12 ms·

Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

125 points by kumarski 13y ago

smacktoward 13y ago
I read this book many years ago, back when the Soviet Union was still a going concern. A very good read, with some interesting things to say about leadership.
- josephjrobison 13y ago
  If you don't mind, can you give me a rundown about what it's all about?
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    Sure. The first three parts are a rundown of how the Soviet Army was organized at the time of writing (the early 1980s). This part was of great interest then, because reliable information on the Soviet Army was hard to come by in the days of the Iron Curtain, and the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov) was a recent defector. But for today's reader, this part is pretty dull, all tables of organization and maps of military districts. They're all safe to skip. Part IV ("Mobilisation") departs from the data-dump format of the earlier chapters to talk about how the Soviet Army is organized so that in wartime it can double its number of units overnight, through a system the author calls "invisible divisions." If you wondered how the USSR was able to turn things around after the early disasters following the Nazi invasion in 1941, this chapter will be of interest. Part V ("Strategy and Tactics") is where the book starts to get really interesting, because here it starts giving you insights into how different the way the Russians looked at war is from the way Western armies do. Part VI ("Equipment") expands on that theme by showing some examples of how that type of thinking informed the way the Soviets designed weapons that became world-famous for their effectiveness, like the AK-47, the T-34 tank, and the Hind helicopter. Finally, Parts VII ("The soldier's lot") and VIII ("The officer's path") are narrative descriptions of the lives of enlisted conscripts and officers in the Soviet Army. Overall, I found the book useful because the author's experience in that system taught him a lot of lessons about leadership -- especially leadership in situations where you're expected to achieve impossible things with limited resources and mediocre (at best) people. And the stuff about Soviet strategic thinking and weapons design has lots of interesting things to say about the value of simplicity, reliability and scale over things like feature richness or even user comfort. These are not arguments you hear a lot from Western writers, so they are a refreshing alternative take. He's writing about weapons, of course, but the arguments are presented in such a fashion that you can easily extrapolate the lessons to really any kind of product. (I actually referenced one of those lessons in a previous comment on HN, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062096) You don't have to read the book front-to-back to get the good stuff out of it; skip over the early chapters and start at Part V and you'll get all the nutrition with none of the boring, out-of-date tables and charts and maps.
leaveyou 13y ago
Thanks to the OP for this link. I just found out why USSR didn't invade Romania (a long time subject of speculation in Romania). We were poor, communists enough, defenseless and not much of a threat. This is so funny when I remember how many naive Romanians thought our army had some "secret weapon " :D (actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D).
- kumarski 13y ago
  courtesy of RDL.
- antocv 13y ago
  For westerners, "actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D)" I think this means the secret weapon was heavy farts?
  - leaveyou 13y ago
    yes, we liked to call them "weapons of mass destruction"...
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  Why would USSR invade Romania? The only scenario I can think of is reinstating Communist government. Seriously, USSR didn't have plans to occupy and assimilate random foreign countries. Not as far as I know. And don't forget USSR depended heavily on Romanian furniture :)
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Keeping/reinstating Communist governments through military force was a cornerstone of USSR foreign policy for many decades at that point - e.g. Prague Spring.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      Well, Romania was keeping Communist government so they didn't have to worry.
yankoff 13y ago
Yeah, Viktor Suvorov is pretty interesting writer. This guy was a KGB agent who escaped to the West and published a lot of books. Another his book worth checking out is "Aquarium" - about his path from a spetznaz operator to KGB and then to escape.
- DCoder 13y ago
  Viktor Suvorov was not KGB (secret police). He was GRU (Military Intelligence).
  - yankoff 13y ago
    You are right. I read this book when I was a kid, already forgot the difference.
- notastartup 13y ago
  I found the tv production based on his book on youtube. Looks pretty interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmZsPUudfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmZsPUudfI
nikatwork 13y ago
> The USSR is not Russia or the Russian Empire; it is not an empire at all. > The Soviet Union does not need new territory. > A communist regime cannot feel secure so long as an example of another kind of life exists anywhere near it, with which its subjects can draw comparisons. It is for this reason that any form of Communism, not only the Soviet variety, is always at pains to shut itself off from the rest of the world This is a massive insight. Most current analysis of Putin centers around a WWII Lebensraum perspective of his actions. Modelling his behavior in terms of neutralizing breakaway territories seems a much better fit.
- Perdition 13y ago
  I don't see how. Putin isn't a communist and Western media is widely available in Russia so there is no benefit in regards to information flow in expanding the border. And there is no significant economic difference between Russia and her neighbours, the Soviets were trying to hide the evidence that average people in the West had it better than the new Soviet man. Putin's actions look much more like those of the 19th century Russian Empire than of the USSR (which never used nationalist rhetoric).
  - tumanian 13y ago
    Putin's administration justifies the current economic state and the rampant corruption in Russia by that Russia has is own 'special way' of development which is limited the history and the socio-economic heritage of the communist regime. If Ukraine(or any other ex-Soviet country) manages to get rid of the current cleptocratic system and launches succesfull socio-economic reforms that tackle corruption, it will be a strong signal to the broad russian population that the current regime is not the driver, but a hindrance to the overall development. That is why any regime change in ex-Ussr countries is viewed by suspicion or even open hostility by the elites in Russia.
    - korzun 13y ago
      Ukraine is broke. They owe Russia millions of dollars and have been living on pretty much free gas (courtesy of Russia). I assume you live in US? Do you not find it ironic that you blame Russia for taking this seriously (in their own backyard) while US have been staging government coups within other countries (with multiple death tolls) for decades? And in regards to corruption: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" Perhaps you should focus on your own backyard first ;)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
foohbarbaz 13y ago
"The soldier's lot": http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/07.html http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/07.html is spot on! Been there.
eternalban 13y ago
Little background music while you read, Tovarich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHomETco0MI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHomETco0MI
ommunist 13y ago
What is more interesting is to look into experiences of the Soviet military in modern warfare in Angola for example.
notastartup 13y ago
As someone very interested in Soviet Union, it's system, this is a great resource. I'd love it if this was available on kindle or a paperback. Even Russians will say Soviet Union is shit or people will react like, 'why are you learning russian and so obsessed with Soviet Union', I think it's because I think it could've been a great system, it's a noble ideology that men and women of all races are integrated and all receive the similar dividends but human greed and corruption always ruins things. I don't like the way people have been persecuted because of Soviet Union, but I find it's technologies and philosophies very interesting.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  You should be able to track down a reasonably priced copy of the hardback edition via a good used bookstore. The copy I have now I got via Alibris a few years back.
- brc 13y ago
  I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time. At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.
  - blumbo 13y ago
    i'd like to hear more about this, exactly how horribly miserable would you end up if you have trillions and you would be forced to give up 99% of your wealth?
    - contulluipeste 13y ago
      Giving it all up was just the "equalizing" part. Being incriminated, prosecuted and sentenced for having employed in some way other people's work was the real face of the system.
    - leaveyou 13y ago
      you need to be careful at the terms because "socialism" in communists countries and USA means "communism" and socialism in nord & western europe means higher taxes and a bigger public sector & public services (with afferent bureaucracy). Communism didn't fare well for obvious reasons while europe with all its problems, endures.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Quote From Part VIII: Soviet Communists are frequently reproached for having attempted to build a socialist society but having produced something which closely resembles a prison. Such a charge is entirely unjustified. In the Soviet Union some of the inmates have larger cells than others, some eat well, others badly. There is complete confusion-a lot remains to be done to tidy up the situation. True socialism, in which everyone is truly equal, does not just resemble a prison-it is a prison. It can not exist unless it is surrounded by high walls, by watchtowers and by guard-dogs, for people always want to escape from any socialist regime, just as they do from a prison. If you try to nationalise medicine and, from the best possible motives, to guarantee work for all the doctors, you will find that they pack their bags and leave the country. Try to bring a little order into the situation and your engineers (the best ones), your designers, your ballerinas (again, the best ones) and many, many others will also flee abroad. If you continue your attempts to establish a model society you will need to build walls around it. You will be forced to do this sooner or later by the flood of refugees.
- valgaze 13y ago
  Quote from Part VII, Soldier's Lot, divide and conquer: One requirement is sacrosanct when these selections are being made: whenever possible, Russians must not be stationed in the RSFSR, Ukrainians in the Ukraine or Latvians in Latvia. If there are disturbances among the Russian population of, for instance, Murom or Tolyatti or Omsk, these will be crushed, sometimes with considerable bloodshed, by non-Russian soldiers. If a strike breaks out in Donetsk (as one did in 1970) there will be no Ukrainian soldiers in the area. The soldiers stationed there are Tatars, Kirghiz, Georgians. It is all the same to them who they shoot at. What is important is that there is no one in the crowd confronting them whom they know and no one in it who speaks a language they can understand.
- brc 13y ago
  I wish more people understood and accepted this. It seems like every other day I read something which is wistful for a bit more 'enforced equality'. Ther can be no such thing, nor is it desirable. People have different talents and different levels of motivation. As such they produce Inequal results - and that is just life. Trying to prevent inequal results can only be done through force in the end, so a prison is the result.
spingsprong 13y ago
"It is, in fact, impossible to reach the speeds of which the MIG-25 is capable using titanium: yet the Soviet designers had managed to build this, the fastest combat aircraft in the world, from ordinary steel. " Right... MiG-25, Mach-2.8. All steel. SR-71, Mach-3.5. Uses titanium for 85% of its structure.
- rangibaby 13y ago
  Combat aircraft. SR-71 is a spy plane.
  - spartango 13y ago
    While it is true that the SR-71 & A-12 were spy planes, and that the GP makes a slightly asinine statement, the pedant (and aviation geek) in me feels obliged to point to the YF-12[1]. The YF-12 was a twin-seater derivative of the A-12 that was developed as a fighter aircraft, complete with a look-down/shoot-down radar and missile bays. The F-12 never made it to production, but a small number high-speed of weapons tests were conducted with the 3 YF-12 airframes that were built. With that said, the MiG-25 should certainly not be belittled as a marvel of aviation. It was a blisteringly fast interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft, with an impressive radar system for its time. It filled a special role in the Russian Air Force until last year[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db
    - Theodores 13y ago
      Just out of interest, was the MiG-25 'all steel' and 'all valves'? As in no electronics as we know them, just valves? I had heard that it was EMP-proof due to the lack of any transistors on board...
      - rangibaby 13y ago
        80% nickel steel alloy, 11% aluminium, and 9% titanium. Using valves instead of transistors meant for easier maintenance in addition to resistance to EMP. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25
rdl 13y ago
(I think you posted this to hn because I posted it to Facebook again, yes?) The really interesting things to me are: 1) Invisible divisions, and the system to split units 2) Hiding top-tier equipment from the West -- even at the cost of not allowing their own soldiers to know what equipment they're supposed to ultimately use. Vs. the US, where soldiers are expected to be intimately familiar with their assigned weapons systems. 3) A really naive view of economics, that the military is "free" because the State provides it. It doesn't correctly assign the cost as that of the foregone alternative -- a tank means 100 fewer cars, etc. 4) "Role before Rank" promotions -- officers being promoted into a role above their rank as a precondition to attaining that rank. In the US system, that only really happens for certain General Officers; everyone else is promoted and then assigned, with most early to mid career promotions being either automatic or based on seniority and checkboxes.
- buro9 13y ago
  "Role before Rank" is how I laid out a company remuneration and incentives program. The essence was "to be a senior dev you must already be doing these things". The proof (observed by two senior people and acknowledged by colleagues at and below your level) that you were fully performing the given role meant that you would be given the job title and salary to match. We felt this was an improvement on other systems as it made it very clear what it meant to the individual. In that they needed to improve, learn things, operate differently, to be able to progress from one tier of recognition to the next and left it up to the individual to say whether they wanted to or not. It also handled the scenario of demotion... failure to maintain a standard of work meant that you'd set your role (and thereby rank) at the step below. Did this work? Mostly, yes. Definitely some rough edges when it came to dealing with long-time serving people who didn't (or couldn't) improve themselves. For those people the title and salary seldom matched their expectations.
  - mu_killnine 13y ago
    I thought I was the only one in an organization structured like this. While off topic a bit... I found this structure pretty discouraging. If you don't promote your developers into the role they are actually fulfilling, it quickly begins to feel like you're taking advantage of them. That is, treating them and giving them the responsibilities of a Sr. Engineer but only compensating them like a typical engineer (or developer). There's only so many 'atta boys you can give someone before it seems like you're dodging meaningful compensation for their efforts.
valtih1978 13y ago
V Suvorov is a pseudohistorian, like Solzenicin. Both were used as antisoviet propagana means and proved liars. If you want antirussian (anticommunist) myths, you read Victor Suvorov.
watwut 13y ago
Anyone has any idea on what license does it have? What can be legally done with that book?
aluhut 13y ago
I am really looking forward for such a read about North Korea in some years. I hope I live long enough to see it.
berkut 13y ago
Awesome read. Final sentence of Conclusion: "Protest today. Tomorrow it will be too late."
trurl123 13y ago
Real name of author is Vladimir Rezun. Well known historic liar.
- 67726e 13y ago
  Care to elaborate? Best I could find was that his writings about WWII are, at worst, disputed. Nothing about him being a fraud.
sly_g 13y ago
Author of this book has committed treason and famous for his pseudo-historical books, that usually paint USSR in blackest colors possible. No serious historian in Russia takes his works seriously. So I'd question anything that written in the book.
- jotm 13y ago
  No kidding, half of Americans think that Snowden is a traitor.
- das_alexander 13y ago
  False. - anybody went along with Soviet Union dissolution technically committed treason - he is not a professional historian, and it shows. However majority of his theories have been confirmed by professional historians, such as Solonin (http://www.solonin.org/en http://www.solonin.org/en), Hoffman (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Documentation/dp/0967985684 http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Do...), Danilov, Gorkov, etc
  - trurl123 13y ago
    Ha-ha, professional historians. Solonin wrotes very much false too. See comments about his book: http://awas1952.livejournal.com/58827.html http://awas1952.livejournal.com/58827.html

125 points by kumarski 13y ago

I read this book many years ago, back when the Soviet Union was still a going concern. A very good read, with some interesting things to say about leadership.

josephjrobison 13y ago
If you don't mind, can you give me a rundown about what it's all about?
- smacktoward 13y ago
  Sure. The first three parts are a rundown of how the Soviet Army was organized at the time of writing (the early 1980s). This part was of great interest then, because reliable information on the Soviet Army was hard to come by in the days of the Iron Curtain, and the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov) was a recent defector. But for today's reader, this part is pretty dull, all tables of organization and maps of military districts. They're all safe to skip. Part IV ("Mobilisation") departs from the data-dump format of the earlier chapters to talk about how the Soviet Army is organized so that in wartime it can double its number of units overnight, through a system the author calls "invisible divisions." If you wondered how the USSR was able to turn things around after the early disasters following the Nazi invasion in 1941, this chapter will be of interest. Part V ("Strategy and Tactics") is where the book starts to get really interesting, because here it starts giving you insights into how different the way the Russians looked at war is from the way Western armies do. Part VI ("Equipment") expands on that theme by showing some examples of how that type of thinking informed the way the Soviets designed weapons that became world-famous for their effectiveness, like the AK-47, the T-34 tank, and the Hind helicopter. Finally, Parts VII ("The soldier's lot") and VIII ("The officer's path") are narrative descriptions of the lives of enlisted conscripts and officers in the Soviet Army. Overall, I found the book useful because the author's experience in that system taught him a lot of lessons about leadership -- especially leadership in situations where you're expected to achieve impossible things with limited resources and mediocre (at best) people. And the stuff about Soviet strategic thinking and weapons design has lots of interesting things to say about the value of simplicity, reliability and scale over things like feature richness or even user comfort. These are not arguments you hear a lot from Western writers, so they are a refreshing alternative take. He's writing about weapons, of course, but the arguments are presented in such a fashion that you can easily extrapolate the lessons to really any kind of product. (I actually referenced one of those lessons in a previous comment on HN, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062096) You don't have to read the book front-to-back to get the good stuff out of it; skip over the early chapters and start at Part V and you'll get all the nutrition with none of the boring, out-of-date tables and charts and maps.

leaveyou 13y ago

Thanks to the OP for this link. I just found out why USSR didn't invade Romania (a long time subject of speculation in Romania). We were poor, communists enough, defenseless and not much of a threat. This is so funny when I remember how many naive Romanians thought our army had some "secret weapon " :D (actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D).

kumarski 13y ago
courtesy of RDL.
antocv 13y ago
For westerners, "actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D)" I think this means the secret weapon was heavy farts?
- leaveyou 13y ago
  yes, we liked to call them "weapons of mass destruction"...
guard-of-terra 13y ago
Why would USSR invade Romania? The only scenario I can think of is reinstating Communist government. Seriously, USSR didn't have plans to occupy and assimilate random foreign countries. Not as far as I know. And don't forget USSR depended heavily on Romanian furniture :)
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Keeping/reinstating Communist governments through military force was a cornerstone of USSR foreign policy for many decades at that point - e.g. Prague Spring.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    Well, Romania was keeping Communist government so they didn't have to worry.

yankoff 13y ago

Yeah, Viktor Suvorov is pretty interesting writer. This guy was a KGB agent who escaped to the West and published a lot of books. Another his book worth checking out is "Aquarium" - about his path from a spetznaz operator to KGB and then to escape.

DCoder 13y ago
Viktor Suvorov was not KGB (secret police). He was GRU (Military Intelligence).
- yankoff 13y ago
  You are right. I read this book when I was a kid, already forgot the difference.
notastartup 13y ago
I found the tv production based on his book on youtube. Looks pretty interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmZsPUudfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmZsPUudfI

nikatwork 13y ago

> The USSR is not Russia or the Russian Empire; it is not an empire at all. > The Soviet Union does not need new territory. > A communist regime cannot feel secure so long as an example of another kind of life exists anywhere near it, with which its subjects can draw comparisons. It is for this reason that any form of Communism, not only the Soviet variety, is always at pains to shut itself off from the rest of the world This is a massive insight. Most current analysis of Putin centers around a WWII Lebensraum perspective of his actions. Modelling his behavior in terms of neutralizing breakaway territories seems a much better fit.

Perdition 13y ago
I don't see how. Putin isn't a communist and Western media is widely available in Russia so there is no benefit in regards to information flow in expanding the border. And there is no significant economic difference between Russia and her neighbours, the Soviets were trying to hide the evidence that average people in the West had it better than the new Soviet man. Putin's actions look much more like those of the 19th century Russian Empire than of the USSR (which never used nationalist rhetoric).
- tumanian 13y ago
  Putin's administration justifies the current economic state and the rampant corruption in Russia by that Russia has is own 'special way' of development which is limited the history and the socio-economic heritage of the communist regime. If Ukraine(or any other ex-Soviet country) manages to get rid of the current cleptocratic system and launches succesfull socio-economic reforms that tackle corruption, it will be a strong signal to the broad russian population that the current regime is not the driver, but a hindrance to the overall development. That is why any regime change in ex-Ussr countries is viewed by suspicion or even open hostility by the elites in Russia.
  - korzun 13y ago
    Ukraine is broke. They owe Russia millions of dollars and have been living on pretty much free gas (courtesy of Russia). I assume you live in US? Do you not find it ironic that you blame Russia for taking this seriously (in their own backyard) while US have been staging government coups within other countries (with multiple death tolls) for decades? And in regards to corruption: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" Perhaps you should focus on your own backyard first ;)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

foohbarbaz 13y ago

"The soldier's lot": http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/07.html http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/07.html is spot on! Been there.

eternalban 13y ago

Little background music while you read, Tovarich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHomETco0MI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHomETco0MI

ommunist 13y ago

What is more interesting is to look into experiences of the Soviet military in modern warfare in Angola for example.

notastartup 13y ago

As someone very interested in Soviet Union, it's system, this is a great resource. I'd love it if this was available on kindle or a paperback. Even Russians will say Soviet Union is shit or people will react like, 'why are you learning russian and so obsessed with Soviet Union', I think it's because I think it could've been a great system, it's a noble ideology that men and women of all races are integrated and all receive the similar dividends but human greed and corruption always ruins things. I don't like the way people have been persecuted because of Soviet Union, but I find it's technologies and philosophies very interesting.

smacktoward 13y ago
You should be able to track down a reasonably priced copy of the hardback edition via a good used bookstore. The copy I have now I got via Alibris a few years back.
brc 13y ago
I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time. At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.
- blumbo 13y ago
  i'd like to hear more about this, exactly how horribly miserable would you end up if you have trillions and you would be forced to give up 99% of your wealth?
  - contulluipeste 13y ago
    Giving it all up was just the "equalizing" part. Being incriminated, prosecuted and sentenced for having employed in some way other people's work was the real face of the system.
  - leaveyou 13y ago
    you need to be careful at the terms because "socialism" in communists countries and USA means "communism" and socialism in nord & western europe means higher taxes and a bigger public sector & public services (with afferent bureaucracy). Communism didn't fare well for obvious reasons while europe with all its problems, endures.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Quote From Part VIII: Soviet Communists are frequently reproached for having attempted to build a socialist society but having produced something which closely resembles a prison. Such a charge is entirely unjustified. In the Soviet Union some of the inmates have larger cells than others, some eat well, others badly. There is complete confusion-a lot remains to be done to tidy up the situation. True socialism, in which everyone is truly equal, does not just resemble a prison-it is a prison. It can not exist unless it is surrounded by high walls, by watchtowers and by guard-dogs, for people always want to escape from any socialist regime, just as they do from a prison. If you try to nationalise medicine and, from the best possible motives, to guarantee work for all the doctors, you will find that they pack their bags and leave the country. Try to bring a little order into the situation and your engineers (the best ones), your designers, your ballerinas (again, the best ones) and many, many others will also flee abroad. If you continue your attempts to establish a model society you will need to build walls around it. You will be forced to do this sooner or later by the flood of refugees.

valgaze 13y ago
Quote from Part VII, Soldier's Lot, divide and conquer: One requirement is sacrosanct when these selections are being made: whenever possible, Russians must not be stationed in the RSFSR, Ukrainians in the Ukraine or Latvians in Latvia. If there are disturbances among the Russian population of, for instance, Murom or Tolyatti or Omsk, these will be crushed, sometimes with considerable bloodshed, by non-Russian soldiers. If a strike breaks out in Donetsk (as one did in 1970) there will be no Ukrainian soldiers in the area. The soldiers stationed there are Tatars, Kirghiz, Georgians. It is all the same to them who they shoot at. What is important is that there is no one in the crowd confronting them whom they know and no one in it who speaks a language they can understand.
brc 13y ago
I wish more people understood and accepted this. It seems like every other day I read something which is wistful for a bit more 'enforced equality'. Ther can be no such thing, nor is it desirable. People have different talents and different levels of motivation. As such they produce Inequal results - and that is just life. Trying to prevent inequal results can only be done through force in the end, so a prison is the result.

spingsprong 13y ago

"It is, in fact, impossible to reach the speeds of which the MIG-25 is capable using titanium: yet the Soviet designers had managed to build this, the fastest combat aircraft in the world, from ordinary steel. " Right... MiG-25, Mach-2.8. All steel. SR-71, Mach-3.5. Uses titanium for 85% of its structure.

rangibaby 13y ago
Combat aircraft. SR-71 is a spy plane.
- spartango 13y ago
  While it is true that the SR-71 & A-12 were spy planes, and that the GP makes a slightly asinine statement, the pedant (and aviation geek) in me feels obliged to point to the YF-12[1]. The YF-12 was a twin-seater derivative of the A-12 that was developed as a fighter aircraft, complete with a look-down/shoot-down radar and missile bays. The F-12 never made it to production, but a small number high-speed of weapons tests were conducted with the 3 YF-12 airframes that were built. With that said, the MiG-25 should certainly not be belittled as a marvel of aviation. It was a blisteringly fast interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft, with an impressive radar system for its time. It filled a special role in the Russian Air Force until last year[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db
  - Theodores 13y ago
    Just out of interest, was the MiG-25 'all steel' and 'all valves'? As in no electronics as we know them, just valves? I had heard that it was EMP-proof due to the lack of any transistors on board...
    - rangibaby 13y ago
      80% nickel steel alloy, 11% aluminium, and 9% titanium. Using valves instead of transistors meant for easier maintenance in addition to resistance to EMP. [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

rdl 13y ago

(I think you posted this to hn because I posted it to Facebook again, yes?) The really interesting things to me are: 1) Invisible divisions, and the system to split units 2) Hiding top-tier equipment from the West -- even at the cost of not allowing their own soldiers to know what equipment they're supposed to ultimately use. Vs. the US, where soldiers are expected to be intimately familiar with their assigned weapons systems. 3) A really naive view of economics, that the military is "free" because the State provides it. It doesn't correctly assign the cost as that of the foregone alternative -- a tank means 100 fewer cars, etc. 4) "Role before Rank" promotions -- officers being promoted into a role above their rank as a precondition to attaining that rank. In the US system, that only really happens for certain General Officers; everyone else is promoted and then assigned, with most early to mid career promotions being either automatic or based on seniority and checkboxes.

buro9 13y ago
"Role before Rank" is how I laid out a company remuneration and incentives program. The essence was "to be a senior dev you must already be doing these things". The proof (observed by two senior people and acknowledged by colleagues at and below your level) that you were fully performing the given role meant that you would be given the job title and salary to match. We felt this was an improvement on other systems as it made it very clear what it meant to the individual. In that they needed to improve, learn things, operate differently, to be able to progress from one tier of recognition to the next and left it up to the individual to say whether they wanted to or not. It also handled the scenario of demotion... failure to maintain a standard of work meant that you'd set your role (and thereby rank) at the step below. Did this work? Mostly, yes. Definitely some rough edges when it came to dealing with long-time serving people who didn't (or couldn't) improve themselves. For those people the title and salary seldom matched their expectations.
- mu_killnine 13y ago
  I thought I was the only one in an organization structured like this. While off topic a bit... I found this structure pretty discouraging. If you don't promote your developers into the role they are actually fulfilling, it quickly begins to feel like you're taking advantage of them. That is, treating them and giving them the responsibilities of a Sr. Engineer but only compensating them like a typical engineer (or developer). There's only so many 'atta boys you can give someone before it seems like you're dodging meaningful compensation for their efforts.

valtih1978 13y ago

V Suvorov is a pseudohistorian, like Solzenicin. Both were used as antisoviet propagana means and proved liars. If you want antirussian (anticommunist) myths, you read Victor Suvorov.

watwut 13y ago

Anyone has any idea on what license does it have? What can be legally done with that book?

aluhut 13y ago

I am really looking forward for such a read about North Korea in some years. I hope I live long enough to see it.

berkut 13y ago

Awesome read. Final sentence of Conclusion: "Protest today. Tomorrow it will be too late."

trurl123 13y ago

Real name of author is Vladimir Rezun. Well known historic liar.

67726e 13y ago
Care to elaborate? Best I could find was that his writings about WWII are, at worst, disputed. Nothing about him being a fraud.

sly_g 13y ago

Author of this book has committed treason and famous for his pseudo-historical books, that usually paint USSR in blackest colors possible. No serious historian in Russia takes his works seriously. So I'd question anything that written in the book.

jotm 13y ago
No kidding, half of Americans think that Snowden is a traitor.
das_alexander 13y ago
False. - anybody went along with Soviet Union dissolution technically committed treason - he is not a professional historian, and it shows. However majority of his theories have been confirmed by professional historians, such as Solonin (http://www.solonin.org/en http://www.solonin.org/en), Hoffman (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Documentation/dp/0967985684 http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Do...), Danilov, Gorkov, etc
- trurl123 13y ago
  Ha-ha, professional historians. Solonin wrotes very much false too. See comments about his book: http://awas1952.livejournal.com/58827.html http://awas1952.livejournal.com/58827.html