Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 894
    Points : 1003
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  jhelb on Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    No idea what you are talking about... do you mean the Georgian snipers they paid for out of their Nuland cookie fund to shoot people on both sides at Maidan to stir everyone up into a frenzy?

    Talking about Black October

    About the five men that Regiment 119 lost during its approach towards the White House walls, here is what General Sorokin said at a Special State Duma Commission session, according to a verbatim report cited by Dmitry Rogozin, former Russian ambassador to NATO: “They were shot from the back. I saw it with my own eyes. “Fire was coming from the roof of the American Embassy, from the bell tower near Hotel Mir. All our soldiers were shot from the back. I do not know who the shooters were, but I could make a guess.”

    https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/10/12/the_snipers_of_black_october_30103

    GarryB wrote:The UK has done a lot of very bad things but that one doesn't spring to mind easily... more info required there...

    Please check my previous post. Provided the links as to how UK used lethal gas to kill Russians.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7510
    Points : 7589
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:17 am

    Thanks. Not the time I had considered. Churchill was a pretty nasty person most of his life.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:43 pm

    I am interested too. But I would not be surprised. During WWII the British were hijacking lend-lease shipments intended
    for the USSR. One grotesque case is a consignment of Aerocobras which the British claimed would be put to better use
    by themselves. Yeah, sure.

    The Soviets were used to not getting what they asked for... they asked for B-17s because their four engined bombers were designed and built in the early 1930s and were largely obsolete, and they got Boston twin engined bombers they already had plenty of in production (Pe-2 and Tu-2). Asked for proximity fuses to make their AA guns more effective but were refused... Asked for D-Day, but had to wait until the result of the war was decided and the Germans were in full retreat on the Eastern front before their western allies realised if they didn't do it in 44 they would find the Soviets arriving on the English Channel in 45...

    Most of the equipment provided by Lend lease was second rate by western standards, which made it pretty ordinary... the only thing of real value sent was the trucks and transporters... which really didn't have a significant impact till Bagration, though it did mean they could concentrate on making tanks instead of trucks themselves... hardly the sort of support you would expect from the worlds superpower though...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:10 am

    U forgot to mention the P-39 Airacobras/P-63 Kingcobras, B-25 Mitchells & C-47s:
    Five of the 10 highest scoring Soviets aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. Grigoriy Rechkalov scored 44 victories in Airacobras. Pokryshkin scored 47 of his 59 victories in P-39s, making him the highest scoring P-39 fighter pilot of any nation, and the highest scoring Allied fighter pilot using an American fighter. This does not include his 6 shared victories, at least some of which were achieved with the P-39.
    The United States did not supply M80 armor-piercing rounds for the autocannons of Soviet P-39s—instead, the Soviets received 1,232,991 M54 high-explosive rounds, which they used primarily for air-to-air combat and against soft ground targets. The VVS did not use the P-39 for tank-busting duties.
    A total of 4,719 P-39s were sent to the Soviet Union, accounting for more than one-third of all U.S. and UK-supplied fighter aircraft in the VVS, and nearly half of all P-39 production.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra#Soviet_Union

    A total of 2,397 (2,672, according to other sources) such aircraft were delivered to USSR, out of the overall 3,303 production aircraft (72.6%)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-63_Kingcobra#Soviet_Union

    The U.S. supplied 862 B-25s (B, D, G, and J types) to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease during World War II via the Alaska–Siberia ALSIB ferry route. ..In general, the B-25 was operated as a ground-support and tactical daylight bomber (as similar Douglas A-20 Havocs were used). It saw action in fights from Stalingrad (with B/D models) to the German surrender during May 1945 (with G/J types).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Soviet_Air_Force

    707 Douglas C-47 Skytrains were supplied through lend-lease from the US.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Red_Army_Air_Forces#Transport_Aircraft
    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/douglas-c47-salvage-mission-siberia-russia/index.html



    Pushilin: The task of the DPR is maximum integration into the Russian space https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2856875.html
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6196
    Points : 6331
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:48 am

    Those wiki numbers cannot be taken at face value. Of course the reports from the west would say that all the aerocobras were delivered
    even if the British hijacked any number of them.

    The grotesque assertion by the British that they would make better use of the aircraft speaks for itself. It is part of the whole
    General Winter, and D-Day won WWII revisionism that is predicated on anti-Russian racist hate. Just by the mere fact that
    the Nazis were expending 80% of their war resources on the eastern front, the utility of the hijacked aerocobras on the
    eastern front to the total war effort was 5 times higher than in the hands of the British. It is apparent that Americans
    were more appreciative of this fact than the slimy Hitler-loving British. And lend-lease was from the USA and not from the
    UK.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:14 pm

    U forgot to mention the P-39 Airacobras/P-63 Kingcobras, B-25 Mitchells & C-47s:
    Five of the 10 highest scoring Soviets aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. Grigoriy Rechkalov scored 44 victories in Airacobras. Pokryshkin scored 47 of his 59 victories in P-39s, making him the highest scoring P-39 fighter pilot of any nation, and the highest scoring Allied fighter pilot using an American fighter. This does not include his 6 shared victories, at least some of which were achieved with the P-39.
    The United States did not supply M80 armor-piercing rounds for the autocannons of Soviet P-39s—instead, the Soviets received 1,232,991 M54 high-explosive rounds, which they used primarily for air-to-air combat and against soft ground targets. The VVS did not use the P-39 for tank-busting duties.
    A total of 4,719 P-39s were sent to the Soviet Union, accounting for more than one-third of all U.S. and UK-supplied fighter aircraft in the VVS, and nearly half of all P-39 production.

    So what?

    By the time they got those planes they were generally obsolete in the west and largely unwanted... they were even derated for the Soviets because the Americans refused to supply turbosuperchargers for the Aircobras, which made them useless at high altitude, though not really much of a problem because combat in the eastern front did not occur at high altitude anyway, but unless you are trying to tell us that these pilots were shit and it was only the super American aircraft that made them any good at air to air combat what difference does that make?

    Perhaps if they flew only Soviet planes they would have gotten even higher tallies...

    The western pattern of lots of small calibre machine guns in the wings suited new pilots, the Soviet and also German preferred cannon mounted in and around the engine which tended to suit more experienced pilots.

    The Soviets got these Cobras because they were failures in western environments and were not well likely by their pilots who preferred HMGs rather than cannon.

    The Soviets and the Germans liked cannon especially late in the war for their hitting power.

    The U.S. supplied 862 B-25s (B, D, G, and J types) to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease during World War II via the Alaska–Siberia ALSIB ferry route. ..In general, the B-25 was operated as a ground-support and tactical daylight bomber (as similar Douglas A-20 Havocs were used). It saw action in fights from Stalingrad (with B/D models) to the German surrender during May 1945 (with G/J types).

    They asked for B-17s and were refused. They ended up using what they got instead but that is hardly a reason to be grateful... the Soviets knew what they wanted and the Americans refused and gave them what they had spare instead... what a shit ally.


    707 Douglas C-47 Skytrains were supplied through lend-lease from the US.

    They already had them in licence production as the Li-2 and had been producing their own models since 1936...

    Seems like a rough deal... we will give you stuff that you have to pay for to kill lots of Germans for us so we don't lose men fighting in a war we are going to claim to have won single handedly later on...

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:18 pm

    Perhaps if they flew only Soviet planes they would have gotten even higher tallies...
    so many planes were lost that that needed the #s until 1943-44, when their planes output surpassed the German planes output. Getting good 2nd hand planes, modifying them & fighting back was way better than just taking a beating by the mighty Luftwaffe.
    They asked for B-17s and were refused.
    If true, I know why: they wouldn't need them much (just like the Pe-8s that weren't very busy), but could be copied for later use. Besides, the US were losing many in accidents & big scores of them on bombing raids over Europe & needed all the B-17s they could produce for the AAF.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#1940s

    at least 73 aircraft were acquired by the Soviet Air Force. These aircraft had landed with mechanical trouble during the shuttle bombing raids over Germany or had been damaged by a Luftwaffe raid in Poltava. The Soviets restored 23 to flying condition and concentrated them in the 890th bomber regiment of the 45th bomber division, but they never saw combat. In 1946 the regiment was assigned to the Kazan factory to aid in the Soviet effort to reproduce the more advanced Boeing B-29 as the Tupolev Tu-4.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#Soviet-interned_B-17s

    They already had them in licence production as the Li-2 and had been producing their own models since 1936...
    apparently not enough. No1 forced them to get those planes- if they weren't needed, they would've refused their delivery.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:40 am; edited 1 time in total
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7510
    Points : 7589
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:01 am

    Garry

    Can you move this stuff to somewhere else, maybe the Lease Lend WW11 thread, as it has nothing to do with this thread?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:10 am

    Still, all those supplied fighters, bombers, & transport planes, etc. helped a lot in stopping the Wehrmacht from taking more territory; & after the Red Army started to advance.
    Downplayed by the Soviet Union, the program was of vital importance to the USSR’s war effort, as even Marshal Zhukov later admitted. "Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war," Soviet General Georgy Zhukov said after the end of WWII.
    "We didn’t have explosives, gunpowder. We didn’t have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives. And how much sheet steel they gave us! How could we have produced our tanks without American steel? But now they make it seem as if we had an abundance of all that. Without American trucks we wouldn’t have had anything to pull our artillery with."..
    More than 14,000 U.S. airplanes, 8,000 of which came from Alaska, were given to the Soviet Union in the course of the war.
    The USSR received a total of 44,000 American jeeps, 375,883 cargo trucks, 8,071 tractors and 12,700 tanks. Additionally, 1,541,590 blankets, 331,066 liters of alcohol, 15,417,000 pairs of army boots, 106,893 tons of cotton, 2,670,000 tons of petroleum products and 4,478,000 tons of food supplies made their way into the Soviet Union.
    https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/03/14/lend-lease-how-american-supplies-aided-the-ussr-in-its-darkest-hour_575559

    During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.
    https://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    Under the Lend-Lease act large numbers of American aircraft were assigned to Russia. A total of 14,833 US aircraft of all types were sent to Russia between 1942 and 1944.
    Russian aircraft production 1942-1944 was 42,427 fighters and 11,797 bombers (additional 30,506 ground attack planes), which results that approximately 20 per cent of the fighters and 30 per cent of the bombers of the Red Air Force were American-built and approx. 10 per cent of the fighters were British-built.

    https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

    Five of the 10 highest scoring Soviets aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. Grigoriy Rechkalov scored 44 victories in Airacobras. Pokryshkin scored 47 of his 59 victories in P-39s, making him the highest scoring P-39 fighter pilot of any nation, and the highest scoring Allied fighter pilot using an American fighter. This does not include his 6 shared victories, at least some of which were achieved with the P-39.
    The United States did not supply M80 armor-piercing rounds for the autocannons of Soviet P-39s—instead, the Soviets received 1,232,991 M54 high-explosive rounds, which they used primarily for air-to-air combat and against soft ground targets. The VVS did not use the P-39 for tank-busting duties.
    A total of 4,719 P-39s were sent to the Soviet Union, accounting for more than one-third of all U.S. and UK-supplied fighter aircraft in the VVS, and nearly half of all P-39 production.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra#Soviet_Union

    A total of 2,397 (2,672, according to other sources) such aircraft were delivered to USSR, out of the overall 3,303 production aircraft (72.6%)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-63_Kingcobra#Soviet_Union

    The U.S. supplied 862 B-25s (B, D, G, and J types) to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease during World War II via the Alaska–Siberia ALSIB ferry route. ..In general, the B-25 was operated as a ground-support and tactical daylight bomber (as similar Douglas A-20 Havocs were used). It saw action in fights from Stalingrad (with B/D models) to the German surrender during May 1945 (with G/J types).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Soviet_Air_Force

    707 Douglas C-47 Skytrains were supplied through lend-lease from the US.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Red_Army_Air_Forces#Transport_Aircraft
    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/douglas-c47-salvage-mission-siberia-russia/index.html

    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-allies-and-the-role-lend-lease-wwii-the-russian-view

    Warships also helped:
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/did-you-know-in-1945-the-navy-secretly-handed-over-150-warships-to-russia-for-an-invasion-of-japan.html


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:54 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Temporary lend lease thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:43 pm

    Yes.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:07 pm

    Still, all those supplied fighters, bombers, & transport planes, etc. helped a lot in stopping the Wehrmacht from taking more territory; & after the Red Army started to advance.

    Not really.

    Most of the supplied equipment didn't really arrive in useful numbers till after 42... the real critical time was december 41 when German forces were on the outskirts of Moscow and very little foreign material had arrived by then.

    You can't just send a brand new aircraft totally alien to anything they had ever used before... put fuel in it and fly up and stop the Germans with it... this isn't an Iron Eagle movie...

    Downplayed by the Soviet Union, the program was of vital importance to the USSR’s war effort, as even Marshal Zhukov later admitted. "Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war," Soviet General Georgy Zhukov said after the end of WWII.

    And at the time a lot of senior western military men also mentioned without the Soviet war effort the west could not have won.

    Quite frankly I find western claims to have won the war by supplying their left over crap in dribs and drabs to what they called at the time their ally but now try to equate with Nazi Germany disgusting. There are British books being published now that ask whether they should have helped Stalin at all... was the cost worth it?

    Fuck the western allies.

    "We didn’t have explosives, gunpowder. We didn’t have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives. And how much sheet steel they gave us! How could we have produced our tanks without American steel? But now they make it seem as if we had an abundance of all that. Without American trucks we wouldn’t have had anything to pull our artillery with."..

    But it was winter that killed all the Germans... not the Soviets... the Germans lost more soldiers to the cold than to Soviet bullets so Lend Lease was meaningless.

    During the bitter fighting of the winter of 1941–1942, British aid made a crucial difference.

    A second front would have made rather more difference but it never happened because British blood is sacred and Soviet blood was currency.

    Under the Lend-Lease act large numbers of American aircraft were assigned to Russia. A total of 14,833 US aircraft of all types were sent to Russia between 1942 and 1944.
    Russian aircraft production 1942-1944 was 42,427 fighters and 11,797 bombers (additional 30,506 ground attack planes), which results that approximately 20 per cent of the fighters and 30 per cent of the bombers of the Red Air Force were American-built and approx. 10 per cent of the fighters were British-built.

    Except of course during that period of 42-44 the Soviet built planes were good planes and the American supplied aircraft were ordinary to poor.

    Five of the 10 highest scoring Soviets aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. Grigoriy Rechkalov scored 44 victories in Airacobras. Pokryshkin scored 47 of his 59 victories in P-39s, making him the highest scoring P-39 fighter pilot of any nation, and the highest scoring Allied fighter pilot using an American fighter. This does not include his 6 shared victories, at least some of which were achieved with the P-39.

    Because they did more fighting than the US did... we already established the Soviets fought the German Army and Air Force and killed German soldiers and airmen while the British and Americans bombed German women and children and elderly and fought the German Air Force.

    Warships also helped:

    Ahhh for fucks sake... read the damn title... how the fuck did 150 warships handed over to the Soviet Union for the invasion of Japan actually help anyone at all... when did this invasion take place? When were they even used?

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:12 pm

    Lend lease was a tiny price to pay to keep the Soviets fighting the Germans.

    If Stalin had failed then a Germany with access to Russian oil fields and mining resources and manpower that could be used... even if they only took Ukraine and Belarus for resources and manpower would have made Britain a dead duck and the US would have no way of responding to German hegemony in Europe.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:50 pm

    the real critical time was december 41 when German forces were on the outskirts of Moscow and very little foreign material had arrived by then.
    after that, w/o the aid, the war would go on longer & could end in a stalemate. The importance of economic cooperation with the U.S., UK and Canada cannot be overestimated. According to the dollar rate of 2003, the inflation-adjusted value of these supplies amounted to $130 billion. These supplies were critical in some key areas. For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times. About 15 percent of the aircraft used by Soviet air forces were supplied by Allies, including the Airacobra fighter and Boston bomber. ..For example, the army lost 58 percent of its vehicles in 1941 alone. To recover these losses, the Allies supplied more than 400,000 vehicles, mainly trucks, to the USSR. ..The Allies supplied 1900 locomotives to the USSR, while only 446 locomotives were produced in the country itself during the same period, as well as 11,000 carriages, while only a few more than 1,000 were made in the USSR. It is impossible to imagine how the Soviet economy would have functioned without these supplies. For example, the telephone cable provided by the Allies could wrap the Earth at the equator. The Allies’ aid was also critical in the reconstruction of production in the liberated regions of the country, including the role of seeds for the resumption of agriculture.

    https://www.rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html

    In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars which augmented the existing stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease


    And at the time a lot of senior western military men also mentioned without the Soviet war effort the west could not have won.
    Their war effort was made more streamlined & efficient with the Western aid, as the quotes above show.
    But it was winter that killed all the Germans... not the Soviets... the Germans lost more soldiers to the cold than to Soviet bullets so Lend Lease was meaningless.
    Not all: if it was true, the Red Army (which also suffered from the cold) would have reached the Soviet border with Poland the following spring of 1942.
    In fact his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23% of its average strength of 3,200,000) during the first five months of the invasion before the winter started. On 27 November 1941, Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and material. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter." Also of note is the fact that the unusually early winter of 1941 cut short the rasputitsa season, improving logistics in early November, with the weather still being only mildly cold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Winter#German_invasion_of_1941

    The official Wehrmacht daily casualty reports show 35,757 killed in action, 128,716 wounded, and 9,721 missing in action for the entire Army Group Centre between 1 October 1941 and 10 January 1942.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#Casualties

    Between 22 June – December 1941 The Germans lost over 700 tanks in the second phase of Typhoon & 3,827 planes. ..as many as 800 tanks, 983 artillery pieces, 473 heavy mortars, and 800 antitank guns were destroyed or abandoned during December alone.
    https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/07/21/panzers-at-the-gates-of-moscow/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_and_Soviet_air_operations_during_Operation_Barbarossa

    Because they did more fighting than the US did...
    not relevant: w/o those supplied planes, the Germans would have lost less planes, armor & troops, causing more Soviet losses/casualties.
    when did this invasion take place? When were they even used?
    I think they were used in the invasion of Sakhalin &/ the Kurils. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Pacific_Flotilla

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_South_Sakhalin#Order_of_battle

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Kuril_Islands#Order_of_battle

    I also heard from war veterans that huge quantities of American canned ham sustained them through the war.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:34 pm

    The usual...pumping out numbers and links without even reading or looking at what they actually mean...

    For example, in the beginning of 1942, Western tanks fully replenished Soviet losses, and exceeded them by three times.

    Really? At the start of the war the Soviets had more tanks than the rest of the world combined... most of which were not so useful T-26 type light tanks, most of which were captured or destroyed in the first 6 months of the war, but you are telling me that western tanks replaced Soviet losses by a factor of 3 times... so the west provided 30,000 tanks... is that what you are saying?


    not relevant: w/o those supplied planes, the Germans would have lost less planes, armor & troops, causing more Soviet losses/casualties.

    No. If the west didn't supply the equipment for teh Soviets to fight the Germans with the west like the UK and US would have to actually fight the Germans themselves so instead of 750,000 dead for the UK and 225,000 dead for the US their dead would be in the millions just like the other countries who had no choice but to fight the Germans.


    I also heard from war veterans that huge quantities of American canned ham sustained them through the war.

    Watch the TV show MASH... they continued to supply them in Korea too... they were nicknamed the Second Front...

    I am sure instead of being sent tinned meat that they sent some soldiers to help them fight the war instead.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7510
    Points : 7589
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:43 pm

    Are the Lease Lend statistics based on the figures invoiced to Russia ex US ports or actual arrivals in Russia?

    If the former, they do not take into account the vast quantity that ended up at the bottom of the Atlantic/Norwegian/Barents Seas. During the crucial periods up to the end of 1943/early 1944 significant numbers of ships were sunk, especially off the Norwegian coast.

    I know about the very large numbers of aircraft deliveries flying west from Alaska but were there equivalent convoys carrying the heavy stuff going across the Pacific/Arctic Seas to Russia?
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6196
    Points : 6331
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:37 am

    JohninMK wrote:Are the Lease Lend statistics based on the figures invoiced to Russia ex US ports or actual arrivals in Russia?

    If the former, they do not take into account the vast quantity that ended up at the bottom of the Atlantic/Norwegian/Barents Seas. During the crucial periods up to the end of 1943/early 1944 significant numbers of ships were sunk, especially off the Norwegian coast.

    I know about the very large numbers of aircraft deliveries flying west from Alaska but were there equivalent convoys carrying the heavy stuff going across the Pacific/Arctic Seas to Russia?

    I would like to know too. But based on the anti-Russian pattern lasting centuries, I cannot assume the numbers are net arrivals.

    Lend-lease was relatively useless since it was meager until 1943. The most critical period for the USSR on the eastern front was
    in 1941 and 1942 when things were touch and go. After 1943 Soviet industry was doing a good job of supplying the front and the Nazis
    were in retreat. So LL was to a substantial degree redundant.

    Of course LL did help, but to attribute to it the Soviet success against the Nazis is pure nonsense.

    Data on LL has been posted in this thread earlier.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:47 am

    ..so the west provided 30,000 tanks... is that what you are saying?
    no, they probably counted "replaced & exceeded" those that were lost in combat. If extra tanks weren't needed, why press into service captured German tanks?
    Axis tanks and other AFVs were also re-marked and sometimes re-armed with Soviet weapons. One such example is the SU-76i assault gun based on captured Panzer III. Evidence also exists of German Panzer I-based command vehicles re-armed with Soviet 20mm ShVAK cannons. Usually, however, the vehicles were neither modified nor re-marked.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captured_German_equipment_in_Soviet_use_on_the_Eastern_front#Use_of_captured_equipment

    http://wio.ru/tank/capt/capt.htm

    ..US would have to actually fight the Germans themselves so instead of 750,000 dead for the UK and 225,000 dead for the US their dead would be in the millions...
    that still doesn't mean that those supplied planes, etc. were useless & didn't affect much of anything on the Eastern Front. The help received in arms/ammo., vehicles, materials, food, was substantial. It also saved Ms of man-hours of labour needed to produce & deliver them.
    I am sure instead of being sent tinned meat that they sent some soldiers to help them fight the war instead.
    The Red Army was learning to fight & made very costly mistakes until 1943, but they had enough men & women in the FE, GULAG & NKVD to send to the front, if need be- the US would be stupid to send large # of its troops there, esp. after all the casualties & losses in the Pacific. If Germany took Moscow &/ London, the war would continue against it from the rest of the USSR, N. America & N. África. Pe-8s, B-17/29s would bomb the Nazi occupied British Isles & Europe until landings would be attempted. Ms of Indians, Africans & Latin Americans would be drafted to help doing it.
    The goal was to wait while Germany & USSR destroyed or at least weakened each other before landing in Europe to take the spoils. This Anglo Saxon strategy failed as the USSR ended up taking all of E. Europe.[/quote]
    [/quote]
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:43 am

    Of course LL did help, but to attribute to it the Soviet success against the Nazis is pure nonsense.

    The way the Germans treated the Soviets assured that there was no room for surrender and there was never much chance the Germans could manage to kill them all... much the same way Napoleon failed too.

    If anything LL provided the logistical mobility to make Bagration a success, but if they didn't have LL and Bagration failed then all those forces tied up and destroyed in that enormous and very successful operation would have been freed to face down and stop D Day from succeeding.

    Without LL D Day likely would have failed and the war would probably have taken till 1947 or 48 to slowly grind to a finish with much shorter hops by the Red Army forward pushing the Germans back much slower.

    The failure of D Day would have a very serious effect on US and UK forces depending on how it finished with a Dunkirk or a massacre... it would probably be too far for a Dunkirk rescue to take place so likely a massacre and huge boost to the German slave labour work force...

    If extra tanks weren't needed, why press into service captured German tanks?

    German tanks had good communications and weapons and were combat ready... western tanks had serious faults and were totally different from Soviet tanks in terms of maintenance and operations... even the small arms are different with different calibres of ammo required to make them useful.

    Axis tanks and other AFVs were also re-marked and sometimes re-armed with Soviet weapons. One such example is the SU-76i assault gun based on captured Panzer III. Evidence also exists of German Panzer I-based command vehicles re-armed with Soviet 20mm ShVAK cannons. Usually, however, the vehicles were neither modified nor re-marked.

    Exceptions and one offs are hardly relevant...

    There weren't just German forces invading Russia, there were the armed forces of several eastern european "allies"... whose arms industries couldn't produce anything useful...

    that still doesn't mean that those supplied planes, etc. were useless & didn't affect much of anything on the Eastern Front. The help received in arms/ammo., vehicles, materials, food, was substantial. It also saved Ms of man-hours of labour needed to produce & deliver them.

    Yeah... the American superbowl winners always thank the makers of jockstraps for their victories every year... because they couldn't have done it without them right?

    The fact is that most of the kit they supplied the Soviets was already obsolete by their own terms let alone Soviet terms... pretending it helped win the war is like Japan saying the money it supplied won Desert Storm in 1991 and the US couldn't have done it without their money... technically true but rather offensive to suggest supplying money or resources equates to actually fighting the Iraqi armed forces in the field...


    The Red Army was learning to fight & made very costly mistakes until 1943, but they had enough men & women in the FE, GULAG & NKVD to send to the front, if need be- the US would be stupid to send large # of its troops there, esp. after all the casualties & losses in the Pacific.

    The British and French and all of Europe also didn't know how to fight properly and were cleaned up in a few weeks... US soldiers would have done no better... Sherman tanks were developed after the T-34 which in most ways was a far superior design, and of the aircraft provided, none were superior to Yak-1, Yak-3, La-5FN, etc etc...

    If Germany took Moscow &/ London, the war would continue against it from the rest of the USSR, N. America & N. África. Pe-8s, B-17/29s would bomb the Nazi occupied British Isles & Europe until landings would be attempted. Ms of Indians, Africans & Latin Americans would be drafted to help doing it.

    If Germany invaded the UK and took London I doubt the British would continue to fight... like the French... the Soviets weren't given much of a choice... fight or be exterminated...

    I suspect those millions of Indians and Africans and latin americans would tell mother britain to fuck off... those Indians would likely be more interested in protecting their own country from the Japanese than helping mother... mother was a bitch to india...

    The goal was to wait while Germany & USSR destroyed or at least weakened each other before landing in Europe to take the spoils. This Anglo Saxon strategy failed as the USSR ended up taking all of E. Europe

    The goal was to bleed the Soviets and the Germans and then swoop in at the end and take all the glory... trickle feed the Soviets with enough to just keep them going... to keep them from signing a peace treaty with Germany... cynical and nasty... compounded by the aftermath in which the Soviets get equal blame for the occupation of eastern europe for the period of the cold war... ignoring the fact that agreements with Britain and France and the US at Yalta agreed to said occupation and enshrined it on paper... Europe was divided up amongst the allies in the 1940s after the defeat of Germany in the same way that the Middle East was divided up between Britain and France in the 1920s after the defeat of Germany...

    But you want the Soviets to fall at your feet and thank you for the dribs and drabs you eventually sent to help... right...

    Perhaps if the west had been more genuine and honest allies during the war the Cold War might never need to have happened.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:13 pm

    There weren't just German forces invading Russia, there were the armed forces of several eastern european "allies"... whose arms industries couldn't produce anything useful...
    the Czech Skoda arms factory was pressed to produce guns for the 3rd Reich.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_firearms_of_Germany#Rifles

    also, Prior to World War II Škoda produced LT-35 tanks, which are better known under their German designation Panzer 35(t). These tanks were originally produced for the Czechoslovak army and were used extensively by the Wehrmacht in the Polish campaign, the Battle of France, and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. In July 1944 Škoda started production of the Jagdpanzer 38(t).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0koda_Works#1899%E2%80%931945:_before_and_during_World_War_II

    The fact is that most of the kit they supplied the Soviets was already obsolete by their own terms let alone Soviet terms... pretending it helped win the war is like Japan saying the money it supplied won Desert Storm in 1991 and the US couldn't have done it without their money...
    even if obsolete, they were adopted & used with success, aiding in the war effort. Non-lethal Lend-Lease aid mentioned earlier was even more important, as it enables armies to do their job. Likewise, Mongolia supplied them tons of meat & sheep skins needed for winter clothing w/o which troops would freeze to death in 1941-42 even before firing a shot.
    ..along with Soviet Siberia, the Far East, and Central Asia, Mongolia became the rearguard of the war. A movement to collect aid for the front spread through the country and everything available, such as cattle and meat, leather and raw materials, clothes, cash, gold, and valuables, was collected. Although the United States did not immediately become involved in the war, it rendered enormous material assistance to the Soviet Union, and as part of this help about a dozen packing plants were built. Three of the plants were built near the Mongolian border, because of Mongolia’s enormous reserve of meat. A network was created to slaughter and process animals from Mongolia at these plants and transport meat to the front. ..
    Beginning in late 1942, 236 wagon-loads of gifts were sent to Moscow, totaling 30,000 pieces each of sheepskin dresses, felt boots, and furlined coats, and 600 tons of foodstuffs, including about 27,000 antelope carcasses. With two and a half million togrogin cash, 100,000 US Dollars and 300 kilograms of gold, a revolutionary Mongolian tank brigade with fifty-four tanks, including thirty-two T-34 tanks, was included among the Soviet Tanks First Army Guards and took part in the battle to reach Berlin.
    Sheepskin is a strategic raw material for making warm clothes. In certain cases, this strategic material is much more important than tanks and artillery guns. There were times when sheepskin determined the outcome of the war. With Mongolia as an ally, Stalin was supplied with this product.

    https://mongolianstore.com/mongols-help-the-war-efforts/

    I suspect those millions of Indians and Africans and latin americans would tell mother britain to fuck off...
    The US would pressure more for Mexicans, Brazilians, & many others to join them against Germany. As was explained in the "Why We Fight" WWII documentary, the Americas r poor in raw materials & has less population, while Eurasia is rich & has a lot more population:
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:20 pm

    also, Prior to World War II Škoda produced LT-35 tanks, which are better known under their German designation Panzer 35(t). These tanks were originally produced for the Czechoslovak army and were used extensively by the Wehrmacht in the Polish campaign, the Battle of France, and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. In July 1944 Škoda started production of the Jagdpanzer 38(t).

    Yeah, they were the few vehicles anti tank rifles were still effective against... how exactly did that help the German war effort?

    even if obsolete, they were adopted & used with success, aiding in the war effort.

    That says more about the Soviets than what they were supplied with...

    Likewise, Mongolia supplied them tons of meat & sheep skins needed for winter clothing w/o which troops would freeze to death in 1941-42 even before firing a shot.
    ..along with Soviet Siberia, the Far East, and Central Asia, Mongolia became the rearguard of the war. A movement to collect aid for the front spread through the country and everything available, such as cattle and meat, leather and raw materials, clothes, cash, gold, and valuables, was collected.

    Mongolia did that because they were actually an ally of the Soviet Union... it was the least they could do after the Russians helped them fight off a Japanese attack in the late 1930s... have you not heard of the battle of Khalkhin Gol on the border of Manchuria and Mongolia?

    There were times when sheepskin determined the outcome of the war.

    Of course... western experts talk all the time about the reason Germany lost two world wars... because of their shortage of sheepskins... obviously... Rolling Eyes

    With Mongolia as an ally, Stalin was supplied with this product.

    What a coincidence... because New Zealand supplied Britain with wool and meat throughout the war so I guess Britain needs to kiss our feet and thank us for surviving WWII... I mean without wool for making uniforms they would be speaking German now right?

    The US would pressure more for Mexicans, Brazilians, & many others to join them against Germany. As was explained in the "Why We Fight" WWII documentary, the Americas r poor in raw materials & has less population, while Eurasia is rich & has a lot more population:

    The US is currently putting pressure on Venezuela to accept some unknown putz as their unelected president... I don't think they will get their way... then or now...

    If the situation in Europe got worse... say Stalin overthrown and the Soviet Union fully joining the Nazi effort (instead of just the Baltic countries doing that) and all of a sudden the Germans had 10-15 million new battle hardened soldiers with a war production industry well outside the range of any western country and brand new military equipment like La-5FN fighters and La-7 and La-9s, not to mention Yak-3s and Yak-7s and Yak-9s, and plenty of T-34s and IS-3s and Il-10s... I am sure the volunteers from the rest of the world will be lining up with the US for that sort of fight...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:19 pm

    Yeah, they were the few vehicles anti tank rifles were still effective against... how exactly did that help the German war effort?
    the larger the attacking force, harder for the defenders to stay alive & stop it.
    That says more about the Soviets than what they were supplied with...
    & it was better than nothing. An obsolete tank or plane can disable more modern enemy tanks that would be captured, fixed/modified, & used against the enemy, thus aiding the war effort.
    have you not heard of the battle of Khalkhin Gol on the border of Manchuria and Mongolia?
    that's where Zhukov 1st proved himself as capable commander.
    Of course... western experts talk all the time about the reason Germany lost two world wars... because of their shortage of sheepskins...
    lack of winter clothing & foodstuffs was 1 of the reasons- many of their troops froze to death, just like the French in the War of 1812 & Soviet troops in the 1938 Winter War with Finland. https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/02/14/83919-pervaya-krov-zagradotryady-finskoy-voyny

    The Mongols were well equipped for cold weather ops; all their major campaigns, incl. the invasions of Rus & E. Europe, were conducted in winter.
    What a coincidence... because New Zealand supplied Britain with wool and meat throughout the war so I guess Britain needs to kiss our feet and thank us for surviving WWII...
    don't compare winter temperatures of Gr. Britain & W. USSR in general & 1941/42 in particular. For the Red Army the warm clothing was more crucial.
    The US is currently putting pressure on Venezuela to accept some unknown putz as their unelected president... I don't think they will get their way... then or now...
    times have changed!
    If the situation in Europe got worse... say Stalin overthrown and the Soviet Union fully joining the Nazi effort (instead of just the Baltic countries doing that) and all of a sudden the Germans had 10-15 million new battle hardened soldiers...
    The Germans didn't even allow Gen. Vlasov's army (ROA) on the front lines; they would use conquered Soviets & perhaps some Indians, Chinese & Koreans borrowed from Japan in support roles only, like fighting guerillas, policing the population, & helping with logistics, road/fortification construction, maintenance, industrial/agricultural production, etc.
    Even if many Soviet planes were better than German, if they weren't produced in large #s or at all, like the outstanding Tu-2, it's a moot point: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/olegvaragov/pochemu-stalin-otkazalsia-ot-luchshego-v-mire-bombardirovscika-5e2e75925ba2b567d03243ab
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:38 pm

    the larger the attacking force, harder for the defenders to stay alive & stop it.

    Not if you can destroy the vehicle in question with anything in your anti armour arsenal from rifles and grenades upwards.

    Any anti armour unit of Soviet forces would be equipped to take out these vehicles... even the 45mm guns they wheeled around for the whole war initially for use against such vehicles but later because their HE shell was a useful multi purpose weapon... much like 50 cal anti material rifles are considered today...

    & it was better than nothing. An obsolete tank or plane can disable more modern enemy tanks that would be captured, fixed/modified, & used against the enemy, thus aiding the war effort.

    The Soviets found that inadequate vehicles generally led directly to the deaths of trained crews that were hard to replace... the enormous fleet of obsolete biplanes and Polikarpov mono planes were thankfully destroyed on the ground so pilots lives were spared... the crews of T-26 light tanks were not so lucky...

    that's where Zhukov 1st proved himself as capable commander.

    Indeed... without any lend lease support at all...

    lack of winter clothing & foodstuffs was 1 of the reasons- many of their troops froze to death, just like the French in the War of 1812 & Soviet troops in the 1938 Winter War with Finland.

    But they didn't have the winter clothing and oils for machinery and arms and foods to operate in very low temperatures because they were arrogant censored who thought the war would be over in a couple of weeks and they wouldn't need them. By the time they needed them the logistics line stretched from the warehouses in Germany where the winter gear was stored all the way to the gates of Moscow and in the requests for stuff ammo and fuel had to take higher priority to heavy coats and woolly underwear.

    The Mongols were well equipped for cold weather ops; all their major campaigns, incl. the invasions of Rus & E. Europe, were conducted in winter.

    Winter happens every year... everyone knows that... the Germans thought they would be home for Christmas so taking winter gear would reduce the amount of ammo or fuel they could carry with them.

    Honestly a lot of the cold weather deaths of the German soldiers was because of stupid mistakes of people not used to very cold climates who have not been taught how to behave in frigid climates.

    A local will have a flap on his pants he can open to take a shit... a German soldier would make fun of the silly local and lose his dick and testicles to frostbite because he pulled his pants right down and exposed way too much flesh to extreme low temperatures while having a crap...

    don't compare winter temperatures of Gr. Britain & W. USSR in general & 1941/42 in particular. For the Red Army the warm clothing was more crucial.

    But without New Zealand the British would have had to fight the battle of brittain naked... that would have effected their performance... and you don't need minus 30 or colder temperatures to appreciate a good warm coat in winter...

    times have changed!

    Not really... neutral countries were not lining up to join the fight if they could help it and if things had gone bad in Europe for the western allies they would not have been in much of a position to bully anyone else into joining the fun... remember it is not just a case of convincing another country to join... most of the time the US would also have to provide all the hardware they would fight with as well as the stuff they were using themselves.

    Even if many Soviet planes were better than German, if they weren't produced in large #s or at all, like the outstanding Tu-2, it's a moot point:

    The Soviets outproduced the Germans by a wide margin, but what was more important... they had fuel supplies to keep their planes operating... which by 1945 the Germans really didn't. A few German Aces leading formations of Soviet pilots against the hated British... I could see that happening...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:50 am

    The Soviets found that inadequate vehicles generally led directly to the deaths of trained crews that were hard to replace...
    well, they weren't discarded but used for while; even if melted down to make T-34s or other armor, those tanks were useful & helped to make the Blitzkrieg to slow down. They could also be used as self-propelled artillery &/dug in for defence or their cannons & machine guns could be removed & used by artillerists & by infantry machine gunners.
    Indeed... without any lend lease support at all...
    it was a short border war, not a major war.
    By the time they needed them the logistics line stretched from the warehouses in Germany where the winter gear was stored all the way to the gates of Moscow..
    The supply lines in & around the USSR were a lot longer; the Western & Mongolian supplies helped a lot. They even dismantled some railroads in the FE to be used to move forces during the Stalingrad battle.
    ..the Germans thought they would be home for Christmas so taking winter gear would reduce the amount of ammo or fuel they could carry with them.
    The Red Army had the winter gear but was anemic from the huge losses before the winter came. The better dressed Siberian divisions from the FE & British supplied tanks saved Moscow.
    But without New Zealand the British would have had to fight the battle of britain naked... that would have affected their performance...
    which proves my point about the importance non-lethal aid!
    Not really... neutral countries were not lining up to join the fight if they could help it and if things had gone bad in Europe for the western allies they would not have been in much of a position to bully anyone else into joining the fun...
    during the war, Ms of Mexicans replaced Americans in factories & at farms/ranches, & Ms more of them & others could be enlisted/hired by US &/ their governments for some future US arrangedincentives/ perks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Expeditionary_Force

    Africa, Greenland & Antarctica could be colonized to extract needed resources. Canada, Argentina & Chile would be industrialized to support production.  If Germany could produce synthetic oil from coal, so could the US. But all that was harder to do then to supply allies which would bring $Bs to the MIC & bankers+stop & help defeat the Nazis.
    The Soviets out produced the Germans by a wide margin,..
    that took time to achieve; before that started to happen, LL bought this extra time, saved lives, killed more enemy, & helped shorten the 2nd half of the war: Under Lend-Lease, 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the Soviet Union. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the original 75 mm main gun, with 2,095 mounting the more-capable 76 mm tank gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans. The first 76mm-armed M4A2 diesel-fuel Shermans started to arrive in Soviet Union in the late summer of 1944. By 1945, some Red Army armoured units were standardized to depend primarily on them and not on their ubiquitous T-34. Such units include the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps, amongst others. The Sherman was largely held in good regard and viewed positively by many Soviet tank-crews which operated it before, with compliments mainly given to its reliability, ease of maintenance, generally good firepower (referring especially to the 76mm-gun version) and decent armour protection, as well as an auxiliary-power unit (APU) to keep the tank's batteries charged without having to run the main engine for the same purpose as the Soviets' own T-34 tank required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#Soviet_Union


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:29 am; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24863
    Points : 25407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:25 pm

    well, they weren't discarded but used for while; even if melted down to make T-34s or other armor, those tanks were useful & helped to make the Blitzkrieg to slow down. They could also be used as self-propelled artillery &/dug in for defence or their cannons & machine guns could be removed & used by artillerists & by infantry machine gunners.

    If they weren't leading the charge and destroying all the Germans then they didn't win the fucking war...

    it was a short border war, not a major war.

    It was the Border War that made them realise Siberia and its oil and wood and mineral and material resources were out of reach... so instead of invading Russia (after 1905 they thought they could do what they like like they had been doing in China for the previous decade)... they took on the British and French and Americans by heading south to the Pacific and Asia... not important at all really...

    The supply lines in & around the USSR were a lot longer; the Western & Mongolian supplies helped a lot.

    By the time they were set up and working and actually delivering useful stuff the difficult phase was over and the Germans had been pushed back from Moscow.

    You do understand that the closest the Germans got to Moscow was in December 1941 and they were pushed back by troops transferred from the far east... ie nothing to do with Lend Lease... all the stuff about the first defeat at Stalingrad and first defeat in non winter conditions at Kursk hide the fact that the first thing to really stop the German Army and Air Force... other than the English Channel was the Soviets in December 1941... and they did it without lend lease.

    British supplied tanks saved Moscow.

    What British supplied tanks?

    which proves my point about the importance non-lethal aid!

    I read a lot of military books written by British military experts... never once saw any recognition of New Zealand for supplying food and material... so it clearly didn't happen.

    during the war, Ms of Mexicans replaced Americans in factories & at farms/ranches, & Ms more of them & others could be enlisted/hired by US &/ their governments for some future US arrangedincentives/ perks.

    That is not the same thing... besides in Russia it was women and children and old men that worked in factories and on farms and did that work...

    Africa, Greenland & Antarctica could be colonized to extract needed resources.

    What resources... the costs of extraction would exceed any value they might get from them.

    If Germany could produce synthetic oil from coal, so could the US. But all that was harder to do then to supply allies which would bring $Bs to the MIC & bankers+stop & help defeat the Nazis.

    With the Soviets on their side Germany would not only have enormous reserves of oil and gas... as would Japan who could now adopt Soviet fighter planes and tanks, but they could mount an invasion of the Middle East and deny the oil there to the Americans... German air power and submarines could hunt down and obliterate the Royal Navy and then with the help of Soviet fighters take out the Royal Air Force too...

    Then the invasion of the UK would begin.



    that took time to achieve; before that started to happen, LL bought this extra time, saved lives, killed more enemy, & helped shorten the 2nd half of the war: Under Lend-Lease, 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the Soviet Union.

    NO it didn't... German production didn't get on to a war footing until very late in the war, while Soviet production was disrupted for a short period but by 42 was producing 24/7 with round the clock shifts...

    The first 76mm-armed M4A2 diesel-fuel Shermans started to arrive in Soviet Union in the late summer of 1944. By 1945, some Red Army armoured units were standardized to depend primarily on them and not on their ubiquitous T-34. Such units include the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps, amongst others

    I love the propaganda... by late summer of 1944 the war had been decided and Germany knew it was a gonner... and duh... when you get a non standard vehicle you don't mix it in with your existing types because it probably wont keep up and will slow down the entire force and the engines and tracks and guns are all different which means supporting a mixed unit of different tanks means different gun ammo different parts and even different tools... it is pretty obvious if someone gives you a whole lot of vehicles you keep them together in their own units together so you can support the one type rather than having to support multiple different types of non standard 76mm guns.

    The Sherman was largely held in good regard and viewed positively by many Soviet tank-crews which operated it before, with compliments mainly given to its reliability, ease of maintenance, generally good firepower (referring especially to the 76mm-gun version) and decent armour protection, as well as an auxiliary-power unit (APU) to keep the tank's batteries charged without having to run the main engine for the same purpose as the Soviets' own T-34 tank required.

    By 44/45 the T-34s were very reliable and had compressed air start that will work in temperatures where a fully charged battery will go flat in 10 minutes and don't need a fucking battery... and they had a far superior 85mm gun with decent ammo... the only good thing about the 76mm gun was its APFSDS rounds which they did not supply to the Soviets... plus you know they called the first models Emcha... M for Em, and Cha for the numeral 4 with an open top that looked like a Russian cyrillic character that also means tire... because the original ones had petrol engines and burned like tires...

    But if you want to quote shit about the M4 why not get down to the nitty gritty:

    "The ORSs attached to the Armoured Fighting Vehicle School at Lulworth…had established that the Sherman 75 was unlikely to destroy any German armor at ranges beyond 500 yards, and that even at shorter ranges no penetration of the frontal armour of anything except a Mark IV was likely. They had also established that the 17-pounder's effective range was limited to about 1,000 yards" (discusses research conducted on hulls of destroyed Shermans and German tanks). "Most of the damage (to Shermans), 77 percent, was done by 75mm guns, just 18 percent by 88s. Almost every shot that hit a Sherman penetrated the armour, and 73 percent caught fire…the contrast to German tanks was striking…only 38 percent of the hits from Sherman 75s or 6-pound antitank guns penetrated German armour, and both the Panther and Tiger often survived one or two penetrations…the sloping front armour of the enemy's Panthers and self-propelled guns survived 75 percent of all direct hits" quoted from Copp, Fields of Fire: the Canadians in Normandy (University of Toronto Press, 2003), 128-129

    Regarding the performance of the Sherman... how about this:

    The Combat performance section strangely focuses only on the late "Firefly" variant most successful against larger German Panzers, yet the Sherman Firefly article itself points out that these arrived only in 1944, and that only 2100-2200 were produced. This article is about lend-lease Sherman tanks in general, and so should reflect the entire range of success/performance for all models over the entire war. Most interviews I have seen with actual Sherman crews (granted, mostly British, Canadian, and ANZAC troops) dwell extensively on the vast inferiority of the design, at least on European battlefields against heavier German tanks with their 88mm guns and AP shells. (The Germans are said to have called the Shermans "Tommy cookers".) They talk about their enormous relief when the British 17-pounder gun was finally incorporated, making the tank a viable weapon against Tigers. They also make mention of some American resistance to this beneficial modification on the grounds that it was not an American-made gun. I see no reason why this information should not be fully presented here.

    The 76mm gun fitted to Lend Lease Shermans for the the Soviets was no where near as good as the 17 pounder... which could be compared with the 85mm gun on the T-34/85. The American 76mm gun was not comparable.

    The 76mm US gun actually had less HE filler than the 75mm Soviet gun... the Soviet 85mm had even more HE filler because three quarters of the ammo in a tank is HE... of the targets on the battlefield German heavy tanks might be less than 1% of those...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4011
    Points : 4007
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:46 pm

    If they weren't leading the charge and destroying all the Germans then they didn't win the fucking war...
    neither did the T-34s or any other single type of tank, plane, or artillery piece; all weapons complement each other.
    It was the Border War that made them realise Siberia and its oil and wood and mineral and material resources were out of reach...
    they probed Soviet & Mongolian defenses & got a bloody nose. The local geography didn't allow a Japanese Blitzcrieg in the FE; the Soviet armored divisions would not lose so many tanks so fast to need large #s of replacements to be produced &sent from abroad.
    they took on the British and French and Americans by heading south to the Pacific and Asia... not important at all really...
    China & SE Asia had vast resources that industrialized & embargoed Japan needed. I'm amused at ur false assumptions!
    By the time they were set up and working and actually delivering useful stuff the difficult phase was over and the Germans had been pushed back from Moscow.
    they were, but not that far; many follow-on attacks against them failed with Ks of Soviet dead. The Germans formed a well defended front that largely held till 1943.
    You do understand that the closest the Germans got to Moscow was in December 1941 and they were pushed back by troops transferred from the far east... ie nothing to do with Lend Lease...
    most of those troops would've stayed in the FE had not the Chinese been helped by the USSR & USA in their fight against the IJA, thus neutralizing Japanese threat to the Soviet FE.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Soviet
    What British supplied tanks?
    Pl. refer to this link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#British_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
    I read a lot of military books written by British military experts... never once saw any recognition of New Zealand for supplying food and material... so it clearly didn't happen.
    r u being sarcastic?
    https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/public-service-at-war/feeding-britain

    Immediately after the Ottawa Agreement of 1932 the value of exports to Britain began to rise again; by 1937 it reached £50,000,000, an increase of about £20,000 on the value for 1931. Just before the Second World War butter, frozen meat, wool, cheese, gold, hides and skins, tallow, apples, dried milk, and sausage casings were the main goods exported. The “big four” (butter, cheese, wool, and meat) had reached proportions in terms of quantity closely approximating those of today. During the Second World War the value of exports fluctuated. Trade was then based on bulk purchase of primary produce. Bulk purchase of wool and sheepskins was given up when the war ended; but for dairy produce and meat it continued until 1955.
    https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/trade-external/page-3

    The major exports between 1901 and 1944-45 were agricultural products such as Wool, Wheat and Butter. Gold was also important. Exports were heavily concentrated in these major products, with the top five exports in 1901 making up 66.3 per cent of the total, with Wool on its own making up over 30 per cent. The importance of the top five exports remained high over this entire period, averaging around 61 per cent of the total.
    https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/australias-trade-since-federation.pdf

    New Zealand and Australia supplied the bulk of foodstuffs to American forces in the South Pacific, as Reverse Lend-Lease. ..in winter 1944 the government hastened work on docks and repair facilities at Auckland and Wellington following a British request, to supplement the bases and repair yards in Australia needed for the British Pacific Fleet.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_New_Zealand_during_World_War_II#Home_front

    That is not the same thing... besides in Russia it was women and children and old men that worked in factories and on farms and did that work...
    it happened in the USA as well, although on a smaller scale.
    ..they could mount an invasion of the Middle East and deny the oil there to the Americans...  German air power and submarines could hunt down and obliterate the Royal Navy and then with the help of Soviet fighters take out the Royal Air Force too...Then the invasion of the UK would begin.
    that was the fear in the US, prompting them to support allies with the LL.
    NO it didn't... German production didn't get on to a war footing until very late in the war,...
    since 1933, they produced enough to take most of Europe, see church domes in Moscow through binoculars, reach the Volga, the N. Caucasus mountains, & sink dozens of ships in the Atlantic & Indian oceans.
    ..when you get a non standard vehicle you don't mix it in with your existing types because it probably wont keep up and will slow down the entire force and the engines and tracks and guns are all different...
    Regarding the performance of the Sherman... how about this:..
    The Germans also used different tanks, & employed them rather successfully in their offensives: By 28 June Panzer Group 2, led by General Heinz Guderian, and General Hermann Hoth's Panzer Group 3 had encircled three Russian armies and captured over 320,000 men in the Bialystok-Minsk pockets. The two panzer groups then pressed ahead, linking up on the far side of Smolensk on 27 July in another double envelopment. Two more Russian armies were trapped and destroyed, and another 300,000 troops taken prisoner.
    Army Group South, under Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, had the furthest to go and his attack also faced the stiffest Soviet resistance. Most of the Russian armour was on this front. But by early July von Rundstedt had pushed out beyond the pre-1939 Polish frontier. General Ewald von Kleist's Panzer Group 1 was slowed by Soviet flanking attacks as it headed for Kiev, the capital of Ukraine and key to the coal-rich Donets Basin. On 8 August the Germans surrounded two Soviet armies, capturing 100,000 men in the Uman pocket, and reached the Dnieper River. The naval port of Odessa on the Black Sea was also besieged. ..
    The panzer divisions stormed ahead and over 600,000 Russian soldiers were captured in two more huge encirclements near the cities of Bryansk and Vyazma.
    https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/operation-barbarossa-and-germanys-failure-in-the-soviet-union
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tanks_in_World_War_II

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks#Tank_versus_tank_engagements

    The Soviets used their & captured enemy tanks against the German tanks & fortifications, etc., while the LL supplied tanks were mostly in support roles. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-soviet-t-34-the-lethal-tank-won-world-war-ii-13889

    Still, they helped- otherwise they would be sent straight to the smelters. The Shermans were better than some of these smaller &/ obsolete Soviet tanks:
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/10-soviet-tanks-of-wwii.html

    Sponsored content

    Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: Lend-Lease - World War II: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:34 am