I wonder about the "monkey" versions. Surely there couldn't be that much difference between Soviet and export models. Certainly not enough to make the easily destroyed Iraqi T-72s transform into indestructible Soviet T-72s?
AIR, the difference between the export and Soviet models of the Mig-23, for example, was merely the type of radar. The export model having the same radar as a Mig-21, if memory serves. Certainly not as capable as an F-14 or F-15.
Was it just dis-information to try to obscure the possible fact that Soviet equipment was still of low quality, regardless of who operated it?
Although Mr. Suvorov has published some......"interesting" books, he actually was in the Soviet army and claims to have "seen two variants of the BMP-1 infantry combat vehicle-one which is issued to the Soviet army and another which is intended for the Soviet Union's Arab friends."
Further description of the differences
here:
I counted sixty-three simplifications which made the second `monkey-model' different from the original version. Among the most important of these were: The 73mm gun has no loading or round selection equipment. Whereas in the Soviet version the gunner just presses the appropriate buttons and the round which he requires slides into the barrel, in the simplified model all of this has to be done by hand, and furthermore, the gun is not stabilised. The turret is rotated and the gun is raised mechanically. In the Soviet version this is done electrically-the mechanical system is there only as a back-up. The `export' version is armed with the Malyutka rocket, the Soviet one with the `Malyutka-M', which differs from the other model in having an automatic target guidance system. The `monkey-model' is without the lead internal lining on the walls, which protects the crew against penetrating radiation and against flying fragments of armour in the event of a direct hit. The optical system is greatly simplified, as is the communications equipment, there is no automatic radiation or gas detector, there is neither an automatic hermetic sealing system nor an air filtration system, for use in conditions of very heavy contamination, no automatic topographical fixation system is fitted and many other systems are missing.
When one of these `monkey-models' fell into the hands of Western specialists, they naturally gained a completely false impression of the true combat capabilities of the BMP-1 and of Soviet tanks. For what they were looking at was no more than a casing, or a container, like an empty money box which is of no value without its contents.
And it makes sense. Most countries do
not export sensitive military equipment to just any customer willing to pay. Some sort of control is done - the US only exports to reliable countries (almost always firm allies) and usually has an agreement banning the resale of sensitive military equipment. The USSR seems to have adopted a different approach - since a lot of the countries willing to buy it's military equipment could not necessarily be relied upon to
not switch allegiance to the USA (think of how Somalia was at first Soviet supported and then became US supported during the war with Ethiopia); putting in place the same measures as the USA is probably a non-starter. So they went ahead and just sold them the inferior quality equipment intended to be mass produced for emergency use anyway. In any case there is the problem that outside of Eastern Europe and Mongolia it would be far easier for Western intelligence to gain access due to more porous security environment as well as the actual usage of the equipment in ongoing conflicts.
For example, to take two vaguely comparable US and Soviet aircraft we had the F-111 being operated by the US and Australia
only (the UK ordered some but cancelled the order). Only the US and Australia could thus use them and those countries would use them under conditions that would minimize losses. On the other hand the Mig-23 was being operated by the USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Angola..... between Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Angola alone there would have been numerous chances for western intelligence to exam even downed aircraft because those countries tend to be in conflict pretty often (Iraq with Iran and in the 1991 Gulf War; Libya has actually been in conflict against Chad/France, Egypt AND Sudan at various points in the 1970s and 1980s; and Angola's civil war meant that the loss of a Mig-23 was a very real possibility there).
EDIT: And remember that we have never actually seen Soviet top-of-the-line equipment in use against equivalent forces anywhere. Following the end of WWII, Soviet troops were only openly deployed in conflict situations in 1953 (East Germany), 1956 (Hungary), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) and 1979 (Afghanistan). And in the first 3 cases it was to put down rebellions in the Warsaw Pact camp and in the last case it was to help the local communist government stamp out a rebellion. We have not seen the USSR engage in a
Desert Storm type situation where Soviet forces using better equipment squared off against a country using US equipment. The closest we get is in Afghanistan with the rebels using Stinger missiles. Thus one will never really know how much a difference the home model vs the emergency or export model would make in a conflict, since it would be like trying to determine how US equipment would fare against Iraq or Yugoslavia based only a combination of 1965 (the Dominican Republic) and Vietnam (but without the engagements against the North Vietnamese airforce most of the time).