Do you know, as a tiny boy in WW11 the first film I ever saw what I would now recognise as a propoganda film on exactly Seehunds subject. I still remember the effect on me of seeing little Russian children being bled etc., and I knew exactly who my enemy was and why from that moment. So it did not only affect the Russian masses; that was exported to Europe too.
The great hoax of WW2
Kursk
770,000 Germans v 1,910,000 Soviet (not all on day 1)
Normandy:
880,000 Germans (in France, Belgium Netherlands)
By July Germany had comitted 490,000 men to Normandy v 1,452,000 Allied.
44 German Divisions at Kursk
37 in Normandy
1580 Art Kursk v 1672 Art in France
2451 German tanl/SP tank v 1500 in France
Allied tanks/SP in France July, 6200
Russian tanks/SP at Kursk 5128
Loss perGerman division per month in France (37 Div over 2.5 months) 2,300
Loss per division per month in East (117 Div over 36 months) 1000
All figures from Zetterling (Kursk and Normandy books)
It was no hoax, the west had 'materiel power' to use where the Soviets 'only' had manpower. It is not that the western powers were afraid to commit manpower, they did not have to!! They were able to produce machines that reduced the need for manpower.
Americans expected low casualties in the battles. In the Battle of Tarawa, the USMC suffered 3,000 casualties in the three day battle. Admiral Nimitz received hate mail for six months because of what was perceived as high casualties. Early in the war in one battle the Soviet army sent in the first wave of infantry with rifles. The second wave was sent in without rifles! It was their job to pick up rifles from those fallen comrades and continue the fight!!! The Soviet Army was trading manpower for delaying the German move eastward, it was the tactic the Soviet Army had the manpower to take advantage of.
The US Army, it should be remembered won the Battle of The Buldge without air support! This was ground forces against ground forces.
Don't confuse loss of personnel as lack of will but, rather it reflects what each country had to fight with, the resouces that each side had.
Americans expected low casualties in the battles. In the Battle of Tarawa, the USMC suffered 3,000 casualties in the three day battle. Admiral Nimitz received hate mail for six months because of what was perceived as high casualties. Early in the war in one battle the Soviet army sent in the first wave of infantry with rifles. The second wave was sent in without rifles! It was their job to pick up rifles from those fallen comrades and continue the fight!!! The Soviet Army was trading manpower for delaying the German move eastward, it was the tactic the Soviet Army had the manpower to take advantage of.
The US Army, it should be remembered won the Battle of The Buldge without air support! This was ground forces against ground forces.
Don't confuse loss of personnel as lack of will but, rather it reflects what each country had to fight with, the resouces that each side had.
I am afraid that the story of the second wave sent in without rifle,is a myth,unless there are reliable proofs .
About the SU "only" having manpower
n their lowest point (december 1941) ,the operational forces (without the reserve) had :
2000 tanks
17000 pieces of artillery
4000 aircraft
150000 trucks
And the SU produced in WWII
100000 tanks
1O8000 aircraft
188000 artillery pieces
205000 motor vehicles
n their lowest point (december 1941) ,the operational forces (without the reserve) had :2000 tanks
17000 pieces of artillery
4000 aircraft
150000 trucks
And the SU produced in WWII
100000 tanks
1O8000 aircraft
188000 artillery pieces
205000 motor vehicles
Doppleganger
Active member
The Soviets may have ultimately won the Ostfront because of manpower, but that doesn't mean to say that's all they had. They produced enormous amounts of AVFs, artillery and aircraft. Don't believe the myth that the Red Army was just rolling waves of infantry. It is true that in some desperate encounters Soviet soldiers may have fought without rifles (in the Kiev pockets and at Moscow) but come 1943 they were evolving into the most powerful army in the world. And I would take the 1944-45 Red Army over the equivalent US or British Armies without hesitation if I had to choose.
Incidentally, the US Army ultimately won the Battle of the Bulge because the Germans ran out of fuel.
fredleander
Active member
You don't know that.
If you ask me they would actually have had lesser forces available as they would have to occupy the UK. Particularly if the British authorities had withdrawn to Canada to continue the war from there, as Churchill promised Roosevelt.
You don't know that, either. For example, very little western equipment ever came to Leningrad. They still held out.
For the first part of the war, the manpower advantage was the virtually the only advantage the Soviet Army had over the German forces. The Luftwaffe dominated the skies, the Wehrmacht still had a materiel and tactics advantage. The German advantage remained until the Soviet manufacturing got up to its full potential.
Yes, I feel the USSR would have won in the end against Germany without the western Allies BUT, it would have taken years longer!.
If in isolation you are talking about army versus army, I feel you might be right but, add the effect the air forces provided and I feel the western allies still had an advantage.
Before the German forces ran out of fuel, the US Army had stopped the German movement westward. The USA combat engineers did a great job of frustrating the German efforts.
One major problem the German Army faced was they had little or no idea of the exact location of US fuel depots. The results are they passed some rather large depots and never knew it. A failure of intelligence.
Lend-Least is one of those topics in which the USA and USSR disagree with, the most. Two entirely different perspectives. I will say whatever air was received by the USSR, it did precious little to improve the percentage of the aid getting to the USSR. No escort ships or, ports in the western Pacific connected to the Soviet trans-continental railroad. The development of a port in the western Pacific (such as Palana, Kamchatka or Magadan Oblast) would have greatly increased the amount and percentage of aid the USSR received.
Not all aid was direct combat equipment, such as the usage of four ice breaker ship for the entire war or several thousand 2½ ton trucks. The Soviet Army liked the Sherman tank! They used as the designers intended, as a infantry support tank and used the T-34 for tank to tank engagements. Maintenance on the Sherman was less and repairs were easier on the Sherman than the T-34 tank, which made it an easier tank to get back into combat once damaged.
lolwhassup
Active member
Even then, if the Germans controlled the British Isles, the US would not have been able to move troops or aircraft to Britain and thus there would have been no air war, and Operation Overlord would not have happened. The Western Allies would be hard pressed to launch any sort of large scale amphibious invasion from thousands of miles away. It would allow the Germans to not have to worry about their western flank and concentrate on the Soviet Union.
Leningrad was completely surrounded, not even the Soviet government could give them equipment, This isn't even a valid point.
As MontyB pointed out, Lend - Lease didn't make impact so huge that the Soviets would've lost without it, but it helped bridge the gap in Russian industry until it came back up to speed in 1943.
Doppleganger
Active member
Well actually, it was the Germans who enjoyed a numerical manpower advantage over the Red Army during 1941 for front line forces. The manpower advantage I allude to is in the strategic reserve, which Germany effectively no longer had after 1942 and which the Red Army maintained until the end of the war. This was the main reason why the Soviet Union won, if we isolate what happened elsewhere. I still think the Western Allies were necessary for success, but I'll come on to that in a moment.
The Soviet Air Force (VVS) was no slouch you know. In terms of ground attack and close air support it was comparable with the USAAF and RAF in terms of capability, although lacking somewhat numerically. The artillery advantage that the Red Army enjoyed I feel would somewhat negate that though.
The US forces in the path of the schwerpunkt of the German offensive did very well, no argument there. And the plan was a desperate gamble by the Germans that never paid off. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the lack of fuel was the reason the offensive ended.
There's an argument that Lend Lease kept the Soviet Railroad system operational. Without Lend-Lease, it would have collapsed, meaning it would have been very difficult for the Soviet Union to supply, mobilise and deploy her armies. One of the biggest impacts is that most of the Soviet motorised rifle divisions would have had to slog it on foot. Furthermore, the Red Army would not have been capable of moving enough supplies and equipment to conduct large scale operations such as the defence of Kursk or the Battle of Bagration. They would be limited to conducting rolling waves of localised attacks that would have easily been outflanked and out manoeuvred by the more mobile German divisions.
Not only locomotives, rail cars and railroad tracks but machine tools, aviation fuel, tyres and trucks amongst others. However, the railroad aid was the biggie - the Allied percentage was at worst 80% of the total utilized by the Soviet Union during WW2. The Western Allies kept the 'tails' in operation whilst Soviet home-grown production took care of the 'teeth'.
http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html
About the railways,I have seen other figures :The SU received from LL 11000 railroad cars and 1200 locos,but had in stock :600000 cars and 28000 locos
source :AHF :com/viewtopic.php?t=132150
Doppleganger
Active member
Well, the figures are in dispute and no-one seems to be sure a) how many of the pre-existing Soviet railroad stock was destroyed/incapacitated in 1941/42 or b) what kind of condition it was in. Also, the fact that the Soviets were receiving railroad stock from LL meant that production facilities originally earmarked for Soviet railroad stock could be switched to tanks, artillery and aircraft. As I said in my post, there is an argument, but I'm not sure how convincing an argument it is.
fredleander
Active member
I agree! My reason being that very little Allied assistance had reached the SU in the late fall of 1941. The Germans were still stalled. Summer of '42 started very well for the Germans but even then I can hardly see that their results had been much better than in the OTL. Without much Allied assistance the Soviets still managed their large Volkhov break-in (even if it was eventually liquidated) during the winter. Leningrad held out. OK, the Germans might have advanced a little further east of Voronezh, a larger bridgehead east of Volga. The Germans might even have taken Stalingrad, but to what purpose? They might have established themselves better east of the Black Sea, but would they then have been able to get back when the Soviet offensive started in earnest?
fredleander
Active member
True, but much of the Torch force came directly from the US. Another twist: If the UK had been occupied Franco might finally have thrown in his lot with Hitler and Gibraltar would have gone lost for the Allies. Gibraltar was quite important for the execution of Torch. So, problem for a southern Second Front, too.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think it is a rather large assumption to assume Britain was ever in any danger of being occupied though, out side of a small window around the time of Dunkirk there was very little if any chance the Germans could have crossed the channel in force.
WW2 was destined to be a 2 front war which was not going to be a hindrance to the Germans as long as American resources stayed out of the war, Britain and the Commonwealth would never have been in a position to cross the channel and retake Europe without US resources so it was always going to be a Mexican stand off.
WW2 was destined to be a 2 front war which was not going to be a hindrance to the Germans as long as American resources stayed out of the war, Britain and the Commonwealth would never have been in a position to cross the channel and retake Europe without US resources so it was always going to be a Mexican stand off.
lolwhassup
Active member
It would've been a Mexican stand off but with Brits hammering German infrastructure with the RAF :mrgreen:
The LL Locos and rolling stock was minescule compared to the pre-war Soviet stock. Even if they lost 50% (way too high) of their holdings they would still dwarf the LL contribution.
The LL locos were not even shipped until 1944 and thus were of no help at all up until late 1944.
LL supplied 80% of wartime production not 80% of stock.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
True but then German industry would have been moved east or underground limiting the effectiveness of RAF raids, it would have come down to how long the RAF could have sustained the losses for diminishing returns.
Sorry folks... this took so long to respond plus, this is rather long response.
The Germans felt they had located their industry as far as it was practical (transport ability was a consideration, also). Any further east and they could run into problems with the Russian Air Force, especially if the Soviets moved west or, if the Russian AF developed medium or long range bomber. Once the USAAF and RAF had new long range fighters to escort the bombers, all of German industry was in peril. There were 13 oil facilities that converted coal to oil products in the north-eastern Rhur Valley. These thirteen facilities produced almost half of Germany's oil AND, 90% of their aviation fuel! After several attacks only one facility could produce a small fraction of their oil produced before the bombing campaign. Over all the oil production dropped by 98%!!!!! While the 8th AF B-17s worked over the Ruhr Valley the 15th AF B-24s went back to destroyed Ploesti (with fighter escorts), the refining and converting oil products once and for all. Ploesti's its oil production dropped by 52%! Then there was little fuel for the interceptors, training pilots or, armored units. The Luftwaffe could only scramble to intercept bombers when they were going to attack priority targets such as important cities, military targets, etc. The Luftwaffe no longer control the skies above Germany.
The industry placed underground is not a 'cure-all' either. Underground factories need railroads to receive and ship their goods. The English mathematician Sir Barnes Wallis the one who was a major part in the design of the Veckers Wellington bomber, the skip bombs (the dam busters) and, the designed the Tall Boy bomb, etc... was the first person to realize that the seven major railroad junctions dominated rail movement throughout Germany for the remainder of the war. It was over a year before the Allied air forces accepted the theory. Once the junctions were destroyed, the rail system lost its value. The Me-109, 262, engines, tank parts, etc. could not be put together from their original parts production point to their final or destination where the parts become a weapon system! So when people say, "strategic bombing was not effective," tell them about these facts about the attacks on railroad junctions.
The USA gave a total sum of $46 billion to the countries of the 42 anti-Hitler coalition. The lion's share of deliveries was given to England -$30.3 billion (in 1942 currency). The Soviet Union received defense technology and equipment in the sum of $9.8 billion, France $1,4 billion and, China $631 million. The USSR was offered money from the Marshall Plan but, Stalin turn it on behalf of the USSR and countries of the Warsaw Pact.
The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the war years along with 62,500mi or 100,000Km of railroad tracks. (The USSR and USA use the same gauge and design of the rails.) The US Navy contributed 595 ships! That included (in the winter of 1942) 4 icebreakers, also 28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 trawlers, 22 torpedo boats, 140 anti-submarine vessels and, others ships. The USA also sent soft goods deliveries of 3.8 million tons and also included 15 million pairs of army boots... and "NO," they were not designed to protect the feet during Soviet winters. The USSR received a total of 229,000 tons of aluminum or 56% of the 408,928 tons, the Soviets used during the war. This was because Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) had a virtual world wide monopoly on the materials to make aluminum plus, the technology of how to produce it efficiently. The USA offered the USSR the technology to produce higher quality aviation fuel. So the newer aircraft engine designs could operate at higher altitudes and at higher speeds. The lack of refinement of the Soviet aviation fuel was a major contributor to the Soviet fighter designs of being good at lower altitudes but, could not compete with Luftwaffe above 4,575m (15,000ft).
The cargo ships started their trip across the Atlantic Ocean from America and after the U-boats and German planes attacked and sunk a fair share of the cargo ships, they made it to the UK. The run from the UK to Murmansk cost more than than 50% of the cargo ships that left the UK throughout the war. (Does this mean the return trip cut the remainders by 50%? -most likely!) The sad news is, merchant mariners reported back, they never went to any port where the people were less appreciative and less hospitable than the people they encountered at Murmansk. Considering the number of ships that left America only a very small percentage would make it to Murmansk and back to the USA.
I wish I could find statistics on how large the convoys were when they left the USA and the percentage lost to the UK. Then the number of ships that left the UK and then arrived at Murmansk. Then repeat the process back to USA.... it would be an interesting project.
The biggest problem with Japan and Germany was, neither had prepared their industries for an extended conflict! Both had anticipated relatively short campaigns, six months to a year at most. When neither Germany nor Japan were able to convince their enemies to just give up rather than fight such a powerful country, such as themselves. Their defeat was a foregone conclusion... they believed their own propaganda! When Britain did not surrender quickly, that became problem. Hitler had a great idea.... let us attack and take out the Soviet Union while we wait for a solution about what to do with Britain. (Hitler was living in LaLa land!) The Japanese complicated Hitler's plans when they attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor. Hitler had planned to keep America out of the war as long as possible.
The Germans felt they had located their industry as far as it was practical (transport ability was a consideration, also). Any further east and they could run into problems with the Russian Air Force, especially if the Soviets moved west or, if the Russian AF developed medium or long range bomber. Once the USAAF and RAF had new long range fighters to escort the bombers, all of German industry was in peril. There were 13 oil facilities that converted coal to oil products in the north-eastern Rhur Valley. These thirteen facilities produced almost half of Germany's oil AND, 90% of their aviation fuel! After several attacks only one facility could produce a small fraction of their oil produced before the bombing campaign. Over all the oil production dropped by 98%!!!!! While the 8th AF B-17s worked over the Ruhr Valley the 15th AF B-24s went back to destroyed Ploesti (with fighter escorts), the refining and converting oil products once and for all. Ploesti's its oil production dropped by 52%! Then there was little fuel for the interceptors, training pilots or, armored units. The Luftwaffe could only scramble to intercept bombers when they were going to attack priority targets such as important cities, military targets, etc. The Luftwaffe no longer control the skies above Germany.
The industry placed underground is not a 'cure-all' either. Underground factories need railroads to receive and ship their goods. The English mathematician Sir Barnes Wallis the one who was a major part in the design of the Veckers Wellington bomber, the skip bombs (the dam busters) and, the designed the Tall Boy bomb, etc... was the first person to realize that the seven major railroad junctions dominated rail movement throughout Germany for the remainder of the war. It was over a year before the Allied air forces accepted the theory. Once the junctions were destroyed, the rail system lost its value. The Me-109, 262, engines, tank parts, etc. could not be put together from their original parts production point to their final or destination where the parts become a weapon system! So when people say, "strategic bombing was not effective," tell them about these facts about the attacks on railroad junctions.
If you wonder why the USA dragged its feet in supplying the USSR weapons and support equipment to the USSR, don't forget the USSR and Germany signed an agreement to divide Poland when Hitler ordered his military to invade Poland. So, while Germany got the lion's share of the blame for the invasion, the USA, France and, the UK all considered the USSR an enemy also, because its alliance with Germany. So there was little or no sorrow or sympathy for the USSR on June 22, 1941 when the war started on the eastern front. The USA and the USSR were allies of conveniences. Both knew the governments were opposite in values and the alliance would probably not last long after the war.
The USA gave a total sum of $46 billion to the countries of the 42 anti-Hitler coalition. The lion's share of deliveries was given to England -$30.3 billion (in 1942 currency). The Soviet Union received defense technology and equipment in the sum of $9.8 billion, France $1,4 billion and, China $631 million. The USSR was offered money from the Marshall Plan but, Stalin turn it on behalf of the USSR and countries of the Warsaw Pact.
The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the war years along with 62,500mi or 100,000Km of railroad tracks. (The USSR and USA use the same gauge and design of the rails.) The US Navy contributed 595 ships! That included (in the winter of 1942) 4 icebreakers, also 28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 trawlers, 22 torpedo boats, 140 anti-submarine vessels and, others ships. The USA also sent soft goods deliveries of 3.8 million tons and also included 15 million pairs of army boots... and "NO," they were not designed to protect the feet during Soviet winters. The USSR received a total of 229,000 tons of aluminum or 56% of the 408,928 tons, the Soviets used during the war. This was because Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) had a virtual world wide monopoly on the materials to make aluminum plus, the technology of how to produce it efficiently. The USA offered the USSR the technology to produce higher quality aviation fuel. So the newer aircraft engine designs could operate at higher altitudes and at higher speeds. The lack of refinement of the Soviet aviation fuel was a major contributor to the Soviet fighter designs of being good at lower altitudes but, could not compete with Luftwaffe above 4,575m (15,000ft).
The cargo ships started their trip across the Atlantic Ocean from America and after the U-boats and German planes attacked and sunk a fair share of the cargo ships, they made it to the UK. The run from the UK to Murmansk cost more than than 50% of the cargo ships that left the UK throughout the war. (Does this mean the return trip cut the remainders by 50%? -most likely!) The sad news is, merchant mariners reported back, they never went to any port where the people were less appreciative and less hospitable than the people they encountered at Murmansk. Considering the number of ships that left America only a very small percentage would make it to Murmansk and back to the USA.
I wish I could find statistics on how large the convoys were when they left the USA and the percentage lost to the UK. Then the number of ships that left the UK and then arrived at Murmansk. Then repeat the process back to USA.... it would be an interesting project.
