From Russia With(out) Love

....It always amazes me how the Russkies just seem let their broken military equipment to be discarded wherever it needs to be abandoned.....
 
The russian military isn't the most orderly when it comes to handling scrap parts. Their abandoned bases here looked...well, messy...
 
This was tremendously expensive stuff for the Soviet economy to produce - just to keep up with the West in the cold war arms races. There is much truth to the idea that we literally forced the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion. The trashed Backfire bombers is a testament to the waste of very expensive planes.

Good find !

:running:
 
Toastmaker said:
This was tremendously expensive stuff for the Soviet economy to produce - just to keep up with the West in the cold war arms races. There is much truth to the idea that we literally forced the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion. The trashed Backfire bombers is a testament to the waste of very expensive planes.

Good find !

:running:
Click to expand...

Yeah, we cleaned their clocks with that strategy, so to speak.
 
Toastmaker said:
This was tremendously expensive stuff for the Soviet economy to produce - just to keep up with the West in the cold war arms races.
Click to expand...

But no historical study of the fall of the Soviet Union supports that thesis. A myth, I am afraid.
 
KOM.Nausicaa said:
But no historical study of the fall of the Soviet Union supports that thesis. A myth, I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Whatever...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Those Backfire bombers may have been destroyed as part of the SALT II treaty; we sent a lot of B-52s to the guillotine for the same reason.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
-James
 
KOM.Nausicaa said:
But no historical study of the fall of the Soviet Union supports that thesis. A myth, I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Naus, it may be a bit of a myth - or more accurately an educated guess, but it is one of the multiple components that drained the Soviet Union. I did not mean this to be a singular reason for that event.
 
Anyways, what about a SOH expedition to rescue that An-8?

Just imagine....our own transport aircraft. We could hop from airport to airport and have a huge party right in the freight compartment! :d
 
Bjoern said:
Anyways, what about a SOH expedition to rescue that An-8?

Just imagine....our own transport aircraft. We could hop from airport to airport and have a huge party right in the freight compartment! :d
Click to expand...

I dunno, Bjoern. I don't think that thing would even make good beer cans.
 
Bjoern said:
Anyways, what about a SOH expedition to rescue that An-8?

Just imagine....our own transport aircraft. We could hop from airport to airport and have a huge party right in the freight compartment! :d
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that the MiG-23 is so intact...if that resided round these parts it'd be a burnt out shell long ago. Might stick a trailer on the car and go "rescue" the cockpit section for a future sim pit. :d
 
KOM.Nausicaa said:
But no historical study of the fall of the Soviet Union supports that thesis. A myth, I am afraid.
Click to expand...

I'd bet there's so many historical studies on this topic that it would take someone eons to read them all, if they could even find them all...and there's probably at least a handfull that are still classified, and therefore unattainable to be read. Besides, I do believe that I've read that the Soviet Union did for all practical purposes bankrupt themselves trying to keep up with the arms race. The ruble was virtually useless, and there was a huge blackmarket in U.S. Dollars for many years in the Soviet Union before it fell.
 
jhefner said:
Whatever...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Those Backfire bombers may have been destroyed as part of the SALT II treaty; we sent a lot of B-52s to the guillotine for the same reason.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
-James
Click to expand...


Yes, and all that stuff has to be left out in the open so that it can be seen with satellite imagery and counted. It's part of the agreement. I suspect a lot of what you see here fall under those terms.
 
KOM.Nausicaa said:
But no historical study of the fall of the Soviet Union supports that thesis. A myth, I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Naus, I have to disagree with you on that statement. The cost of the Cold War contributed mightily to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I specialized in studying their country and so I think I have a pretty signficant background of research to support that conclusion.

Cheers,

Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
Sorry, Naus, I have to disagree with you on that statement. The cost of the Cold War contributed mightily to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I specialized in studying their country and so I think I have a pretty signficant background of research to support that conclusion.

Cheers,

Ken
Click to expand...

Me too. And what bothers me, is the simplification of the thesis, not the thesis itself - the simplification is twofold, so to say and ends up being somewhat revisionist if it's used with an ideological background -- especially in America. The cost of the cold war, as you put it, is no doubt a factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. However, this has to be put into context of many other factors: the Soviet Union economy in general, the rise of oil import cost, the Afghanistan war, the increasing dissatisfaction in the Baltic states, Poland, etc, Tchernobyl, the rise of a younger political elite with a different view (Gorbachev), and much more. And moreover, the "cold war" as you put it, spans many decades, not the first term of Reagans presidency. I can accept that view, but not the one which tries to bring that down to the 80's. This is a very different view from the one which somehow gives solely Reagan the credit. The rise of the military budget as reaction to Reagans cold war politics and his rise in military spending happened no doubt -- however the numbers are disputed and there is no consensus amongst historians that this was the final straw for the Soviet Union. This is very questionable, to say at least. It bothers me also very much on a personal level that the German "Ostpolitik" which started under Brandt, is never mentioned in the American history writing. Without the "ostpolitik" which aimed to weaken and undermine the grip of the Soviet Union on it's satellite states, we can ask ourselves if the dislocation of those states would have happened the way we have seen it. That political doctrine started as early as the early 70's and the USA was virtually absent in it. I am also bothered that it is not mentioned that Gorbachev's perestroika would have very likely fallen or/and himself being removed in some violent putsch if Germany would not have massively pumped money by the hundreds of billions into the reforms -- a financial aid in which the USA was also virtually absent, at least to my knowledge. The fall of the Soviet Unions is a complex matter, to simplify it down to "military spending" is something I cannot accept. It's just more complicated than that.

To end the post, from Wikipedia:

East-West tensions increased during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan (1981–1985), reaching levels not seen since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis as Reagan increased US military spending to 7% of the GDP.[citation needed] To match the USA's military buildup, the Soviet Union increased its own military spending to 27% of its GDP and froze production of civilian goods at 1980 levels, causing a sharp economic decline in the already failing Soviet economy. However, it is not clear where the number 27% of the GDP came from. This thesis is not confirmed by the extensive study on the causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union by two prominent economists from the World Bank- William Easterly and Stanley Fisher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “… the study concludes that the increased Soviet defense spending provoked by Mr. Reagan's policies was not the straw that broke the back of the Evil Empire. The Afghan war and the Soviet response to Mr. Reagan's Star Wars program caused only a relatively small rise in defense costs.
Click to expand...
 
I'm still puzzled about that An-8 got into the bush. The trees look to big to have grow up all around it ???
 
demorier said:
I'm still puzzled about that An-8 got into the bush. The trees look to big to have grow up all around it ???
Click to expand...

That has me puzzled too....there's a small clearing in front of where it now stands but not enough room to attempt a landing, or even to turn around! Maybe the An-8 is more VTOL than STOL! :d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top