Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West Vs East, whose weapons are better?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • West Vs East, whose weapons are better?

    Here you go guys. A wide open thread with a wide open title that can cover almost any piece of military hardware at the posters whim.

    Have at it. ;)

  • #2
    During the 70's and 80's it was widely in belief that every soviet weapon, aircraft or any vechile was nothing more but a copy from its U.S counterpart.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Fury
      During the 70's and 80's it was widely in belief that every soviet weapon, aircraft or any vechile was nothing more but a copy from its U.S counterpart.
      when you say east, do you mean russai, or do you mean like china and korea?
      "I'm against picketting, but i dont know how to show it"

      Comment


      • #4
        East as in Soviet Block. China and NK definitely qualify.

        "West" would be western Europe and NATO countries.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well the US has the best weapons Russia has really good weapons and china has pretty good russian weapons its scary too think the US has alot more better weapons that they dont show their so top secret were not gonna get to see them for awhile.

          Comment


          • #6
            Like this one?

            Blew my mind when they unvieled this beautiful machine...
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #7
              What is that thing supposed be?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Fury
                What is that thing supposed be?
                That would be the Bird of Prey. A reserach vessel for advanced stealth technologies. It came out of the Phantom Works in St. Louis back in 2002, but the black program was rumored to have been around since '96.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We have both.

                  The Eastern weapons are crude looking, rugged and requires less maintenance.

                  Western weapons are sophisticated, delicate and better looking.

                  It is like a woman of easy virtue and a woman on call! :) Sorry for this allegory.


                  "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                  I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                  HAKUNA MATATA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well Ray, being a former field grade officer in a military that uses both makes you uniquely well qualified to judge both.

                    A fair assessment. :)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sniper,

                      Thanks.


                      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                      HAKUNA MATATA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, I think Western weapons are better, but that's just my personal opinion
                        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well the Russians did make at least one excellent weapon, the M-46 130mm gun. It was one of the weapons that won the war in Laos and South Vietnam. During the Vietnam War it outranged all but one gun in American/ARVN service the M-107 175mm. And there were not close to as many M-107s as there were M-46s. The M-46 completely outranged the M-101, M-102 and M-114.

                          Camp Carol surrendered during the Eastern Offensive because they could not counter the large number of long range M-46s even with a battery of M-107s. Air strikes would be called in to try and silence one gun. In Laos due to camouflage and dispersal the guns proved deadly on Hmong and RLA troops. The RLAF and even the USAF had problems finding much less destroying them. It was essential it blasting the Hmong off their mountain top fortresses during 1971. Even Thai gunners who were flown in with M-114 artillery to support the 1970 offensive were completely outgunned.

                          Yeah so it was a good piece.
                          To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm pretty sure the M-110 8"/203mm SPG would at least match the range of that gun. Of course we had no M-110s in Vietnam, so the point is pretty moot.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There were M-110s in Vietnam but they had a shorter barrel and were out ranged by the M-46. Only the rather small number of M-107s (not to small a number all said) and of course air strikes could fight back. During the battle for Camp Carol in 1972 there was 1 M-107s battery along with a couple M-114 and M-101 battalions facing at least a regiment of M-46s. It was a slaughter as the M-46s did have to get within range of the M-107s but by volume of fire crushed them while still out of range of the M-101s and M-114s. And in Laos only M-101s, a few M-114s manned by RTA crews and the USAF/RLAF faced the large and well-dispersed NVA artillery.

                              The M-46 had a longer range then the M-109 in Vietnam as well. The M-107 had a 35,000yd range while the M-46 had a 27,150yd range but tactics and use helped give NVA M-46 crews an edge. An M-107 defending a camp under siege is not really going too far while the M-46s crews would have more room to move thier guns around. B-52 strikes became the order of the day to silence single guns.

                              It did well during the Iran Iraq war in Iraqi hands for counter battery fire and to hit Iranian supply lines.

                              Another good Russian system was the BM-21 MLRS. Simply a classic which provided mobile firepower on a large scale. It was important in securing an MPLA victory in Angola. The Zairian commandos and FNLA troops that faced the MPLA simply fled, as they had nothing to counter the BM-21. The Zairians brought some WW2 vintage 140mm guns and some old 25 pounders but these could not fight back, as the BM-21s were mobile and would shoot and scoot. The North Korean built guns the Zairians brought exploded in their faces. So with no real way to hit back they did what anyone else would do in the same place and started a disorderly retreat to the border. End result the BM-21 got a good deal of credit for the MPLA takeover…

                              People who have talked to me might know that Russian weapons rarely impress me but these are two systems that do.
                              Last edited by troung; 11 Aug 04,, 02:02.
                              To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X