T-34 and KV-1 both were only a small part of the soviet tanks and the artillery and aircrafts were near obsolete.
This is historically inconsistent.
There were more than
1,000 T-34's and more than 500 KV tanks deployed in the Western military districts of the Soviet Union by June, 1941. That's 1/3rd of the number of tanks the Germans were to invade the Soviet Union with. Sure, by Soviet standards 1,000 and 500 are a small number,
but by Western standards these numbers are significantly big.
The T-34's and KV's were the only tanks of their class in the world. No other country had heavy and medium tanks of this class. The bulk of German tanks were Panzer I's, Panzer II's, both of which were inferior to the basic BT-7 Tank which the Soviet's had in the thousands, and the Panzer III's which was the latest addition to the German army were only in the hundreds and were inferior to the 1,000 T-34's and 500 KV's. Even the latest Panzer IV was inferior in armor and armament in comparison to the T-34.
Basically
the entire German tank fleet was
inferior to the Soviet Tank fleet
in quality and quantity. Soviet artillery was also superior to the German artillery.
The Red Army displayed its readiness for modern warfare at Khalkhin gol when it decimated an entire Japanese army using Blitzkrieg tactics even before the term was coined.
There was a greater build up in military might but that had always been ebbing and flowing if you study Russian history you will see that. The issue with historians studying only world war 2 is that they do not look at the over all policies of the region, Also the soviet army at the time was not even at a war footing and was scattered. When you look at the battles fought you will see that clearly. It is correct that Stalin was increasing his military might and that there was modernization but that was to be expected. This can turn into a large debate but if Russia had been anywhere near invasion they would not be short of so many supplies and trained personal.
1. Not really because prior to 1939 there was no military mobilization in the Soviet Union (at least not of this scale) so the military buildup between 1939 and 1941 was unparalleled in Soviet history.
2. The book that i referred to (
The Chief Culprit) written by a former Soviet Intelligence officer
who has access to thousands of Soviet military documents, which even most historians don't have access to, does in fact cover all of the geopolitics of the region to provide clear context of the time.
3.
Russia wasn't short of supplies, rather they positioned all of their armies and supply depots right up to the border with Nazi Germany this way when they launched their invasion of Europe their armies could easily be supplied in short notice rather than haul in supplies from within the Russian heartland
which would take much longer.
The Germans did the same when they invaded Poland, France, and the Soviet Union, they positioned all of their supply depots and fuel right up to the border with the countries they intended to invade (and did invade).
From an offensive standpoint, this is a good thing, but from a defensive standpoint, this is a strategic mistake because if the enemy attacks first they can capture or destroy all of your supplies, which is exactly what the German did when they launched Barbarossa. Clearly the Soviets were intending on launching an invasion and not setting up defenses.
BTW, just thought this thread would be of interest to the following users:
Would appreciate your input:
@p(-)0ENiX @Developereo @al-Hasani
![Panzer_1[1].png](/data/attachments/352/352895-a310b40282c4a648065519762aa398ad.jpg)
![Panzer_I_number_504[1].jpg](/data/attachments/352/352897-f2995f8866f4b24b3a279c7e7d7e8eb9.jpg)
![panzer2i[1].jpg](/data/attachments/352/352926-c51dd75b67bfe3b5b626b0542a6f7d63.jpg){kind=small}
![24[1].jpg](/data/attachments/352/352929-83e0c047c86a293b237ed22d5190cbfb.jpg)
