Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
About the confiscated loc's
1)from the CIA source we know that at the end of 1947,the Soviets had roughly the same number of loc's as in june 1941 :betwen 25000 and 28000
2)from Atreides,we know that the SU lost between 4000 and 5000 loc's
3)we know also that these losses were nullified by
-the LL loc's (2000)
-the 1945/1947 production :2300 (CIA source)
conclusion :the number of confiscated loc' s is irrelevant .
Btw :it would be unwise of the Soviets to confiscate a lot of loc's in the occupied countries,because they demanded enormous amounts of reparations ,and (exagerating),they dragged away every thing they could,but,all these things had to be transported to the SU ....by rail,thus,the loc's had to remain in their countries .
1)from the CIA source we know that at the end of 1947,the Soviets had roughly the same number of loc's as in june 1941 :betwen 25000 and 28000
2)from Atreides,we know that the SU lost between 4000 and 5000 loc's
3)we know also that these losses were nullified by
-the LL loc's (2000)
-the 1945/1947 production :2300 (CIA source)
conclusion :the number of confiscated loc' s is irrelevant .
Btw :it would be unwise of the Soviets to confiscate a lot of loc's in the occupied countries,because they demanded enormous amounts of reparations ,and (exagerating),they dragged away every thing they could,but,all these things had to be transported to the SU ....by rail,thus,the loc's had to remain in their countries .
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
I see what happened you assumed that the times are fixed and they are timezone relative. Next time just quote the article or give a page number and number of posts from the top.ljadw wrote:About the post of Politician:search better,it is easy to find:
yesterday's last post :by me (20.31)
the last but one post :by Jon G.(18.38)
on 18.32 a post of Politician adressed to me
So he did indeed use "immense". The rest as you say is your opinion and not necessarily what was intended or can reasonably be inferred.and finishing with this :
if you still want to deny the IMMENSE importance of the LL locomotives ........
IMHO :immense importance means :it was deciding the outcome, thus who would be goose-stepping as the winner .
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Got a link for that? In any case we know that's what the CIA thought not necessarily what was the case.ljadw wrote:About the confiscated loc's
1)from the CIA source we know that at the end of 1947,the Soviets had roughly the same number of loc's as in june 1941 :betwen 25000 and 28000
No. We know that's what a Soviet source dating from 1961 states. We've got a number of other sources that have different numbers. At this stage it's not at all clear which is correct. Indeed they could both be correct depending on how the calculations are being performed.2)from Atreides,we know that the SU lost between 4000 and 5000 loc's
You forgot confiscated locomotives. Possibly repaired ones as well. Which is why the following:3)we know also that these losses were nullified by
-the LL loc's (2000)
-the 1945/1947 production :2300 (CIA source)
Is incorrect.conclusion :the number of confiscated loc' s is irrelevant .
Which makes no sense at all. Just becasuse they were confiscated doesn't mean that they were immediately moved to the USSR. Once they are under Soviet control they can be used where the Soviets want them to be used. Indeed the CIA source may have even lumped in the Warsaw Pact numbers with those of the Soviets. Hard to tell without seeing the document in question.Btw :it would be unwise of the Soviets to confiscate a lot of loc's in the occupied countries,because they demanded enormous amounts of reparations ,and (exagerating),they dragged away every thing they could,but,all these things had to be transported to the SU ....by rail,thus,the loc's had to remain in their countries .
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
The CIA source is (but I did already give it):
Soviet Rolling Stock and motor vehicle industries).
It is going in the same direction as the sources given by P.Atreides and M.Kenny (for the number of Soviet loc's in june 1941:(on P 2 of my copy):
"At the close of 1947,the park of rolling stock of the USSR was in general still slighty below mid-1941 levels.In december 1947 the inventory of rolling stock in the Soviet Union included about 26.000 steam locomotives and 815000 freight cars ."
That means that following the CIA,in june 1941 the rolling stock was AT LEAST 26000 locomotives,what's coinciding with the numbers of P.Atreides and M.Kenny .
You can discard one source,but,if three of them are giving the same (rough) figures,my POV is that we have to accept them,especially,if there are no reliable sources with other figures .
Soviet Rolling Stock and motor vehicle industries).
It is going in the same direction as the sources given by P.Atreides and M.Kenny (for the number of Soviet loc's in june 1941:(on P 2 of my copy):
"At the close of 1947,the park of rolling stock of the USSR was in general still slighty below mid-1941 levels.In december 1947 the inventory of rolling stock in the Soviet Union included about 26.000 steam locomotives and 815000 freight cars ."
That means that following the CIA,in june 1941 the rolling stock was AT LEAST 26000 locomotives,what's coinciding with the numbers of P.Atreides and M.Kenny .
You can discard one source,but,if three of them are giving the same (rough) figures,my POV is that we have to accept them,especially,if there are no reliable sources with other figures .
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
In grammatic/syntax terms, 'at the time' can only pertain to the period described in the sentence before, that is, 'after two years of war'. In other words, the 'much effort' can only mean the period up to June 1943. By that time, the front had not been rolled all that far back west compared to late 1941, so by far the greatest part of the ruined Soviet rail system was still in German hands. Maybe the Wiki author is trying to tell us something different, just what is not clear from the article's words.LWD wrote:...My reading of it was that he was talking about Soviet reconstruction post 1943. It's not at all clear to me after your statement which of us is reading it right or possibly it's some combination of the two.After two years of war with Germany, much of the Soviet rail system was in ruins. At the time, much effort had been put into rebuilding the track
Which makes zero sense. How would the lines re-gauged by the Germans suddenly be unable to carry Soviet rolling stock when re-re-gauged by the Soviets?Well if they were rebuilding lines to the front as they advanced then they may not have taken the time to do a really good job. After all they could use lighter trains and locomotives for that portion and use the heavy haulers on the intact portions of the rail net...'Hasty', I venture, again pertains to the German re-gauging of captured stretches of Soviet railroad, for the Germans did have problems running some of their own heavier engine types on lighter Soviet rails. Conversely, I refuse to believe that the Soviets rebuilt their railroads so that they could not bear the weight of their own locomotives
Yes, the Germans destroyed rail lines when retreating - there's a Wochenschau somewhere which shows the method by pulling an anchor-like contraption after a railroad car, ripping sleepers in half as it moves - but physically removing rails and (especially) track-bed takes far too much time, and is hardly worth the bother anyway.
In other words, we can presume that the track-bed, and frequently the rails themselves, would still be in place also after the Germans had retreated. The 'only' thing needed to turn them operational again would be new sleepers, and in some cases rails too.
Yet it appears that the Wiki author is telling us that the same rail infrastructure which had been perfectly capable of carrying Soviet rolling stock until the Germans captured it suddenly became inadequate upon Soviet recapture. That makes no sense. Especially not when you consider that the Germans themselves actually had to strengthen captured Soviet rail lines (frequently by adding more sleepers per kilometer) for their own heavier trains.
No it doesn't. Just as turning rolling stock factories into tank factories is a conscious choice, so is the decision to order rolling stock via LL, rather than changing factories back to building locomotives &c also a conscious choice. Or why, by the Wiki article's warped logic, would it suddenly become impossible to build rolling stock in factories which had been perfectly capable of doing so until June 1941?Well if the factories were already converted to tank production (which is especially reasonable if the US has agreed to suply locomotives) that sort of makes sense although it's not very well written.Even this is wrong, as the Soviets had built giant locomotive works at Chelyabinsk (quickly converted into building tanks instead), Kuznetzk and Ulan-Ude in the 1930s, all of which are very far indeed from the parts of the USSR which were overrun by the Germans.
---
Thanks for adding sourced figures to the discussion. That was sorely neededPaul_Atreides wrote:By the end of 1941 working fleet of freight cars has decreased only by 7.5%. (History of the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1961. P. 172)
However, seeing that your figures are from an early 60s official Soviet history, we might allow ourselves to question the numbers offered. For example, what does the volume you quote from say about the impact of Lend-Lease rolling stock to the Soviet state railroads?
I will note, just in passing, that a rolling stock fleet will decrease all by itself if ridden hard and no replacements are built. In other words, railroad locomotives and wagons will depreciate and wear out from ordinary service; it is not likely that much of the RR stock written off between June 1941 and early 1943 was captured by the Germans.By the early 1943 steam locomotive fleet has decreased by 15%, the park freight cars by 20%. (The Great Patriotic War 1941-1945. The Encyclopedia. Moscow, 1985. P. 268)
Interesting. Some of the increased capacity as compared to early 1943 might be because of the effects of Lend-Lease rolling stock?By the end of 1944 rolling stock of railways as compared with the prewar period decreased by 16 percent. Total capacity of cars was 91 percent relative to pre-war time. (History of the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945. Vol. 5. Moscow, 1963. P. 172)
Thanks again for the numbers. It seems easy enough to infer that the Soviet railroads were expanding quite massively up to the time when the Germans attacked. All that extra industrial capacity probably came in handy when the need suddenly changed from rolling stock to tanks by June 1941.It's right number, although there is another number - 25 000. 11 849 or 12 088 locomotives and 284 100 or 301 300 cars were produced during 1928-1940 (first numbers from 'History of the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945'. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1960. P. 418; second ones from 'Railwaymen in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945'. Moscow, 1987. P. 62).
'less than 100 locomotives' were produced during 1942-1945 (1942 — 9, 1943 — 43, 1944 — 32, 1945 — 8), in 1941 were produced 715 locomotives. Same things concerning cars - 33 096 in 1941, 1 087 in 1942-1945...
-
- Member
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Lol ljadw: USSR didnt take any locomotives from Eastern Europe......
Your talking about the same Red army that wasnt second in plundering even to the Wehrmacht???
The Soviets took EVERYTHING they could get their hands on and shipped it back to the USSR - thats a fact.
So your claim that the USSR wouldnt have taken locomotives from Eastern Europe and Austria Germany is absolutely ridiculous.
And concerning the Loco numbers: I have a Russian/Soviet source from 1988: This claims that the USSR had between
23 400 and 25 000 locs before the war and 15 800 locs and 428 000 railway wagons were lost - so your CIA numbers are simply wrong - and without a source.
PS: My Russian is not as good as It has been so I would like some of our Russian users to check this:
http://izmerov.narod.ru/rstories/reihsbahn.html
И там сказано вот что: "Они разрушили, повредили и увезли 15800 паровозов и мотовозов и 428 000 вагонов."
http://www.cominformua.com/index.php/ra ... nt&print=1
Нанесён материальный ущерб ценнейшим основным промышленным фондам СССР. Из 122 тыс. км железнодорожной колеи, бывшей до войны на территории СССР, подвергавшейся оккупации, разрушено и разграблено оккупантами 65 тыс. км железнодорожной [160]колеи. Повреждено 15800 паровозов, 428000 вагонов.
Your talking about the same Red army that wasnt second in plundering even to the Wehrmacht???
The Soviets took EVERYTHING they could get their hands on and shipped it back to the USSR - thats a fact.
So your claim that the USSR wouldnt have taken locomotives from Eastern Europe and Austria Germany is absolutely ridiculous.
And concerning the Loco numbers: I have a Russian/Soviet source from 1988: This claims that the USSR had between
23 400 and 25 000 locs before the war and 15 800 locs and 428 000 railway wagons were lost - so your CIA numbers are simply wrong - and without a source.
PS: My Russian is not as good as It has been so I would like some of our Russian users to check this:
http://izmerov.narod.ru/rstories/reihsbahn.html
И там сказано вот что: "Они разрушили, повредили и увезли 15800 паровозов и мотовозов и 428 000 вагонов."
http://www.cominformua.com/index.php/ra ... nt&print=1
Нанесён материальный ущерб ценнейшим основным промышленным фондам СССР. Из 122 тыс. км железнодорожной колеи, бывшей до войны на территории СССР, подвергавшейся оккупации, разрушено и разграблено оккупантами 65 тыс. км железнодорожной [160]колеи. Повреждено 15800 паровозов, 428000 вагонов.
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Don't post ridiculous things,otherwis people would ask questions .
If the Soviets took everything and shipped it back to the SU,they did this(shipping) by train,or,do you insinuate that they did this on horsebacK ?
If they shipped the trains and the loc's to the SU, they could no more ship anything .
I am also happy that you are no more claiming that the SU had 8000 loc's in 1941.
If the Soviets took everything and shipped it back to the SU,they did this(shipping) by train,or,do you insinuate that they did this on horsebacK ?
If they shipped the trains and the loc's to the SU, they could no more ship anything .
I am also happy that you are no more claiming that the SU had 8000 loc's in 1941.
-
- Member
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 02 Sep 2011, 07:56
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
1. You have a source for that unconfirmed CIA claim right - can we see it?? Oh wait we cant..... 2.ljadw wrote:Don't post ridiculous things,otherwis people would ask questions .
If the Soviets took everything and shipped it back to the SU,they did this(shipping) by train,or,do you insinuate that they did this on horsebacK ?
If they shipped the trains and the loc's to the SU, they could no more ship anything .
I am also happy that you are no more claiming that the SU had 8000 loc's in 1941.
2.Why should a Russian written source be ridiculous?? Because it once again compleately destroy your argument??
Thats the only thing you ever do - claiming that other peoples sources are not believable while not delivering a single source by yourself.
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Why should your source be right,given the fact that it is contradicted by P.Atreides,and also,that it is impossible :you are saying that the SU ended the war with 12000 loc's (of which 2000 ll):the Soviet advance would have stopped ,with such a low number of loc's .
And your number of 15800 destroyed loc's :who was talking about 15800 destroyed loc's,using a source that was saying 15800 damaged loc's ?
Well :who ? Maybe some one who doesn't know that beschaedigt means damaged,but still is lecturing the other people ?
And your number of 15800 destroyed loc's :who was talking about 15800 destroyed loc's,using a source that was saying 15800 damaged loc's ?
Well :who ? Maybe some one who doesn't know that beschaedigt means damaged,but still is lecturing the other people ?
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
That's an incredibly nebulous site. Is it on line? Does it have a document number? What page was the info on?ljadw wrote:The CIA source is (but I did already give it):
Soviet Rolling Stock and motor vehicle industries)... .
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
It is two times online with the same title,you also can look on :
foia.cia.gov/docs/.....DOC OOOO258356
I have it printed .
The report has 9 pages ,first a summary(it had as destination politicians),than information about the locomotives,finishing with the trucks.
On PP 1 and 5 is mentioned the figure of 1 million trucks,onP 2 the figure of 26000 locomotives .
foia.cia.gov/docs/.....DOC OOOO258356
I have it printed .
The report has 9 pages ,first a summary(it had as destination politicians),than information about the locomotives,finishing with the trucks.
On PP 1 and 5 is mentioned the figure of 1 million trucks,onP 2 the figure of 26000 locomotives .
-
- Member
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 09:05
- Location: Russia, St. Petersburg
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Mm, actually not simply lost.Politician01 wrote:Lol ljadw: USSR didnt take any locomotives from Eastern Europe......
And concerning the Loco numbers: I have a Russian/Soviet source from 1988: This claims that the USSR had between
23 400 and 25 000 locs before the war and 15 800 locs and 428 000 railway wagons were lost
I've highlighted keyword. "Повредили", "повреждено" means damaged.PS: My Russian is not as good as It has been so I would like some of our Russian users to check this:
http://izmerov.narod.ru/rstories/reihsbahn.html
И там сказано вот что: "Они разрушили, повредили и увезли 15800 паровозов и мотовозов и 428 000 вагонов."
http://www.cominformua.com/index.php/ra ... nt&print=1
Нанесён материальный ущерб ценнейшим основным промышленным фондам СССР. Из 122 тыс. км железнодорожной колеи, бывшей до войны на территории СССР, подвергавшейся оккупации, разрушено и разграблено оккупантами 65 тыс. км железнодорожной [160]колеи. Повреждено 15800 паровозов, 428000 вагонов.
According to the recent research "Паровозы серии Э ("Eh Series Locomotives", Moscow, 2004. Author lot of time worked in the Russian State Archive of the Economy (РГАЭ - Российский государственный архив экономики) at the beginning 1943 there were 23 800 locos from 27 900 on 21st June 1941 ('Eh' locos 6 750 from 7 907 respectively, p. 164, 167).
There is no waste, there are reserves (Slogan of German Army in World Wars)
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
Your link wasn't but I did find a document on Soviet rolling stock here that may be the one you are talking about:ljadw wrote:It is two times online with the same title,you also can look on :
foia.cia.gov/docs/.....DOC OOOO258356
I have it printed .
The report has 9 pages ,first a summary(it had as destination politicians),than information about the locomotives,finishing with the trucks.
On PP 1 and 5 is mentioned the figure of 1 million trucks,onP 2 the figure of 26000 locomotives .
http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?page ... tOrder=ASCSOVIET ROLLING STOCK AND MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRIES (ORE 42-48) Created: 9/1/1948
NARA # NN3-263-92-005
It should be noted that they mention that it is based on very little post war data and they were making extensive use of terms such as "may" and "about". It's dated 9/1/48 and has a reference number of NARA # NN3-263-92-005; 24-AUG-92 if I'm reading it correctly.
There's also one on rail production
SOVIET RAIL PRODUCTION Created: 8/8/1950
on this page:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?page ... tOrder=ASC#
it's dated 8/8/50 and is only one page but gives some information on the sources.
On this page:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?page ... tOrder=ASC
There's the following article:
Which has some significant implications for the issue at hand and rather points to the importance of LL and in particular the transport related parts of it.VULNERABILITY OF THE SOVIET BLOC TO ECONOMIC WARFARE (NIE 22) Created: 2/19/1951 NARA #: NN3-263-93-007
The following is also useful:
both as an indicator of the strengths and weakness of the Soviet rail net in the early postwar period but also of the CIA analysis of the same.SIGNIFICANCE OF RECENT ANNOUNCEMENTS CONCERNING THE SOVIET RAILROAD TRANSPORTAT Created: 11/12/1954
A number of other doucuments that might be relevant to this topic and certainly to others exist there. I definitly recomend looking through that site.
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
This is the document;I know,in it self,its reliability could be questioned(use of may,about),but,it is going in the direction of the sources provided by M.Kenny and P.Atreides,thus,we have 4 sources saying (roughly) the same,(there is the Russian source involuntaryly provided by Politician).and,NOT ONE source saying that there were only 8000 loc's in june 1941,and that 15000 loc's were destroyed during the war .Thus,we shall have to make shift with it (for the moment):
the SU had in june 1941 a big number of loc's,the losses were limited,the conclusion is that the claim " the importance of the LL loc's was immense" is wrong .Not more,not less .
the SU had in june 1941 a big number of loc's,the losses were limited,the conclusion is that the claim " the importance of the LL loc's was immense" is wrong .Not more,not less .
Re: Impact of Lend-Lease on Soviet railways
To return to the OP(the impact of LL on the Russian railways)IMHO,the impact of the LL loc's was very limited,considering the numbers :7 % of the 1941 trucks,8 % of the 1945 trucks,considering also the fact that already in 1942,a German victory was very improbable (Bock was writing in 1942 that the Ostheer was incapable of long ranging objectives)and that the LL loc's did arrive from 1943 only .
Could the SU have won (=being in Berlin in may 1945) without the LL loc's :yes .
The whole question has been exaggerated by people with more chauvinist ignorance/ignorant chauvinism than knowledge.
Could the SU have won (=being in Berlin in may 1945) without the LL loc's :yes .
The whole question has been exaggerated by people with more chauvinist ignorance/ignorant chauvinism than knowledge.