Daniels
Banned
Ok - no matter with what evidence you are confronted with you allways dismiss it with a "yeah no effect here" so a further discussion is really pointless.Except not..... So yeah, no effect there.
because even accepting your number is true, for some reason the Soviets have 10,000 tanks sitting around doing nothing (which is the main reason my eyebrows are going up at this number... it's basically claiming that the Soviets do not have the majority of their armor committed to the war. How does Krivosheev define "theater of operations"?),
1. Krivisheevs numbers not mine
2. Might it have occured to you that many tanks were on their way from the factories, many were beeing repaired and many were in the tank driving schools? If only 20% of all tanks fall into each category you get to 60% of the entire tank force which correlates quite well with the 12 000 out of 20 000 claimed by Krivosheev.
3. During Kursk the Soviets used "just" some 5000 tanks/sp guns - this indicates that they really had less than 10 000 avaliable or they would have used far more.
Then why did they not OTL? Why did they resort to using LL tanks most of which they saw as inferior? Answer: Because they had to.they could easily make up for the lack of lend-lease tanks by taking just 1/10th of that.