F-16s to Iran or Cuba

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb
And this is the T-34:

The M-1931 or T-3 tank.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon


No. Jimmy Carter was president about 10 years after the B-70 program was started. I imagine it would have been difficult for a peanut farmer campaigning for Governor of Georgia to have convinced the United States Government to cancel its advanced bomber program.

The point of who cancelled the B-70 is irrelevant to the point that the MIG25 was designed in order to deal with a supposed new geenration of supersonic transcontinental American bombers.

Which president cancelled that program is basically irrelevant to the discussion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
It's difficult to say that the AK47 is cheaper than the M-16. If it were produced in the U.S. it would likely be as expensive due to the wooden stock and the chromed barrel.

Why? Cost of material? The issue isn't price, since those are controlable, but what quanitity can be produced with the least non-monetary resources.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Logistics is something we're good at.

Yeah, that and Marketing.

[BeBMan]

And movie making.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Joseph
The M-1931 or T-3 tank.

What the heck?
I don't get it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
And movie making.

Movie making is just a subset of war marketing.

[Unspeakable Horror]

Originally posted by Serb

What the heck?
I don't get it.

They are both Christie tank models, but they are completely different from the T-34

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb

What the heck?
I don't get it.

I tried to post a picture of the T-3 but was told the picture was to big. If you can find a picture of the T-3, you will see how it very well could have lead to the T-34.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Joseph
I tried to post a picture of the T-3 but was told the picture was to big. If you can find a picture of the T-3, you will see how it very well could have lead to the T-34.

And yet in the US it didn't lead to anything like the T-34, which overall was a much better tank than the M4.

Meaning that even if the basic ideas that made the T34 possible came form an American designer, it was the Soviets that took them an refined them and made them into a great war fighting machine. Just as it was Americans who took German technology in rocketry and developed new rockets capable of reaching the moon.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by GePap


And yet in the US it didn't lead to anything like the T-34, which overall was a much better tank than the M4.

Meaning that even if the basic ideas that made the T34 possible came form an American designer, it was the Soviets that took them an refined them and made them into a great war fighting machine. Just as it was Americans who took German technology in rocketry and developed new rockets capable of reaching the moon.

Hey I never said the Russian were dummies. In fact far from being dummies. They took the B-29 and turn it into the TU-95, took Germany P 1101 and turn it into the Mig-15 series.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Joseph
I tried to post a picture of the T-3 but was told the picture was to big. If you can find a picture of the T-3, you will see how it very well could have lead to the T-34.

Once again, what the heck?
I already gave you the picture of M-1931 (T-3) Chrisite tank. Two chassis of T-3 were delivered to USSR in 1931. This is one of them (the second one is identical), no other Christie tanks were delivered to the Soviet Union:

[Serb]

So, I still can't see neither how I could look "at Cristie tank and the T-34 and notice how close they look" or look "at picture of the T-3 and see how it very well could have lead to the T-34".

T-34 looks absolutely different. Comparing Chrisitie tank and T-34, it's like comparing Volkswagen and Ferrari. To claim that T-34 was a copy/was heavily based upon Christie's M-1931, it's like claiming that American Space Shuttle is a copy/heavily based upon Verner von Braun's V-2 missile.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Why? Cost of material? The issue isn't price, since those are controlable, but what quanitity can be produced with the least non-monetary resources.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. The reason that I suggested that in order to compare the costs of each weapon we should try to build them both in the U.S. is because it is difficult to compare the costs of things between the Soviet Union and the U.S. due to the huge number of externalities etc. Produced by the same economy there are some parts of the AK manufacturing process that are likely to be expensive enough to largely offset the price advantage we see these days on the open market where millions of surplus AKs have driven their price down.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Unspeakable Horror


They are both Christie tank models,

Not both, they are the same tank. T-3 was army's designation for M-1931.

but they are completely different from the T-34

Sure it is. Between those two tanks lays almost a decade. For pre-WW2/WW2 tank design it's an entire era. Germans came from PzKpfw-I to Tigers in less than a decade. Same with Russians, Americans, British and French.