History UsefulNotes / RedsWithRockets

18th Apr '16 11:43:58 AM Synthesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Russians were the ones who mainly got the use the 74. The satellite states either received only very limited amounts of 5.45 guns, made only a few of them before [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp the Soviet Union Collapsed]], or never had them at all.

to:

** The Russians were Soviet Union first adopted the ones who mainly got the use the 74. The satellite states either received only very limited amounts new AK-74--there was varying levels of 5.45 guns, made only a few of them adoption in other countries before [[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp the Soviet Union Collapsed]], or never had them at all.Collapsed]] (for example, Soviet-aligned Mongolia used the AKM more generally, and the AK-74 for specialized troops, whereas East Germany and Poland manufactured their own local models.
18th Apr '16 11:35:57 AM Synthesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Largely a conscript force, unlike the USA's more volunteer force (at least after the UsefulNotes/VietnamWar). Pretty much everything about Soviet armed forces was designed around reliability, from durable-but-simple vehicles, to every distinct form of weapon having a distinctly named ammo (even if two different weapons had, say, rounds 40mm in diameter, the Soviets would call one of them a 38mm round, just so idiots in the supply chain would be less likely to make mistakes). The durable-but-simple philosophy also made it possible for the Soviets to have a remarkably successful foreign arms trade, even with lower productivity in their electronics sector; versions of vehicles made for export simply left out the bits that were tricky to manufacture and used cheaper (i.e. weaker) materials for everything, e.g. hull armor. Thus, say, the BMP-2 that Egypt operated was a ''much'' different beast than the BMP-2 that the Soviets themselves had.

to:

Largely a conscript force, unlike the USA's more volunteer force (at least after the UsefulNotes/VietnamWar). Pretty much everything about Soviet armed forces was designed around reliability, from durable-but-simple vehicles, to every distinct form of weapon having a distinctly named ammo (even if two different weapons had, say, rounds 40mm in diameter, the Soviets would call one of them a 38mm round, just so idiots in the supply chain would be less likely to make mistakes). The durable-but-simple philosophy also made it possible for the Soviets to have a remarkably successful foreign arms trade, even with lower productivity in their electronics sector; versions of vehicles made for export simply left out the bits that were tricky to manufacture and used cheaper (i.e. weaker) materials for everything, e.g. hull armor. Thus, say, the BMP-2 BMP-1 that Egypt operated was a ''much'' different beast than the BMP-2 BMP-1 that the Soviets themselves had.
30th Mar '16 7:07:56 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Broadly, the Soviets focused on fighting simple and fighting smart - using simple and easy to maintain weapons, focusing on logistics, planning, and leadership. Similarly, the Soviets had ([[BoringButPractical simple, but devastatingly clever]]) campaign plans that they would make months and years in advance and in agonising (and astonishingly accurate) detail.

to:

Broadly, the Soviets focused on fighting simple and fighting smart - using simple and easy to maintain weapons, focusing on logistics, planning, and leadership. Similarly, the The Soviets had would work out the broad strokes of campaigns months and years in advance, giving them solid guidelines for further planning or even improvisation right off the bat. While the use of Deception was practically a mandatory requirement of all planning, they still tended towards ([[BoringButPractical simple, but devastatingly clever]]) campaign plans simplicity in order to minimise the number of things that they would make months and years in advance and in agonising (and astonishingly accurate) detail.could go wrong]].
29th Mar '16 5:00:52 PM Alceister
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The T-34 '''concept''' had been the soundest ever fielded up to 1945: a tank designed in the late 1930s could have been either a heavy, lumbering monster (T-35, Char B1) or [[FragileSpeedster maneuverable, but lightly armored]] (Somua S-35, BT, Pzkpfw 38(t), Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV), while a tank designed with the experience or the 1940-1941 campaigns in mind could have been either cheap, lightly armed [[ZergRush and built by the thousands]], or complex, nearly unbeatable in the field, heavily armed, ran by men like Wittmann, but [[AwesomeButImpractical just as expensive as its weight in gold]]. Modern designs like British Comet came too late to be meaningful in war. Only two projects matched every requirement (speed, armor, gun, manoeuvrability) and asked for more: M24 Chaffee and T-34, and the last got it right due to the engine, above all: the only 400-500hp tank engine which could be made to tip the scales at just 750kg dry weight. Before the British Meteor engine came, which was stronger and lighter. All other 1941-vintage engines weighed 1000-1200-1500kg easily, while the Chrysler Multi-Bank engine in the Sherman weighed a ridiculous 2384kg (5244lbs!).

to:

** The T-34 '''concept''' had been the soundest ever fielded up to 1945: a tank designed in the late 1930s could have been either a heavy, lumbering monster (T-35, Char B1) or [[FragileSpeedster maneuverable, but lightly armored]] (Somua S-35, BT, (BT, Pzkpfw 38(t), Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV), while a tank designed with the experience or the 1940-1941 campaigns in mind could have been either cheap, lightly armed [[ZergRush and built by the thousands]], or complex, nearly unbeatable in the field, heavily armed, ran by men like Wittmann, but [[AwesomeButImpractical just as expensive as its weight in gold]]. Modern designs like British Comet came too late to be meaningful in war. Only two projects matched every requirement (speed, armor, gun, manoeuvrability) and asked for more: M24 Chaffee and T-34, and the last got it right due to the engine, above all: the only 400-500hp tank engine which could be made to tip the scales at just 750kg dry weight. Before the British Meteor engine came, which was stronger more powerful and lighter. All even lighter, all other 1941-vintage engines weighed 1000-1200-1500kg easily, while the Chrysler Multi-Bank engine in the Sherman weighed a ridiculous 2384kg (5244lbs!).
29th Mar '16 4:51:16 PM Alceister
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl03-e.htm Mosin-Nagant]] - actually entered service in the 19th century, long before UsefulNotes/RedOctober. Designed by Captain Sergei Mosin -- contrary to the name, Belgian Léon Nagant had almost nothing to do with the gun at all. Around 37 million were built up until the 1950's, and remain in use today. In service during both World Wars, the Mosin-Nagant is a highly rugged and reliable rifle, as well as quite accurate; the design's main attraction however, was its simplicity. WeaponOfChoice of the most deadly sniper ever: [[http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp Simo Häyhä, also known as "the White Death"]].

to:

* [[http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl03-e.htm Mosin-Nagant]] - actually entered service in the 19th century, long before UsefulNotes/RedOctober. Designed by Captain Sergei Mosin -- contrary to the name, Belgian Léon Nagant had almost nothing to do with the gun at all. Around 37 million were built up until the 1950's, and remain in use today. In service during both World Wars, the Mosin-Nagant is a highly rugged and reliable rifle, as well as quite accurate; the design's main attraction however, was its simplicity.simplicity, which allows for manufacture with less sophisticated tooling. WeaponOfChoice of the most deadly sniper ever: [[http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp Simo Häyhä, also known as "the White Death"]].
1st Mar '16 7:55:46 PM TheJrade1
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The MoreDakka design philosophy continued with the Kalashnikov family. As stated above, [=AKs=] are extremely reliable and easy to obtain, but the stereotype also holds that they struggle to match TheOnion in accuracy. In reality, the AK-pattern rifles have always reached a fair standard of accuracy. The AKM has an official effective range of 350M[[note]] This is actually rather average for assault rifles[[note]], which is long enough to cover just about any distance encountered in typical infantry small arms engagements. onward had accuracy comparable to and in certain conditions better than[[note]]The AK-74, for example, has a standard effective range of 625 meters, but can have an area target capability of up to 1,000 meters with sight adjustments. The M16 has a standard effective range of around 550-600m, with an area target range of about 800-1,000 meters depending on the configuration.[[/note]] most NATO assault rifles, with the inaccuracy problem referring mostly to the early AK-47 line and its foreign derivatives. Since the early models are usually what people think of when someone mentions "Kalashnikovs," expect armchair experts to constantly state that ''all'' [=AKs=] are inaccurate. Moreover, as reliable as they may be, even AK rifles need be properly maintained and fed with decent quality ammunition to reach their full potential.

to:

* The MoreDakka design philosophy continued with the Kalashnikov family. As stated above, [=AKs=] are extremely reliable and easy to obtain, but the stereotype also holds that they struggle to match TheOnion in accuracy. In reality, the AK-pattern rifles have always reached a fair standard of accuracy. The AKM has an official effective range of 350M[[note]] This is actually rather average for assault rifles[[note]], which is long enough to cover just about any distance encountered in typical infantry small arms engagements. onward had accuracy comparable to and in certain conditions better than[[note]]The AK-74, for example, has a standard effective range of 625 meters, but can have an area target capability of up to 1,000 meters with sight adjustments. The M16 has a standard effective range of around 550-600m, with an area target range of about 800-1,000 meters depending on the configuration.[[/note]] most NATO assault rifles, with the inaccuracy problem referring mostly to the early AK-47 line and its foreign derivatives. Since the early models are usually what people think of when someone mentions "Kalashnikovs," expect armchair experts to constantly state that ''all'' [=AKs=] are inaccurate. Moreover, as reliable as they may be, even AK rifles need be properly maintained and fed with decent quality ammunition to reach their full potential. Much of the AK's reputation for inaccuracy comes from the shoddy manufacturing standards observed in AKs not constructed in Russia and without licensing from Kalashnikov Concern.
11th Jan '16 11:56:02 AM Alceister
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl03-e.htm Mosin-Nagant]] - actually entered service in the 19th century, long before UsefulNotes/RedOctober. Designed by Captain Sergei Mosin -- contrary to the name, Belgian Léon Nagant had almost nothing to do with the gun at all. Around 37 million were built up until the 1950's, and remain in use today. In service during both World Wars, the Mosin-Nagant is a highly rugged and reliable rifle, as well as quite accurate. WeaponOfChoice of the most deadly sniper ever: [[http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp Simo Häyhä, also known as "the White Death"]].

to:

* [[http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl03-e.htm Mosin-Nagant]] - actually entered service in the 19th century, long before UsefulNotes/RedOctober. Designed by Captain Sergei Mosin -- contrary to the name, Belgian Léon Nagant had almost nothing to do with the gun at all. Around 37 million were built up until the 1950's, and remain in use today. In service during both World Wars, the Mosin-Nagant is a highly rugged and reliable rifle, as well as quite accurate.accurate; the design's main attraction however, was its simplicity. WeaponOfChoice of the most deadly sniper ever: [[http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp Simo Häyhä, also known as "the White Death"]].
23rd Dec '15 1:31:19 PM Alceister
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Taking western Europe was a cornerstone of the Soviet military's rhetoric throughout the Cold War, both in its struggle for funding and influence within the Soviet state and internationally. However, the Soviet military's ''ability'' to fulfill this mission fluctuated over time. For all that, there were a few constant factors in its favor. From the outset the Western Allies and, later, NATO would've failed to use their inferior numbers as a unified force [[note]] France was always a bit of a wild-card and it's anybody's guess whether they would have stuck their neck out over an 'Anglo' issue, especially while Stalin was alive - he and UsefulNotes/CharlesDeGaulle were pretty chummy. Worse, even when they finally formed a military of their own in 1955, West Germany's politicians insisted on using their forces to defend their peace-time borders... which were often totally indefensible and would more than likely see their forces cut off from the rest of NATO[[/note]], and they had no campaign-plan to counter the Warsaw Pact's [[note]] a massive knock-out blow to split NATO's forces in half on the North German Plain, crush the isolated northern pocket, and move on to break up and finish off what was left [[/note]].

to:

Taking western Europe was a cornerstone of the Soviet military's rhetoric throughout the Cold War, both in its struggle for funding and influence within the Soviet state and internationally. However, the Soviet military's ''ability'' to fulfill this mission fluctuated over time. For all that, there were a few constant factors in its favor. From the outset the Western Allies and, later, NATO outset, its likely opponents would've failed to use their inferior numbers as a unified force [[note]] France force[[note]]France was always a bit of a wild-card and it's anybody's guess whether they would have stuck their neck out over an 'Anglo' 'Anglo-American' issue, especially while Stalin was alive - -- he and UsefulNotes/CharlesDeGaulle were pretty chummy. Worse, even when they finally formed a military of their own in 1955, Meanwhile, West Germany's politicians insisted on using their forces to defend their peace-time borders... which were often totally indefensible and would more than likely see their forces cut off from the rest of NATO[[/note]], and they had no campaign-plan NATO[[/note]]. They also lacked an adequate defensive strategy to counter counteract the Warsaw Pact's [[note]] offensive strategy, which would have been to deliver a massive knock-out blow to split NATO's forces in half on the North German Plain, crush the isolated northern pocket, and move on to break up and finish off what was left [[/note]].
left.
23rd Dec '15 1:20:52 PM Alceister
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Taking western Europe was a cornerstone of the Soviet military's rhetoric throughout the Cold War, both in its struggle for funding and influence within the Soviet state and internationally. However, the Soviet military's ''ability'' to fulfill this mission fluctuated over time. For all that, there were a few constant factors in its favor. From the outset the Western Allies and, later, NATO would've failed to use their inferior numbers as a unified force [[note]] France was always a bit of a wild-card and it's anybody's guess whether they would have stuck their neck out over an 'Anglo' issue, especially while Stalin was alive - he and DeGaulle were relatively chummy. Worse, even when they finally formed a military of their own in 1955 Western Germany's politicians insisted on using their forces to defend their peace-time borders... which were often totally indefensible, let alone the fact that (because they were right on the border) they could quite easily be encircled, cut off from all food and ammunition supply, and be forced to try to punch their way out through the Soviet defenders or simply sit on their laurels contributing little to NATO's strategic defense [[/note]], and they had no campaign-plan to counter the Warsaw Pact's [[note]] a massive knock-out blow to split NATO's forces in half on the North German Plain, crush the isolated northern pocket, and move on to break up and finish off what was left [[/note]].

to:

Taking western Europe was a cornerstone of the Soviet military's rhetoric throughout the Cold War, both in its struggle for funding and influence within the Soviet state and internationally. However, the Soviet military's ''ability'' to fulfill this mission fluctuated over time. For all that, there were a few constant factors in its favor. From the outset the Western Allies and, later, NATO would've failed to use their inferior numbers as a unified force [[note]] France was always a bit of a wild-card and it's anybody's guess whether they would have stuck their neck out over an 'Anglo' issue, especially while Stalin was alive - he and DeGaulle UsefulNotes/CharlesDeGaulle were relatively pretty chummy. Worse, even when they finally formed a military of their own in 1955 Western 1955, West Germany's politicians insisted on using their forces to defend their peace-time borders... which were often totally indefensible, let alone the fact that (because they were right on the border) they could quite easily be encircled, indefensible and would more than likely see their forces cut off from all food and ammunition supply, and be forced to try to punch their way out through the Soviet defenders or simply sit on their laurels contributing little to NATO's strategic defense [[/note]], rest of NATO[[/note]], and they had no campaign-plan to counter the Warsaw Pact's [[note]] a massive knock-out blow to split NATO's forces in half on the North German Plain, crush the isolated northern pocket, and move on to break up and finish off what was left [[/note]].
22nd Dec '15 9:58:11 PM Alceister
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl03-e.htm Mosin-Nagant]] - actually entered service in the 19th century, long before UsefulNotes/RedOctober. Designed by Captain Sergei Mosin -- contrary to the name, Belgian Léon Nagant had almost nothing to do with the gun at all. Around 37 million were built up until the 1950's, and remain in use today. In service during both World Wars, the Mosin-Nagant is a highly rugged and reliable rifle, as well as quite accurate. WeaponOfChoice of the most deadly sniper ever: [[http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp Simo Häyhä, "the White Death"]].

to:

* [[http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl03-e.htm Mosin-Nagant]] - actually entered service in the 19th century, long before UsefulNotes/RedOctober. Designed by Captain Sergei Mosin -- contrary to the name, Belgian Léon Nagant had almost nothing to do with the gun at all. Around 37 million were built up until the 1950's, and remain in use today. In service during both World Wars, the Mosin-Nagant is a highly rugged and reliable rifle, as well as quite accurate. WeaponOfChoice of the most deadly sniper ever: [[http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp Simo Häyhä, also known as "the White Death"]].
This list shows the last 10 events of 376. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.RedsWithRockets