@marksgreatest@sinekonata1@NinaByzantina@JohnRoss43 British tanks for example were developed with British MOD requests. They needed heavily armored but slow tanks to support infantry, Soviet Union requested heavy armour AND good cruise speed, so Valentine's, Matildas and Churchilles were not exactly what army needed
@marksgreatest@sinekonata1@NinaByzantina@JohnRoss43 If you try to find any war chronicles with land-lease tanks you will hardly find any.
Because actually their numbers in fighting regiments were small, mostly they were used in guard regiments. The reason is that mostly tnks were outdated and not suitable for the Soviet doctrine
@marksgreatest@sinekonata1@NinaByzantina@JohnRoss43 My bad, Soviet Union produced 136 000 aircraft during the war.
But I think you got the point. Actually food supply was far more useful than P-39 and M-3 Lee.
M-3 had nickname "БМ-6", which can be translated as "mass grave for 6 man"
@marksgreatest@sinekonata1@NinaByzantina@JohnRoss43 7 000 tanks provided by USA is a great force, without a doubt.
By the way, Soviet Union produced 119 000 tanks during the war.
11 400 planes is a great addition to the 119 000 Soviet Union produced.
Don't overestimate land-lease, it was very useful, but not vital.
@AlliPohjanpalo@VZHISHOW А в бахрейне выяснится что они вообще ничего не сделали, рендеры нафантазированы, машина макет, на тестах внутри бежали карлики и толкали, а сезон карл будет ехать на велике потому что мы за окружающую среду