ADC411

FSO officers in Moscow last week looking like generic Hollywood baddies:
 

Sorry if off-topic but I guess this would be interesting for you. 
 
I have just finished reading the chronicle of Czechoslovak tank brigade in USSR and since this was the only our tank unit on the eastern front (and the first unit to reach today's Czech Republic territory) and a relatively small unit, it's pretty well documented and researched day by day, name after name, tank after tank. I'm giving here some confirmed numbers from Ostrava operation which was in a way comparable to Berlin thrust. The battle was fought in the same time (but it took twice longer and even fighting for Opava/Troppau city took longer than for Berlin proper), it was fought for the last industrial area of the Third Reich (80% of industry by March 1945) and against up to 50 km deep defence lines (prepared by Heinrici) strenghtened by Czechoslovak pre-war fortifications (even though the Germans removed most of the weapons, cupolas etc. for Atlantic wall in previous years the objects were still literally immune to any field artillery weapons and some kept fighting till the end of war). The defenders had 25 divisions including 4 tank ones (8th, 16th, 17th, 19th, of course few on full strength by that time) while the attackers had very few tanks because of Berlin. The defence was also strenghtened by a lot of rivers, dense network of towns and villages and muddy spring soil. At the beginning of the second phase (the first phase happened farther to the east without success and without our tank brigade) there were only 63 Czechoslovak T-34 (10 of them T-34/76), 21 Soviet T-34 and 10 Soviet Su-76M. The Germans had 84 Panthers and a lot of other AFVs. Later Soviets added two batallions with 40 IS-2 obr.1944 and several other AFV units. For most of the fighting the Czechoslovak brigade was spearheading the attack in direction of Ostrava city (except for the first phase).  
 
Now the stats. In 38 days of active fighting in the operation the Czechoslovak brigade lost 52 tanks written off (43 T-34/85 and 9 T-34/76), basically all were damaged at some point but they kept returning in service over and over again because the unit kept advancing all the time. The manpower losses including tank riders were 148 dead and roughly 300 wounded. Tanks were usually lost to Panzerfausts in urban areas or in ambushes by tank destroyers and tanks in prepared camouflaged positions. Rather small number was destroyed by AT artillery or 88 mm Flak which is probably due to an extensive use of surprising directions of attack, use of speed and smokescreen (by artillery) which sometimes led to the capture of settlements before the defenders could get back to their weapons after the artillery barage. Also very few losses came from German counter attacks. Four tank commanders were killed by snipers. 
 
The confirmed German material losses by the Czechoslovak brigade are 24 tanks (mainly Panthers and some Pz.IV), 23 SPG (StuG.III, Jagdpanzer IV/L70, Jagdpanzer 38(t), Marder III and even one rare Jagdpanzer IV/70(a)), 17 Sd.Kfz.251 and 64 guns (including 15 Pak and 3 bateries of 88 mm Flak). Another at least two tanks (one Pz.IV, one Panther) and seven Sd.Kfz.251 were captured (also one Kettenkrad and other vehicles). The Pz.IV was later used by the brigade, the Panther not. Manpower losses are only estimated but they were very high because only the number of captured was in high hundreds while in a single engagement the number of POWs was usually lesser than number of the dead, there were quite many cases when units of SS fought to the last man. For exmaple in a fight for Štítina village there were 130 dead German bodies but only 2 captured (the combined Soviet/Czechoslovak losses in the same village were also over 100 dead).   
 
All data including photographs of a large portion of the destroyed German AFVs in the battle can be found in a book ISBN 80-86524-00-0.
 
P.S. About aircraft. In the entire history of the unit since 1943 to 1945 no tank was destroyed by an aircraft, only one was immobilised for a day. 
 
 
 
 
 

LNR/LPR

Few days ago made a trip to Pushkin with a friend, a small town near St.Petersburg to buy some parts for his car. After job was done we decided to check out 2 abandoned places i saw in this town a month ago.

 
 
   Second place was way more interesting. Looks like some sort of Soviet production facility that wasn't finished. Warehouse looking buildings:

 
 
   This one was probably administrative building.

 
 
   Balconies and roof of administrative building:

 
 

1943 comparison trials of Soviet and German helmets: https://warspot.net/43-whose-helmet-was-better

Youtube version of that video
 

An old mystery finally solved! The inner workings of the TKB-022 revealed courtesy of Max Popenker:
 
 

An old mystery finally solved! The inner workings of the TKB-022 revealed courtesy of Max Popenker:
 
 

Neat photo from Konstantin Lazarev:
 

 
The two most noteworthy items are the rifle on the bottom that appears to be a very early VSS prototype and the PSS-2 to the left of the SR-3. 

Combat Control School students assigned to the 352nd Battlefield Airmen Training Squadron, hike through overgrown woodlands during a tactics field training exercise at Camp Mackall, N.C., Aug. 3, 2016.
 

Ukraine to license-produce UH-1s (Hueys): https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-to-license-build-us-helicopters-for-its-armed-forces/
 

Posted on otvaga, found docs about Armata soft-kill APS.

   System type is reffered as SPN (anti-targeting system). Kit have 4 integrated sensors (multispectral) of working rocket engines and laser illumination detectors. 4 detectors combined create full coverage of upper hemisphere of vehicle. SPN was designed to not give away vehicle when it was turned on and working, so it uses only passive sensors.
   On scheme 1 is detectors, 2 are PPU (rotatable launchers) and 3 are 2 vertically aimed PUs (stationary launcher).
 
 
 

It makes no sense to compare MiG-23 with MiG-25. Those are planes of different category used for different tasks. MiG-23 replaced MiG-21 and it was much better than MiG-21 in everything with the exception of the initial MiG-23S batch with RP-22 radar and armamament from MiG-21 (and the cost) and the Arabic "monkey" export model MiG-23MS which had the RP-21 radar and armament from MiG-21. Also the other comparisons are strange... 
 
GSh-23L has muzzle velocity 715 m/s and it's much more interesting feature is its operating principle since it is one of the only two operationally used Gast-principle guns (where recoil of one barrel operates the other and gives the gun rather extreme rate of fire with a low gun weight). AFAIK only Soviet GSh-23L and GSh-30-2 work on this principle of all serially produced guns ever (although the idea comes back to WW1 Germany). When you write about cannon the MiG-27K (used by USSR and India only) with 6-barrel 30 mm is the most interesting variant IMHO because while its GSh-6-30 gun has somewhat lesser muzzle energy than GAU-8/a it weights half, has higher rate of fire and since it is gas-operated it is more efficient in short bursts. On the other hand the MiG-27 clearly wasn't the right airframe for the gun...  

R-35-300 diagrams


 
 
We had MiG-23 too (MF, ML, BN) and they were good although rather difficult to fly and maintain. They were also quite prone to bird strikes compared to other planes we had. We had a lot of accidents with them in early 90' but those were caused mainly by general lack of discipline and spares in the rather chaotic times after the fall of the iron courtain. 
 
Some points about ML from our ex-pilots
- they mostly liked it
- they said it was very difficult to fly straight and to land if automatic flight support systems failed but manageable
- automatic landing approach up to several meters upon the runway
- they trained to use in-flight parashute release to shorten the already short landing run
- two seater had shifted center of gravity and the old, weak and problematic R-27 engine and was a bitch to fly in dogfight (most of our two-seaters were destroyed in dogfight training)
- the radar was well liked, it had also look-down/shoot down capability 
- if I unerstood right they usually trained to attack the NATO planes from bellow and from the side using ground control for ideal approach (take it with a lot of salt from my side)
 
Fun fact one. They trained to approach SR-71 flying routinely like a clock at some 15 km from Czechoslovak border. The Blackbird was tracked by common DDR-Czechoslovak air control and MiG-23 started from České Budějovice, climbed to 10000 meters, accelerated to M1,8 and climbed on a parabolic curve to have the approaching Blackbird close to 12 o'lock at some 5-6000 meters higher with the approach speed of around M4,8. At this point there was a a few seconds window where it was possible to lock the radar and fire R-23, it was always only an excercise and there was never any intention to actually shoot it down but allegedly at least once the Blackbird was shortly locked by a trigger-happy pilot. The probabiliy of successful interception like that was very low and it was all about perfect timing from the ground control (allegedly the probability of successful interception was around 30% when trained with Soviet MiG-25, i.e. lower with SR-71). They say they used both automatic guidance via LASUR datalink and human ground controler command. In this scenario the armament was one R-23R and one R-23T. 
 
Fun fact two, the first Czechoslovak pilot to fly solo MiG-23 (BN ground attack variant in 1977) was pplk. Šrámek (lieutenant colonel), a pilot who in 1953 piloting a MiG-15 shot down US F-84E of Korean-veteran G. A. Brown in a two-on-two encounter which started near Pilsen, Czechoslovakia but ended over Western Germany. 
 
 
 

Photos from my yesterday visit to St.Petersburg museum of artillery.
LAD MG chambered in pistol caliber (7.62x25)

 
 

   3 guns on this side of display and one on the bipod are:
Simonov's 7.62mm avtomat №3 Tokaerv's 7.62mm avtomat №1 Degtyarov's 7.62mm avtomat №1 Degtyarov's 7.62mm avtomat №2  
   On the other side of display:

 
   3 guns are:
Korobov's 7.62mm TKB-315 №1 Korobov's 7.62mm TKB-315 №3 Sudaev's 7.62mm avtomat  

   7 guns on display are:
Kuzmischev's 7.62mm avtomat №3 Sudaev's 7.62mm AS-44 Bulkin's 7.62mm avtomat Sudaev's 7.62mm lightweight OAS, 1945 Degtyarov's 7.62mm KB-P-280 №4 Shpagin's 7.62mm avtomat Simonov's 7.62mm AS-4-P-44  

   Note that Number 2 is bullpup nearest to camera.
Kubinov's 7.62mm avtomat, Variant 1. Korovin's 7.62mm avtomat (bullpup) Efimov's 7.62mm AP-34  

Korobov's 7.62mm TKB-408 Bulkin's 7.62mm AB-46 with wooden stock Dementiev's 7.62mm KB-P-410 №3 with wooden stock Rukavishnikov's 7.62mm AR-46 with wooden stock Rukavishnikov's 7.62mm AR-46 with metal stock  

   Kalashnikov's AK-46 (Variant 1,2 and 3)
 

   AK-47 with changes made to increase accuracy of fire
 
 

Bulkin's 7.62mm TKB-415 №6 Dementiev's 7.62mm KB-P-410 №5  

Razvedos posted a video about night combat part of competitions between SF units organised at the Russian University of Spetsnaz in Chechnya.
   Plenty of footage from competition in the video. Main points of night phase of compeition is to test and teach participants, find gaps in their capabilities. During night phase RUS tested ability to navigate and move using only night vision system in different terrain (including urban, inside of big buildings), firefighting, vehicle driving and so on under stress. One of episodes showed night assault on private house using armored vehicle, firing from vehicle firing ports, coordinated actions of assault pair, sniper team covering attackers from roof of nearby buildings.
   Another point was that conditions and training enviroment at the RUS were at the level that almost no unit would be able to afford to have for their own training purposes.

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.
 
Exhibit A:
 
 
I think that speaks for itself, but if somehow that objective assessment by a SME doesn't have you convinced, then please take a look at Exhibit B:
 

 
According to most sources, Panther tanks maintained an average readiness rate of anywhere from 30-35% for the first two years after their introduction, AND YET, in the picture I have provided, you can clearly see no less than TWELVE Panther tanks, all of which appear to be running perfectly. Let me remind you that 30% of 12 is ~4, NOT 12. This clearly and definitively debunks all of these claims as nothing more than exaggerated, baseless lies that rely on cherry picked, if not completely fabricated, data sets from Allied reports desperately trying to save face.
 
Finally, Exhibit C:
 

 
Here you can clearly see a column of the "super reliable" T-34. Oh, but what's this? It appears that in actuality, NONE of them are in working condition. That's a readiness rate of 0%. Another thing to point out is that Allied shitbox apologists always point to the Panther's dependence on railway transportation to arrive at the front. But, what's this we see?
 
 

 
Could that be... a rail? That's right, yet another of the Panther-haters' claims proven to be nothing but projection. 
 
Check and mate, haters. I'd delete the thread at this point if I were you, because this is just embarrassing.
 

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.
 
Exhibit A:
 
 
I think that speaks for itself, but if somehow that objective assessment by a SME doesn't have you convinced, then please take a look at Exhibit B:
 

 
According to most sources, Panther tanks maintained an average readiness rate of anywhere from 30-35% for the first two years after their introduction, AND YET, in the picture I have provided, you can clearly see no less than TWELVE Panther tanks, all of which appear to be running perfectly. Let me remind you that 30% of 12 is ~4, NOT 12. This clearly and definitively debunks all of these claims as nothing more than exaggerated, baseless lies that rely on cherry picked, if not completely fabricated, data sets from Allied reports desperately trying to save face.
 
Finally, Exhibit C:
 

 
Here you can clearly see a column of the "super reliable" T-34. Oh, but what's this? It appears that in actuality, NONE of them are in working condition. That's a readiness rate of 0%. Another thing to point out is that Allied shitbox apologists always point to the Panther's dependence on railway transportation to arrive at the front. But, what's this we see?
 
 

 
Could that be... a rail? That's right, yet another of the Panther-haters' claims proven to be nothing but projection. 
 
Check and mate, haters. I'd delete the thread at this point if I were you, because this is just embarrassing.
 

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.
 
Exhibit A:
 
 
I think that speaks for itself, but if somehow that objective assessment by a SME doesn't have you convinced, then please take a look at Exhibit B:
 

 
According to most sources, Panther tanks maintained an average readiness rate of anywhere from 30-35% for the first two years after their introduction, AND YET, in the picture I have provided, you can clearly see no less than TWELVE Panther tanks, all of which appear to be running perfectly. Let me remind you that 30% of 12 is ~4, NOT 12. This clearly and definitively debunks all of these claims as nothing more than exaggerated, baseless lies that rely on cherry picked, if not completely fabricated, data sets from Allied reports desperately trying to save face.
 
Finally, Exhibit C:
 

 
Here you can clearly see a column of the "super reliable" T-34. Oh, but what's this? It appears that in actuality, NONE of them are in working condition. That's a readiness rate of 0%. Another thing to point out is that Allied shitbox apologists always point to the Panther's dependence on railway transportation to arrive at the front. But, what's this we see?
 
 

 
Could that be... a rail? That's right, yet another of the Panther-haters' claims proven to be nothing but projection. 
 
Check and mate, haters. I'd delete the thread at this point if I were you, because this is just embarrassing.
 

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.
 
Exhibit A:
 
 
I think that speaks for itself, but if somehow that objective assessment by a SME doesn't have you convinced, then please take a look at Exhibit B:
 

 
According to most sources, Panther tanks maintained an average readiness rate of anywhere from 30-35% for the first two years after their introduction, AND YET, in the picture I have provided, you can clearly see no less than TWELVE Panther tanks, all of which appear to be running perfectly. Let me remind you that 30% of 12 is ~4, NOT 12. This clearly and definitively debunks all of these claims as nothing more than exaggerated, baseless lies that rely on cherry picked, if not completely fabricated, data sets from Allied reports desperately trying to save face.
 
Finally, Exhibit C:
 

 
Here you can clearly see a column of the "super reliable" T-34. Oh, but what's this? It appears that in actuality, NONE of them are in working condition. That's a readiness rate of 0%. Another thing to point out is that Allied shitbox apologists always point to the Panther's dependence on railway transportation to arrive at the front. But, what's this we see?
 
 

 
Could that be... a rail? That's right, yet another of the Panther-haters' claims proven to be nothing but projection. 
 
Check and mate, haters. I'd delete the thread at this point if I were you, because this is just embarrassing.
 

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.
 
"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."
"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."
 
"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."
"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"
 
"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."
"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"
 
"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."
"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."
 
"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."
"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."
 
"It was made by Americans."
"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

T-14 has for the first time demonstrated the ability to detect and track targets autonomously, without participation from the crew: https://ria.ru/20210225/armata-1598859233.html
 
 
 

T-14 has for the first time demonstrated the ability to detect and track targets autonomously, without participation from the crew: https://ria.ru/20210225/armata-1598859233.html
 
 
 

Go fuck yourself.  If you think pointing out the Nazi Germans were only truly good at one thing, and that one thing was Mass Murder, has anything to do with politics, you're a strait up Nazi Apologist. Politics and Mass murder are not supposed to mix unless you're a Nazi asshole or a commie.   
 
And real smart argument you fucking twat, "hey look, if your going to bring up war crimes about my favorite war time powers, the Nazi, I'll totally own  you by bringing up Soviet Atrocities".    
 
Here's a clue, no one here admires to soviet union or their war crimes. A few of us are not so shot through with Nazi Propaganda, we can talk about the T-34 and soviet equipment without defending the regime.  
 
What's the 88 in your name stand for? Normally I wouldn't suspect the person with 88 in their name of being a Nazi Apologist or worse, but your posts sure warrant it.  

I hate to be that guy, but speaking of whataboutism:
 
 
With the classic Wehraboo talking points, and now this sudden defensiveness at the mere mention of the Holocaust, that 88 in your username is starting to seem just a bit suspicious.