One certainly hopes. Though right now they’re standing on a pretty big winning streak.
Yeah and I look all around me and see the begining of the end for them all around me. It will be a long decades long fight but these guys are going to lose.
One certainly hopes. Though right now they’re standing on a pretty big winning streak.
The issue with that is decades are a long time in which they can course correct. And at the rate things are going there won’t be much if anything left to save after that long.Yeah and I look all around me and see the begining of the end for them all around me. It will be a long decades long fight but these guys are going to lose.
The issue with that is decades are a long time in which they can course correct. And at the rate things are going there won’t be much if anything left to save after that long.
Communism has largely disappeared in practice. Even if the rhetoric is bandied around a lot by professors. However, the dominant ideology of the modern Western world is the bastard child of Marxism and is a radical leftist ideology. Spawned in part by the Marxists of the Frankfurt School and post-modernism.
This ideology does not yet have a proper name and this is by design because it seeks to manipulate and obfuscate. Letting itself be identified would allow it to be criticized more easily.
Like Marxism it is collectivist, authoritarian, totalitarian, international, secular, and professes egalitarianism - though like Marxism in practice fosters inequality and exploitation. It is anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western, anti-family, anti-nationalism, opposes individual liberty on principle as well as in practice. It is progressive, utopian, militant, and anti-human. It is pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, pro-transsexuality, and otherwise supports moral and sexual degeneracy. It favors control of information and education and opposes parental influence on children. It is anti-art, anti-skill, anti-beauty, anti-culture, anti-tradition - which is all part of being anti-human.
Unlike Marxism, this ideology is not concerned with workers or the poor, it fact it is openly contemptuous of them and advocates their harm or exploitation. It is implicitly corporatist and the leaders of this movement are usually heavily involved in business, corporations, banking, media, finance, and crony capitalism in general. This movement openly supports the elites, including economic elites, having power over the lives of the populace - a stark contrast with Marxism at least in theory. The movement is post modern and anti-scientific, casually rejecting facts or logic that conflict with their presuppositions. Though they frequently engage in scientism and appeal to the idea, but seldom the reality, of science.
Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, communism. This ideology and movement that dominates the west isn’t communism, but it was spawned largely from Marx and subsequent related leftist ideologies, though it rejects many economic aspects of Marxism in favor of overt corporatist oligarchy.
You mean T.43?The T-34 was basically a ''foot in the door'' design for Kharkov design bureau, it was the best they could do to mollify the demands of procurement bureaucracy for BT-7 successor. Koshkin envisioned a T-34M with torsion bar suspension and three man turret to be developed after tank is accepted into production and his successor Morozov started the development, but when the war broke out, there was no chance for mayor retooling and all efforts were made towards maximum production, with only minimal modifications, until Tiger and Panther forced them to upgun the tank.
No I've dealt with those guys their a might makes right bunch too only with out the idea that their victims could or would fight back. Its one of the reasons why my money is that time is their enemy because they piss off everyone around them and grow the enemy coalition just by being themselves.
They kinda did, and they kinda didn't.Strangely enough, even though the T34 was a mess, apparently the Soviets got ludicrously good at building tanks during the Cold War.
T-43 was a different beast, less radical of a modification than the T-34M was(IMO, it deserved a different designation, as it was really a different vehicle than the T-34, with the same overall shape).You mean T.43?
They revolutionized tank design in several places, but the West always caught up and ended up doing it better.
They also kept on doing "T-55 with improvements!" all the way up to the T-90, with only a handful of unique prototypes going away from the formula.
I think it's seriously hurt them in the long run however, many of their models have greater armor than Western tanks...In claims.As the old saying goes, you don't fix what isn't broken. At least the Soviet tanks were more reliable than Soviet cars...
Armour - becouse soviets wanted numbers,so their armour was always worst then in prototypes.I think it's seriously hurt them in the long run however, many of their models have greater armor than Western tanks...In claims.
In practice it seems their glacis plates can be penetrated due to lack of LOS thickness, and with no bustle all the ammo has to be thrown about randomly inside the tank, so any penetration has a bad habit of making the whole thing go 'kaboom'.
To be fair the KV had a 76mm cannon, while the Matilda 2 had a 40mm.Armour - becouse soviets wanted numbers,so their armour was always worst then in prototypes.
KW1 and front Mathilda 2 had the same armour,but soviet crews claimed,that Mathilda armour was better.
Yeah, Soviet submarines often have titanium hulls. I believe they also tend to be more sturdy than the US submarines in terms of construction itself as well. At the same time however they are also noisier than equivalent US or British submarines.Alright then, one thing that the Soviets seem to get right (and I’ve heard people in the military or who work with it attest to this) is their submarines. Apparently they can dive very deep.
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh so about that. Some of their titanium hulled submarines are exceptional boats, from a performance standpoint.Alright then, one thing that the Soviets seem to get right (and I’ve heard people in the military or who work with it attest to this) is their submarines. Apparently they can dive very deep.
I thought this was "just" a days/weeks-long defrost process rather than an irreparable failure state.But in the case of the Alfa class, if their reactors ever turn off, the entire submarine is bricked and the reactor has to be replaced, due to the fact it's cooled by liquid metal.
Seems like I've read the Alfa (or possibly Akula) got its exceptional performance by saving weight on reactor shielding, and the crews tended to get horrifying amounts of cancer from high levels of radiation exposure. Not sure if that's true or just a rumor but it does sound typical of Soviet doctrine.Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh so about that. Some of their titanium hulled submarines are exceptional boats, from a performance standpoint.
But in the case of the Alfa class, if their reactors ever turn off, the entire submarine is bricked and the reactor has to be replaced, due to the fact it's cooled by liquid metal.
Add 'sometimes the peroxide torpedoes explode for no given reason' and we get more problems like the Kursk.
To my knowledge the Alfa class was never really designed to stay around long enough for that to happen, so once they shut off, they stayed off. You could in theory restart a metal cooled reactor but...Good luck with that!I thought this was "just" a days/weeks-long defrost process rather than an irreparable failure state.
Afraid I haven't heard of that rumor, but knowing Soviet quality assurances...Its possible.Seems like I've read the Alfa (or possibly Akula) got its exceptional performance by saving weight on reactor shielding, and the crews tended to get horrifying amounts of cancer from high levels of radiation exposure. Not sure if that's true or just a rumor but it does sound typical of Soviet doctrine.