Lend lease [Archive] - WW2inColor Forum

Ashes

03-21-2008, 11:08 PM

Better to say,.. lend lease is definetely important,. but not a desicive factor contributor to Red Army.

Your probably right.
Think most in the West, and nearly all Russians would go along with historians like David Glantz, who say that lend lease was very helpful in shortening the war, but did not decide it.

Glantz says "Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make a difference between defeat and victory in 1941-1942''

According to Glantz, had Stalin and his commanders been left to their own devices, it "might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht," but "the ultimate result would probably have been the same''

Think Glantz may have nailed it.

[Although the war would have been over by August one way or the other with Allied strategic bombing, and the dubious honour of the Western Allies taking Berlin.]

Although some Russians historians like Boris Sokolov suggests that the Soviet Union would have been defeated by Nazi Germany if it had not received billions of dollars worth of aircraft, aviation fuel, aluminum, trucks, food, and other critical supplies from the United States, and has revised upwards both the amount of Lend-Lease aid received by the U.S.S.R. (from $11 to $12.5 billion) and the percentage of Soviet production that that aid constituted (from 4 percent to 15 percent or more). Sokolov's conclusion, is that "without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders"

Although I suspect Sokolov would be compared to Suvorov by some Russians.;)

Nickdfresh

03-21-2008, 11:18 PM

Interesting....

I think the basic conclusion arrived here is that Lend Lease was critical to enhancing the mobility of the Red Army and to alleviating some of the endemic logistical difficulties experienced. My personal belief (and I am admittedly well versed on all this) is that the USSR would not have been defeated without Lend Lease, but they wouldn't defeated the Germans either. The additional 12 to 18 months may have led to a negotiated settlement, if only a temporary one...

Ashes

03-21-2008, 11:38 PM

windrider

03-22-2008, 08:27 PM

Ashes

03-23-2008, 02:18 AM

Well, if you think of all the merchant marine sailors that went on the Murmansk convoys, and particulary those who didn't make it back, it was pretty critical in those times. It's easy to say now after 67 years that it was'nt critical, but then ? Think of Moskow...

Think I would have rather served anywhere other then on those convoys.

If every man didn't get a medal he thoroughly deserved one.

Few stats by Sokolov on Lend lease to Soviets...............

80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.

Which translated into......

Aircraft - 14,795
Tanks - 7,056
Jeeps - 51,503
Trucks - 375,883
Motorcycles - 35,170
Tractors - 8,071
Guns - 8,218
Machine guns - 131,633
Explosives - 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued - $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars - 11,155
Locomotives - 1,981
Cargo ships - 90
Submarine hunters - 105
Torpedo boats - 197
Ship engines - 7,784
Food supplies - 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment - $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals - 802,000 tons
Petroleum products - 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals - 842,000 tons
Field radios - 40.000
radar systems - 400
Cotton - 893,000 tons
Leather - 49,860 tons
Tires - 3,786,000
Army boots - 15,417,001 pairs

Items like the 345,735 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, and the 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT, the high Octane aviation fuel, plus the over $1 billion dollars worth of machines and equipment might have been amongst the most important material supplied.

By all accounts Nikita Khrushchev wrote, "Without SPAM we wouldn't have been able to feed our army."

Egorka

03-24-2008, 09:45 AM

Rising Sun*

03-24-2008, 11:10 AM

How many marine sailors went on the Murmansk convoys, and how many didn't make it back?

I don't know, but probably rather more than Russian merchant marine or even navy sailors went from Russia to Britain or America on ships carrying goods for their war efforts.

Ashes has no idea what he's started. Again. ;) :D

Egorka

03-24-2008, 04:21 PM

I don't know,
Absolutely agreed - you don't know! ;)

but probably rather more than Russian merchant marine or even navy sailors went from Russia to Britain or America on ships carrying goods for their war efforts.
Ahhhhh... not so quick, my friend (you are not with your wife - 5 minutes will not do here! ;) ).

I suspect that the answer on your statement may be surprising for you (and for me if I am correct).

You see LL came to USSR via 3 routes: North Atlantic route, Pacific route and via Iran. From the top of my head North Atlantic convouys accounted for somethink like 20% of the total delivery. But this was undoubtedly the most dramatic one. Iran was the bigget of them. And the Pacific route was the biggest until Iran rioute was set up.

So the sing is the the ships traversing the Pacific route were going under the Soviet flag and, important for us here, as I rememeber were settled by the Soviet crews. This was done to avoid conflict with Japan.

I will have to double check on it.

As for the North Atlantic convoys, there were sunk 103 ships 11 of which were Soviet.

Ashes has no idea what he's started. Again. ;) :D
You see, you "don't know" but yet you managed to give an answer. ;)

windrider

03-24-2008, 06:07 PM

I was referring more specifically to the PQ-17, and how it was critical in that particular time of war. Good one about the spam! I didn't know that one !

Taken from U-Boat.net:
http://www.uboat.net/ops/convoys/convoys.php?convoy=PQ-17
The Losses
All in all 24 ships were sunk out of the 33 which made up the convoy. 153 merchant men lost their lives, of those only 7 had perished before the convoy was scattered. The loss of material was extremely heavy; 22 merchant ships had been lost for a total of 142,518 tons of shipping and with them 3,350 motor vehicles, 430 tanks, 210 bombers and 99,316 tons of general cargo including radar sets and ammunition to name a few.
Additionally the Soviet tanker Azerbaijan had lost her cargo of linseed oil and much of Winston-Salem's cargo had also been jettisoned in Novaya Zemlya.

Paulus Potter drifting abandoned on July 13.

The Paulus Potter was found afloat and deserted 8 days after being bombed by the Luftwaffe. 3 men from the U-boat boarded her and examined her to see if she could be sailed to Norway but found that impossible and Kptlt. Reche put a torpedo into it.

3 more losses took place when 3 of the 11 surviving ships from PQ-17; Silver Sword (sunk by U-255 on 20 July, 1942 for her 5th victim from the PQ-17), Bellingham and Gray Ranger were sunk on the return voyage from Russia in the next home bound convoy.

Luftwaffe flew 202 sorties against the convoy and lost 5 planes for the 8 ships (Navarino, Fairfield City, Peter Kerr, Washington, Bolton Castle, Zaafaran, Pan Atlantic and Pancraft) they sank.

Ashes

03-25-2008, 12:50 AM

You see LL came to USSR via 3 routes: North Atlantic route, Pacific route and via Iran. From the top of my head North Atlantic convouys accounted for somethink like 20% of the total delivery. But this was undoubtedly the most dramatic one. Iran was the bigget of them. And the Pacific route was the biggest until Iran rioute was set up.

Guess it does'nt matter what route the lend lease came from just as long as the vital supplies got to the Soviets.

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and "could not have continued the war". . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us? We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

Guess you guys know who made that statement don't you?
And how much weight would it carry?

Egorka

03-25-2008, 04:16 AM

Nickdfresh

03-25-2008, 04:39 AM

Egorka

03-25-2008, 05:26 AM

Mr.Nick,
I did not know your were sooooo gullible! :)

Rising Sun*

03-25-2008, 06:01 AM

Absolutely agreed - you don't know! ;)

...

You see, you "don't know" but yet you managed to give an answer. ;)

It's an impressive skill, isn't it? :D

I taught Donald Rumsfeld all he knows, which led to his famous statement:

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

:D

Rising Sun*

03-25-2008, 06:05 AM

Ashes, you are actually being serious about it...

Ashes has offered some detail that's been lacking in earlier discussions.

Do you have detail to contradict it?

I'm actually trying to get you to be serious, which is unusual because usually you love to get stuck into figures. ;)

Rising Sun*

03-25-2008, 06:45 AM

.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.

Just on those figures, how would the Soviets have managed without those supplies?

Nickdfresh

03-25-2008, 04:32 PM

Mr.Nick,
I did not know your were sooooo gullible! :)

Oh, I can be pretty gullible. I once went on a "snipe hunt." :(

But c'mon man, there's no way the Soviets could have sustained the advance very far without those trucks. The (mostly) Dodges were rugged and reliable, virtually disposable. Granted, the main combat weapons save for the ones previously mentioned, were of very limited value. But even a hated Valentine tank provided a temporary stop gap and could augment the T-34s in service allow the Red Army to field even more motorized units...

Egorka

03-25-2008, 04:38 PM

But c'mon man, there's no way the Soviets could have sustained the advance very far without those trucks.
if the comrad Stalin ordered they would had to invent teleportation. In a month. Never say never!

In particular the trucks and spam were of immence help! Did I ever said otherwise?

Egorka

03-25-2008, 04:41 PM

...how would the Soviets have managed without those supplies?
With strugle and more losses.

Egorka

03-25-2008, 04:52 PM

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/articles/memorial/index.htm

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/articles/memorial/alsib_m_01.jpg

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/articles/memorial/DSC_0266.jpg

Egorka

03-25-2008, 04:55 PM

Lend-lease: Aircraft Deliveries to the Soviet Union
By Carl-Fredrik Geust (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm)

Egorka

03-25-2008, 05:32 PM

I don't know, but probably rather more than Russian merchant marine or even navy sailors went from Russia to Britain or America on ships carrying goods for their war efforts.
I was right. Murmansk LL route accounted for about 20% of all LL deliveries. Iran route - 30%. The Vladivostok route in the Pacific - 50%.
All shipment in the Pacific was done only with ships under Soviet flag and manned by the Soviet crews. There were no convoys - the ships operated separately (about 300 ships).

Of all LL deliveries, tonns:
- 19.4% were carried on the initially Soviet ships with Soviet crews.
- 30.7% were carried on the ships received by USSR as a part of the the LL itself. Soviet crews.
- 49.9 were carried by the US and UK ships. Non-Soviet crews.

source (Rus): http://www.transport.ru/2_period/more/96_6/amer_vl.htm

Ashes

03-25-2008, 08:02 PM

Ashes, you are actually being serious about it...
Lend-Lease was a burden for USSR. One more obstacle on the path to the Victory. Not only RKKA had to fight the bloody battles they also had to cope with all sorts of logistical problems that LL brough with. The only reason Stalin accepted LL was that he wanted to help US economy and keep american workers employed.
You see now?

Hi Egorka

Just wondering if you know who said these statments, you may [or may not] be surprised.:)

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and "could not have continued the war". . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us? We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

And........

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."

Rising Sun*

03-25-2008, 10:11 PM

I was right. Murmansk LL route accounted for about 20% of all LL deliveries. Iran route - 30%. The Vladivostok route in the Pacific - 50%.
All shipment in the Pacific was done only with ships under Soviet flag and manned by the Soviet crews. There were no convoys - the ships operated separately (about 300 ships).

That illustrates one of the most important differences between the Axis and Allies: the lack of co-operation among Axis powers. Each effectively fought its own war (or in Italy's case just started fights it couldn't finish), where the Allies co-operated against all the Axis powers.

If the Japanese had targeted merchant shipping generally, and the LL shipping in particular, to the same extent that the Germans did in the Atlantic, it would have had a significant impact on Russia's ability to fight, which would have assisted Germany and the general Axis fascist cause of defeating the communist USSR. Whether or not it would have resulted in a German victory is debatable, but reducing the 50% of supplies coming across the Pacific had to have an effect. It would be easier to evaluate the likely effect if we had figures on what was being shipped across the Pacific and when, primarily 1942-43, and how that contributed to Russia's defence at the time.

Attacking LL Pacific shipping would also have diminished American naval capacity in the Pacific as ships would have had to be diverted to convoy protection. Those ships would be mostly anti-submarine destroyers, which if diverted to convoy protection in large numbers could have hampered USN operations and strategy by taking away ships needed for large ship screening and protection.

As it was, even American merchant ships crossed the Pacific mostly unescorted because the Japanese failed to grasp the importance of attacking merchant shipping.

I assume Japan would have been reluctant to attack Soviet ships in case it brought the USSR into a land war with Japan in Manchuria, which was Japan's major conquest and which it badly wanted to hold. However, from an overall Axis viewpoint, it might have been much better strategically to have the USSR fighting on two fronts. Again, it's debatable whether the Japanese would have won against the Soviets, but they would certainly have created significant difficulties for the Soviets in fighting serious wars on two fronts.

From an overall Axis strategic viewpoint, the IJN would probably have been better employed targeting Allied merchant shipping from about March 1942 instead of trying to expand eastwards from the NEI to try to isolate Australia from America while looking for the decisive battle with the USN.

The IJA would definitely have been better employed stopping at Indonesia and Rabaul instead of trying to expand eastwards and southwards, thus releasing several battle hardened divisions for immediate service against the Soviets, and avoiding tying up about 350,000 Japanese soldiers in New Guinea during the war. Equally importantly, this would have released relatively scarce Japanese merchant shipping from long voyages to New Guinea for most of the war and to Guadalcanal early in the war, along with the supplies they carried, which could have been much more productive in the short voyages to support a war against the USSR.

This is all generalisations with the benefit of hindsight, and without looking at particular circumstances at any specific point in the war, but you still have to wonder why the Japanese didn't grasp the importance of targeting merchant shipping when their German allies were giving them a continuous lesson in its importance. The primary explanation is usually because of the bastardised Bushido spirit and the notion that merchant ships weren't worthy targets (unlike, say, Chinese civilians and Allied nurses :confused:), but the deeper problem was that while Japan was highly proficient in offensive military strategy and tactics, it lacked the same wider strategic grasp that the Germans and the Allies had about how to conduct a modern war.

Rising Sun*

03-26-2008, 06:19 AM

Ahhhhh... not so quick, my friend (you are not with your wife - 5 minutes will not do here! ;) ).

I missed that the first time around, you bastard! :D

Five minutes! :shock:

Mate, I'd be spoiling her if she got one minute, and then only if I was taking my time because the footy wasn't on television. :D

Do you know what constitutes foreplay in Australia?

The husband says to his wife: Are you awake?

Do you know constitutes a caring husband here?

A bloke who cares if his wife is awake.

Do you know what constitutes an Aussie husband who is concerned about whether or not his wife got any pleasure? A bloke who asks

Were you awake?

A really good husband can tell if she's awake, but he still doesn't care.

Any husband here can tell if his wife is awake, if he's that interested. They move. A bit.

Guess what the perfect Aussie wife says?

Did something happen while I was awake? Can I get you another beer? :D

Nickdfresh

03-26-2008, 08:38 AM

if the comrad Stalin ordered they would had to invent teleportation. In a month. Never say never!

In particular the trucks and spam were of immence help! Did I ever said otherwise?

So I am gullible how?

From: http://www.o5m6.de/

Covering the Engines of the Red Army (or »Workers and Peasants Red Army« RKKA, called officially) in the Great Patriotic War in scaled multi-view colour profiles is quite a challenge.

The domestic vehicles alone, armour and softskins, would fill dozens of pages, but ,often overlooked, the Soviet Union received some 450,000 vehicles (trucks, jeeps, tractors, tanks, armoured cars etc.) from their allies (U.S.A., Great Britain, Canada) (http://www.o5m6.de/ForeignTrucks.html) in World War 2 as well.

Egorka

03-26-2008, 09:42 AM

Just wondering if you know who said these statments, you may [or may not] be surprised.:)
Hi Ashes,

Kruschev wrote it.

Egorka

03-26-2008, 09:45 AM

I missed that the first time around, you bastard! :D
Just learning by example... ;)

Rising Sun*

03-26-2008, 09:45 AM

So I am gullible how?

Ah, yes, but your refer us only to models.

The Soviets were consistenty disappointed during the whole war when their allies insisted on delivering only 1/32 models of everything, but the Soviets worked 64 times harder to make up for these deficiencies and did twice as well with what little they were given. :)

Rising Sun*

03-26-2008, 09:49 AM

Just learning by example... ;)

My wife would be pleased for you, if she was awake. :D

Egorka

03-26-2008, 09:51 AM

So I am gullible how?
Well, considering how seriously you reacted on my comment on teleportation - yes you are gullible. :)

mike M.

03-26-2008, 12:14 PM

So the Soviet union took lend lease aircraft to help the countrys who gave them? I think my B.S. meter is pegged out with that train of thought.

"By the end of 1941 the Soviet Union was near collapse and its air force almost annihilated, leaving large numbers of surviving pilots with no aircraft to fly. At this juncture the United Kingdom put aside its prewar animosities toward the Communists and despatched several hundred Hurricane fighters despite the fact that at this time the British were still struggling to supply the RAF with modern fighters in North Africa and the Far East. A total of 4300 Hurricanes and Spitfires, as well as several hundred Tomahawks, Kittyhawks and Airacobras, obtained from the USA under Lend-lease, were eventually supplied to the USSR in an attempt to present a Russian defeat. After the United States had entered the war, the Americans extended Lend-lease to include direct supply to the Soviets as well as the British, and among the aircraft sent were almost 10,000 fighters - mainly P-39s, P-40s and P-63s. Although many of these aircraft were outdated when they arrived, and some were not particularly suited to Russian operating conditions, they served when they were needed. A number of Russian pilots became Heroes of the Soviet Union flying Lend-lease aircraft, and many more gained their early experience before converting to their own Yaks and Lavochkins. All of these types, including the Hurricane, remained in active units until the end of the war, and even into the post-war period.

The Soviet government tried to play down or conceal the importance of Lend-lease fighters until well into the 1980s, and the pilots who flew them were discriminated against as 'foreigners'. Only in recent years have these pilots felt free to admit what they flew."

Nickdfresh

03-26-2008, 12:22 PM

The P-39/63 Airacobra was legendary in the the USSR. It didn't quite work in the West because of its low service ceiling, but this was ideally suited the air war over the USSR as most of the combat was tactical, low-level operations which forced the Me109s down on the deck so to speak...

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4159

Somewhere between 7000 and 9000 were sent...

Nickdfresh

03-26-2008, 12:31 PM

Well, considering how seriously you reacted on my comment on teleportation - yes you are gullible. :)

I think I was reacting to your perceived attitude overall and not one specific comment...

windrider

03-26-2008, 01:37 PM

I think I was reacting to your perceived attitude overall and not one specific comment...

That makes two of us !:roll:
Some extract from :
Lend-lease: Aircraft Deliveries to the Soviet Union
By Carl-Fredrik Geust posted by Chevan.

Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance. The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease. There were undoubtedly big difficulties in the early period: aircraft modified for tropical conditions were delivered to Arctic ports, Russian-language instructions were lacking, a big number of aircraft were grounded because of lack of spa res, ammunition, bombs or high-octane fuel. Soon many technical problems 'were overcome, Soviet guns and bomb racks were installed, and numerous other technical improvisa tions were made in Soviet AF frontal units. Soviet specialists developed also ingenious technical improvements and modifi cations of the original aircraft versions. In parallel the new American technology was systematically investigated in research and design institutes, and the total impact for the modernization of the Soviet aviation industry was certainly immense. The ultimate peak of this learning process was the post-war copying of the Boeing B-29 in only two years time, resulting in the Soviet nuclear-bomb carrier Tu-4.

"Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft. In some AF commands and fronts the proportion of Lend-Lease aircraft was even higher: of the 9.888 fighters delivered to the air defense (PVO) fighter units in 1941-45 6.953 (or over 70%!) were British or American. In the AF of the Karelian front lend-lease aircraft amounted to about two-thirds of all combat aircraft in 1942-43, practically all torpedo bombers of the naval air forces were A-20G Bostons in 1944-45 etc.

Some American aircraft types were simply irreplaceable and very highly appreciated on all levels during the war, e.g. P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft.

Several Soviet aces scored more than 40 victories with Airacobras. G.A.Rechkalov's 50 victories are apparently the highest score ever with an American fighter, while the No.2 Soviet ace A.I.Pokryshkin claimed 48 of his 59 victories when flying Airacobras.

Initially the main Lend-lease route was by ship to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk in northern Russia. In 1942 two other supply routes were opened: a southern route via Iran (where the aircraft are assembled and flown into the southern part of the Soviet Union), and above all the ALSIB (Alaska-Siberia) route which was opened on 29 September 1942. The aircraft were flown by American crews to Fairbanks, Alaska, where they were handed over to a Soviet commission headed by Col. M.G.Machin, and ferried to Krasnoyarsk in Siberia by specially selected Soviet pilots of 1 PAD (ferry aviation divi sion) commanded by Arctic veteran-pilot Col. I.P.Mazuruk (HSU 27.6.1937)."

So Chevan, just the trucks and the spam ? This is exactly what I was saying... It was critical at that time, and the Murmansk convoys were the only supply route then.
Thanks for the link. Very detailed info.
I wonder... are you related to Stalin?:mrgreen:

Egorka

03-26-2008, 04:19 PM

So the Soviet union took lend lease aircraft to help the countrys who gave them?
That is what YOU say.

And secondly, if you venture into providing such an extensive quote in yout post it is a good taste to mention quote's refference or even better a link to the source. But you know what they say: One is never too old to learn. Here is your chance.

Egorka

03-26-2008, 04:27 PM

I think I was reacting to your perceived attitude overall and not one specific comment...
And what is my perceived overall attitude, may I ask?
How doe my attitude is seen on the other side of the Internet?

mike M.

03-26-2008, 04:42 PM

if you venture into providing such an extensive quote in yout post it is a good taste to mention quote's refference or even better a link to the source. But you know what they say: One is never too old to learn. Here is your chance.

Yes..your right, I should have put that down, my mistake. As for never being to old..I think im forgetting it faster than Im learning it. :)
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Lend-Lease-Fighter-World-Aircraft/dp/1846030412

Nickdfresh

03-26-2008, 04:51 PM

And what is my perceived overall attitude, may I ask?
How doe my attitude is seen on the other side of the Internet?

An attitude that is extremely defensive at the first mention of "lend lease." One that is seemingly reflexive and encoded in your DNA I might add...

Egorka

03-26-2008, 04:55 PM

That makes two of us !:roll:
Some extract from :
Lend-lease: Aircraft Deliveries to the Soviet Union
By Carl-Fredrik Geust posted by Chevan.I am not Chevan. I am Egorka. And I am proud of it above all expectations.

So Chevan, just the trucks and the spam ?
You inserted the word "just". Why did you do such an evil thing?

This is exactly what I was saying... It was critical at that time, and the Murmansk convoys were the only supply route then.At what time was it critical?
How do you define criticity of the situation?
Can you provide how the LL deliveries were distributed over time?

Thanks for the link. Very detailed info.
I wonder... are you related to Stalin?:mrgreen:
No I am not related to him.

Egorka

03-26-2008, 04:57 PM

Yes..your right, I should have put that down, my mistake. As for never being to old..I think im forgetting it faster than Im learning it. :)
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Lend-Lease-Fighter-World-Aircraft/dp/1846030412
Thanks mate! Though I already cought it with help of Google... :)

Egorka

03-26-2008, 05:11 PM

An attitude that is extremely defensive at the first mention of "lend lease." One that is seemingly reflexive and encoded in your DNA I might add...
Maybe... You see it is sometimes difficult to comprehend how the listener would perceive your words.

As of being defensive if it is true than it is maybe because I am put in such a position. My position is seen being defensive since my actions are reactive in this matter.

Something like that...

Ashes

03-26-2008, 10:06 PM

Hi Ashes,

Kruschev wrote it.

Marshall G.K. Zhukov.

Egorka

03-27-2008, 03:20 AM

Marshall G.K. Zhukov.
OK. Kruschev also wrote similar thing.

snebold

04-03-2008, 07:48 AM

The field radio´s is said to have been very important. The Soviet electronics industry was not well developed and could not supply them in anything approaching adequate numbers.
They might also have had to do without radars if the US had given them those, but I don´t know how important the Soviets thought they were.

(Thanks to Rising Sun and Egorka for having a sense of humour :D:D:D:D
(and I´m not thinking of Australian procreational habits)) :shock::)

Ashes

04-04-2008, 12:46 AM

Would it be safe to say the war would have lasted longer for the Soviets without lend lease?
But how much longer?
And what would that mean to the Soviet population?

Found this on another site.....''Soviet agriculture was barely functioning after 1941. The improvements in later years can only be attributed to American aid in delivering food stuffs and machinery (since the Soviets ceased all production on agricultural machinery)....... a lower food supply might have led to a stalled front for an additional few years and tens of millions more dead of starvation. Additionally, more millions would perish if the Soviets took longer to take the offensive. And without the mobility provided by the US, offensive operations consistent with Soviet doctrine might have taken years longer. The Soviet Union may well have experienced what Germany experienced during the 30 Years War where more than half the population perished. It is not a pleasant thought.''

Or quoting Glantz..... ''had Stalin and his commanders been left to their own devices, it "might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht," but "the ultimate result would probably have been the same''

Chevan

04-04-2008, 01:43 AM

Oh gentlemenns, you've lifted up old the conversation about LL
Interesting....

I think the basic conclusion arrived here is that Lend Lease was critical to enhancing the mobility of the Red Army and to alleviating some of the endemic logistical difficulties experienced. My personal belief (and I am admittedly well versed on all this) is that the USSR would not have been defeated without Lend Lease, but they wouldn't defeated the Germans either. The additional 12 to 18 months may have led to a negotiated settlement, if only a temporary one...
You my friend watch ONLY at the one side of problem.
In fact the LL was just a supplies that helped to wage the war, but the americans did not wish to fight as desperatelly as the other allies utill the 1944 in Europe.
They prefered the supplyed the Brits and Russkies fro gold and money:)( althought with the convenient conditions for all sides)
Jus take in mind..the LL provided the Red Army with about 15 000 of aircrafts and 7 000 of tanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
And a anourmous sum of strategical materials.
The Americans could form the whole several armies.
And send them to the Western Europe to beat the GErmans more quickly and effective.
So i doubt that the LL to USSR actually made the war shorter.
It just redistributed the Wearpon among allies- it made the Red Army and Britash troops stronger, but US army losed the certain strength at the same time.
Even if the LL to the USSR has not been started at all the Red Army could beat the Germans in the Soviet territory (as they have beated them in stalingrad in the 1942 when lend lise was still quite unsignificant).
But in this way the Red Army could not so effective beat the Germans in the Eastern Europe in the 1944-45.

Rising Sun*

04-04-2008, 02:02 AM

In fact the LL was just a supplies that helped to wage the war, but the americans did not wish to fight as desperatelly as the other allies utill the 1944 in Europe.
They prefered the supplyed the Brits and Russkies fro gold and money:)( althought with the convenient conditions for all sides).

Even if so, there was still the problem of marshalling the forces, transport and materiel for an invasion of Western Europe. Equipment that went to the Soviets before 1944 was a lot more effective against the Germans in Russian hands than it would have been sitting in England for a year or two waiting for the invasion.

The delay also bled the Western Front of better quality troops who were sent to the east, and also to Italy from 1943. They might have been more effective on D Day than the troops who were left by 6 June 1944.

From an overall Allied strategic viewpoint, once the risk of a German invasion of England had passed, it made more sense to beef up the Soviet ability to resist the Germans and, among other things, deny them access to oilfields and other resources in the east which would have greatly improved Germany's military position if the USSR was defeated.

Chevan

04-04-2008, 03:38 AM

I did not mean they should sit in the England or somewhere else.
They could fight in Italy, Africa or finally in Asia agains Japane.
Besides thsoe hypotetical armies could prevent the Eatsern Europe from the Soviet liberation ( Stalin would not had been started the Great soviet offensives of 1944-45 without strong LL support).
I do agree - the LL got the Allies additional time to prepear own armies, but don,t forget also - the LL helped Red Army occuped whole Eastern Europe and essential part of Western one.
The LL in fact was the thing that made position of Uncle Joe stronger in Tehrain and Yalta ( when the allies have started devide the post-war Europe)
So we have the one conclusion out of it- without LL the Soviets NEVER would have been spread their influence over the world after the victory.
From Cold war point - the LL to USSR had more the harm then the profit for USA.
And about marshalling forces to the USSR - i've read an article - that the allies convoys lost ( in average ) every 4 transport to the USSR.
So i do not think their loses would be higher if the USA moved trose forcer to the Africa or Italy to use it for own aims.

Egorka

04-04-2008, 05:14 AM

http://i27.tinypic.com/2nzfr.jpg

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 06:37 AM

Oh gentlemenns, you've lifted up old the conversation about LL

You my friend watch ONLY at the one side of problem.
In fact the LL was just a supplies that helped to wage the war, but the americans did not wish to fight as desperatelly as the other allies utill the 1944 in Europe.
...

What an incredibly foolish post that is completely contradicted by the actual historical record of the first conferences between officers of the US Army and the British Army. Perhaps you are ignorant of the facts? You've made this silly trash before, and I have responded to it about three times now, yet you keep ignoring the fact that you have little idea nor basis of what you are actually talking about...

The FACTS are that the US military wanted to begin planning for an invasion of France to take place in the spring or summer of 1942. But the senior British commanders along with Churchill managed to influence FDR and enough US generals that such an attack would be foolish given that the US Army was still new, under-equipped, and too small as they were fighting a two-front War and the Wehrmacht was too well equipped and experienced to mount such a desperate battle. The US and British Armies simply did not have enough divisions to directly confront Germany on French soil without a real possibility of being driven back into the sea. The compromise was North Africa. Then it was the Italian theater, which in turn went on for too long and it was the US commanders that had to wisely pull the the British out of their fixation on the Mediterranean (Italian) Theater in order to get them into France by 1944 (Churchill seemed obsessed with invading Austria through the Alps!). They truth is that it was your American cousins that expressed far more anxiety of the USSR falling than the British commanders did in those meetings, and shame of not being able to help them sooner, more directly, with a European invasion...

I'll post long specifics regarding this when I have more time...

But nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely nothing. It's a lie you learned under the Soviet system, and one oft repeated enough.

BTW, when did the Soviets go to War against Germany, again? What were the circumstances? Because I think if my history is correct, the great Marshal Stalin also did not seem inclined to fight Hitler until after he had co-conquered Poland with them, Hitler knocked France out of the War, and also drove the British out of Europe...

Oh yes, did I mention that Soviet fuel was in the panzers on their drive to the coast?

Lend-Lease indeed! :rolleyes:

Chevan

04-04-2008, 06:51 AM

Oh Nick in fury:)
It's so scarry..
So this everything is a Soviet lie...
Why did you not tell me about before?:)
Sure you right the Americans was wanted to save the USSR , but...."dastard Churchill" has persuaded don't do this.
Yes Nick this is true, nobody doubts.
The US and British Armies simply did not have enough divisions
But..they had still very enough wearpon to waste it for the Lend lise ower all the world:)
So why they prefered to supplied the allien armies, instead to create its own stronges army in the world?
BTW, when did the Soviets go to War against Germany, again? What were the circumstances?
This is not Soviet go to war agains GErmany but GErmans has started the war agains USSR Nick ( as well against USA after Perl-Harbor)

Chevan

04-04-2008, 07:12 AM

Because I think if my history is correct, the great Marshal Stalin also did not seem inclined to fight Hitler until after he had co-conquered Poland with them, Hitler knocked France out of the War, and also drove the British out of Europe...

Oh yes, did I mention that Soviet fuel was in the panzers on their drive to the coast?

Lend-Lease indeed! :rolleyes:
well your version of history is interesting Nick.:)
But i have to distress you - Stalin did not concuered "Poland", he just took back the Western Ukraine and Belorussia lands ( that were prevuously stolen by Poles).
So from pure political and moral poin- ONLY Ukrainians and Belorussians could blame Stalin for that actions:)
And yes - you did not mention that the Japs used the PURE American fuel when began the slaughtering in CHina and even when they attacked Pirl-Harbour.
But if Soviets had recieved a modern military tehnologies and brenchs from GErmany for soviet oil ( that later were used agaisn Germany) than Japs payd the money for American goods and oil without no tehnological benegfit for USA.

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 07:20 AM

Oh Nick in fury:)
It's so scarry..

LOL No, I just want this to be a board grounded in actual history; not in Chevan's revisionist, anxiety flaming...

So this everything is a Soviet lie...

But obviously "this" is. Since you keep uncritically repeating it without in any way factoring or considering that there were actual reasons why a ground war in Europe could not be fought before 1943, mainly since the US was not prepared for war and had to grow an Army that only introduced conscription in May of 1940, and had not only its own military to produce supplies for, but the Soviet, British, and "Free" ones as well. And of course for a multitude of resistance movements...

Why did you not tell me about before?:)

I have, no less than twice in a couple of the many flame threads here...

Sure you right the Americans was wanted to save the USSR , but...."dastard Churchill" has persuaded don't do this.
Yes Nick this is true, nobody doubts.

Um, that's not even remotely related to what I said. Is your translator broken again, or does it function selectively? Perhaps you don't understand, but there was a schism in the Allied high command and the British, at Churchill's and Brooke's behest, largely wanted to continue the War in Italy --even at the expense of Normandy. Certainly not all British officers found this a good idea and many have since been critical...

But..they had still very enough wearpon to waste it for the Lend lise ower all the world:)
So why they prefered to supplied the allien armies, instead to create its own stronges army in the world?

No, they didn't have any weapons to spare.

Perhaps you cannot see the inherent contradiction in your own post or are just completely irony impaired. But how was the US to build an army after years of it being an underequipped, underfunded "constabulary force" and supply everybody else as well? Feel free to Google on US tank production, which consisted largely of the M-2 up until 1940, and had only begun designing tanks that could match the German panzers in 1941 (The M-3 Grant). Their main anti-tank gun remained the 37mm and the US command was still reeling from the shock of the Fall of France and how they could counter such a force that caused it. The US Army at the end of 1941 was still scarcely over a million men TOTAL! And even then, that was because the peacetime draft was instituted for the first time in America ever only 18 months prior. Then they were to launch an amphibious invasion against what would have been a superior force in France, AFTER projecting such forces across an entire Ocean, WHILE supplying everybody and dedicating resources to the SECONDARY theater in the Pacific..

There simply were not enough divisions in the US Army at that time, and the ones available would have been less than the total of German ones in France...

Then, there is the question of Landing craft. I'm not sure how the US and Royal Navies/Coast Guards could have gotten the troops ashore...

This is not Soviet go to war agains GErmany but GErmans has started the war agains USSR Nick ( as well against USA after Perl-Harbor)

Oh, of course. But they failed to "help" France and Britain though. In fact, it almost seems they were providing much the Nazi Germany at that time as the Soviet gov't was their primary resource supplier.

I'm sorry, the USSR's enormous human toll and majority contributions to destroying the Wehrmacht should not be confused with martyrdom and apologism for the bastards that allowed it to happen. And they weren't in the US gov't..

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 07:26 AM

So, the Soviet and British pleas for help should have been ignored? Even though they were already engaged and suffering losses? Really?

And supplying the US military wasn't even the biggest problem. It was allocation of resources and even training enough men to form an army, which is also about time. So again, how was a US Army of scarcely over one million TRAINED soldiers and a British Army still making good its BEF-Battle of France losses supposed to open up a second front in Europe? Especially when the U-boat threat was prevalent and the Luftwaffe remained powerful in the West...

And oh yes, there was a matter of the Japanese that actually attacked the US. And where the 'cowardly' US troops 'that hated fighting' were actually engaged in it. And there were fears that the Japanese might attempt an invasion of Pearl harbor to use as a springboard to threaten the US West Coast...

This is not Soviet go to war agains GErmany but GErmans has started the war agains USSR Nick ( as well against USA after Perl-Harbor)

Just like Hitler was only saving the Germanic population in Poland, and retaliating for a dastardly border "Polish Army attack" on a German radio station... :rolleyes:

Chevan

04-04-2008, 07:51 AM

LOL No, I just want this to be a board grounded in actual history; not in Chevan's revisionist, anxiety flaming...

Oh you are starting it again..

But obviously "this" is. Since you keep uncritically repeating it without in any way factoring or considering that there were actual reasons why a ground war in Europe could not be fought before 1943, mainly since the US was not prepared for war and had to grow an Army that only introduced conscription in May of 1940, and had not only its own military to produce supplies for, but the Soviet, British, and "Free" ones as well. And of course for a multitude of resistance movements...

Just do not tell me that the whole two years since 1941-43 the USA was not enough to prepear the American army ( using the greates american industry) for the landind fight:)
Do you know a proverb- the one who wish - search the possibility, thea one who don't wish - search reason don't do it.:)

I have, no less than twice in a couple of the many flame threads here...

I can't count to the twice:)
And i don't remember

Um, that's not even remotely related to what I said. Is your translator broken again, or does it function selectively? Perhaps you don't understand, but there was a schism in the Allied high command and the British, at Churchill's and Brooke's behest, largely wanted to continue the War in Italy --even at the expense of Normandy. Certainly not all British officers found this a good idea and many have since been critical...

Just do not need to tell about my understanding of text.
This is wrong case, i do realize you well enough. Besides i've already read about
schism in Churchils memours ( and even post in here in forum).
My point is not that.
The problem that nobody in American command indeed has not found the serious arguments agains foolish plan of CHurchill ( that actually has been such)

No, they didn't have any weapons to spare.

Perhaps you cannot see the inherent contradiction in your own post or are just completely irony impaired. But how was the US to build an army after years of it being an underequipped, underfunded "constabulary force" and supply everybody else as well? Feel free to Google on US tank production, which consisted largely of the M-2 up until 1940, and had only begun designing tanks that could match the German panzers in 1941 (The M-3 Grant). Their main anti-tank gun remained the 37mm and the US command was still reeling from the shock of the Fall of France and how they could counter such a force that caused it. The US Army at the end of 1941 was still scarcely over a million men TOTAL! And even then, that was because the peacetime draft was instituted for the first time in America ever only 18 months prior. Then they were to launch an amphibious invasion against what would have been a superior force in France, AFTER projecting such forces across an entire Ocean, WHILE supplying everybody and dedicating resources to the SECONDARY theater in the Pacific..

Oh Nick.
it seems you who want to see the just convient facts in history.
The poor USA industry could not arm its OWN army with tanks and guns:)
it's so pity.
But at that same time they prodused the GIANT figure of Bombers and Ships for Britain, figters and tanks for Soviets.
And US tank production that provided the Soviet Army more tank that Germans even made during the war:)
The USA supplied 7 000, Germany has made just about 5000 of panthers and about 1200 Tigers)

There simply were not enough divisions in the US Army at that time, and the ones available would have been less than the total of German ones in France...

Oh it's a nightmare:)
The biggest 200++ millions state in the World , that armeds all the rest world with excellent wearpon, could not prepeare its own Army to fight with GErmans.
So sorry:)

Oh, of course. But they failed to "help" France and Britain though. In fact, it almost seems they were providing much the Nazi Germany at that time as the Soviet gov't was their primary resource supplier.

Oh really, So may be USA helped France or Britain in the 1939?
No, why?
Becouse they were TOO busy having trade and supplied the Japane Imperial Army.
BTW the some of American companies supplied Nazy via the Spain ALSO.
Your dear mst George Bush should know a lot about this:)
Is your version of History include such events?

I'm sorry, the USSR's enormous human toll and majority contributions to destroying the Wehrmacht should not be confused with martyrdom and apologism for the bastards that allowed it to happen. And they weren't in the US gov't..
And in what gov were they?

Egorka

04-04-2008, 07:58 AM

In fact, it almost seems they were providing much the Nazi Germany at that time as the Soviet gov't was their primary resource supplier.
Nick,
Could you , please, elaborate on the highlighted words.

Chevan

04-04-2008, 08:02 AM

So, the Soviet and British pleas for help should have been ignored? Even though they were already engaged and suffering losses? Really?

And supplying the US military wasn't even the biggest problem. It was allocation of resources and even training enough men to form an army, which is also about time. So again, how was a US Army of scarcely over one million TRAINED soldiers and a British Army still making good its BEF-Battle of France losses supposed to open up a second front in Europe? Especially when the U-boat threat was prevalent and the Luftwaffe remained powerful in the West...

Yea , much better to give the Brits and Russians time to make the GErmans power weaker and less , then to prepeare the OWN american Army in the 1942-43 for full scale invasion:)
This is so hard task Nick, for America, smalles and helpless country in the world :rolleyes:

And oh yes, there was a matter of the Japanese that actually attacked the US. And where the 'cowardly' US troops 'that hated fighting' were actually engaged in it. And there were fears that the Japanese might attempt an invasion of Pearl harbor to use as a springboard to threaten the US West Coast...

Oh one more reason do nothing- the supposed "Japane Invasion" to the US western coast:)
We have a lot of fun here already Nick.
Japs even wasn't able to attack Australia ( they have no troops and ships for that )

Just like Hitler was only saving the Germanic population in Poland, and retaliating for a dastardly border "Polish Army attack" on a German radio station... :rolleyes:
No. Pirl-Harbour wasn't the radio-production. Japans planned the real show not Hitlers's opera.

Rising Sun*

04-04-2008, 08:21 AM

Oh one more reason do nothing- the supposed "Japane Invasion" to the US western coast:)
We have a lot of fun here already Nick.
Japs even wasn't able to attack Australia ( they have no troops and ships for that )

The Allies didn't know that at the time.

It was reasonable to suppose that Japan was aiming at an invasion of, or a raid upon, or at least attacking the American west coast.

Which is exactly what American military planners prudently prepared for. And which was one of the reasons that it limited America's ability to train and export troops to Europe, among other places.

At the beginning of 1942 the presumed risk of direct attack spurred the creation of Eastern and Western Theaters of Operations, which included, respectively, the east and west coasts of the United States. These had been the old Eastern and Western Defense Commands. The two theaters contained the majority of the trained combat troops and squadrons in the United States. The lack of any tangible danger, however, permitted General Headquarters to reduce these establishments in short order. It abolished the Eastern theater in March 1942 and the Western theater later in the same year. Manpower remained the limiting factor. It was impossible for the Army both to garrison the long frontiers of the United States and to superintend the training of the mass Army needed to fight an offensive war. Offensive action had the clear priority, and almost immediately the manning of defensive garrisons began to take second place to the training needs of the Army. http://www.ibiblio.net/hyperwar////USA/USA-C-Americas/index.html

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 08:38 AM

Nick,
Could you , please, elaborate on the highlighted words.

Um, it is the fact that the Germany was dependent on Soviet foodstuffs, petroleum, and raw materials prior to the Battle of France and Barbarossa as per the non-aggression pact...

One of the key Entente strategies was to essentially isolate Germany and to take advantage of their strategic advantage over Germany in 1939 and 40'. Mainly because they wanted to go over to the offensive in 1941 and ultimately to get the Soviets to cut off Germany. Hitler realized this and it is one fo the key reasons behind "Fall Gelb" and "Sickle Cut" in France, which was seen as a dangerous gamble by most Wehrmacht officers...

Rising Sun*

04-04-2008, 08:45 AM

Yea , much better to give the Brits and Russians time to make the GErmans power weaker and less , then to prepeare the OWN american Army in the 1942-43 for full scale invasion:)
This is so hard task Nick, for America, smalles and helpless country in the world :rolleyes:

American troops were disgraced in their first battle with the Germans. It was at the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in February 1943, where many green American troops ran from their first contact with the battle hardened enemy.

The battle exposed numerous flaws in American soldiering and equipment

The Americans learnt from this and came back later as much more effective troops with better equipment, as shown in Italy.

Here's an AA biased appreciation of the battle and its lessons, but there were lessons for all arms. http://www.skylighters.org/hammer/chapter4.html

Ignoring the absence of landing craft and support naval and merchant shipping and logistical back up in mid 1943, let alone mid 1942, the American experience at the Kasserine Pass shows they would have been slaughtered in any multi-division attempt at a Second Front across the Channel, or anywhere else. That they were able to do it so well in mid 1944 speaks volumes for their ability to learn and adapt their training, tactics, and equipment to D Day which was an impossibly larger task than the Kasserine Pass where they failed on a vastly smaller scale not quite two and half years earlier.

Chevan

04-04-2008, 08:58 AM

One of the key Entente strategies was to essentially isolate Germany and to take advantage of their strategic advantage over Germany in 1939 and 40'. Mainly because they wanted to go over to the offensive in 1941 and ultimately to get the Soviets to cut off Germany. Hitler realized this and it is one fo the key reasons behind "Fall Gelb" and "Sickle Cut" in France, which was seen as a dangerous gamble by most Wehrmacht officers...
But there was and other strategy Nick.
They obviously was aimed to isolate the USSR also intill the 1939.
They did not let CHehoslovakia use the Soviet help in 1938 during the Germans intervention, right?
Besides they refused the Soviet-Western alliance that could effectively stopped the Germans.

Chevan

04-04-2008, 09:01 AM

The Allies didn't know that at the time.

It was reasonable to suppose that Japan was aiming at an invasion of, or a raid upon, or at least attacking the American west coast.

Which is exactly what American military planners prudently prepared for. And which was one of the reasons that it limited America's ability to train and export troops to Europe, among other places.

Soory RS if you don't know somthing critically importaint- you will do everything to learn it, right.
There is the special intelligence units that used for getting information.
The Soviets not all time knew what Germans were going to do in the front.
Doest it mean they should do nothing?

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 09:04 AM

Oh you are starting it again..

Just do not tell me that the whole two years since 1941-43 the USA was not enough to prepear the American army ( using the greates american industry) for the landind fight:)
Do you know a proverb- the one who wish - search the possibility, thea one who don't wish - search reason don't do it.:)

Moi? Starting? :)

I can't count to the twice:)
And i don't remember

Maybe it was the electric shocks at the sanatorium? ;)

Just do not need to tell about my understanding of text.
This is wrong case, i do realize you well enough. Besides i've already read about
schism in Churchils memours ( and even post in here in forum).
My point is not that.
The problem that nobody in American command indeed has not found the serious arguments agains foolish plan of CHurchill ( that actually has been such)

They did in fact. The simple overview is that Churchill was right at first, then he was wrong to continue to focus on the Mediterranean. There are various arguments to be made, but hindsight says the Americans were wrong about invading France in 1942, but that an invasion could probably have taken place in the Summer of 1943, but by then, the Western Allies were engaged in Italy in terrain which heavily favored the German defense of it and men and materials were being siphoned off to a theater that favored the Germans (although one which absorbed many German resources as well admittedly)...

Ideally, Sicily would have been secured than a holding action fought in Italy, which still would have destabilized the Germans, then a cross channel attack could have been mounted. But that didn't happen..

Oh Nick.
it seems you who want to see the just convient facts in history.
The poor USA industry could not arm its OWN army with tanks and guns:)
it's so pity.

Who said this? They did just that.

But perhaps you can explain the size of the US Army to me between 1941 and June of 1942 and their disposition...

But at that same time they prodused the GIANT figure of Bombers and Ships for Britain, figters and tanks for Soviets.
And US tank production that provided the Soviet Army more tank that Germans even made during the war:)
The USA supplied 7 000, Germany has made just about 5000 of panthers and about 1200 Tigers)

You speak as if the US was a magical, boundless place of production. It wasn't. They "produced" this throughout the War, not just between the Summers of 1940 and 1942. The US transitioned over to a full War economy even before the Germans did and relatively smoothly largely thanks to much prewar contingency planning in Roosevelt's administration and Gen. George C. Marshall. But that still took time! Especially after the ravages of the Depression. The economic infrastructure was there, but the actual industry had decayed a bit and still had to be transitioned to producing tanks and aircraft. The US was still producing passenger cars into 1942!

Oh it's a nightmare:)
The biggest 200++ millions state in the World , that armeds all the rest world with excellent wearpon, could not prepeare its own Army to fight with GErmans.
So sorry:)
Oh really, So may be USA helped France or Britain in the 1939?
No, why?

Um, the US pop. was 120 million then I believe. And the numbers of military aged men changes nothing is they are not trained an equipped to go to war. Expansion took time, and I might remind you that more soldiers of the Red Army were killed or captured than existed in the entire US Army on the eve of Pearl Harbor..

The US was powerless to do much outside of project naval and air forces in 1939. Its Army was less than 200,000 men who mostly still used WWI era equipment and doctrine. The French Army was considered the most "powerful" in the world at the time and the Entente was very confident in their ultimate victory in a long war. Even if the US had declared War, France may well have failed even before the US had any sort of sizable army, and it was the very Fall of France that politically enabled FDR to expand US forces and shocked even the most ardent Isolationist...

Becouse they were TOO busy having trade and supplied the Japane Imperial Army.
BTW the some of American companies supplied Nazy via the Spain ALSO.
Your dear mst George Bush should know a lot about this:)
Is your version of History include such events?

And in what gov were they?

My God man, seriously. Where do you get your histories? The US "supplied" the Japanese IA? The US emplaced an embargo over Japanese outrages in China which sparked the war to begin with. What US weapons did Japan use?

And yes, US companies dealt with the Nazis. As they did with Stalin, and as Stalin dealt with Hitler...

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 09:20 AM

...silliness already addressed...:

Oh one more reason do nothing- the supposed "Japane Invasion" to the US western coast:)
We have a lot of fun here already Nick.
Japs even wasn't able to attack Australia ( they have no troops and ships for that )

No. Pirl-Harbour wasn't the radio-production. Japans planned the real show not Hitlers's opera.

Hindsight! At the time, you might have seen an advancing Japanese Imperial Army winning victory after victory as a bit more formidable. The incident over the phantom air raid in the "Battle of Las Angeles" shows how panicky and unpredictable things had become..And even the Aussies believed that they might be next which is why the US built up its forces...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

Rising Sun*

04-04-2008, 09:20 AM

Soory RS if you don't know somthing critically importaint- you will do everything to learn it, right.
There is the special intelligence units that used for getting information.
The Soviets not all time knew what Germans were going to do in the front.
Doest it mean they should do nothing?

The Americans did exactly what the Soviets did when threatened with invasion.

Moved troops to their borders to meet the threat.

What else should they have done?

Rung up Tojo and asked him, on scout's honour, if he was going to attack the continental US and get him to promise not to cross his fingers behind his back when he answered?

Or sent troops to the USSR, which wouldn't have let them land in a fit?

The Americans didn't do anything in 1941- 42, unless you consider minor events like the Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, the Doolittle Raid (where the Soviets kindly interned one of the crews in poor conditions as recognition of their fraternal regard for the Americans), and a vicious defence in the Philippines as doing nothing.

The USSR always had the advantage of fighting on its own land mass. America never did. All its land battles were fought a long, long way away, yet it, and Britain, managed this while still sending supplies and equipment to the USSR.

I don't recall much going back the other way, or were there some T-34s landed in North Africa, Italy and Normandy under Yak air cover?

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 09:40 AM

American troops were disgraced in their first battle with the Germans. It was at the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in February 1943, where many green American troops ran from their first contact with the battle hardened enemy.

The battle exposed numerous flaws in American soldiering and equipment

The Americans learnt from this and came back later as much more effective troops with better equipment, as shown in Italy.

Here's an AA biased appreciation of the battle and its lessons, but there were lessons for all arms. http://www.skylighters.org/hammer/chapter4.html

Ignoring the absence of landing craft and support naval and merchant shipping and logistical back up in mid 1943, let alone mid 1942, the American experience at the Kasserine Pass shows they would have been slaughtered in any multi-division attempt at a Second Front across the Channel, or anywhere else. That they were able to do it so well in mid 1944 speaks volumes for their ability to learn and adapt their training, tactics, and equipment to D Day which was an impossibly larger task than the Kasserine Pass where they failed on a vastly smaller scale not quite two and half years earlier.

All very true, although, I would caveat that the Kasserine was not the first time that US troops came into contact with the Germans, and that US formations had fought extensively with the Vichy French and had fought a few German units, sometimes with a mixture of success, failure, exuberance cowardice, and stupidity. But there was no shortage of incompetence after the shock many recieved when they learned how tough, well trained, and equipped the Germans were, which in turn improved them. The equipment was probably there and getting better, but Kasserine exposed flaws in conceptualizations (i.e. the Tank Destroyer doctrine) and the poor state of some of the overage officers that were fine in a peace time or a training environment, but fell apart in battle. Specifically, an example would be Gen. Friedendall and his paralysis of decision making at the Pass. He would replaced with Gen. Patton, and had previously spent a good deal of time well behind the lines and sapping his engineering talent by ordering them to build a bunker of mythic scale and proportions. But he was emblematic of many and it took time to balance out the US Army and make them a consistent fighting force and to purge the largely prewar dead-weight of senior officers, and the US Army still had to overcome its sometimes dogmatic doctrine and training by retraining the "replacements" once they got into theater and ignoring their manuals, right up until the end of the War...

I'll have to pull out my copy of "An Army at Dawn," but I believe the Germans had something like 26 Divisions in France, and it would have taken months from the start of an invasion before the Anglo-Americans would have any sort of equivalent power, much less a minimum of a 2:1 advantage. That's assuming a force of a few divisions didn't get slaughtered and managed to maintain a large beachhead. They would have been lucky to have even pulled off an Anzio, and if it didn't turn into a larger Dieppe. But I think the Battle of the Kasserine Pass stands out as it was the first large scale counteroffensive launched against US forces, it should also be mentioned that the Germans also missed an opportunity to do more damage and ultimately sealed their fate in that battle..

*Edit: I never knew the Afrika Korp began the attack with infiltrators dressed in US uniforms...

Nickdfresh

04-04-2008, 09:50 AM

...
Or sent troops to the USSR, which wouldn't have let them land in a fit?

...

I believe this was seriously considered. I need to read more about it though...

snebold

04-04-2008, 01:09 PM

I doubt very much that there was landing craft enough to mount a succesful invasion in 1943. It would be impossible to mount an invasion of the 1944 size.

Chevan: Could you write me as soon as you can find a pole who agrees with you?!
The Russian empire have swelled over the borders of many minor countries, and to claim that all that was at one time part of the Russian empire (or part of any other empire) should remain so is both stupid and dangerous.

Ashes

04-05-2008, 12:52 AM

The FACTS are that the US military wanted to begin planning for an invasion of France to take place in the spring or summer of 1942. But the senior British commanders along with Churchill managed to influence FDR and enough US generals that such an attack would be foolish given that the US Army was still new, under-equipped, and too small as they were fighting a two-front War and the Wehrmacht was too well equipped and experienced to mount such a desperate battle. The US and British Armies simply did not have enough divisions to directly confront Germany on French soil without a real possibility of being driven back into the sea. The compromise was North Africa. Then it was the Italian theater, which in turn went on for too long and it was the US commanders that had to wisely pull the the British out of their fixation on the Mediterranean (Italian) Theater in order to get them into France by 1944 (Churchill seemed obsessed with invading Austria through the Alps!). They truth is that it was your American cousins that expressed far more anxiety of the USSR falling than the British commanders did in those meetings, and shame of not being able to help them sooner, more directly, with a European invasion...

I'll post long specifics regarding this when I have more time...

Yep, I think that nails it, U.S. army wanted to get at the throat of the Nazis ASAP with Operation Sledgehammer in '42 and Roundup in '43, but the Brits were pursuing their traditional strategy of diversionary attacks on the perimeter of an enemy dominated Europe, while providing as much aid as possible to her continental allies and also preparing for an eventual invasion.
But only if the invasion had a good chance of success.

Although we're a little off topic I found the following interesting

It's impossible to say for certain that an invasion of France in 1943 would have failed. But without complete mastery of the air [which was not achieved till 1944] specialised landing craft, etc, it is difficult to see how an opposed landing, attempted by inexperienced American troops and commanders, would have been possible. What made Overlord [or "Roundup" as it was then called] impossible in 1943 was the demands of operation Torch in '42/43. In other words, it was either one or the other. An invasion of France in '43 would have meant no Torch in '42. So a D Day in 1943 would have been the first meeting of American and German ground forces -- and bearing in mind the American experience at Kasserine, this might very easily have been a disaster

And even if the Allies DID establish a beachhead in France in 1943, there seems to be no reason to assume that this would necessarily have won the war any sooner or any more cheaply than the strategy that was employed. The assumption seems to be that the war would somehow just automatically end one year after the invasion of France -- i.e. if you move this one event forward then everything else would have been moved forward as well. Very convenient, but is there really any basis for such an assumption? By 1943 the Second World War had become a great war of attrition. The German Army still had to be beaten, and it was considerably stronger in 1943 than it was a year later, following further crippling losses in Russia, in North Africa, and Italy. Would a reduced Allied invasion force have made rapid progress against the much stronger German [and Italian for that matter] forces? It seems doubtful to me. How long might the Allies have been restricted to their beachhead in these circumstances? It is easy to imagine Roundup having turned into a campaign very similar to that which emerged in Italy [or perhaps Anzio would be a better analogy], only on a larger scale. In all likelihood it seems that a Second Front in France in '43 would probably have got bogged down and turned into a prolonged war of attrition similar to what was happening on the Eastern Front.

Industrial capacity is not immediately convertible into military strength. The Americans needed time to build up and train their forces before they could hope to engage the full weight of the German Army in France. North Africa, Sicily and Italy offered theatres where they could meet the Axis forces on roughly equal terms, gain valuable experience and divert German forces from the Eastern Front [and later from France.] At the same time, by 1944 Italy had clearly become a strategic dead end, and the Americans were probably absolutely right to have made the British stick to Overlord.

Egorka

04-05-2008, 03:19 AM

@Nickdfresh,

Could you please reply on the post #62 (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=122029&postcount=62). Thanks.

Egorka

04-05-2008, 03:27 AM

The Russian empire have swelled over the borders of many minor countries, and to claim that all that was at one time part of the Russian empire (or part of any other empire) should remain so is both stupid and dangerous.
Perhaps you can tell me what was the reason for the numerous wars that Denmark waged against it's neighbours. Were the reasons much different?
And considering the difference in country sizes it makes Denmark not that much less landgrabing than Russia.

Rising Sun*

04-05-2008, 04:06 AM

It's impossible to say for certain that an invasion of France in 1943 would have failed. But without complete mastery of the air [which was not achieved till 1944] specialised landing craft, etc, it is difficult to see how an opposed landing, attempted by inexperienced American troops and commanders, would have been possible. My bold.

Excellent point!

snebold

04-05-2008, 05:15 AM

Egorka:

The difference is that no one in Denmark is agitating for a return to Denmark of territory won and lost in stupid wars, and neither the population or the government entertain fantasies of empire.

Where borders ought to be is something we can discuss forever. The right of the mighty usually decides borders. In "the right of the mighty" equation you can delete "right", and this is why not all borders are undisputed or right. We need an Earth twice the size, if everybody should have their more or less rightful claims to land.

Nickdfresh

04-05-2008, 09:50 AM

@Nickdfresh,

Could you please reply on the post #62 (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=122029&postcount=62). Thanks.

See post #65...

If you want numbers, I'll see what I can come up with. My comments are based on recollections of reading Deighton and Keegan, and the Wiki link, on the Battle of France.

A TIME Magazine article from February 26, 1940 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,763234,00.html
):

Germany's No. 1 economic war problem is to persuade, by hook or crook, her neighbors to produce and deliver to her much-needed war materials. The Allies' big job is to persuade them not to. Last week's action on the trade front went mostly in favor of the Nazis:

— Last August, just before the Nazi-Communist non-aggression treaty was signed, the Soviet Union and Germany concluded a barter trade treaty. Germany gave $80,000,000 worth of credits to be applied to manufactured goods to the Soviet Union; Russia reciprocated with the promise of $72,000,000 worth of raw materials. The exchange was to cover two years.

Since then Russian trade with Britain and France has virtually collapsed, and Germany has lost half of all her import & export trade because of the blockade. As a result a German trade mission headed by Dr. Karl Ritter, former Nazi Ambassador to Brazil and largely responsible for the huge pre-war Brazilian-German barter trade, has been in Moscow to make bigger,better arrangements. Last week, as the mission started for home, it was announced that another Nazi-Bolshevik trade treaty had been signed which, Nazi officials boasted, would give Germany all the imports she needs to defeat the purposes of the Allied blockade. The Russians were not less boastful in pointing out that Russia's raw materials and Germany's industrial plants complement each other.

The new treaty's terms were kept a military secret, but bragging Nazis let it be known that they expected the exchange of German manufactures, arms and industrial installations for Russian oil, wheat, cotton, fodder and manganese to reach more than $400,000,000—i.e., more than in 1931, the banner year for Soviet-German trade. Most people thought the Nazis were having day dreams.

In Berlin there was talk of German technicians going in force to "organize Russia"—particularly her railroads, refineries, canal system. This was easier said than done. The job would take years, the Russians themselves might not like such a big dose of German efficiency and the whole business would be contingent on the continuation of a standstill war in the west. While the Russian transportation system never has been much, Germany's has been so overworked of late that it has begun seriously to deteriorate. Despite all the bluff about Russia supplying oil to the Reich, it was noted last week that at the Rumanian port of Constantsa on the Black Sea, the first post-pact Russian tanker with oil consigned to Germany had just arrived. The shipment—12,000 tons—was to be refined in Rumania and then shipped by rail through Hungary to the Reich—a long, expensive process. ...

Egorka

04-06-2008, 05:39 PM

The difference is that no one in Denmark is agitating for a return to Denmark of territory won and lost in stupid wars, and neither the population or the government entertain fantasies of empire.
Right. So who in Russia agitates for that?

Where borders ought to be is something we can discuss forever. The right of the mighty usually decides borders. In "the right of the mighty" equation you can delete "right", and this is why not all borders are undisputed or right. We need an Earth twice the size, if everybody should have their more or less rightful claims to land.Agreed!

snebold

04-06-2008, 08:02 PM

Chevan

04-07-2008, 04:52 AM

Egorka: Some seem to do...

...but perhaps I have something some of you asked for here:

The details of the German-Soviet trade treaty were agreed upon in feb1940.
This was for the year to come for a value of 600-700million RM (1 dollar = about 2 RM at that time), less than the Germans had hoped for, but to the Germans the importance was they more or less got what they needed most.
The USSR became the main source of imported animal feed.
In 1940 USSR supplied Germany with:
74% of its phosphates needs
67% of its imported asbestos
55% of its manganese
40% of its imported nickel
34% of its imported oil

This is just part of the true.
The USSR also got a lot of the strategic materials, precise industry equipment and military goods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Soviet_Trade_Agreement#German_money

Germany granted the Soviet Union a merchandise credit of 200 million Reichsmarks to be financed by the German Golddiskontbank. This loan would be 100% guaranteed by the German government and entail an interest rate of 5%; extremely favorable terms at the time.

The credit was to be used to finance Soviet orders in Germany to include machinery, manufactured goods, war materials and hard currency.

For the USSR that was under trade embargo from the West- this was also very profitable.
The Special Germans credit ( in very well conditions) make the Soviet iindustrial and economical pre-war ris more effective.
In fact the Germans provided and supplied since 1939-41 above 80% of soviet industrial equipment that had been later used for mass production of soviet wearpon.

"The conclusion of this treaty has saved us" -Quatermaster General of the German army Eduard Wagner.

Source: The Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze

Holy true, but not full:)

The Soviet-Germans treaty let the chance USSR to avoid the German/Japane-Soviet War in the 1939 ( or at least remove it for two years further).This threaty had demonstated to agressive Japanes that Germans "betrayed" them. ( keep in mind that they were in alliance: Italin-German-Japan Anti-commintern Pact).
So in fact this agreement was very importaint for the USSR - this destruct the possible Japane-Nazy actions agains Soviet Union.
As the direct resault of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - the Japs fully refused its plans to attack the Soviet far East. Instead they had began to develop the attack of the Southern-Eastern Asia.
Thus, Eduagard Wagned absolutly right( even more deeper that he probably thought)- this treaty finally saved USSR rather more that it saved GErmany :)

snebold

04-07-2008, 07:52 AM

I didn´t mean to say that the USSR did not get something in return! It was just that some here, seemed to look for information on what Germany did get.

They also got 1mill t. wheat, 1mill t oil, 300000t scrap iron and 500000t iron ore, but still 45% of the German iron consumption in 1940 came from Sweden.

And the Germans paid a price of course, fx. in technology transfers that they´d soon wish that hadn´t done, but can this
In fact the Germans provided and supplied since 1939-41 above 80% of soviet industrial equipment that had been later used for mass production of soviet wearpon.
really be true?! (80%?!)

In that case we really speak of the nazi´s digging their own graves...

Chevan

04-07-2008, 08:52 AM

really be true?! (80%?!)

In that case we really speak of the nazi´s digging their own graves...
Actually in some field of special equipments even 100%.
I've read a source ( this is in russian) where the author speaks about the Special metal-turned
benchs of great scale.In the whole USSR there were just a few of such ( all are the GErmans).All of them have been used for the production of Big Caliber Artillery guns.Besides according of conditions of Soviet-GErman Trade treaty, Germans have been obligated to send to the USSR the ONE kind of the each Wearpon that would selected by the special soviet comission.
Thus already in the 1940 Soviets has got the few german BF-109 and T-IV.
The soviets engeenesr had carefully studied all of them.
Besides as you may be know - neither Western Europe nor USA did not sell the Military industry equipment to the USSR (ONLY when Lend lise has been started - the USA according soviet ask- has started to supply the benchs)
So in fact the ONLY Germany supplied Soviets with a some kind og HIGH-TECH ( at that time) ecupment.
Due to Soviet -Germans industrial cooperation - the Soviet standards of Industial prodaction were UNIFY with GErmans ones.
i.e. for instance the bearings were the simular to germans sizes.
So you could even see the old photos of T-34 with the wheels bears with inscription "made in Germany"
We saw one of such amazing photo in the other thread.