How did Afrika Korp get to Africa?


  • Soviet aircraft moved to using their guns over missiles while the US went the other way and it bite us in the ass during Vietnam. Soviet tanks are cheap and okay for their era but they had issues like I heard that older model T-55 and even T-62’s had a crank instead of power controls for moving their turrets.


  • @barney:

    Heh heh good one CWO. The AK47 epitomizes that. In defense of American fighters, even though it was gold plated, John Boyd did a heck of a job with the F-15. F-16 as well

    And it should also be noted that Soviet fighters weren’t as entirely Mickey Mouse as they appeared at first glance.  When Viktor Belenko defected to the US in a Mach 3 capable MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor in the mid-1970s, US authorities publicly ridiculed the plane for being built out of heavy steel rather than titanium, and for having a vacuum-tube radar.  In private, the same US authorities weren’t laughing quite so loudly: the steel airframe allowed inexpensive large-scale production; the plane did in fact have some titanium, concentrated in the high heat-stress areas (like the leading edges of the wings); and the vacuum tube radar combined a high power output with high resistance to temperature variations and to electromagnetic pulses.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Their tech and engineering are solid.  Their stuff is well-built and has been since the 1930s, its just roughly built.

    US Tech and equipment are often cutting edge, and works well in service, especially carrier aviation and fleet stuff which Russia hasn’t focused on in a long time.    But its expensive and probably irreplaceable, during a big war.

    Those USSR designs and the tanks are old, and outmoded, but they’re plentiful and assad has lost some thousands of tanks and AFVs and still has thousands more.

    The Russians are clear leaders today in reactive, kit based armor and active defenses–some of these sensors can detect the launch of a WGM (Wireguided missile) and slews the gun automatically down the flight path, firing in suppression against the AT team, before the missile can complete its flight (hopefully).    There is a revolutionary (but simpler) system (that the US also deploys, but not necessarily on tanks) that fires an intercepting projectile against the approaching missile to destroy it right before it hits the vehicle.

    These systems, if widely deployed, would eliminate the need for ever thicker armor, using better defenses, instead of layering on more of the same.


  • That’s because each nation during WWII learned different lessons during that war. USSR build their tanks to be cheap because they know they will lose equipment and men. They accept that losing soldiers is going to happen so they tend to use numbers to gain the edge, however they haven’t needed to do this since WWII. The last tried this in Afgan and it didn’t work so well.

    The US can’t take loses for $hit, so we try to destroy you from the air, far way, as fast as possible and units that are designed to be in your face while fighting are armored up.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2
  • 13
  • 38
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.2k

Users

39.5k

Topics

1.7m

Posts