4 ms·
I think a good lesson to learn is that primitive doesn't mean archaic. Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain over using the lates
by rangibaby 10y ago
I think a good lesson to learn is that primitive doesn't mean archaic. Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain over using the latest or rare technology. The best example is of course the AK-47, but the same philosophy is seen throughout all of their designs. Their planes are all designed to use poorly maintained or damaged airfields, or even just dirt strips.
- draugadrotten 10y ago"With the MiG-25, you could take off from a grass strip, climb to FL800 and fly at Mach 3, and land on that grass strip again. Fascinating!" http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7485/can-jet-airplanes-operate-on-rough-airfields http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7485/can-jet-air...
- arethuza 10y ago"Most Soviet designs favored being cheap, hardy, and easy to maintain" I think it was Max Hastings who pointed out in the context of WW2 that there isn't much point in having tanks that are six times better than your enemies if they have ten times as many tanks as you do!
- rangibaby 10y agoTheir battle strategy (slow the enemy down for as long as possible) and weapons were informed by their experience in WW2. At the beginning of Barbarossa the USSR had many wacky, complex vehicles and arms that were prone to breaking down, if they even worked at all.