>>/23614/

I don't think this was even translated to English, at least I couldn't find it easily.

Although there are western critique of Suvorov too, from Glantz for example.

 >>/23623/
> They can always fall back to permanent revolution.

But permanent revolution is a trotskism, and Trotsky is the enemy of USSR. At least in late 30s.

Of course all this just words, if Stalin had a chance to control, for example, UK via revolution, he'll sure would use it, be it trotskism or not. But then all discussions about ideology becoming futile.

> They produced BTs right up to Barbarossa. Even made upgrades (on paper or irl I dunno).
> Il-2 wasn't a bad plane tho - for example. It just wasn't a fighter. The lameness of weaponry is somewhat overplayed, and in case of Germany equipment the excellence is overestimated.

Il-2 was pretty good plane, considering cost, simplicity and effectiveness. But it wasn't really ready in early 41.

Considering BT - Suvorov overestimates offensive potential of these tanks. Wheeled movement was considered a solution to low tracks lifespan that was problem of tanks of that period, and wheels were good solution. Other solution was using a tank transporter (that is actually used even today for same reason), but Soviet industry couldn't made enough of them while country needs every piece of machinery (including civilian tractors for mass industrialization). Dilemma was having 1 tank and 1 transport vs having 2 tanks. USSR had shortage of tanks (considering size of country and strength of enemies), so 2-tanks way was chosen.

I'll link to Isaev here too: https://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmilitera.lib.ru%2Fresearch%2Fisaev_av1%2F06.html