Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Share

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:Lend lease did not really start being useful till well after the Germans were stopped at Moscow.

    It was useful to the Soviets, but suggesting it won the war on the eastern front would be like the couple of billion Japan contributed to Desert Storm is the reason the allies won against Saddam in 1991...

    The main effect of Lend Lease was to enable the rapid recovery and growth of the Soviet military... Operation Bagration is not well known in the west but it likely had more effect on the results of WWII than D-Day.

    The raw materials and trucks were probably the most useful items delivered, with most of the aircraft and tanks delivered being largely obsolete... certainly better than nothing... but sometimes not much better.
    The P-39 A-20 and B-25 was considered excellent. The P-40 was seen as somewhat second-rate, but servicable. The Hurricane was loathed. The Spitfire Mk.V was second-hand and worn, later Mk.IX didn't arrive until mid-44. The C-47 was praised. They all played their role in the war.

    As for tanks, the Sherman was well regarded, as was the Valentine tank. The Lee and Stuart less so.

    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 923
    Points : 983
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  mack8 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:25 pm

    The first bombings were in 1941 by Soviets, they had to get there, despite that Soviet Union virtually had no bombers made it all a problem. 1942 British has bombed Ploesti already, but with little effect.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Ploie%C8%99ti

    There was no british bombing of Ploesti oilfields until 1944 if i'm not mistaken, and that at night (they also did mining on Danube, which did have significant effects), and anyway their effects (against the refineries) compared to the 1944 american air offensive were marginal. The only bombing operation against Ploiesti in 1942 was Halpro, a small B-24 attack, with virtually no effects. The Tidal Wave operation of 1943 caused significant damage but it was repaired by year end. It was the 1944 (April-August) air offensive that really crippled the oil zone.

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:09 pm

    mack8 wrote:
    The first bombings were in 1941 by Soviets, they had to get there, despite that Soviet Union virtually had no bombers made it all a problem. 1942 British has bombed Ploesti already, but with little effect.

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Ploie%C8%99ti

    There was no british bombing of Ploesti oilfields until 1944 if i'm not mistaken, and that at night (they also did mining on Danube, which did have significant effects), and anyway their effects (against the refineries) compared to the 1944 american air offensive were  marginal. The only bombing operation against Ploiesti in 1942 was Halpro, a small B-24 attack, with virtually no effects. The Tidal Wave operation of 1943 caused significant damage but it was repaired by year end. It was the 1944 (April-August) air offensive that really crippled the oil zone.

    In fact, Tidal Wave failed to curtail production. It was in fact greater after the raid. Many refenieries were undamaged, and could compensate for those that were damaged. Overall, Tidal Wave was a failure.

    That some british bombers based in the Crimea could have destroyed Ploesti is nothing but wishful thinking. It was simply beyond the ability of the VVS and the RAF in 1941.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:16 am

    The P-39 A-20 and B-25 was considered excellent.

    Except they didn't need twin engined bombers as they already had their own excellent twin engined bombers in the form of the Pe-2, Pe-3 and Tu-2.

    The P-39 was sent because it was considered ineffective by the west... who used it as an anti tank plane, while the Soviets largely used it as a fighter.

    The C-47 was praised.

    They already had a licence to produce the Lis-2.

    As for tanks, the Sherman was well regarded, as was the Valentine tank. The Lee and Stuart less so.

    The Sherman was too big for its armour, the Valentine was too slow, and the Lee was nicknamed Coffin for 7 brothers. The Churchill was liked for its armour but not so much for its mobility and fire power.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The P-39 A-20 and B-25 was considered excellent.

    Except they didn't need twin engined bombers as they already had their own excellent twin engined bombers in the form of the Pe-2, Pe-3 and Tu-2.

    The P-39 was sent because it was considered ineffective by the west... who used it as an anti tank plane, while the Soviets largely used it as a fighter.

    The C-47 was praised.

    They already had a licence to produce the Lis-2.

    As for tanks, the Sherman was well regarded, as was the Valentine tank. The Lee and Stuart less so.

    The Sherman was too big for its armour, the Valentine was too slow, and the Lee was nicknamed Coffin for 7 brothers. The Churchill was liked for its armour but not so much for its mobility and fire power.

    They needed every twin-engined bomber they could get. Nobody forced them to accept 3000 A-20s, yet they employed them heavily, and the crews who used them were happy about them. The Pe-3 was a fighter version of the Pe-2, and was only used in small numbers. The Tu-2 didn't see widespread service until the second half of 1944. So the A-20 was really the second most numerous light bomber in soviet service.

    While the Li-2 was a good and useful aircraft, the C-47 was simply better. Could aircrew chose, they would chose the C-47. It had stronger engines and better instrumentaion.

    As for the armor of the Sherman, at that point of the war the T-34s armor wasn't really anything to talk about. As soviet tankers joked: "Our armor is crap but our tanks are faster". And the Sherman had some advantages, being much more ergonomical than the T-34. All veterans who served on Shermans tells that. Really, the M4A2 with 75 mm gun was equal to the T-34/76, and the M4 with 76 mm gun equal to the T-34/85. Certainly, the Shermans was used in the same way as the T-34.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1957
    Points : 1964
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Regular on Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:01 pm

    Russians - Land-Lease was very insignificant.
    Americans - Land-Lease saved Stalin.
    Hehe I think it's either downplayed or overplayed.

    By the way those few Shermans were quite good tanks for some time if to believe Russian tankist memoirs. Ofcourse Soviets had way better domestic tanks, but they also had plenty if outdated tanks too.
    Soviets used leased planes very effectively too. Makes me think what would have happened if they got later P-51(I think they had few B ones?)
    I have to mention US made trucks and jeeps who were more important than tanks or planes SU received. Logistical needs for Soviet union were massive. Pretty much trucks were only thing what russians really needed.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2543
    Points : 2676
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:46 pm

    Regular wrote:Russians - Land-Lease was very insignificant.
    Americans - Land-Lease saved Stalin.
    Hehe I think it's either downplayed or overplayed.

    By the way those few Shermans were quite good tanks for some time if to believe Russian tankist memoirs. Ofcourse Soviets had way better domestic tanks, but they also had plenty if outdated tanks too.
    Soviets used leased planes very effectively too. Makes me think what would have happened if they got later P-51(I think they had few B ones?)
    I have to mention US made trucks and jeeps who were more important than tanks or planes SU received. Logistical needs for Soviet union were massive. Pretty much trucks were only thing what russians really needed.

    It's all about the timeline. So your attempt to make Russians look like idiots is an automatic flop.

    On the other hand the chauvinism and ignorance of Americans is epic when it comes to knowledge of foreign
    history and affairs. They know almost nothing about Canada.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1957
    Points : 1964
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Regular on Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:36 pm

    What are You talking about? How did I make russians look bad? Dry your eyes.
    I said that lend lease helped mostly logistically therefor it wasn't visible. Significance of it can be debated to death. Either its overplayed or downplayed.
    My opinion is that it relieved evacuated and overloaded industry to some point until it picked itself up.


    By the way Russian chauvinism and ignorance sometimes is not so different to american. Rednecks are on both sides You know. From personal experience I can say that Brits are similar too.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:46 pm

    Regular wrote:What are You talking about? How did I make russians look bad? Dry your eyes.
    I said that lend lease helped mostly logistically therefor it wasn't visible. Significance of it can be debated to death. Either its overplayed or downplayed.
    My opinion is that it relieved evacuated and overloaded industry to some point until it picked itself up.


    By the way Russian chauvinism and ignorance sometimes is not so different to american. Rednecks are on both sides You know. From personal experience I can say that Brits are similar too.

    No, the Lend-Lease kicked in after the Soviets already have defeated Wehrmacht and were pushing them back to Germany only after that time content of the Lend-Lease had any amount or quality of supplies like vehicles (tanks, fuel, ammunition) before that it was almost non existent.

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:46 pm

    Here are a wealth of information on the numbers of lend-lease tanks, trucks and other motor vehicles. Interesting stuff:
    http://www.o5m6.de/Numbers.html

    And on lend-lease aircrafts:
    http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/index.htm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:01 pm

    They needed every twin-engined bomber they could get. Nobody forced them to accept 3000 A-20s, yet they employed them heavily, and the crews who used them were happy about them. The Pe-3 was a fighter version of the Pe-2, and was only used in small numbers. The Tu-2 didn't see widespread service until the second half of 1944. So the A-20 was really the second most numerous light bomber in soviet service.

    Ask for 4 engined bombers and get inferior twin engine bombers... of course they are not going to refuse them, but they are hardly going to say they won the war either.


    Li-2 is a licence produced DC-3... military name for DC-3 in the US is C-47...

    As for the armor of the Sherman, at that point of the war the T-34s armor wasn't really anything to talk about. As soviet tankers joked: "Our armor is crap but our tanks are faster". And the Sherman had some advantages, being much more ergonomical than the T-34. All veterans who served on Shermans tells that. Really, the M4A2 with 75 mm gun was equal to the T-34/76, and the M4 with 76 mm gun equal to the T-34/85. Certainly, the Shermans was used in the same way as the T-34.

    Bull. The armour was poorly angled and while thicker in places offered no better protection, yet was much higher. The 50 cal SMGs that came with the tank were useless in winter and wouldn't reliably penetrate winter clothing at combat ranges. The 76mm gun was no equivalent to the 85mm gun.

    Of course they used the Shermans like medium tanks... they were just not as effective as T-34s despite being designed and built later.

    Russians - Land-Lease was very insignificant.
    Americans - Land-Lease saved Stalin.
    Hehe I think it's either downplayed or overplayed.

    I remember a quote from a Soviet Interpreter in the 1950s when the west actually started claiming Lend Lease was critical to the Soviets winning on the eastern front... he said something along the lines of "His mother died of starvation in Leningrad but US Spam won the war"... has new meaning now I suppose with the new meaning for spam... during WWII I remember it being called the second front by most armies...

    I have to mention US made trucks and jeeps who were more important than tanks or planes SU received. Logistical needs for Soviet union were massive. Pretty much trucks were only thing what russians really needed.

    They used everything they got, but most of what they got was too late to be of any critical significance and it was never the latest equipment... more often it was obsolete material that was handed down as the western force that supplied it was supplied with new gear.

    My opinion is that it relieved evacuated and overloaded industry to some point until it picked itself up.

    except that by the time they got it sorted out and moving at a pace that was even useful the critical periods had already passed, and it just ended up making some things easier.

    By the way Russian chauvinism and ignorance sometimes is not so different to american.

    Yeah, you can say that, but does that make it true?

    I have heard Russians and pro Russians say some silly things, but how many Russians think the main and most powerful US fighter was based on a pre war Russian fighter? I have chatted to an American who thought the I-16 Polikarpov was a ripoff of the Geebee racer. Most Americans to date think the P-51 was the most important aircraft of the war... even though it did not enter service till 1944 when the result had already been decided... an impressive aircraft but it didn't actually see much of it in the over all scheme of things. Funny how strategic bombing didn't deter the Brits but supposedly won WWII, yet German production increased... seems killing all those german women and children and old people wasn't the most effective way to defeat germany afterall.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    andalusia
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 86
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Lend-Lease

    Post  andalusia on Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:44 pm

    I would like to thank all of you for your responses to my question. I have always heard about the US singularly winning World War II and discredit Soviet participation during the war. It seems that Lend-Lease is overrated.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:46 pm

    andalusia wrote:I would like to thank all of you for your responses to my question.  I have always heard about the US singularly winning World War II and discredit Soviet participation during the war. It seems that Lend-Lease is overrated.

    "Overrated"

    The entire Lend-Lease and so called "help" argument is entirely terminated by the fact that US has supplied more to Nazi Germany than to Soviet Union. Without US oil to Germany the war would have ended in 1942.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:24 am

    It seems that Lend-Lease is overrated.

    If you say lend lease won the war, then yes, you are over rating its effect.

    If you say lend lease was an important factor that made the war a little easier and likely shorter, then that is more reasonable... of course you could equally argue that without lend lease most of eastern europe might have been captured by the west instead of by the Soviets, but that likely would have required a D-Day in 1942 or so and losses for the UK and US in the 2-3 million mark instead of the sub million each.... of course the US and UK were never going to risk losing that many men for eastern europe.

    The US contribution in WWII was most significant in the Pacific, but their contribution in the western front was also considerable... it is not their fault that most of the German forces were dedicated to the destruction of the Soviet Union and were on the eastern front.

    A lot of their wonder weapons like the P-51 didn't make it to the front line till 44 either... so the outcome had already been determined and it just made things easier and faster.

    If Germany had tried to invade the UK I am pretty sure Stalin would have waited until both forces had exhausted themselves before he sent in his forces to declare victory like the western allies did.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3599
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:20 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    andalusia wrote:I would like to thank all of you for your responses to my question.  I have always heard about the US singularly winning World War II and discredit Soviet participation during the war. It seems that Lend-Lease is overrated.

    "Overrated"

    The entire Lend-Lease and so called "help" argument is entirely terminated by the fact that US has supplied more to Nazi Germany than to Soviet Union. Without US oil to Germany the war would have ended in 1942.

    Jaysuuuus. Not this again. While the Standart Oil/DP AG was real it wasn't even up to 2% of the fuel ze Germanz were burning to bomb the shit out of France and Prior to that Poland. Even the Infmaous Soviet/German Credit agreement doesn't amount to 1% of the German Rearmament effort from 33 to 39. And when taking in account that the USSR got alloys and precision machinery from ze Germanz the real "contribution" is even smaller.

    The Land Lease argument is over-sold, not because it wasn't helpful, but because it was an asterisk to the real issue. Helping the Soviet Union just made the war easier with relatively a small cost. Furthermore without the Lend-Lease the exponential growth of Wartime America was about to nosedive earlier than it happened. America had two dips in 45 and 48. While 45 was a classical post-war transformation, the 48 one was clearly a preview of things to come from 68 onwards.

    There would have been NO capture of Eastern Europe by the Allies. You have to understand that Hitler and Stalin would have dealt directly IF the Allies were to gain THAT much influence in Europe and come at the USSR doorsteps. Ergo, a tacit agreement to slow the pace of the war in the East to let Gitler punch back the guys at the Western Front. It is the same kind of effect Hitler tried to offer the Allies up to 43. Conditions in order to deal with Stalin....

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:37 am

    andalusia wrote:I want to know how much did Lend-Lease help the USSR? Many Americans say the Soviet Union only defeated Nazi Germany because of the weather and Lend-Lease. Is that true? How much did Lend Lease help?

    https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-lend-lease-act-how-much-did-it-affect-the-eastern-front.162025/

    at that time USSR, Free France, UK and USA were allies against Nazi Germany. USA helped european allies with this program but also USSR with its resistance helped USA, playing a crucial role as maintaining and winning the second front that Nazi opened in Europe


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:42 pm

    I think this belongs here

    Russian P-39 Airacorba found/pulled out of a lake in Russia after sitting there for 66 years.





    https://twitter.com/DownedWarbirds/status/713438246391386113


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:23 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:23 pm