19 A Visit to the Museum of Strategic Missile Forces Academy

A Visit to the Museum of Strategic Missile Forces Academy

Posted on December 18, 2011 by

The Rocket Academy RVSN named after St. Peter the Great was started as an artillery.

Since 1938, the Academy has been located at the building of the former Moscow Orphanage pledged in 1746.

In the central building of the Academy is a musuem.

Head of Department leads bloggers in an excursion at the Academy.

The museum showcases the history of domestic artillery and missile forces.

The museum houses a lot of layouts, copies and models.



More stories:

Click here to read next random post from English Russia

19 Responses to “A Visit to the Museum of Strategic Missile Forces Academy”

  1. geoff says:

    Turn the key and launch the missiles into “Enemy Territory”.………….there is no enemy ……..other than our willingness to believe in and follow a leader.

    • ayaa says:

      Do you realise that nuclear weapons kept an uneasy peace throughout the Cold War, and still do so today?

      • geoff says:

        I do ayaa. Its just that the military stuff gets to me after a while. But really, the cold war is like you and I hating each other for no reason.

        ayaa I have to jump up on my soap box every now and then :)

        Be well, Be peaceful, Be happy.

        • ayaa says:


          It’s true that during the cold war, both sides hated each other for no real reason.

          But the presence of powerful nuclear weapons provided a nice counter-weight every time that hatred boiled over.

          PS. I don’t hate you, not even a little bit.

          • Hirsh says:

            Actually i would argue the United States didn’t hate the Soviet Union, that’s rather absurd. We feared what they were capable of doing, and how far their will to do those things would go. Those fears were well founded. Look at their human rights track record from the Revolution up until WW2. Look how brutally they vanquished their enemies during WW2. Look at their post WW2 expansion into Eastern Europe and the human rights records of those Soviet puppet governments. How you come to the conclusion that both sides hated each other and for no good reason just baffles me.

            • ayaa says:

              Wow. So you really believe that the Cold war was an epic struggle by the US and NATO against the brutal, all-conquering Soviets. It’s not like the US’s track record is any better. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, etc.. are all examples.

              On the soviet side of things, they were the same. The leaders (on both sides) were highly suspicious of each other and their intentions.

              • Hirsh says:

                I didn’t say that. I said the Soviet track record on human rights was atrocious, which is the truth, and it was self evident that they had expansionist desires to build an empire outside their own borders, as demonstrated several times where they were willing to use force to achieve those goals.

                We did not hate the Soviet Union for no good reason, as Geoff said and you agreed, we feared what they were capable of for well founded reasons, and we saw them as a direct threat to our liberty. One that could not go unchallenged.

                Yeah i’m sure the Soviets had their own fears about the West’s intentions. I didn’t say they didn’t. I don’t speak for them. At any rate i don’t believe the Soviets hated us for no good reason. That’s absurd. Good or bad they had there reasons to fear Western dominance. It was at odds with their socialist, communist, and Stalinist goals and we clearly weren’t just going to accept their dominance over us.

                Thus the Cold War.

                • ayaa says:

                  While we are talking about willingness to use force to achieve goals, lets take the last 50 years into account. Who has started more wars and been responsible for more deaths, USSR/Russia or the USA?

    • Hirsh says:

      The alternative is anarchy…I doubt that’s what you have in mind. As long as we are willing to follow leaders there will be bad ones who come along too. It’s always easy to tell who they are with hindsight.

      • geoff says:

        No Hirsh anarchy is not what I have in mind. My idea is a world with people like you and I, that will question our leaders, and not just follow them off the edge.

        Yes I know……..I live in dream land.

        But Hirsh you have a good heart, that is all it takes.

    • George Johnson says:

      It’s the differences.
      Some people, and that’s normally the ones that get elected to power, simply can’t accept some systems are different than others (and some can’t accept the pain and suffering caused by some of those systems).

      Until everybody IS peaceful, we’ll never LIVE in peace. But the nukes, put more people on an even footing, offering protection.
      Accept it, people have been fighting ever since they could carry sticks. It’s nothing new, and it will continue for a very long time.
      In order to have “true peace”, somebody, somewhere, is going to have to give up their beliefs, and government, and way of life.
      Who? Who do you say to “Ok, your system is wrong, you have to stop what you’re doing, and do it our way”.

      (And it’s more than one group too. Also, even THAT is not very “peaceful” is it? Kinda forceful, making somebody, a country (several) give up their way of life).

  2. Jim-Bob says:

    Wait…Why would you need a nuclear tipped torpedo? Wouldn’t the blast kill not only the enemy ship but the one launching it as well? Perhaps this is something lost in translation and the Russian word for torpedo is the same as the one for bomb?

    • Hirsh says:

      Tactical nuclear weapons (short range), like a torpedo, have much smaller yields then strategic nuclear weapons. The smallest yielding tactical nuke fielded by the U.S. was the W54 warhead. Some variants had a yield as low as 10 tons of TNT (not kilotons). The “Little Feller” 1 & 2 nuclear tests used the W54 warhead.

      “Little Feller II and Little Feller I were code names for a set of nuclear tests undertaken by the United States at the Nevada Test Site on July 7 and July 17, 1962….

      In Little Feller II (July 7), the warhead was suspended only three feet above the ground and had a yield equivalent to only 22 tons of TNT. In Little Feller I (July 17), the warhead was launched as a Davy Crockett device from a stationary 155 millimeter launcher and set to detonate between 20 and 40 feet above the ground around 1.7 miles from the launch point, with a yield of 18 tons.”


      The artillery fired W54 was actually dial-a-yield and could be set from 10 to 250 tons. While it’s explosive yield was low it did give a deadly burst of radiation as well.

      The U.S. also fielded the Mark 45 ASTOR anti-submarine torpedo with the 11 kiloton W34 nuclear warhead fitted to it. It had a range of 6~9 miles.

      Not sure what the Soviet torpedo warhead in the picture is?

    • jeffrey pigden says:

      No, the nuke is a low yield weapon. In marine warfare, the optimum ship kill is to crack the keel. The best way to do that is detonate a blast directly beneath the keel. Regular explosives need to be carefully placed to do the job. A low yield nuke has a much larger blast zone so you don’t have to be as accurate.

  3. guest says:

    “Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it is rolling backwards along the trunk”

    You know, you should just not write anything if all you otherwise can do is write something completely unreadable.
    Go roll backwards towards the trunk, will you now?

  4. Matlok says:

    The U.S. also fielded an ASROC (anti submarine rocket) with a nuclear tipped torpedo. I think if you google “nuclear ASROC test” you will find a picture of the USS Agerholm, with the blast in the distance. pretty cool foto actually.

  5. Senya says:

    Sweet place i graduated from

Leave a Reply

  • Random Post