Allied military aid for Soviet Union

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 15:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]

Allied military aid for Soviet Union

Post by Musashi » 30 Jan 2003 22:34

Has anybody informations about this subject?
The Soviets affirmed allied military aid made 5% of Soviet production. Everybody knows its bullshit. I head about whole armoured divisions equipped with American and British tanks. What is your opinion?




Best regards

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11468
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Jan 2003 23:16

Musashi,

I´ve seen many kind of numbers too. Here´s one example:
http://www.geocities.com/ojoronen/LENDLSE.HTM

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Fred
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:13
Location: Sweden

Post by Fred » 30 Jan 2003 23:20

700 000 ton(metric)tinned goods(that´s about 50% of all tinns used by Soviet army).
4 million ton meat.
409 500 motor vehicles(Soviet production 1942-45: 265 000)
10 000 train carriages, 2000 lend-leased locomotives including(Soviet production 1942-45: 92) 90% of all railroad tracks used.
1/3 of all high explosives.
about 50% of the aluminium came from the “west”.
huge ammonts of advanced equipment to Soviet indusrti, copper, rubber, fuel to the airforce etc..
not to mention tanks and aircrafs.

Niklas Zetterling/Anders Frankson"Slaget om Kursk"

User avatar
Aufklarung
Financial supporter
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 04:27
Location: Canada

Post by Aufklarung » 30 Jan 2003 23:33

Among many, many other things; Canada built 1300 Valentines and sent them to USSR. Other than a weak main armament, they loved them and asked for more. I believe Britain also sent a similar number.
Regards
A :D

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11468
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Jan 2003 23:55

More numbers:
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/intro.html
Click the Mk III Churchill, roll down to the last pic, read the text...first 8O then :roll: then :o then :) then :D then :lol: :lol: :lol:

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Madsen
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 22:56
Location: Norway cloose to the Saltstraumen

Post by Madsen » 31 Jan 2003 00:04

hehe nice :lol: politic!!!

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11468
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 31 Jan 2003 10:53

Said my "twinbrother" from the 2nd best skiing country in the world :)

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Ike_FI
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 04 Dec 2002 21:32
Location: Helsinki. Finland

Post by Ike_FI » 31 Jan 2003 15:40

Juha Tompuri wrote:http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/intro.html
Click the Mk III Churchill, roll down to the last pic, read the text...


Well that piece of text makes me wonder how reliable all the other stuff on that site is.

Perhaps, by applying the same logic, the Italians as descendants of ancient Romans could have claimed that they "liberated" a number of Middle Eastern(/North African towns during WWII :)

But back to the original topic: does anyone have a source at hand that would tell how the deliveries were divided (%:s) between various transport routes?

User avatar
Robert Hurst
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Oct 2002 15:11
Location: Worksop, Notts, UK

Lend-Lease Tanks

Post by Robert Hurst » 31 Jan 2003 16:06

Hi

Valentine Infantry Tank

The Valentine was the most common type of tank shipped by britain and Canada to the Soviet Union, totalling 1,388 Canadian and 2,394 British vehicles. This accounted for nearly all Canadian production of this type, and about 29 per cent of British production. The Soviets received most of the variants of the basic tank including both the 2 pdr (4 cm ) and 6 pdr (5.7 cm) armed versions, and a small number of bridge-layers.

The Valentine proved the most popular British tank in Soviet service, preferred to the Matilda becvause of its better mobility. In fact, in 1943 when the British offered the Soviets the Cromwell in place of the older types, it was refused in favour of the Valentine. There had been plans to terminate Valentine production in 1943 on the grounds of obsolescence, but production was continued into 1944 solely to satisfy Soviet requirments.

In 1942 the Soviets tried to rearm the Valentine with a 76.2 mm gun, but this was unsuccessful because the turret was too small.

Matilda Infantry Tank

The Matilda was the second most common type of British tank in Soviet service. It was not as popular as the Valentine because it was slow and performed poorly in winter. Many Russian Matildas had sections of steel bar welded diagonally to their tracks for better traction in snow. General Federenko, head of the Soviet armoured force during the war, recommended to the British advisory teams that the Matilda be redeigned without the outer side armour so as to reduce its weight and prevent snow and mud accumulating and damaging the suspension. The Matilda was far more heavily armoured than the T-60 and T-70 and so was more useful as an infantry support tank despite its indifferent speed.

Please note that the text and photos in this sequence of posts were taken from 'Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two', by Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen.

Regards

Bob
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Robert Hurst on 31 Jan 2003 16:36, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Robert Hurst
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Oct 2002 15:11
Location: Worksop, Notts, UK

Lend-Lease Tanks Pt 2

Post by Robert Hurst » 31 Jan 2003 16:19

Hi

Churchill Infantry Tank

Small numbers of Churchills were supplied to the Red Army from May 1942. These were all the 6 pdr (5.7 cm) armed versions. The Soviets regarded the Churchill as a heavy tank, and in fact, during the Battle of Kursk, the 5th Guards Tank Army's only heavy tanks were 35 Churchills.

The Russians showed no enthusiasm for the Churchills and none were provided after 1942.

Tetrarch Airborne Tank

A total of twenty Tetrarchs were supplied to the Red Army via Iran in 1941. They were much photographed for propaganda purposes, but played a minuscule role in the Lend-Lease programme.

Universal Carriers

A total of 2,656 Universal Carriers were sent to the Soviet Union during the war from the UK, Canada and the USA. They were used mainly as troop transports, scout and liaison vehicles. They were not as popular as the American half-tracks because they did not have the carrying capacity and had poor performance in snow because of their narrow tracks.

Regards

Bob
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Robert Hurst
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Oct 2002 15:11
Location: Worksop, Notts, UK

Lend-Lease Tanks Pt 3

Post by Robert Hurst » 31 Jan 2003 16:33

Hi

M3A1 Light Tank

A total of 1,676 M3A1 Stuart light tanks were shipped to the Red Army during the war, nearly all of them being the diesel powered version. A small number of earlier M3s were shipped from UK stocks in 1941.

The Stuart was criticised by the Soviets for its high silhouette, and the hull machine-guns were ridiculed as being useless. While both these complaints were justified, the Stuart was superior to the T-60 in nearly all respects, and comparable or superior to the T-70. Five M5A1s and two M-24 Chaffee light tanks were provided as samples, but the Russians requested more M4A2 Shermans.

M3 Lee Medium Tank

A total of 1,386 M3 Lee medium tanks were shipped to the Red Army during the war, nearly all being the M3A3 and M3A5 diesel powered versions.

Its high silhouette and archaic configuration made it less popular than the later M4 Sherman tanks. It was sometimes derisively referred to as a "Grave for Seven Brothers". The M31 armoured recovery version was also supplied.

Regards

Bob
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Robert Hurst on 31 Jan 2003 16:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Robert Hurst
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Oct 2002 15:11
Location: Worksop, Notts, UK

Lend-Lease Tanks Pt 4

Post by Robert Hurst » 31 Jan 2003 16:40

Hi

M4A2 Sherman Medium Tank

The M4A2 Sherman medium tank was supplied in larger numbers than any other American or British tank during the war. A total of 4,252 were sent, about evenly divided between the version with the 75 mm gun and the improved version with the 76 mm gun. All those supplied were the M4A2 version with diesel engines.

The Soviets tried rearming some of the 75 mm version with the F-34 gun, these becoming known as the M4M. This conversion does not appear to have been very widespread because there were ample supplies of US 75 mm ammunition, but the Germans captured at least a small number of this version.

The Sherman was widely used during the last year of the war, some tank and mechanised corps were equipped entirely with this type. The tank destroyer version of the Sherman, called the M10, was supplied in small numbers.

The above text and photos were taken from 'Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two', by Steven J Zaloga and James Grandsen.

Regards

Bob
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Robert Hurst on 01 Feb 2003 11:27, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ogorek
Member
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 May 2002 23:23
Location: USA

Post by Ogorek » 31 Jan 2003 17:54

One of the saddest commentaries about Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union during the war came to me from a friend who had the opportunity to visit Russia circa 1996 - very well versed in Soviet and Russian affairs, he went to Vorkuta. The railroad lines leading to the former GULAG had the metal frogs - the plates that anchor the rails to the sleepers - all had the cast inscription that the were made in Pittsburgh in 1943.

A sad commentary that people had to risk their lives transporting this heavy, bulky cargo to the Soviet Union, and what the ultimate purpose eventually was.

User avatar
Kokampf
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 19:45
Location: London, UK

Post by Kokampf » 31 Jan 2003 18:10

Ogorek wrote:One of the saddest commentaries about Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union during the war came to me from a friend who had the opportunity to visit Russia circa 1996 - very well versed in Soviet and Russian affairs, he went to Vorkuta. The railroad lines leading to the former GULAG had the metal frogs - the plates that anchor the rails to the sleepers - all had the cast inscription that the were made in Pittsburgh in 1943.

A sad commentary that people had to risk their lives transporting this heavy, bulky cargo to the Soviet Union, and what the ultimate purpose eventually was.


More depressingly still, the railway itself will almost certainly have been built with slave labour from the GULAG.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Re: Allied military aid for Soviet Union

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 31 Jan 2003 18:53

Musashi wrote:Has anybody informations about this subject?
The Soviets affirmed allied military aid made 5% of Soviet production. Everybody knows its bullshit. I head about whole armoured divisions equipped with American and British tanks. What is your opinion?




Best regards
care to substantiate? so that I don't have to repeat myself - http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... &start=280

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”