5 ms·

Allegedly, similar logic was applied to development of weapons- the designed lifetime of some was deliberately capped at a few hundred rounds because "soldiers

by fest 6y ago

Allegedly, similar logic was applied to development of weapons- the designed lifetime of some was deliberately capped at a few hundred rounds because "soldiers won't last longer".

golergka 6y ago
That would be logical for USSR culture, but it's completely at odds with AK family reputation — these rifles are said to be one very durable with minimum maintenance.
- helge9210 6y ago
  Now during Ukraine-Russia war after storages of Soviet weapon were opened in Ukraine, some series/years of AK assault rifles were dismissed outright as unusable. Quality and reliability weren't controlled for in USSR. Only sheer numbers.
  - rytis 6y ago
    > Quality and reliability weren't controlled for in USSR. That's a very strong statement. Could you elaborate on that a bit more please?
    - helge9210 6y ago
      There were no penalties in USSR for doing half-assed job (unless someone died because of it, and even then not always). Everyone had a right to work. Even if you're fired (which almost didn't happen), you'll have another shitty job with the same shitty pay in no time. No incentives for quality.
      - rytis 6y ago
        > No incentives for quality. Is that so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_quality_mark_of_the_USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_quality_mark_of_the_USSR: "Obtaining the sign allowed the enterprises to increase the state controlled price for the goods by ten percent." Arguably this was abused, as explained later, but the original statement that quality control was absent in USSR is not entirely correct. There were penalties for "doing things deliberately wrong" and quite severe from what I recall. Then again I might have warped perception as I grew up in a city with several "black box factories". Edit: typo
        helge9210 6y ago
        There is a difference between actual quality of mass produced items and "obtaining the sign". Either decision was made behind closed doors according to Party interests or limited series (tens of units if not less) were manufactured to get positive assessment. Everything made in USSR was shit, unless manufactured on recently imported equipment.
helge9210 6y ago
Two minutes for paratroopers and fifteen minutes for tanks.
bloak 6y ago
Yes, but when the soldier dies and drops his weapon, the soldier just behind him, who was sent to the front without a weapon, needs to be able to pick up the dropped weapon and continue shooting. That's how it was during the Great Patriotic War. Or so I've heard. Cue men's choir singing Polyushko-polye ...
- helge9210 6y ago
  This is something else. This tactic was used to "dispose" of male population on territories liberated from Nazi occupation. As Zhukov said "The more of them die here, the less we'll have to transport to Syberia".
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    This is a lie, plain and simple
    - helge9210 6y ago
      Don't argue with me. Argue with historic materials about deportation of indigenous population of Crimea, Chechnya in 1944 and western Ukraine up to fifties.
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, and please don't post unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - YarickR2 6y ago
        My apologies
        dang 6y ago
        Appreciated!
  - 6y ago
azernik 6y ago
It wasn't that "soldiers won't last longer" - it was that the division wouldn't last longer. Soviet doctrine solved the problem of maintaining fast advance with fragile men and equipment by subjecting individual units to intense, but very short, engagements. Specifically, a field army would have "echelons", where divisions of the first echelon would fight an extremely intense battle to achieve a breakthrough. Once that breakthrough was achieved (or failed), entire divisions would be rotated out, allowing fresh second-echelon divisions to take up the battle. This meant that if your tank could only do a combat-week's worth of driving before needing to go back to a depot for refit, that was fine; your armored division would send its tanks to the maintenance depot all at once while the troops were recovering from their week in hell. For more on how this would work in practice, see this NATO write-up of Soviet doctrine (specifically starting at around page 2-5 in their weird page-numbering scheme): https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
- donavanm 6y ago
  Just an FYI 2-5 denotes the chapter (or section) and page. This is super common in technical manuals where sections are grouped based on content, then the page refers to the page number in that particular section.
- fest 6y ago
  That's a brilliant insight. I have also seen it in the attitude of some CEOs of USSR vintage w.r.t to company culture.
  - azernik 6y ago
    i.e. crunch time, followed by actual R&R/downtime?

by fest 6y ago

Allegedly, similar logic was applied to development of weapons- the designed lifetime of some was deliberately capped at a few hundred rounds because "soldiers won't last longer".

golergka 6y ago

That would be logical for USSR culture, but it's completely at odds with AK family reputation — these rifles are said to be one very durable with minimum maintenance.

helge9210 6y ago
Now during Ukraine-Russia war after storages of Soviet weapon were opened in Ukraine, some series/years of AK assault rifles were dismissed outright as unusable. Quality and reliability weren't controlled for in USSR. Only sheer numbers.
- rytis 6y ago
  > Quality and reliability weren't controlled for in USSR. That's a very strong statement. Could you elaborate on that a bit more please?
  - helge9210 6y ago
    There were no penalties in USSR for doing half-assed job (unless someone died because of it, and even then not always). Everyone had a right to work. Even if you're fired (which almost didn't happen), you'll have another shitty job with the same shitty pay in no time. No incentives for quality.
    - rytis 6y ago
      > No incentives for quality. Is that so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_quality_mark_of_the_USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_quality_mark_of_the_USSR: "Obtaining the sign allowed the enterprises to increase the state controlled price for the goods by ten percent." Arguably this was abused, as explained later, but the original statement that quality control was absent in USSR is not entirely correct. There were penalties for "doing things deliberately wrong" and quite severe from what I recall. Then again I might have warped perception as I grew up in a city with several "black box factories". Edit: typo
      - helge9210 6y ago
        There is a difference between actual quality of mass produced items and "obtaining the sign". Either decision was made behind closed doors according to Party interests or limited series (tens of units if not less) were manufactured to get positive assessment. Everything made in USSR was shit, unless manufactured on recently imported equipment.

helge9210 6y ago

Two minutes for paratroopers and fifteen minutes for tanks.

bloak 6y ago

Yes, but when the soldier dies and drops his weapon, the soldier just behind him, who was sent to the front without a weapon, needs to be able to pick up the dropped weapon and continue shooting. That's how it was during the Great Patriotic War. Or so I've heard. Cue men's choir singing Polyushko-polye ...

helge9210 6y ago
This is something else. This tactic was used to "dispose" of male population on territories liberated from Nazi occupation. As Zhukov said "The more of them die here, the less we'll have to transport to Syberia".
- YarickR2 6y ago
  This is a lie, plain and simple
  - helge9210 6y ago
    Don't argue with me. Argue with historic materials about deportation of indigenous population of Crimea, Chechnya in 1944 and western Ukraine up to fifties.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, and please don't post unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - YarickR2 6y ago
      My apologies
      - dang 6y ago
        Appreciated!
- 6y ago

azernik 6y ago

It wasn't that "soldiers won't last longer" - it was that the division wouldn't last longer. Soviet doctrine solved the problem of maintaining fast advance with fragile men and equipment by subjecting individual units to intense, but very short, engagements. Specifically, a field army would have "echelons", where divisions of the first echelon would fight an extremely intense battle to achieve a breakthrough. Once that breakthrough was achieved (or failed), entire divisions would be rotated out, allowing fresh second-echelon divisions to take up the battle. This meant that if your tank could only do a combat-week's worth of driving before needing to go back to a depot for refit, that was fine; your armored division would send its tanks to the maintenance depot all at once while the troops were recovering from their week in hell. For more on how this would work in practice, see this NATO write-up of Soviet doctrine (specifically starting at around page 2-5 in their weird page-numbering scheme): https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

donavanm 6y ago
Just an FYI 2-5 denotes the chapter (or section) and page. This is super common in technical manuals where sections are grouped based on content, then the page refers to the page number in that particular section.
fest 6y ago
That's a brilliant insight. I have also seen it in the attitude of some CEOs of USSR vintage w.r.t to company culture.
- azernik 6y ago
  i.e. crunch time, followed by actual R&R/downtime?