CMBB v CMAK

[Nikita]

What can I say. You are poping up post-war myths for folk-history.
Again: there are statitics and notes about the volumes of tanks, killed by tanks/AT guns/other guns/planes/infantry weapons. And artillery remained an absolute leader up to 1945.

The backbone of Soviet tank force in 1941 were T-26 and BTs, and Germans had complete quality superiority. T-34s were not that nnumerous due to technical and training reasons and were not much noted in border battles. About KV Germans made a note, pointing, that they are too heavy for bridges and vulnerable for divisional arty of cal. 105 and above basically on all distances.
Talks about Russian super tanks started, when field commanders had to explain their tactical faults, like during Mtzensk battle, when Germans did not organize their march properly. If you can not perform, you should always explain you faults by undefeatable weapons, used by the enemy.
If you consider T-34 (especially early model) as an uberweapon, maybe you should read early war American reports on it?

About sources:
Yes, Chuikov was producing fairy tales on certain occasions, both for propaganda and self-esteem. And he was publicly rebuked on one occasion after special commission was called to check his statements. You should know, what I am speacking about.

Yes, Manshtein was also producing myths on various occasions. I almost laughed for tears, reading his sel-esteem boosting tales related for, ex. to Sevastopol siege, when he was describing Soviet "forts" and heroics of German infantry, crossing the bay in boats under heavy Russian fire.

Yes, Zhukov was also making occasional false statements in his book. His conversation about absence of AP rounds for KVs was referred to a single occasion, when he was replying to one of the local reports. Please refer to your source, stating that from Baltics to Black sea Russian tank units, equipped with T-34s and KV-1s had problems with supply of AP rounds.

As for tanks, I prefer to read books, referring to official reports of engineers and officers, responsible for comparative testing and analysis of related first-eye reports from the front. Things look very different, than in general memoirs. And one should also remember that tank is not only gun and armor.

Germans NEVER asked to produce copy of T-34 in their factories: this is Guderian's post-war lie. Germans could easily copy T-34, but regarded it as unsiutable engineering sollution, due to design flaws. They had technical specification for 35 tones tank to replace PzIII and PzIVs as universal tank, having acceptable power aganst soft targets and being able to penetate heavily armored targets (considering forecasted development of enemy tanks at distances over 1000meters), but finally it evolved to 45 tones Panther. Panther has absolutely no similarities with T-34s, except for armor slopes. BTW slopped armor in its turn is not Russian, but French idea, which was mass produced.

Again to essentials:
Tanks should have capacity to fight and defeat enemy tanks, but this is not their primary war role. It might become their primary target only if you are defending and tanks (AT SP guns) become your primary mobile AT means. If you hold initiative, you choose the place for striking and usually you strike where infantry is defending, only later, after the breakthrough, you have to face enemy's mobile reserves and tank battles may occur. But for attacking side, ability to withstand ATG fire and supress soft targets becomes even more important, than ability to defeat the enemy tank. This was the reason for increasing caliber of tank guns. Russian decision for maingun of IS-2 was also based on this logic, although other gun (100mm) showed better armor penetration results.

If you would like to dispute about American view on right proportion between infantry and tanks, please read Robert A. Doughty's book on the subject and American doctrine of use of tank divisions, based on WWII experience. You should learn, that those tank divisions were notplanned to use independently.