Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Soviet "monkey model" weaponry

POST REPLY
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 12 Mar 2010, 20:11
Hi.
I've been searching the net of all nets for some explanations why did armies equipped with soviet-made equipment sucked so much(Arabs vs Jews,Iraq vs. U$A etc...).I just couldn't understand how Jews could beat t-55's with upgraded shermans...It seems that,besides inexperienced crews,soviet-delivered tanks/planes were degraded export versions.
So,i found this on wiki:"Monkey model was the unofficial designation given by the Soviet Military to versions military equipment (armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles) of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.
The monkey model was exported with the same or a similar designation as the original Soviet design but in fact it lacked many of the advanced or expensive features of the original."
It seems kinda weird to me...Did they maybe wanted to force their allies to buy more weapons after current ones are destroyed or maybe always be a few steps ahead prior to the delivery of new weapons(just like Intel's doing with processors)
Anyway,it seems as a horrible waste of material and labor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model
Soviet cogitations: 324
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2010, 11:57
Resident Admiral
Post 12 Mar 2010, 21:10
You have to remeber that all the western sources say that the Western equipment were the best.
Western armies often hid their losses because of propaganda and also because of military industries wanted good publicity.
On the contrary armies with Soviet fighting styles often extolled its losses emphasizing the spirit of sacrifice for the cause.

In the end during Corean War MiG had a greater number of victories on American fighters, that hide losses as imposed by SAM or accidents.
The same was done by Israel and South Africa for their aircraft and tanks losses.
And also the US army covered his losses against Serbs and Iraqui..

old Iraqui, Serbs, Vietnamese, Corean, Cuban, Soviet and Syrian media report very different stories from Wikipedia, and sometimes are closer to reality.
The same was done for Naval units during the last wars.. i did some topics recently
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 676
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Sep 2009, 07:33
Ideology: Left Communism
Forum Commissar
Post 13 Mar 2010, 04:08
I know that the USSR exported inferior models of it's equipment and vehicles to many of its allies or clients. That's one reason why the USA was able to plow through Iraqi forces in the First Gulf War like a scythe through grain, the Iraqis were using grossly inferior (and outdated) vehicles. I recall that the only non-USSR countries to receive the top-of-the-line equipment were the DDR and Poland, as they were essential for any attack or defense against NATO. I'm not sure if I recall my source for that, I'll try to find it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Mar 2010, 09:55
I believe that human factors played a far greater role than the disparity in equipment.

To quote Steven Biddle on Iraqi defensive position in the battle of 73 eastings:
Quote:
The Iraqi military displayed very poor combat skills by contemporary Western standards. This can be illustrated by focusing on just three of their many tactical shortcomings.(63)

First, Iraqi defensive positions were very poorly prepared. The "Saddam line" at the Saudi border was haphazard at best (although given the poor quality of its conscript garrison, it is unclear how significant this was). More important for the outcome, the Republican Guard blocking positions were no better Western armies dig their fighting positions into the earth below grade, and hide the soil removed in excavation. The Guard, on the other hand, simply piled sand into loose berms, or mounds, on the surface of the ground around combat vehicles and infantry positions.(64) This gave away the defenders' locations from literally thousands of meters away, as the berms were the only distinctive feature of an otherwise flat landscape, without providing any real protection against the fire this inevitably drew.(65) Loose piles of sand cannot stop modern high-velocity tank rounds. In fact, they barely slow them down. U.S. crews in 73 Pasting reported seeing 120 mm tank rounds pass through Iraqi berms, through the Iraqi armored vehicle behind the berm, and off into the distance.(66) No U.S. tank crew would leave itself so exposed.

Republican Guard positions were also virtually devoid of anti-tank mines, ditches, wire entanglements, or any other attempts to delay or channel an attacker's progress.(67) In Western armies, units automatically begin preparing their positions as soon as they occupy them. If kept in place for more than a few hours, they begin to dig fighting positions, construct barriers and lay mines, with engineering assistance if available, but if not, then with the unit's own manpower. The Iraqi blocking positions had evidently been occupied for some time, yet they remained without even rudimentary countermobility preparations.(68) No U.S. unit would remain so inactive.

Second, the Republican Guard failed to coordinate the efforts of the different arms at its disposal. In particular, artillery support was almost wholly absent, both in defense against American assaults and in support of the Guard's own counterattacks. The Iraqis made some attempt to direct artillery against the advancing Americans, but proved unable either to adjust fire against moving targets (a difficult task) or even to deliver fire in mass against fixed points as Americans moved past them (an easier job).(69) The Iraqi counterattack at 73 Easting was executed with only a rudimentary attempt to suppress U.S. fire with artillery, or to screen the advance with artillery-delivered smoke.(70) Nor did the Iraqis make any attempt to scout the ACR's positions before the assault, to use engineers to create smoke or other obscuration, or to coordinate assault forces' movement with the use of overwatch elements to provide covering fire.(71)

Third, Iraqi covering forces systematically failed to alert their main defenses of the U.S. approach, allowing even Republican Guard units to be taken completely by surprise. Going back at least as far as World War I, all Western armies have used covering forces - whether observation posts, forward reconnaissance screens, or delaying positions - to provide warning to the main defenses that they are about to be attacked. Ideally, these covering forces serve other functions as well (such as stripping away the opponent's recon elements, slowing the attacker's movement, or channeling the assault), but the minimum function they must perform is to notify the main defense of an attacker's approach. This is not difficult. A one-word radio message is enough to sound the alarm. Even less can work if commanders agree in advance that failure to check in at specified times will be taken as warning of attack. The brevity of the message makes it virtually impossible to jam; the procedural backup of interpreting silence as warning means that even a dead observer can provide an alert.(72)

Yet at 73 Easting, for example, the Iraqi main position received no warning of the 2nd ACR's approach. A few observation posts were deployed well forward of the main defenses, but these were evidently destroyed without sending any messages, and without the local commander interpreting silence as evidence of attack.(73)


The disparity in technology merely allowed the coalition forces to exploit mistakes such as those to the fullest possible extent, bringing disastrous consequences to the defenders.

Note that in the three major wars the US fought after WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, the disparity in equipment was the smallest in the opening phase of the first Gulf war, yet it produced the most lopsided result.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 324
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2010, 11:57
Resident Admiral
Post 13 Mar 2010, 14:57
I have to repeat a thing that was discusse in a forum of my country.

the Gulf War NOT ended with an American Victoy.

all the Iraqui losses were exaggerated by the American propaganda
many US and Allied losses were covered by Western Media.

For example a F-18 was shot down by a Mig-25
two Tornado, one british and one Italian, a pair of F-15, and a B-52 bomber were shot down by MiG-23 and MiG-29.
And Soviet sources with satellites observed three times more air losses admitted by US.

And also for the tanks is very funny.
Shortly after the war it was said that only 4 allied tanks were destroyer for all causes.
Now we know that at least two dozen of M-1 Abrams were destroyer, some of them because of Babylon Lion tanks..
Without counting Allied and Kuwait losses, as the other Us not-Abrams tanks..

The explaination of the stopping of the Allied advance as an wasteful operation is ridiculous.
They were stopped by the Republican Guard, that had better equipment then then normal armoured units.

So manu Us soldied died months after the war, as civilians, in hospital.
Maybe heroes, maybe young men, and their families had to pay for a hospital bed, a bed of death...


You will surprise you to know that also Syrian and Egypt air forces were better than the Israeli propaganda.
Not only MiG-23 but also some MiG-21 succedeed to hit the more powerful Israelian F-15. One shot down 3 july 1982, and one badly damaged 9Jun1982 by Harra with an R-60 missles
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 13 Mar 2010, 15:34
I'd like to see the sources you have for your claims 1redItalian. I can use a translater program to get the general idea if they aren't all in English. It's a bit hard to believe that the U.S. military could have covered up some of the losses you are claiming.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Mar 2010, 16:00
It doesn't matter whether 3 or 12 USA planes were destroyed.
The main question is why did Soviets provide their "allies" with inferior weaponry.
Soviet cogitations: 324
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2010, 11:57
Resident Admiral
Post 13 Mar 2010, 17:31
Inferior weaponery maybe, but not so weak.. more or less.. but we can't consider a MiG-23 export fighter as a MiG-21, and a MiG-29 export as MiG-23, or a T-72export as a T-62 ... there are differences, and a machine could be better in a environment rather than another.

And Soviet did improvement, some first export versions of MiG-21 had only missles, not very functional, the standar container for aircraft cannons as MiG or Aero was designed after these requests.


For some interesting view about different claiming, i suggest sites as Acig, it's wester but it had reported many claimed victories,
they call them as un-confirmed. But for Vietnam ad against Israel many of them were shot down by SAM for official western view.
It was only a problem of publicity.
Also for the B-52 losses in Vietnam the different American companies claim different numbers.. all for doing a good or a bad publicity.

As for Iraqui we have
17 Jan91 a MiG-25PDS shot down R-40RD with the F/A-18C of Lt. Speicher of VFA-83/USN , KIA, a victory confirmed by other western sources.
The same day we have a MiG-23ML shot down a F-111F with R-60, a MiG-29 shot down a B-52G with R-27R, a MiG-29 shot down a F-111F with R-60MK and a MiG-29 shot down a italian Tornado with R-60MK.
The two italian pilots were taken POW, its' interesting how they said that never realized what had hit them.. as Italian i've seen some Tv interview of them.
The next day a second Tornado, british, was shot down with R-60MK by a MiG-29.
29 January 1991 a US F-15C was shot down by a MiG-25PD with a pair of R-40 missles.

After all i think that the most interesting are the Serbs claiming of NATO losses.
As Italian during the War my country provided many airfields, there was many sightings of people i know about Nato aircraft badly damaged at the italian airfields. I don't remember the exact number, but at least 60 or more Nato aircraft were shot down..there was a beautiful serb site about this, i will find it again. more or less the same number of all the allied aircraft losses in Iraq.. i will can post an italian page of journal about that number.. it was the only old and right-wing one that claimed only 4 allied tank destroyer

On Acig.org there is also an incredible report of KGB agents in Lybia, they were disappointed and angry because of the bad use of soviet SAM by Lybic anti-aircraft forces.. because ONLY a some dozens of Us aircraft shot down, and many others that escaped evading missles.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 13 Mar 2010, 17:52
Thanks for the quote James, it was very informative and relevant.

As to the question of monkey models, one has to ask which countries were being provided with this weaponry, and for what purposes they were perceived to need it. The answer to the first question shows that not every country provided Soviet weapons was an actual ally. Saddam Hussein's Iraq for example was looked at with much apprehension and suspicion right from the beginning of his leadership, and the decline in relations eventually went so far as the Soviets supporting the Kurds in the north and temporarily halting the export of weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. The answer to the second question, of the purposes for which the recipient was attaining the weapons, is equally important. In some cases, the Soviets may have judged that the advanced versions of their military technology would be put to waste in an environment without the infrastructure or trained military to support the weapons. In others, the rationale may have been that providing weaponry that was too advanced would create instability within the regional balance of power.

Which countries were recipients of 'the real thing' is more difficult to answer. I don't think that any Eastern Bloc country received monkey models. Instead, the smaller armies, like those of Bulgaria and Hungary, had smaller military budgets and thus used older models of Soviet weapons. I also believe that Afghanistan, Mongolia, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam probably received the real thing. There was a big issue made of Syria receiving the Soviets' most advanced anti-aircraft missile systems and aircraft in the early 1980s. Laos, Cambodia, South Yemen, Libya, Congo, Angola, Mozambique, India, Algeria and Nicaragua were countries with close friendly relations but who I can imagine to have received some inferior weapons. Former friends like Peru, Guinea, Mali, Ghana, Bangladesh, and Iraq, which continued to purchase weapons, as well as Nigeria, Madagascar, Tanzinia, Benin, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, Sao Tome, the Seychelles, North Yemen, and Mauritania, which bought on a commercial basis, can also be assumed to have received a mixture when it comes to quality. My source on this is the book 'The War Atlas' by Michael Kidron and Dan Smith, which lists perceived alliances current and former up to 1982, military bases, and military advisors around the world.
Last edited by soviet78 on 13 Mar 2010, 18:01, edited 1 time in total.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Jan 2010, 05:28
Komsomol
Post 13 Mar 2010, 18:00
James and soviet 78 make good points. Also, I couldn't help but noticing that the linked Wikipedia article is very weak. It has been flagged several times, lacks inline citations, and one user on the talk page seems to think it is completely useless. Wikipedia articles can be a good resource, but only when they are well written and their sources are clear.
"I am not the champion of lost causes, but the champion of causes not yet won."-Norman Thomas
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2010, 09:49
I know that you're a military expert 1redItalian,but i know from my personal experience what lying milošević's propaganda could do.
60 planes is just outrageously high number.There are estimations from 3-15 planes shot down,even Serbs today admit it.
Their best action was downing of f-117 stealth bomber by a modified Neva-Pechora SAM.
Many planes were damaged,though.
Soviet78,thanks again for your informative post.
Soviet cogitations: 324
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2010, 11:57
Resident Admiral
Post 14 Mar 2010, 10:24
I read that you live in Croatia so you have to consider that, because of tha past war between serbs and croatians, not everything is said in your country can be the truth.
About the Serbs claim there are some with partial confirmation of Greece and Bulgary, also some helicopters claimed as crash because accidents.. and there are also the two raids of Galeb and Orao fighters against two Albanian-Nato airports, one is Tuzla the other i don't remember the name.
For stealth bombers they claim at least two F-117, the one admitted by US is claimed as shot down by an MiG-29 and for this i think that can be also true..
It's strange but they claim not one, but TWO B-2 stealth bomber, with many details about the places of the crash..
I think that the better thing to do is go here and search speaking with the people of villages..

With all this.. i'm not a supporter of Milosevic, even if i'm happy to see Nato losses, as italian communist i consider my country military occupied by the Us army, at the end of the WWII communist partizans like jugoslavians take the major cities of north Italy, but was only for some time. After the end of the war many fascist policemen and burocrats returned at the power with the Us help.

And about the Propaganda.. here in Italy there is a growing anti-slavian xenophobic sentiment, about some killings of italian by jugoslavian partizans at the Foibe, none remember how italians soldiers killed so many civilians in Sloveny, Croat, Albania..
very very sad.. none remember how italian partizan fought together the jugoslavians in many battles against german and fascist army
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2010, 11:20
These Fojbe killing aren't propaganda.
They really happened.But the greatest sin was the expulsion of Italian from Istria.
As a Croat,i'm ashamed by these crimes.
You have to know though,that this wasn't made solely by Croats.
Serbs in political/military top were enraged at axis and their collaborators and resorted to revanchism(killings of Croats in Bleiburg,killings and expulsions of Germans,Italians...)

OK,these losses you state are pretty reasonable.
But this story about raid on albanian airport is fake.
I've read about it on a croatian forum:In that story,galeb's flew close to the sea(! right,so they could be seen on a radar in a sea full of nato planes instead of going from Prokletije mountains direction) and then attacked.Never happened.
Although the raid on Tuzla(Bosnia) probably did happen.
Soviet cogitations: 324
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2010, 11:57
Resident Admiral
Post 14 Mar 2010, 19:26
For WWII.
I've speak with one ex prominent italian partizan commander, as also other ex partizans,
It's sure that there were some killings, but have been greatly exaggerated and also the majority were fascist escaping or hidding.
Now in Italy the Right speaks instead of children killed for pleasure and similar bullshits..
And for what i know Tito was croat, not serb.. and the partizan army included all peoples.
The expulsion of Italians.. you were right.. Italy occupied these lands after WWI, like Tirol..
It wasn't Italy.. i've recently meet some Sardinian democratic separatists, supporting their claims

Personally i belive that Tito had tried to build a better state, unifying different peoples, my parents visited the old Jugoslavia and had liked the country

About the NATO losses.. i saw how some Serbs speak of 60 enemy shot down, but also some moderate not-Serbs speak of at least 20 NATO losses, included aircraft decomissioned because of the damage.


Returning at the main argument.. some Us sources admitted a F-15 badly damaged by a Serb MiG-21, it's interesting how similar claiming was done by Syrians.
It was difficult for MiG-23export hit a F-15.. but not impossible for a MiG-21export.
Something similar happened with Iraqui fighter vs Iranian F-14..
This because sometimes not win the technology.. but simplicity and small size, i've a beautiful phot into a book of an US F-14 during a Top Gun exercise intercepted and theoretically shot down by an aggressor A-4 Skyhawk after some aerial maneuver..
The same we can say about tankvstank battles in Angola, now.. with the fall of Aparthaid regime we KNOW how many SADF claims were bad propaganda.. the famous battle of Cuito Cuanavale, only some years ago new southafrican estimes calculated more or less South african 700 deads not 30..
So ..
also in that battle there were so-called monkey model.. old T-55 and T-60 against modern south african Oliphant tank..
But SouthAfrican used them in a bad way.. uncoordinated with our african allied infantry, and suffered some losses against the Cuban-Angolan defensive positions and beacuse of T-55 fire Oliphant were isolated and destroyed.

In the end..
Yes, maybe Monkey Model.. but able to overwhelm the modern weaponery under certain local conditions
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Mar 2010, 02:15
In the Battle of Bekaa valley, where Israeli technological prowess gave them a huge advantage over the Syrians, the latter's own incompetence still contributed significantly to their defeat. The main Syrian deficiencies were:
1. 2K12 Kub is a mobile air defence system, the Syrians put them in fixed positions, for months, allowing the Isrealis to determine the exact locations of the missiles and the radars before the battle.
2. For some reasohn, early warning radars were placed at the bottom of the valley, and not on top of hills.
3. No measures were taken to enhance the survivability of the SAM batteries, no camouflage, no dummy positions, no alternative firing positions and so on.
4. The Syrian Air force were totally unprepared for electronic warfare, once their radios were jammed, command and control broke down completely.
5. Syrian pilots could not do anything once contact with ground control was lost, many just flew in circles.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5167
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 15 Mar 2010, 02:20
What do today's armies do if their communications are disrupted?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Mar 2010, 04:56
For major power's armies, their communications are very hard to disrupt. Spread spectrum signals, i.e. frequency hopping, chirping and direct-sequence, and the use of burst transmission, make their radio communication difficult to detect and jam. And it they operate with in their own territory,they can have access to telecommunications infrastructure such as underground fibre optic cables, establishing communications that are virtually impossible to severe through standoff means. But even with those modern means, those armies still extensively plan and rehearse for situations where do communications breakdown.

For the lesser armies, they will have to go into battle assuming that their communications will be jammed. Therefore, every unit, sub-unit, team, and individual will have to know their exact tasks, able to perform them without any orders from above, and know what to do when situation changes. Alternate means of communication, such as runners, bugles, flares and such have to be employed.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 324
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2010, 11:57
Resident Admiral
Post 15 Mar 2010, 13:58
At real also in the Bekaa Syrian claimed some victories.. i've already said it, but the majority of the western sources take their side.
And Israelian, like SoutAfrican, are worse reliable then Americans.

Between 26April 1981 and 4 December 1983, Syrians claimed 25 victories, Western and some Israelian sources confirmed a pair of Skyhawk shot down by a MiG-23 and a Mig-21, then we have one drone, one Phantom and one Kfir by MiG-21 and two badly damaged and then written off aircraft.. a F-15 and a RF-4 by MiG-21..

This is interesting about the Monkey Model question.. that MiG-21 of older generation or export versions but improved proved to be BETTER then MiG-23 export..

Other unconfirmed Syrian claims are F-4 and F-16, i think that 4 Israelian F-16 claimed shot down could be true.. there were two different air battles were a single pilot of MiG-23 took a pair of F-16 but then was shot down..
Some descriptions are credible .. more Hard to believe is the loss of a E-2C

I have also a wester book that list 19 claimed victories in June 1982, one more then the Acig report.
Argues that those confirmed by American sources are 2 Skyhawk, 1 Phantom and 1 F-16 on the Bekaa valley.. it's similat to the Acig report but probably there was confusion about the identification of a Kfir or F-16.
That book speak also about 15 drones, not 1, shot down.. specifying that Israelians used them to attract the Syrian missiles.

In the end the book claim also 7 Israelian aircraft so badly damaged that were nevere repaired.. while Acig report only 2
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9424
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 15 Mar 2010, 18:09
my dad told me that he knew a border guard who said that after they shot 5000 rounds from their ak they put them back in their packaging and sent them to africa. idk how reliable this info is but sounds pretty realistic
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 324
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Feb 2010, 11:57
Resident Admiral
Post 15 Mar 2010, 19:22
Excuse me..

I edited it because I had misunderstood your speech, english is not my language..
I thought that you were talking to destroy a plane with an AK XD

At real an Ak is a durable rifle, imagine that the estimates vary from model to model, but for what i know in my country some paramilitary communist group linked to the Italian Communist Party remained armed after the end of World War II.

At least until '60 ages.. with old ex-germans MP-40
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.