when the soviets valued reliability they meant they valued field serviceability. yeah, the t-34 broke down a lot, but it could also be back in service after breaking down quickly because it was simple to fix by a field mechanic. this ethos shows up throughout their entire weapons development process. basically of the powers in wwii,

the americans valued quantity and quality
the soviets valued quantity
the germans valued quality
the japanese started valuing quality but eventually had to embrace quantity due to a lack of quantity
the british started valuing quantity due to lack of quantity and eventually got to embrace quality due to backing from allies and their own manufacturing capacity
the italians never had either quantity or quality

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

I think you crossed up quantity/quality in several places, because your comment reads very confusingly.

Tangentially, my favorite part of the T-34 is the track striker plate

For instance, the tracks on most of the German tanks were connected by pins with locking mechanisms that required special tools for field maintenance. The T-34 tracks were connected with pins without locking mechanisms. Instead, the pins stayed in place using the track’s motion and a welded striker plate on the tank’s hull. If a pin was lost, it was replaced by using the most basic tool, a hammer. Naturally, this was very time and cost-efficient.

This is absolutely one of the most hilariously simple - and at the same time logically pragmatic - solutions I think I’ve ever come across in the field of mechanical design.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 3 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Didn't the Soviets simply use a pencil to write in space instead of designing a pen that could work with zero gravity?

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

That's an urban legend I believe

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)