Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

That is speculation.
If Russian hardware worked anywhere near what they advertised, I wouldn't be so skeptical.

Which I think is the biggest problem with Russian gear, everything they have produced for the last 60 years was advertised as superior to the west in every way and every time this wonder weapon has come up against its western equivalent it has had its arse handed to it, the Russians just don't have a hell of a lot of advertising credibility left.

The space race however, was a different issue. The Russians were ahead in the beginning and there simply is no denying it. But with the Apollo 11 mission, again, America took the lead.

One interesting quote I read from a Russian General said that America had walked on the moon to the point of boredom and yet the Russians received every bit of data that was ever sent back so why should we go there when America was prepared to pay to do the work for us.

To some degree this made sense as the only real achievement was landing on the moon after that there was nothing to be gained in going there themselves, in terms of who is "leading" the space race I would suggest that both the Russians and the Europeans have a far better reputation for reliable delivery systems than the USA.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

That is speculation.
If Russian hardware worked anywhere near what they advertised, I wouldn't be so skeptical.
.

I drive a BMP-1 for a life, Russian hardware was built for conscripts, idiot proof, rarely breaking down, the main issue with Russia is the low technical maintanence even in Ukraine their idea of fixing tanks is a technical check out once a year, also not all Russian hardware is superior.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Russian tech was starting to show its inferiority even as early as Vietnam. The Russians had MiG-21s as their premier fighter and it was only able to have a shot at American jets because of the ROEs the American aircraft had to follow.

http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/viet_aces.html
Thats a myth, American one thats supposed to hide how much US airforce sucked when pitched against Russian machines.

So no, if anything the Mig-21 showed its equal or superior to its US counterparts.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

In Korea, the Americans improved the F-86 where it eventually did trump the MiG-15. The MiG-15 was better in the climb but it was deficient in many other areas.

In what areas? Russians had parity in fighters till 70s.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

In terms of tanks, I think the real split came after Vietnam with the advent of the US M1 Abrams MBT, and then the M1A1 Abrams which really made the difference. From that point on, American tanks were clearly better than the Russian ones.

Clearly better No seriously tell me in what areas apart from crew comfort was the basic M1A1 better than a T-64?

I'll help you out, none, in fact Russian tanks were superior, the real difference came when it occurred that Western tanks and that means also Leclerc and Leo2A4 are much more suited to upgrades, initial M1A were inferior to their supposed counterparts.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The space race however, was a different issue. The Russians were ahead in the beginning and there simply is no denying it. But with the Apollo 11 mission, again, America took the lead.

The Russians were ahead all the time, they just did not have enough money/organization, virtually in all fields from rocketry to space stations they were a decade ahead.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

So I'd say the history of US tech being ahead of Russian tech is pretty long

A whooping 30 years.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

and basically Russians trumpted the ability of their weapons but they constantly failed to make an impact in any of the wars involving them.

That would be because they equipped severely inferior forces with them or if they themselves used them they were totally incompetent while at it, an example can be sending 300 tanks into Grozny, Chechenya without infantry.

Also the problem of much of Russian equipment is that its for a conscript army, that doesnt mean that Russia doesnt have the capacity to build or doesnt have advanced weapons.

Russia has very advanced technologies available to them ,the problem is they cant afford to field them, their shameless propaganda about their often lacking designs is another matter though and i agree with that.

I think the point was just getting to the moon first.
The Russians may want to pretend like they didn't care but I'm sure they did want to beat the Americans to it. Once Apollo 11 was successful, the Russians had no reason to go to the moon. They had already been beat and the data (as you said) was available to them without making the trip.

I wouldn't know enough about the delivery systems, though it does seem there are things that only the space shuttle can do for now. So in that sense, I wouldn't say the American delivery systems are inferior. Unless Europe or Russia actually got shuttle missions going, or found something that rendered the shuttle obsolete.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I think the point was just getting to the moon first.

Oh US definitely won the space race, its just worth to point out that they won by determination, superior planning and a more powerfull economy, not by superior technology.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I wouldn't know enough about the delivery systems, though it does seem there are things that only the space shuttle can do for now. So in that sense, I wouldn't say the American delivery systems are inferior. Unless Europe or Russia actually got shuttle missions going, or found something that rendered the shuttle obsolete.

We're talking about rockets, US is still using Russian designs (well officially they're American designs but they're basically copies) as for shuttles you're of course correct, but again thats not technology, US goverment has money to burn, Russia or respective European states do not.

Russia suffers because its goverments caused it to be civilizationally backwards, behind it come cons like weak unstable economy and inability to effectively invest and implement assets but as far as technology Russia has been among the leaders since WW2, its just not implemented due to above reasons.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Clearly better No seriously tell me in what areas apart from crew comfort was the basic M1A1 better than a T-64?

I'll help you out, none, in fact Russian tanks were superior, the real difference came when it occurred that Western tanks and that means also Leclerc and Leo2A4 are much more suited to upgrades, initial M1A were inferior to their supposed counterparts.

I'll help you out.
You are wrong.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I'll help you out.
You are wrong.

M1 first came out with a 105mm main gun.
T-80 came out with a 125mm main gun (it could gut any western tank frontally at the time).

M1 had a road speed of 67 kmph.
T-80 had the speed of 70kmph.

M1 had superior base armor but T-80 had ERA to compensate not to mention the initially superior manouverability of the T-80.

The first true difference comes with M1A1 against T80U when the American upgrade is slightly superior, the first truly superior design in M1A1HC which gets improved armor, NBC and a better gun.

Yeah sure. I'm so glad the crews of this tank agrees with you.



Lots and lots of claim, and lots and lots of excuses. Typical Russian hardware. Looks great on paper, never does what it's supposedly capable of.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Yeah sure. I'm so glad the crews of this tank agrees with you.



Lots and lots of claim, and lots and lots of excuses. Typical Russian hardware. Looks great on paper, never does what it's supposedly capable of.

So do you have any knowledge whatsoever or do you just enjoy posting out of your ass? That here is a Iraqi T-72s, it doesnt have the optics, main gun, armor or even a fraction of manouverability of the T-80U and it was destroyed by a heli to boot.

Or will you again claim that two different tanks are the same? While Russia always issues overblown claims on its armors capacity you're going in the opposite direction.

Also given the beating the Merkavas got from the Russian RPGs apparently not all of their claims are propaganda.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Yeah sure. I'm so glad the crews of this tank agrees with you.



Lots and lots of claim, and lots and lots of excuses. Typical Russian hardware. Looks great on paper, never does what it's supposedly capable of.

You do realise that is a Monkey model, right? The Iraqi ones couldnt shoot while moving and had no GPS or Night-vision.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Also given the beating the Merkavas got from the Russian RPGs apparently not all of their claims are propaganda.

Wasn't the RPGs such as as they were done by the Metis-M. This I give credit for. It's been used, it has worked.
The next time Russian hardware does that, I'll give it due credit.

About the T-80.
"The explosive reactive armor does not provide any added protection against APDS or APFSDS attack."
"The Russian Defense Ministry made a selection of a single MBT in 1995. The fighting in Grozny had been shown around the world and the reputation of Russian tanks was sullied. Although many casualities were due to bad tactics and many T-72s were also lost, it was the knocked-out T-80s which made an impression. More had been expected of the "quality" M-80 MBT. This is alleged to have tipped the balance against the T-80 in the selection. The T-80 was already more expensive and its delicate, fuel-hungry turbine engine was still giving problems. "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/t-80.htm
One shot one kill for the M1A1 Abrams. T-80 sucks.