The great hoax of WW2

The convoys was a chilling experience in any ways, and dangerous enough crossing from North America to the UK, but from UK to USSR (mainly Murmansk) was outright slaughter...
Considering the USA donated twenty-eight frigates plus one hundred and forty anti-submarine vessels, one would wonder why the USSR did not do more to escort the merchant marine vessels which contributed to their survival? The USSR did use the four icebreakers a lot and kept the northern ports open all winter long.
 
Considering the USA donated twenty-eight frigates plus one hundred and forty anti-submarine vessels, one would wonder why the USSR did not do more to escort the merchant marine vessels which contributed to their survival? The USSR did use the four icebreakers a lot and kept the northern ports open all winter long.
Maybe the reason is that the arctic convoys were only a minor part of Lend-Lease,which was not essential for the SU?
On the number of fregates,etc,the SU received from the US,when did this happen (if it was after june 1944,it would not be that important)and where(if they vessels arrived at Wladiwostok,they would be useless for the protection of the arctic convoys)?
 
Considering the USA donated twenty-eight frigates plus one hundred and forty anti-submarine vessels, one would wonder why the USSR did not do more to escort the merchant marine vessels which contributed to their survival? The USSR did use the four icebreakers a lot and kept the northern ports open all winter long.

Do you have more details on this, please?​
 
Back after a long long absence.

After reading quite a few western (German, French, English, American) books on military history i notice quite a few trends.

1. Russian military was ineffective, its army primitive and incompetent and it would NEVER win against Germany on its own.

2. Germany had laser weapons, time travel and generally its level of technology was so unbelievably high that its only through valor of the western allies that it was beaten.

3. Not nearly as important or prelavent but it touches my country, Poland rolled over in a week.?

I cannot say I have seen the same trends develop now. Haven't they been there always? I see much the same regarding the Scandinavian Campaign. For example, it is quite common to read that the "British" reconquered Narvik, while hardly a British army member was near the city. The Navy, yes. And the Poles, of course. Thank you!​
Could it be because in reality Russia single handedly bested the Wehrmacht and by the time Normandy happened the end of the war was a question of "when" and not "if"??

Let me put it like this: I believe the Soviets in time could have defeated the Germans without any Allied supplies/assistance. After all, they had received very little help when they first stalled them in late 1941.​
Could it be that Poland, betrayed by France and England performed better against greater odds than these two countries a year later which caused it to be smeared and belittled?

Was Poland betrayed? Wasn't Poland the reason England and France declared war on Germany?​
 
Last edited:
Yes, if the Poles expected France & the UK to come immediatly to their assistance in a way that would have prevented a German conquest.

But, as I understand it both France and England tried to have Poland go along with the German demands. Please correct me if I am wrong.​
 
The convoys was a chilling experience in any ways, and dangerous enough crossing from North America to the UK, but from UK to USSR (mainly Murmansk) was outright slaughter..
Why? As sofar I know,the losses of the Arctic convoys were limited .
 
Of 1400 merchant ships,85 (=6%) were lost.
There were 78 convoys with 18 ships (average),the average loss per convoy was 1.1 ship .
 
Yes, if the Poles expected France & the UK to come immediatly to their assistance in a way that would have prevented a German conquest.
As sofar as I know,there is no proof for your claim .
IMHO,it is the opposite :the Poles did not expect this,because they did not expect a German attack.And,when the spector of a German attack was nearing,a lot of Poles were convinced they would march to Berlin .
 
No,while in 1938,Britain forced the Czechs to yield to the German demands,in 1939,there was no British pressure on Poland,to make concessions to Germany .The reason was that there never was a danger of war..,till the Molotow-Ribbentrop pact,and ,than,war was certain .What Chamberlain was doing at the end,was bribing Germany to not attack Poland (the Wohlstat talks) .
 
Considering the USA donated twenty-eight frigates plus one hundred and forty anti-submarine vessels, one would wonder why the USSR did not do more to escort the merchant marine vessels which contributed to their survival? The USSR did use the four icebreakers a lot and kept the northern ports open all winter long.

Do you have more details on this, please?
No, unfortunately part of the information comes from the US Naval Proceedings Magazine and I was not able to find again the websites I got some of this information I got this from. The article in the Proceedings was honoring the USCG and Navy and their struggle during WW-2 in the Artic Ocean.

Of 1400 merchant ships,85 (=6%) were lost. There were 78 convoys with 18 ships (average),the average loss per convoy was 1.1 ship.
lljadw, thank you for that information. I did some checking and found that PQ-17 was a fluke and definitely not typical of most convoys! Quite a bit different from the impression I have had most of my life. After PQ-18, more warships/escorts were lost than merchant ships! During the search I discovered the Soviet Navy participated for more in providing merchant and escort ships than I ever heard of.
Concerning the propaganda gap in what value Lend-Lease was from both sides, I get the impression that the USA counted the goods shipped from the USA, while the Soviets counted only the good they received!
Russian aircraft production 1942-1944 was 42,427 fighters and 11,797 bombers (additional 30,506 ground attack planes), which results that approximately 20 per cent of the fighters and 30 per cent of the bombers of the Red Air Force were American-built and another ≈10 per cent of the fighters were British-built. Soviet Union produced only 343,624 cars and light vehicles - The USA alone provided the Soviets with 501,660 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles, including 77,972 jeeps, 151,053 1-1/2-ton trucks, and 200,622 2-1/2-ton trucks. The aid was vital, not only because of the sheer quantity, but because of the quality. While Soviet auto¬motive production concentrated almost exclusively on antiquated copies of American 1930 lorry designs. While Soviet auto¬motive production concentrated almost exclusively on antiquated copies of American 1930 lorry designs.
The USSR received the only variant of the M-4 Sherman tanks equip with diesel engines!!!
 
A short disagreeing answer (because I don't want to start a new L-L debate) .
First,some minor points :
-the 1941L-L was negligible,and 1941 was the decisive period
-the L-L figures are including the whole of 1945,and are mentioning the numbers that were sent,not those that arrived
-a lot of L-L was not used for the military,but for the civilians.
Two major points :
1) it is wrong to look to the production figures only ,on 22 june 1941,the Soviet operational forces (=front units) had (Stavka reserve included):175000 automobiles,the nonoperational forces :1O7000.
Total =282000,if you add the production(342000),you have an other picture
2)In the West,the importance of trucks,etc in the war in the east,has been exagerated .
The Soviet Army was relying on the railways and on horses(the same for the Germans)
there were 500000 horses in june 1941 against 280000 automobiles
In december 1941:1,287,000 against 311,000
In november 1942:1,050000 against 377,000
In january 1944 :897000 against 445,000
In january 1945:1,054000 against 532000
I also would doubt that the L-L trucks were better than the Russian ones,because the L-L trucks were build for US use,and not for the use in a country without decent roads and with 2 rasputitsa's a year .
In 1941,the SU committed 8 million men ,in 1942 more than 13 million,in 1943 almost 14 million,in 1944 13 million (all these figures are frontstrength only),thus the delivery by the US of 500000 vehicles is very relative .
 
-the L-L figures are including the whole of 1945,and are mentioning the numbers that were sent,not those that arrived
By 1945, L-L was virtually gone! The real importing of goods was from 1942 to 1944.

I forgot,the Red Army being a steamrollernthe importance of vehicles was secundary.
Like any rail system, it is good point to point but, it is a comedy to think of a rail system that could support an army on the move! The problem with any rail system is that it is good from point to point. To go from the rail junctions to the battle area, is where you need trucks... lots of trucks.
To me the biggest surprise was the reality that 70% of L-L came into the USSR from Alaska (mostly by air transport) and through Iran!

BUT... more over, the USA nor the USSR will ever agree on the importance of L-L. If you believe the USA/UK then, we did a lot. It is not just the goods delivered but also giving technology assistance (aluminum, petroleum products, automotive production assistance, etc.) was a big boost in the capability of the USSR. If you believe the USSR then, American and the UK did not do much.
A lot of people condemn the UK for supplying the newest jets engines to the USSR. What is less known is, that if the USSR felt more secure about air defense it would be less hostile in the post war years. In that effort the USA to supplied the USSR with radar technology!
To me the biggest surprise was the reality that 70% of L-L came into the USSR from Alaska and through Iran!
 
I have to agree with Del Boy, because Panzercracker has got his sums wrong.
Panzercracker do you not realise without the North Sea convoys to Russia, that cost many British and American lives. Most certainly helped the Russians fight against the the Nazi marauders.
 
By 1945, L-L was virtually gone! The real importing of goods was from 1942 to 1944.


Like any rail system, it is good point to point but, it is a comedy to think of a rail system that could support an army on the move! The problem with any rail system is that it is good from point to point. To go from the rail junctions to the battle area, is where you need trucks... lots of trucks.
To me the biggest surprise was the reality that 70% of L-L came into the USSR from Alaska (mostly by air transport) and through Iran!

BUT... more over, the USA nor the USSR will ever agree on the importance of L-L. If you believe the USA/UK then, we did a lot. It is not just the goods delivered but also giving technology assistance (aluminum, petroleum products, automotive production assistance, etc.) was a big boost in the capability of the USSR. If you believe the USSR then, American and the UK did not do much.
A lot of people condemn the UK for supplying the newest jets engines to the USSR. What is less known is, that if the USSR felt more secure about air defense it would be less hostile in the post war years. In that effort the USA to supplied the USSR with radar technology!
To me the biggest surprise was the reality that 70% of L-L came into the USSR from Alaska and through Iran!
To go from the rail junctions to the battle area by trucks could be done ....on very short distances,if the armies advanced,the rail roads had to advance :all German and Russian offensives had to stop because of supply problems,the same happened in september 1944 in Western Europe:when the Allies were over the Seine,the supply problems began ,and these could not be solved by the Red Ball Express .
There also is the point that tanks,trucks,artillery,ammunition...had to be transported by train.
The German AGC received in july,august,september 1941 an average of only 26 trains and 10500 tonnes A DAY,and this was not enough for some 1 million men .
The whole Ostheer needed (without bitter fighting) every day 750 trains with 30000 tonnes,to transport this from the railway junctions to the frontline,the Germans needed 30000 operational trucks,every day ,what they did not have .
As the average Russian front strength was 6 million,they would need every day 60000 tonnes,meaning a minimum of 60000 operational trucks,and I doubt they had that amount .On 1 january 1945,the Soviet front units had 300000 trucks,but only 50 % (at most) could be used to supply the units,the others had to join the advancing forces .
A total of 362,288 US L-L trucks arrived in the SU (till 20 september 1945)
Each Soviet division needed at Bagration 275 t/a day and the Soviets only had 12000 trucks to transport goods from railheads to units .
About the distances from the railheads to the units :in july 1944,the Allies had the capacity to transport 45000 tonnes of supply 50 miles r/t each day,or 90000 tonnes 25 miles (this was fairly closily with the German capacity of june 1942).The longer the distance betwen the railheads and the units,the lesser the capacity,the result being the halt of AGC in august 1941,the halt of the Allied pursuit in september 1944,the halt of the German advance to the Wolga in august 1942,etc...etc ...
 
To go from the rail junctions to the battle area by trucks could be done ....on very short distances,if the armies advanced,the rail roads had to advance
I guess it gets back as to what you define as short distance?? Yes the Allies did have to halt for short periods, a week at most. How many miles of track can be laid per day, before the automated system? Its about 10mi (16Km). It is not just laying track but, also building bridges to cross rivers, land depressions, etc. Yes, L-L provided 62,000 miles of track, it is a slow process to lay track.

To go from the rail junctions to the battle area by trucks could be done ....on very short distances, if the armies advanced,the rail roads had to advance :all German and Russian offensives had to stop because of supply problems,the same happened in september 1944 in Western Europe:when the Allies were over the Seine,the supply problems began ,and these could not be solved by the Red Ball
The Red Ball Express continued to travel from Normandy Beaches and later the city of Cherbourg and the water ways that lead to it until the Allies were able to secure Antwerp area completely! They stopped in part because the 400 miles they traveled (one way) and was using more fuel than they deliver. They often drove around the clock to get the supplies to the troops quickly.
In late 1944, Gen. Patton stopped for about a week to get his provisions up but, when the Battle of the Bulge started the US Army (& UK Army) had full provisions to fight the German.

There also is the point that tanks,trucks,artillery,ammunition...had to be transported by train.
And then it is transported by or assisted by trucks. You can't get your trains to close for they become victims of air attacks, far more so than trucks. If a truck is destroyed, it gets pushed to the side so the rest keep going. If a train gets destroyed, the wreckage has to be moved out of the way, off the tracks. If the engine is destroyed or massive explosion happens on one of the freight cars, many times the tracks need repair. In that situation trucks fill in until the train is back in operation.
I guess in the end... 'WE' should adopt the attitude that the country each of us favor is the one we accept the documentation of L-L. To respect the views of the other side. The USA/UK have one outlook on the events and the USSR/Russia has a different outlook/opinion and, the two will never meet.
 
Whether supplies travel by rail or not, trucks are required to get the supplies to rail heads at either end. Once at the rail head the supplies have got to be sorted, and loaded in some sort of order, at the destination rail head supplies are again sorted then taken to various dispersal points for supply to different units. Logistics is not as simple as some think it is

The problem with transporting supplies by rail, it doesn't take much to destroy tracks or indeed air attacks destroying the whole train along with the supplies. Which the Germans found out to their cost more then once. If a truck convoy is attacked by air its highly unlikely that the whole convoy would be destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top