perfidy

Johno, as for the AK-47 (and its successors, the AK-74 and AKM) it is a wonderful weapon, designed by a genius, Kalishnikov. But the vast majority of Russian products are no where near the AK in reliability or effectiveness. The thing with the Russians is, most of their military equipment is by American standards overengineered. Guns, tanks, planes are designed with the limitations of Russian industry and Russian conscript soldiers in mind.

In some instances, as with their assault rifles, a great engineer can come up with a design that performs very well, and yet is rugged and easy to manufacture. In most other circumstances, the result is shoddy design, limited capabilities and high maintenance. The problem is even worse in the civilian sector. The other example you mentioned, soviet rockets, were designed in the fifties and sixties by another genius, Korolev. The Russians are still using the Soyuz capsule created when Korolev was the Chief Designer for the Soviet space program. Their rocket technology still uses the technology developed under his watch, and slowly refined since then.

In other areas, Soviet technology is notably poor. When we got our hands on the MIG-25, which had been rumored to be an amazing fighter, American engineers were shocked by the crudity of the design. Heavy steel construction, vacuum tube electronics, and so on. Sure, it was fast. But that was about it. Any contemporary American fighter could fly circles around it. Because they didn't have the capability to make fighters out of carbon fiber composites, beryllium alloys, and so forth, they made it out of steel. Areas where computer aided design and other techniques would allow American designers to cut weight and make the design more efficient are clumsy and overengineered.

This ruggedness has advantages, but it is not everything. Better trained American mechanics can keep their more complicated fighters, helicopters and tech wizardry in the fight - and when they are in the fight, that design advantage is overpowering, as we have seen. Russian tanks can not compare to the M1, not even remotely. M1's can engage a Russkiy tank a thousand yards outside the Russian tank's range, while driving 40mph over rough ground, hit it on the first shot, and the round will go all the way through the Russian tank. A T-80 might (might) have lower maintenance requirements. But it doesn't matter if one American tank can kill ten for every one we lose.

In very specific, limited areas of technology the Russians could outclass us. Sometimes, because a genius was behind the drawing board. Other times, as with the MIG-15 in Korea, it was because the idiot labor government of Britain gave the Soviets their most advanced jet engine design. But that excellence came at a high cost - it took the Russians a lot more effort, money and time to achieve those levels of competence than it would for your average American defense contractor.

It all comes down to the system. Russians are of course no denser than we are. They have notable gifts in mathematics and other disciplines. They have as many geniuses as we do. But - the American system allows efficient teamwork, cross fertilization between different disciplines, and much greater creativity. An average American design team can approximate genius anywhere else in the world, due to our skill at organizing things. When you actually have a genius in charge of a team, you get things like the SR-71, or the Saturn rocket.

Free development in all types of technology - commercial and military - allows development to speed up in every single technology. The computer technology created in the US allowed vast improvements in aeronautical design, in targeting, control systems, stealth, etc. The result is the $200mil F-22. But that fighter is the best. These kind of interacting developments are what make us so frightfully lethal. And it's our system that allows it to happen.

Not that the result is always perfect. People have complained about the M-16 ever since it was introduced. It's twitchy, has a lightweight round, jams easily, and it doesn't look lethal or ominous. Yet we've used it for almost forty years because it's good enough. (We're right around the corner from a new standard issue weapon. The OICW will have all kinds of goodies.)

But on the average, the vastly higher overall American technology base allows us to create weapons that benefit from the capabilities of American industry, and can assume the high education and skill levels of American soldiers.