at least ten
years...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 14:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
     It was the first IFV....which doesn't make it "the proverbial
robustness, etc" which was the point I was addressing.
---------------------------------
It was a hell of a lot more robust than any other IFV for at least ten
years...
--
William Black
Which is apples and oranges.....BTW, wasn't the Marder
contemporary? (I know it had a smaller cannon and no ATGM, but it was
technically an IFV)
William Black
2008-06-16 16:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
It was the first IFV....which doesn't make it "the proverbial
robustness, etc" which was the point I was addressing.
---------------------------------
It was a hell of a lot more robust than any other IFV for at least ten
years...
--
William Black
Which is apples and oranges.....BTW, wasn't the Marder
contemporary? (I know it had a smaller cannon and no ATGM, but it was
technically an IFV)

--------------------------

The Marder is about five years behind and didn't get its anti tank missile
until about 1975.

What was sensational about the BMP at the time wasn't the turret, it was
the Sagger launch rail that gave it a tank killing capability.

After the 1973 Battle of Chinese Farm the West got really really frightened
of Soviet wire guided tank killing missiles and started stuffing them on
just about everything not realising that the BMP needed to park up and
someone had to get out to reload the thing...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 14:58:37 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:
:<***@aol.com> wrote in message
:news:4360c000-cedb-423b-8181-***@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
:>
:> The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
:> crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
:> fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
:> cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
:> probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
:>
:> -----------------------------------
:>
:> None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
:>
:> Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
:> capability and no turret.
:
: It was the first IFV....which doesn't make it "the proverbial
:robustness, etc" which was the point I was addressing.
:
:---------------------------------
:
:It was a hell of a lot more robust than any other IFV for at least ten
:years...
:

Well, no, it wasn't. The BMP-1 finally fielded in the mid-1960s. By
then the Germans were halfway through the 10-year development cycle
for the Marder, which made the BMP look like a tinkertoy.

Note that the BMP was actually inspired by the German HS.30.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
William Black
2008-06-16 16:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Note that the BMP was actually inspired by the German HS.30.
The only thing the HS-30 inspired was the wallets of crooked German
politicians, which is why they only built about 1,000 instead of the 10,000
planned, or was it the fact that it didn't work...

It's easy to say 'Was inspired by...' with weapons. Weapons evolve, the
trick is spotting the next successful stage in the evolution.

John M Browning didn't design the Colt 1911A1 from a standing start,
there's a evolutionary track all the way back to fifteenth century hand
gonnes, it makes that particular weapon no less revolutionary.

(I could have said the Kalashnikov rifle, but you'd claim I was eulogising
the Soviets)
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 17:02:46 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:***@4ax.com...
:
:> Note that the BMP was actually inspired by the German HS.30.
:
:The only thing the HS-30 inspired was the wallets of crooked German
:politicians, which is why they only built about 1,000 instead of the 10,000
:planned, or was it the fact that it didn't work...
:

Make up some more things, Wee Willie. It won't change the facts but
it will no doubt make you feel better about the Soviets (if that's
possible).

1) They build 1800 (not 1000).

2) After the usual initial teething pains of such a new vehicle it
worked just fine.

3) It, not the BMP, was the first IFV.

4) The same basic vehicle was used for the two 'Jager' anti-tank
vehicles.

5) They didn't continue to build HS.30 because by the mid-1960s it
could no longer keep up with the German MBT (Leopard I came into
service). Not because of either corruption or it not working.

:
:It's easy to say 'Was inspired by...' with weapons. Weapons evolve, the
:trick is spotting the next successful stage in the evolution.
:

And the BMP-1 wasn't it. After its first major use in combat it was
quickly reworked into the BMP-2 and then completely redesigned into
the BMP-3.

:
:(I could have said the Kalashnikov rifle, but you'd claim I was eulogising
:the Soviets)
:

Only because it seems that you've apparently never met a Soviet
ANYTHING that you didn't love.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Raymond O'Hara
2008-06-16 21:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
It was the first IFV....which doesn't make it "the proverbial
robustness, etc" which was the point I was addressing.


but under the OP question, it is a russian idea borrowed by the west.
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 21:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
     It was the first IFV....which doesn't make it "the proverbial
robustness, etc" which was the point I was addressing.
 but under the OP question, it is a russian idea borrowed by the west.
And my comment directly addressed a comment by dott. Piergiorgio.
Roger Conroy
2008-06-16 13:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
You might want to research its performance versus South African Ratel ICVs
in Angola.
Short answer: BMPs were not much more than targets.
Post by d***@aol.com
Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
on the tin'.
It broke down constantly, the autoloaders had a tendancy to load
the gunner's arm, and the three man crew made maintenance a nightmare.
--------------------------------
You're showing your age here.
Wheat you're reporting are early defects with the T-72 only.
----------------------------------
Not to mention lousy ventilation which made the inside an inferno
unless it was winter.
---------------------------------
Designed for use in Russia.
----------------------------------
The SS-20 was pretty good as well...
Was it? It was good on paper....we really don't know how well it
would perform in actual conditions....the same can be said for a lot
of US/western equipment, too.
--------------------------------
Well thank God we never had to find out in the case of the SS-20
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Raymond O'Hara
2008-06-17 00:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Conroy
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
You might want to research its performance versus South African Ratel ICVs
in Angola.
Short answer: BMPs were not much more than targets.
i think if you swapped weapons in angola the better trained SA troops would
have still kicked ass.
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 14:52:01 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

One has to understand that Wee Willie has an almost diseased
admiration for anything Soviet.

:
:<***@aol.com> wrote in message
:news:1a8ad334-2a6e-478d-9ab5-***@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
:On Jun 16, 8:12 am, "William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk>
:wrote:
:
:> The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
:
: The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
:crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
:fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
:cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
:probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
:
:-----------------------------------
:
:None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
:
:Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
:capability and no turret.
:

And arriving in combat able to fight, which is the bit that matters.
BMPs made great targets for almost any anti-armor weapon (which the
battlefields of the time were pretty well littered with).

:
:>
:> Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it
:> said
:> on the tin'.
:
: It broke down constantly, the autoloaders had a tendancy to load
:the gunner's arm, and the three man crew made maintenance a nightmare.
:
:--------------------------------
:
:You're showing your age here.
:
:Wheat you're reporting are early defects with the T-72 only.
:

Yes. Follow on designs had other equally grievous faults.

:----------------------------------
:
:Not to mention lousy ventilation which made the inside an inferno
:unless it was winter.
:
:---------------------------------
:
:Designed for use in Russia.
:

Then why were they flogging them all over the world?

It never gets warm in Russia?

They planned on only fighting in the winter?

:----------------------------------
:
:
:> The SS-20 was pretty good as well...
:
: Was it? It was good on paper....we really don't know how well it
:would perform in actual conditions....the same can be said for a lot
:of US/western equipment, too.
:
:--------------------------------
:
:Well thank God we never had to find out in the case of the SS-20

It must've been perfect. It was Soviet, after all.

<snort>
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Raymond O'Hara
2008-06-16 21:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
-----------------------------------
None of that matters if you're the only game in town.
Everyone else was running around in tin cans with no serious anti-tank
capability and no turret.
look at pictures of M-113 from the VN war, everybody is riding on the roof
because to be inside when it was hit was to die.

the fact is everybody has copied the idea behind the BMP
mike
2008-06-17 01:06:19 UTC
Permalink
    The idea of the BMP was revolutionary....the BMP was a piece of
crap. The crew had too much to do, the infantry was too cramped to
fight from it, and they broke down constantly. And if the BMP was used
cross country at speed, the infantry was so banged up they were
probably glad to dismount and get shot at.
Many of the same problems as the first APC, the Mk IX of WWI

Loading Image...

The IDF captured a bunch of those BMPs, but chose to not
use those deathtraps and instead kept using the old White M3
Halftracks, and pulled turrets from other W-Pact tanks to make
more APCs from.

With the 113 tracks in SEAsia, you rode ontop for 3 reasons
1. Mines
2. More eyes to spot, and shoot back
3. Damn hot inside an aluminum box

**
mike
**
Andrew Robert Breen
2008-06-16 12:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
{list of stuff they did right snipped]

and, of course, the Soyuz is the launcher-of-choice for anyone who
wants to get a medium-weight payload into orbit (Soyuz/Fregat if you're
going higher) and isn't legally tied to a single nation as a supplier.

Proton is pretty good for heavier stuff, too, but Soyuz has the great
advantage that it JUST WORKS.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 13:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Robert Breen
         Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
{list of stuff they did right snipped]
and, of course, the Soyuz is the launcher-of-choice for anyone who
wants to get a medium-weight payload into orbit (Soyuz/Fregat if you're
going higher) and isn't legally tied to a single nation as a supplier.
Proton is pretty good for heavier stuff, too, but Soyuz has the great
advantage that it JUST WORKS.
--
Andy Breen ~
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then?

Seriously, I'm not saying everything the Soviets/Russians made/
make is crap.....I'm just saying the "simple, robust" tag is wrong at
least as often as it's right. BTW....they've had quite a few problems
with the Soyuz :-)
dott.Piergiorgio
2008-06-16 15:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Robert Breen
Post by d***@aol.com
Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
{list of stuff they did right snipped]
and, of course, the Soyuz is the launcher-of-choice for anyone who
wants to get a medium-weight payload into orbit (Soyuz/Fregat if you're
going higher) and isn't legally tied to a single nation as a supplier.
Proton is pretty good for heavier stuff, too, but Soyuz has the great
advantage that it JUST WORKS.
Agree. The Soyuz has outlived three generations of US manned spacecraft...

And I guess that wihout the jolt given to US of A in that night of fall
1957 in wchich every American, from Ike down to the last bum, was nose
up looking at the strange new 6-th magnitude star whose moves very fast
on the firmament and emit an ominous BIP-BIP, and wondering about the
implication of the new soviet gizmo, today the technological level will
be around early 80s at the best.....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Jim Yanik
2008-06-16 15:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Robert Breen
Post by d***@aol.com
Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
{list of stuff they did right snipped]
and, of course, the Soyuz is the launcher-of-choice for anyone who
wants to get a medium-weight payload into orbit (Soyuz/Fregat if you're
going higher) and isn't legally tied to a single nation as a supplier.
Proton is pretty good for heavier stuff, too, but Soyuz has the great
advantage that it JUST WORKS.
the US uses RD-180 rocket engines from Russia,in the Atlas series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V_rocket
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Dennis
2008-06-21 03:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Robert Breen
and, of course, the Soyuz is the launcher-of-choice for anyone who
wants to get a medium-weight payload into orbit (Soyuz/Fregat if you're
going higher) and isn't legally tied to a single nation as a supplier.
Proton is pretty good for heavier stuff, too, but Soyuz has the great
advantage that it JUST WORKS.
I was thinking about Soyuz and Proton.

Other posters have noted that the Su-27s are selling very well. I
remember that the Russians had a very large wind tunnel that let them do
tests that no one else could.

Dennis
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 14:38:15 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

:
:The BMP was revolutionary, and the world has rushed to copy it ever since.
:

And at that it didn't do what it was intended to do very well.

:
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
:on the tin'.
:

One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.

:
:Their small arms were exceptional, their body armour was far superior to
:the Western stuff, and used a technology we can't mimic because we don't
:have access to cheap titanium.
:

Neither did they and their body armor didn't use titanium.

:
:They were building EMP resistant electronics into military aircraft half a
:century ago.
:

So were we. Then we discovered semiconductors.

:
:The SS-20 was pretty good as well...
:

Rumour has it that the SS-20 was actually intended to be the upper
stages of a failed ICBM design where the first stage was a failure.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
William Black
2008-06-16 16:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
:on the tin'.
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.

That was onre of the great WWII lessons.

Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
La N
2008-06-16 16:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
:on the tin'.
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.
That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
As discovered by the Russian t54/55



- nilita (saw this on the history channel some time ago)
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 17:08:17 UTC
Permalink
"La N" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

:
:"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
:news:g3648e$lpc$***@registered.motzarella.org...
:>
:> "Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> news:***@4ax.com...
:>> "William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:>> :Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it
:>> said
:>> :on the tin'.
:>> :
:>>
:>> One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
:>
:> Well no.
:>
:> That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
:>
:> Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
:>
:
:As discovered by the Russian t54/55
:
http://youtu.be/nfh9BTcuNlU
:
:- nilita (saw this on the history channel some time ago)
:

And do you remember what it said?

What was it that was killing T-55/55 tanks again? Oh, yeah. WESTERN
TANKS!

The lesson here is that if you build a relatively lightly armored tank
with a mediocre fire control system then you will get your clock
cleaned against anyone who isn't a Third World country.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 16:40:22 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:***@4ax.com...
:> "William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:
:> :Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it
:> said
:> :on the tin'.
:> :
:>
:> One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
:
:Well no.
:
:That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
:
:Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
:

On what planet?

What do YOU propose to use? Spitwads?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Richard Casady
2008-06-16 18:29:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:26:51 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.
That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
Any antitank system has to survive on the battlefield, at least long
enough to get the job done. Tanks are the most survivable thing there.

Why is sabot usually most of the ammo loadout?

Casady
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 18:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
:on the tin'.
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.
That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
--
William Black
Only if your tanks are worse than the other guy's. :-)

This was true when Shermans went up against Panthers and
Tigers.....the Germans seemed to be quite happy with tanks as tank
killing platforms. The US developed the Tank Destroyer Corps, but it
was disbanded after WW2 when the US decided to develop first class
tanks.
There are a lot more weapons around today that can kill tanks,
but both the US and Russians consider killing tanks one of the main
jobs of friendly tanks.
It's certainly cheaper to use portable ATGMs, etc....they
cost a lot less than an MBT.
One of the problems with IFVs is that, since it has a tank-
killing armament, there is a tendancy to use them like
tanks....something their crews don't really care for because they know
their vehicle can't take the damage.
William Black
2008-06-16 21:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
:on the tin'.
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.
That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
Only if your tanks are worse than the other guy's. :-)

This was true when Shermans went up against Panthers and
Tigers.....the Germans seemed to be quite happy with tanks as tank
killing platforms.

--------------------------

The Germans preferred to use their tanks as tools for breaching defences,
which is what they're designed for.

They had a whole slew of clever low silhouette vehicles without turrets for
killing tanks.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Raymond O'Hara
2008-06-19 19:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
:on the tin'.
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.
That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
Only if your tanks are worse than the other guy's. :-)
This was true when Shermans went up against Panthers and
Tigers.....the Germans seemed to be quite happy with tanks as tank
killing platforms.
--------------------------
The Germans preferred to use their tanks as tools for breaching defences,
which is what they're designed for.
They had a whole slew of clever low silhouette vehicles without turrets
for killing tanks.
they built assault guns because the MK111 turret couldn't take any more then
the 50mm and they needed at least 75mm to get the job done. it was the same
with the 38t
they needed vehicles and couldn't afford to drop the production of those
chassis. it was expiedency and not that assault guns were a better choice.
guy
2008-06-19 19:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond O'Hara
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what it said
:on the tin'.
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.
That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
       Only if your tanks are worse than the other guy's. :-)
       This was true when Shermans went up against Panthers and
Tigers.....the Germans seemed to be quite happy with tanks as tank
killing platforms.
--------------------------
The Germans preferred to use their tanks as tools for breaching defences,
which is what they're designed for.
They had a whole slew of clever low silhouette vehicles without turrets
for killing tanks.
they built assault guns because the MK111 turret couldn't take any more then
the 50mm and they needed at least 75mm to get the job done. it was the same
with the 38t
they needed vehicles and couldn't afford to drop the production of those
chassis. it was expiedency and not that assault guns were a better choice.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Stug III was not a tank destroyer it was an assault weapon, until
the last versions it had a low velocity 75mm to act as a close support
weapon (as the standard PzIII could not fire HE)
Much like for a while the British putting a 95mm howitzer in tanks to
support with AP only 2pdrs.

Guy
Raymond O'Hara
2008-06-20 19:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond O'Hara
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Soviet armour was always very good as long as it you only did 'what
it
said
:on the tin'.
One of the things *not* on that tin was 'engage other tanks'.
Well no.
That was onre of the great WWII lessons.
Tanks are a really bad thing to use to kill other tanks...
Only if your tanks are worse than the other guy's. :-)
This was true when Shermans went up against Panthers and
Tigers.....the Germans seemed to be quite happy with tanks as tank
killing platforms.
--------------------------
The Germans preferred to use their tanks as tools for breaching defences,
which is what they're designed for.
They had a whole slew of clever low silhouette vehicles without turrets
for killing tanks.
they built assault guns because the MK111 turret couldn't take any more then
the 50mm and they needed at least 75mm to get the job done. it was the same
with the 38t
they needed vehicles and couldn't afford to drop the production of those
chassis. it was expiedency and not that assault guns were a better
choice.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Stug III was not a tank destroyer it was an assault weapon, until
the last versions it had a low velocity 75mm to act as a close support
weapon (as the standard PzIII could not fire HE)
Much like for a while the British putting a 95mm howitzer in tanks to
support with AP only 2pdrs.

Guy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the vast majority of stugs had the long 75mm , it was probably the most
common vehicle on the western front from 44 on.
and yes the early versios like the early MKIVs had the 75mm lig. again it
was a turret ring thing and done as an expediency.
and not because it was a good idea
Richard Casady
2008-06-16 14:52:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:12:29 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
They were building EMP resistant electronics into military aircraft half a
century ago.
By EMP resistant you mean vacuum tube?

Casady
William Black
2008-06-16 15:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Casady
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:12:29 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
They were building EMP resistant electronics into military aircraft half a
century ago.
By EMP resistant you mean vacuum tube?
Except that they took vacuum tubes to places we never did.

It's as valid a technology as any other.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 15:17:11 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

:
:"Richard Casady" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:***@news.east.earthlink.net...
:> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:12:29 +0100, "William Black"
:> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:>>They were building EMP resistant electronics into military aircraft half a
:>>century ago.
:>
:> By EMP resistant you mean vacuum tube?
:>
:
:Except that they took vacuum tubes to places we never did.
:

Well, no, they didn't, except when they didn't have any other choice
because they couldn't build the semiconductors.

:
:It's as valid a technology as any other.
:

Oh, is it? Then why isn't it used more?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Thomas Womack
2008-06-16 22:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Their small arms were exceptional, their body armour was far superior to
the Western stuff, and used a technology we can't mimic because we don't
have access to cheap titanium.
Yes, metallurgy is an area that I get the impression the Russians are
very good at
(http://www.theodoregray.com/periodicTable/Stories/077.x3/ is perhaps
my favorite tale of Russian iridium-smiths; the other example I saw
was the wikipedia article on the NK33 rocket engine, which says 'These
kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich
exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through
failures. Oxygen-rich engines were never successfully built in
America. The Russians however perfected the metallurgy behind this
trick').

I don't quite understand why Russia manages cheap titanium and the
West doesn't - Australia mines a megaton of ilmenite a year, and
whilst titanium refining processes tend to use quite a lot of
electricity, I'd put Hydro Quebec up against the Zhigulyovskaya
Hydroelectric Station any day.

Tom
Andrew Chaplin
2008-06-17 11:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Womack
Post by William Black
Their small arms were exceptional, their body armour was far superior to
the Western stuff, and used a technology we can't mimic because we don't
have access to cheap titanium.
Yes, metallurgy is an area that I get the impression the Russians are
very good at
(http://www.theodoregray.com/periodicTable/Stories/077.x3/ is perhaps
my favorite tale of Russian iridium-smiths; the other example I saw
was the wikipedia article on the NK33 rocket engine, which says 'These
kinds of burners are highly unusual, since their hot, oxygen-rich
exhaust tends to attack metal, causing burn-through
failures. Oxygen-rich engines were never successfully built in
America. The Russians however perfected the metallurgy behind this
trick').
I don't quite understand why Russia manages cheap titanium and the
West doesn't - Australia mines a megaton of ilmenite a year, and
whilst titanium refining processes tend to use quite a lot of
electricity, I'd put Hydro Quebec up against the Zhigulyovskaya
Hydroelectric Station any day.
Hydro Quebec? It's run by the Prince of Darkness!
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-17 13:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Thomas Womack <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
:
:I don't quite understand why Russia manages cheap titanium and the
:West doesn't - Australia mines a megaton of ilmenite a year, and
:whilst titanium refining processes tend to use quite a lot of
:electricity, I'd put Hydro Quebec up against the Zhigulyovskaya
:Hydroelectric Station any day.
:

It's not getting the metal itself that's so expensive. It's turning
it into things. It tends to eat tooling.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-17 13:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:I don't quite understand why Russia manages cheap titanium and the
:West doesn't - Australia mines a megaton of ilmenite a year, and
:whilst titanium refining processes tend to use quite a lot of
:electricity, I'd put Hydro Quebec up against the Zhigulyovskaya
:Hydroelectric Station any day.
It's not getting the metal itself that's so expensive. It's turning
it into things. It tends to eat tooling.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Story from the 1968 Paris Air Show. Boeing showed a table of their
milling and casting of titanium parts. Soviets all over them, finally
one guy starts walking away from the table and is pulled up short. A
very thin wire connected the part he was "souveniring" and the table.

My cousin sells titanium, want to buy some?
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-18 10:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Fred J. McCall
:I don't quite understand why Russia manages cheap titanium and the
:West doesn't - Australia mines a megaton of ilmenite a year, and
:whilst titanium refining processes tend to use quite a lot of
:electricity, I'd put Hydro Quebec up against the Zhigulyovskaya
:Hydroelectric Station any day.
It's not getting the metal itself that's so expensive. It's turning
it into things. It tends to eat tooling.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Story from the 1968 Paris Air Show. Boeing showed a table of their
milling and casting of titanium parts. Soviets all over them, finally
one guy starts walking away from the table and is pulled up short. A
very thin wire connected the part he was "souveniring" and the table.
My cousin sells titanium, want to buy some?
Oh yes, forgot, the hard part about titanium is making the metal, it
requires a very different set of processes to the point that expensive
elements, like magnesium, need to be consumed to create titanium.
There is a new process that may make the stuff cheaper.
Roger Conroy
2008-06-18 10:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Fred J. McCall
:I don't quite understand why Russia manages cheap titanium and the
:West doesn't - Australia mines a megaton of ilmenite a year, and
:whilst titanium refining processes tend to use quite a lot of
:electricity, I'd put Hydro Quebec up against the Zhigulyovskaya
:Hydroelectric Station any day.
It's not getting the metal itself that's so expensive. It's turning
it into things. It tends to eat tooling.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Story from the 1968 Paris Air Show. Boeing showed a table of their
milling and casting of titanium parts. Soviets all over them, finally
one guy starts walking away from the table and is pulled up short. A
very thin wire connected the part he was "souveniring" and the table.
My cousin sells titanium, want to buy some?
Oh yes, forgot, the hard part about titanium is making the metal, it
requires a very different set of processes to the point that expensive
elements, like magnesium, need to be consumed to create titanium.
There is a new process that may make the stuff cheaper.
The real bitch is the enormous amount of energy required to dissociate
titanium dioxide and the fact that liquid titanium is an agressive solvent
of a wide range of materials (it eats crucibles!) which means that its a
bitch to purify too.
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-18 10:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Conroy
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Fred J. McCall
:I don't quite understand why Russia manages cheap titanium and the
:West doesn't - Australia mines a megaton of ilmenite a year, and
:whilst titanium refining processes tend to use quite a lot of
:electricity, I'd put Hydro Quebec up against the Zhigulyovskaya
:Hydroelectric Station any day.
It's not getting the metal itself that's so expensive. It's turning
it into things. It tends to eat tooling.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Story from the 1968 Paris Air Show. Boeing showed a table of their
milling and casting of titanium parts. Soviets all over them, finally
one guy starts walking away from the table and is pulled up short. A
very thin wire connected the part he was "souveniring" and the table.
My cousin sells titanium, want to buy some?
Oh yes, forgot, the hard part about titanium is making the metal, it
requires a very different set of processes to the point that expensive
elements, like magnesium, need to be consumed to create titanium.
There is a new process that may make the stuff cheaper.
The real bitch is the enormous amount of energy required to dissociate
titanium dioxide and the fact that liquid titanium is an agressive solvent
of a wide range of materials (it eats crucibles!) which means that its a
bitch to purify too.
Latest idea: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6802/full/407361a0.html

Nature 407, 361-364 (21 September 2000) | doi:10.1038/35030069;
Received 31 January 2000; Accepted 31 July 2000
Direct electrochemical reduction of titanium dioxide to titanium in
molten calcium chloride

George Zheng Chen1, Derek J. Fray1 and Tom W. Farthing2

1. Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, University of
Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK
2. 71 Sir Richards Drive, Harborne, Birmingham B17 8SG, UK

Correspondence to: Derek J. Fray1 Correspondence and requests for
materials should be addressed to D. J. F. (e-mail: Email:
***@hermes.cam.ac.uk).
Top of page
Abstract

Many reactive metals are difficult to prepare in pure form without
complicated and expensive procedures1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Although titanium has many desirable
properties (it is light, strong and corrosion-resistant1), its use has
been restricted because of its high processing cost. In the current
pyrometallurgical process—the Kroll process4, 5—the titanium minerals
rutile and ilmenite are carbo-chlorinated to remove oxygen, iron and
other impurities, producing a TiCl4 vapour. This is then reduced to
titanium metal by magnesium metal; the by-product MgCl2 is removed by
vacuum distillation. The prediction that this process would be
replaced by an electrochemical route6, 7, 8, 9, 10 has not been
fulfilled; attempts involving the electro-deposition of titanium from
ionic solutions have been hampered by difficulties in eliminating the
redox cycling of multivalent titanium ions and in handling very
reactive dendritic products6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Here we report an
electrochemical method for the direct reduction of solid TiO2, in
which the oxygen is ionized, dissolved in a molten salt and discharged
at the anode, leaving pure titanium at the cathode. The simplicity and
rapidity of this process compared to conventional routes should result
in reduced production costs and the approach should be applicable to a
wide range of metal oxides. <more>
Gernot Hassenpflug
2008-06-18 02:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Womack
Post by William Black
Their small arms were exceptional, their body armour was far superior to
the Western stuff, and used a technology we can't mimic because we don't
have access to cheap titanium.
Yes, metallurgy is an area that I get the impression the Russians are
very good at
(http://www.theodoregray.com/periodicTable/Stories/077.x3/ is perhaps
my favorite tale of Russian iridium-smiths; the other example I saw
Turbulence studies, and a host of other theoretical stuff involving
mathematics. Reason I heard from the Russians: the US had fantastic
computing power compared to the Soviets, so the Soviets were forced to
work more by hand.
--
BOFH excuse #181:

Atilla the Hub
PaPaPeng
2008-06-16 16:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
Aircraft? Please. Ships? I don't think so.
A WWII era T-34 was pulled out from a lake recently and other than
cleaning it and changing the engine bearings, it ran. The engine is
mostly aluminum if I recall reading the literature.

Their latest multi-role Su 27s and variants are selling like hot
cakes. Flyoffs against F-15s and F-16s had the Su's winning. Will
probably do the same against the F-18. The Su should be no slouch
against the F-22 and F-35s. The Russians don't seem too concerned
about developing new aircraft types and neither do their customers who
will operate these planes for the next 30 to 40 years.

India, which has a choice of US or Russian naval equipment prefer
Russian. Other countries prefer Chinese copies of Russian ships or
Chinese designs. There are reams of studies on Russian and Chinese
capabilities none of which dismiss them as crap.

Rather than get into a catfight about which weapon is superior let's
assume that they are comparable in capabilities. Non US equipment is
certainly more affordable and they perform over their expected service
life of 30 to 40 years. Its like you bragging about driving monster
SUVs and they are quite happy with smaller trucks. Both get the job
done. In a hypothetical shoot out the small trucks will just have to
find a situation where the SUV is at a disadvantage or has minimal
advantage. No battleship could beat a Yamato in a 1:1 fight. But she
was sunk anyway and never shot it out with another battleship.

In WWII US equipment was certainly superior to Japanese equipment but
not comparable to German equipment except in certain items such as the
Mustang. The US won because there was something like a 6:1
superiority in materiel and some superior number in manpower. By the
time the US entered the European theatre the Germans had essentially
been defeated in Russia (>80% of their strength lost there.) If you
care to analyse WWII in detail it is a numbers game. None of the Axis
powers could keep up with US prodeuction and of course none of them
had native fuel resources.
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 16:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaPaPeng
         Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
         Aircraft? Please. Ships? I don't think so.
A WWII era T-34 was pulled out from a lake recently and other than
cleaning it and changing the engine bearings, it ran. The engine is
mostly aluminum if I recall reading the literature.
They broke down constantly. I never said they sucked.....they
just weren't very reliable....neither was the Panther but it was a
first rate tank.
Post by PaPaPeng
Their latest multi-role Su 27s and variants are selling like hot
cakes.  Flyoffs against  F-15s and F-16s had the Su's winning.
You need to look at how the flyoffs were performed. The
recent one in India had the F-15s at a serious disadvantage....by
coincidence, at the same time, the USAF was also asking for more
F-22s.

Will
Post by PaPaPeng
probably do the same against the F-18.  The Su should be no slouch
against the F-22 and F-35s.  The Russians don't seem too concerned
about developing new aircraft types and neither do their customers who
will operate these planes for the next 30 to 40 years.
The Russians are developing quite a few new aircraft. Also,
the next generation could well be unmanned.
Post by PaPaPeng
India, which has a choice of US or Russian naval equipment prefer
Russian. Other countries prefer Chinese copies of Russian ships or
Chinese designs. There are reams of studies on Russian and Chinese
capabilities none of which dismiss them as crap.
India is actually looking at US equipment quite
seriously.....the Russians have really pissed them off. The problems
with US equipment are cost and the political strings attached.
Post by PaPaPeng
Rather than get into a catfight about which weapon is superior let's
assume that they are comparable in capabilities.
They're usually not, but that wasn't the original
question.....which was Soviet/Russian equipment was "simple, robust,
etc".

 Non US equipment is
Post by PaPaPeng
certainly more affordable and they perform over their expected service
life of 30 to 40 years.  Its like you bragging about driving monster
SUVs and they are quite happy with smaller trucks.  Both get the job
done.  In a hypothetical shoot out the small trucks will just have to
find a situation where the SUV is at a disadvantage or has minimal
advantage.
Who is bragging? You're, once again I might add, reading way
too much into simple statements.

 No battleship could beat a Yamato in a 1:1 fight.  But she
Post by PaPaPeng
was sunk anyway and never shot it out with another battleship.
An Iowa would've given Yamato a pretty good run.
Post by PaPaPeng
In WWII US equipment was certainly superior to Japanese equipment but
not comparable to German equipment except in certain items such as the
Mustang.
Most US aircraft by 1944 were superior to most German
aircraft. US artillery was better than German artillery. The M-1
Garand was better than the Mauser 98. US trucks and support vehicles
were better than their German counterparts.

 The US won because there was something like a 6:1
Post by PaPaPeng
superiority in materiel and some superior number in manpower.
The US didn't win...the Allies did.

By the
Post by PaPaPeng
time the US entered the European theatre the Germans had essentially
been defeated in Russia (>80% of their strength lost there.)
Once again, what does that have to do with anything? You're
introducing things that have little bearing on the issue.


 If you
Post by PaPaPeng
care to analyse WWII in detail it is a numbers game.
Most wars have been.

 None of the Axis
Post by PaPaPeng
powers could keep up with US prodeuction and of course none of them
had native fuel resources.
Once again, the Allies beat the Axis. The US played a major role,
but sure didn't do it by itself.
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-16 16:38:01 UTC
Permalink
PaPaPeng <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
:Rather than get into a catfight about which weapon is superior let's
:assume that they are comparable in capabilities.
:

First bad assumption.

:
:Non US equipment is
:certainly more affordable and they perform over their expected service
:life of 30 to 40 years.
:

Second bad assumption. They only do that if you operate them the way
the Russians usually do (i.e., minimally with most time spent laid up
in warehouses).

They may be cheap to buy, but they're the pits to maintain.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
William Black
2008-06-16 16:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaPaPeng
India, which has a choice of US or Russian naval equipment prefer
Russian.
Not any more they don't.

Not since the Russians made an expensive mess of refurbishing their new flat
top...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

.
Raymond O'Hara
2008-06-20 20:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaPaPeng
Post by d***@aol.com
Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
Aircraft? Please. Ships? I don't think so.
A WWII era T-34 was pulled out from a lake recently and other than
cleaning it and changing the engine bearings, it ran. The engine is
mostly aluminum if I recall reading the literature.
by recently you mean 8 years ago . the email with that floats around the
net where its breathlessly described as "recent"
Raymond O'Hara
2008-06-16 21:21:23 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:14d20065-ff04-4815-a61c-***@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 4:09 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Did the Soviets have any industrial secrets *worth* stealing? The
only thing I can think of might be some aerospace technology. For the
rest, there would just be the intelligence value of knowing their (lack of)
capabilities.
mh.... I think that if something is worthwile in the Soviet technology
is the proverbial solidity & resistance to mistreatment of equipment,
esp. mechanical. Something like an US 1950s car.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
Aircraft? Please. Ships? I don't think so. Trucks and cars?
You've got to be kidding me.


You are confusing the total lack of quality control with defective design.
at their best the russians can be world leaders as is shown by the I-16
fighter and sputnik.
d***@aol.com
2008-06-16 21:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond O'Hara
On Jun 16, 4:09 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Did the Soviets have any industrial secrets *worth* stealing? The
only thing I can think of might be some aerospace technology. For the
rest, there would just be the intelligence value of knowing their (lack of)
capabilities.
mh.... I think that if something is worthwile in the Soviet technology
is the proverbial solidity & resistance to mistreatment of equipment,
esp. mechanical. Something like an US 1950s car.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
          Other than the AK-47, where did this reputation come from?
The T-34 is usually cited, but they broke down so much the Soviets
preferred using Shermans for their exploitation/pursuit units.
          Aircraft? Please. Ships? I don't think so. Trucks and cars?
You've got to be kidding me.
You are confusing the total lack of quality control with defective design.
at their best the russians can be world leaders as is shown by the I-16
fighter and sputnik.
No, I never said they didn't have good designs.....I was
commenting on the "proverbial solidity & resistance to mistreatment".
Roger Conroy
2008-06-16 12:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
Did the Soviets have any industrial secrets *worth* stealing? The
only thing I can think of might be some aerospace technology. For the
rest, there would just be the intelligence value of knowing their (lack
of) capabilities.
mh.... I think that if something is worthwile in the Soviet technology is
the proverbial solidity & resistance to mistreatment of equipment, esp.
mechanical. Something like an US 1950s car.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Such as the "peasant proof" AK47 - it makes the M16 look like a delicate
Swiss watch by comparison.
dott.Piergiorgio
2008-06-16 15:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Conroy
Such as the "peasant proof" AK47 - it makes the M16 look like a delicate
Swiss watch by comparison.
Actually I have in mind things like typewriter and mechanical
calculators, but anyway, M16 & AK47 are IT, both being used by marine
troops & being in armories of many warships.....

Best reagards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Vaughn Simon
2008-06-15 20:19:29 UTC
Permalink
...I can't think of a well-told tale of a Western
quasi-success against the Soviets comparable for example to the
various stories of Soviet bugging of Western embassies in Moscow.
Then you have never read about the undersea communications cables that we
tapped via submarine?

Vaughn
Thomas Womack
2008-06-16 22:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vaughn Simon
...I can't think of a well-told tale of a Western
quasi-success against the Soviets comparable for example to the
various stories of Soviet bugging of Western embassies in Moscow.
Then you have never read about the undersea communications cables that we
tapped via submarine?
Yes, I remembered Blind Man's Bluff about five minutes after making
that post. I wonder whether, in one of the more closed-off back rooms
of the museum at NSA, with the strontium source carefully removed,
there is to be found a similar box with hammer-and-sickle found off
Clarenville ...

Tom
Michael Shirley
2008-06-17 03:18:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:30:33 -0700, Thomas Womack
Post by Thomas Womack
Post by Vaughn Simon
...I can't think of a well-told tale of a Western
quasi-success against the Soviets comparable for example to the
various stories of Soviet bugging of Western embassies in Moscow.
Then you have never read about the undersea communications cables that we
tapped via submarine?
Yes, I remembered Blind Man's Bluff about five minutes after making
that post. I wonder whether, in one of the more closed-off back rooms
of the museum at NSA, with the strontium source carefully removed,
there is to be found a similar box with hammer-and-sickle found off
Clarenville ...
Probably not. Remember the rescue recently where the Russians had to get
help from the Brits to get their crew out of that boat that had it's screw
caught in a cable?

Our Navy has the most experience in saturation diving in the world, and I
don't think that the Soviets or the Russians ever even got close, even
though a lot of the tech is open market and used by the oil industry.

When Seawolf and later Parche set down in the White Sea or the Barents,
those divers were working off of high pressure mixed gas rigs and when
they got done collecting missile parts and hooking up data recorders to
the Soviet Navy's cable system, they crawled into that fake DSRV and
decompressed for weeks before they got back.

The Russians have nothing like that.
Post by Thomas Womack
Tom
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-17 11:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Shirley
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:30:33 -0700, Thomas Womack
Post by Thomas Womack
Post by Vaughn Simon
...I can't think of a well-told tale of a Western
quasi-success against the Soviets comparable for example to the
various stories of Soviet bugging of Western embassies in Moscow.
Then you have never read about the undersea communications cables that we
tapped via submarine?
Yes, I remembered Blind Man's Bluff about five minutes after making
that post. I wonder whether, in one of the more closed-off back rooms
of the museum at NSA, with the strontium source carefully removed,
there is to be found a similar box with hammer-and-sickle found off
Clarenville ...
Probably not. Remember the rescue recently where the Russians had to get
help from the Brits to get their crew out of that boat that had it's screw
caught in a cable?
Our Navy has the most experience in saturation diving in the world, and I
don't think that the Soviets or the Russians ever even got close, even
though a lot of the tech is open market and used by the oil industry.
When Seawolf and later Parche set down in the White Sea or the Barents,
those divers were working off of high pressure mixed gas rigs and when
they got done collecting missile parts and hooking up data recorders to
the Soviet Navy's cable system, they crawled into that fake DSRV and
decompressed for weeks before they got back.
The Russians have nothing like that.
Post by Thomas Womack
Tom
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
They had the ideas and some of the equipment but never really get much
further than that. There was a man-in-the-sea prallel to our Sealab
called Sadko back in the 60s and 70s. Some of it still continues.

http://www.wtec.org/loyola/text/subsea/appendb2.txt
Michael Shirley
2008-06-21 18:00:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:44:25 -0700, Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
They had the ideas and some of the equipment but never really get much
further than that. There was a man-in-the-sea prallel to our Sealab
called Sadko back in the 60s and 70s. Some of it still continues.
Interesting. Still, it's funny. Our oil companies have more deep water
tech than they do. I'm surprised that they're not using their oil money to
buy as much of it as they can get as commercial off the shelf rather than
spending development money just trying to catch up.
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-21 18:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Shirley
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:30:33 -0700, Thomas Womack
Post by Thomas Womack
Post by Vaughn Simon
...I can't think of a well-told tale of a Western
quasi-success against the Soviets comparable for example to the
various stories of Soviet bugging of Western embassies in Moscow.
Then you have never read about the undersea communications cables that we
tapped via submarine?
Yes, I remembered Blind Man's Bluff about five minutes after making
that post. I wonder whether, in one of the more closed-off back rooms
of the museum at NSA, with the strontium source carefully removed,
there is to be found a similar box with hammer-and-sickle found off
Clarenville ...
Probably not. Remember the rescue recently where the Russians had to get
help from the Brits to get their crew out of that boat that had it's screw
caught in a cable?
Our Navy has the most experience in saturation diving in the world, and I
don't think that the Soviets or the Russians ever even got close, even
though a lot of the tech is open market and used by the oil industry.
When Seawolf and later Parche set down in the White Sea or the Barents,
those divers were working off of high pressure mixed gas rigs and when
they got done collecting missile parts and hooking up data recorders to
the Soviet Navy's cable system, they crawled into that fake DSRV and
decompressed for weeks before they got back.
The Russians have nothing like that.
Post by Thomas Womack
Tom
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
Well not their own. Check items 35 and 58
http://www.smp-ltd.co.uk/news1.php

and the U.S. stuff seems to have diminished

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_081605_Helms,00.html
Michael Shirley
2008-06-22 14:56:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:17:53 -0700, Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Well not their own. Check items 35 and 58
http://www.smp-ltd.co.uk/news1.php
That gives them a start and if Putin finances them, they'll be up
to our level fairly soon.
Post by Jack Linthicum
and the U.S. stuff seems to have diminished
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_081605_Helms,00.html
That is disquieting. I don't mind the new system, but I think that Mystic
and
Avalon should bave been upgraded and two more DSRVs added to eventually
replace them.
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
Richard Casady
2008-06-16 14:51:57 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Jun 2008 00:18:13 +0100 (BST), Thomas Womack
Post by Thomas Womack
There are a number of pretty well-attested examples of Soviet
industrial espionage against the West - the Tu-4 clone of the B29 is
probably the best example.
At least one B-29 destined to bomb Japan ended up in Siberia, if you
want to call that espionage.

Casady
dott.Piergiorgio
2008-06-16 15:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Casady
On 15 Jun 2008 00:18:13 +0100 (BST), Thomas Womack
Post by Thomas Womack
There are a number of pretty well-attested examples of Soviet
industrial espionage against the West - the Tu-4 clone of the B29 is
probably the best example.
At least one B-29 destined to bomb Japan ended up in Siberia, if you
want to call that espionage.
mha.... Actually reverse engineering can be a form of espionage, if you
have the actual hardware, even damaged, but not the blueprints and specs...

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Dennis
2008-06-21 02:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Casady
Post by Thomas Womack
There are a number of pretty well-attested examples of Soviet
industrial espionage against the West - the Tu-4 clone of the B29 is
probably the best example.
At least one B-29 destined to bomb Japan ended up in Siberia, if you
want to call that espionage.
When was that?

OTOH, a Mig-25 Foxbat wound up in Japan, AIRC.

Dennis
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-21 09:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
Post by Richard Casady
Post by Thomas Womack
There are a number of pretty well-attested examples of Soviet
industrial espionage against the West - the Tu-4 clone of the B29 is
probably the best example.
At least one B-29 destined to bomb Japan ended up in Siberia, if you
want to call that espionage.
When was that?
OTOH, a Mig-25 Foxbat wound up in Japan, AIRC.
Dennis
http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm
d***@aol.com
2008-06-21 12:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Casady
Post by Thomas Womack
There are a number of pretty well-attested examples of Soviet
industrial espionage against the West - the Tu-4 clone of the B29 is
probably the best example.
At least one B-29 destined to bomb Japan ended up in Siberia, if you
want to call that espionage.
        When was that?
        OTOH, a Mig-25 Foxbat wound up in Japan, AIRC.
Dennis
http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10...
The article makes it sound like the B-29 crews were treated
differently from other interned fliers. There were dozens of guys who
flew Venturas out of the Aleutians that had the same thing happen to
them.
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-16 22:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Womack
There are a number of pretty well-attested examples of Soviet
industrial espionage against the West - the Tu-4 clone of the B29 is
probably the best example.
There are a few vague claims of successful Western medium-scale
sabotage against the Soviet Union, generally relating to hardware for
running oil pipelines.
In HUMINT there are success stories on both sides, Philby and
Penkovsky, but I can't think of a well-told tale of a Western
quasi-success against the Soviets comparable for example to the
various stories of Soviet bugging of Western embassies in Moscow.
Are there even dimly-attested claims going the other two directions -
successful Soviet sabotage against the West, or successful Western
capture of Soviet industrial secrets? I suppose I'd expect the former
to tend to fall under the dark and seldom-pierced veil of TOP SECRET
EMBARRASSING, and the latter to be in defence fields, probably
submarines, and so unavoidedly dim and to be discussed only
tangentially and laconicly, but I'm a bit surprised that I can't think
of *anything*.
(I suppose a better way and place to ask this question might be
po-Russki in certain bars in Kiev or Warsaw, but I have not the
language skills and would be thoroughly unwelcome in the bars)
Tom
Mig-15, like much of the other Soviet weapons designed to take abuse,
continue to perform, perform better than its Western counterpart and
be able to last into production for other countries.
Richard Casady
2008-06-16 23:03:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:33:53 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Mig-15, like much of the other Soviet weapons designed to take abuse,
continue to perform, perform better than its Western counterpart and
be able to last into production for other countries.
The exchange rate in Korea was fifteen to one in favor of the F-86.
This is better how?

Casady
Jack Linthicum
2008-06-16 23:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Casady
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:33:53 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Mig-15, like much of the other Soviet weapons designed to take abuse,
continue to perform, perform better than its Western counterpart and
be able to last into production for other countries.
The exchange rate in Korea was fifteen to one in favor of the F-86.
This is better how?
Casady
Ten not 15

"During the Korean War, 792 MiG-15s were destroyed by F-86 pilots,
with 118 probables being claimed. 78 Sabres were definitely lost in
air-to-air combat against the MiGs, with a further 13 Sabres being
listed as missing in action. This is about a ten-to-one superiority.
From this result, one might naturally conclude that the F-86 was the
superior fighter. However, a factor which must also be considered is
the relative level of experience and competence of the opposing
pilots. The US Sabre pilots were all highly trained and competent
airmen, many of whom had extensive World War 2 combat experience. With
the exception of some Russian World War 2 veterans who flew MiG
fighters in Korea, the MiG pilots were often sent into combat with
only minimal flying experience. MiG pilots often exercised poor combat
discipline. During the course of battle, MiG pilots would often break
off into confusion and panic, firing wildly, and leaving their wingmen
unprotected. Often, a MiG pilot in trouble would eject from his plane
before anyone actually shot at him. Many MiG pilots were so
inexperienced that in the heat of battle they would end up getting
themselves into uncontrollable spins and crashing. At times, MiG
pilots would fire their cannon in an attempt to lighten their loads,
without really aiming at anything. Most of the MiG pilots were
extremely wary of combat, and usually did not attempt to fight unless
they saw an advantage opening up. In contrast, the Sabre pilots were
aggressive and eager for combat, and wanted nothing more than for the
MiGs to come over the Yalu so that they could add to their scores.

So, which plane would you rather be sitting in, the MiG-15 or the
F-86? Perhaps Chuck Yeager said it best--"It isn't the plane that is
important in combat, it's the man sitting in it."

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_11.html
Dennis
2008-06-21 03:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
So, which plane would you rather be sitting in, the MiG-15 or the
F-86? Perhaps Chuck Yeager said it best--"It isn't the plane that is
important in combat, it's the man sitting in it."
For a given pilot, probably the Mig-15. But our pilots were a lot
better than theirs!

I've read that the WWII Il-2 Shturmovik was very maneuvrable and
could hold its own quite well against a fighter (compare the Stuka), but
Il-2 pilots hardly ever had the training.

What about the Mig-21 in Vietnam? ISTR that our pilots wished they
had something as maneuvrable. But there again, our pilots had far superior
training.

Dennis
d***@aol.com
2008-06-21 12:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
So, which plane would you rather be sitting in, the MiG-15 or the
F-86? Perhaps Chuck Yeager said it best--"It isn't the plane that is
important in combat, it's the man sitting in it."  
        For a given pilot, probably the Mig-15.  But our pilots were a lot
better than theirs!  
        I've read that the  WWII Il-2 Shturmovik was very maneuvrable and
could hold its own quite well against a fighter (compare the Stuka), but
Il-2 pilots hardly ever had the training.  
        What about the Mig-21 in Vietnam?  ISTR that our pilots wished they
had something as maneuvrable.  But there again, our pilots had far superior
training.  
The 21 is another example of Soviet tech that never performed
to specs. The gunsight was knocked out of alignment every time the
cannon were fired and the fuel was cut-off during violent
maneuvers....which could be distressing if you were in a dogfight or
near the ground.
Dennis
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-21 15:13:21 UTC
Permalink
"***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:

:On Jun 20, 11:01 pm, Dennis <***@asus.net> wrote:
:> Jack Linthicum wrote:
:> > So, which plane would you rather be sitting in, the MiG-15 or the
:> > F-86? Perhaps Chuck Yeager said it best--"It isn't the plane that is
:> > important in combat, it's the man sitting in it."  
:>
:>         For a given pilot, probably the Mig-15.  But our pilots were a lot
:> better than theirs!  
:>
:>         I've read that the  WWII Il-2 Shturmovik was very maneuvrable and
:> could hold its own quite well against a fighter (compare the Stuka), but
:> Il-2 pilots hardly ever had the training.  
:>
:>         What about the Mig-21 in Vietnam?  ISTR that our pilots wished they
:> had something as maneuvrable.  But there again, our pilots had far superior
:> training.  
:
: The 21 is another example of Soviet tech that never performed
:to specs. The gunsight was knocked out of alignment every time the
:cannon were fired and the fuel was cut-off during violent
:maneuvers....which could be distressing if you were in a dogfight or
:near the ground.
:

It also had a real problem with the CG moving aft as fuel was burned.
This meant that if you got too low on fuel the aircraft might be
virtually unlandable because you had to come in so fast with such a
large AOA.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Richard Casady
2008-06-21 19:04:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:13:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
It also had a real problem with the CG moving aft as fuel was burned.
This meant that if you got too low on fuel the aircraft might be
virtually unlandable because you had to come in so fast with such a
large AOA.
The landing speed and angle of attack are determained by the weight,
not the CG location. With an aft CG it takes more control deflection
to keep the nose down, as the weight will push the tail down. You will
run out of control authority, the reason you have to fly with the CG
within certain limits.

Casady
Richard Casady
2008-06-21 20:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Casady
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:13:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
It also had a real problem with the CG moving aft as fuel was burned.
This meant that if you got too low on fuel the aircraft might be
virtually unlandable because you had to come in so fast with such a
large AOA.
The landing speed and angle of attack are determained by the weight,
not the CG location. With an aft CG it takes more control deflection
to keep the nose down, as the weight will push the tail down. You will
run out of control authority, the reason you have to fly with the CG
within certain limits.
Casady
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-21 21:24:27 UTC
Permalink
***@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:13:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>It also had a real problem with the CG moving aft as fuel was burned.
:>This meant that if you got too low on fuel the aircraft might be
:>virtually unlandable because you had to come in so fast with such a
:>large AOA.
:
:The landing speed and angle of attack are determained by the weight,
:not the CG location. With an aft CG it takes more control deflection
:to keep the nose down, as the weight will push the tail down. You will
:run out of control authority, the reason you have to fly with the CG
:within certain limits.
:

And to get more control authority and more lift you fly faster and
with a higher AOA.

I didn't intend to give an aerodynamics lesson, Mr Casady. Just a
simple statement of fact.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Richard Casady
2008-06-21 22:20:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:24:27 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:13:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:>It also had a real problem with the CG moving aft as fuel was burned.
:>This meant that if you got too low on fuel the aircraft might be
:>virtually unlandable because you had to come in so fast with such a
:>large AOA.
:The landing speed and angle of attack are determained by the weight,
:not the CG location. With an aft CG it takes more control deflection
:to keep the nose down, as the weight will push the tail down. You will
:run out of control authority, the reason you have to fly with the CG
:within certain limits.
And to get more control authority and more lift you fly faster and
with a higher AOA.
I didn't intend to give an aerodynamics lesson, Mr Casady. Just a
simple statement of fact.
Unfortunately, your statement was not factual.
More lift is not whalt you want. You have to get rid of the lift, or
you can't land the plane. With too much lift it won't come down.
You increase the AOL during the landing to get the same ammount of
lift at ever decreasing speeds. On the other hand, with too far
forward a CG , you would be unable to raise the nose as you approached
the ground. You would crash, nose gear first, in other words.

Casady
Fred J. McCall
2008-06-21 22:54:06 UTC
Permalink
***@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:24:27 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>***@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
:>
:>:On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:13:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:>:<***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:
:>:>It also had a real problem with the CG moving aft as fuel was burned.
:>:>This meant that if you got too low on fuel the aircraft might be
:>:>virtually unlandable because you had to come in so fast with such a
:>:>large AOA.
:>:
:>:The landing speed and angle of attack are determained by the weight,
:>:not the CG location. With an aft CG it takes more control deflection
:>:to keep the nose down, as the weight will push the tail down. You will
:>:run out of control authority, the reason you have to fly with the CG
:>:within certain limits.
:>:
:>
:>And to get more control authority and more lift you fly faster and
:>with a higher AOA.
:>
:>I didn't intend to give an aerodynamics lesson, Mr Casady. Just a
:>simple statement of fact.
:
:Unfortunately, your statement was not factual.
:

Unfortunately, your reading appears deficient.

:More lift is not whalt you want. You have to get rid of the lift, or
:you can't land the plane. With too much lift it won't come down.
:You increase the AOL during the landing to get the same ammount of
:lift at ever decreasing speeds.

In other words, more lift at a given speed.

:On the other hand, with too far
:forward a CG , you would be unable to raise the nose as you approached
:the ground. You would crash, nose gear first, in other words.

Let's try it one more time and see if you get it.

CG moves aft. You need to do a number of things to get down at that
point, foremost being you need to get the nose down far enough for the
gear to actually hit the runway before the big hot fragile thing at
the back does.

How do you do that? You need more control authority to force the tail
up and the nose down.

How do you get it? You stick a bunch of control surfaces out to apply
aerodynamic forces. This creates a shitload more drag.

To counter the drag you need to get more lift. You get that by
keeping your speed up, but there is a limit to how much of that you
can do and still actually land. So what do you do when you want to
land in that configuration, since you HAVE to drop the speed to
something that won't rip the gear off and shoot you off the end of the
runway?

You increase AOA (which leaves you with the same problem of the nose
being up).

Is it starting to sink in yet, Mr Casady?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
mike
2008-06-22 00:02:34 UTC
Permalink
        I've read that the  WWII Il-2 Shturmovik was very maneuvrable and
could hold its own quite well against a fighter (compare the Stuka), but
Il-2 pilots hardly ever had the training.  
The improved version, the IL-10, with armor for the GIB, proved easy
meat for Corsair and F-51 Pilots over Korea. You need a lot of
training the overcome the performance gap between Attack
and Fighter aircraft.
        What about the Mig-21 in Vietnam?  ISTR that our pilots wished they
had something as maneuvrable.  But there again, our pilots had far superior
training.  
But not in Dogfighting at first. Due to the ROE, they couldn't do as
trained, but had to visually ID the target first rather than
missiling
from a distance. And that meant getting close. Not so good for
early Sidewinders and cannonless aircraft.

the F-106 was nearly as maneuverable as the MiG, but not a
dogfighter, with horrible view for the Pilot, and Falcon missiles
were optimized for bomber sized targets, and no cannon at first.

The F4D Skyray was probably more maneuvrable than the MiG,
to the point of being twitchy, but a number of other faults meant
it wasn't set for Dogfighting Mig Killer

Also on the way out, flying from the old Essex class CVs was
the Crusader, going out of favor from being too small and single
seat and single engined, but did well against the MiGs, but
most kills were with Sidewinders, not cannon.

**
mike
**
Michael Shirley
2008-06-17 03:13:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:03:40 -0700, Richard Casady
Post by Richard Casady
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:33:53 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Mig-15, like much of the other Soviet weapons designed to take abuse,
continue to perform, perform better than its Western counterpart and
be able to last into production for other countries.
The exchange rate in Korea was fifteen to one in favor of the F-86.
This is better how?
Remember that our pilots were much, much better. The only really good
pilots that the Koreans had was a squadron of Soviet pilots with WW-II
experience that was on loan. Otherwise, they had guys who knew how to fly
the airplanes, but not how to fight in them. And there is one big
difference and there's a lot of headwork to flying a fighter in combat
that you have to develop by getting into an airplane and doing it.

For example, if you can ever find a copy of Boyd's Fighter Weapons Study
on the web, take a couple of hours and read it. It's dry reading but if
you take a couple of model airplanes and try to set up the shots that he's
talking about, you find that there's more to it than just strapping on an
airplane and grabbing the stick and horsing it around.

And there are a lot of historical examples of pilots who had inferior
airplanes who still racked up some serious kills. For example, take a look
at the Finns sometime in the Winter and Continuation Wars and then ask
yourself how anybody could become an ace flying something like a Brewster
Buffalo. It does make you think.
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...