|
Lend Lease
Lend-Lease and its Effect on the Eastern Front
The Initial Problems Facing Soviet War Production In 1941, the Russian armaments industry was in the process of being modernised and expanded as part of Stalin's industrialisation programmes. This involved overhauling older Tsarist-era factories as well as building newer, more modern ones. Most of the existing industrial plants were in European Russia, but the new factories constructed during the 1930's were built in cities along the length of the Volga River and some as far east as the Ural Mountains. Stalin and his planners felt that by constructing them further east they would be safe from the threat perceived by any invasion. The Relocation of Soviet Industry In July 1941, following the German invasion, plans were initiated to relocate Russian industry, mainly from the lower Dnepr River and Donbas regions and large cities such as Moscow and Leningrad, eastwards towards the Urals and Siberia. In total 1523 industries were relocated between July and November 1941, involving the utilisation of over 1.5 million rail wagons. They were moved to remote locations, where despite the fact that they arrived haphazardly and with only a small portion of the skilled workforce, they were offloaded into hastily constructed wooden buildings. Production resumed as quickly as possible and ran around the clock six days a week, often despite appalling working conditions. Despite the huge efforts made to complete this relocation, it would take over a year before industrial output reached its pre relocation levels. Soviet Weapons Losses in 1941 (The First Six Months Of The War) One of the most compelling reasons for Western Allied assistance to Russia was the incredibly heavy losses of weapons and equipment suffered during the first months of the German invasion. The following examples illustrate the severity of those losses. 72% of all Tanks. 34% of all Combat Aircraft. 56% of all Small-arms and Machine guns. 69% of all Anti-Tank guns. 59% of all Field guns and Mortars. The Response Of The Western Allies All of these factors obviously created serious shortfalls of equipment for the Russian armed forces. When STAVKA met with representatives of the Western Allies in Moscow in July, after forming an uneasy alliance with them, they asked for their assistance. The British and the Americans both stepped in to keep Russia in the war. The Lend-lease Act of March 11th 1941 permitted the President of the United States to 'sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States'. The existing program of Lend-Lease was extended to include the Soviet Union and US President Franklin Roosevelt approved US$1 billion in Lend-lease aid to the country on October 30th 1941. The first deliveries of military aid began in November 1941 and were delivered to Russia via convoy across the North Atlantic to the port of Murmansk, through the Persian Gulf into Iran, or from Alaska across Pacific to Vladivostok in the Soviet Far East. The large number of cargo ships moving long distances through dangerous waters resulted in the loss of over 7% of all shipments sent. In total $11 billion in war materiel was given to Russia up until the lend lease agreement ended in 1945. While the shipments included much equipment the British and Americans considered to be obsolete, the Russians were for the most part grateful to receive it. Lend Lease Armored Fighting Vehicles There were differences in opinions as far as lend-lease tanks were concerned. The Kremlin officials were generally happy with them initially as they managed to bridge the shortfalls between Russian production quotas and their heavy combat losses. They weren't quite so popular with the Russian tankers who had to crew them however. Later on in the war however, when the Russian's received some of the more advanced tank models like the M4 Sherman/76 they began to realise that some Allied tanks had features that were superior to their own. Allied tanks that had stabilised guns, radios and good reliability made a great impression on the Russians. A point often overlooked is the proportion of the Russian tank force that Allied Lend-Lease shipments represented. The lend lease shipments accounted for some 15% of the total Russian tank force in 1941-1942.The list below details the numbers and types of individual vehicles sent to Russia: Bren Carriers - 2336 M3 Halftracks - 900 M3A1 Scout Cars - 3092 M3A1 Stuart - 1233 Valentine - 3487 Churchill - 258 M3A3 Lee/Grant - 1200 Matilda - 832 M4A2 75mm Sherman - 1750 M4A2 76mm Sherman - 1850 Half Tracks - 820 Light Trucks - 151,000 Heavy Trucks - 200,000 Jeeps - 51,000 Tractors - 8070 Lend-Lease Aircraft The aircraft delivered as part of the lend lease programme were especially welcome following the Red airforces catastrophic losses during the opening months of the campaign. Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers and 16% of all fighters and 29% of all naval aircraft. Some American aircraft types, such as the P-39 Airacobra fighters, A-20 Boston and B-25 Mitchell bombers and C-47 transport aircraft, were highly revered by their Russian crews. Several Russian aces scored more than 40 victories with Airacobras. The list below details the numbers and types of individual aircraft sent to Russia: P-39 Airacobra single-engine fighters - 4719 P-40 single-engine fighters - 2397 P-47 - 195 Hurricane single-engine fighters - 2952 Spitfire single-engine fighters - 1331 A-20 twin-engine light attack bombers - 2908 B-25 twin-engine medium bombers - 862 Lend-Lease Artillery Shipments The Russians felt that they had sufficient numbers of field artillery and knew that production would increase following the relocation their manufacturing facilities to the Urals and Siberia. However they did need AA and AT guns more urgently. However they were not satisfied with the performance of the AT guns they received and did not request any more. They were however satisfied with the Allied anti-aircraft guns they received. The list below details the numbers and types of individual AA and AT guns sent to Russia: 37mm Anti-Tank 35 57mm Anti-Tank 375 37mm Anti-Aircraft 340 40mm Anti-Aircraft 5,400 90mm Anti-Aircraft 240 Lend-Lease Ammunition And Explosives The Allies supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Allies supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition. Additional War Material In addition to military equipment, other commodities were sent which were essential to the war effort. These included 2.3 million tons of steel, 229,000 tons of aluminium, 2.6 million tons of petrol, 3.8 million tons of foodstuffs including tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on, 56,445 field telephones and 600,000km of telephone wire. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots. Conclusion Overall, lend lease material made a considerable difference to the Russian war effort. Following heavy equipment losses in 1941 and early 1942 and the almost complete relocation of Soviet industry, it helped to reestablish the Russians ability to continue fighting. In the later years of the war it helped to enable and sustain the large mobile operations the Russians undertook as they pushed German forces out of Russia and back into Germany. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, 'Lend-Lease was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance'. Lend lease material accounted for almost 10% of all Russian war material. |
Uther, I appreciate the information, but would you please just keep all of it in a single thread and keep editing it? I feel like half the board is just your topics. I'm sure Evgeny can help you combine them all.
|
Well problem is Boosh,no one else wass posting,so maybe if a few others posted some threads,then you would not just see my name.
Actually Evgeny thanked me for starting the threads.More people are posting now anyway so its all good.Remember this ain't ubi,and some of this info might be new to some people. |
Agree with boosher, yesterday the whole board was full of your posts when you really needed only one or two threads and contained all those links within
|
OK point taken.Start your new thread when ready.
I think the only ones I could have put in one post were the LW aces. BTW did no one find any of it interesting? I think the figures involved in the lend lease programme are pretty amazing.Maybe it would be more constructive to actually discuss a threads contents rather than complain that there are to many threads! |
Interesting, yes
|
Im finding the info very interesting. And as far as all the threads started by you Uther they are about different things of different interests so yes seperate threads are in order for each.
|
Well, as there seems to be a good amount of it and it clutters up the forums, why not open your own website where you can put it all? There are a number of free site hosting services on the internet. One thing I would appreciate, though, is a citation to show where you're getting all the info.
|
Yep, need sources.
JG, instead of poasting raw data and unkown author's writings, include your own thesis and develop it, and so invite some discussion. |
I don't know. I already have much of the information in the Lavockin thread and I wasn't planning to visit it for some time. But this is very interesting.
|
Are people seriously complaining about too many ON-TOPIC threads? Don't be moronic!
|
Funny ain't it FSM.Actually I give up.Lets all go back to the sound mod thread.Thats all we really need here after all,2 soundmod threads and a few 'Happy Christmas' threads.Pathetic.
|
Don't give up Uther. I found this thread very on-topic and very informative. References might be helpful it's true, although I can't see why you'd need to invent any of the info.
Above all, it's a relief to get away from the interminable self-justifying insults that are getting traded over the hack/mods. It's also nice to read a thread that doesn't end up as a gallery of cheer-leaders. B |
Interesting.. What is the source of those numbers Uther? Not questioning anything, role of lendlease was greatly reduced by soviet sources...
|
Sorry Brando,they ain't interested. I posted some threads just to get away from the soundmod merry-go-round,and it brought quite a few complaints (the cheek of it,posting WW2 related threads in this forum!) so now I don't give a stuff,and in my conf.ini I have set TrollMode=1
|
I think one or two interesting thread's would have been better, instead of the carpet bombing approach
|
Why click on the title if your not interested?
|
Quote:
|
So you were interested?
|
Quote:
http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm |
It was posted at least a dosen times before:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/documents/index.htm See for the numbers there |
I was the number 5 responder.....and affirmed "interesting"
|
Does anyone have any other figures to dispute the ones here?
|
I welcome topics such as this! This sim started on the Eastern Front and opened my eyes to the size and complexity of this aspect of WW2.
Probably because of the Cold War, the west has ignored or neglected the Eastern Front. The scale of this conflict was far,far greater than the war in the West IMO. From the posted figures I was amazed at the numbers of Hurricanes that formed part of Lend Lease. Best Regards, MB_Avro. |
From what I have heard Avro the Soviets were the same,denying the amount of help they received from the western allies!Thats why these sort of figures are interesting.
Good to see you here by the way! we need some of your interesting topics here! |
The point was not in denying LL, point was in complaining about poor quality of supplied machinery. For example Hurricanes were universally hated in VVS, M3 tanks were considered as "unfit for fighting". Even Shermans were not liked too much by their crews. One of a few rare examples of good attitude were Cobras. Once again, the point was not in getting the supply of not particularly the best machinery, but getting it when it was needed.
|
Interesting Solkor! i always thought the VVs quite liked the Hurricane,but were not very happy with the Spitfires they received.
|
"...Even Shermans were not liked too much by their crews."
I think that opinion was shared on both major fronts, east and west. My father spent his time in North Africa and after D day in Europe in a battlefield tank-rescue unit. I recall him saying how the Sherman crews feared getting hit by the heavier German tanks' armament as they "brewed-up" quite rapidly after sustaining damage, making escape or crew recovery more difficult. There's no doubt that there would be some enmity towards 'foreign aid' both from the government and the men & women on the sharp end. Similar I guess to the rise of the Japanese motorcycle industry after the war, remembering the reaction of British bike-owners to the newcomers. Getting used to different controls and gauges, as well as the differing intentions of the designers as regards use and maintenance, is always difficult. Dropping back to bikes for a moment I find the example of which side the kickstarter and gearshift pedal go on. These positions were reversed on Japanese machines sold here, and this change was a large part of why we Brits hated the new interloper. Eventually we got used to the new configuration and slowly started to like the various features that were there. But it took years for our cynicism to wear off. B |
Quote:
Just one of the opinions. It was loved by reconaissance pilots for it's stability and good view, but fighter pilots hated it for sluggishness, poor flight characteristics and weak armament. Good point was rather good visibility, but for example radio on all Brittish planes (including first Airacobras) was considered as "by no means better then Russian analog". |
Quote:
Viking . |
hey all! here's a good link on the subject with some good interviews & restoration projects of found a/c's.
http://www.lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/index.htm |
Didn't Soviet tanks crews not think there were in a Rolls-Royce or even a Bentley when compared to their own tanks?
On LL. Total Cargo shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the Soviet Union Total 17,499,861 tons 1941 360,778 - 2% 1942 2,453,097 - 14% - 16% of total 1943 4,794,545 - 27% - 43% of total 1944 6,217,622 - 35% - 78% of total 1945 3,673,819 - 21% - 100% of total |
Quote:
"Differences? Everything was different! The first thing you noticed was the luxury of the aircraft. It was really pleasant to fly in one of those, the luxury still was somewhat unnecessary. " There is no difference if you will burn alive with comfort or without it, but all the luxury meant added weight and increased size = easier target + a lot of extra things to burn. |
It also meant that one would become less exhausted. being tired = mistakes = dead
Lets look a some data: M4A2 weight - 31800kg height - 2.74m T-34/85 weight - 32000kg height - 2.72m Not much difference. Note that the M4A2 was diesel powered. The Soviets received some 4,102. Shermans faired no better than what the T-34 did and were certainly more reliable. |
:)
No doubt, this is interesting information, although the numbers are sort of overhelming...
But the numbers sometimes don't tell the exact true. E.G.: A lot of this material was lost in convoys. (The sailors' contribution is beyond believe, regarding the conditions, I think) The quality of some of the war machines was not always great (read quiet few complaints of the pilots flying e.g. "new" Hurricanes that remembered the BOB) And regarding the scale of the battles on the Eastern front, they get less significant, I believe ;). |
Quote:
Size in mm: T-34 T-34-85 Sherman Lenght 5920 8100 5893 Width 3000 3000 2616 height 2400 2720 2743 Main gun, mm 76,2 85 75 HP 500 500 350 Speed (top) 55 65 39 Speaking of reliability - once again at 7 days life expectance it did not matter at first. Secondly, Shermans had their own "bugs". For example, it could not withstand more that 100 km (sometimes even 20 km was more than enough for a breakdown to develop) race, which was common at last third of WWII due to disentegrating rubber bandages in the wheels, and thus it could not be used to chase retreating Germans... Sherman was so prone to overturning, that in some regiments it was forbidden to use them cross-country. It was so badly handling on frosen roads or ice that it got a nick name "cow on skiis". Another commonly described defeciency of Sherman was a main gun jamming at the recoil - this defect called for installing a new gun, since by no means it could be repaired in the field. Whats the use of the tank without a gun, which is unable to move, even if it's engine and transmition is running smoothly? And what's 4,102 compared to 52,000 T-34s? |
Salute
Would disagree with the comment that the Germans had the best equipment. Soviet Tank design was far ahead of the Germans at the start of the war. They were the first to use sloping armour effectively, allowing for better protection with less weight. All of the early German tanks had decent armour, but the angle was perpendicular to the ground, thus it protected less effectively than if it had been sloped. Even the Tiger I was built with perpendicular armour. The Tiger I was very heavy because the armour was so thick, nessesary because it was not sloped. A better design as far as slope, and it would have been lighter with similar protection. It was only with the arrival of the Panther that the Germans finally built a tank with properly sloped armour. Soviet tanks also had better ground pressure ratios, which meant they were less likely to become bogged in mud. The heavy German tanks were also prone to breaking down much more than the Sherman or T-34, the transmissions on both the Tiger and Panther were not up to the task of driving the bogie wheels and propelling all that weight. The T-34 was a revelation to the Germans when they first encountered it. It was undoubtably the best tank in the world at the time, with well sloped armour, a powerful gun, and wide tracks which allowed it to operate in areas where the German tanks couldn't. At the later stages, the JS-2 and JS-3 were the equal of any German tanks, including the Tigers. The Germans were still operating with the Mk IV as their main battle tank in 1944, when the Soviets had already introduced the T-34/85 which was clearly superior. The two areas where the Germans were ahead, were in optics for their guns, ie. they were able to engage at ranges where the Soviet optics were ineffective, and in onboard radio communications, where the German radios, which were installed in all tanks, allowed for excellent communication. The Soviets were quick to realize their deficiencies in communcation, and installed radios, but never equalled the precision of the Zeiss lenses on the German tanks. The Germans also had better tactics through most of the war, due to the lack of training that Soviet crews received, as well the tendency of the Soviet Command to not bother themselves too much with finesse, rather relying on brute force to break the lines meant that the Soviets often suffered heavy casualties. But the fact was, that in 1943/1944/1945 the advantage had swung to the defence, with plentiful AT guns and infantry AT weapons benefitting the German defence. In 1939/1940/1941, the Tank was supreme, and Infantry was generally helpless when attacked, so the Germans had their Blitzkrieg. Also, flak defence was poor for ground troops in the first part of the war, so the Stukas could operate with impunity. By 1943, all sides, especially the Germans, had beefed up their flak defences, and the Allied and Soviet Ground attack aircraft had a tough time. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.