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...