[MB.]

I have no doubt that the Soviet Union could have rolled the US and NATO via conventional attack in Western Europe at least- however, this is rather fruitless considering that the Soviet Union would have then been annihlated by atomic counter-attack.

So what's your point?

[onemanarmy]

Quantitative v. Qualitative advantage.

well actually the russians still had many advantages in equipment especially tanks and the air force wasn't as bad as it was cracked up to be.

"I bet the Romans had more chest plates then the barbarians ..."

well actually by the dark ages the goths actually had very good iron making technology. also germans had superior swords, much better cavalry, and had very physically strong soldiers. not to mention that huns had stirups and superior horse breeding abillities. i must say though the romans had very good tactics.

[Smilin' Dave]

well actually the russians still had many advantages in equipment especially tanks

You going to tell us what these advantages were?

and the air force wasn't as bad as it was cracked up to be.

Since it is remembered as being terrible, anything would be an improvement.

[Todd]

well actually the russians still had many advantages in equipment especially tanks.

Quality - NATO edge. Huge advantage, USSR had a huge espionage program to try to catch up. Attempts to catch up bankrupted the Soviet Union. Personal computer revolution widened the narrow technological gap that existed in the 50s and 60s.

By the 1980s principle US tank M-1 Abrams, German Leopard II, and British Challenger were more than match for Soviet T-72 and T-80. Firepower was roughly equal, however, NATO tanks were more mobile, roomier, and used various laser targetting systems making them far more accurate. Western tanks had a breakthrough in armor - Composite Armor -> absorbed explosions to a certain extent. The average NATO soldier was better trained, higher educated, and was given a higher scope for personal initiative. Soviet soldiers on the otherhand were largely of a peasant underclass, less educated and less training. The Communist system allowed for zero personal initiative.

[jaakko]

By the 1980s principle US tank M-1 Abrams, German Leopard II, and British Challenger were more than match for Soviet T-72 and T-80. Firepower was roughly equal, however, NATO tanks were more mobile, roomier, and used various laser targetting systems making them far more accurate.

It's not that easy to compare the designs. The Soviet MBTs were much easier to produce, maintain and repair. They were also smaller. T-80 is much more mobile than for example the Leopard II. It also had about the same level of armour, while being smaller and lighter. Laser is used as range-finder, and modern Soviet MBTs had those. What it and other Soviet MBTs lacked was room for the crew, sophisticated fire control systems and effective night vision equipment.

And btw, Soviet MBTs shouldn't be confused with their export models.

Western tanks had a breakthrough in armor - Composite Armor -> absorbed explosions to a certain extent.

Soviet T-72s and T-80s had composite armour. What Challenger and Abrams MBTs had what the Soviets didn't, was cheramic armour. Soviets relied on developing ERA instead.

[Attila The Nun]

well actually by the dark ages the goths actually had very good iron making technology. also germans had superior swords, much better cavalry, and had very physically strong soldiers. not to mention that huns had stirups and superior horse breeding abillities. i must say though the romans had very good tactics.

Superior swords? How so? Comparing a gladius to a longsword is a bit strange, don't you think?

And cavalry was not used much in the Germanic army. Most of the tactics were ambush tactics with ax-weilding infantry, like present at such battles like Tuetoberg Forest.

[PolarBear]

Quality - NATO edge. Huge advantage, USSR had a huge espionage program to try to catch up. Attempts to catch up bankrupted the Soviet Union. Personal computer revolution widened the narrow technological gap that existed in the 50s and 60s.

By the 1980s principle US tank M-1 Abrams, German Leopard II, and British Challenger were more than match for Soviet T-72 and T-80. Firepower was roughly equal, however, NATO tanks were more mobile, roomier, and used various laser targetting systems making them far more accurate. Western tanks had a breakthrough in armor - Composite Armor -> absorbed explosions to a certain extent. The average NATO soldier was better trained, higher educated, and was given a higher scope for personal initiative. Soviet soldiers on the otherhand were largely of a peasant underclass, less educated and less training. The Communist system allowed for zero personal initiative.

After the collapse of the USSR, Israelis and Americans found technologies in the USSR that was 20 years ahead of the American.

Ballistic missles such as Voevoda (SS-N-18 Satana) was by far the best Ballistic missle in the world. Also the Sunburn Cruise missle developed in the 80's was better then aby western technology, which the U.S wanted to buy off Yeltsin even in 1995 because they had no defense against it.

Russian and Soviet Tank mechanics have always been the best, even to this day the T-90 is unsurpassable, if anything the U.S had more quantity but the Soviets had much better quality, as for the T-72 used in the Gulf war (since I know it going to come up), the Iraqis used tested rounds, and the Soviets of course sold much inferior tanks to other nations. Also the Defense system surrounding Moscow is the best defense system in the world even to this day.

As for your theory that the average NATO soldier was better trained and educated then in the USSR, you couldnt be more wrong. Russian Physics and Mathematics were by far better educated then in any western nation, Physics material taught in Harvard were being taught in Russian grade school. Personal initiave was also much greater in Russia because the majority of the reserve was voluntery, unlike in NATO where the soldiers were only looking for money and benefits, which was their only initiave.

[Smilin' Dave]

After the collapse of the USSR, Israelis and Americans found technologies in the USSR that was 20 years ahead of the American.

Which is where most of your post goes wrong. The threat of the Cold War going hot was long gone by the time he USSR started to collapse. Hence for example discussion of the T90 (which isn't battle tested) is irrelevant. Nor did the US suddenly discover items like the SS-18 or Moskit, they knew about them already.

As for your theory that the average NATO soldier was better trained and educated then in the USSR, you couldnt be more wrong. Russian Physics and Mathematics were by far better educated then in any western nation, Physics material taught in Harvard were being taught in Russian grade school.

Does the average Soviet soldier study physics and math? No, neither did the NATO soldier. What the NATO soldier did have was better combat training and might I add, less of a problem with hazing.

Personal initiave was also much greater in Russia because the majority of the reserve was voluntery

Bulk of the Soviet army was conscript, and the command structure did not encourage initiative, the basic unit of manuver was still bigger than the western equivelent and reserves still centralised.

[Boondock Saint]

Physics material taught in Harvard were being taught in Russian grade school.

Which would explain why the Russians are at the forefront of technology today.

I understand that Russians even figured out how to fly without any type of machine and that super-communist robot praying mantis' were developed and are actually just waiting for Stalin to be revived.

[sergei the great]

Which would explain why the Russians are at the forefront of technology today

in military technology it really is
but then again i'm slightly biased

russia is still the only country with supersonic bombers
auto-loaders for tanks
they are currently he only country making regular flights into space, and comercial space flights too

as far as the cold-war weapin count goes its complicated, people counting the nuclear weapons can get very different statistics -
you must look at weather the statistics are for
a. ICBM's
b. nuclear warheads
c. nuclear bombs
d. nuclear payload equivalent
e. MRV's
f. and any combination of the above

and another thing why russian weaponms are often seen as inferior to American or Iraeli is because - as they say - russian weapons have not seen much warfare, haven't been battle tested

[Piano Red]

Another Russiaphile hideout thread....get on now...shoo!

[PolarBear]

Does the average Soviet soldier study physics and math?

Actually every Russian soldier went to "high school", where they learned advanced physics and math compared to NATO counterparts.

Bulk of the Soviet army was conscript, and the command structure did not encourage initiative

No, thats myth. Most of Russian army and reserves were voluntary, the command structure did encourage initiative, that was even proved in WW2.

[Red Star]

I think that this topic is another usual dead-end one. As someone pointed out, the key word is 'had'. And again, even if the WP attacked and overran Western Europe, NATO and the USA posses nukes, both tactical and strategic, meaning - game over, for both sides. But I bet you have heard that many times, or are willing to believe a 'Red Storm Rising' scenarion where nukes wouldn't be used.

As for Russia being at the forefront of technology, I believe that they have the brains, just not the money. In the USSR tech advancement was checked by stupidly authoritarian interaction by above (people who had no real idea of what the scientists were doing), and today Russia just doesn't have the hard cash to fund high tech research. But as a product of the Russia-style education system, I must say that Maths and Physics WERE more advanced at school level. However, I do agree that this has little relevance to real life or a war situation.

As I said in the beginining, this is just a dead end convo. Both sides can argue forever, but no conclusion will be made.

[PolarBear]

Which is where most of your post goes wrong. The threat of the Cold War going hot was long gone by the time he USSR started to collapse. Hence for example discussion of the T90 (which isn't battle tested) is irrelevant. Nor did the US suddenly discover items like the SS-18 or Moskit, they knew about them already.

The U.S went into Russia under Gorbi, and found many new technologies including T-95 battle tank, new surface-to-air cruise missles, new nuclear submarines, and stealth technology, also much superior jet engines (F-35 uses Russian developed engine stolen from them while Gorbi and Yeltsin were in power).

[Smilin' Dave]

Actually every Russian soldier went to "high school", where they learned advanced physics and math compared to NATO counterparts.

*sigh* Okay, let us pretend that is true. How useful is a knowledge of physics and math to the average soldier then?

No, thats myth. Most of Russian army and reserves were voluntary

Prove to me it is a myth that the Soviets didn't have conscription and that the majority of their formations were at reduced size with the expectation they would be filled with reserves.

command structure did encourage initiative, that was even proved in WW2.

For example? I don't think Stalin having officers shot in 1941 really helped initiative, so your going to have to work very hard to prove that one.

The U.S went into Russia under Gorbi, and found many new technologies including T-95 battle tank

As the notation T-95 suggests, this tank (which was a prototype) wasn't really on the drawing board until the mid-90s... well after the Soviet Union folded.

and stealth technology

I can only assume this is a reference to the Plasma Stealth project, which again, is a prototype. The French are developing it to.

F-35 uses Russian developed engine stolen from them while Gorbi and Yeltsin were in power

Proof?

[PolarBear]

Proof?

As seen on TV, Russians sold engine principle and technology to Lockheed-Martin in mid 90s.
In fact, F-35/JSF uses Russian engine.

If you were to know anything about Jet engines you would know that this is the same engine used in the prototype of the Yak-141.

I can only assume this is a reference to the Plasma Stealth project, which again, is a prototype. The French are developing it to.

Yes, many things were prototypes, but they're bluprints were developed and technogoly was ready for production.

[Smilin' Dave]

As seen on TV, Russians sold engine principle and technology to Lockheed-Martin in mid 90s.
In fact, F-35/JSF uses Russian engine.

If you were to know anything about Jet engines you would know that this is the same engine used in the prototype of the Yak-141.

Does not prove that the design was stolen or even purchased as you claimed. It could just as easily been a parrallel development.

Ah, and it seems that once again, we are talking about prototypes.

Perhaps you can team up with the Russophiles at Warfare.ru to find the evidence you need?

Yes, many things were prototypes, but they're bluprints were developed and technogoly was ready for production.

If it was at blue print stage, it wasn't ready for production. For a start, the technology would have been untested and even today not all of the kinks in plasma stealth tech have been ironed out (eg. stealthing the weapons themselves).

Further, production methods would not have been perfected yet, since building a prototype and building on an assembly line are two completely different things.

[PolarBear]

I dont need this play of words with you.

You sound to much like a broken record and tend to ignore facts.

[Smilin' Dave]

I dont need this play of words with you.

Just like your little stunt on HiFo, you make an argument, get challenged, and then retreat. Once again, you blame me rather than your own inadequecy.

You sound to much like a broken record and tend to ignore facts.

You couldn't even provide facts to back up your silly claims. You just ignored anything you couldn't prove.

If you want to throw a hissy fit, fine, just don't pretend that it is somehow my problem.

[PolarBear]

I provided you evidence that this engine was bought from the Russians in the mid 90's, it is based on the Russian Yak-141 jet, thats a fact.

If you knew anything about Jet technology then you would know that, appearently you dont.

I dont know what the Americans were developing before or after that but they did purchase the technology. End of story.

Your pointless descussion isnt gonna go anywhere.

Just like your little stunt on HiFo, you make an argument, get challenged, and then retreat. Once again, you blame me rather than your own inadequecy.

I can stay here and argue with you for days, but I got better things to debate because you provide no serious arguement, just stupid play on words.