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

[monkspider]

I don't know, I'm not a high ranking member in the Red Army, believe it or not.

[David Floyd]

I don't know, I'm not a high ranking member in the Red Army, believe it or not.

My point was, the Soviets diverted the entire 2nd Guards Army to stop Manstein's counterattack to begin with. I'm not sure what else they could have diverted, without sacrificing units from their overall offensive or weakening the forces encircling Stalingrad to such a degree as to permit 6th Army to easily break out.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You certainly can't argue that additional resources would have HURT the Germans.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, considering how close Manstein came to Stalingrad (30 miles, and von Paulus would have broken out if he'd gotten to within 20 or so), it is certainly plausible to state that the reinforcements sent to invade Vichy France and to Africa as a result of Torch could have been effectively used in the relief operation.

Assuming Manstein had the extra forces, would von Paulus have enough supplies to mount an attack? If not, could Manstein have gone all 30 miles? If so, and he was successful in the operation, would that make a difference in the final outcome, or merely postponing the inevitable?

[David Floyd]

Assuming Manstein had the extra forces, would von Paulus have enough supplies to mount an attack?

Well, first of all, the amount of transport aircraft would have been almost doubled, potentially, with several hundred additional fighter and bomber aircraft to support 6th Army. Further, units were stripped away from the forces directly encircling 6th Army to stop Manstein (such as 2nd Guards Army). This weakened the ring around 6th Army. 6th Army was certainly not capable of major offensive operations, but with adequate air support I think it's certainly feasible that they could at least have gone several miles, which would have drawn forces away from Manstein to stop the breakout, which could have led to further advances by the relief force.

If not, could Manstein have gone all 30 miles?

I think it's possible that Manstein could have made all 30 miles, given additional air support and reserves. I think the most likely formula for success would be for Manstein to get within around 20 miles, at which point von Paulus would probably have ordered a breakout attempt.

If so, and he was successful in the operation, would that make a difference in the final outcome, or merely prosponing the inevitable?

Final outcome of what? The war? Well, the presence of 6th Army would certainly have shored up Army Group Don's position, even though it would have required time to rest and refit. Let's assume that the best use for 6th Army is to take it off the line for a few weeks, and put it in general Army Group Don reserve. This means that the Germans are no worse off than they were in our time line. Remember, even after the destruction of 6th Army, the Germans won some significant tactical victories in the Ukraine. If the 6th Army was present for these attacks, even more could have been done, and I certainly don't think the German army would have been pushed back as much as it was.

[David Floyd]

Anyway, we're threadjacking. Let's stay to the primary point of Lend Lease

[The Vagabond]

Certainly lend-lease helped a lot, and thank you indeed for your help. Would the USSR have won without lend-lease? Nobody knows. Nonetheless, the absolute conviction of some of you that it wouldn't is disgusting and arrogant.

Just a couple of comments. It is not quite correct to illustrate the magnitude of lend-lease by singling out some specific area (e.g. trucks, locomotives) and pointing out an impressive percentage of lend-lease supplies versus the corresponding Soviet production. It is more correct to compare the gross numbers that include ALL products. Thus the total lend-lease to the USSR amounts to $11 billion (BTW it was $31 billion to Britain). At the same time, the USSR production is estimated at $190 billion. You see the point?

After all, what, you think the USSR was unable to manufacture trucks or locomotives by itself? Given the lend-lease supplies, it simply concentrated on other areas of production. If there had been no lend-lease, the USSR would have had to redistribute its manifacturing capabilities. Just remember it was 11 versus 190.

Also, some of you seem convinced that what the US supplied in lend-lease was necessarily better than the Soviet counterparts. While I wouldn't doubt this as far as trucks and locomotives are concerned, this is not quite true for the military equipment (tanks and airplanes). The reason is simply that the US didn't supply its best military equipment. In many cases it was an outdated and used equipment. Furthermore, even if we compare the best available equipment on both sides, the USSR by no means pales in such a comparison.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Soviet victory was due to a combination of Lend Lease, Western Allied activity in North Africa and France, the vastness of Russia, and the weather.

First off, until 1944 there was no activity whatsoever in France. When you landed in Normandie, the Soviet victory was already predetermined and imminent anyway.

As for the Allied activity in North Africa, it's ridiculous that you even mention it so seriously. Just compare the numbers of German troops committed there and there and their respective casualties.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on.

I actually don't think. They would have adopted to their new masters . The commie propaganda might have been rooted still, but if things got better, there might have been a lot of Russian fascists.

You actually forget that that war was a war of attrition for Russia. It is well known what the Nazis used to do to 'inferior races'. Adopting to the new masters most probably meant death.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Its true heroism and courage alone won't win you a war but all the equipment in the world won't save you either if you don't have them.

The Russian people rose to the occasion magnificently and paid a huge price in blood. That should never ever be forgotten.

The whole war in the West was a sideshow by comparison.

Well said, Horse.

[Ned]

A Soviet victory was not needed to beat Nazi Germany. All that was needed is for the Soviets not to collapse and tie up a lot of the German army.

Perhaps Roosevelt misjudged, and gave the Soviets too much Lend Lease. They got to Berlin first.

[Dry]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Thus the total lend-lease to the USSR amounts to $11 billion (BTW it was $31 billion to Britain).

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.

[notyoueither]

Yes. Without lend lease the Sovs would have been relegated to a few burgs east of the Urals.

It was a very close run thing. To think that victory would have been possible without one of those elements (German over-extention, Russian grit, Western material aid) is fairly simple as a view of what happened and all that went into winning the war in the east.

[Serb]

What a thread! A real festival of bullsh*t theories and master-bullsh*ters.
But this one is super-mega Bullsh*t. One of the most stinking bullsh*t I read in my life. a words of man, who don't have any idea about war on Russian front.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Even if Hitler had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, the war wouldn't have ended there. The Russian people would still have faught on.

I actually don't think. They would have adopted to their new masters . The commie propaganda might have been rooted still, but if things got better, there might have been a lot of Russian fascists.

David, you post the same crap as always. Find some proof of your statements. I don't by a crap about Soviet regiments totaly consisted of American tanks in 1941.
AH

[Serb]

Oops, forget to post this:

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb
What a thread! A real festival of bullsh*t theories and master-bullsh*ters.
But this one is super-mega Bullsh*t. One of the most stinking bullsh*t I read in my life. a words of man, who don't have any idea about war on Russian front.




David, you post the same crap as always. Find some proof of your statements. I don't by a crap about Soviet regiments totaly consisted of American tanks in 1941.
AH

I don't think DF has ever said soviet regiments consisted of us tanks, he may have said that the trucks and trains that brought them and the tropps to the fronts were US though