|
I wouldn't say it's really sick, they are quite a beautiful and awesome sight. Unfortunately what they do is the polar opposite, but I understand where you're coming from.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:What they -do- is make a lot of heat really quickly. It's what people might use them for that's questionable.  v
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
I will never cease to be amazed at the sheer size of those things. Shame they're letting them just rust away like that, but some great photos at least. I would love to see one for myself one day, but not bloody likely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I really expected it to be a bit more high tech than that. Newer stuff is catching up, but the interior of the Typhoon is pretty typical considering it's 30 years old now and 10-15 of those years were spent struggling to even keep the sailors fed, let alone upgrade the boats. I'm actually surprised they managed to keep them afloat during the 90s.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Wow. I kind of assumed SAMs would mirror their targets by going with fuckoff MFDs everywhere; thanks for showing me otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Keeping with the theme of 'let's look inside things!', here's a T-80BV.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
I would really not be surprised if "ergonomics" as a word didn't even exist in Soviet military parlance. On the other hand, it does manifest itself in weird ways. For all the gripes about the MiG-29's cockpit and controls, the engines were easy as gently caress to replace owing to the fact they were basically just hanging underneath, as opposed to western designs where they tend to be doing insane things like "being buried inside the fuselage or wing roots". In fact, I would say about the only time a single iota of thought was given to the guys that had to operate this stuff was when it came to fixing something broken. No point having something flashy if your conscripts don't know which way up it goes! Similar deal with the AK... from a strictly ergonomics standpoint its controls are terrible, especially the safety, but it strips easily. Same with the 91/30, a pig to handle compared to its contemporaries, but stupidly easy to take apart. I'm not as well versed in subs specifically so I don't know how easy it would be to repair damaged systems on Soviet ones vs. American ones, but in terms of aviation and small arms, they seem to have designed them almost around maintenance rather than operation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
I dunno about during the Cold War, but there were (some) recorded instances of that during WWII.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 17:15
|
|