"Soviets made shit that is very reliable, but not high quality."

I want one

In World War II, it's inaccurate. Things like the T-34 would break and stay broken. Another tank would be taken from the factory and used.
Into the Cold War and Soviet reliability started to improve but it's still not easy to fix. The common nature of spare parts is what made them "easy" to fix. Both sides made things relatively easy to maintain so long as nothing broke.
In terms of planes, Americans will rework engines, Russians will just swap them out for a new one/pair.
At this point (and arguably for some time) the guns of each side are about the same in terms of reliability and easy of maintenance.

The counterargument to this is the Iranian F-14s that have been killing people in the Gulf for decades
It has less to do with manufacturing and more to do with doctrine.
Russia’s doctrine is a blend of Stalingrad-era and modern-era needs that basically encompass:
>we will be fighting with our backs to the wall (Moskva) and need extensive defense in depth
>we may incur losses to manufacturing so our materiel must be simple enough to manufacture in an auto plant
>using simple materials and designs reduces the cost of maintaining protracted warfare
All of this lends itself to designers like the ZSU-23-4, T-72, and AKM, which fulfill all three paradigms

The US doctrine is heavily logistic and network-centric, assuming:
>We likely won’t be invaded, so everything has to be portable and mission adaptable for a far away place
>we have bases spread throughout the globe so we’ll focus on the highest quality technology and cycle it through for repairs at base
>we’ll be able to maintain air superiority, but our biggest challenge will be entrenched enemies in hazardous confusing environments making use of asymmetric warfare
This explains partly why the last SPAAG the US made was the M163 PIVADS and the F-35’s nightmare was satisfying everyone at once

Americans have an exponentially lower threshold for airframe losses and a higher threshold for safety
MiG21/23/24 sortie rates and airframe hours are high because no one gives a shit if they crash and they do all the time. It’s a big fucking deal if an F-16 is lost, an even bigger deal if it’s an F-15 or 35.
American fighters could conceivably go much longer and harder between overhauls (Iranian F-14s), but they’re expensive and relatively rarer than Russian jets.
You’d likely see similar statistics if an Air Force was still using F86s, F4s, and F105s

>low quality
>reliable
Slav magic

you're spewing complete nonsense. F-15/F-16/F-35 couldn't do half the sorties that Russian planes are doing in Syria right now. You'd need 3x the number of US planes to do the same amount of sorties that RuAF is doing in Syria.

*Source Needed

Specifically the T-34 was extremely poorly made, broke down after an average of 30km, and required a new transmission very often. It was not constructed to be easily serviced, just easily produced.
The Sherman was built from the ground up with ease of repair in the design.

>Laughs in T-64

and if you don't have either, you can usually use parts of the object you're attempting to repair to dismantle the rest of the object
just smack it against the ground or something
drunk conscripts, etc etc

More like the opposite.

They built extremely high quality stuff with elaborate factories and nearly limitless funding. Poverty was only an issue with citizenry, not the state.

>our materiel must be simple enough to manufacture in an auto plant
Who do you think made the Abrams?

This is incorrect.

I used to agree with the high reliable of Soviet equipment but come to find out after the cold war ended their army had horribly low readiness during their supposed height of power in the 80s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Army
>By the middle of the 1980s, the Ground Forces contained about 210 divisions.
>However, only relatively few formations were fully war ready
>Three readiness categories, A, B, and V
>The internal military districts usually contained only one or two A divisions, with the remainder B and V series formations.
The tl;dr is about 50% of their tanks wouldn't even start. Imagine how bad a war would have been for them.

Yeah, that's objectively wrong.

that's literally what the redditfag said in the op image

>True or false?
False. The AK-47 is nowehere nearly as reliable as propaganda makes it out to be, Soviet tank engines are a joke etc.

but where are the proofs comrade

>but they’re expensive and relatively rarer than Russian jets.
Not sure what you mean by this American jets are probably the most common in the world.

This above all was the lesson of the Second World War. I don't think this ever stopped being the Russian perspective on modern mechanized warfare. Especially in a warfare environment that might go nuclear within the first week of battle.

Yeah, something tells me that they didn't make the M1 and the Newports in the same plant.

not really,i served in a tank brigade and historically our english\american tanks were much more reliable then the russian ones in addition o being easier to maintain and repair.
for example with a centurion you could pretty much open it up and remove the engine with a crane and replace it with a new one where's replacing anything on our russian tanks required taking it to a very specialized tank garage and takes days of work.

Retard. AK was the most reliable automatic rifle for it time but the AK are cheap and easy to make is a dumb meme

>The AK-47 is nowehere nearly as reliable as propaganda makes it out to be,
Wrong.

>reddit
shoo nigger

Attached: gobacknigger.jpg (396x382, 41K)

You know how they say no plan survives contact with the enemy? The same goes for things like clean runways and well staffed maintenance crews. The philosophy is basically, why bother making every little thing perfect when it's all gonna go to shit as soon as the real war starts anyway?

soviet gear was made with the assumption that logistics will turn to shit. how well this works when it comes to high performance fighter jets though.....

youtu.be/ZokhRnJ3-EQ

Irrelevant, because comparing gear quality doesn‘t make sense for countries with conpletely different doctrines, war experience and geopolitical situation.
The US knows they mainly face underequipped militias, so having high tech gear to give you even more of an edge makes sense. Keeping other real military powers in check is done with force projection via the navy. The US also doesn‘t need to prepare much for a landwar on their soil, the 2A makes sure that they have enough guns to point at possible enemies and both their neighbours are friendly.
The Soviets and Russia meanwhile have to deal with an echononically stronger enemy (US and now also China) and share a land border with basically everyone that wants to kill them if it comes to war (the US has NATO and bases, so they count too). The only thing they have going for them is a nightmare of a climate for bith sides and a shit ton of nukes, so their gear makes soldiers fight long enough to give the enemy something to shoot at until they can deploy their nukes. They have few useful friends, so they have to build all their gesr themselves, so it is also tailored to only what they need. If they need to fight militias, their stuff is useful enough so they can send in conscripts to shoot the bad guys.
China is very sinilar to the USSR/Russia kn that regard, but they lack the nukes so they need to make up for it with equipping as much of their giant horde of people with shooty sticks to be too much of a hassle to actually invade.

Think of it with an easy example: WW2 Germany and Switzerland. One wants to invade other, weaker countries as efficiently as possible, the other thought it would habe to fight a losing war against superior forces. They don‘t need the same gear, so why compare it?

It's a lie, pure and simple.

Attached: lol.png (772x359, 172K)

only part of that quote that is accurate is the first 3 words -

soviets made shit

everything else is questionable, sure the ak47 was a hit but anything else out of rookie land is shit, especially their gubbmit

checked his posting history, its all gamer shit.

Attached: Untitled1.png (619x195, 13K)

sounds like anti-american cope

based slavs
FACT: the most powerful race on Earth

It’s a post on reddit don’t take it seriously.

Wasn't it also established that the West reached parity with the sovjets in the 70's and surpassed them when the 80's came rolling around? There entire doctrine of throwing masses of armored formations at the West made sense, but with Western tank design improving wouldn't they simply blow away these masses of inferior tanks and reign supreme at the end of the day?

Depends on the era. During WW2, US designs basically didn't break down and when they did it was easy to fix them. Overall, the M4 was considered the most reliable design of the war.

Mind, this isn't throwing shade on the other countries. America wasn't getting bombed on the regular and the US had the industry to pay premium on their tanks.

The Soviets, by contrast, just wanted enough hardware on the field that they could supply such a massive army. It worked but a lot of conscripts died stupid deaths due to inferior equipment.

As the Cold War set in, Soviet Leadership figured that no Russian ex-serf is going to know how to repair an automatic rifle so they just made cheap and durable designs that you couldn't possibly fuck up.

Meanwhile, the US had fallen in love with the high performance designs Germany used and sought to have the most cutting edge equipment they could. To some extent, this work as US forces often achieved excellent kill ratios but also ran into difficulty as these weapons were less reliable than their soviet counterparts.

Your platitude no relevance to low readiness. If the Soviets plan was to overwhelm Europe with a mass armor attack then having most of their tanks in disrepair makes their own plan worthless.
I think you are right that by the 1980s the Soviets lost any overall tech advantage they had in the 70s over the west.

You will never see Operation "seven days to the river rhine" implemented why even live

Attached: soviet-t-55-column-warsaw-pact-02-e1445963491716.jpg (662x450, 88K)

>just made cheap and durable designs
Interestingly enough, 3rd world countries that ordered WarPac arms would go out of their way to get non-Soviet made gear. First choice would be Czech, then Poland, and finally USSR.

>vatnik posting
>reddit posting
>even reddit post history faggotry
Its time for you to leave

>If the Soviets plan was to overwhelm Europe with a mass armor attack then having most of their tanks in disrepair makes their own plan worthless.
It wasn't.

Attached: 1452720079814.jpg (532x664, 201K)

Paraguay still uses Sherman Fireflies and Stuarts

Attached: sherman and stuart.jpg (1692x982, 334K)

Even Soviet commanders of the day thought it was science fiction

America and Russia took completely different lessons from WW2. America saw Germany fielding more advanced technology and decided to throw billions of dollars at making sure it could never happen again, Russia saw Germany fielding more advanced technology and decided it didn't help them in the end.

>amount of sorties that Russian planes fly in Syria
Every weapon pylon is a different sortie
t. Dima

Bullshit. Removing enigine of T-72 takes most of the day at shop.
Replacing powerpack of Abrams takes a recovery vehicle with a crane and a four hours.

Attached: 1558559930931.png (1584x665, 578K)

The unit cost, adjusted for inflation, is $30. That's pretty fucking cheap for an assault rifle.

Dont forget the removable lower plate of the sherman to better access the transmission.
Its like whoever made this had no idea what je was talking about

Some of their equipment was reliable, some less so. The T-72 is pretty robust, the engine is reliable, the auto loader can cycle around 3000 times without a fault. The T-64 had a horrible engine that crippled it for years so badly it was practically unserviceable. Their biggest problem wasn't really the equipment though, they had social and institutional issues that seriously hurt their readiness. More technically sophisticated pieces of equipment tended to fair worse.

really it wasnt

they made a lot of shit, but only managed to keep a limited amount of tanks apcs w e operational. This is compounded by the soviets not having any logistics (their divisions was meant to run until depleted and then replaced)

not that user, but what are similar products priced at?
is this the result of labor wages in the ussr being super low?

IIRC an M-16A1 cost around 80 bucks to make.

No. It was somewhat true of their assault rifles in the 1950's and 60's but was never true for more complicated machines. Their trucks, cars, aircraft, watercraft and electronics are far less reliable then Western equipment.

false. they were just built under different constraints which leads to different outcomes

the anecdote he's referencing is from a fucking tank museum video and he didn't even take from it what the video was saying. holy shit.
that anecdote shows how unreliable russian shit is by western standards, who design things to keep running (see: american tanks) whereas russian tanks would shit the bed as soon as they left their supply line and were expected to be lost once they went off to do their thing more often than not.
god i hate reddit so much.

op you're a faggot for posting a reddit post here and for being a faggot.

>i'll keep my distance from homophobic parts of the world
welp there goes most of the world for him. how can someone become this sheltered and insane?

reddit is fucking toxic

He said on Jow Forums.