Thnx for info.

Usually mentioned to show how pathetic the Soviets were at fighting with their frontal assaults and NKVD forces that killed more Soviets than the Germans.

This ain't entirely rubbish. The soviets are well renowned for introducing fresh meat (even cadets) in the brunt of battle fire!! Before Katyusha & soviet tanks introduction (which was late because of metal unavailability) losses were higher.
Even if you take aside the civilian causalities, soviet army causalities were thrice that of allied causalities notable bcz of inexperienced soldiers & lack of mechanised army (artillery/tanks)

This ain't entirely rubbish. The soviets are well renowned for introducing fresh meat (even cadets) in the brunt of battle fire!! Before Katyusha & soviet tanks introduction (which was late because of metal unavailability) losses were higher.
Even if you take aside the civilian causalities, soviet army causalities were thrice that of allied causalities notable bcz of inexperienced soldiers & lack of mechanised army (artillery/tanks)

Actually western allies casualties were much lower because they surrendered or ran away like at Dunkirk. The Soviet soldiers were easily outfought in the early part of the war just like the rest of europe was during the same period for the same reason. The Germans were using new tactics that were very effective.

Allied losses were low because they didn't actually fight much of a ground war with Germany on European soil till later in the war when their equipment and training was rather better.

The Soviets on the other hand had to learn to cook while standing in the fire so to speak.
They had no English channel to hide behind, and surrender really was not an option for them.

The Soviets had more tanks and planes than the rest of the world combined when Germany invaded.

Modern tanks and planes made up a very small fraction of their forces, for example the I-16 was an excellent fighter in the Spanish civil war, but against the BF-109 it was obsolete.

The British Hurricane was in a similar position in that it was a good plane but not great and when faced with the BF-109 is wasn't good enough to compete on even terms like the Spitfire or Yak-1.

The T-34 had just entered production in the Soviet Union and was clearly better than any German tank, but again tactics let it down... Soviet tanks were spread out in infantry units to support infantry operations. When coming up against a German panzer unit... even crap tanks like the Panzer 3 could mow down infantry and manouver to hit the side and rear of enemy tanks when needed. The vast majority of Soviet tanks were T-26s for which the Panzer 3 could take out easily. The T-26 could take out the Panzer 3 in turn, but the layout and use of these two tanks and the skill with which the Panzers were used led to their superiority.

Let me just say that a German tank with crews that had just taken on western europe and won in a tank where the commander looked for targets and told the gunner which targets to attack while he looked for more targets or threats to the tank is a much better tank killing machine than a T-26 where the commander was the gunner and the loader, so when he found a target he had to load the correct ammo, aim and fire and observe the fall of shot to see if another shot was needed. If there were 100 T-26s and a dozen or so Panzers then the T-26s might have a chance with good communication. In practical terms it was the Panzers that outnumbered the T-26s in each action and it was the panzers that had the excellent communication and tactics... and full ammo loads and experienced battle hardened crews.

The first 6 months of the war led to most of the trained Soviet army being captured with most of its equipment. Catastrophic... except for the fact that most of it was obsolete. The new stuff in production was every bit as good as the German stuff, but there was no experienced battle hardened troops to use it... new tactics had to be learned on the battlefield. The entire production capacity of the Soviet Union had to be moved past the Urals... and of course forces had to be kept in the east in case the Japanese decided to turn back north.

The simple fact is that when properly equipped and trained Siberian troops arrived just at the gates of Moscow the Germans were stopped and pushed back.

The Germans go on about the mistakes hitler made that prevented them from taking Moscow... Stalins decisions cost enormous losses in premature or ill thought out and pointless counter attacks that ate up men and equipment.
The irony is that taking Moscow became a fixation for the Germans but it didn't help Napoleon much.

The Soviets rarely did anything without a good reason.
During WWI all the best Russian forces were held back to protect the main cities and as the war progressed it was unrest within those units that created the civil war that ended Russias participation in WWI.
The Soviets realised that taking forces and not putting them in combat led to a loss of morale to the point where the unit became unusable.
The Solution was to put units in the front line and let them experience it early.
If they get knocked up then reinforce them and put them back in and then later take them out and give them a rest.

Its ironic that the german army won most of its battles with crappy little panzers and lost the war with "the best tanks in the world"

Just a correction about the T-26, they were deliberately designed for infantry support while they had BT tanks for rapid mechanised maneuvers. both were superior to the large amount of pz.2s and pz.1s during barbarossa

I also find it funny how people like to prove the uselessness of the red army by always pointing out the winter war. While the soviets fucked up in that place its never mentioned that at almost the same time they decisively beat an army a lot better equipped than the finns in the far east.

The main problems was not the soviet doctrine equipment or men it was the generals. Every single operation Voroshilov took part in was fked up by him.

Also people like to compare T-34s with kingtigers and panthers not taking account that the chance of them facing a battle with them completely one on one frontally was very slim. Not to mention the german aryan made supertanks often broke down or were destroyed by aircraft before even going into battle. they never compare the T-34 with its arch rival the Pz.4. Throughout the war in several different versions the T-34 outclassed the Pz.4 in most aspects. BTW most T-34s were destroyed by tank destroyers and aircraft so you cant say that theyre worse than the other tanks

Just a correction about the T-26, they were deliberately designed for infantry support while they had BT tanks for rapid mechanised maneuvers. both were superior to the large amount of pz.2s and pz.1s during barbarossa

People who say the T-26 was superior to the early panzers point to better armour and a better gun, but in reality those silly little German tanks were actually superior for different reasons... visibility and having a larger crew than two men.

In the T-26 the driver drove the tank but the commander was radio man, commander... of course, gunner, and loader.

In the Panzer II there was a crew of three with the extra crewman as the loader. The commander was looking for targets and could continue to look for targets while the gun was loaded. When loaded he was distracted by having to fire, but then he could be commander again. The loader also operated the radio, which means the commander had one less job to distract them.
The Panzer III had a crew of 5... driver, gunner, loader, commander, radio operator/bow machinegun operator.
The armour and the gun were not as critical as the ability to find targets and threats and deal with them.