• pandapoo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Soviet improvement as the war went on was a function of lend lease, Red Army finally recovering from the Stalinist officer purges, and Germany’s failures (incompetence, lack of material, overstretched supply lines, etc.)

    Regardless, the Red Army no longer exists and Soviet Cold War doctrine isn’t really relevant to this conflict.

    • nekandro@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Are you pretending like Russian doctrine today isn’t heavily derived from Soviet Cold War doctrine?

      Anyway, let’s look at the lend-lease claim:

      The Soviets produced around 100k tanks in WW2. The Americans supplied 13k.

      The Soviets produced 157k aircraft in WW2. The Americans supplied 14k.

      The American lend-lease program produced two key elements that the Soviets lacked: advanced trucks, and aviation-grade petrol. Both were problems that could have been engineered around (particularly since lend-lease peaked after the Red Army had turned the tides on Barbarossa and was gaining ground across the entire front), but American support made that unnecessary (and for which we are all thankful, because the alternative would have cost even more lives). These were two massive contributions that rapidly accelerated Bagration, but they don’t fundamentally change the fact that the Soviets were beating the shit out of the Germans after the failed push on Moscow and the attritional war in Stalingrad.