Were there any ways in which USSR tech was superior to NATO tech?

We all know the failure of Soviet "planes", but what about other equipment above small arms level?

Attached: nato-ussr-1954.jpg (1280x624, 240K)

SAM, S/R/ICBM, AShM, tanks in the early stages, MLRS...

They were the first to integrate composite armor into a production MBT, but that's about it really.

They had some pretty groundbreaking developments in submarine design. Titanium pressure hulls and liquid metal fast reactors, though they proved either too expensive or difficult to maintain. The Sierra was one of the most impressive designs of the cold war, though due to industrial constraints they were able to build only 4.

Attached: sierra 1.jpg (898x242, 86K)

tanks were more advanced in "hard" factors, T-64 was plainly superior to M60 in armor and speed as well as HEAT protection, gap was never fully closed until the M1 abrams
BMP, despite its flaws, had no comparable vehicle in the US for years until the bradley arrived
Soviets also poured more money into developing short ranged and medium ranged missiles and ground to air missiles, so had more of them available at any given time

USSR was the first country to issue body armor to ordinary troops during their war in Afghanistan

t-64 a shit

T-62, T-72 and T-80 were great tho.

once the t-64 was developed and until the abrams/chally1/leo2/etc were produced the slavs had a pretty disturbing advantage in armor technology, no NATO tank had armor to stop anything from a 2A46 and depending on the year there may not have been any NATO tanks capable of defeating the composite array on slav MBTs.
Please don't call me a slavaboo, it's highly insulting and I fucking hate slav tanks, just have to acknowledge that they had a fairly decisive advantage at one point.

Attached: 1488744039431.jpg (644x598, 37K)

anti-air defense systems comes to mind

>failure of Soviet "planes"
Falling behind in "muh k/d" a whole generation after introduction is hardly a failure of a design.

then design new planes lmao

The US didnt have a vehicle like the bmp because it didnt fit in with their methodology. They would have rather fielded more tanks supported by mobile mechanized infantry, and attack helis, rather than have a heavier ifv.

shit-64 was a mistake

Up until the late 70s the soviets were pretty much technologically superior
>helicopters
>tank/ifv/apc design
>strategic airlift capabilities
>submarines
>ASHM, SAM, ATGM and MANPADS
Surface combatants weren't as good, small arms were on par, air development was on par with European designs but lagged a little behind American design after the 60s.

this. their titanium development for the Alfa class of fast attack submarines led to titanium becoming a mainstream material.

Wrong across the board.

They had different priorities it seems.

Really the only way the USSR was superior was that they had more ability to experiment and fuck up because they could hide it
>Experimental laser weaponry
>Experimental planes and jets
>Etc
Most of these didn't make it into battle but still

Attached: 1547689786750.png (618x634, 408K)

Soviet small arms doctrine was way ahead of the US until the introduction of the M-16. Select fire intermediate caliber weapons were a development the US was way too slow to adopt.

Their submarine fleet before the 1980’s were pretty formidable, and a huge focus of the VMF alongside its massive merchant fleet. They also had a pretty good edge tank wise before the 1980’s as well. Really the USSR/Warsaw Pact were formidable from the late 1950’s throughout the 1970’s, but once the 1980’s rolled around it just started collapsing like a house of cards. They also had a huge advantage in space for a time, but again that eventually fell flat on its face when things started to go to shit by the late 1970’s. At that point all they really had was a bunch of nukes.
There were pretty big differences between NATO and Warsaw Pact doctrine, but it’d be foolish to think that it won’t just end up with nukes getting thrown left and right if a war actually broke out.

>There were pretty big differences between NATO and Warsaw Pact doctrine, but it’d be foolish to think that it won’t just end up with nukes getting thrown left and right if a war actually broke out.
Seems that way.

While a number of their design concepts were advanced compared to their western counterparts, the Soviet submarine force generally lagged behind when it came to quieting and sonar sensitivity, the two most important aspects in nuclear submarine design.

Attached: SSNNoiseChart.png (2000x1333, 88K)

I'd argue that the Alfa class had far more of an impact. The thought of making a sub that could dive that deep and be that fast was a real game changer for NATO. The idea that they might make a new version that was actually quiet was really scary at the time. Thankfully that never happened.