USA WW2 Lend Lease

[lljadw]

The SU received 2.6 million ton of LL oil,but produced some 100 million ton of oil .

And,what is even more important,is the role of oil for the SU:in 1940,oil was some 18.7 % of the Soviet energy mix and in 1945 15 %:much less than wood and coal .

People should remember that 75 years ago,the economy was depending on coal,not on oil .Also for the US .

Primary energy consumption in the US in 1940 (in quadrillion Btu)

Coal : 15.972

Natural gas :3.871

Petroleum :10.110

Hydroelectric : 1.442

Wood : 1.261

Petroleum was good for some 30 %

European Energy Consumption in 1938 ( in terms of millions of metric tons of hard coal)

Coal and lignite :90 %

Hydroelectric : 3 %

Liquid petroleum fuels : 7 %


And for the infamous 15 million of boots ,the figures I have seen (on the AHF) are giving for the SU in june 1941 a stock of several of hundreds of millions of boots .

 

[JOC]

Strawman :I did not say that he was insignificant,he was a high ranked officer (his importance has been much exaggerated),but that does not mean that he had informations about the Soviet war production,besides there were a lot of Soviet high ranked officers .

Georgy Zhukov was the most pivotal and important officer in the Red Army during WW2. He had access to most data and was given (within limits) a relatively free hand to lead the Red Army as he saw fit. Stalin confided and listened to him closely. A privilege very few in the USSR enjoyed at the time. He took part in all-most major key decisions at Stavka. He led or made the major decisions or oversaw the defense of Leningrad, the battle of Moscow, he coordinated the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. Zhukov coordinated the actions of the 1st Ukrainian and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts in the bloody war to and over the Dnieper. On the 1 March 1944 Zhukov was appointed the commander of the 1st Ukrainian Front until early May. During the Soviet offensive Operation Bagration Zhukov coordinated the 1st Belorussian and 2nd Belorussian 2nd Fronts, later the 1st Ukrainian Front as well. Finally Zhukov took Berlin. His importance in the Red Army's victory cannot be underestimated. To think he wasn’t privy to the lend lease which was supplying his soldier would be naive.

 

[lljadw]

He was not the most pivotal Soviet general in WWII,the most pivotal was the chief of staff:Chapochnikof.

Zhukow was not more important than Koniev or Rokossovsky.

 

[brinktk]

Maybe I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am...but it seems lljadw is contrary for the sake of being contrary. You're not interested in debate but proclamations and appeals to authority. As if your sources and data are the only ones that are correct an noone else can possibly refute any of them...

Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

[lljadw]

You are :lol:

I am only replying to the old arguments from the Cold War,such as :

without LL,the SU would have lost

Zhukov was a military genius ,because Zhukov said it after the war:lol:

Speer was a genius:he said it after the war


etc,etc,




about Zhukov : an enumeration of his appointments does not prove his importance : he was a field commander,but the decisions were made in Moscow,by the Stavka .


About the LL food : one of the few works about the significance of LL food for the SU is :The Bread of Affliction by Wiliam Moskoff and on P 122,one can read the following :each Soviet soldier received just under 10 ounces of food a day of US Lend-Lease food .

 

[BritinBritain]

Maybe I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am...but it seems lljadw is contrary for the sake of being contrary. You're not interested in debate but proclamations and appeals to authority. As if your sources and data are the only ones that are correct an noone else can possibly refute any of them...

Please tell me I'm wrong.

This is one of the problems Spike (and others including myself) had with him. This is one of the reasons I cannot be bothered to even try to debate with him.

 

[lljadw]

About the mythical importance of LL :


LL deliveries in 1941:

Tanks : US :35/UK :446

Aircraft: US : 29/UK: 671

Trucks: US : 1506/UK: 867


Soviet production in 1941:

Tanks :6680

Aircraft:15735

Trucks:139879


1942:

LL:

Tanks :3000

Aircraft:2500

Trucks: 79000


Soviet production:

Tanks : 24719

Aircraft:25436

Trucks: 32489

Source : AHF: Thread :"Effect of LL in the Soviet war effort underestimated ?"

 

[lljadw]

This is one of the problems Spike (and others including myself) had with him. This is one of the reasons I cannot be bothered to even try to debate with him.

That's saying someone whose motto is : I stick to what I have learnt in the past and I am not open to new opinions .

 

[lljadw]

???:cen:

 

[lljadw]

Just to get some good old controversy back into the forum I propose a new topic. Did Hitler’s rather rash decision to declare war on the USA in Dec of 1941 cost him the war? I say yes because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR, Britain and the USA simultaneously.



. Eventually as a result of the lend lease trucks they became more mobile than their German opponents.

A US supplied British common wealth continued to be a major thorn in Hitler’s side.

1) I say : no : because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR,Britain and the USA separately

2)The war in the East was not won by mobility

3)The British Commonwealth was not supplied by the US .

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

1) I say : no : because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR,Britain and the USA separately

2)The war in the East was not won by mobility

3)The British Commonwealth was not supplied by the US .

If the UK and the Commonwealth was not supplied by the US, explain the convoys across the Atlantic.

 

[BritinBritain]

That's saying someone whose motto is : I stick to what I have learnt in the past and I am not open to new opinions .

How strange when I have pushed the point in the past you have called me a bully.

Quite frankly you are not worth even trying to debate with.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

You are :lol:

I am only replying to the old arguments from the Cold War,such as :

without LL,the SU would have lost

Zhukov was a military genius ,because Zhukov said it after the war:lol:

Speer was a genius:he said it after the war


etc,etc,




about Zhukov : an enumeration of his appointments does not prove his importance : he was a field commander,but the decisions were made in Moscow,by the Stavka .


About the LL food : one of the few works about the significance of LL food for the SU is :The Bread of Affliction by Wiliam Moskoff and on P 122,one can read the following :each Soviet soldier received just under 10 ounces of food a day of US Lend-Lease food .

Zhukov had an unique position in the Red Army, even if the other commanders were important, they were not on his level, do you know what a military officer on this lever do?

 

[JOC]

You are :lol:

I am only replying to the old arguments from the Cold War,such as :

without LL,the SU would have lost

Zhukov was a military genius ,because Zhukov said it after the war:lol:

Speer was a genius:he said it after the war


etc,etc,




about Zhukov : an enumeration of his appointments does not prove his importance : he was a field commander,but the decisions were made in Moscow,by the Stavka .


About the LL food : one of the few works about the significance of LL food for the SU is :The Bread of Affliction by Wiliam Moskoff and on P 122,one can read the following :each Soviet soldier received just under 10 ounces of food a day of US Lend-Lease food .

I already mentened Zhukov's importance and most of the battles and campaigns he was responsible for.
For a change try reading "Stalin's General: The life of Georgy Zhukov" by Geoffrey Roberts.

It is impossible to underestimate the importance of lend lease to both Britain and the USSR.

 

[JOC]

1) I say : no : because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR,Britain and the USA separately

2)The war in the East was not won by mobility

3)The British Commonwealth was not supplied by the US .

1) This is a hypothetical statement for which no correct answer exist. Fact at the time Germany had the best and most advanced army on earth at the time, perhaps one of the best in history.

2) Not at 1st but as the tide turned the Red Army quickly became mobile. This was made possible to a great extent with US built 6 wheelers the best trucks built in WW2.

3) Fact Great Britain received a great deal of food, munitions, medical supplies, etc. from the USA.

 

[BritinBritain]

1) I say : no : because there was no way he was going to defeat the USSR,Britain and the USA separately

2)The war in the East was not won by mobility

3)The British Commonwealth was not supplied by the US .

Talking out of your backside again.

The British Commonwealth were supplied with lend lease.

India
In the Indian Army tradition, formations included British regiments alongside Indian Army units.[nb 1] As well as some Indian units receiving Shermans, the 116th Regiment Royal Armoured Corps (converted from the 9th Battalion Gordon Highlanders) part of 255th Brigade was equipped with Shermans. As part of the 255th, they were involved in January and February 1945 in Burma in action near Meiktila and Mandalay. The actions were predominantly in support of infantry with few enemy tanks encountered.[5] After that they were part of mobile columns that moved to retake Rangoon.

New Zealand
The 4th New Zealand Armoured Brigade operated approximately 150 M4A2 Sherman tanks from late 1942 until the end of the war. The 4th Brigade formed part of the New Zealand 2nd Division and was converted from an infantry brigade. The 4th Armoured Brigade saw action during the Italian Campaign.[6]

Australia

A M4A2 during Australian Army trials in 1944
Although the Australian Army received 757 M3 Lee/Grants in 1942 it only received three Sherman tanks. These three tanks were supplied by the UK and were only used for trials purposes. When the Australian Cruiser tank programme was cancelled in 1943 a proposal was made to replace the entire order of 775 Australian Cruiser tanks with 310 Sherman tanks, however this proposal was not acted on.

Australia's first Sherman, an M4A2, arrived in Australia in 1943 with a further two M4s (sometimes mis-labeled as M4A1s) arriving for tropical trials in New Guinea in 1944. The results of these trials showed that the British Churchill tank was better suited to jungle warfare's low-speed infantry support than the Sherman. As a result the Australian Government ordered 510 Churchills, of which 51 were delivered before the order was cancelled at the end of the war, and did not order any further Shermans. Following the war the three trials tanks were placed on display at Australian Army bases and one was later destroyed after being used as a tank target.[7]

 

[BritinBritain]

Reverse lend lease.

I was quite surprised at this.:-
Reverse Lend-lease or Reciprocal Aid was the supply of equipment and services to the United States, e.g. the British Austin K2/Y military ambulance. From Canada came the Fairmile launches for anti-submarine use and Mosquito photo-reconnaissance aircraft. New Zealand supplied food to United States forces in the South Pacific, and constructed airports in Nadi, Fiji.

In 1945–46 the value of Reciprocal Aid from New Zealand exceeded that of Lend-Lease, though in 1942–43 the value of Lend-Lease to New Zealand was much more than that of Reciprocal Aid. Britain also supplied extensive material assistance to American forces stationed in Europe, for example the USAAF was supplied with hundreds of Spitfire Mk V and Mk VIII fighter aircraft.

"The cooperation that was built up with Canada during the war was an amalgam compounded of diverse elements of which the air and land routes to Alaska, the Canol project, and the CRYSTAL and CRIMSON activities were the most costly in point of effort and funds expended.

... The total of defense materials and services that Canada received through lend-lease channels amounted in value to approximately $419,500,000.
... Some idea of the scope of economic collaboration can be had from the fact that from the beginning of 1942 through 1945 Canada, on her part, furnished the United States with $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000 in defense materials and services.

... Although most of the actual construction of joint defense facilities, except the Alaska Highway and the Canol project, had been carried out by Canada, most of the original cost was borne by the United States. The agreement was that all temporary construction for the use of American forces and all permanent construction required by the United States forces beyond Canadian requirements would be paid for by the United States, and that the cost of all other construction of permanent value would be met by Canada. Although it was not entirely reasonable that Canada should pay for any construction that the Canadian Government considered unnecessary or that did not conform to Canadian requirements, nevertheless considerations of self-respect and national sovereignty led the Canadian Government to suggest a new financial agreement.

... The total amount that Canada agreed to pay under the new arrangement came to about $76,800,000, which was some $13,870,000 less than the United States had spent on the facilities."[39]

 

[lljadw]

3) Fact Great Britain received a great deal of food, munitions, medical supplies, etc. from the USA.

The UK received a great deal of food ,munitions,medical supplies,etc,from other sources also and produced a lot of these things herself .

"A US supplied British Commonwealth " gives a wrong picture :" A British Commonwealth that received supplies amongst other from the US " gives a correct picture .

What Britain produced herself and received from the Commonwealth and other countries was more important than that what it received from LL.

It was the same for the SU .

 

[lljadw]

1) This is a hypothetical statement for which no correct answer exist. Fact at the time Germany had the best and most advanced army on earth at the time, perhaps one of the best in history.

2) Not at 1st but as the tide turned the Red Army quickly became mobile. This was made possible to a great extent with US built 6 wheelers the best trucks built in WW2.

3)

1) Germany had NOT the best and most advanced army on earth at that time

2)great extent is very relative,besides the 6 wheelers were only a small part of the LL trucks .

After Stalingrad it took the Soviets more than 2 years to arrive at Berlin,one of the reasons being that tanks and trucks could only advance at the speed of the infantry and artillery,because they were to weak without the protection of infantry and artillery .

The average advance of a division in WWII was 30 km a day,and more trucks did not change this .

 

[lljadw]

The SU received 362,288 trucks from LL and 47,238 jeeps.

Of these,some 120000 6X 6 cargo ,mostly Studebaker (104,485),while these were helping the Soviets,their importance was not the importance that has been given by Western authors .

On june 30 1942 36,865 trucks had been delivered

On june 30 1943 148,286 trucks and motorcycles had been delivered


On june 30 1944 302,961 trucks were delivered .

V.F.Vorsin gives some slightly different numbers about the number of received trucks

1941 : 400

1942 :32500 of which 3800 Studebakers

1943:95100 (34800 Studebakers)

1944:139600 (56400 Studebakers)

1945:45000 (19200 Studebakers)