Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious Russian/Soviet military disposability (equipment analysis)

AsiaCel

AsiaCel

shalom goyim
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
30,175
Online time
21h 3m
I would like to point out a few Soviet equipment that demonstrates the disposability culture of the Soviets/Russians.

This mostly applies to the Soviets, but ever since being given the internet and experience of life in western countries, Kremlin realizes that it has to design its equipment a little bit less terrible to curb rebellions from the Urbanites (the Russian military tends to avoid conscripting from these places).

This piece will analyze some of the most common, mass-produced equipment in the Soviet arsenal to back my point that Soviets had a disposability culture.

I would like to make it clear that this writing is not to dehumanize or incite hatred towards Russians and their state; my people, the Chinese, were victims of the same military tactics that had sent our people to a meat grinder again and again.

The AK rifles

Undoubtedly, the AK rifles are excellent, but its purpose was very clear. A disposable, inaccurate, reliable rifle designed for disposable stormtroopers as a replacement of the PPSH. Indeed, it was an good firearm that US soldiers traded their M16s for wars, in close quarters battles.

1773709490643


Human wave tactics

Up to the 80s, the Soviets realized on mass charges in the open. Their tactic was to rush the Fulda Gap in Germany with massed amount of suppressive firepower.

The idea was to soak up as much as damage as possible (via NATO air attacks, hull down tanks, and ATGMs) and overrun the defenders.

We can see in the Soviet exercises such as the Zapad-81, where Soviet and Soviet-influenced armies (such as East German NVA) using the same run and gun tactics.

1000098993


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMmDIhcvxw


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg-3dqBSrdk


T-72 tank

The T-72 tank combined an autoloadder, strong frontal armor, and powerful gun.

That is about all; it is cramped, slow (low power to weight), has a terrible sight (TPD-K1 with 8x zoom), 4kph reverse speed (Russian tankers in Ukraine just turned their tanks around instead of using it), and terrible hydraulics (slow turret rotation and gun laying).

It was basically designed to take as many shots to the front before a lucky shell finds its way to a weak spot, of which the chance of surviving is zero because it will explode easily.

1773709865220


BMP-1 IFV

The BMP-1 IFV was gold on paper — strong frontal armor, large troop capacity, powerful 73mm gun able to destroy tanks and ATGM on top of it.

The reality is that everything about the IFV is terrible and it is a morale killer for any armies buying it.

The IFV on paper had as much capacity as a M113, but it was extremely cramped and poorly protected, the gun is inaccurate with autoloader ready to injury the gunner (thankfully it wasn't powerful enough to load the arm), the Malyutka ATGM was slow, joystick guided, and had poor combat performance.

There is a reason why troops ride outside of it, even willingly expose themselves to the risk of gunfire.

Geniunely one of the worst things you can buy for an army; just buy a M113 instead, if only for the morale.

1773710166600


SPO-15 Radar Warning Receiver

Usually placed in an awkward position in the aerial vehicles, it is imprecise and extremely difficult to read and comprehend in the heat of a battle. (Compared to western RWRs)

1000098996


1000098998


The lack of thermal sights on tanks

The Western nations had mass produced thermal sights on their tanks by late 70s. So when did the Russians had their own mass produced thermal sights for their tanks? 1990s? No. 2005!!!! The ESSA sight was only introduced for the T-90A in 2005.

In a battle between Russian tanks and Western tanks, the Russian one will always lose due to lack of thermal.

1000098999
 
There are more examples of terrible designs
army2017-064.jpg
latest

RehearsalTula02052017-03.jpg
1545357542_bmd4m.jpg

BMP-3cut.JPG
cf1a804c3a_snimok-jekrana_14-4-2025_53854_yandex_ru.webp
img_20221229_212934.png
 
Communist tech is shit
 
There are more examples of terrible designs
army2017-064.jpg
latest

RehearsalTula02052017-03.jpg
1545357542_bmd4m.jpg

BMP-3cut.JPG
cf1a804c3a_snimok-jekrana_14-4-2025_53854_yandex_ru.webp
img_20221229_212934.png
Fuck I forgot to mention the BMD-1, which impressively is a even worse version of BMP-1.

The Ukrainian war shown that these things are useless and never used the way they are meant to be used (light, air droppable IFV). Instead, the BMD-4M is infamously vulnerable, even more so than the BMP series.

The BTR doors seem terrible. I always think that with the dismounting on the move, what if you tripped? You'll be splattered by the wheels.

Also jfl at still following the low profile philosophy after the invention of guided missiles and laser rangefinders.
 
Last edited:
Even earlier
And here's a fun one.

The Object 911B is a literal deathtrap — 1.2M tall, with a operator on prone. If the tank steps on a Czech hedgehog, the operator is literally impaled (Vlad the impaler).

The Soviets designed their vehicles like how sports cars designed their backseats to be: looks good on paper, but absolutely terrible and morale killing.
1773732719043
 
Great post. I personally believe soviet equipment a lot of the times was superior then the western counterparts right up until the 80s when the Abrams, Bradley and Apache were being fielded but most equipment the Russians use today still was made for the outdated doctrine of fighting Nato in Europe.

The Soviets had better IFVs considering most were amphibious and a lot were air-droppable, you make good points at the BMP-1 being cramped but it was still better then the box of an APC the Americans had, it was very much a force multiplier even if its armaments were lack-luster it was more then enough to supress enemy fortifications while supporting infantry. The Americans only stepped up their game with the Bradley IFV. the M113 was very much under armoured and under gunned and it was fielded for far too long.

The Tanks, I genuinely believe that up until the M60A3 tank (the one with thermals) the soviets had superior tanks. They fielded composite armour earlier, they had autoloaders which could fire on the move while an individual may be unstable and they also had better firepower (125mm smoothbore capable of firing APFSDS and ATGMs out the barrel). The T-64 was revolutionary featuring composite armour, Advanced FCS and an autoloader and it was pretty fast.

Lastly their helicopters, I firmly believe that the MI-24 was the jack of all trades in terms of war helicopters at the times. It was a armoured gunship capable of transporting and supporting infantry.

Soviet doctrine relied on fighting in Europe so flat signatures (short tanks) was perfect. Still today Russia uses Tanks fitted to this doctrine which is outdated. Their mindset was production of "good enough" equipment to overwhelm the more technologically advanced westerners.
 
Last edited:
I heard in ww1 and ww2 they had 1 Mosin rifle for 10 meat bags slav subhumans
 

Similar threads

AsiaCel
Replies
11
Views
1K
PlummetedSoulofInk
P
Sir Silentium
Replies
25
Views
265
ANTAGONIST
ANTAGONIST
E
Replies
1
Views
203
erenyeager
E
Sir Silentium
Replies
14
Views
109
Kent88
K

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top