English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

These parades where hugh, impressive and on our side of the fence, FRIGHTENING!, to watch.

2007-10-29 11:24:39 · 9 answers · asked by dinkylinker 1 in Politics & Government Military

9 answers

These parades were real but not that frightening, they just showed off a bunch of stuff that we already new they had and knew everything about. It was nice of them to give us a great photo op of all of their equipment. Great for doing VISRECCE. To that the stuff they were showing off then is still the same run down equipment they use now. Sad how the might do fall.

2007-10-29 16:00:26 · answer #1 · answered by thewedge226 2 · 0 0

Sorry Wayne but, those parades are certainly not garbage at all.
Watch out, the Russian bear is more dangerous then ever before. Military they can beat any one with in a few years time. Economically the same. Technically they are masters to invent and put in production very fast too.

It is some sort of military dictatorship running the country now. Very little has change since the communists ran the country. Remember that Russia is unpredictable and 8000 nuclear warheads are pointing at us.

2007-10-29 18:59:45 · answer #2 · answered by Realname: Robert Siikiniemi 4 · 0 0

There were a few disinformational displays in some of the parades, and yes the Bison bomber was a bit of a dud.
The Bear bombers are still flying with their huge propellor powerplants. They had a lot of stuff that never made the parades and I understand that there was a certain amount of dismay during the early days of Glasnost when some of the secret stuff was let out of the cupboard.

2007-10-30 00:49:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Some of those trailers carrying missiles were carrying mock-ups. You can see the missile bouncing on the trailer because of its light weight. The best analysis I ever read about the shortcomings of the Soviet forces was (believe it or not) written by a left winger. His name is Alexander Cockburn and he's still a syndicated columnist. He was once an instructor at Sandhurst (the British equivalent of West Point) The book is called "The Threat". Tells all about ground mechanics draining the de-icing fluid out of the combat aircraft and filtering it through loaves of bread to drink it, while replacing it with water in the de-icing system for the cockpit windshields. And the fact that the reason the Soviets built so many tanks is that they considered all of them to be disposable. They never built plants to make spare parts.
The real failures in the missiles to be used by the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces came to light after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The old Soviet cosmodrome was now in an independent country, Khazakstan. To save money on leasing arrangements, the Russians decided to use their SS-20 missiles from launch points on Russian soil to lift satellites into orbit. All six shots wound up splashing down in the Sea of Japan. Forget about targeting Washington, DC. They couldn't reach Kiska or Adak.
I spent a good part of three years of my life "tailing" their Pacific Red Banner Fleet on one of our Special Project Fleet ships. Don't know much about their sub services. But, their surface sailors sure had lousy chow with a high fat content. They must have had one really high rate of medical discharges from gall bladder complaints.

2007-10-29 19:26:16 · answer #4 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1 0

Yes the weapons were real for the most part. However, the Soviets were always in a rush to build and rarely tested thier weapons beyond the prototype stages. Most weapons were unreliable and many of the bugs were not worked out of them. We were always impressed by the amount of weapons visible on thier ships and planes but we were fairly certain from our intel that most of them were not in working order. I have also seen first hand that some of the so called weapons aboard a Soviet cruiser, we nothing but empty oil dums welded together to look like a gun barrel or missile launcher. I have also heard some U.S. pilots tell stories of backfire bombers with broom sticks sticking out of the rear gun bubble to give the impression of a machine gun.

2007-10-29 19:03:32 · answer #5 · answered by Tincan Navy 4 · 0 0

Look up the BISON bomber. They flew the same planes in circles during the parade, making NATO think the USSR had a lot of planes. Then they would paint the same shape on the taxiways of some of their bases and when NATO would do an over flight to check it out, it looked like each base had hundreds of Bison bombers, but all they were seeing is paint! At one point NATO thought the USSR had 600 or so Bison bombers but it turned out they only had about 30.

It was one of the best hood winks ever pulled.

2007-10-29 21:11:14 · answer #6 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 1 0

Yes they were real weapons.

I spent 9 years ( active and reserve) in the Army. Not once did I hear anyone do anything other than laugh at one of those parades.

Those parades were on their side of the fence because of the nukes waiting for them in Germany.

SSG US Army 73-82

2007-10-29 18:35:22 · answer #7 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 1 0

Real and yes, they had all those weapons. Most of what they showed was conventional theater type weapons.

What we didn't see was the nuke subs prowling the oceans with their nuclear tipped missiles pointed at our cities. Of course, we did the same thing and because of MAD, we never pushed the button.

Don't have that with third world countries, cause like Iran, they have no value in human life and would nuke us if they had the equipment and a chance. They don't care we would wipe them out, don't bother them at all cause they do not value human life.

2007-10-29 18:29:20 · answer #8 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 1 0

yes they did hold these parades in red square moscow . they were held every year on the 17th november to mark the anniversary of communists coming to power on november 17th 1917

2007-10-30 11:06:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers