Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research, Christoph Awender's WW2 day by dayand Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld.

Skip to content

If you found the forum useful please consider supporting us. You can also support us by buying books through the AHF Bookstore.

Us was more important than SU.in German defeat? Need help!

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.

Us was more important than SU.in German defeat? Need help!

Postby Groscurth on 28 Nov 2003 01:21

Hi,

I am rather new here, I was already posting a while on Feldgrau untill I was invited by David to watch this forum. Since it is huge and you've a lot off data, I regard it often and will try to post something when it is interesting, but you already are informed about everything, so I don't see what I could post untill now.


I have a question that I ask on this forum. I just watched a debate in wich again someone had the beliefs that the US helping in the war was the major factor that defeated Germany. Off course we all discused those kind off things at WWII fora, but I could not find a link. In fact it is the same style of statement ass Normandy was the most desisive operation in WWII. In those discussions, I always try to pay attention for the eastern front too, since for those people all fronts are the same and Stalingrad, Kursk, Tsjerkassy are all less important then Bastogne or other battles in wich the allies performed. But now I found someone intelligent that deserves a reply.
Like all WWII passionated people, I know most facts and some order off battle (thanks to the site) and I know that this question returns often from non informed people. But this man is, altough enorm exagerations (I don't knew the exact numbers too) about US convoy shipments too Russia (thus Murmansk), I see a gap in those numbers, (+10.000 tanks, for example), in in the logic that (for example again the armour) that those tanks really helped the Russians since we can not compare lett's say a Lee Grant Tank or Sharman with a T34 or JS (I&II) tank.

Can someone give me some links or type some good arguments down to stop those nonsens. Off course the allies helped a small bit but I want to say to that person that the Soviets would have won however, with or withouth help and I am not that specialised to find this on the internet.
I am also handicaped because I don't speak English.

Feel free to post something to enlighten the situation.(David?).

I post now his message:

"
If you were to look for the information, you would find that the initial Soviet military production was pitifully low, and it wasn't until well into 1942 that they were self sufficient. In that time, the US sent thousands of tanks and aircraft, millions of tons of munitions, small arms, spare parts, and equipment. The USSR did not have the capacity to fight off Germany on its own. They had help.
To put it into perspective, the US sent the USSR $4.6 billion in munitions through lend-lease, an equal amount in other supplies (food, fuels, spare parts, etc), all amounting to millions of tons. Weapons amounted to 8000 anti-aircraft guns, 135,000 SMGs, 40,000 field radios, 300,000 tons of explosives, 14,000 aircraft and 12,000 tanks. For tanks, this amounts to 10% of all systems of those types fielded by the Soviet Union during the war. For the aircraft, this is over 20% of all aircraft the Soviets fielded during the war, and the Soviet air defense (PVO) units had 70% of thier aircraft as American or British. In addition, several top Soviet aces got a good portion of their kills in US P-39 Aircobras.
Other vehicles included 32,000 motorcycles, 13,000 locomotives and railway cars, and 425,000 assorted trucks and halftracks. These vehicles amount to well over half of what the Soviets had, and were the key to the logistics needed to keep the combat units running. Without those trucks and trains, the USSR would never have been able to sustain its offensives."

In fact it is not about the numbers but I can not stand that the Eastern front was again made less important then the Western front. In my opinion, Russia would be at the French border in the summer or fall off '45 withouth a Western front.

Thank you for the links that you can give me on this forum or your replies.
User avatar
Groscurth
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 380
Joined: 12 Sep 2003 03:36

Postby MadderCat on 28 Nov 2003 08:55

hi

do You know this site??
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/index.html

MadderCat
MadderCat
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 410
Joined: 10 May 2003 12:52
Location: Germany

Re: Us was more important than SU.in German defeat? Need hel

Postby Darrin on 28 Nov 2003 17:59

Groscurth wrote:
I see a gap in those numbers, (+10.000 tanks, for example), in in the logic that (for example again the armour) that those tanks really helped the Russians since we can not compare lett's say a Lee Grant Tank or Sharman with a T34 or JS (I&II) tank.

Can someone give me some links or type some good arguments down to stop those nonsens. Off course the allies helped a small bit but I want to say to that person that the Soviets would have won however, with or withouth help and I am not that specialised to find this on the internet.
I am also handicaped because I don't speak English.

Feel free to post something to enlighten the situation.(David?).

I post now his message:

In fact it is not about the numbers but I can not stand that the Eastern front was again made less important then the Western front. In my opinion, Russia would be at the French border in the summer or fall off '45 withouth a Western front.

Thank you for the links that you can give me on this forum or your replies.



The 75 mm sherman was a bit better than the rus 76 mm T34. The 76 mm sherman was as good as an 85mm T34. The CW even had a firefly version with a 17lb gun the was better than any T34. The rus got 4000 shermans half of them 75mm the other 76mm. These sherman equiped an unusally high percentage of the elite of the elite rus army units the guard mech corp. The rus themselves had a very high opinion of the shermans.

Other tanks may not have compared as favorable as shermans with T34s but many of the tanks the rus built were not T34s ands IS2s. About a third of the rus tanks built from mid 41 to 45 were either light tanks the T60 and T70 or the light ass gun the 76. All built on the same chasis one after another.

While the LL weapons were marginallly important it was the railway motorization and supply of raw minerals that was more important. Over half the alum, rubber, av gas, exp etc. If 30 % of rus aircraft were from the west and half of those made there were made using the western alum then it becomes even more significant than the weapons alone.

The big stumbling block to the rus winning was taking huge numbers of cas and running out of people faster then ger was. Despite having a pop that was at most 2.5 times larger then ger they took 4 times the mil cas. They also took an unusually high number of cas in the civ pop as well compared to ger. Without LL without any SB and without the second front it seems likly all rus might hope for is a stalmate.

Look in this link for more details

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24608
Darrin
Member
Canada
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Postby varjag on 01 Dec 2003 12:50

Groscurth - short and sweet; don't be confused by all the postwar hairsplitting - without the US no USSR!
varjag
Financial supporter
Australia
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia


Return to WW2 in Eastern Europe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests