Importance of American lend-lease to Soviet war effort in WW II?

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, one final thing. If Hearts of Iron lives up to his potential in terms of realism, I propose the following multiplayer grudge match: David Floyd (Germany) vs. serb (Soviet Union). Then we'll see

Will see. I'll bury you, boy.
PM to me when you'll get it.

[The Vagabond]

But be compassionate, Serb. Don't bury him too deep.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not exactly. For example, in 1945 the Soviet Union produced barely 40% the number of aircraft the US did.

Well, if so, we outproduced you in the number of tanks.

[Serb]

It's David's fantasy. He still didn't gave me info about TOTAL number of planes in USAF and red Army air forces.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Dry

Yes, but no.
100% agree with the number for UK, but the 11 billions to USSR is not the total amount of the lend-lease, it is the total amount of goods sent to USSR.
Real lend-lease to USSR started only in 42 (43? not sure). The first billions were NOT part of the lend-lease and had to be pay cash by USSR.
And don't forget those 11 bil have to be spread over 3 or 4 years. IIRC only 1 bil. (cash) in 42; 3 bil (?) in 43 and the rest (lend-lease) later.

Moscow was not saved by lend-lease, it was saved by an ordinary business contract, payed cash.
At the time of Stalingrad, I'm not sure, but I think yes, lend-lease was already active.

Dry raised an interesting point. Did USSR receive lend-lease materials gratis, or was it some kind of trade-off?

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
But be compassionate, Serb. Don't bury him too deep.

Net uzh, zakopayu po samoe ne baluisa. Zaebal menya etot tzar David.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Dry raised an interesting point. Did USSR receive lend-lease materials gratis, or was it some kind of trade-off?

Samo-saboy. Yanki delali babki kak obichno.
Of course it was trade. No matter what David think, those convoys weren't empty when they were on way back to USA.
SU paid its debts for Lend-Lease up to 70s.

[JCG]

Originally posted by David Floyd Yes, but the point is dead soldiers can't participate in counter attacks.

Well, you've also mentioned below that in real life a vast number of the defenders were killed too...Yet in real life we saw a counterattack, too...

Thus probably it would have been smaller, but not much so, considering the already high number of real life Siberian casualties. (This is all without taking into account any possible serious"loss" of the hub yet, see below).

"Partially rebuild it"...not "out of the question"....certainly far away from having complete control over an undamaged rail network, wouldn't you agree?

Yes. It would have caused a good number of problems for them. But there are other factors (mentioned elsewhere in this reply) to take into account.

Except for the incalculable advantage of the Red Army being relatively immobile during the time when they had the best chance to push back the Germans.

Yes, but still, a small part of the mobility problems may have been resolved over the winter, so future operations wouldn't be paralyzed, just impaired.

In that note, did the vastly larger part of the Russian counterattacking army use the full and complete length of the hub? Do you know that for sure?

If not, then considerable forces could have made a reduced push, which even if it eventually failed horribly, would have cost the Germans a smaller number of kms but still many men...Yet, I agree that they'd have a better 1942, IF they were to attack Moscow then (see final paragraph below).

Probably not - weather defeated the Germans. If they had started earlier, and gone for an early Moscow option instead of for Kiev, Moscow probably would have been taken.

As things were, Typhoon came pretty damn close to succeeding, wiping out almost 7/8 of the Soviet forces defending Moscow.

I agree that without the Kiev diversion Moscow could have been taken...but could it have been held?

Even if Moscow was in their hands earlier, I doubt it would remain so for long if you add in the later coming of Russian reinforcements and a harsh Winter to soldiers who would still be starved and tired from the long campaign and the fierce urban combat in the Moscow area.

Then again, if about 7/8 of the Russian defenders died in real life 1941, that also means that the Russians still had enough manpower from other sources to launch their counterattack, even after that tremendous loss. (but see question about the hub above)

What you aren't getting is that if the Russians were unable to launch a credible counteroffensive in Winter of 1941, they would have probably simply launched a ridiculous one because of political pressure. This would have the double-whammy effect of eliminating several hundred thousand more Soviet troops, AND allowing the Germans to start their 1942 offensive much further east.

Don't tell me that wouldn't have been significant.

Yes, of course.

But tell me, do you think that Hitler would change his 1942 decisions? Would he have attacked Moscow again in 1942, for example, instead of Stalingrad/Caucasus?

If you also eliminate/smarten up Hitler, then by all means I'd agree that the war in the East may have possibly been "won" (if there were no West Front), or more likely stalemated in the Germans favor (with a West Front)...if nobody else made similar mistakes.

[The Vagabond]

So it wasn't gratis...

[chequita guevara]

Another point for why the Balkan invasions didn't slow the Nazis down. Russia is very muddy during Spring, so the invasion would have bogged down if they invaded before June.

[Serb]

You are absolutely right.
Muddy during Spring, muddy during Autmn, cold during Winter and hot during Summer- an extremly hostile emviroment.

[notyoueither]

BTW. The Americans and British supplied about 10,000 tanks to the Soviet Union. the Soviets built about 102,000 themselves.

That puts Lend-lease at about 10% of AFVs.

Not very significant, I guess.

[David Floyd]

Vagabond,

Well, if so, we outproduced you in the number of tanks.

Actually yes, most sources I have seen indicate that the Soviet Union slightly outproduced the US in tanks and AFVs. Of course, one should also remember that a HUGE percentage of US production was going into shipbuilding, as compared to a tiny percentage of Soviet production. For example, the US produced something like 30 million tons of merchant shipping, 28 aircraft carriers, over 100 escort carriers, 8 battleships, over 40 cruisers, and over 300 destroyers during the war.

Believe me, even a single destroyer takes a lot more effort than a tank, or even a bunch of tanks.

In spite of this concentration on shipbuilding, however, the US outproduced the Soviets by a ratio of greater than 2 to 1 in aircraft production, and this total included around 90,000 strategic bombers, of which the Soviet Union had virtually none.

So, yes, the Soviet Union produced more tanks than the US, but this greater production was in a large part due to Lend Lease resources (which provided 56% of all Soviet aluminum, for example), Lend Lease machine tools (which accounted for 28% of the Soviet total, including the most complex and versatile ones), and the fact that the US was outproducing the Soviets in aircraft by a factor of over 2 to 1, and outproducing them EXPONENTIALLY in shipbuilding.

Dry raised an interesting point. Did USSR receive lend-lease materials gratis, or was it some kind of trade-off?

The US didn't receive anything at the time, other than keeping the Soviet Union in the war. Soviet payments to the US after the war are pretty irrelevant to the current discussion.

serb,

No matter what David think, those convoys weren't empty when they were on way back to USA.

And what exactly was the Soviet Union shipping the US? I can't think of any natural resource, and they certainly weren't shipping us military equipment or food. So what was it, precisely? Air?

JCG,

Well, you've also mentioned below that in real life a vast number of the defenders were killed too...Yet in real life we saw a counterattack, too...

Thus probably it would have been smaller, but not much so, considering the already high number of real life Siberian casualties. (This is all without taking into account any possible serious"loss" of the hub yet, see below).

Ah, but in real life, the surviving Siberian troops provided a cadre of veterans for the hundreds of thousands of fresh conscripts to rally around and learn from.

Yes, but still, a small part of the mobility problems may have been resolved over the winter, so future operations wouldn't be paralyzed, just impaired.

Yes, future operations such as transporting troops to Stalingrad would certainly be impaired. That is more significant than you seem to think.

If not, then considerable forces could have made a reduced push, which even if it eventually failed horribly, would have cost the Germans a smaller number of kms but still many men...Yet, I agree that they'd have a better 1942, IF they were to attack Moscow then (see final paragraph below).

Of course, this assumes that Moscow would have been retaken. I don't necessarily agree that it would have been, especially if Typhoon succeeded in wiping out all of the defenders, rather than just most, leaving the new conscripts no veterans in their ranks.

notyoueither,

BTW. The Americans and British supplied about 10,000 tanks to the Soviet Union. the Soviets built about 102,000 themselves.

That puts Lend-lease at about 10% of AFVs.

Not very significant, I guess.

Yes, we all agree that Lend Lease tank shipments did not significantly affect the war. However, Lend Lease tank shipments were not the vital part of Lend Lease, which you would know if you'd read the entire thread from the beginning

[David Floyd]

Oh, and here's a quote from Zhukov.

I assume you've heard of him, and agree he's probably an authority, serb?

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 ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries.

Further:

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.

These quotes are from interviews with Zhukov in 1965 and 1966, and are also corroborated by NKVD listening devices.

My source for that is:

"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV

Hmmm...written by a Russian....any more comments, serb?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Serb

And finally: I'm not anti-american, not at all. The United States are a fascinating country, and although I would never move over the pond, I enjoyed my short staying and I have a couple of dear friends there. What makes some of my statements sound anti-american is, that I can't stand this pride stuff and that I'm consequently anti-war (except in civ games that is ) and therefor believe, that this fascinating country is led by, well let's say it not using bad words, a sick and greedy government.

You are anti-American

Yea, sure... But wait, in this case I must be also anti-Russian. While I like Russia as country, have a lot of Russian friends, have a Russian wife and lived in Russia for years, I heavily criticized Yeltsins policy in the 90s. And before you respond that Yeltsin is gone, yes, Putin is a bit better, but not much (menja ne povesjat na chlene za eto, pomnish? ) But does that make me a Russia-hater? No.

As for Ned insulting me for my opinion about the american government, oh well... He just outed himself as one of the dudes I avoid to meet in the streets. Not a big deal.