Valera Potapov

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: I guess, same reason why russian tanks went straight from 45 to 85 mm. "Blast value".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Better would be to say "from 45mm to 76mm". Soviet 85-mm guns didn't have HE ammo but fragmentation only.

No, there is no such books.

I have written two articles. I hope they will help you to understand the subject a little more http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons10.html http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons11.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: The 50 US states are administrative units whose names do not reflect any separate nationalities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The same was in USSR. Although it was initially divided by national attributes, later this division meant only administrative. Republicks didn't mean a nation's reservations like Indian reservations in USA. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: Those in the USSR did though there were attempts at russification of the various national groupings which combined with relocation policies did dilute those nationalities somewhat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Russification? Look at USA again: there are a lot of big and small nations live here, they're all speak English. Englification!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Guys, IIRC Valera's native tongue is not english, I believe he uses an translator program to read & respond with, he can coreect me if I'm wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I will I don't use any translation software or so. My native language is Russian, that's why my English isn't as fluent as yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: I see you think it absurd that someone who is not a Russian would be capable of distinguishing between the various nationalities the comprised the USSR or of having an informed opinion on the subject. Some of us have resided in the USSR and have seen first hand the fabled non-russian peoples. If Russian is synonymous with the other nationalities then why were there 16 republics? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why U.S.A. have 50 states? Think about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I also think it is a bad idea to speak so strongly for such a large group of people. The history of WWII shows that the Ukranians did not want to be either Soviet or Russian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please elaborate how the history of WWII shows this? Anti-Soviet troops? Excuse me, this is lame evidence: same troops were in Russia. Troops fought against bolshevik's regime, not strictly against the Russians. I mentioned already, from 1650th the Ukraineans and the Russians interflowed. Three hundred years! If they wished to separate, they would separated. In fact, they didn't. I also think it is a bad idea to speak for 50 billion Ukraineans. How can you know what they want? How can you know what each Ukrainean want? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 10 million were starved and worked to death by Stalin before the war...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, Stalin was a single person! Other Russians cannot be responsible for his deeds. Also, Stalin was Georgian, not Russian. ...many actively fought against the Red Army during the war, there were anti-Soviet partisans

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Valera, I'm not trying to cause a fuss here, but I think you are not understanding the statements you are commenting on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand it clearly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Also, there is a fundamental problem with the logic that all things Soviet are all things Russian, and the reverse. Some simple logic to illustrate my point: A=B, C=B, therefore A=C Russian = Soviet, Ukranian = Soviet, therefore Ukranian = Russian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree Ukranian = Russian and Russian = Ukrainean. You don't trust me? I may ask to come to this forum many thoroughbred Ukraineans and they confirm my point. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I know Ukranians, Georgians, Chechnians, Latvians, etc. would have a big problem with this because it would mean that their national identies and cultural histories are the same as that of Russia since they were a part of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union is only Russian (that is your position as stated). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse me! Do you ever heard about Kiev Russia(Kievskaya Rus')? It was a large and rich country in IX-XII centuries (it was plundered and sucked by Mongol hordes). In 1650th Ukraine and Russia interflowed (signed the Pereyaslavskaya Rada) and become a single country. Et cetera. May be I should tell you about Georgia & Russia history, uh? Or Laltvia & Russia? Or something else? Please, do not judge things you know little about (this is not strictly for you, rather for everyone who're talking about Russia & USSR) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: As hard as the Russians tried to in fact do this (like moving 100's of thousands of Russians into the Baltic states), nobody can argue that it totally worked. Therefore I propse that the true statement is: Everything Soviet is mostly, and to a large degree, Russian. Everything Russian is mostly, and to a large degree, Soviet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest you (and everybody) drop this and come back to the history of tank development

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: Valera, SD was just making a rhetorical point. He wasn't actually questioning whether or why any other national groups were excluded from Soviet scientific work. He was making the point in a roundabout way that the terms Russian and Soviet are not synonyms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a Russian, I must say I completely disagree. For me everything Soviet means everything Russian. I believe this is a far-fetched questiod "developed" by journalists who knows nothing about Russia and USSR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: All SOVIET testing must be looked at twice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may look at tree times, at four times. Nothing magic will happen with them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I am not ware of any Russian tests presented -- although I am sure quite a few of the ballistic scientists involved in both the Soviet tests and the US/GB tests were Russian. If you are aware of any testing that was restricted to people of Russian descent, then you have an interesting tidbit, but I question why Georgian, Azerbijiani and Armenian researchers were restricted from the testing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This shows you know nothing about Soviet engineers. Nobody and nothing was "restricted". There were many Georgian, Azerbaijan, Armenian, Ukrainean, Buelorussian, Tatars etc researchers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: To sum it up, there is a thread here, the 88L71 which is being debated. Almost all the guns fit a math formula, except the 88L71. Your document, and others, show the 88L71 having between 140-170mm at 1000 yards and 30 degree angle. What they are looking for, is documented proof of the angle, the bhn of the test plate, and anything else about the test of the 88L71. Penetration values are what they are mainly interested in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps I will find the whole text of those report (I don't have it now). However, you must understand there was a big difference between SOviet and german menthods for penetration tests. Very approximately, the difference was 25%: the armor considered to be penetrated if al least 50% of a shell happened to be found behind the armor. The Soviets used 75% value.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: Do you have any information on the 88L71 other then what was in that report?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi, Why do you asking? There are a lot of books and magazines describe this gun in detail.

Gentlemen! I would like to comment some moments mentioned here. 1. Some people do belive the report states King Kiger was penetrated was faked for propaganda purposes. This is nonsense since the report was Top Secret 55 years so far. Therefore, it cannot be considered as propaganda. When Thomas Jentz wrote his (excellent) book, this report was still secret and that's why he didn't mentioned it. 2. About penetration abilities of Soviet 76-mm and 85-mm guns and US 76-mm guns. I would like to suggest you this link: http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons6.html Although there is no US 76-mm gun but US 75-mm gun with the M72 round instead. 3. Th report you're discussing doesn't contain any figures about KT's armor hardness. The other report, however does: according to the NII-48 report of December 8, 1944, the hardness of the KT's frontal hull was about 218-221 BHN. 4. Almost everything about armor production/tests is still secret in the Russia. For example, parameters of the T-34 armor are Top Secret. So, don't blame the Russians they didn't conduct armor tests. In fact, they DID. However, the results are secret. I hope one day the "Top Secret" stamp will be removed and we will read many interesting facts.