Soviet losses were high due to their low cost organization building doctrine. They never intended to make their army highly expensive, low casualty, high power tactical units with 2-3 years of formation like the USA or CW.
Soviet armored formations were generally much weaker than German formations in motorized infantry, armored reconnaissance, communication systems, and mechanized infantry support. They had no indirect fire self-propelled artillery companies like the Germans did post 1943 (wespe, hummel, etc.) and made up for it with direct fire regiments (SU/ISU-122/152, etc.) which had to expose themselves to deliver their fire support. The army had a lot of tanks, but relatively few motorized combat troops and support for the tanks.
The tanks that were lost were easily replaced in offensives and re-crewed with old and new crews. An abandoned tank has the entire crew still intact. A knocked out tank has (generally) 3 operational men left.
i have some doubts about this. even in 1944 the soviets lost 13 k t-34's in the battle of Berlin they lost 2 entire tank armies . It simply doesnt match up what your saying.
The soviets saw tanks as consumables. Their T-34s were probably close to the cost of a Panzer I or II as far as factor inputs go.