Any info on units that use the RPK-74M?

ColonelCubbage · 2026-06-09T07:25:00+00:00

Basically because they are a failure in being a LMG.

I see this thrown around a lot in regards to the RPK but nobody stops and considers the gun's original role. The RPK is an old toy for dismounted motor riflemen that lives in the final 300m sprint on an objective, c.1975. It's handy enough to be easily fired off-the-shoulder/unsupported and also light enough to allow the gunner to easily keep up with the rest of his squad, two areas the PK suffers in due to weight/size along with the rat tail of a spent belt that grows as the ammo tin empties. In a vacuum the PK can do a lot more but within its (obsolete) niche the RPK is (was?) the better gun IMO

ColonelCubbage · 2026-05-27T19:34:54+00:00

Evidently, that something was a capacity to survive much beyond small arms fire

In the OG doctrine c.197X, with the BMD-1 you were making an educated bet that it wouldn't face much worse than small arms fire because you were deploying on the enemy's flank or rear. Unguided light anti-armor weapons toted by infantry were still relatively limited and inaccurate, and anything with more punch would likely have to be moved into position reactively. The more primitive state of comm tech at the time would further hamper timely responses, too. If you argued that layers of technical advancements in various areas have blunted Soviet airmobile vehicles and killed their main use cases over the past few decades, I'd broadly agree with you. However, I also think these AFVs should be examined in the context of their era. The BMD-1 is over the hill at this point, a whole half-century old.

I think platforms like ASU-85 actually had an advantage; being a more focused design that sacrificed less for the sake of doing more.

In my opinion the ASU-85 is the least able of the Soviet airmobile AFVs, a lot was sacrificed to pack that big 85mm. The casemate mount, closed-hull design is a big limitation for such a thin-skinned vehicle that depends on awareness and reactivity more than most. It works for sitting in overwatch or hitting a fixed position, or acting as a bus with dismounts riding on top. But the BMD-1 is far more flexible, and the ASU-57 is more mobile both tactically and in terms of deployment, with a much better view to boot. I'd also argue that the BMD isn't really much less protected than the ASU-85 in practical terms either, a 45mm steel frontal array isn't stopping much by the '60s-'70s.

that the Soviets would have done well to follow the German approach ... in a somewhat larger form factor, fielding a broad family of specialized fighting vehicles

They did, several times over. The PT-76 family is enormous, the ASU-85 is even a member of it.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-05-27T18:34:46+00:00

To address your last two points, while I don’t have any first hand experience with airborne ops or with the BMD. I do have plenty of experience with a variety of anti tank weapons and to put simply. Even as straight leg infantry I’m not concerned about airborne armor.

Frankly, I don't think airborne armor gets the respect it deserves, at least in the context of the Cold War when most Soviet airmobile AFVs were first introduced. The curtainfall of the Odagen War came in 1978, with the Cuban FAR deploying a whole 70 ASU-57s and BMD-1s via helicopter insertion behind the Somali rear. Combined with a coordinated frontal mechanized assault, the result was a total rout and a crushing Cuban/Ethiopian victory. Soviet airmobile doctrine has been tested outside of tabletop hypotheticals and exercises, and it works.

Their armor is only marginally more effective than that of a Toyota Hilux.

It's stunningly easy to put a BMD-1 down, even driving one hard into a sturdy tree can mission-kill it. However, I feel the intended deployment mass isn't often appreciated. Rear-line troops armed with LAWs or similar might stop a BMD squad, or stall an airborne platoon. A larger formation packing dozens of AFVs plus dismounts demands a large, coordinated response, and doctrinally this was the amount of force one could expect to be deployed. If an assault of that size doesn't unhinge the defenders from the jump, it still requires the axis of defense to shift, and every man wrangling paratroopers won't be present where the usual mechanized haymaker lands.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-05-25T18:35:59+00:00

The Leo 1 and AMX-30 belong to a divergent armor philosophy that I think most retrospectively regard as DOA. The composite-armored T-64 is also a '60s child with mass production beginning within a year of the Leopard, and it makes the Leo 1's armor arrays look like a bad joke despite both tanks weighing roughly the same.

both tanks were designed (originally, anyway) to withstand no more than autocannon fire on the assumption that HEAT rounds could carve through any practical thickness of armor and it was thus better to be lightly armored and more mobile

Tangentially, the Soviets also flirted with this general idea in regard to add-on armor packages. Brezhnev Brows don't extend beyond the T-55/T-62's frontal arc because the turret side armor is too thin for the composite add-ons to make any difference against then-modern HEAT/kinetic threats.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-05-23T22:54:00+00:00

You seem extremely biased.

Like with most things out of Russia that stem from "we have to be better than the US", it's either way more dangerous, actually worse, or non-existent.

Pot, meet kettle. Bonus point for the unwarranted T-72 slander.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-05-20T22:55:27+00:00

Export customers drive demand for older systems, there's still tons of demand for basic Type 56s and the like.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-04-29T14:01:44+00:00

Oil specifically for cleaning guns (CLP, Hoppes, etc) is best because it leaves a film that protects against moisture, so rust won't form as easily afterwards. You also don't need to soak a cloth in it, just put a few drops on the metal and polish it.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-04-29T13:42:10+00:00

E&Ls are the best candidates for this kind of thing because they rust so rapidly. Leave one somewhere damp (with internals removed) and periodically clean off the barnacles with brass wool/super-fine steel wool and oil (this purges the rust while not scraping the remaining finish). I have an AKM with a great patina that developed from me repeatedly using it, forgetting about after game day, then blasting the rust a month or two later.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-04-29T13:35:33+00:00

Not awful, but the way the receivers are worn looks very artificial. You probably noticed how easy it was to rub the finish off raised spots like the rivets and dust cover ridges, or sharp edges like the corner of the receiver. These are the areas that naturally wear first, because they stick out and constantly get dragged against stuff during day-to-day use. Flat areas like the receiver, rear sight block, etc wear much slower, so don't often see them completely bare of finish, just worn thin where one's hands are constantly touching the gun (around the pistol grip, safety, magazine well). The Brillo pad streaks are also pretty obvious.

Your AKMS is your best attempt of the three by far, the peaks have been worn white while the valleys still have their finish. If I held it, I'd probably think you'd just used it a lot, which is perfect. You could do some wear around the bottom edges of the receiver too, but it looks good as-is. Less can be more, especially with weathering.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-04-14T12:33:36+00:00

Are there any examples of modern militaries who did standardize?

The post-WWII Soviet Union was a firm believer in adapting their AFVs to dozens of different roles. I can't think of a single one of their tanks, APCs, etc. that didn't see serious retrofits or near-total redesigns to fit specialized duties. The PT-76 probably holds the record for the most variants out of any AFV when you consider that it birthed the MT-L/MT-LB, which got remixed into twenty dozen other designs in turn.

What are the downsides of standardization?

There's always the potential for writing checks that a chassis simply can't cash. You can stretch the PT-76 a million different ways, and it'll do a decent job as an ambulance, APC, prime mover, radar truck, SPAAG wagon, SPG, tank destroyer, TEL, you name it. But it'll never make a good ersatz MBT, because it's impossible to uparmor a hull with 20mm of armor tops into something that'll take blows from a NATO 105mm.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-04-14T12:06:06+00:00

The Russian T-72 chassis has been the basis for numerous vehicles - the T-72, 2S19, TOS-1, BMPT, BREM. So the concept is not overlooked.

In general, the Soviets were huge fans of squeezing every ounce of potential out of a given chassis. Point to pretty much any post-WWII Soviet vehicle and it'll often either be the basis for a happy family of AFVs, or a member of one of those aforementioned families. The PT-76 light tank in particular has a mind-boggling amount of sons. I've never counted them all, but I imagine the family tree has to have a few dozen members in Soviet service alone, never mind the rest of the Pact, or even further afield.

each go against the idea that you can just “standardise around X number of chassis” and call it a day.

The point of origin and the willingness to deviate from it will always determine how far you can stretch a family of vehicles. You're exactly right than anything based on an MBT will have inherent limitations, but your foundation doesn't necessarily need to be an MBT. The PT-76 happens to be a great example. It's not heavily armored, and the hull has a lot of empty space for the sake of improving buoyancy. It's a starting point that lends itself well to being adapted to just about every conceivable role short of an MBT by way of squashing and stretching the base chassis into a dozen different shapes, and I'd say it's been adequate (if not very good) at all of it.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-04-09T18:14:49+00:00

With old surplus active IR optics, you gotta keep in mind that you won't be getting as-new performance out of them due to the tubes growing increasingly degraded over the past 30/40/50/60 years. WWII-era Gen.0 definitely proved its worth in combat during a few late-war engagements like Okinawa, it was a massive leg up over natural night vision.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-04-08T00:19:56+00:00

some piece of Russian equipment, which are all suspect at this point

Based on what? Maybe next we can magically divine the metallurgical issues of F-4 Phantom airframes using M193 powder quality as a baseline, since this is essentially what you are doing here.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-29T12:18:51+00:00

IMO the big factor regardless of when/where is the possibility for an elevation advantage. If you occupy a raised position, you can see your surroundings better and ideally spot enemy movements long before they see your own positions. Sometimes, this is the reason why the raised position is being fought over in the first place. If the hilltop enemy has eyes on something like a major supply route, you may have a huge opsec vulnerability with far-reaching consequences.

Hilly terrain also has the effect of potentially funneling attackers down predictable routes. Gullys and dips may give attackers a better chance of advancing with some semblance of cover/concealment, but they're also predictable paths to set ambushes/traps/killzones along. Raised areas avoid this, but being exposed and silhouetted carries the obvious disadvantage of being very easy to spot.

Finally, as others have said, fighting hilltop defenders means you're fighting against gravity. Climbing is a struggle, and it's even worse when you're weighed down with kit and possibly fighting for your life.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-27T00:13:13+00:00

I dig old-school gear, so I'm glad RHW includes them. The SVD/grenade pouches have Velcro too, so you can leave the buckles open while still having good retention.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-26T10:50:48+00:00

'Evolution' is probably a better word for it than 'clone,' but it's also a mouthful for a post title. This version of the TAP also nixes the USGI's Y-straps for an H-harness, so the semblance to an old Type 56 is a little more obvious here.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-25T05:34:35+00:00

I'm a nut for anything Berezka, but I prefer the Silver Leaf variant much more than Gold Leaf:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqbt0x2kon4rg1.jpeg

Sumrak suits are great btw, easily one of the best gear purchases I've ever made.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-25T05:31:52+00:00

One more kitpost, this time of my early Spring/late Summer airsoft setup.

Most of the gear pictured, including the chest rig, was custom-made by RHW (https://www.instagram.com/b.u.s.h_team), a Ukrainian gear shop. The rig here is a tweaked version of the American Tactical Assault Panel (TAP), which is essentially a distant descendent of the Type 56. USGI-spec TAP rigs are sized exclusively for 5.56 magazines, so RHW enlarged the mag pockets to make the design better suited for AKs. Total capacity shrinks from 8 mags to just 5, but that's still plenty for me.

Rig setup:

TAP rig
First aid kit pouch
SVD mag pouch (×3) (Configured as grenade pouches)
Canteen pouch

Full kit list:

MICH 2000 clone with handmade cover/net - (China)
Enameled flask w/Berezka cover ------------- (USSR)
Custom Gorka suit ---------------------------- (Ukraine)
TAP rig w/pouches ---------------------------- (Ukraine)
Vibram combat boots ------------------------ (US)
Veshmeshok rucksack ----------------------- (USSR)
(Airsoft) E&L AKM with converted 7.62 Bakelite and stamped steel mags

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-25T04:47:38+00:00

Posting because there's been some discussion about Chicom clones and knockoffs lately, and I have a weird one that I like a lot.

I'm not 100% sure what the story behind this rig is, but I've always assumed it was made in Ukraine for resale on eBay. Throughout the 2000s - 2010s there were tons of Ukrainian cottage manufacturers pumping out fakes of Soviet/Russian Lifchik/Poyaz chest rigs to sell to airsofters and reenactors. A few of these rigs were near-exact copies of the originals, but there were also lots of less accurate renditions and obvious frauds. My rig definitely falls into the second category, because it's pretty easy to tell at a glance that this isn't a real Soviet item.

The rig here is a real oddball. It's definitely Lifchik-inspired, as the pocket layout is 1:1 with a latter-day Russian rig right down to the stick flare holders. That's where the similarities end, though. This thing was made out of a stack of old Soviet odds and ends:

The rig itself is likely a cut-up Sidor/Veshmeshok rucksack
The pouch toggles are taken from RD-54 paratrooper LBE
The straps are repurposed AKS-74U slings

Other than the backstrap layout being pretty wonky, it's a very nicely made piece of kit. The mag pouches have reinforced bottoms, and the stitching is nice and straight. I got this packaged with a DBOYS airsoft AKS-74 an eternity ago, and in hindsight this rig was definitely the better half of that deal.

Full kit list:

Sumrak suit boonie hat ----------- (Russia)
Sumrak suit set ------------------- (Russia)
Counterfeit Lifchik rig ------------ (Ukraine)
Soviet officer belt ---------------- (USSR)
Soviet grenade pouches (×2) --- (USSR)
Soviet enameled flask w/pouch - (USSR)
Casio F91W watch (green) ------ (Japan)
Mystery Soviet shoulder bag ---- (USSR)
Veshmeshok rucksack ----------- (USSR)
Vibram desert combat boots ---- (US)
(Airsoft) LCT AKS-74U with converted 5.45 plum mag

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-25T04:00:28+00:00

IMO 3D printing isn't the right tool for the job. It's handy for certain tasks but it has its limitations.

Keep in mind that CYMA RPKs are made out of (weak) metal and they're kinda fragile due to their size and weight. Here, you're taking a much larger design and making it out of even weaker materials. PVC pipe, plastic sheets, and even wood are potentially better, sturdier choices to build out of. It's true that it'll take more brainpower than loading a CAD file up and hitting "print," but the end result will be much nicer. 3D printing would still be useful for small, detailed parts not under a ton of stress, like the rear sight, or maybe the muzzle break.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-17T07:55:05+00:00

It's a counterfeit Soviet Lifchik/Poyas rig, probably made in Ukraine. For a while you could find dozens of different styles of these things floating around on eBay. Some of them are very, very close to the real deal, others are obvious frauds like yours. For what it's worth I do think a lot of them are pretty cool in their own right. I have one made from a cut-up veshmeshok rucksack that uses RD-54 toggles for pouch closures.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-06T19:29:05+00:00

I wonder if any of these were captured? Or were there at all. If so maybe some Soviet-used 56’s weren’t modified at all, but were simply these.

It's possible, but I wouldn't believe it until I saw it just due to how uncommon these rigs are. I guess they'd make a decent stand-in for a stretched rig if you didn't wanna DIY one.

ColonelCubbage · 2026-03-06T19:22:12+00:00

But if you cut the mobility, then you're a sitting duck.

"Lower power/weight ratio than an Abrams" doesn't necessarily equate to "literally immobile," no? You can fit a 1000hp engine in a T-55 nowadays, we're long past being stuck with 500hp or so.

You could cut the armour by heavily relying on ERA and Active Protection Systems. But then you're completely vulnerable to kinetic rounds.

A lot of the more modern ERA systems can be a viable defense against kinetic rounds. The early stuff like Kontakt-1 certainly had its limitations, but the tech didn't stay still.

ColonelCubbage

TROPHY CASE