Yep. Soviets paid with gold bars. As it was lend-lease they later returned those still in one piece to the US in late 40's early 50's where they were destroyed (thrown overboard on the way to US). Same goes for other equpment recived as per Lend-Lease (trucks, tanks, PT-boats, ships...).Dunserving wrote:Err.... Did the Russians actually pay for them then?Alejandro_ wrote:I wonder if choices had to do with cost of the aircraft, P-47 was twice as expensive when compared to P-39.Allison-engined P-51As should be more useful to Russia than Merlin-engined P-51B's, C's and D's. Allison engine was best at low altitude, Merlin at high altitude.
The P-47 is a fuel hog of monumental proportions, and is also best at high altitude.
P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
Re: P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
- Alejandro_
- Member
- Posts: 404
- Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
Do you have more details on the amount & quantity of gold bars?Yep. Soviets paid with gold bars. As it was lend-lease they later returned those still in one piece to the US in late 40's early 50's where they were destroyed (thrown overboard on the way to US). Same goes for other equpment recived as per Lend-Lease (trucks, tanks, PT-boats, ships...).
What about "Reverse lend & lease"? was this a method to pay for the lend lease?
Re: P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
I don't have the nubers right now but 4.5-long-ton (4,570 kg) of gold bars ( 465gold bars) went down with HMS Edinburgh.