Did they ever mass produce any kind of weapon that could be called a failure and generally undesirable for military...

Did they ever mass produce any kind of weapon that could be called a failure and generally undesirable for military purposes?

Attached: su.jpg (638x433, 56K)

Other urls found in this thread:

forgottenweapons.com/avt-40-testing-report/)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Conscripts.

Stechkin automatic pistol

how does it fit any of the above? iirc there's people on here who would kill for one

Attached: 12314.jpg (313x223, 12K)

You said it would be considered a failure / undesirable for military purposes. They are neat guns but their intended purpose was to be a Personal Defense Weapon for the Soviet Army. But it failed because it was ineffective at it's intended purpose. It was intended for Officers, Tank Crews, or specialist infantry in general (Special Units that could use a full size rifle). But it was replaced with guns like the AKS-74U, AK-105, AK-74M, etc. The point of it was to be compact yet it was very hard to be accurate with at any form of range being an automatic Pistol. Thats why we see the US using the M1 Carbine around the time this was adopted by the Soviet Union.

so it was a failure/undesirable because of newer inventions. any "real" failures?

T80

It was a failure because it failed to effectively perform it's intended purpose. Is that not the definition? What would be a real failure to you, something that they never resolved?

Most obvious/extreme example would be the L85A1. I was just wondering if there was ever any Soviet equivalent. Their philosophy of making shit that just works and is durable af seems to have been really successful.

The AVT-40 is another example of a concept that didn't go far. According to a Forgotten Weapons report (forgottenweapons.com/avt-40-testing-report/) the rifle would;

Groups at 100 meters when firing in bursts increase by 3-3.5 times.
At 300 meters, only 25-30% of the bullets strike a 3×3 meter target.
At 500 meters, up to 30% of the bullets strike a 3.5-4 meter target.
While shooting with a 15 round magazine, grouping gets worse, and it is difficult to fire while prone due to the protruding magazine.
When shooting at targets, only the first bullet hits.
The ability to aim is limited to 50 shots over the span of one minute. After that, the barrel overheats, and a mirage effect is achieved, which impedes aiming.
The automatic rifle jams:
With thick grease: 2-4% of the time
With dry parts: 12-14%
In dusty conditions: 14-50%
While aiming up or down: 8-12%
The barrel life is 6000 rounds when firing 50 rounds per minute, after which the rifle was allowed to cool. Continuous fire brings the life down to 150-200 rounds.

This is the closest to a mechanical failure I can think of off the top of my head.

conscripts won WW2 for them.🏀

You mean american steel and oil won the war for them.

i wonder if americans actually believe bullshit like that or if it's just a meme

Nice bait.

clothed in American fabric, shod in American shoes, eating American food, riding around in American trucks and shooting American made ammunition.

My vote for their biggest turkey goes to the MiG-23.

>there actually was a lend-lease, so let's just assume 100% of everything a Soviet soldier ever touched was made in the US
bitch plz

SKS.

didn't it just end up being unnecessary due to the AK47? i'm talking about real failure, the SKS is objectively a good rifle

seems to be the only good answer so far

>i'm talking about real failure, the SKS is objectively a good rifle
Being a good rifle doesn't make it not a military failure. It was a "plan B" project that was adopted the same year as a superior rifle. Same logic as the Stechkin up in reply #2

both don't fit the "generally undesirable for military purposes" tho

fair enough👌

>OP assiduously avoids this post because he knows it is correct

OP isn't interested in actually discussing this topic, he just wants to claim that all Russian weapons are perfect and never discuss their actual failures.

No, OP is really interested in the topic. I just don't really know much about tanks, i was more talking about infantry weaponry. Sorry for not giving you the (you), have a both that and a like.

It's a blatant bait thread, just look at all the "nuh-uh" replies to any answers.

stop shitting up my thread. and i didn't give nuh-uh replies to every answer, actually fits what i was looking for and i said that.

> that dumb british bullpup
> INSAS poo rifle
> nip pistol with the firing pin on the side
> m16 when those niggers used black powder instead of smokless
> cetme, bordello L
> m14
> when the dumb swedes decided to go for 7.62 g3 instead of the 6.5x55 sex round
> G11
> that stupid kraut PDW that they tried to push through over the p90
> pederson device and company
> various crew served machine guns originating in italy
> 224 valk would be, except everybody is too smart to adopt
> every single ww1-2 bolt action with a full power cartridge and sights that go out to 2350 meters

great examples of what is to be considered "generally undesirable for military purposes", ty. i was specifically talking about Soviet weapons tho, because

>Their philosophy of making shit that just works and is durable af seems to have been really successful

BMP-1, The entire BMD series, the T-64, original TU-22, the MiG-23. Probably a few more I'm missing.

I don't know about the planes, but
>BMP-1
>BMD
>T-64
are all in use in several conflicts around the world. what exactly makes them "generally undesirable for military purposes" in your opinion?

oh, so you're an impoverished slavaboo who wishes to justify your ownership of a SKS

No. I just read about Soviet/Commie products in general, not only weapons, being very, very practical. Like people in Eastern Germany actually still paying a lot of money for washing machines made pre '91. Just for example. I've also read that it has to do with the philosophy of building products that last as long as possible, as opposed to the "western"/capitalist philosophy of building products that require you to buy a new product every once in a while.
I think that is a very interesting aspect of the cold war. And i'm a regular on Jow Forums, so i was just wondering if the Soviets ever produced a weapon that.. you know, was a failure like the L81A1

a question that specific shoulda been QTDDTOT

first thing that came to mind was the insas

yeah i know it's "my" thread, but still, i really believe this topic to be more interesting than like 20-30% of threads on here. i refuse to believe an even remotely interesting thread was killed by this one

>are all in use in several conflicts around the world
But you said
>that could be called a failure
Lets go through:
>BMP-1
Armor was nowhere near enough to protect against the threats it faced, it had an absolutely awful main weapons system, the ergonomics were poor, and the design decision to place fuel tanks in passenger doors was bad.
>BMD series
Armor was complete shit and contains magnesium, which burns easily. Ergonomics even worse than the BMP, and weapons suite was the same.
>T-64
Low quality of manufacture and general unreliability made it objectively worse than the simpler and better T-72.

their innovations seem mostly in ammo with the gun following suit

you're correct, i really should have left out the failure part in the OP and focus this thread more on the second one

Type 1 AK-47 was legitimately a failure. Stamped receiver design crashed hardcore with no idea how to salvage except for an expensive and heavy as fuck milled redesign (which was necessary because the SKS was a total failure of a modern combat rifle). They would eventually figure out the stamped design, much as the Brits would eventually hire HK to unfuck the L85.

The BMP wasn't a failure, it represented a revolution in mechanized warfare and inspired all kinds of responses from opponent nations.

The concept of the IFV wasn't a failure, but the BMP-1 definitely was.

now that the 1st gen SA80's been mentioned a few times as the ultimate example of a failed design, what exactly led to that failure? time pressure? retardation? didn't they test it at least once, how the handling might turn out to be like in the field?

yдap yдap

you're trying too hard

Watch "Come and See" Soviets ran outta shit to the point where Russians wore the uniforms of dead Germans ok

тeпepь нaм мoжнo пиcaть в пo-pyccкий здecь?

The SVT

нeт извинитe я пpocтo хoтeл нaтoлкнyтьcя

Attached: 1550670405182.jpg (1024x1545, 329K)

🏀

T72
T80
Basically every mig and tank after 1970

>cold war era Soviet art house films are legitimate sources of information
Next you'll tell me apocalypse now is about vietnam.

Come and see aside from being insanely boring is a load of commie art house drivel

Some day archaeologists will wonder how to decode that but they will have no problems with english

You'll be in the bath house wearing the green towel in the sauna at 8PM?
OK Ivan. Whatever

>пocмoтpитe нa мeня и мoй импepиaлиcтичecкий дикий язык

Attached: 1550672155688.jpg (2048x1489, 480K)

All tooled up and ready to rape complete with child soldier and fur hat

>пpeдcтaвьтe, чтo вac тaк лeгкo cпyтaть c бyквaльнoй пpoпaгaндoй

Attached: 1550670557750.jpg (2560x1694, 479K)

I realize that nobody on Jow Forums wants to hear this, but the Mosin Nagant was an obsolete and shitty design in the first world war, let alone in the second.

HOW DARE YOU фaшиcтcкaя cвинья

Attached: 1550670507989.jpg (1000x805, 103K)

Attached: vatnik.jpg (324x196, 32K)

>>пpeдcтaвьтe, чтo вac тaк лeгкo cпyтaть c бyквaльнoй пpoпaгaндoй

Its is like language but it is not

The November class submarines, didn't stop them from using them through the 80's though.

Attached: november.jpg (1227x417, 138K)

>maybe if I acknowledge lend-lease, I won't have to admit that it's the only reason modern Russia isn't a German-speaking region!

T-80 was a pretty damn good tank for the era. It's reputation is the result of officers who commanded the the Battle of Grozny seeking to shift blame from their own incompetent leadership. "Only a poor craftsman blames his tools". Literally any contemporary tank would have suffered similar losses placed in that situation (albeit probably with less crew casualties)

If it makes your moist nugget feel more significant than can keep that idealist picture in your head, but 1944-45 were some brittle years for the Frontovik. Also Coppola is Hollywood elite that's a different world entirely, premo subversion

Attached: 1539883480811s.jpg (125x115, 2K)

How can it be the biggest turkey if it wrecked the living shit out of F-14?

>BMP-1, The entire BMD series, the T-64
Revolutionary vehicles that were ensuring Soviet conventional arms domination on the continent. I smell butthurt from west's complete inability to compete, lol.
>TU-22
Elaborate.
>MiG-23
More mass produced than F-4, casually wrecked F-14. I smell your butthurt.

Attached: t-64a (1).jpg (1200x933, 1.09M)

>that fly nigga rocking the c96
Nice.

Let's put this the other way around:

Did they ever mass produce any kind of weapon that could be called a failure and generally undesirable for military purposes?

Attached: Nylon-American-Flag-closeup-1.jpg (1800x1200, 205K)

BAR

Initial issue of m16’s, with no cleaning kit and shitty ammo. As soon as they rolled out the a1 and fixed the problems it became an excellent rifle.

I don’t think the BAR was bad when it was introduced into WW1, but I definitely think it was outdated by WW2, the us ordinance board made some really strange design choices like a shitass wingnut based bipod and somehow making it heavier when every other country that adopted the BAR chose to make it lighter and easy to use like Poland.

bump for this

>Revolutionary vehicles
Something can still be groundbreaking but also kind of shit. The BMP-1 had a terrible gun that fouled like nothing else and was nightmarishly cramped. Sure the T-64 introduced a novel auto-loading system and great protection, but by the time it actually ran reliably there were two new vehicles that were much better than it was.

>Elaborate.

Tu-22 (not Tu-22M) had a small armament, short range, poor flight characteristics, and had low serviceability.

>MiG-23

An aircraft that was obsolete shortly after production started, decent performance ruined by anachronistic avionics and higher levels of mechanical complexity than any other Soviet fighter up until that point.

Attached: 2536345643.jpg (600x311, 88K)

Grow up and get a job faggot.

IS-3

No. I’m an impoverished wehraboo who’s trying to figure out how the good guys lost

They allied with the wrong country

Attached: 1513135916228.jpg (828x348, 41K)

Well, normally when new weapons are delivered the warheads don't fit the ends of the rockets. That's what happened to Polaris: wiring faults, microchip failure, there were no means for firing Polaris for some years.

Attached: Polaris-a3.jpg (1144x1425, 171K)

ITT:
>hey guys did any soviet guns fail
>yes, here are some examples
>NUH UH I DIDN'T MEAN LIKE THAT

Almost.

Attached: 1434573488805.jpg (713x401, 107K)

AIM-4