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
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.
Yes - but at the same time, the issue with pencils is that the graphite can break off and get into fun and interesting places, and graphite is highly conductive, so there’s a substantial risk of FOD when in zero-G
There’s also the bit where the first Soviet spacewalk almost ended in the first dead guy in space because the suit blew up like a goddamn balloon, and he had to stab his own fucking glove (!?!?!?!?!) to decrease pressure enough so he could fit back in the hatch. Say what you will about the Soviet Union, but the early cosmonauts had absolutely fucking MASSIVE balls.
In addition to what the other commenter said, it’s also a common misconception that NASA had anything to do with the development of the Fisher Space Pen.
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,
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
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.
I’ve been enjoying watching this guy recently, and he made exactly the same point about the track pins.
Didn’t the Soviets simply use a pencil to write in space instead of designing a pen that could work with zero gravity?
That’s an urban legend I believe
Yes - but at the same time, the issue with pencils is that the graphite can break off and get into fun and interesting places, and graphite is highly conductive, so there’s a substantial risk of FOD when in zero-G
Ground control was ready to pull a Laika on them
There’s also the bit where the first Soviet spacewalk almost ended in the first dead guy in space because the suit blew up like a goddamn balloon, and he had to stab his own fucking glove (!?!?!?!?!) to decrease pressure enough so he could fit back in the hatch. Say what you will about the Soviet Union, but the early cosmonauts had absolutely fucking MASSIVE balls.
It’s a surprise they could even get them into space given the raw tonnage their balls added in.
In addition to what the other commenter said, it’s also a common misconception that NASA had anything to do with the development of the Fisher Space Pen.