Of course no addressing the racism. You just say Lend Lease to show ever more deeply how clueless you are on the eastern front.
Lend lease indeed did help the Soviet Union, most of it were trucks that were very much thanked for, as they allowed the soviet union to industrialize faster. Tanks, sadly, were completely underperforming in the eastern European conditions, the tankers of the Soviet Union much preferred the T-34 over any British made tank. Aircraft, was not allied with different concepts of the purpose of it on the battlefield. Western powers were using them to strike deep into the territory, meanwhile the Soviet Union preferred more heavier, but better for the front line, aircraft.
All in all, the role of Lend Lease was not that great. Soviets had their own conditions on the eastern front, with weather and material conditions completely differing to both US and Britain. This lead to the Lend Lease indeed helping the Soviet Union. But probably only to shorter the war by several months, not to win it. It is quite disgusting for you to respond in such a manner. I hope you change as a person.
The extent of preparedness that each country had is widely different. Plan Barbarossa hit the Soviet Union, which was trying to remain neutral after the civil war busy rebuilding the country, very hard. Only in 43~ had the Soviet Union start producing what the army needed, before that the army was literally not capable to fight the Nazi Germany.
German Tanks, Planes, mortars, and etc. Were all an extreme threat to an army which was at the moment stuck with Mosins. Defense position were stormed with Blitzkrieg, and the majority infantry positions was not prepared for that.
Lend lease.
Of course no addressing the racism. You just say Lend Lease to show ever more deeply how clueless you are on the eastern front. Lend lease indeed did help the Soviet Union, most of it were trucks that were very much thanked for, as they allowed the soviet union to industrialize faster. Tanks, sadly, were completely underperforming in the eastern European conditions, the tankers of the Soviet Union much preferred the T-34 over any British made tank. Aircraft, was not allied with different concepts of the purpose of it on the battlefield. Western powers were using them to strike deep into the territory, meanwhile the Soviet Union preferred more heavier, but better for the front line, aircraft.
All in all, the role of Lend Lease was not that great. Soviets had their own conditions on the eastern front, with weather and material conditions completely differing to both US and Britain. This lead to the Lend Lease indeed helping the Soviet Union. But probably only to shorter the war by several months, not to win it. It is quite disgusting for you to respond in such a manner. I hope you change as a person.
No need to address it because facts are not racist. Sorry if this caused you to get your knickers in a knot.
Soviet military put solder losses at 8.6 mil vs German military losses of 4.3 military,but from all fronts they fought on.
How would you attribute rhe almost double volume of Soviet military casualties, compared to German losses: bad luck?
The extent of preparedness that each country had is widely different. Plan Barbarossa hit the Soviet Union, which was trying to remain neutral after the civil war busy rebuilding the country, very hard. Only in 43~ had the Soviet Union start producing what the army needed, before that the army was literally not capable to fight the Nazi Germany.
German Tanks, Planes, mortars, and etc. Were all an extreme threat to an army which was at the moment stuck with Mosins. Defense position were stormed with Blitzkrieg, and the majority infantry positions was not prepared for that.
Stalin’s paranoid purge of competent officers from the military certainly didn’t help.
But the lack of command still doesn’t explain the massively excessive deaths in Soviet forces.