>>513761910
>That was one of early war battles were it was decisively used, in large numbers and to effect.
This is a historical myth. The T-34 had been around and in meaningful quantities since the start of the invasion and had been used en masse in multiple previous battles, notably in the south, where successful Soviet counterattacks had delayed the fall of Kyiv and consolidation of German positions there.
The "new tank" which the Germans encountered in the outskirts of Moscow was the Churchill, misidentified as a Soviet tank. Donated British tanks of all types made up a large portion of the Soviet armour in that sector, because it they could be sent by train straight from Archangelsk, and proportionately there were more of them there than T-34s.
The Churchill was already encountered in North Africa in small numbers, but German intelligence officers on the Eastern front weren't briefed on it, because they hadn't expected to encounter British tanks at all. They were shocked at Soviet-painted Churchills and Matilda IIs, which the majority of their tanks and AT guns at the time struggled to penetrate.
The Soviets kept most of the British aid they recieved in '41 back and used it to equip newly raised divisions, which were thrown into Moscow to stop the breakthrough and eventually counterattack.
>very doubtful Britain could produce that many tanks by 1941.
Britain's economy was larger than Germany's at the time. They had needed time to mobilize, but by '41 they were in full production, making more tanks and planes per day than the Nazi's.
Britain's issue during the early phase of the war was getting these materials to the fight, since the battlefields were distant and the seas contested. Much of their production ended up sitting in the island as a result, ostensibly to equip a landing force eventually, but in reality just bottlenecked by safe convoy throughput.
They just dumped most of this into Archangelsk when Barbarossa began.
