Lend Lease

[venny1962]

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

[Al Schlageter]

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

[FPSOlkor]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Didn't Soviet tanks crews not think there were in a Rolls-Royce or even a Bentley when compared to their own tanks?

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...esov/index.htm
"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.

[Al Schlageter]

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.

[DeAbajo]

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 .

[FPSOlkor]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

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.

On average tank lasted for 7 days on eastern front, independent on it's type. That means that each tank had a combat expectance of 1,2 attack. That also means that crew members on average got killed faster then they got tired. There were a lot of differences between soviet and american design schools - as vterans recall it "American equipment was great for peace time, but it had a lot of unnecessary features which supposedly enhanced, but actually lessened it's combat potential. Soviet equipment was well suited for war, but it was a nightmare for peace time use. For that matter, Germans had best equipment of all, but they lacked the man resourced to operate what they achieved in technological terms".
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?

[*Buzzsaw*]

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.