During my (shitty) education, I was taught that the Russians

>>3267863
It's really more Wehrmacht propaganda than American stuff; but for a long time the only sources that academics this side of the iron curtain had was German sources, since the Soviets didn't often want to open their own archives.

As for good sources, try these.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf (Concerning Bagration, but a good show into late war Soviet tactics and operations)

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf (German perspective in 1941-42, they had a much rougher time of it than is generally believed)

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf (Economic analysis of Lend-Lease).

One thing I would very much like to point out is that for all the talk of "Unending slavic hordes", the Soviets never had a 2:1 frontwide numbers advantage until 1945, when the German army was pretty much shattered beyond repair. They got good at massing much more than that at the points of their thrusts, but if you think about it, that's really just operations 101. The Germans got a local 3:1 advantage out of slight numerical inferiority at the battle of Sedan, and nobody talks about that as being some kind of special feat, or the Germans zerg-rushing their way to victory.

>>3267876
>It's really more Wehrmacht propaganda than American stuff

Interesting, I had never considered that. I always assumed it was created to jive with the typical "America won WW2, not the Soviets" message that a lot of American public schools have taught since the 50s.

Extremely good links, my man. Much appreciated!

I doubt anyone informed will call Soviet military tech sub-par. The Soviets produced lots of quality stuff that helped tip the ballance on the battlefield. Germans were shocked when they first discovered tanks like KV-1 and T-34, they had to completely upgrade their entire AT weaponry because none of it could penetrate them. The KV had such a thick armor they had to drag 88mm Flaks with them because it was the only weapon that could counter it.

>>3267876
>The Germans got a local 3:1 advantage out of slight numerical inferiority at the battle of Sedan

Where is that from?

In general, if you have several million men more than your enemy at your disposal and operate on a large frontline, you can achieve far more massive concentrations more easily than in a situation where numbers are roughly even and the frontline is short.

>>3267863
Read Victor Suvorov books.

>>3267876
I would like to add to your "German perspective" pdf. I have a pdf on how Germany evaluated the Red Army's qualities from 1941-1945.
It's a very interesting outlook on how USSR troops seemed to perform better in squads than alone, sheer recklessness that incited psychological effects on German troops, phenomenal camouflage etc.
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1080/13518046.2016.1168128

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=890417B7891C182BD06F8433AE488A42
a book on how soviet operations were a little more complex than "dude le zergrush xd"

>>3267920
That's actually true, in fact there are various memoirs of German troops, here's one:
>Our 37 mm anti-tank guns turned out to be helpless against it and acquired the insulting nickname ‘anti-tank firecrackers’.

Hell, even Heinz Guderian had to admit it:
>South of Mtsensk the 4th Tank Division was attacked by Russian tanks, and it had to endure a difficult moment. For the first time the apparent superiority of the Russian T-34 tanks was demonstrated. The division suffered substantial losses. The planned rapid attack on Tula meanwhile had to be postponed

Sources for these quotes can be found here: >>3268425

>>3268267
"no"

>>3267863
How shitty can your education be if you were taught the cold hard reality.
USSR was garbage in almost every way for the first couple of years of fighting

>>3268537
get the fuck out of here

>>3268537
as well as every single army in Europe and German army from late 1941

>>3267920
Russian tech tended to be crude in design but often still superior than German engineering in their intended role. While T-34s (especially early models) had poor ergonomics and suspect quality control, they were extremely powerful for their time when introduced and proved adaptable enough to remain formidable into Korea. Similarly, Soviet fighter aircraft were as good as or better than German counterparts in terms of performance at their intended low-medium altitude (important as the vast majority of air combat on the eastern front was in tactical operation so high altitude was rare) while soviet attackers and bombers (eg Il-2, Pe-2) were reliable workhorses capable of tossing bombs on Germans when they needed to do so. Their crude design paid off in harsh conditions along with classic slav improvisation (such as defrosting frozen engines with trays of burning petrol) to result in a powerful mechanised soviet army

>>3267863
>During my (shitty) education, I was taught that the Russians mainly provided almost nothing more than sheer numbers to throw at the Germans on the Eastern front
Lies, almost no school teaches military history. At most you'd have learned that 6 million died and Hitler had one testicle.

>>3268583
Not that guy, but he has a point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War