Ash
Member
The Soviets lost capsule pressure more than once asphyxiating their cosmonauts. After the Apollo accident, pure O2 was no more, either.
Spetsnaz using Western optics
- Thread starter JustinJ
- Start date
- Status
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
"The Soviets lost capsule pressure more than once asphyxiating their cosmonauts"
Loss due to hypoxia, actually. It's different than asphyxiation.
In any event, that's coprrect. They had two flight mishaps where cabin atmosphere was vented prematurely and ther crews were lost. One before deorbiting and one in the stratosphere after parachute depoyment. They learned their 02 atmosphere lesson the hard way as well, with loss of one life in a test similar to the Apollo 1 fire.
We have lost 17 out of 277 astronauts that have launched into space. That does not include the 3 lost in Apollo 1. The Russians have lost 5 in manned launches, noting that they have launched many more flights and many more astronauts/cosmonauts than we have. There has been one launch abort, and the abort escape system safely separated the capsule from the launch vehicle and lofted the crew to safety. When we had a launch malfunction there was no means for the crew to escape, and they were lost.... should I continue?
Their launch safety record is far better than ours, and the Soyuz system is the most tested and reliable manned spaceflight system ever fielded. All in all their systems have a better safety record than the US Manned Space Program (which as I pointed out previously, no longer exists). The fact that we have turned our back on manned space flight and left the playing field, and now rent passenger transport on Soyuz flights speaks more for their capability that I can ever put to words.
Think about this: The USA, once the leader in aerospace, has no manned space flight launch capability.
Firearms content for this post: The Soviet Almez space station had a 23mm automatic cannon installed (same cannon as installed in MiG-15 and MiG-17) so it could shoot at any US interception attempts to interdict and examine their space vehicle. This was a real possibility, as "Blue Mercury" and the MOL system was certainly capable of intercepting and evaluating orbital vehicles left by other nations in orbit. The Manned Maneuvering Unit formerly used on the STS system was a USAF hardware program originally designed to let USAF Astronauts maneuver to examine and possibly destroy unmanned enemy space vehicles. Lots of history for those who seek it. It's part of my area of prefessional expertise. Need to pay for expensive rifles somehow.
"Yep. They even sometimes improve what they copy..."
China has an active espionage activity here, has managed to intercept flight test telemetry from our test vehicles, and has been actively stealing our military secrets for decades. Their aerospace programs are developing, although to say that they have "improved" on either the JSF or the Raptor is very wishful thinking. There's no doubt that they are ascendent, and are the game to watch.
Willie
.
Loss due to hypoxia, actually. It's different than asphyxiation.
In any event, that's coprrect. They had two flight mishaps where cabin atmosphere was vented prematurely and ther crews were lost. One before deorbiting and one in the stratosphere after parachute depoyment. They learned their 02 atmosphere lesson the hard way as well, with loss of one life in a test similar to the Apollo 1 fire.
We have lost 17 out of 277 astronauts that have launched into space. That does not include the 3 lost in Apollo 1. The Russians have lost 5 in manned launches, noting that they have launched many more flights and many more astronauts/cosmonauts than we have. There has been one launch abort, and the abort escape system safely separated the capsule from the launch vehicle and lofted the crew to safety. When we had a launch malfunction there was no means for the crew to escape, and they were lost.... should I continue?
Their launch safety record is far better than ours, and the Soyuz system is the most tested and reliable manned spaceflight system ever fielded. All in all their systems have a better safety record than the US Manned Space Program (which as I pointed out previously, no longer exists). The fact that we have turned our back on manned space flight and left the playing field, and now rent passenger transport on Soyuz flights speaks more for their capability that I can ever put to words.
Think about this: The USA, once the leader in aerospace, has no manned space flight launch capability.
Firearms content for this post: The Soviet Almez space station had a 23mm automatic cannon installed (same cannon as installed in MiG-15 and MiG-17) so it could shoot at any US interception attempts to interdict and examine their space vehicle. This was a real possibility, as "Blue Mercury" and the MOL system was certainly capable of intercepting and evaluating orbital vehicles left by other nations in orbit. The Manned Maneuvering Unit formerly used on the STS system was a USAF hardware program originally designed to let USAF Astronauts maneuver to examine and possibly destroy unmanned enemy space vehicles. Lots of history for those who seek it. It's part of my area of prefessional expertise. Need to pay for expensive rifles somehow.
"Yep. They even sometimes improve what they copy..."
China has an active espionage activity here, has managed to intercept flight test telemetry from our test vehicles, and has been actively stealing our military secrets for decades. Their aerospace programs are developing, although to say that they have "improved" on either the JSF or the Raptor is very wishful thinking. There's no doubt that they are ascendent, and are the game to watch.
Willie
.
Last edited:
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
^^ Absolutely. And Russian set that bar. Gagarin flew first, we followed them into space, and now they hold the high ground that we abandoned. The race is a marathon, not a sprint. We withdrew from the field after a good start that we could not sustain.
More comparisons are due:
How many AK's do you think armed professionals on our side are carrying? Tons...
How many M-16's do you think are carried by armed professionals in Russia? None....
Pretty much says what I need to know about the two platforms too.
Bear in mind that I do a pretty good job of playing the devils advocate on these topics for the purpose of education of guys on *our side*. It's my full time profession. I fly MiG's to train our guys how they work, how they are engineered, what their strong points are, and what their weaknesses are. I mimic their team and fly their hardware. I play a role, but I always root for our team. Several of my former students are astronauts. I had two friends die aboard Columbia. Life is real.
Willie
.
More comparisons are due:
How many AK's do you think armed professionals on our side are carrying? Tons...
How many M-16's do you think are carried by armed professionals in Russia? None....
Pretty much says what I need to know about the two platforms too.
Bear in mind that I do a pretty good job of playing the devils advocate on these topics for the purpose of education of guys on *our side*. It's my full time profession. I fly MiG's to train our guys how they work, how they are engineered, what their strong points are, and what their weaknesses are. I mimic their team and fly their hardware. I play a role, but I always root for our team. Several of my former students are astronauts. I had two friends die aboard Columbia. Life is real.
Willie
.
USAF_Vet
Member
I've read/ seen second hand photos of Spetsnaz troopers carrying M-16s of some variant or another. Maybe to train, maybe for covert missions. I don't know exactly. The AK is their main rifle, just as the M-16 is ours. But from what I've seen, a lot of missions in the SF community require 'local' weapons and ammo, to diminish a foreign activity footprint.
Ash
Member
Willie, your numbers of deaths on the American side are accurate, the Soviet side are unknown. But, your numbers are inflated by the fact that Americans involved more people in launches. There were two accidents involving actual space flight in the US, two in the Soviet Union. Equal. The fact that both of ours were in space shuttles that killed 7 astronauts each for a total of 14 people does not change the fact that it was two accidents. One notable fact is that the Soviets lost all of theirs in new machines. Ours died in re-used ones. The Soviets never deployed a man aboard a reusable space craft. Now, was the shuttle worth the cost? Probably not. But we showed it could be done. The Soviets copied us.
I agree that we were second into space and that we have ceded our place in the previous few years. But, while Gagarin made it first, the Soviets nor the Russians have put a person anywhere but in space - we made it to the moon several times, orbited it, landed on it, played golf on it. All of that beginning within 9 years of Gagarin taking flight.
As to the Apollo astronauts incinerated because of pure O2, the Soviets themselves also had an incineration death during testing. 1 to 1. The fact we had three present and they only had one present does not change that fact.
Also, don't split hairs regarding hypoxia and asphyxia. Their hypoxia was externally caused by the lack of oxygen because of lost pressure. Sure, they weren't actively choked, but their lack of oxygen had nothing to do with COPD or emphysema and everything to do with the external. Hence, while you might objected to asphyxia, the fact that oxygen was restricted to them caused the hypoxia. It ultimately makes little difference if it is a garotte or a leaking panel. If I say a man died because he was shot in the heart and you correct me by saying that no, he died from lack of oxygen to the brain, the cause of the lack of oxygen to the brain is the destruction of the heart. Ditto for hypoxia. It had an external cause.
Kidding ourselves? How many aircraft carries have the Soviets/Russians built? Our updated Midways which were built in WWII and upgraded in the 1950's are superior to the current Kuznetsov's. The Moskva's and Kievs were not as effective as our light carriers of WWII. Heck, our Amphibious Assault ships are superior to the Moskva or Kiev class ships. Yeah, the Soviets said they weren't actually carriers (the Moskva being only a helicopter carrier design, both of which have now been scrapped because in service they were basically useless and the Kievs were aircraft carrying cruisers), but that does not change the fact that our carriers from 70 years ago outperform their newest.
Helicopters? It is cheaper to buy Russian than to make them here. I don't diminish the Russian mind, Sikorsky was originally Russian Thanks to the communist purges he came here. But a helicopter is a tactical device not really any more different than a rifle. The Russians built great heavy-lift helicopters. The Hind was a great combat helicopter (but so are the Apache and Super Cobra).
Mi-24 versus USS Nimitz, who wins?
Our strategic bombers versus theirs?
SR-71 (and A-12) versus...
F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35 versus...
M1 Abrams versus T-90 (our ballistics computers versus their range-finding reticles)
What about Russian/Soviet advances in computing devices.
I can see why the Soviets chose to use a pencil.
I agree that we were second into space and that we have ceded our place in the previous few years. But, while Gagarin made it first, the Soviets nor the Russians have put a person anywhere but in space - we made it to the moon several times, orbited it, landed on it, played golf on it. All of that beginning within 9 years of Gagarin taking flight.
As to the Apollo astronauts incinerated because of pure O2, the Soviets themselves also had an incineration death during testing. 1 to 1. The fact we had three present and they only had one present does not change that fact.
Also, don't split hairs regarding hypoxia and asphyxia. Their hypoxia was externally caused by the lack of oxygen because of lost pressure. Sure, they weren't actively choked, but their lack of oxygen had nothing to do with COPD or emphysema and everything to do with the external. Hence, while you might objected to asphyxia, the fact that oxygen was restricted to them caused the hypoxia. It ultimately makes little difference if it is a garotte or a leaking panel. If I say a man died because he was shot in the heart and you correct me by saying that no, he died from lack of oxygen to the brain, the cause of the lack of oxygen to the brain is the destruction of the heart. Ditto for hypoxia. It had an external cause.
Kidding ourselves? How many aircraft carries have the Soviets/Russians built? Our updated Midways which were built in WWII and upgraded in the 1950's are superior to the current Kuznetsov's. The Moskva's and Kievs were not as effective as our light carriers of WWII. Heck, our Amphibious Assault ships are superior to the Moskva or Kiev class ships. Yeah, the Soviets said they weren't actually carriers (the Moskva being only a helicopter carrier design, both of which have now been scrapped because in service they were basically useless and the Kievs were aircraft carrying cruisers), but that does not change the fact that our carriers from 70 years ago outperform their newest.
Helicopters? It is cheaper to buy Russian than to make them here. I don't diminish the Russian mind, Sikorsky was originally Russian Thanks to the communist purges he came here. But a helicopter is a tactical device not really any more different than a rifle. The Russians built great heavy-lift helicopters. The Hind was a great combat helicopter (but so are the Apache and Super Cobra).
Mi-24 versus USS Nimitz, who wins?
Our strategic bombers versus theirs?
SR-71 (and A-12) versus...
F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35 versus...
M1 Abrams versus T-90 (our ballistics computers versus their range-finding reticles)
What about Russian/Soviet advances in computing devices.
I can see why the Soviets chose to use a pencil.
Last edited:
We can only guess at the real number of deaths on the soviet side....and I would assure you they are much greater then we really know.
And to put this back on a gun footing, you are never going to convince me that a no-body from no-where, who had done nothing before came up with the AK-47. Not ever going to buy that. Some captured german that was getting one bone broken each minute coughed up that for them....now why it went to mr. nobody is anyone's guess.
And to put this back on a gun footing, you are never going to convince me that a no-body from no-where, who had done nothing before came up with the AK-47. Not ever going to buy that. Some captured german that was getting one bone broken each minute coughed up that for them....now why it went to mr. nobody is anyone's guess.
Torian
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 1,016
Perhaps...however I still think the Russians end up reverse-engineering a superior product. Ever compare our B-1 and the Russian Blackjack? That thing is a monster.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
"Kidding ourselves? How many aircraft carries have the Soviets/Russians built?"
Exactly the number they have needed, which is typical.
The Russians now and the Soviets that preceeded them built exactly what they needed to build for their defensive view of their role in the world. Unlike us, they have never attempted to project power past their own borders. Their arming their western fringe "allies" was just to give them free maneuver space to offer time before the fight came home. Unlike us they never saw themselves as world-saviors, or the worlds police. Their doctrine is not to attempt to make the world safe for democracy. Nope: They just stay home and guard their castle. CV's don't feature in that plan. Their experiments with them were stillborn, due to lack of real need and national priorities laying elsewhere. Think about it: They do not do expeditionary work. Only once in history have they gone to fight "someplace else" (Afghanastan) and got their asses kicked (just like us, many would argue). They never tried before, never tried since, and hold no such expeditionary capacity. No shipborne rapid deployment force, no fully capable airlift capacity, no civil reserve airlift, nada. They can't carry the fight elsewhere and they never wanted to do so. They are all about keeping the Germans and their successors from driving armor to Moscow. Nothing else. Aircraft Carriers are about power projection. The Russians don't bother. All they ever exported was political theory and a few cases of AK's.
It's really a model that we might want to examine ourselves, but I digress.
Don't confuse lack of interest with lack of ability.
We could debate this forever, and as you might have figured out by now my profession is doing exactly that for the DOD, using Russian hardware to illustrate my points to junior officers. Knowing the real strengths and weaknesses of your opfor is the key. Note that this means knowing their STRENGTHS as well as their weaknesses. Knowing their strengths means you need RESPECT their strengths and exploit their weaknesses. They have lots of weaknesses to balance their strengths. But know this: We have a lot of weaknesses as well. Know and respect them, for to do otherwise and write them off as "inferior" either as men or as holders of technology might be the last thing you get to do one day at the merge. More than one young fighter pilot has been in a perfect setup against a MiG in training and when the "fight's on" call is made finds himself defensive lots faster than he had hoped. Losing a fight teaches respect quickly. At debrief it's usually they they were too certain that they couldn't lose. That's a cultural programming issue, and it can be lethal in combat. Hold these beliefs at your peril. My job is to unprogram them.
Once again, my job is emulation of opfor. I get paid (a lot) to teach these things. I'm on OUR side. I know the balance of the strength/weakness sheet to an encyclopedic level. There's no doubt that we run a higher technology military with a higher reliance on hardware performance. The debate between mass numbers of lower tech v/s lower numbers of high tech can go on forever. I sincerely hope we never have opportunity to really find out in an existential contest between the two. It's not terribly likely in any event, for as I said before the Russians just want to be left alone and have secure borders, and that's the way they always have been. China? That's another story. You want to look towards a hostile enemy? Look there.
"Ever compare our B-1 and the Russian Blackjack?"
Yes. I was onboard a B-1 yesterday, in fact, and have physically studied a Blackjack in the flesh. Have you?
Form follows function.
Willie
"ОПРОP Равиации"
.
Exactly the number they have needed, which is typical.
The Russians now and the Soviets that preceeded them built exactly what they needed to build for their defensive view of their role in the world. Unlike us, they have never attempted to project power past their own borders. Their arming their western fringe "allies" was just to give them free maneuver space to offer time before the fight came home. Unlike us they never saw themselves as world-saviors, or the worlds police. Their doctrine is not to attempt to make the world safe for democracy. Nope: They just stay home and guard their castle. CV's don't feature in that plan. Their experiments with them were stillborn, due to lack of real need and national priorities laying elsewhere. Think about it: They do not do expeditionary work. Only once in history have they gone to fight "someplace else" (Afghanastan) and got their asses kicked (just like us, many would argue). They never tried before, never tried since, and hold no such expeditionary capacity. No shipborne rapid deployment force, no fully capable airlift capacity, no civil reserve airlift, nada. They can't carry the fight elsewhere and they never wanted to do so. They are all about keeping the Germans and their successors from driving armor to Moscow. Nothing else. Aircraft Carriers are about power projection. The Russians don't bother. All they ever exported was political theory and a few cases of AK's.
It's really a model that we might want to examine ourselves, but I digress.
Don't confuse lack of interest with lack of ability.
We could debate this forever, and as you might have figured out by now my profession is doing exactly that for the DOD, using Russian hardware to illustrate my points to junior officers. Knowing the real strengths and weaknesses of your opfor is the key. Note that this means knowing their STRENGTHS as well as their weaknesses. Knowing their strengths means you need RESPECT their strengths and exploit their weaknesses. They have lots of weaknesses to balance their strengths. But know this: We have a lot of weaknesses as well. Know and respect them, for to do otherwise and write them off as "inferior" either as men or as holders of technology might be the last thing you get to do one day at the merge. More than one young fighter pilot has been in a perfect setup against a MiG in training and when the "fight's on" call is made finds himself defensive lots faster than he had hoped. Losing a fight teaches respect quickly. At debrief it's usually they they were too certain that they couldn't lose. That's a cultural programming issue, and it can be lethal in combat. Hold these beliefs at your peril. My job is to unprogram them.
Once again, my job is emulation of opfor. I get paid (a lot) to teach these things. I'm on OUR side. I know the balance of the strength/weakness sheet to an encyclopedic level. There's no doubt that we run a higher technology military with a higher reliance on hardware performance. The debate between mass numbers of lower tech v/s lower numbers of high tech can go on forever. I sincerely hope we never have opportunity to really find out in an existential contest between the two. It's not terribly likely in any event, for as I said before the Russians just want to be left alone and have secure borders, and that's the way they always have been. China? That's another story. You want to look towards a hostile enemy? Look there.
"Ever compare our B-1 and the Russian Blackjack?"
Yes. I was onboard a B-1 yesterday, in fact, and have physically studied a Blackjack in the flesh. Have you?
Form follows function.
Willie
"ОПРОP Равиации"
.
Last edited:
El Tejon
Member
This is either a joke or you work for the Obama Administration.
The Bolsheviks were stopped twice from swallowing entire European continent. The first time by the Poles in 1920 and second time the Third Reich in 1941-1945.
wally
Member
Wow, Mr Sutton I value and enjoy your commentary and I hope you can start illustrating your points to senior officers and key people in the State Dept as well.
As far as our weaknesses go, are there any worse and easier to exploit that our $17T national debt? I sure hope not!
Troops crossing borders, other than world wars, that I can recall without Google help.
Them:
Hungary
Afghanistan
Us:
Mexico
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Granada
Haiti
Panama
Iraq (twice)
Afghanistan
How many bases on foreign soil do the Russians have compared to us?
Never (and always) generally are way to strong of a word, but I think he makes a good point.
Change it to: Unlike us, they have rarely attempted to directly project military power past their own borders.
El Tejon
Member
This is some cruel joke, right? We ignore the history of Russian and Soviet aggression and get a laugh? Where is this nonsense coming from? Leftist teachers in school which portray the granddaddy of terroristic states, the USSR, as some sort of victim?
Good grief, no one knows about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which allowed the USSR to swallow up Eastern Poland?
No one is taught the USSR's invasion of the Baltic States?
No one is taught about the Winter War, the USSR invasion of Finland?
USSR aggression, to this day, in Central Asia.
The Warsaw Pact is a mystery to the young now? The DDR uprising? Hungary? The Czech uprising?
The Berlin Airlift is a non-event?
The Cuban Missle crisis? Soviet adventures in Africa (especially Angola, Ethiopia), Central America?
USSR support of communism in SouthEast Asia?
The USSR's invasion of Afghanistan?
I am simply shocked that one could say such a thing, especially on THR.
Nom de Forum
Member
Willie Sutton,
In my experience, nuance is frequently under-appreciated here. Thank you though for wasting your time as I have much enjoyed your perspective. A perspective that is certainly of wider angle than most posting here have ever experienced. Years ago I spent some time learning about our Russian adversaries courtesy of Uncle Sugar. First at DLI, then studying their methods and reading their mail. I think in the brief words of your posts you have done a fairly accurate assessment. Here is mine: America get over yourself. Next time you get your ass kicked due to arrogant belief in moral, mental, or any other delusion of superiority (such as little Japan did the first 6 months of WWII) you will not have the time and distance to recover. The Russians more than anyone have proved massive quantity is a form of quality. This is especially true if their quantity has a high percentage of availability and your quality has a low percentage of availability.
In my experience, nuance is frequently under-appreciated here. Thank you though for wasting your time as I have much enjoyed your perspective. A perspective that is certainly of wider angle than most posting here have ever experienced. Years ago I spent some time learning about our Russian adversaries courtesy of Uncle Sugar. First at DLI, then studying their methods and reading their mail. I think in the brief words of your posts you have done a fairly accurate assessment. Here is mine: America get over yourself. Next time you get your ass kicked due to arrogant belief in moral, mental, or any other delusion of superiority (such as little Japan did the first 6 months of WWII) you will not have the time and distance to recover. The Russians more than anyone have proved massive quantity is a form of quality. This is especially true if their quantity has a high percentage of availability and your quality has a low percentage of availability.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
The general lack of teaching of foreign history precludes many from understanding Russian viewpoints. They were invaded numerous times throughout history. They are rather paranoid about future invasions.
So, post-WW II, they mostly "just stayed on" in what became the Iron Curtain countries. A buffer zone around the Rodina. Protection against the US and others. A land-moat, if you will.
All in all, though, Russia has not been expansionist in the traditional manner of empire building as were the Dutch, British, Spanish, Portuguese and French.
FWIW, China's claims to the Spratlys scare the (bleep) out of me.
A few more comments and then let's shut this one down. Willie's comments should be much appreciated by all.
So, post-WW II, they mostly "just stayed on" in what became the Iron Curtain countries. A buffer zone around the Rodina. Protection against the US and others. A land-moat, if you will.
All in all, though, Russia has not been expansionist in the traditional manner of empire building as were the Dutch, British, Spanish, Portuguese and French.
FWIW, China's claims to the Spratlys scare the (bleep) out of me.
A few more comments and then let's shut this one down. Willie's comments should be much appreciated by all.
jakk280rem
Member
Just as a point of interest, the old ham about NASA spending millions developing a pen that would write in space is false. And a favorite joke of Robin Williams.
No public money was used in the development of the Fisher Space Pen. It was entirely developed by an American inventor using private funds. The reason the Soviets used a pencil was their society was not conducive to individual innovation and entrepreneurialism. The State declared the pencil was good enough, and so it was. No one bothered to make anything better.
No public money was used in the development of the Fisher Space Pen. It was entirely developed by an American inventor using private funds. The reason the Soviets used a pencil was their society was not conducive to individual innovation and entrepreneurialism. The State declared the pencil was good enough, and so it was. No one bothered to make anything better.
JustinJ
Member
Many Bolsheviks and soviets saw it as their duty to spread what we call communism and attempted to do so in both overt and covert ways. They may not have used Aircraft carriers to do so but they certainly did make great efforts to spread their ideology, just as we tried to spread capitalism under the guise of democracy.
Yes, immediately following WWII, or The Great Patriotic War as they called it, their primary goal was securing their borders and building a buffer zone but this changed with world events and the development of thermonuclear weapons. Poland can't slow down ICBM's and they knew this. They believed it in their best interest defensively and it their duty to spread communism throughout the world.
Yes, immediately following WWII, or The Great Patriotic War as they called it, their primary goal was securing their borders and building a buffer zone but this changed with world events and the development of thermonuclear weapons. Poland can't slow down ICBM's and they knew this. They believed it in their best interest defensively and it their duty to spread communism throughout the world.
wally
Member
Doh! Totally forgot about Finland. But I admit near total ignorance of the Baltic States and their history.
I've zero respect for the Russian Government, unfortunately ours is getting more like theirs every day. They seem to have about won the battle to spread communism/socialism
I've zero respect for the Russian Government, unfortunately ours is getting more like theirs every day. They seem to have about won the battle to spread communism/socialism
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Willie, it is a pleasure to read of your experience and insights. Always.
soviets have WHAT 10x as much as the US?
Pollution, poverty and mobs? yes. anything else, not a chance. I think that you are wrong about how they got our bomber specs. It was during the Korean war, IIRC and we had to put down a few planes in china. Russia nad china were ok with each other at the time.
Pollution, poverty and mobs? yes. anything else, not a chance. I think that you are wrong about how they got our bomber specs. It was during the Korean war, IIRC and we had to put down a few planes in china. Russia nad china were ok with each other at the time.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Yes, it is just a joke. The Fisher Space Pen was developed for much less by Fisher and used by both the US and Soviet space programs. Before 1968 both programs used pencils but the danger of aspirating the tip or shavings or the conductive graphite tip shorting out a switch was an issue.Agreed 100%
Like the old joke (is a joke?): NASA spent millions developing a pen that would work in zero-gravity, the Russians used a pencil
There are some real interesting stories showing Russian ingenuity but this was not one of them. One involved extensive efforts to make a light bulb for use in space that would not shatter during launch. In frustration they brought in a famous engineer who said something like "you keep asking for a "light bulb" but what you need is a "light". Now tell me again what the glass is for?"
Mike
Last edited:
krupparms
Member
As my father was a nuclear tech. for 10 years. Then went into M.M. for 6 years. And my uncle worked for NASA for 20 years & I worked with Titan 2 ICBMs while in the USAF, I would have to agree that we have been farther behind than we would like to admit. As far as them useing our optics on their guns. Why not, they have used what works for years no matter where it comes from. Smart on their part! I would also agree with Mr.Sutton & would like to think him for his work &comments. I also agree that we need to worry about the Chinese claim on the Spratly islands! As many have learned they don't think like us! We need to do some catching up!
Ash
Member
Ah, Willie is the sage. The rest of us clueless. I'll grand Willie's technical expertise (by the way, I was perusing copies of Soviet War and The Red Star back in the 1980's).
The Soviets went to bed with Nazi Germany to divide Europe. It was perfectly natural and understandable because they wanted to protect themselves. The Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Finns, Romanians were a definite invasion risk as were the Spanish. Post WWII, The Czechs, Hungarians, Afghans, were, too. The Polish officers and kadets they shot in the back of the head were naturally ruthless killers intent on bringing Polish war upon the Rodina. Pope John Paul II was also quite a bad guy. I have my Master's in history and my sister studied Russian linquistics and thought during the bad old days of the Cold War.
As to having as many aircraft carriers as they wanted, that isn't the case. They attempted to build them more than once and when it all fell apart, several were scrapped in place out of a planned number.
As to weakness, I know well many of our weaknesses and it bothers me. Manufacturing capacity particularly is quite frightening because that is what won WWI, WWII, the War Between the States, etc. He who has the greatest manufacturing ability wins the war. We have ceded that to China. Actual capacity is lower now than at any point in decades - the physical buildings are gone. That is far greater a concern than the Chinese hyper missile - made worse by recent territorial claims made by the PRC.
The Soviets went to bed with Nazi Germany to divide Europe. It was perfectly natural and understandable because they wanted to protect themselves. The Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Finns, Romanians were a definite invasion risk as were the Spanish. Post WWII, The Czechs, Hungarians, Afghans, were, too. The Polish officers and kadets they shot in the back of the head were naturally ruthless killers intent on bringing Polish war upon the Rodina. Pope John Paul II was also quite a bad guy. I have my Master's in history and my sister studied Russian linquistics and thought during the bad old days of the Cold War.
As to having as many aircraft carriers as they wanted, that isn't the case. They attempted to build them more than once and when it all fell apart, several were scrapped in place out of a planned number.
As to weakness, I know well many of our weaknesses and it bothers me. Manufacturing capacity particularly is quite frightening because that is what won WWI, WWII, the War Between the States, etc. He who has the greatest manufacturing ability wins the war. We have ceded that to China. Actual capacity is lower now than at any point in decades - the physical buildings are gone. That is far greater a concern than the Chinese hyper missile - made worse by recent territorial claims made by the PRC.
- Status
