Soviet wartime domestic truck production

[Michael Kenny]

this site seems to have very detailed figures on trucks produced in Russia during the war.

http://www.autogallery.org.ru/gal.htm

If you ignore the politics it seems to be the answer to all our questions about production totals

[Igor Kurtukov]

May be less detailed, but in more convenient form:

Code: Select all

                     Truck production by factory

Factory     1941 (since June)        1942      1943     1944     1945 (till May)       Total

GAZ                 26,500          24,000    21,300   23,200         7,400           102,400
ZIS                 18,800           6,300    22,500   31,100        11,600            90,200
YaAZ                   800             100                                                900
UAZ                                  1,900     4,100      400                           6,400
UralZIS                                                 2,800         2,300             5,100 

Total               46,100          32,300    41,600   57,400        21,300           205,000

Out of total 205,000 trucks produced, 150,400 were consumed by the military. So, on 22.6.41 Red Army had around 270,000 trucks, and received another 745,000 during the war. Out of these, 150,000 were new domestic production, 221,500 trucks drafted from the industry and agriculture sectors, 60,600 captured enemy's trucks and 312,600 lend-lease trucks.

http://fat-yankey.livejournal.com/32078.html

[Art]

There is a memorandum of the Red Army Main Automobile Directorate of 11.02.44 which lists all deliveries of automobiles from 22.06.41to 1.01.44. According to this document when the war began the Red Army had 272 605 automobiles, 268 095 were mboilized from civilian sector by 1.01.44. Deliveries from the undustry were as followes:
1941 (from 22.06) - 7 321
1942 - 25 038
1943 - 40 619
Total - 102 978
Foreign deliveries:
1941 - 454
1942 - 31 690
1943 - 88 021
Total - 120 165
The number of automobiles in the Army on 1 January 1944 was about 510 000 including those in repair, in depots, and en route on that day. 9 294 automobiles were given to the civilian sector in 1943, and about 245 thousands were lost to various reasons.

Out of these 745,000, 150,000 were new domestic production, 221,500 trucks drafted from the industry and agriculture sectors, 60,600 captured enemy's trucks and 312,600 lend-lease trucks.

Igor, are these numbers for all types of automobiles or trucks only? The report by Milovsky gives the similar numbers (Domestic production - 150 400, foreign deliveries - 312 600, captured - 60 625, but mobilized automobiles - 256 179) but says that they include all automobiles.

[Appleknocker27]

Should there also be another column here for 50,000 Jeeps since they could do much the same woek as the lighter 2 wheel drive Soviet trucks? Also, I see no mention of US M2, M3 and M5 Halftracks, M3A1 scout cars (could be used like trucks) and British Bren gun carriers. I believe all told this would add 60,000+ vehicles to the Soviet inventory as far as vehicles that can perform in the "truck" role. It is also notable that it is not an equal 1 for 1 comparison with Soviet built trucks and Allied LL trucks. Most Soviet trucks were 2 wheel drive with less off road capability/performance and had a lesser hauling capability (for comparison http://www.o5m6.de/ ). If comparing to Wehrmacht capabilities, it might be better to use hauling capacity at any given time as opposed to a number of trucks. If comparing Soviet domestic production to LL deliveries I think it is imperative to look at hauling capacity as opposed to numbers of vehicles (which would be misleading).

[Michael Kenny]

I think it is imperative to look at hauling capacity as opposed to numbers of vehicles (which would be misleading).

The thing is that for decades we were given figures that claimed the majority of Soviet trucks were provided by LL. To date the raw 'numbers' have been the main issue.

[Appleknocker27]

I see, then it seems that the info in this thread debunks that then.

[LWD]

Funny I'm not sure I ever saw that at leat by anyone with any mantle of authority at all. Is it possibly a strawman being used to discredit ther impact of LL or can someone provide referances.

[LWD]

Here's another complication. From:
http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

# Here is an example of PQ convoy. In January of 1944, an American lend-lease convoy left Seattle bound for Vladivostok. Its manifest read as follows:

46 merchantmen (all 8-10K ton ships); built by McCormack Ship Yards; Soviet flagged ... and Soviet crewed.

Six of the 46 ships were loaded with ammunitions and small arms. Four of the 46 ships were loaded with foodstuffs. Two of the 46 ships were loaded by Dodge (presumably with trucks). One ship was loaded by Westinghouse (presumably with communications gear).

They carried:
# 3.000 truck chassis, by Ford (the Soviets also assembled U.S. trucks from parts).
# 3.000 truck differentials from Thornton Tandem Co.
# 2.000 tractors by Allis Chalmers Co. (agricultural and military use)
...
# 600 trucks from Mack.
...
# 500 half-tracks from Minneapolis Moline Co.
....
# 400 truck chassis by GM (see Ford above)
# 310 tons of ball bearings from the Fafnir Company.
...
# 100 tractor-trailer units by GM (trucks)

[Appleknocker27]

It looks like in terms of raw numbers that Soviet production was substantial. If you were looking to discredit LL trucks and their impact, one might use that as a basis for argument. However, since LL trucks completely outclassed Soviet built trucks in performance, durability, load, etc. it would be a hollow argument. The link I provided earlier clearly demonstrates that Soviet trucks were generally lighter and 2 wheel drive which are not hallmarks of vehicles that can support tactical mobility.

[Jon G.]

Funny I'm not sure I ever saw that at leat by anyone with any mantle of authority at all. Is it possibly a strawman being used to discredit ther impact of LL or can someone provide referances.

Where's the discrediting, though? As shown above, foreign deliveries outperform domestic production consistently from 1942 and onwards. The fat-yankey page maintains that the majority of Soviet trucks were LL, whereas the Oldtimers page offers its own reservations:

... I was surprised by results of my statistic investigations - only 5.6% of Studebakers and about 16% of lend-leased trucks - too little! I see few reasons for this:
1. My statistics takes into account only vehicles with civilian registration (more than 90 - 95% of automobiles), but Studebakers normally had military registration.
2. Automobiles - like many soldiers and officers - weren't demobilized immediately after the war end. Many remained in Germany up to the end of 1940's and later (in Soviet Army group in Germany).
(3). I don't take into account battle losses because percentage of domestic models losses (especially huge on the 1st phase of war) is undoubtly higher.
4. Some of foreign goods was payd off with the Soviet gold reserv, but very many had to be returned back after the war. and here follows a bizarre story about how the Americans disposed of LL trucks after the war) Link

[Pips]

Here are just a few of the items of overal Lend Lease supplies from America and the UK to Russia.

Fighters - 9,438
Bombers - 3,771
Tanks - 6,196
Trucks - 363,080
Jeeps - 43,728
Explosives - 32,200 (tons)
Radio Stations - 35,089
Field telephones - 380,135
Radio Receivers - 5,899
Telephone Wires - 956,688 (miles)
Locomotives - 1,900
Railway Cars - 11,075
Canned Meats - 782,973 (tons)
Boots - 14,793,000 (pairs)
Belts - 2,57700
Copper - 339,599 (tons)
Aluminium - 261,311 (tons)

NB> trucks are broken down as 151,000 light trucks and 212,080 Studebaker army trucks.

Sources: North American Supply by H.D.Hall; and Feeding the Bear:American Aid to Soviet Russia 1941-1945 by H. van Tuyll.

[Appleknocker27]

Perhaps a more useful comparison between LL trucks and domestic Soviet production would be a breakdown by type? A comparison showing seperate columns by weight class, axle, two and four wheel drive respectively (by year).

I think a good caveat for perspective here would be what percentage of Soviet military transport was still by horse/pack animal.

[Michael Kenny]

Funny I'm not sure I ever saw that at leat by anyone with any mantle of authority at all. Is it possibly a strawman being used to discredit ther impact of LL or can someone provide referances.

I am not trying to 'discredit' anything. For years we have had claims that LL trucks made up (fill in your own number over 60%) of Soviet trucks. Clearly this is not the case. End of story.
There is far too much invested in the ' LL saved your ass' version of the story and I doubt if it will ever be resolved amicably.

[Appleknocker27]

I agree that Lend Lease is a controversial issue and tends to be either down played in importance or blown out of proportion. In this particular case of trucks, I don't think you can really downplay the importance of the Allied contribution to Soviet combat mobility. This from Feldgrau:
"In the early 1930’s the U.S. helped lay the foundations for a formidable Soviet truck production capability. During the war, Soviet production efforts were augmented through lend-lease aid. In terms of truck usage, U.S. lend-lease trucks generally went directly to front line combat units. Soviet built trucks were generally used in rear areas. Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Studebaker, etc., all could be found on the eastern front. The Soviet Union ended the Second World War by having over 650.000 trucks available for use. Of those, 58% were Soviet in origin, 33% British or U.S. and the remaining percentage captured from the Germans."

This paragraph clearly demonstrates the value of the Allied supplied vehicles is greater than what the raw percentage of 33% would suggest. Other portions of this article and also the link I provided above definatively show that the bulk of Soviet trucks were of older design, smaller, lesser hauling capacity and two wheel drive. In short, the bulk of the Red Army's combat logisticical support to its Tank Armies (ie. operational level war winners) was supplied by Western supplied trucks. I would say that is definately important, however it isn't decisive.

If you were looking to debunk a myth that Allied Lend Lease trucks were not very important (considering your known research skills) I'd say it sounds more like a political agenda than a drive for historical accuracy.

[Michael Kenny]

If you were looking to debunk a myth that Allied Lend Lease trucks were not very important (considering your known research skills) I'd say it sounds more like a political agenda than a drive for historical accuracy.

As I said it tends to go to extremes. I never said it wasn't 'very important'. What I say is it is not as ' criticaly important' as some would have us believe. Most people assume that the LL Truck deliveries comprised nearly all Soviet stocks. They didn't so why the problem when this is articulated?
British Forces in NW Europe had more LL supplies that the Soviets but we never get the same amount of carping directed at their efforts.