This is a bit too hagiographic. Red Army infantry mobility was limited to how fast they could walk (when not entrained) until the allied Lend Lease program really got going.

The US put them on wheels for the first time in history with the White half track and other trucks supplied in great quantities.

I am not sure if you are trying to dispute my original post, wax on about weapons of WWII, or what.

But I see nothing in the posts of you or <Breunor> that refutes my original contention, that being a Soviet tanker was like being a fish in a barrel.

But I'm not saying 50,000 T-34's are better than 7,000 Panthers. I'm saying 7,000 T-34 are better than 7,000 Panthers.

We can look tank vs. tank or on a cost equivalent basis.

Tank for tank, for the Panthers actually produced (especially early ones) 7,000 produced tanks, ignoring combat damage, probably had about 3,500 operational at a time; while 7,000 T-34's probably would have about 5,000 operational. So that is the T-34's advantage. I do agree 'tank for tank' is a legitimate way to compare them, but so is dollar for dollar. On that basis, the T-34 has a greater superiority.

A good example of cost issues is the B-2 Spirit bomber - it is the technically most advanced bomber in the world, but it is so ridiculously expensive it is hard to say it is a 'great' plane and indeed is usually considered a horrible failure since they ended up costing $750 MM/operational bomber.

Here is a list of 'greatest' tanks from the History channel: http://military.discovery.com/techn...

For the Germans, the PV IV and the Tiger made the list, the Panther didn't, and the T-34 was first. Of course,t hese lsits are subjective, as I said, I think the Panther may have been better than the Tiger.

I do agree, however, in my opinion, if I have a working, operational machine, I thought the Panther was the best tank of the war. (They are great in the old Avalon Hill game, PanzerBlitz!)

<<"Forward, Kazimirych!">

When talking about the sources of Spassky's brilliant style of play, one immediately recalls his previous trainer of many years (1952-1960), the Leningrad frandmaster Alexander Kazimirovich Tolush, who was a famous master of attack and an uncommonly cheerful, witty man. After a win he would inform his friends: <'Dracula has been caught.'> When his opponent dragged out a hopeless resistance, he would complain: <'The cannon-fodder is resisting.'> When the latter resigned, Tolush would proclaim: <'Amen to the pies'.> And during a blitz game and when analysing he would encourage himself with the war-cry: <'Forward, Kazimirych!'>

This became the motto of more than one generation of players; it was also liked by Paul Keres, with whom Tolush worked in the late 40s and 50s. With Spassky himself, a liking for dashing attacks, for an unfettered, lively and liberal 'Tolush-like' style of play was retained practically to the end of his chess career. <...>

However, Tolush's manners did not provoke a positice reaction from everyone. For example, Botvinnik did not like him. And this was why: in the 13th USSR Championship (1944) Tolush mated Botvinnik on f7 with the disrespectful words: 'It's ma-ate, Mikhal Moiseich'. From that time 'Tolush' sounded almost like a swear word to the ears of #Mikhal Mouseich'>

Correct pronunciation of his name-

I get the strong impression that he was a real trash-talker (which is what he was doing when he announced mate to Botvinnik) -- he could be like the Washington Square Park hustlers who talk and smoke through games and play with constant aggression: you're sure that their play is faulty but it's very hard to refute them over-the-board.

In retrospect, Tolush seems like the standard-bearer for the Soviet 'wild man' school of chess -- along with Bronstein, Nezhmetdinov, Byvshev, Lutikov, and, to some extent, Geller, Boleslavsky, and Bondarevsky. In his heyday in the 1940s (when Botvinnikesque principles were dominant), Tolush could be dismissed as either a street player or an anachronism like Rudolph Spielmann.

The rise of Tal, and subsequent developments in chess, show that Tolush was absolutely correct: there is a way to play chess that's razor-sharp, hyper-aggressive, and fundamentally sound. Tal is usually considered to be a bolt from the blue -- but it's easy to surmise that, to a great extent, his play would have been influenced by the style of Tolush and the other wild men.

Canada's best 'Kinky' Kev Spagget (still) has it with a tiny bit higher res over at his slippery den (SFW version) https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jjgksVeN...

'Attacking player and successful coach'
from journalist Dagobert Kohlmeyer, Jan 2020 on Chessbase includes some more photographs of Tolush around 1953 for reference. https://en.chessbase.com/post/alexa...

On Twitter (let's see how long this will stay up) is a random 1955 match photograph https://twitter.com/dgriffinchess/s...

The later player's years are covered right on top of an 'old' threat titled 'ФОТО НА ПАМЯТЬ №13' (~ Memorial Images) on the everlasting 'e3 e5' website. http://www.e3e5.com/article.php?id=...

Trivia
(having no clue of the subject matter, feel free to disagree)

The German Panther vs. the Soviet T-34-85
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015...

Was the Russian T-34 Really the Best Tank of WW2? https://www.warhistoryonline.com/in...