Hirohito Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) I would say the Bratva became organized under the USSR, and became powerful after it fell. Sure it was around in Tsarist and Soviet Russia but it wasn't as powerful. It was still a problem, especially in the rural areas. Organized Crime, is not linked solely with the fall of the USSR. Edited February 26, 2015 by Sindorin Quote Grand Moff Hirohito of Dromund Kaas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Six of Ten Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Much of that is fallacy. The Ruble is dying recently due to sanctions, but as a whole, Russia faired no worse than say the US in 2008 when the market collapsed. It's hardly indicative of a poor economy by Russia. The Russian military vanguard that rolled into Ukraine has been seen to have advanced command and control, logistics, weapons and armor. Much of the body armor the troops were wearing has been estimated to stop any conventional small arms round NATO has, and do so more effectively than NATO armor counterparts. Also, the S300 and S400(I think?) is capable of downing most low RCS and low infrared "stealth" aircraft. The F22 is the only piece of hardware NATO has that can "trounce" any of Russia's aircraft, and only for a bit longer with the advent of Russia's PAK 5th Gen Fighter Platform. The M1 is aging, and the T90 (not the export model) is comparative, and the myth of the Abrams' invincibility was shattered by a $20 RPG in the hands of an insurgent in Iraq. It's nice to see GDP numbers. Let's talk about food, overall consumer goods and anything not tied to heavy industry. I suggest that the picture there tells a more stark indication of the real lives of Russian citizens. There's also the famine in Ukraine, the general pollution levels of Russia, and the poor standards of living for most soviets in the mid to late 40's, after the Germans had left the country. You are also leaving out the fact that much of the country was under a brutal repression for most of the life of the Soviet Union. Arguably there have only been three real periods of freedom and democracy in Russia since 1917. First, under the provisional government lead by Kerensky. Second, under Lenin with the New Economic Policy, which increased the foodstuff production and health of the economy to pre-war levels. And under Gorby, with Glasnost and Perestroika. in world war 2 the Sherman was a piece of shit, wouldn't stand a chance vs a Tiger or King Tiger. what won was numbers. we Americans have the philosophy of overwhelming our enemies with junk in vastly superior numbers and taking them down that way. Sure the T-90 outclasses the Abrams, the PAK outclasses the F-22 but we can build alot more M1s and F-22s than Russia can build T-90s or PAKs the winner in a war isn't the guy with the best equipment, it's the one that is better at replacing their losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirohito Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 in world war 2 the Sherman was a piece of !@#$, wouldn't stand a chance vs a Tiger or King Tiger. what won was numbers. we Americans have the philosophy of overwhelming our enemies with junk in vastly superior numbers and taking them down that way. Sure the T-90 outclasses the Abrams, the PAK outclasses the F-22 but we can build alot more M1s and F-22s than Russia can build T-90s or PAKs the winner in a war isn't the guy with the best equipment, it's the one that is better at replacing their losses. That's not really true. In the Cold War, eastern bloc hardware was much more inferior and relied more heavily on numbers than on quality. The US used quantity in World War 2 because we did not have as many well developed advanced tanks out of policy against tanks until right up to the very beginning of the war. Most of our equipment also got better with the additions of 75mm guns to the Sherman, and they actually were able to compete with German tanks. Quote Grand Moff Hirohito of Dromund Kaas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Six of Ten Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) That's not really true. In the Cold War, eastern bloc hardware was much more inferior and relied more heavily on numbers than on quality. The US used quantity in World War 2 because we did not have as many well developed advanced tanks out of policy against tanks until right up to the very beginning of the war. Most of our equipment also got better with the additions of 75mm guns to the Sherman, and they actually were able to compete with German tanks. I'm talking about the overall ability of the sherman to take a beating. german tanks could take so much more damage and keep in the fight, a good round to the ass was pretty much the end of a sherman. well for taht matter a good hit to either side or the turret would put an end to em too. the problem was their notorious thin skin vs the German tanks. What US tanks relied on was the concept of 5+ Shermans vs 1 King Tiger. you don't need to be well built if you hunt in packs. The Abrams and Challenger tanks use the same philosophy, unlike say, the Merkava which is designed to fight alone or in small groups. Sure the T-90 might outclass the Sherman, but how well does 1 T-90 do vs 10 Abrams or challengers? Edited March 2, 2015 by Six of Ten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 but we can build alot more M1s and F-22s than Russia can build T-90s or PAKs the winner in a war isn't the guy with the best equipment, it's the one that is better at replacing their losses. I kinda doubt that... Considering they already have more T-90's than the US and UK has tanks combined.... Not only that, but the AK is far cheaper to produce and is also the most recognized firearm on the planet because it's mass produced like !@#$ing crazy. In WW2, the Russians proved they could replace their losses far better than any other participant in the war. You've literally said this all backwards. The US relies on superior firepower, not numbers. Always has. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Six of Ten Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I kinda doubt that... Considering they already have more T-90's than the US and UK has tanks combined.... Not only that, but the AK is far cheaper to produce and is also the most recognized firearm on the planet because it's mass produced like !@#$ crazy. In WW2, the Russians proved they could replace their losses far better than any other participant in the war. You've literally said this all backwards. The US relies on superior firepower, not numbers. Always has. AK's are notorious for stovepipe jams, you'd be lucky to get a clip off and you're toast. the North Hollywood gunfight is a fine example of how reliable the AK is, 2 perps, 2 different AK's both jam at the same time. that type of jam is a !@#$ to clear. the fault is how the weapon ejects the shell casings. Overheating is another problem AK's are known for. personally if I was in a firefight I'd rather have an AR-15/M-16 or a Galil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 AK's are notorious for stovepipe jams, you'd be lucky to get a clip off and you're toast. the North Hollywood gunfight is a fine example of how reliable the AK is, 2 perps, 2 different AK's both jam at the same time. that type of jam is a !@#$ to clear. the fault is how the weapon ejects the shell casings. Overheating is another problem AK's are known for. personally if I was in a firefight I'd rather have an AR-15/M-16 or a Galil. No.... Actually it's the M16 that was notorious for stovepipe jams when it was first made. The most common jam you find in an M16 is the round failing to go into battery. That is, the bolt fails to fully push the round into the chamber. The AK design is actually the exact opposite, notorious for it's reliability. In fact, during the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, the Georgian troops ditched all their M16's in favor of Kalashnikovs because they were "more reliable." The AK has always been known for it's amazing reliability and the fact that you can mix match parts with completely different Kalashnikov models and produce not only a working firearm, but a very reliable one. Not to mention that the new AK-12 design is makes the AR15 design look outdated. I don't think you'll win this argument with me. I'm personally quite familiar with both weapons. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Six of Ten Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 No.... Actually it's the M16 that was notorious for stovepipe jams when it was first made. The most common jam you find in an M16 is the round failing to go into battery. That is, the bolt fails to fully push the round into the chamber. The AK design is actually the exact opposite, notorious for it's reliability. In fact, during the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, the Georgian troops ditched all their M16's in favor of Kalashnikovs because they were "more reliable." The AK has always been known for it's amazing reliability and the fact that you can mix match parts with completely different Kalashnikov models and produce not only a working firearm, but a very reliable one. Not to mention that the new AK-12 design is makes the AR15 design look outdated. I don't think you'll win this argument with me. I'm personally quite familiar with both weapons. It's not an argument to win really, it's a way to kill time on a quiet, boring monday afternoon I guess your choice of weapons is a matter of personal opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirohito Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 It's not an argument to win really, it's a way to kill time on a quiet, boring monday afternoon I guess your choice of weapons is a matter of personal opinion. Your opinion on the Sherman is also flawed. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=111 Quote Grand Moff Hirohito of Dromund Kaas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Six of Ten Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Your opinion on the Sherman is also flawed. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=111 Really? Sherman vs King Tiger or even a Tiger point blank, my money is on the Tiger. The problem is the allies tended to !@#$ foot it on the guns and armor. the sherman had a 75 mm standard velocity gun vs the 88mm high velocity guns the germans used. the German tanks were basically armored shit house mobile battleship guns. Edited March 2, 2015 by Six of Ten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 It's not an argument to win really, it's a way to kill time on a quiet, boring monday afternoon I guess your choice of weapons is a matter of personal opinion. Assuming combat, I would honestly take the AR or AK, depending on the situation. But overall, I like the AR. However, I'd really like to try shooting the AK-12 It's basically an AK with many AR-like additions, like a button on the side to release the magazine, the rear sight is moved to the back of the receiver, it fires the 5.45 and 5.56 NATO and it's specs are superior to the AR in almost everything. Your opinion on the Sherman is also flawed. http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=111 Really? Sherman vs King Tiger or even a Tiger point blank, my money is on the Tiger. The problem is the allies tended to !@#$ foot it on the guns and armor. the sherman had a 75 mm standard velocity gun vs the 88mm high velocity guns the germans used. the German tanks were basically armored !@#$ house mobile battleship guns. The Sherman was a pretty lame ass tank, that's why we all built tank destroyers to fight German armor. And the allies built better tanks as the war progressed. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.