[cowofzot]

Lend Lease was important in 41-42. Gunther Rall certainly seemed to think so. A good percentage of Russian flown A/C were US made in the region approaching Baku


Then the things started down in the Caucasus.

One third of the Russian Air Force in Caucasus were Anglo-American origin.

You know the whole army was retreating into the north, supported Stalingrad again at temperatures -35 degrees.


http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... html#start

[Smilin' Dave]

What ultimately decided the battle in the Caucasus wasn't airpower, but the defeat at Stalingrad and delays forced on German ground forces by the terrain.

Also while your link notes the contribution of Lend-Lease, he also had this to say:

But the Russians learned. They came out after one year with the Yaks, the MiG, the LaGG - modern types and in masses. Their production was beyond the Ural. Outside the reach of German bombers, they produced and produced and they came and formed special red banner guard regiments which were excellent.

[cowofzot]

What ultimately decided the battle in the Caucasus wasn't airpower, but the defeat at Stalingrad and delays forced on German ground forces by the terrain.

True, but airplanes wasn't the ony stuff they got. Over 2 million long tons shipped in 42.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... -b.htm#c12

[fuser]

The moment blitzkrieg was repelled at moscow USSR had won..... the land lease made the victory happen sooner and preserved many lives.... No way Germany could have won the war of attrition against USSR.....Aid to USSR started coming in massive amount only when battle of stalingrad had already swung in favor of USSR....

Without US aid, of course soviets industrial plan would have been different.... Instead of producing so many tanks they would have produced more trucks and still would have been able to outnumber Germans in tanks....And don't forget trucks consisted a major part in the US aid....and this is just one example.

by the time western front opened, Germany had already lost the war and were on a long retreat in east where they lost over 80% of men and equipment.......

About the allied air raids at germany : They were only possible because most of the germans fighters were operating on eastern front...

Then we would have to minus the contribution of german allies "Italy, Hungary, Romania...and a host of various pro-fascist volunteers from all over Europe."

[Smilin' Dave]

True, but airplanes wasn't the ony stuff they got. Over 2 million long tons shipped in 42.

- How many tons of equipment were produced domestically by comparison?
- How many tons of equipment were lost in this period? Because Lend-Lease doesn't touch the sides of that figure.
- How much of this was useful? Some of what was shipped to the Soviets didn't meet their requirements, and let's be honest their standards in this period were pretty low. A Grant tank is heavy, but it's also not very good.

[RonPaulalways]

The moment blitzkrieg was repelled at moscow USSR had won.....

So the fact that the German advance had significantly reduced Soviet economic output and 40% of its agricultural output would not have had longer term effects?

No way Germany could have won the war of attrition against USSR.....Aid to USSR started coming in massive amount only when battle of stalingrad had already swung in favor of USSR....

The Soviets probably would have won the battle of Stalingrad without lend-lease, but the question is would they have won the war of attrition after that.

[cowofzot]

Much of the stuff that was sent was food & 6X6 trucks, both enormously valeuable to the Russians.

[Smilin' Dave]

Much of the stuff that was sent was food & 6X6 trucks, both enormously valeuable to the Russians.

Is that by tonnage or by number of units? How does it compare with Soviet needs/domestic production? Do you think these items were specifically pivotal in 1941-42?

[cowofzot]

Yes. Matlidas fought at Stalingrad.

http://www.fireonthevolga.com/Photo-albums.html



By the end of 1942, we had sent the U. S. S. R. almost 2,600 planes, more than 3,200 tanks, and 81,000 motor vehicles.
By the end of December 1942, Britain had sent Russia more than 3,000 planes and almost 3,000 tanks, lend-leased mostly from Britain's own production.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref ... index.html

[xoplytnyk]

Lend Lease tanks constituted 15% of Soviet armor in 41-42.

Armored vehicles shipped in 41-42

Bren Carriers - 2336
M3 Halftracks - 900
M3A1 Scout Cars - 3092
M3A1 Stuart - 1233
Valentine - 3487
Churchill - 258
M3A3 Lee/Grant - 1200
Matilda - 832
M4A2 75mm Sherman - 1750
M4A2 76mm Sherman - 1850
Half Tracks - 820
Light Trucks - 151,000
Heavy Trucks - 200,000
Jeeps - 51,000
Tractors - 8070

aircraft:

P-39 Airacobra single-engine fighters - 4719
P-40 single-engine fighters - 2397
P-47 - 195
Hurricane single-engine fighters - 2952
Spitfire single-engine fighters - 1331
A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908
B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862

" Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers and 16% of all fighters and 29% of all naval aircraft. Some American aircraft types, such as the P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft, were highly revered by their Russian crews. Several Russian aces scored more than 40 victories with Airacobras. "

Artillery Shipments:

37mm Anti-Tank 35
57mm Anti-Tank 375
37mm Anti-Aircraft 340
40mm Anti-Aircraft 5,400
90mm Anti-Aircraft 240

Ammo and materials:

The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition.

In addition to military equipment, other commodities were sent which were essential to the war effort. These included 2.3 million tons of steel, 229,000 tons of aluminium, 2.6 million tons of petrol, 3.8 million tons of foodstuffs including tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on, 56,445 field telephones and 600,000km of telephone wire. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.


Source: Lend-Lease and its Effect on the Eastern Front

[cowofzot]

They lacked strategic metals that Lend Lease made up. & Soviet airforce ran mostly on US fuel. Kinda important. 6x6 trucks got the armies supplied.

The British sent a load of machine tools also, without em, production would not have been as big as it was.





About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-re ... mans.htm/3


the Soviet Union could request specific items which it may not have been able to produce for itself. Additionally, many of the British tools arrived in early 1942, when Soviet tool production was still very low, resulting in a disproportionate impact. The handing over of forty imported machine tools to Aviation Factory No. 150 in July 1942, for example, was the critical factor in enabling the factory to reach projected capacity within two months.

[Smilin' Dave]

Yes. Matlidas fought at Stalingrad.

So did T-34s... could you get it through your head that just because western Allied material was used doesn't make it of pivotal importance to the outcome of the fighting? I've suggested it to you repeatedly now and you just seem to be ignoring it.

By the end of 1942, we had sent the U. S. S. R. almost 2,600 planes, more than 3,200 tanks, and 81,000 motor vehicles.
By the end of December 1942, Britain had sent Russia more than 3,000 planes and almost 3,000 tanks, lend-leased mostly from Britain's own production.

Total Soviet tank production (including light, medium and heavy) for 1942 alone is 24,792 units. For aircraft it's 25,436 units. Domestic truck production was 70,000 units for 1942. If we assume that what was produced in 1941 didn't completely vanish into thin air, the comparative totals are even less supportive of your arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_arm ... rld_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... production
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dcA ... 42&f=false

About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

That would imply that those planes were pivotal during the Battle of Moscow, right? But what does your own source on this say?

Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

Wait... 1942... that's after the battle. But what's this?

Lend-Lease aid did not "save" the Soviet Union from defeat during the Battle of Moscow.

So what you were trying to imply, by cherry picking quotes, isn't even fully supported by your own link.

Armored vehicles shipped in 41-42
...
M4A2 76mm Sherman - 1850

In 1942? That's very interesting because this tank didn't even go into service with the western allies until 1944. The figures you have linked to are not footnoted and based on my cursory observations, appear to be 1941-45 totals not for 1941-42 only as it states. This was either misleading for the source, or they just don't know what they are doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_ta ... evelopment

And before someone pipes in with 'haha wikipedia', at least wikipedia footnotes its statistics.

And can I just quote myself on something before I have to put up with another round of this increasingly frustrating 'discussion'.

Just to be clear, I completely agree that Lend Lease was very important. However you are painting a picture of a Soviet Union which could not have survived at all without it... yet the evidence clearly shows this wasn't totally out of the question.

[xoplytnyk]

In 1942? That's very interesting because this tank didn't even go into service with the western allies until 1944. The figures you have linked to are not footnoted and based on my cursory observations, appear to be 1941-45 totals not for 1941-42 only as it states. This was either misleading for the source, or they just don't know what they are doing.

You need to check your sources.

The M4 platform was designed in 1940, production was standardized in 1941 and US production for the M4A2 ran between April 1942 and May 1944. The M4A2 was used by the US (and allies) in North Africa, Sicily and Italy well before 1944.

[fuser]

the fact that the German advance had significantly reduced Soviet economic output

For a moment yes but soviets effectively moved their industries and workers to east and were able to produce every major war equipment much more than germans... So, get over it..... Their industry in west was destroyed but they successfully deployed new industries beyond Urals which covered their loss significantly .....

and 40% of its agricultural output would not have had longer term effects?

And they still managed to do fine till mid 1943.... What makes you think they would have crumbled without food.... As already said lack of land lease could have delayed the war but it was never that significant to ultimately decide the outcome of war......

The Soviets probably would have won the battle of Stalingrad without lend-lease, but the question is would they have won the war of attrition after that.
Image

They actually won it before much of equipments from USA were shipped to USSR..... Then, please define what you understand by war of attrition......

Yes they would have because they had much more men, well equipped and trained than germans.... And ultimately war is decided by those who are fighting...........

[fuser]

@ xoplytnyk

The link you have provided doesn't cite any source, any one can come up with a webpage like that.....Any way check this
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=NbmtnAc8lCcC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=m4a2+76mm+sherman&source=bl&ots=CBZFptXFMp&sig=tgu55yws3y4f11g9fKfWYcd4GdM&hl=en&ei=6UkeTKv_EIqZrAfb_9zKCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=m4a2%2076mm%20sherman&f=false

Those tanks started to came in USSR in 1944 only..... And also The 76mm gun installation was standardised and introduced in production lines from February 1944 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Bzijd0xKwTUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sherman+tanks&hl=en&ei=EkweTMOhDcuRrAfUr-HCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sherman%20tanks&f=false

[fuser]

The idiocy of this discussion lies in the fact that we are suppose to think as already pointed out by smilin dave that every other country had evaporated with only germany and soviet union existing.....

Any country will want to clutch as many resource as they could through diplomacy during wartime but ultimately the war is decided at battlefield......
Going by the notion of the thread USA can't win a single war with any major power one on one as she imports most of her oil And the thread rule says absolutely no involvement of other countries........

But if we are to talk specifically about land lease we should...... As I earlier pointed out about the most important help USSR got from USA "Trucks" weren't as important..... Then about problem of food, that could have been solved through other means than USA.....

Before any body points out hey no other country, please read above lines first and go figure out without Romania how would Germany had solved her oil problem..... Mind you oil is single most important resource in modern warfare...

All I am saying is that when talking of one on one situation we should restrict ourselves to militaristic factors only....

[Smilin' Dave]

You need to check your sources.

The M4 platform was designed in 1940, production was standardized in 1941 and US production for the M4A2 ran between April 1942 and May 1944. The M4A2 was used by the US (and allies) in North Africa, Sicily and Italy well before 1944.

Either you didn't read what was quoted (which is straight out of your own post!), or you didn't read what I linked to. The Sherman with the 76mm gun was not deployed until 1944. So your source stating it was shipped over in 1941-42 is completely false. I can't believe you are still supporting something bordering on fraud.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
the fact that the German advance had significantly reduced Soviet economic output


For a moment yes but soviets effectively moved their industries and workers to east and were able to produce every major war equipment much more than germans... So, get over it.....

Wrong, the loss in production was significant and was not recovered from for a long time.

Quote:
and 40% of its agricultural output would not have had longer term effects?


And they still managed to do fine till mid 1943.... What makes you think they would have crumbled without food....

The food shortage would have made itself felt in 42 and 43, right when lend lease shipments began arriving on a larger scale. The Soviet Union could have had widespread famine and extreme rationing, which would have slowed down its production and reduced its available manpower.

[fuser]

Wrong, the loss in production was significant and was not recovered from for a long time.

Overall production was reduced but the gist is that by moving their vital industries to east they were able to produce every major war equipment far more greater in number than germans.....So, please try to comprehend the main meaning of an argument rather than addressing a small part of it....... And you have been already provided enough sources for those productions.....

The food shortage would have made itself felt in 42 and 43, right when lend lease shipments began arriving on a larger scale. The Soviet Union could have had widespread famine and extreme rationing, which would have slowed down its production and reduced its available manpower.

Oh, please don't mention "could have". They had recently faced a devastating famine and managed to cope up with it..... Any ways, what makes you think that in case of no land lease there wouldn't have had any planning to counter famine from soviet sides..... Once again you have failed to perceive is that no one is saying that land lease wasn't important.....Only the fact is, it was important but certainly not that important to decide the outcome of war......

Then can you tell from your source exactly what percentage of soviet's own production of food did USA provided??

Any way you should know that land lease overall accounted for 7% of GNP of USSR and this figure is not based on ridiculous notion of comparing fundamentally different economies.... This figure has come from taking in account of total gnp of USSR during that period and total net import by USSR during that period in rubles...
And you are telling me that it was 7% that won the war..... Were they soviets making vodka for themselves with that 93%

[pugsville]

The Germans had the advantage of expereince they gained from poland & france, that they got to work out the kinks in their systems. They also got a fair bit of material from the czechs. They got the Ideal start with the Russians deployed forward and total surprise with the dumb orders from above. If you going to go back and say that Germans could have done better, there is no doubt that the Russians could have been better prepared s used proper defence in depth and maintained a lot more of their original forces rather than losing vast forces at the start of the war. The Germans really got off to dream run it's hard for the early part to go much better, and almost any revision of the original circumstances is going to give some advantage to the Russians.