It took Britain some 60 years to pay of its war time debts to the USA but paid of they are. Also when you talk about equpiment supplied to Russia you failed to mention all the equipment that Britain supplied as well. Also who paid the Free French forces and and equpped them all through WW2 and supplied all those partisan groups all over Europe

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

who paid the Free French forces and and equpped them all through WW2 and supplied all those partisan groups all over Europe

Thanx I had forgotten about that part of the war in Europe.

Looking over the vast quantities of materials received by European countries, one has to remember that this is what got to Europe! The convoys to the UK suffered horrible losses. The US Merchant Marine suffered around the same number of dead as the USAAF in Europe during WW-2!
Then there is the convoys from the UK all the way to Murmansk were more hazardous than crossing the Atlantic. I know the worst casualties were suffered in "Convoy PQ-17." Thirty-three merchant ships left the UK, and only eleven survived and delivered their goods!! So when you look at the totals of materials delivered to Murmansk, I would like to know how many tons of good destined for Murmansk left US ports?
The Soviet Army loved the Sherman tank! They used it for what it was designed to do, provide infantry support. The USA and UK used it for tank to tank combat of which it was practically a failure. The Soviets had a good tank for tank to tank combat, the T-34.
Stalin declined all money from the Marshall Plan on behalf of the USSR and the countries taken by the USSR from the German forces. This condemned eastern Europe to poverty.

Originally Posted by AVON

The Soviet Army loved the Sherman tank!

The Soviet Army hated the Sherman tank, in fact all tanks delivered by the West were utter **** in comparison to KV series and T-34s, they used them of course since you dont let expensive equipment lie around in wartime but please stop with the typical american masturbation over made up history.

Newscast, US tanks in WW2 were sh*t, British tanks were sh*t, Russians were the only allied army with good armour, their 34rs and KVs were levels of magnitude over Shermans in every possible respect except crew comfort.

Originally Posted by AVON

They used it for what it was designed to do, provide infantry support.

Sherman was a general purpose tank, it was never ever designed as an infantry tank, it just sucked in every other role.

Originally Posted by AVON

The USA and UK used it for tank to tank combat of which it was practically a failure. The Soviets had a good tank for tank to tank combat, the T-34..

Both tanks were designed for tank to tank combat with the slight difference of T-34 being an outstanding design while Sherman being an armoured coffin.

If it makes your ego hurt slightly less 34s chassis was based on an american design (never used in US though).

Originally Posted by AVON

Stalin declined all money from the Marshall Plan on behalf of the USSR and the countries taken by the USSR from the German forces. This condemned eastern Europe to poverty.

Here we can agree, while US had very little to do with winning the war in Europe it did a LOT to help (western) Europe rebuild and even though my country did not benefit kudos to you guys for good will (even if politically motivated).

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

The Soviet Army hated the Sherman tank, in fact all tanks delivered by the West were utter **** in comparison to KV series and T-34s

According to articleS in the US Army's Armor Magazine, the Soviets liked the Sherman. For it was very reliable and easy to repair quickly and the Soviet Army used them in the doctrine the US Army believed in!

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Sherman was a general purpose tank, it was never ever designed as an infantry tank, it just sucked in every other role.

I highly disagree with you there. The US Army 'doctrine' on combat before WW-2 called for US tanks to support the infantry and that enemy tanks were to be killed by indirect fire of artillery.
The USA could not make a tank that was good for tank to tank combat, and the US Army knew it! US industry could not produce a diesel engine powerful enough to power a tank, so a gasoline aircraft engine from Curtis Wright was used. US foundries could 'not' make castings large enough to manufacture a larger turret than what the Sherman tank had. So, a larger gun at that time could not be placed in the Sherman. Manufacturing and fighting doctrine were hand in hand.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

If it makes your ego hurt slightly less 34s chassis was based on an american design (never used in US though).

The only thing the T-34 that was of a American design was Walter Christie's suspension. The Sherman did not use this suspension!

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Both tanks were designed for tank to tank combat with the slight difference of T-34 being an outstanding design while Sherman being an armoured coffin.

No... the Sherman followed US Army philosophy prior to WW-2. As with US philosophy on how the air war over Western Europe should be conducted, US Military leaders were out of touch with how future conflicts would be waged! The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor caused the US Navy to throw out all pre-WW-2 philosophy on how the war in the Pacific Ocean against Japan should be conducted. Having only three aircraft carriers and no available battleships forced this issue.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

US had very little to do with winning the war in Europe it did a LOT to help (western) Europe rebuild and even though my country did not benefit kudos to you guys for good will (even if politically motivated).

In Eastern Europe, you are correct just as the USSR had little to do with the war in Western Europe or North Africa. The US Government requested that the USSR build a railroad to accommodate this task but, the USSR did not do this. IF, the USSR had built a railroad to the Pacific coast, the USA could have transported a far greater percentage of the material that left US ports to the Pacific port in the USSR.

I agree with what 'fuser' posted, "The importance of Land Leese is often overrated in USA and underrated in Russia...."

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

The Soviet Army hated the Sherman tank,

Have you a link to a book or source where we can see the extent of this this 'hatred'?
Though I have yet to see a Soviet account that claims the Sherman was a wonder tank I have yet to see one saying it was a dog.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

their 34rs and KVs were levels of magnitude over Shermans in every possible respect except crew comfort.

Only a beginer would compare a Sherman to the KV. They were different classes of tanks and you might as well compare a Pz III to an IS2.
In overall terms their was little to chose between the T34/76 and the Sherman though clearly the T34 was a better tank they both, by late 1942, had passed their sell by dates and were vulnerable to all current German AT guns. Both tanks were one-size-fits-all solutions that seemed to work.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Both tanks were designed for tank to tank combat with the slight difference of T-34 being an outstanding design while Sherman being an armoured coffin.

To say this you would have to know the crew survivability statistics for Soviet tanks. Do you have them? Obviously you must or you never would have made your initial claim.
Please provide them . To help you the battlefield surveys found the average tank crew loss in NW Europe was 1 dead and 1 wounded per knocked out tank. All the stories about crews being wiped out in Shermans appear to be fiction (on average)

While "Quantity has a quality all it's own" I believe the US sent the USSR ALL the vacuum tubes used in their radios and radar.

Of course, Churchill said: If the Devil declared war on the Nazis, I'd send aid to hell." (or something like that) We forget how much the world both feared and hated the Austrian Corporal.

The issue of how critical lend-lease was to the Soviets during WWII is an interesting one.
The USSR has always downplayed it's importance.
It appears that the Red Army would have been capable of stopping the advance of the Germans on their own, but whether they could have regained the initiative, gone on the offensive and have retaken all the territory lost in previous fighting is another question.
The Red Army had plenty of tanks, but were deficient in trucks. Lend Lease furnished large numbers, especially Studebaker 2 1/2 ton types. Former Soviet Foreign Minister Anastas Mikoyan acknowledged the importance of these trucks in providing the strategic mobility required to go on the offensive and roll back the Germans.
In the last year of the war the Red Army was moving west at considerable speed. Use of the railroads would not account for this alone. The extensive Soviet rail system had suffered terrific damage as the fighting on the eastern Front had seesawed back and forth in the previous three years. Even if the Russians had been able to work miracles in repairing the lines, supplies, especially fuel and ammunition had to be moved forward from the railhead. So, it's easy to see that the many thousands of trucks would have made a great difference.
A fascinating aspect of Lend Lease is how the materials got to Russia. Everyone knows about the infamous Murmansk Run, but the percentage of materials delivered on that route was low. Most supplies reach Russia via Iran. Ships were unloaded in Iran, stuff was trucked north on a road built by Americans. The supplies were loaded onto barges. moved across the Caspian Sea and north on the Volga and Don Rivers. That was also the supply route for Russia's oil from the Caucasus. That's why the capture of Rostov - on Don and Stalingrad were such high priorities for the Germans. They needed to sever those river supply routes. However, another route for Lend Lease supplies was via Vladivostok. American ships were flagged as Russian. the American crewmen carried documents identifying them as Soviet seamen. Vladivostok is in the Sea of Japan so these ships had to sail right through Japanese held waters. The Japanese knew about this, but did nothing. They didn't want war with Russia. About 10-12 percent of LL aid reached Russia via this route. Approximately equal to the tonnages shipped via Murmansk.