-
“Missile sled”:
Yours? -
Unfortunately, I’m not sure of which Command you mean–US or USSR–so I miss your point.
ETA: Typo or good portmanteau invention? “sledge” suggests a sled which is also a sledgehammer.
Right. That’s why I said “Does that count?” 
We had an Agat when I was younger. I actually thought it was better than the Apple II (on which it was allegedly based) though less good then the IBM I also had.
OK, thanks!
I remember hearing that the US perceived the MiG-25 to be the best interceptor in the world until a Russian pilot defected to Japan and when we had a chance to reverse engineer it. Still a very respectable multirole aircraft in my book. Luckily it never shot down any of our SR-71’s.
How about the short lived soviet navy’s VTOL aircraft. (Yak 44 I think?). How did that stack up against a BAe Harrier I?
I don’t quite follow.
After struggling to adapt to the jetfighter age, the United States Air Force began to believe that the future of aerospace lay in, essentially, firing missiles from people from a very long way off. They didn’t perceive that dogfighting was of any value any further. This led and over-reliance on missile systems and an inability to fight in rough terrain, which proved extremely problematic during the Cold War. The US was completely blindsided by the development of Soviet warplanes, which were (and are) not remotely perfect but were able to exploit major weaknesses in our arsenal.
There’s a long story involving some remarkably persistent US airmen who actually developed an entire science in order to, essentially, smack short-sighted Air Force brass upside the head.
Sledge is an old word for… a sled. It is still used today, generally to refer to a sled used to haul heavy loads. I didn’t invent, either.
The first thermonuclear weapon and the biggest nuclear weapon (Tsar Bomba) were both from the USSR.
Where did the USSR excel in civilian science (communications, medicine, etc)?
Sorry I messed up the description of radial keratotomy-I should have researched to refresh my memory first. The OP doesn’t specify, but I personally am much more interested in “civilian” tech than military tech. I feel like I’ve seen that discussion a million times elsewhere and it’s not so interesting to have the “which plane is better?” debate again.
That said, do as you like which you would do anyway.
Wrong, and right.
The first thermonuclear weapon (meaning fusion bomb) was the Ivy Mike shot in 1952, and the Soviets didn’t blow up a Teller-Ulam configuration bomb until 3 years later.
The Tsar Bomba was the largest weapon ever designed or detonated though.
Well there was that guy who managed to revive a dead dog’s head with a prototype iron lung…
Mostly though, medical-wise the USSR was pretty remarkable, not so much in terms of great achievements and “firsts”, but in how accessible medicine was to the common man - it wasn’t uncommon for Russian soldiers in WW2 to have crowns or artificial teeth for example, even those who came from the ass end of the Urals. It wasn’t the prettiest dental work you’ve ever seen but it was functional and rugged, and it was way more than what Tommy British Farmhand could hope to get in 1930.
The thing is that every communist nation on the planet built its own AK copies, with varying degrees of efficiency or respect of specs. From what I can gather, Really Russian AKs are considered superior to the lot, but as I’m no gun scholar I couldn’t tell you whether it’s because they’re actually better, or if it’s more of a fashion/mystique thing.
I do know the North Vietnamese soldiers would bitch that they never got the AKs Russia sent them : the Chinese would hijack the crates, keep the guns for themselves and replaced them with Chinese-made AKs.
Yak-141. In terms of performance it was better than the Harrier (which isn’t saying much, that plane’s a complete dog) but from what I remember they had issues with its automatic ejection seat. In that it would trigger randomly whenever the plane attempted a vertical take-off/landing. That feature was less than popular with test pilots, a corporation of professionals who by and large value the continued use of their legs.
The T-34 was an excellent design. it was the first to have sloped frontal armor, which effectively gives the protection of thicker armor with less weight. The Germans chose not to use sloped armor in their Tiger tank-anybody know why? the TIGER was a very powerful tank, but was plagued by high fuel consumption and difficulty in running (owing to the immense weight of its armor). In any case, the T-34 was easy to build, easy to repair, and reliable…plus, they could be made in huge numbers by low tech factories. The Tiger took 300,000 man hours to build-the Germans only made about 1400 all told.
One Kirov battlecruiser would make an entire carrier task force turn to safer waters. The SS-N-19 and the Yakhont anti ship missiles could possibly get through all ship-borne defense systems and sink a carrier. The T-72 would have flattened an M-60. The super MBT designed to take on the Abrams didn’t quite make it.
True, Sovtek tubes are still sought out, but not because they’re superior. It’s because the major US suppliers don’t manufacture them anymore. (Sylvania, Philco, GE, etc)
In the 50s and 60s, there was the Setun, a ternary computer created by Nikolai Brusentsov and Sergei Sobolev, which was faster and more accurate than the binary computers created in the west. Because there were restrictions on the ability of the Soviets to buy computer technology from the Western world, they were pretty much forced to develop their own, independent, computer program, and independent Soviet computing lasted until, I think, the late 60s or early 70s, when the Soviet government decided it would be both cheaper and easier to reverse engineer western designs.
While in retrospect it seems obvious, at the time sloped armor hadn’t really been looked at by the Germans. Remember, this was 1942 and the Germans were designing their new heavy tank to take on other tanks they had experience with. Even without sloped armor the Tiger I was pretty nasty, being able to shrug off hits from most other tanks, including the T-34 from the front at any sort of range (the Russians got to the point where they would use their superior speed and maneuverability in the T-34 to ram Tigers if they saw them…the American Sherman tanks would sacrifice several tanks to try and get around behind the Tiger for a rear shot). In the end, the Germans only produced something like 1500 of the things, so they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. But the tank was so nasty and feared that even with so few it still had quite the reputation.
Even the Panzer V (Panther) tanks were plagued with early teething problems, and still took a lot more resources to build and maintain. The T-34 was, I think, the optimal example of what the OP was looking for. The irony, to me, is that the Soviets developed this tank WITH the Germans in the pre-war era because the Germans were stifled in their tank development and production due to restrictions placed on them from the WWI armistice. Another irony, perhaps, is that like many Soviet systems they borrowed heavily on it’s design from other nations. As well as the German contribution they also borrowed the chassis design from an American manufacture who basically couldn’t sell it to the US because our own military procurement types didn’t see the value.
“More accurate?”
Read Blind Man’s Bluff by Sherry Sontag.
Our subs and SOSUS eliminated that threat.
The Panther was plagued with mechanical problems, full stop. It wasn’t just early teething problems that later got fixed, it had serious problems in all production models. The early production models just had teething problems that were particularly egregious, like the engine deciding to set itself on fire.
Well, they became somewhat more reliable in the later models, but certainly the early models had major issues. As with most German weapons systems of the time it was over engineered and very resource intensive but it was a very good tank when it worked. I seem to recall, however, that during Kursk (which the timeline was partially held back by Hitler et al while the Panzer V’s were rushed through production and shipped to the battlefield) that something like a quarter to a third broke down long before they actually got into combat (this was also when they discovered that the Elephant really could use a turret mounted machine gun to protect the thing from infantry…not that this would have made the system viable, regardless, but it would have helped a bit).
Is ir true that Americans can’t make liquid metal-cooled reactors for submarines like the Russians did?