Why the WW2 Red Army was/is so dramatically underestimated ?

[Macaquerie]

If you put it in a ratio I'd say the British Army / Navi & Airforce where the most effective against the Germans. But I'm not an expert on the matter.... Germans got greedy because of easy Blitzkrieg wins and Hitler was the worst at tactics. Unfortunately many German generals didn't want to break with the Prussian spirit of command and obey and that you have to be loyal to your superior no matter what. They operated the best when not within the reach of the Reich (see Rommel). There have been quite many attempts to assasinate Hitler which unfortunately all failed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie

The British land forces were always quite small, which meant that given the resources available to the Empire, man for man their soldiers would be better trained and equipped than the enemy. However, the army as a whole was never in any position to take the Germans head on without the other Allies providing the bulk of the manpower.

[Deleted]

(This is a thread to get a slightly different subject than ''SJW'' or ''Migrants'' or ''a youtuber said X'' )

It keeps popping, here and elsewhere, that the Red Army (or for that matter the Viet-Cong/PVNA, or the Chinese Communists) did not actually ''won'', because they took more casualties, or that they somehow ''cheated'' because there was the winter or because they were more numerous .

While the tactics and training remained relatively poor throughout the war, that the Red Army used crude human wave tactics (that even the North Koreans or Chinese Communists actually used such tactics remain to be seen) is a misconception put forward by German generals after the war. The Red Army strategy after 1942, while not always served by good battlefield tactics, was markedly superior to the German one, as the supposedly crude Soviet managed time after time to catch the Germans wrong footed.

Operation ''Citadel'' and ''Bagration'' come to the mind. The supposedly inferior Red Army lure the Germans in one masterful trap in one case and in the other managed to utterly misled them about the direction of the attack. For a supposedly superior army, the Heer never managed to get another battle plan than ''Cannae style encirclements'....

Not that simple, as usual.
On the tactical field, the RA was usually inferior to the germans right to the end of the war and even at that point, it was a mixed thing. Of course, there is no surprise there, there were reason for that: the low base they started from, the rapid expansion, the heavy losses pretty much throughout the war, lack of time for training.. well, mostly time - or lack of it. Lack of time created a spiral, and at the end you could face a battle-hardened survived unit whom learned their lessons by the hard way or one full with recruits from the freshly liberated parts with a few weeks of basic training under their belts.
Of course, the germans faced similar problems late in the war, Volksturm units are a prime example, but their panzer forces were severely undertrained too.
Tactical doctrine, methods and training was far from the ideal too. Again, time, no time to digest and apply the lessons learned.
Of course, you can always blame the pre-war state of the army for that and you would not be that wrong.

On an operational/strategic level, to be honest, they showed nothing impressive. Of course, the fact, that when they tried to do so, it ended in a disaster helped a lot to keep them their planning simple and conservative. Now, of course, there is Bagration, which was well done indeed and the OKH was collectively an ass.

And dont get me wrong: simplicity has it own merits. Bonus points, if it works.