It also made them a lot more sensitive to the manufacturer, however. Underfunding a project almost certainly led it to being a disaster (the N1 rocket being a classic example). They generally were willing to sacrifice performance for ease of production and quantity - it was very much a widespread phenomenon.
A friend of mine once served as a translator for the military during one of the late mutual nuclear disarmament treaties (don't remember which one). She described them as pretty much a scam, in that both sides wanted to get rid of their old weapons anyway and it gave them an excuse to put funds toward development of new, treaty-compliant weapons. But anyway, they were allowed to inspect any area small enough to contain a "treaty limited item". To figure out whether they could inspect it, the teams were equipped with sophisticated laser measuring devices - if it determined that the space was large enough, they could inspect it. The Russians were really impressed with it. They sent their teams over with... a stick. If the stick fit, they could inspect it.
Another example she mentioned was driving licenses. You know, if you get stopped in the US, they take your license, run your number through their computer, it connects to remote databases, they look up past offenses, they register a new one, etc, and give you your license back. In the USSR it was much simpler: the officer took your license and punched a hole in it. If you had too many holes, they kept it.
I know it's such a stereotype that the Russians preferred low tech solutions vs. the US, but she said that the stereotype was totally well deserved.