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.
Commieboo myths
- Thread starter Aldarion
- Start date
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.
I don't think that's in their nature and things have been far worse, and come back from it.
Polish writer,Rafał Ziemkiewicz,wrote book "Strollowana Rewolucja" /my translation - trolled revolution/
in which he proved that Big Corpo basically buyed leftists,becouse they produce people they need - without families,nations,religions or backbone.Ideal slaves.
Pity,that nobody translated it into english.
You mean T.43?
And,about soviet tanks - after WW2 they discovered,that they remain with Shermans and Valentine,becouse their tanks would break after 3 days,top week - they were produced thinking that germans would destroy them before week.
Indeed.Soviets were trash,but they could bury us under their bodies.Leftists....they could win against enemy who is arleady in prison.Or crippled.
Another example of the T-34 being bad just from a design standpoint. Crew compartment fuel tanks.
Okay, not exactly the WORST idea, notice modern western tanks have many fuel tanks in the front/sides of the tank. But notice they have splinter-proof plating behind them with the intention of absorbing any fragments passing through the fuel tanks upon penetration.
T-34? No such thing I'm afraid! Any penetration in the side of the vehicle is going to result in gushing diesel fuel inside the vehicle.
And while diesel is notoriously hard to ignite, it isn't water, enough temperature and pressure will cause ignition. No doubt many T-34's were detonated in such a fashion. Also huffing diesel fumes is probably not going to help with concentration in escaping the vehicle.
And to make matters worse, guess what's on the floor of the vehicle? The ammunition! The ammunition which may or may not be combusting due to said penetration, so you have kilograms of propellant burning right next to a waterfall of diesel fuel! It's no surprise the T-34 was one of the least survivable vehicles of the war.
A spall plate behind the fuel tanks would've helped, as would designing your tank so crucial crew space isn't eaten up by damned fuel tanks.
Okay, not exactly the WORST idea, notice modern western tanks have many fuel tanks in the front/sides of the tank. But notice they have splinter-proof plating behind them with the intention of absorbing any fragments passing through the fuel tanks upon penetration.
T-34? No such thing I'm afraid! Any penetration in the side of the vehicle is going to result in gushing diesel fuel inside the vehicle.
And while diesel is notoriously hard to ignite, it isn't water, enough temperature and pressure will cause ignition. No doubt many T-34's were detonated in such a fashion. Also huffing diesel fumes is probably not going to help with concentration in escaping the vehicle.
And to make matters worse, guess what's on the floor of the vehicle? The ammunition! The ammunition which may or may not be combusting due to said penetration, so you have kilograms of propellant burning right next to a waterfall of diesel fuel! It's no surprise the T-34 was one of the least survivable vehicles of the war.
A spall plate behind the fuel tanks would've helped, as would designing your tank so crucial crew space isn't eaten up by damned fuel tanks.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Strangely enough, even though the T34 was a mess, apparently the Soviets got ludicrously good at building tanks during the Cold War.
They kinda did, and they kinda didn't.
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.
Seriously hurt their composite-armor science, so they had to band-aid it with ERA.
T-43 was pretty radical as well, it had more armor than the T-34M, also had torsion bars, and so on.
Unless I am mistaken it's hull shape was more different to the baseline T-34, than the T-34M was.
Unless I am mistaken it's hull shape was more different to the baseline T-34, than the T-34M was.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
As the old saying goes, you don't fix what isn't broken. At least the Soviet tanks were more reliable than Soviet cars...
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'.
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.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
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.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
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.
Still, how many submarines have a running track around their missile tubes?
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.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
I thought this was "just" a days/weeks-long defrost process rather than an irreparable failure state.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
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.
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!
Afraid I haven't heard of that rumor, but knowing Soviet quality assurances...Its possible.
Keep on track please.
Guys this isn't The War College this thread is about communist myths and faults associated with communism in general, not every flaw associated with every piece of Soviet equipment ever built.