Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I'm a big military history fan, and I was wondering if anyone on this forum has heard or/know of areas where Soviet military tech/hardware was considered better than its western counterpart? considering how all I ever hear is that anything not made by the US is garbage

The T-34, ejector seats, The soviet anti tank missile the name of which I forget but is the soviet equivelent of the Shillelagh, the Mig 25 and, if it counts, satellite tech (Sputnik).

With the best will (and all the cash) in the world I would not buy M-16s for my child army.

Might have to define "better" and when.

BMPs were generally better than counterparts. Soviet tanks were generally better than US tanks of comparable age (not UK) until the "Leopard generation" and Star Trek M-60 upgrade.

Soviet artillery was generally longer range.

Soviet Hind helicopters were generally much tougher and had heavy loadouts until the Apache.

I'd take an AK 47 / 74 over an M-16.

Much of the time, when the West feared Soviet technology had gotten ahead... it hadn't. And even the few times it did, the West quickly caught up.

Take the MiG-25. The Soviets showed a Mach-3 interceptor, and the West freaked out and made the F-15. When the pilot defected to Japan with his MiG-25, the West discovered that the F-15 was vastly superior. The -25 had great speed, and decent mid-ranged missiles... and that's about it. It turned like a brick, and its engines needed total overhauls after pretty much every flight.

Rocket technology?

After all, who's flying us to the International Space Station now?

Rooskie things ahead at the time they came out:

Sputnik
Man in space
JS II
AK 47
BMP

Vulcan wrote:Much of the time, when the West feared Soviet technology had gotten ahead... it hadn't. And even the few times it did, the West quickly caught up.

Take the MiG-25. The Soviets showed a Mach-3 interceptor, and the West freaked out and made the F-15. When the pilot defected to Japan with his MiG-25, the West discovered that the F-15 was vastly superior. The -25 had great speed, and decent mid-ranged missiles... and that's about it. It turned like a brick, and its engines needed total overhauls after pretty much every flight.

Pretty much this.

Also, the US was consistently more advanced than the Soviets in terms of the Space Race. It's just that the Soviets were much more willing to take risks to hit the big milestones. While the US was checking to make sure everything would work for the 50th time, the Soviets just said "Meh, we think it will work, so let's give it a shot." This typically worked out for them.

The Soviets had nuclear powered lighthouses all along the Siberian coastline.

Completely unmanned and would go for several hundred years if maintained occasionally, unfortunately they were forgotten about until (I think) the 80s, when they went to decommission them, there was a bunch of reactors missing.

Seriously, google it...

Can't beat the MiG-31 Firefox. Mach 5 with stealth tech and thought-controlled weaponry FTW.

Soviets generally produced better "counter systems". SAM's, Anti-Tank Missiles, Anti-Ship Missiles, and so on. That's where they clearly come out on top against the West, whereas Western fighters and tank designs began to surpass Soviet ones in the late 70's/early-mid 80's. Until then I'd put most Soviet fighters/tanks ahead of Western designs as well. However, the West had a clear advantage in Warship, ICBM, and Bomber design during the Cold War. A big problem for the Soviets during the Cold War was their inability to reach nuclear parity with the US/NATO. Ironically when the Soviets started making ships, strategic missiles, and bombers as good as or better then Western/American ones (early/mid 80's), the West had slinked ahead in areas that the Soviets had previously dominated (fighters/tanks).

As for people claiming Kalashnikov's > M16, while this is probably true for weapons like the M16A2/3 I'd take the M4 over any Kalashnikov design. As a reserveist in the Israeli Army we use both AK's, M16's, and M4's and the last is definetly the preferred weapon. If your army has proper fire support and training/infrastructure to maintain your weapon properly the advantages of the Kalash over Western weapons rapidly fades away.

I'd also take an Apache over a Hind any day of the week. It's far more advanced in areas such as weapons systems and countermeasures, far safer, and offers far more versatile battlefield roles. The Hind is a low-cost system good for Counter-Insurgency ops, but its troop capacity function is almost worthless/rarely used in combat (Soviet pilots in Afghanistan usually just put spare ammunition in the passenger seats) but the Apache and Western-style attack helicopters like the Tiger/Mangusta have it beat. This is why the Russians have made a very "Western" attack chopper in the form of the Mi-28 instead of retaining the Hind design.

Grakmar wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Much of the time, when the West feared Soviet technology had gotten ahead... it hadn't. And even the few times it did, the West quickly caught up.

Take the MiG-25. The Soviets showed a Mach-3 interceptor, and the West freaked out and made the F-15. When the pilot defected to Japan with his MiG-25, the West discovered that the F-15 was vastly superior. The -25 had great speed, and decent mid-ranged missiles... and that's about it. It turned like a brick, and its engines needed total overhauls after pretty much every flight.

Pretty much this.

Also, the US was consistently more advanced than the Soviets in terms of the Space Race. It's just that the Soviets were much more willing to take risks to hit the big milestones. While the US was checking to make sure everything would work for the 50th time, the Soviets just said "Meh, we think it will work, so let's give it a shot." This typically worked out for them.

Thats not correct, not by a country mile. Soviet tech was ahead until we started the heavy research in going to the moon. Thats kind of why we did it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Harriticus wrote:Soviets generally produced better "counter systems". SAM's, Anti-Tank Missiles, Anti-Ship Missiles, and so on. That's where they clearly come out on top against the West, whereas Western fighters and tank designs began to surpass Soviet ones in the late 70's/early-mid 80's.

As for people claiming Kalashnikov's > M16, while this is probably true for weapons like the M16A2/3 I'd take the M4 over any Kalashnikov design. As a reserveist in the Israeli Army we use both AK's, M16's, and M4's and the last is definetly the preferred weapon.

Agreed, I'm talking about your bog standard M16.

apparently their paratroopers were and still are, better than the US paratroopers

Case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAHrHd2lcw

While bigger isn't neccesarily better when it comes to Nukes, it's way cooler!

Apart from that, there's the Tokamak design for Nuclear Fusion reactors which originated in the USSR. They also got supercavitating torpedoes during the cold war.

Well, their gas masks were better for a while. The m17 gas mask (standard issue from like 1958-1989) hardly protected against anything more serious than tear gas , while the ruskies were using standard 40mm canister systems in their GP5s and a couple other masks that were largely available to the population that protected them from a much more varied amount of dangerous substances.

The m17 used overly complicated filters than you have to wedge into the inside of the mask, plus, filter caps that screwed onto the outside. The seal could have been better too. Honestly, after wearing an M17 for an extended amount of time, I don't see how such an 'innovation' became standard issue. The m40 replaced it, and IMO, the M40 is the most beautiful gas mask in history.

I'd take an m16 over a Kalishnikov, simply because I'm absolutely confident in american products, and I will defend them, even if it causes my death

OP, are you talking just during the Cold War, or before then? Because during WWII the Soviets had all kinds of stuff that was equal to, or straight up superior to their Western counterparts.

During the Cold War, though, you’re basically looking at the Soviets in 1945 having a significant but not overwhelming advantage, while the superior US economic model saw them steadily outgrow the USSR in spending capacity and technology, until they overtook the USSR at some point in mid 1950s, and had total and utter dominance by some point in the mid 60s, more or less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:BMPs were generally better than counterparts. Soviet tanks were generally better than US tanks of comparable age (not UK) until the "Leopard generation" and Star Trek M-60 upgrade.

And it wasn't really until the Abrams that the US had absolute superiority.

Soviet artillery was generally longer range.

But less mobile. This marked more of a philosophical difference in the two armies, than a real advantage to one side or the other.

Soviet Hind helicopters were generally much tougher and had heavy loadouts until the Apache.

But slower, and lacking weapons guidance systems that allowed it to deliver effective fire while moving, leaving it hopelessly vulnerable to guided missiles. Really, the Hind was the sign for anyone who hadn't already got it that the USSR had been well and truly left behind, and didn't even understand what the next generation of warfare was going to look like.

I'd take an AK 47 / 74 over an M-16.

Because you've got no intersting in hitting anything beyond 50m?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:apparently their paratroopers were and still are, better than the US paratroopers

Case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAHrHd2lcw

The VDV is the finest (and oldest) airborne force in the world IMO, bar none. AFAIK, they are the only non special-forces/commando force (they are a branch of service unto themselves similar to the USMC) specifically trained and equipped to conduct airborne operations as their primary and sole focus. To this end they are equipped with specially designed vehicles, including armored personnel carriers and fire support vehicles, etc.) that can be dropped via parachute, a capability that the US hasn't possessed in several decades, and I think only a handful of NATO nations have similar capabilities though not at all in a similar capacity/quantity. American airborne units in the US have largely languished. Aside from a nifty red beret and the prestige associated with the name, US Army airborne units aren't really trained to do things of that scale or danger anymore (jumping into an active combat zone under fire), personally I think its a result of the Army and Air Force (once again) not playing nice with one another, but I digress.

Anyway, answering your question about what was better, it depends on when just as much as what. The Russians still outclass us in certain areas, although their overall technological edge evaporated somewhere between the late 60s and the mid 70s I would say. Another factor that most people overlook in discussing technological superiority is "How". Just because two pieces of roughly similar hardware fall in the same category does not mean they were employed similarly. Russian aircraft carriers and american aircraft carriers had vastly different battlefield roles, doctrines and capabilities for example. Comparing a russian carrier to an american one is difficult because they did not do the same thing despite the common name.

The USSR also had the best mineral and metal deposits during the cold war. The SR-71 was made from titanium which came from Russia.

Ironic really.

The Russians also started to develop fairly effective decoys and counter measures to American technological superiority. Better than real SAM batteries, Tank Lagers, Radar sites and half decent eccm. They are developing this technology further.

gorgon wrote:Can't beat the MiG-31 Firefox. Mach 5 with stealth tech and thought-controlled weaponry FTW.

Please tell me you know that was a movie...

chaos0xomega wrote:The VDV is the finest (and oldest) airborne force in the world IMO, bar none. AFAIK, they are the only non special-forces/commando force (they are a branch of service unto themselves similar to the USMC) specifically trained and equipped to conduct airborne operations as their primary and sole focus. To this end they are equipped with specially designed vehicles, including armored personnel carriers and fire support vehicles, etc.) that can be dropped via parachute, a capability that the US hasn't possessed in several decades, and I think only a handful of NATO nations have similar capabilities though not at all in a similar capacity/quantity. American airborne units in the US have largely languished. Aside from a nifty red beret and the prestige associated with the name, US Army airborne units aren't really trained to do things of that scale or danger anymore (jumping into an active combat zone under fire), personally I think its a result of the Army and Air Force (once again) not playing nice with one another, but I digress.

Really what I think it is a mixed priority. Airborne as a concept is dead. Air defense has advanced to point that the planes can be shot down with ease before troopers can even drop. I honestly don't think paratroopers are a concept with any validity anymore. There also the geography of it. Where is the US going to deploy paratroopers as paratroopers? Russia is a large country with a lot of landmass and no oceans between it and its enemies. If we wanted to deploy paratroopers the logistics of getting the men, the planes, and all the equipment is staggering, and given how unnecessary the paratrooper is in modern warfare, it's just not justified. But there are the Airborne die hards who want to keep the Airborne around as Paratroopers, so the capability remains even if there's generally little faith in its current applicability.

But yes the Army and the Airforce don't play nice. For example, the C-130's that get sent Pope? They're the ones that need overhauls and the Air Force sends them on purpose so the Army will foot the bill to fix them.

Vulcan wrote:

gorgon wrote:Can't beat the MiG-31 Firefox. Mach 5 with stealth tech and thought-controlled weaponry FTW.

Please tell me you know that was a movie...

It wasn't just a movie. It was a book that was later made into a movie.

LordofHats wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:The VDV is the finest (and oldest) airborne force in the world IMO, bar none. AFAIK, they are the only non special-forces/commando force (they are a branch of service unto themselves similar to the USMC) specifically trained and equipped to conduct airborne operations as their primary and sole focus. To this end they are equipped with specially designed vehicles, including armored personnel carriers and fire support vehicles, etc.) that can be dropped via parachute, a capability that the US hasn't possessed in several decades, and I think only a handful of NATO nations have similar capabilities though not at all in a similar capacity/quantity. American airborne units in the US have largely languished. Aside from a nifty red beret and the prestige associated with the name, US Army airborne units aren't really trained to do things of that scale or danger anymore (jumping into an active combat zone under fire), personally I think its a result of the Army and Air Force (once again) not playing nice with one another, but I digress.

Really what I think it is a mixed priority. Airborne as a concept is dead. Air defense has advanced to point that the planes can be shot down with ease before troopers can even drop. I honestly don't think paratroopers are a concept with any validity anymore. There also the geography of it. Where is the US going to deploy paratroopers as paratroopers? Russia is a large country with a lot of landmass and no oceans between it and its enemies. If we wanted to deploy paratroopers the logistics of getting the men, the planes, and all the equipment is staggering, and given how unnecessary the paratrooper is in modern warfare, it's just not justified. But there are the Airborne die hards who want to keep the Airborne around as Paratroopers, so the capability remains even if there's generally little faith in its current applicability.

But yes the Army and the Airforce don't play nice. For example, the C-130's that get sent Pope? They're the ones that need overhauls and the Air Force sends them on purpose so the Army will foot the bill to fix them.

You know the 173rd did a combat jump in Iraq during the invasion in 2003, right? It seemed to work out pretty well, and it's a relatively recent example.

Yeah and its Iraq. They're a very useful armed force for the purposes of comparison.

Ranger units have jumped several times too, including Kandahar airfield (a raid not a siezure). Yes, I do know it was more than guys from the 75th. I suspect you could find some SOCOM/JSOC jumps too, but obviously not massed.

As for massed combat jumps, they are rare. With the exception of the 173rd guys you have Panama and Grenada and (almost) Haiti (which ended up being a landing vice jump).

When was the last mass VDV jump? How did they do? What is their record in Afghanistan or Chechnya vice the 82nd in Iraq and Afgahnistan? When was the last time they were able to drop a BCT+ in a single lift?

As for them being the only large scale Airborne force and the US having let their capability lapse, well, the guys at Bragg would argue you are wrong... In fact, Airdrops are one of the main resupply mechanisms used in Afghanistan to push stuff to the many COPS. When was the last Russian operation that used airdrops as resupply even close to exrtensively? Some of our new systems are hitting within meters of the designated landing spot... The Russians have anything similar?









Automatically Appended Next Post:

they are the only non special-forces/commando force (they are a branch of service unto themselves similar to the USMC) specifically trained and equipped to conduct airborne operations as their primary and sole focus.

I guess the XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82nd don't count. No one, not even the VDV mkes Airborne ops their 'sole' focus. All the airborne ops do is get you inserted. You then need to actually do the real work, THAT will always be the focus of an airborne unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But back to Soviet Tech. The newer BMP3 series/family of vehicles is pretty good. Lots of upgrades on the export versions (and lots of using countriies which are not Soviet block nations including South Korea and the Saudis).

CptJake wrote:

they are the only non special-forces/commando force (they are a branch of service unto themselves similar to the USMC) specifically trained and equipped to conduct airborne operations as their primary and sole focus.

I guess the XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82nd don't count. No one, not even the VDV mkes Airborne ops their 'sole' focus. All the airborne ops do is get you inserted. You then need to actually do the real work, THAT will always be the focus of an airborne unit.

Exactly. Mechanized infantry is much more applicable than Airborne in MOST warfare scenarios today. Once a guys chute gets him on the ground.. he has to cover said ground on FOOT.. which takes time, time that other units (and I shudder to use these idiots as an example) such as 4ID don't need because they are completely mechanized.

I had 2 instructors in my school that co-taught the same subject to my class. One was a Vietnam Vet of 1st Cavalry Division (air mobile), the other an 82d vet... the quickest way to get the one's arguments to cease was for the other to point out that he, being air mobile spent more time actually in the air during Nam than the entire 82d. Mechanization is one of the biggest, and most important "innovations" in warfare of the 20th century. We started off the cold war with far too many individual vehicles in our stock, whereas the Soviets by and large went with a "build chassis X" and modify to fit needs approach.

In general I would give soviet infantry weapons the nod in being "Better" than most of the contemporaries, even their suppressor technology wasn't awful. I find it particularly interesting it took us several decades to figure out that "Hey, maybe having a DMR/precision rifle that has the same manual of arms and general appearance as our rank-and-file weapon is a good idea!" like they did with the AKM/AK74->SVD.

Because you've got no intersting in hitting anything beyond 50m?

Assuming a rifle fresh off the line, if a rifleman can't hit anything beyond 50m with an AK platform...He ain't a rifleman. Goes double for 5.45.

One could argue they are less "accurate" in that you have to start judging distances more precisely and sooner than you do with 5.45 or 5.56 rifles (Or stop caring about the idea of taking ranging shots.) sure, but my experience has been that most of the real "inaccuracy" of the AK comes from people who don't often use it, don't want to learn HOW to use it, or don't care about hitting the target in the first place.

SOFDC wrote:In general I would give soviet infantry weapons the nod in being "Better" than most of the contemporaries, even their suppressor technology wasn't awful. I find it particularly interesting it took us several decades to figure out that "Hey, maybe having a DMR/precision rifle that has the same manual of arms and general appearance as our rank-and-file weapon is a good idea!" like they did with the AKM/AK74->SVD.

Because you've got no intersting in hitting anything beyond 50m?

Assuming a rifle fresh off the line, if a rifleman can't hit anything beyond 50m with an AK platform...He ain't a rifleman. Goes double for 5.45.

One could argue they are less "accurate" in that you have to start judging distances more precisely and sooner than you do with 5.45 or 5.56 rifles (Or stop caring about the idea of taking ranging shots.) sure, but my experience has been that most of the real "inaccuracy" of the AK comes from people who don't often use it, don't want to learn HOW to use it, or don't care about hitting the target in the first place.

I can rebut this with personal experience.... I was engaged in Iraq by RPG-7s, and AKs at a range of about 100m. The RPGs (barely) missed my vehicle, hitting instead a power transformer (that for some reason Iraqis place on the ground, instead of the top of a light pole), and a garbage dumpster. And NONE of the AK fire hit ANY of our vehicles or personnel. Counter to that, we lit up their van and their "cover" with M240B, and M2 fire, neutralizing the van and assailants.

So, while I personally hate the M4-M16 family of weapons, I would decline an AK in a heartbeat. I am quite confident in saying that our rifles are better, our Automatic rifles are better, our machine guns are better, our hand carried AT weapons are better, in short, the Infantryman of the Cold War on the US side was better in most every respect to firepower.

And NONE of the AK fire hit ANY of our vehicles or personnel.

And you think this would have changed an iota had they had M16s instead? Myself, I doubt it. I've shot the <CENSORED> out of both platforms, and if you cannot even manage "minute of vehicle" (let alone minute of man..) with an AK...well, a western rifle will probably make you look cooler, but that'll be about the extent of the change.

Not wanting to cause insult here, but your anecdote seems to speak more towards competency differences between the two sides, and "Don't get in a pissing match with mounted belt feds without thinking it through." more than equipment difference. If your side had been equipped with DShKs, PKs and AKs I don't think you would have been any poorer for it.

Well an M16 is, by its very nature, a more accurate rifle. However, without optics that advantage is marginal.

Having said that, from personal experience a trained shooter with a properly built Soviet bloc AK can hit mansized targets at 200 yards. I could and I'm no Annie Oakley.

Having said that, from personal experience a trained shooter with a properly built Soviet bloc AK can hit mansized targets at 200 yards.

This mimics what I have seen and experienced. The vietnam-era AKMS I got my hands on for a day certainly had no issue popping milk jugs open at 100 meters with surplus ammo. For my part, the myth of AK's being "inherently inaccurate" was further shattered when I started getting some time with the 5.45 models...which shot around 5.56 M193 territory.