Are Russians literally retarded?

>illiterate
Not fair, most of them know how to read and write.

From
>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1

> American experts who examined a T-34 at the Aberdeen testing grounds in 1942 had this to say:
>‘The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets’
I don't get it, the Americans who'd tested it, seem to put a distinction between themselves and the Americans:
>The AMERICANS couldn't understand how OUR tankers could fit inside
Surely if they're American experts, then they could understand how their own tankers could fit inside.
Is the quote, perhaps, misattributed?

>The T-34 had limited internal space due to the sloped armor in the front, the sides and the back of the vehicle. There were fuel tanks in the engine compartment and at the sides of the hull. The presence of fuel tanks inside the fighting compartment made any penetration of the tank likely to lead to the complete loss of the vehicle.

>Initially only the unit commander’s tank had a radio. In the course of the war radio was used more widely but even in 1944 many tanks lacked a radio set. The lack of radio meant that Soviet tank units operated with little coordination.

I mean, the quote is misattributed to Americans, but actually belongs to someone else. The tank in question is the T-34.

>chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1
> Fuel tanks in the fighting compartment
ivan, what you doing?

Attached: 5474574.jpg (366x380, 19K)

No, it was just the early period of armored vehicle development.
People experimented. Are Americans retarded?

Attached: skeleton-tank-1953.jpg (650x462, 77K)

>Are Americans retarded?
Yes.

Attached: 9d0x7gSt.jpg (400x400, 19K)

Fuel inside the hull seems like an awful idea, or a great one if you want an oven.

>An American experimental vehicle designed to test lightweight construction methods, having a minimal impact on manufacturing capabilities, based on proven concepts, with no intention of seeing combat.
>A Russian reverse-bigwheel with about as much battlefield practicality as an actual bigwheel into which they through inordinate amounts of money and resources with the intention of using it to fight enemies armed with anything bigger than small rocks.

Attached: 1493675200762.jpg (1016x568, 293K)

>1915
>lol shit tank design
Even the poles made more tanks than US up to WWII

>Are Russians literally retarded?

Russia will soon put on duty an underwater unmanned aerial vehicle with a nuclear power plant, which will render absolutely helpless the entire multi-billion US missile defense system deployed by the Pentagon around the world. As a source in the defense industry told TASS, 32 such devices will go into service in the future. For the first time in March 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about them in his Address to the Federal Assembly. Since then, as in this case, any mention of "Poseidon" causes panic in the camp of potential "partners" of Russia.

>32
>200 megatons x 32?

Attached: aFuturaZogJewEurope.jpg (773x508, 124K)

The Status-6 project is called by most military analysts the development of the T-15 project idea by Academician Sakharov, who in Soviet times was called the Sakharov torpedo. Then the famous scientist proposed to create an underwater vehicle that could quietly bring a charge of enormous power - up to 100 megatons - to the coast of the enemy, so that at the right moment it would be blown up, causing a giant tsunami wave that could destroy all the objects on the coast.

Sakharov, describing this project in his memoirs, said that even the military were amazed at the “cannibalistic character” of his proposal. Some said: Soviet sailors are used to fighting the enemy in open battle, and not to engage in mass murder of civilians.

As a result, in Soviet times, the project Sakharov was never implemented. But not at all for ethical reasons - nuclear intercontinental missiles of any type of home base cannot be called humane either, but they are in service as a warning to the enemy. Here, technical problems that existed at that time rather prevented. In particular, the submarine fleet of the country did not have the ability to carry ballistic missiles or other devices of a similar class.

Attached: Bracan.jpg (489x493, 36K)

>kursk 2: nuclear boogaloo

What would you like? After all, if any Europe will behave badly there, send there a mini-submarine with a nuclear engine and two hundred megatons on board, put it in the southern part of the North Sea and “smarter” when necessary. And what will happen to that Europe? Well, I, of course, argue hypothetically. But seriously, we can say that Russia today possesses weapons that will guarantee that there will be no big war. Well, what kind of war can there be if a potential adversary understands that a weapon can be used against him, against which he has no arguments?

Attached: DvflvG1WkAACZAT.png (830x802, 623K)

i have some news for you, underwater nukes don't work the way you think they work

According to experts, the wave from a possible explosion of a nuclear warhead off the coast can rise to an altitude of more than 400–500 meters and is able, on its way, to flush all living things 1,5 thousand kilometers deep into the mainland.

Attached: VuckoVozitelj.jpg (1024x683, 177K)

Protip slava nigger :
Nuclear deterrence is a meme and shitty countries such as france can level russia to a crisp with Nuke sub nukes since the 80ies ...

Putin is saber rattling toward europe in order to avoid appearing as feeble vs CHINA wich is clearly invading you economically and with demographics...

oh and I can own

>underwater unmanned aerial vehicle
>underwater aerial

Quite a feat

we need extensive iq tests and if a passing mark is given a user should have a daily post limit of 2
americans should limited be to 1 post per day and only 25% of posting based allowed in a weekly rotation

The quote is obviously one of the Russians who was at the testing, paraphrasing what the American comments about the T34 were. The writer of the blog obviously didn't pay enough attention while writing the article.

The average tank was expected to survive less than 100 hours, including transport. There's no reason to engineer it to survive any longer during the war, instead use it as what it is, a single use item. After the war they built proper tanks that would work for longer before needing maintanance.

Americans are so fat they can’t fit into tanks lol

U know that diesel fuel is not compustible right?

>explosion of a nuclear warhead off the coast can rise to an altitude of more than 400–500 meters
No.

Attached: crossr10.jpg (640x461, 83K)

a good part of modern day and especially soviet day russia was previous parts of the hordes so technically you are correct

>diesel fuel is not compustible
Well it's not much of a fuel then, is it?

Anything burns if you shoot it enough. In the case of the t-34, a high velocity or armor piercing round was often enough to put the fuel in a combustable state.

Ofcourse, it didn't help that Soviet ammo was a lot less stable than anything the US used.

Which was fine when the enemy was right outside the factory but when you couldn't go 1000 kilometers without having to fix something it tends to hold up your advance.

>this post
looks like someone cheated on their iq tests and interview queries

>shitty countries such as france can level russia to a crisp with Nuke sub nukes since the 80ies
Not really

i mean not the last user but france has enough nuclear capabilities to level any and all things considered european russia pretty easily with the number of nukes france has. it goes the other way too of course

>looks like someone cheated on their iq tests and interview queries
Yes and it was you. Not only a 500 m wave is impossible even with a massive meteorite but an underwater explosion just make a local big splash and almost no wave.

>Make a tank intended to cross trenches without problems
>Get's stuck because of smaller rear wheel
>Tests also concluded that the guns couldn't hit it's target reliably, the wheels were an easy target and production to costly.

WW1 had a illiteracy of 70% on the Russian side and 0,1% on the German side. It really was bad. Just reading about the Russian Empire in it's later stages really is depressing.

>namefag is a ignorant retard.
Check out.

Oddly enough, Russia was ahead in military thinking. They recognized how valuable the Machine Gun was in the Russo-Japanese war and made both a strong effort to get as many as possible as well as assign their best, most educated men to it's use.

And then they were told that their guns were more important than they were and died by the thousands. Worse, the illiteracy rate was so high that it was difficult to replace the machine gunners.

More like inbred. The Serf system prevented peasants from traveling so you had the same families stuck together for generation after generation. In some ways Russia is still recovering from that atrocity.

>but when you couldn't go 1000 kilometers without having to fix something it tends to hold up your advance.
This bever happened. The eastern front was as much a tank war as it was a train war, fighting seldomly took place more than 100 km away from a railway, so a tank which breaks down after 250km is more than fine.

Looked it up and according to atomicarchive.com/Almanac/FRForces.shtml France has a whooping 384 warheads to be launched on their 64 SLBMs. Yield 100 to 150 kt. Big deal.
It's also not how those work, but just to give some more perspective, the combined yield of that arsenal is roughly equal to that one single bomb the Soviets blew up back in the day just for lulz, at half its yield too.
It seems to me you people are greatly overestimating the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons, you're not going to
>level russia to a crisp
or
> to level any and all things considered european russia pretty easily
with a handful of those. Lurk moar til you run into OPpenheimer.

Railways were prime targets for air attacks and getting tanks on and off a railcar is a pain in the ass. Worse, most of Russia's rail system was in ruins due to their scorched earth policy to foil the German advance.

If they could have reliably produced it, it would have been pretty useful in the Eastern Front of WW1. It's really just a matter of timing the attack so the enemy artillery isn't ready to blow it up, if you succeed in that you can run as many infantry as you want through the enemy lines basically uncontested (wouldn't you run if you saw that coming towards you with an infantry battalion?)

>So bad that the allies thought it was intentional sabotage

>REEr Wheel

>explode 100kT TNT Russian nuclear doomsday sub next to coastal city
>heat up their water
>kill fish in large area
>make big vapor cloud
>tiny wavelets hit the coast

The weapon doesn't use up all of its energy to create a tsunami you know.

What was supposed to propel it anyway? Would they just push it? You don't even have anything to push it by.

starving ruskie conscripts would push it and pull it

I'm told that the Germans tried a design incorporating it for that reason. Truly, the cruelty of the Holocaust must not be repeated.

I think he means compostable. No, do not add diesel to your compost. It will ruin it.
This was done in super shallow water, have deep water tests been done?

its, you know, engines

>non-combustible
>combustion engine

Attached: 1540002332835.jpg (1024x762, 144K)

He is referring to a version of a US report on theoretical nuclear use methods from the late 50s/60s. The report included a section on wave generation and concluded that a 1 teraton (!) bomb detonated on the ocean floor could in theory generate a wave hundreds of meters high and devastate the east coast. Of course the guy who wrote the report was not an oceanographer as there were very few of them at the time and ignored a ton of factors.

So one can say that there is proof that a nuke could generate a coast destroying tsunami. Its just shitty proof and requires an absurdly large bomb.

Great, the vatniks have arrived

>that fucking English

What is Sherman then.

The average tank life of a single tank was 100 hours...
That is pretty congruent with death toll of American tanks. What was the lowest death toll in a single American battalion?

>This was done in super shallow water, have deep water tests been done?
northern sea is just 50m deep, it goes down to 200m towards the north

>What are mongols.

Sorry, russia was colonized by mongols

Hey neat, I have that book.

>blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths

Attached: wehraboo.png (1570x1447, 3.24M)

A tank was first used at a method to breach defenses including the ability to cross trenches. How it was designed did not matter. This was before smaller armored vesicles could do the same role or designs that were made to be more effective against fighting each other.

>A vehicle design that literally, physically cannot cross trenches or breach defenses is a good design because design quality at the time didn't matter!

Found the vatnik.

Same. So many late hours staying up reading about tonks