• Russian plane 'disappears from radar' near Sochi
    46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=adam1172;51581939] This particular plane is built in 1983 and there are still hundreds of planes from the 80s flying today. Its all about maintenance, you can have a plane from 2010 and still have it crash today if you don't maintain it. Not to mention the TU-154 has a pretty good record when it comes to crashes caused by "technical problem" only 5 out of 69 hull losses. To add to that a majority of the crashes are caused by crew error after the technical problem itself, like accidentally shutting down the left engine after a surge in the right. [/QUOTE] And that's because the plane itself is [i]fucking shit[/i] designed by monkeys. Everyone who has ever piloted one has been saying that it's a nightmare to fly. Unresponsive controls, confusing autopilot (it starts acting up, gets turned off and the controls just lock out), convoluted electrical layout. It's very complex, very unreliable and gives basically no room for error at all. Something goes wrong - you're fucked basically. Tu-154 has a very complicated design history, it's ridden with flaws that are expected to be ironed out by the ground crews. The fuel consumption problems you mentioned are caused by inadequate engine rates at most of the altitude range. It's not a good plane at all.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51582260]It doesn't matter how well it's maintained once structural fatigue sets in. You can't fix that without more or less building a new plane. Most aircraft only have about a 30-40 year life span in regards to their airframe. With smaller aircraft it's a bit longer because there's less stresses on the frame.[/QUOTE] hola b-52
[QUOTE=Evanstr;51581788]Every army murders, its the point of them... and the Red army is the only reason we dont heil the fuhrer.[/QUOTE] World War II was a team effort, since you apparently forgot about that [i]small[/i] detail.
[QUOTE=Govna;51583439]World War II was a team effort, since you apparently forgot about that [i]small[/i] detail.[/QUOTE] And if it wasn't for Hitler deciding to go full retard and invade Russia we would likely still have a Swastika on the world map. Operation Barbarossa was the critical mistake that ended Nazi Germany, and it was because of the Red Army that it was a critical mistake. Hitler had enough resources at hand to, despite America's completely untouchable and vast production capability, stalemate the European Theater to the point it ended in a ceasefire rather than an unconditional victory. He was just a dumbass and sent the bulk of it to Russia.
[QUOTE=Govna;51583439]World War II was a team effort, since you apparently forgot about that [i]small[/i] detail.[/QUOTE] A team effort, but remember that 4 of 5 German Soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front. The Western Allies primarily fought Germany and her allies Italy and Vichy France. The Soviet Union primarily fought the bulk of Germany plus her allies Italy, Hungary, Romania, and whatever Eastern Battalions they were able to raise from occupied countries. The Western Allies did help by tying up some Axis forces in Africa, Italy, and Western Europe. Probably the bigger aid to the Soviet Union was the War in the Pacific. With Japan occupied fighting the US Navy, Marines, and Commonwealth forces, it meant Army forces in Russia's far east could be moved to fight Germany without fear of Japan invading.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51582260]It doesn't matter how well it's maintained once structural fatigue sets in. You can't fix that without more or less building a new plane. Most aircraft only have about a 30-40 year life span in regards to their airframe. With smaller aircraft it's a bit longer because there's less stresses on the frame.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, my dad was hired by North West to do a structural mod to the 747-100 that would of extended its life time, it was so expensive it was cheaper to buy a fleet of 200's and sell the 100's for scrap. Some planes like the DC and MD series where built so tough they could keep them flying but pressurized craft have to be parked eventually. Interestingly the nato codename for the 154 is "careless" mostly from accidents by over extending the plane in poor conditions I would assume.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51583846]And if it wasn't for Hitler deciding to go full retard and invade Russia we would likely still have a Swastika on the world map. Operation Barbarossa was the critical mistake that ended Nazi Germany, and it was because of the Red Army that it was a critical mistake. Hitler had enough resources at hand to, despite America's completely untouchable and vast production capability, stalemate the European Theater to the point it ended in a ceasefire rather than an unconditional victory. He was just a dumbass and sent the bulk of it to Russia.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51583860]A team effort, but remember that 4 of 5 German Soldiers were killed on the Eastern Front. The Western Allies primarily fought Germany and her allies Italy and Vichy France. The Soviet Union primarily fought the bulk of Germany plus her allies Italy, Hungary, Romania, and whatever Eastern Battalions they were able to raise from occupied countries. The Western Allies did help by tying up some Axis forces in Africa, Italy, and Western Europe. Probably the bigger aid to the Soviet Union was the War in the Pacific. With Japan occupied fighting the US Navy, Marines, and Commonwealth forces, it meant Army forces in Russia's far east could be moved to fight Germany without fear of Japan invading.[/QUOTE] You both should investigate the contributions the West made to the Soviets with the Lend-Lease Program during the war. Again, it was a team effort. They couldn't have pulled off what they did without us: [quote]It was large-scale military technical assistance from the Allies, especially the U.S., but also the UK and Canada. Volumes of this support are assessed differently. In the Soviet tradition, it was assumed that it was 4 percent of the total production capacity of the USSR, but the latest research shows that in reality the level was as high as 7 percent. [b]The importance of economic cooperation with the U.S., UK and Canada cannot be overestimated. According to the dollar rate of 2003, the inflation-adjusted value of these supplies amounted to $130 billion.[/b] These supplies were critical in some key areas. [b]For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times. About 15 percent of the aircraft used by Soviet air forces were supplied by Allies, including the Airacobra fighter and Boston bomber. The Allies supplied 15,000 state-of-the-art machines at that time; for example, famous Soviet ace Alexander Pokryshkin flew Airacobra, as did the rest of his squadron. He shot down 59 enemy aircraft, and 48 of them were thanks to American military equipment.[/b] [b]One of the main areas of cooperation was aviation fuel. The USSR could not produce gasoline with high octane. However, it was this fuel that was used by the equipment supplied by the Allies. In addition, the Achilles heel of the Soviet Army was communication and transport. The Soviet industry simply could not meet the demand either in number or in quality. For example, the army lost 58 percent of its vehicles in 1941 alone. To recover these losses, the Allies supplied more than 400,000 vehicles, mainly trucks, to the USSR.[/b] During the occupation, the German concern Daimler Benz set up a vehicle assembly line at a factory in Minsk (now the capital of Belarus). After the liberation of the city, the assembly of American vehicles under Lend-Lease was organized there. It was not only supplies of finished products, but also raw materials that were extremely important – metals, chemicals and products, which were either not produced in the USSR or lost to the enemy. [b]For example, more than half of Soviet aircraft were produced using aluminum supplied by the Allies.[/b] [b]In the first protocol of Lend-Lease (there were four of them), only 20 percent of deliveries were in military equipment, while 80 percent were related to industrial and food production. The Allies supplied 1900 locomotives to the USSR, while only 446 locomotives were produced in the country itself during the same period, as well as 11,000 carriages, while only a few more than 1,000 were made in the USSR. It is impossible to imagine how the Soviet economy would have functioned without these supplies. For example, the telephone cable provided by the Allies could wrap the Earth at the equator.[/b] The Allies’ aid was also critical in the reconstruction of production in the liberated regions of the country, including the role of seeds for the resumption of agriculture. Specific products were also supplied; the Allies delivered 610,000 tons of sugar to the USSR, whereas the USSR itself produced little more than 1.46 million tons.[/quote] [url]http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Govna;51583929]You both should investigate the contributions the West made to the Soviets with the Lend-Lease Program during the war. Again, it was a team effort. They couldn't have pulled off what they did without us: [url]http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html[/url][/QUOTE] I'm well aware of lend lease and I stand behind my point. If it wasn't for Operation Barbarossa, and for the tenacity with which the soviet conscripts fought, we would still have a Swastika on the map. Our production capacity alone was not going to win the war. We needed more boots on the ground, we needed Hitler's army divided. And that's what the Soviets brought to the table. We may have been selling them guns and engines and telegraph cables, but it was up to them to put those things to good use. Without the Red Army the European Theater would have been a stalemate. All the materiel in the world is useless if there's no hands to put it in.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51586239]I'm well aware of lend lease and I stand behind my point. If it wasn't for Operation Barbarossa, and for the tenacity with which the soviet conscripts fought, we would still have a Swastika on the map.[/QUOTE] The Soviets just had an insane amount of manpower and resolve. They managed to lose [I]millions[/I] of troops to encirclements and surrenders, and still turn the war around.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51586279]The Soviets just had an insane amount of manpower and resolve. They managed to lose [I]millions[/I] of [B]troops[/B] to encirclements and surrenders, and still turn the war around.[/QUOTE] Eh, Troops? Don't you mean everyone they didn't agree with the Soviet Elite? They possibly sent around 10-15 million "criminals" from gulags and inmates to serve, as they were fucked anyway. And they basically moved towns into the Soviet Union. If the troops came, and you were still in the town with Germans, Stalin didn't really give a shit if you died or something. They just burned and kept supplies out of that town, to make the Germans starve to death and then push them backwards again.
[QUOTE=Torjuz;51586368]Eh, Troops? Don't you mean everyone they didn't agree with the Soviet Elite? They possibly sent around 10-15 million "criminals" from gulags and inmates to serve, as they were fucked anyway. And they basically moved towns into the Soviet Union.[/QUOTE] At no point during the war did the Soviets send criminals and other GULAG prisoners to the frontline. That's something that just didn't happen. For obvious reason of lack of morale and loyalty if nothing else.
[QUOTE=Torjuz;51586368]Eh, Troops? Don't you mean everyone they didn't agree with the Soviet Elite? They possibly sent around 10-15 million "criminals" from gulags and inmates to serve, as they were fucked anyway. And they basically moved towns into the Soviet Union. If the troops came, and you were still in the town with Germans, Stalin didn't really give a shit if you died or something. They just burned and kept supplies out of that town, to make the Germans starve to death and then push them backwards again.[/QUOTE] it sounds like an awfully easy way to start a rebellion and get wrecked if you send prisoners of your nation to war lol
[QUOTE=TestECull;51583846]And if it wasn't for Hitler deciding to go full retard and invade Russia we would likely still have a Swastika on the world map. Operation Barbarossa was the critical mistake that ended Nazi Germany, and it was because of the Red Army that it was a critical mistake. Hitler had enough resources at hand to, despite America's completely untouchable and vast production capability, stalemate the European Theater to the point it ended in a ceasefire rather than an unconditional victory. He was just a dumbass and sent the bulk of it to Russia.[/QUOTE] However, if Hitler hadn't gone trough Barbarossa the Russians would eventualy have been the ones that stabbed the Nazis in the back.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51586279]The Soviets just had an insane amount of manpower and resolve. They managed to lose [I]millions[/I] of troops to encirclements and surrenders, and still turn the war around.[/QUOTE] Basically this was mostly happening during the early years of the war. The commanders and soldiers didn't have any combat experience, the troops were under equipped and yet they were opposed by a skilled, experienced and very well equipped enemy that managed to take them by surprise. As the soviet army gained both combat experience and better equipment(including the lend lease one), their losses became much lower. Like, it's not that I'm trying to say all those horribly incompetent or just plain horrible and inhumane orders that came from the soviet's high command and basically killed a lot of our people are fake, but i'm pretty sure if the european countries decided to actually fight back in the same scale that could be seen on the eastern front and had to deal with the same amount of troops they would have lost many millions as well. The german army was plainly the best army in the world back then, and they sent their best of the best to the eastern front.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51583846]And if it wasn't for Hitler deciding to go full retard and invade Russia we would likely still have a Swastika on the world map. Operation Barbarossa was the critical mistake that ended Nazi Germany, and it was because of the Red Army that it was a critical mistake. Hitler had enough resources at hand to, despite America's completely untouchable and vast production capability, stalemate the European Theater to the point it ended in a ceasefire rather than an unconditional victory. He was just a dumbass and sent the bulk of it to Russia.[/QUOTE] It wasn't really going full retard I don't think, Germany feared the USSR would attack at any time so they decided to attack first while they were still strong and the war on their western front was at a stalemate. He went full retard way before that when he decided to start annexing shit all over Eastern Europe thinking that the UK and France wouldn't start a war over it. Also I doubt the war would end in stalemate had the USSR not joined in, if anything it would only remain a stalemate until the US got nukes.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51586239]I'm well aware of lend lease and I stand behind my point. If it wasn't for Operation Barbarossa, and for the tenacity with which the soviet conscripts fought, we would still have a Swastika on the map. Our production capacity alone was not going to win the war. We needed more boots on the ground, we needed Hitler's army divided. And that's what the Soviets brought to the table. We may have been selling them guns and engines and telegraph cables, but it was up to them to put those things to good use. Without the Red Army the European Theater would have been a stalemate. All the materiel in the world is useless if there's no hands to put it in.[/QUOTE] If you're "well aware" of it, then why are you downplaying its significance? The Soviets were not able to put up the resistance that they did without our help. Without us, the Red Army wouldn't have had the tanks, aircraft, trucks, and trains that it did. They wouldn't have had aviation fuel or aluminum for their aircraft. They wouldn't have had the ability not only to fight but to logistically organize and maintain themselves. They supplied the bodies, but we supplied pretty much everything else. [quote]The importance of economic cooperation with the U.S., UK and Canada cannot be overestimated. According to the dollar rate of 2003, the inflation-adjusted value of these supplies amounted to $130 billion. These supplies were critical in some key areas. For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times. About 15 percent of the aircraft used by Soviet air forces were supplied by Allies, including the Airacobra fighter and Boston bomber. The Allies supplied 15,000 state-of-the-art machines at that time; for example, famous Soviet ace Alexander Pokryshkin flew Airacobra, as did the rest of his squadron. He shot down 59 enemy aircraft, and 48 of them were thanks to American military equipment.[/quote] [quote]One of the main areas of cooperation was aviation fuel. The USSR could not produce gasoline with high octane. However, it was this fuel that was used by the equipment supplied by the Allies. In addition, the Achilles heel of the Soviet Army was communication and transport. The Soviet industry simply could not meet the demand either in number or in quality. For example, the army lost 58 percent of its vehicles in 1941 alone. To recover these losses, the Allies supplied more than 400,000 vehicles, mainly trucks, to the USSR.[/quote] [quote]In the first protocol of Lend-Lease (there were four of them), only 20 percent of deliveries were in military equipment, while 80 percent were related to industrial and food production. The Allies supplied 1900 locomotives to the USSR, while only 446 locomotives were produced in the country itself during the same period, as well as 11,000 carriages, while only a few more than 1,000 were made in the USSR. It is impossible to imagine how the Soviet economy would have functioned without these supplies. For example, the telephone cable provided by the Allies could wrap the Earth at the equator. The Allies’ aid was also critical in the reconstruction of production in the liberated regions of the country, including the role of seeds for the resumption of agriculture. Specific products were also supplied; the Allies delivered 610,000 tons of sugar to the USSR, whereas the USSR itself produced little more than 1.46 million tons.[/quote] [url]http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html[/url] I don't know how to make it any clearer: they won because we contributed what we did to them. It was a team effort-- not singularly won by them or by us. This isn't up for debate. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51586279]The Soviets just had an insane amount of manpower and resolve. They managed to lose [I]millions[/I] of troops to encirclements and surrenders, and still turn the war around.[/QUOTE] And a metric fuckload of help from the Allies. Stop trying to leave that part out. They couldn't have done it without us. To sum up Oleg Budnitskii (the Professor of History and Director of the Center for the Study of the History and Sociology of World War II at the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow; the guy in the article with the figures sourced above): [i]"The importance of economic cooperation with the U.S., UK and Canada cannot be overestimated. ... It is impossible to imagine how the Soviet economy would have functioned without these supplies."[/i]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.