Soviet infantry projector in 1941

OTL, the Soviets didn't get to cranking out shoulder-mounted infantry projectors en masse until after the war. There are reasons that range from the general 'emergency survival' mode, to the issues with developing domestic shaped charges/HEAT, to the need to equip millions and millions of soldiers that brings up the cost-effectiveness issue of OTL WWII projectors being not that much better in the grand scheme of things than hand-mines, grenades, and other expedients.

So, getting to a viable projector that can be fielded en masse in 1941 has a lot of issues, even without the problem that it will probably come at the expense of something else that's unambiguously important. Kurchevsky escaping the purge has been mentioned, but I think he's more of a hindrance than a help. The guy, instead of perfecting a few viable designs in niches where they'd be useful, went on a manic quest to make everything from aircraft guns to artillery to naval guns recoilless, holding up conventional artillery that worked in the process. You'd have to nudge him out of the way or change his basic personality.

Even with the politics and just-right level of resources being allocated, there's still a big technological hurdle to be overcome. If the penetrator warhead problems stay the same, and there's a hold up in designing, and more crucially manufacturing them in great quantity, it has to rely on brute power. The OTL Gustav M42 recoilless gun is an example of that path--and it's not that much, if any better than the anti-tank rifles the Soviets used historically.

So, the alternate challengers have to make a weapon that's unambiguously better than the heavy anti-tank rifles of OTL (which, after all, could break through early war tanks), and make it cheap and easy to build enough that it can equip enough to the overexpanding Red Army to make its presence felt, and make it user-friendly enough that the soldiers of said overexpanded army in 1941 can use it effectively, and have its development cycle finish quickly enough and be in the right place so that it can be revved up and not lost or dislocated in the post-Barbarossa scramble. That requires a lot of skill and luck, and might need a certain flying mammal to come by for a bit.

Now, with that criteria met, the net result might, and probably would just be a bit different statistical noise to OTL. The (insert name) recoilless rifle becomes remembered as the anti-tank weapon of the war the same way the PTRD and PTRS were OTL, there's a few more losses of AFVs here, maybe something worse here due a butterfly due to resource allocation (if it comes at the expense of T-34s or artillery, both of which matter more).

However, even slight attrition helps, especially since this isn't the Axis changed weapon battling the Allies who have the production and manpower to shrug off increased losses, this is an Allied weapon digging (just a little) deeper into the already shallow German resource pool.

So, with this path outlined, how (im)plausible is it and how much of an effect would the small tactical advantages of this super-projector and any increased attrition have on wearing down the Axis war machine?
 

Deleted member 1487

Not sure it would matter to the Soviets, they got Bazookas from the US in 1942, though the Soviets were not fond of them (and helped provide the Germans the first captured example and inspiration to make the Panzerschreck). I'd say it is probably a waste for them all things considered given that they had so many AT guns and other AT weapons that were longer range and more damaging than a recoilless type weapon. Plus they had a shortage of the necessary explosive to make HEAT shells as it was. They also got excellent use out of their ATRs, which were basically a .50 caliber sniper rifle and were very effective against enemy infantry and un/slightly armored vehicles. Also given the propellant shortages recoilless weapons (the Germans had the exact same problem IOTL) are an extremely inefficient use of them, something like 4/5ths of propellants being wasted out the back.

For the Soviets it is actually kind of hard to do a good technical what if that would matter given that they won with what they had as it was and the stuff that really mattered to them wasn't really technical as much as strategic/operational. Plus given the historical economic damage that Barbarossa did, they had very little industrial room to experiment with radical new equipment and what they needed outside of what they could make themselves they got from the US and UK via LL.
The one significant technical what if for the Soviets that would have a impact is them getting the T-34M in service before the invasion so that would be the primary AFV of the war. That might have been the single best all around AFV of the war had it gotten into service; it fixed all of the T-34's problems and though it would lack certain important technical flourishes that the M4 Sherman had, for it's weight and cost it would be very hard to beat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34_variants#Tanks
T-34M - This unit was a prototype (A-43) with improved armor, hexagonal three-man turret, torsion bar suspension, and increased fuel and ammunition storage. Five hulls were built, but development was abandoned when the war broke out.
 
Re. OP - the Soviets have had the recoilles guns of the constructror Kurcheskiy, even tested them on aircraft. A little bit of thinking can give the infantry version.

Not sure it would matter to the Soviets, they got Bazookas from the US in 1942, though the Soviets were not fond of them (and helped provide the Germans the first captured example and inspiration to make the Panzerschreck). I'd say it is probably a waste for them all things considered given that they had so many AT guns and other AT weapons that were longer range and more damaging than a recoilless type weapon. Plus they had a shortage of the necessary explosive to make HEAT shells as it was. They also got excellent use out of their ATRs, which were basically a .50 caliber sniper rifle and were very effective against enemy infantry and un/slightly armored vehicles. Also given the propellant shortages recoilless weapons (the Germans had the exact same problem IOTL) are an extremely inefficient use of them, something like 4/5ths of propellants being wasted out the back.

IIRC the Soviets never ever were without shells, at least not before the same happened to the Germans.

For the Soviets it is actually kind of hard to do a good technical what if that would matter given that they won with what they had as it was and the stuff that really mattered to them wasn't really technical as much as strategic/operational. Plus given the historical economic damage that Barbarossa did, they had very little industrial room to experiment with radical new equipment and what they needed outside of what they could make themselves they got from the US and UK via LL.
The one significant technical what if for the Soviets that would have a impact is them getting the T-34M in service before the invasion so that would be the primary AFV of the war. That might have been the single best all around AFV of the war had it gotten into service; it fixed all of the T-34's problems and though it would lack certain important technical flourishes that the M4 Sherman had, for it's weight and cost it would be very hard to beat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34_variants#Tanks

Oh, it is very easy to do plausible technical what-ifs for the Soviets. A SU-85, SU-100, SU-122 (with cannon on IS tank) and SU-152 in 1942, KV-85 in 1942, T-34-57 in greater numbers, MiG-3 with 2 cannons and AM-38 engine in 1941. Pe-2 'solid nose' with 37mm and later 45 mm as a tank-buster; Pe-2 with M-88 engine. I-16 with M-88 engine.
57mm ATG without interruption of production, the ANT-58 bomber with AM-38 enters production in 1941, install the 57mm on Matilda, Churchill and Sherman, T-34-85 in 1943. The long barreled 45mm M1942 onn Valentine. The 'Soviet Hetzer' (sported 57mm ATG, single prototype was constructed IIRC). T-43 with 85mm cannon. T-70 with long 45mm.
 
You just need to evolve Kurchevsky's 76mm DRP to the lighter weight and more powerful SPG-82. It's not shoulder launched, but man portable enough.

Maybe an earlier invention of HESH would make the old DRP more effective.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Re. OP - the Soviets have had the recoilles guns of the constructror Kurcheskiy, even tested them on aircraft. A little bit of thinking can give the infantry version.
Yes, they were certainly technologically possible, that's not the argument, it's the required amount of propellants in wartime beyond the initial invasion that would make making more very costly compared to normal shells.
http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/SUartillery.htm#76RekK
As it was, it would just be a lighter 76mm field gun with shorter range and much higher propellant usage for paratrooper formations. The Soviets didn't really use HEAT rounds during WW2 nor did they develop a HESH round even during the Cold War for general use. So they'd just have an inferior field gun for paratroopers to fire HE. Not really worthwhile for them except for para-operations or light infantry, just like the Germans, who fielded them first, but found them wasteful.

IIRC the Soviets never ever were without shells, at least not before the same happened to the Germans.
I get into arguments with a Russian history student on another forum and he has repeatedly argued there were major shell shortages in 1941-42 for the Soviets. He doesn't like to admit the impact of Lend-Lease, but that was a major source of explosives and propellants to help the Soviets made good the losses in production from the German invasion. Soviet stocks grew from 1943 on, but they suffered under shortages throughout the war and even in Beevor's Berlin 1945 book talks of Soviet sappers removing the explosives from German disabled mines and shells to get the explosives for filling for Soviet shells. Apparently too there was a severe lack of armor piercing shells even for AT guns.

Oh, it is very easy to do plausible technical what-ifs for the Soviets. A SU-85, SU-100, SU-122 (with cannon on IS tank) and SU-152 in 1942, KV-85 in 1942, T-34-57 in greater numbers, MiG-3 with 2 cannons and AM-38 engine in 1941. Pe-2 'solid nose' with 37mm and later 45 mm as a tank-buster; Pe-2 with M-88 engine. I-16 with M-88 engine.
57mm ATG without interruption of production, the ANT-58 bomber with AM-38 enters production in 1941, install the 57mm on Matilda, Churchill and Sherman, T-34-85 in 1943. The long barreled 45mm M1942 onn Valentine. The 'Soviet Hetzer' (sported 57mm ATG, single prototype was constructed IIRC). T-43 with 85mm cannon. T-70 with long 45mm.
To have all the SU-varients you suggest would require a POD around an earlier T-34 and experience with German StuGs, which has much further reaching consequences than just the technical side of having earlier SP-guns. Also the Su-122 was first in service in very late 1942 and had a lot of technical issues. The Su-152 need wasn't identified until Operation Uranus. The Su-100 was actually unnecessary until later in the war when German tanks got really heavy. Prior the Su-85 was plenty to kill the threats in question, so you'd actually need a German POD getting their heavy tanks in service sooner to have the Soviets even worry about making a 100mm piece.
But in any event most of the technical PODs get into the realm of really not mattering to the course of the war (leaving aside the outcome point) as the Soviets already largely had sufficient weapons to do most of those jobs and the technical ability to make the mid/late war versions appear mostly hinges on the T-34 being available earlier, which really then brings up back to the T-34M as the prime POD and all derivative models being secondary to the primary T-34 change.
Even different armament on fighters and bombers really doesn't change that much for the Soviets given the situation at various points in the war; by 1942 none of those guns would really help them overcome the enemy experience/number/training advantage, while later in the war they were winning anyway so it might help inflict more dead on the Germans, save a few more Soviet lives, and change really nothing about the course or outcome.

That's kind of the issue with doing Allied technical what ifs, they don't really change the course or outcome, while often Axis technical what ifs actually could change the course of the war, though much more often than not not change the outcome. For instance the Soviet Hetzer; I cannot think of how that really changes the course of the conflict at all by the time it would be ready, while an early German Hetzer would actually have significant battlefield impact if introduced early enough. Same with German improved aero-engines vs. Soviet aero-engines. For the Soviets you'd need something to change major stuff like training/doctrine/experience of pilots and that would likely go back to no Purges or limited expansion rather than technical fixes.

You just need to evolve Kurchevsky's 76mm DRP to the lighter weight and more powerful SPG-82. It's not shoulder launched, but man portable enough.

Maybe an earlier invention of HESH would make the old DRP more effective.
Right, you'd need special ammo that didn't wasn't domestically manufactured in the USSR until after WW2 (HEAT) or never used (HESH) to make it worthwhile except for special operations (which it was designed for) like paratrooper drops.
 
...
To have all the SU-varients you suggest would require a POD around an earlier T-34 and experience with German StuGs, which has much further reaching consequences than just the technical side of having earlier SP-guns. Also the Su-122 was first in service in very late 1942 and had a lot of technical issues. The Su-152 need wasn't identified until Operation Uranus. The Su-100 was actually unnecessary until later in the war when German tanks got really heavy. Prior the Su-85 was plenty to kill the threats in question, so you'd actually need a German POD getting their heavy tanks in service sooner to have the Soviets even worry about making a 100mm piece.

Soviets were never shy to install heavy cannons on AFVs of modest weight. They didn't needed a German influence to come out with 76.2mm cannon in a turret, and need for heavy gun on an armored platform was identified during the Winter war - hence the KV-2 (admitedly of questionable utility) plus SMK prototype, plus whole host of prototypes based on KV series much before Tiger emerged.
ALT SU-122 = 122 mm cannon on the SU-152 chassis.
German infulence, by what it looked like the intelligence coup, eventually produced the 57mm ATG (much more powerful than the eg. British 57mm ATG, let alone 5cm pak, and with much better AP capabilities than usual 76.2mm Soviet guns) and 107mm cannon of modern variety. Unfortunately for the Soviets, those two pieces were discontinued, the 107mm cannon due to the loss of factory. 100 mm gun was standard gun of Soviet ships, in production way before ww2 started.

But in any event most of the technical PODs get into the realm of really not mattering to the course of the war (leaving aside the outcome point) as the Soviets already largely had sufficient weapons to do most of those jobs and the technical ability to make the mid/late war versions appear mostly hinges on the T-34 being available earlier, which really then brings up back to the T-34M as the prime POD and all derivative models being secondary to the primary T-34 change.

As much as I like Soviet gear, they many times were second or third best when compared with German and/or Anglo-American stuff. The T-34 will have roughly parity vs. StuG-3F or G, or later Pz-IV models one-on-one, while being susceptible to Marders and the like. The 7.5cm pak will have a field day with T-34 as it had with Shermans. Granted, neither of my suggestions changes outcome of war, but might change post-war picture of Europe, even world (eg. whole Korea under communists).

Even different armament on fighters and bombers really doesn't change that much for the Soviets given the situation at various points in the war; by 1942 none of those guns would really help them overcome the enemy experience/number/training advantage, while later in the war they were winning anyway so it might help inflict more dead on the Germans, save a few more Soviet lives, and change really nothing about the course or outcome.

I suggested much more than simple change in armament. Eg. the MiG-3 powered by AM-38 will outfly everything, or at least be equal, under 3-4 km in 1941-43; 2 cannons will have easier time to kill German A/C than usual 3 MGs. 37 or 45mm on the Pe-2 will work far better than 2x37mm on the Il-2. ANT-58 (predecessor of the Tu-2) means Mosquito-equivalent for the VVS.

That's kind of the issue with doing Allied technical what ifs, they don't really change the course or outcome, while often Axis technical what ifs actually could change the course of the war, though much more often than not not change the outcome. For instance the Soviet Hetzer; I cannot think of how that really changes the course of the conflict at all by the time it would be ready, while an early German Hetzer would actually have significant battlefield impact if introduced early enough. Same with German improved aero-engines vs. Soviet aero-engines. For the Soviets you'd need something to change major stuff like training/doctrine/experience of pilots and that would likely go back to no Purges or limited expansion rather than technical fixes.

Granted, technical what-ifs are second to startegic what-ifs. That does not mean the timelines written around those are not orth the try. Eg. the early LR fighters (plausible & workable) for the Allies might mean less of Europe under Stalin's boot - not an issue for American, Canadian or Japanese citizens, but major issue for a Czech, ex-Yu, E. German or Polish citizens.
 

Deleted member 1487

Soviets were never shy to install heavy cannons on AFVs of modest weight. They didn't needed a German influence to come out with 76.2mm cannon in a turret, and need for heavy gun on an armored platform was identified during the Winter war - hence the KV-2 (admitedly of questionable utility) plus SMK prototype, plus whole host of prototypes based on KV series much before Tiger emerged.
ALT SU-122 = 122 mm cannon on the SU-152 chassis.
Never claimed they needed any foreign influence for AFV designs pre-war, they used their own experience for that (plus some mutual work during the 1920s with the Reichswehr). The issue is the Soviets didn't really work on casement style assault guns until after Barbarossa, both for the need to save materials/time and due to experience with an effective assault gun from the enemy. Conversely the Germans radically changed their AFV design based on experience with Soviet AFVs (though not enough). Again no one claimed that the Soviet heavy tanks were remotely based on German models or experience of them, simply mentioned assault gun types. It wasn't until after the invasion that they developed the SU-series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZiS-30
They had messed around with open top types pre-war, but never adopted them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26_variants#Self-propelled_guns
Meanwhile even the open backed SU-76 took until after the Germans fielded the Marder series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-76

The first of the StuG style casement assault guns, the SU-122, was based on the StuG III:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-122
The Soviet High Command became interested in assault guns following the success of German Sturmgeschütz IIIs. Assault guns had some advantages over tanks with turrets. The lack of a turret made them cheaper to produce. They could be built with a larger fighting compartment and could be fitted with bigger and more powerful weapons on a given chassis. However, assault guns generally aim by orienting the entire vehicle, and were thus less suited for close combat than tanks with turrets.

In April 1942, design bureaus were asked to develop several assault guns with various armament: 76.2 mm ZiS-3 divisional field guns and 122 mm M-30 howitzers for infantry support, and 152 mm ML-20 howitzers for attacking enemy strongholds.

A prototype assault gun, armed with the 122 mm howitzer and built on the German Sturmgeschütz III chassis was developed, designated SG-122. Only 10 of these were completed. Production was halted when the vehicle was found to be hard to maintain and judged to be unsuccessful.

In the meantime they even developed an assault gun based on the Panzer III and 76mm field gun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III#Designs_based_on_chassis
The Soviet SU-76i self-propelled gun was based on the chassis of captured German Panzer III and StuG III. About 201 of these vehicles, many captured in the battle of Stalingrad, were converted at Factory No. 37 in 1943 for Red Army service by removing the turret, constructing a fixed casemate, and installing a 76.2-millimetre (3.00 in) S-1 gun (cheaper version of the F-34) in a limited-traverse mount. The armour was 35 millimetres (1.38 in) thick on the casemate front, 50 millimetres (1.97 in) in the hull front, and 30 millimetres (1.18 in) on the hull side. It was issued to tank and self-propelled gun units starting in autumn 1943,[16] and withdrawn to training use in early 1944. Two SU-76i survive: one on a monument in the Ukrainian town of Sarny and a second on display in a museum on Poklonnaya Hill in Moscow. It should not be confused with the Soviet SU-76 series.

German infulence, by what it looked like the intelligence coup, eventually produced the 57mm ATG (much more powerful than the eg. British 57mm ATG, let alone 5cm pak, and with much better AP capabilities than usual 76.2mm Soviet guns) and 107mm cannon of modern variety. Unfortunately for the Soviets, those two pieces were discontinued, the 107mm cannon due to the loss of factory. 100 mm gun was standard gun of Soviet ships, in production way before ww2 started.
The Zis-2 was AFAIK not based on any intelligence, more like fear of potential German heavy tanks and German propaganda about the Neubaufahrzeug failed prototype used in Norway. The 57mm Soviet gun was developed independent of any western design for different purposes (namely killing very heavy tanks with a very high velocity gun). They then dropped it once it was clear the Germans weren't fielding heavy tanks and the high velocity, relatively small projectile had poor behind the armor effects. Then the Tiger showed up so they bought it back. Again, a reaction to what the Germans actually used in the field.

As much as I like Soviet gear, they many times were second or third best when compared with German and/or Anglo-American stuff. The T-34 will have roughly parity vs. StuG-3F or G, or later Pz-IV models one-on-one, while being susceptible to Marders and the like. The 7.5cm pak will have a field day with T-34 as it had with Shermans. Granted, neither of my suggestions changes outcome of war, but might change post-war picture of Europe, even world (eg. whole Korea under communists).
Not really sure how that changes the course of WW2 or even Korea, given that that T-34/85 was better than anything the US fielded for a while. Then it was air power that changed the game and the T-34/85s were lost. US armor was tertiary to making that happen, certainly less than the operational coup of the Inchon landing forcing a major withdrawal of North Korean forces while aerial interdiction made pulling out in an organized fashion impossible, resulting in heavy loss of equipment.

I suggested much more than simple change in armament. Eg. the MiG-3 powered by AM-38 will outfly everything, or at least be equal, under 3-4 km in 1941-43; 2 cannons will have easier time to kill German A/C than usual 3 MGs. 37 or 45mm on the Pe-2 will work far better than 2x37mm on the Il-2. ANT-58 (predecessor of the Tu-2) means Mosquito-equivalent for the VVS.
The MiG-3 had poor low altitude handling and ever one they take is one less IL-2 in the field. An improved engine will not fix that. Certainly the cannons will help kill aircraft, but you need proper tactics, training, and experience to even get the enemy under the guns. How often did Pe-2s actually try and tank bust? They are very big targets to try that, just as the Germans found out with the Ju-88P.

Tu-2 wasn't a mosquito, why would the ANT-58 be?

Granted, technical what-ifs are second to startegic what-ifs. That does not mean the timelines written around those are not orth the try. Eg. the early LR fighters (plausible & workable) for the Allies might mean less of Europe under Stalin's boot - not an issue for American, Canadian or Japanese citizens, but major issue for a Czech, ex-Yu, E. German or Polish citizens.
Specifically in terms of Soviet technical what ifs, they have less impact on the course of the war (forget the outcome) than it does for the Axis, because frankly the Soviets made a lot less mistakes in the technical department, so there is less room for improvement, while the Germans and to a lesser degree other Axis powers could have benefited from improved or at least less flawed equipment. There are certainly some technical what-ifs that are plausibly possible, but not that many that have significant impact and the big game changers tend to be operational/strategic in terms of war course changes.
 
Never claimed they needed any foreign influence for AFV designs pre-war, they used their own experience for that (plus some mutual work during the 1920s with the Reichswehr). The issue is the Soviets didn't really work on casement style assault guns until after Barbarossa, both for the need to save materials/time and due to experience with an effective assault gun from the enemy.

The Soviets can take a look on the Char B1 (they were taking a peek or two at UK designs), and produce their own design that will not feature a turret, while the cannon is of more powerful variety, far before the war.

The Zis-2 was AFAIK not based on any intelligence, more like fear of potential German heavy tanks and German propaganda about the Neubaufahrzeug failed prototype used in Norway. The 57mm Soviet gun was developed independent of any western design for different purposes (namely killing very heavy tanks with a very high velocity gun). They then dropped it once it was clear the Germans weren't fielding heavy tanks and the high velocity, relatively small projectile had poor behind the armor effects. Then the Tiger showed up so they bought it back. Again, a reaction to what the Germans actually used in the field.

IIRC Soviets were fooled to believe the Germans are about to field the KV-1 equivalent some time in 1941, hence those high velocity cannons. As for the ammo for 57mm, they can use full-weight AP shots that will give better after-armor effects vs. real Pz-III and -IV, with low-weight AP ammo from early 1942 when German tanks get improved front armor.

They had messed around with open top types pre-war, but never adopted them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26_variants#Self-propelled_guns
Meanwhile even the open backed SU-76 took until after the Germans fielded the Marder series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-76

There we go - don't forget the experiments (the Soviets were not the only ones in that, they even came out with 2 designs for APC), just use up-to-date vehicles and cannons.

Not really sure how that changes the course of WW2 or even Korea, given that that T-34/85 was better than anything the US fielded for a while. Then it was air power that changed the game and the T-34/85s were lost. US armor was tertiary to making that happen, certainly less than the operational coup of the Inchon landing forcing a major withdrawal of North Korean forces while aerial interdiction made pulling out in an organized fashion impossible, resulting in heavy loss of equipment.

The 'August storm' was a result of two things - deal between Stalin and 'West', and end of ww2 in Europe. With Soviets doing better, the VE day might happen in, say, February or March of 1945 (I wont say in 1944), so we have 'June storm' happenening, where Soviets take whole Korea.
Soviet armies deeper in Europe might mean Austria partitioned, Greek communists getting actual support by Stalin, heavy hand vs. Tito etc.

The MiG-3 had poor low altitude handling and ever one they take is one less IL-2 in the field. An improved engine will not fix that. Certainly the cannons will help kill aircraft, but you need proper tactics, training, and experience to even get the enemy under the guns. How often did Pe-2s actually try and tank bust? They are very big targets to try that, just as the Germans found out with the Ju-88P.

MiG-3 suffered by low performance at low altitude, handling was manageable. The AM-38 was with low-level S/C gearing and much more power under 3 km, so the performance at lower altitudes will grow considerably; the OTL MiG-3 with that engine was 50 km/h faster than Yak-1 in 1941 at S/L.
Pe-2 was a lousy tank buster per OTL, it never got a proper cannon to do it right. Not this time around. Pe-2 was much smaller and faster than Ju-88.

Tu-2 wasn't a mosquito, why would the ANT-58 be?

Less drag with same propulsive power under 4 km, while available earlier.

Specifically in terms of Soviet technical what ifs, they have less impact on the course of the war (forget the outcome) than it does for the Axis, because frankly the Soviets made a lot less mistakes in the technical department, so there is less room for improvement, while the Germans and to a lesser degree other Axis powers could have benefited from improved or at least less flawed equipment. There are certainly some technical what-ifs that are plausibly possible, but not that many that have significant impact and the big game changers tend to be operational/strategic in terms of war course changes.

Soviet fighters were always slower than Axis or Western best, at any altitude, in most cases featuring weaker armament. Too late introduction of new-gen bomber (Tu-2). No LR fighters that can actually perform. Allowed the Germans to gain upper hand in tank & AFV capabilities for a good part of war. Almost no SP AA. Too late introduction of SP artillery (for indirect fire), that was too weak. No introduction of APC.

Basically - there is plenty of things to improve on Soviet gear, ironically the improvements were just around the corner. With an impact on course of war.
 
Top