Padre

Nope, generic Soviet Rifle Division did not have any integral armoured components at all. For assault guns they would have 21 120mm mortars, 12 regimental 76.2 howitzers and 12 122mm howitzers. They'd also have 24 76.2mm AT guns and 12 45mm or 57mm AT guns. But it is not a big secret that Soviet Rifle Divisions were not designed to fulfill the same roles as US Infantry Divisions. So why compare apples and oranges? What you really should compare a US Infantry Division to is a Soviet Mechanized (not Tank) Corps. This Corps will have the beforementioned Tank Brigade, plus at least 3 more Tank Battalions in its other 3 Mech Infantry Brigades, plus the usual two Regiments of medium and heavy TD respectively. That would be a plenty of armor components. Well, I wouldn't be so sure about the superiority of omnipotent Allied airforce either. What good it is if you cannot utilize it? On 1 October 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph published an account of "Operation Unthinkable", which was a study ordered by British Prime Minister Churchill to investigate the possibilities in a sneak attack on the Soviet Army. The plan was to rearm up to 10 German divisions, and attack the Soviet forces in Germany with the combined US, British, and German armies. It was presented to him on May 22, 1945. Churchill asked Lt Gen Ismay to pass the Unthinkable report on to the Chiefs of Staff committee (COS), composed of the most senior military officers; Gen Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Admiral of the Fleet Sir David Cunningham, the First Sea Lord, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff. They replied on June 8, dismissing the report's idea that offensive action against the Russians could be taken,instead suggesting that Britain should be thinking of defence. The COS concluded: "It is clear from the relative strength of the respective land forces that we are not in a position to take the offensive with a view to achieving a rapid success." "Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful whether we could achieve a limited and quick success, even if the political appreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our political object." "In support of our land forces we should have technically superior, but numerically inferior, tactical air forces. As regards Strategic Air Forces, our superiority in numbers and technique would be to some extent discounted by the absence of strategical targets compared to those which existed in Germany, and the necessity for using these strategic air forces to supplement our tactical air forces in support of land operations." "Our view is, therefore, that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we should be committed to a protracted war against heavy odds."

Now, let's not get carried away. An Allied Infantry Division independently taking on a Soviet Armoured Division? You gotta be kidding. US Infantry Division would usually have a tank battalion and a TD battalion attached. That means, some 20 light tanks, 60 medium and 40 TD. At best! Soviet Armored Division (Brigade) of 3 Battalions of 3 Companies each, will have over 90 medium tanks. This brigade will have as its integral component at least a medium AT Company with 4 45mm or 57mm AT guns and a light AT Company with 18 AT Rifles. Don't forget that Soviet Armoured Brigade was only one of components of the larger parental unit, like Mechanized or Tank Corps. And such Corps will have some numerous other nifty stuff attached, like Armored Recon Battalion (10 45mm or 57mm AT guns), and (not "or") AT Regiment (24 76.2mm AT guns), and "Light" AT Battalion (12 45mm AT guns), and Medium Armoured Artillery Regiment (20 SU-85 or SU-100), and Heavy Armoured Artillery Regiment (20 ISU-122 or ISU-152). What if, God forbid, that Corps Commander like a good parent he is, decided to cross attach some of those goodies to that hypothetical Armoured Brigade? Without knowing that a US Infantry Division wanted to come and play? Methinks, that Infantry Division is in for a good spanking. Besides, how many people in that Infantry Division really saw any actual combat by the end of war? Surely less then that hypothetical (I like this word) Soviet Armored Division (Brigade)?

In May-June 1945, the Soviets had 264 divisions of battle-hardened veterans in Europe, including 36 armoured divisions, compared with 103 Allied divisions, 23 of which were armoured. America retained 64 divisions in Europe. The Soviet air force outnumbered the Allies by 11,802 in fighters and fighter-bombers, although American, British and Polish heavy bombers had a superiority of almost three to one. You do the math.

Hardly unique. Two-man turret was a quite common pre-WW2 design. Besides, it is not a failing. It is a trade-off. Tank designing is an exersise in a compromise. T-34 had arguably the smallest turret that can still hold a 3" gun. Smaller presentable target should compensate for its slower rate of fire more or less. Oversized T-34/85 turret looks ridiculously huge on the same hull.

I see you skipped the mention of a Polish yoke of 1612. Or propping up a son of a Polish king onto a Russian throne and ransacking Moscow does not qualify as a foreign invasion? It will be worth mentioning that when Poland had a chance to be a sovereign state just prior its division, it was actively pursuing the policy of forceful Polonization of their own ethnical minorities, namely Ukrainians. Indeed, all empires, big and small, are surprisingly alike Again, you forgot to mention a brief excursion of quite a few Polish units as a part of Napoleon's invasion of 1812. Forgetting some Polish "indiscretions" again? How about Poland trying to use a confusion of Russian Civil war for a land grab of their own? Some people like to mention brave Poles beating Russian hordes away from the outskirts of Warsaw in 1920. What those people usually forget is to mention that those Russian hordes got to Warsaw while beating Poles from the outskirts of Kiev and Minsk in a first place. Mentioning the fact that Poland carved some lands from Gzechoslovakia under threat of arms (and got those lands too) in 1938 while Germany was busy cutting off their share, will be probably off topic. As we were discussing Poland-Russia relations. Besides, you will most likely argue that those Czech lands were really Polish anyway Personally, I find it somewhat insulting that you would equate "Soviet" to "Russian". Ideology of any kind, as we know it, is usually equally appealing to any particular ethnicity, all else being equal. Not to mention that those pesky Russ... erm... Soviets would probably had a hard time keeping Poles under their "yoke" without a good number of Polish "helpers" on their side. The point I am trying to make? While it is that it is undeniable that Poles and Russians have alot of bad blood, I will still contest your depiction of their mutual relations as a continuous struggle of good Poles against bad Russians. Real history was, and still is not that simple.