Not a particularly good article. For example: > The Soviets had 9380 fighter aircraft and 3380 bombers. This is deceptive as none of those bombers were strat

Not a particularly good article. For example: > The Soviets had 9380 fighter aircraft and 3380 bombers. This is deceptive as none of those bombers were strategic, they were primarily twin-engined tactical types ( B-25 or A-26 class ). In fact until they cloned the B-29 in the late 1940s the Soviets has never had success with long-ranged multi-engined bombers, oddly just like the Germans. In contrast the Allied fleets were heavily strategically-orientated. Similarly with 'rockets'. The Soviets used rocket artillery in every operation but it was short-ranged tactical stuff, posing no risk to the UK. Until they could clone the V-2 and get near enough the coast to use it then rocket-bombardment was impossible. So I can see why Churchill thought it was a good moment to strike; hardened strategic forces against a tactically-organised opponent.