How crucial was the Lend-Lease to the Red Army in WWII?

If it wasn't for the lend least program, Russia would have fallen to Nazi Germany. The allies would have still defeated Nazi Germany, but it would have taken far longer had they captured the oil fields in the caucuses. Soviet Russia would probably never have subjugated so many satellite nations. This is all speculation of course.

They couldn't have pulled off any of their offensives starting late 1943.

jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/lend.html

americans love communism. take it all stalin.

Attached: F48CCBE7-5A11-4004-9A33-1EAE80348248.jpg (713x433, 129K)

This.
And not just that: Lend-lease also gave the Russians massive industrial machinery which they used for their own production.

Pic related is a massive upset forging machine built in the US and sent to Russia via lend-lease. There are only a handful of machines like this in the world. These are so valuable to industrial production that the machine was shipped back to the US a couple years ago to be refurbished and put back into service.

This particular machine was a cornerstone of the Russian tank, truck, and tractor industry from 1940 through 2016. It probably forged just about every heavy vehicle axle flange that Russia produced for all those decades.

Attached: fg0616-ohio-lead.jpg (900x550, 127K)

More than the vatniks on here would like to admit

Here is the actual machine in the plant in Russia before it was removed.

Attached: fg0616-ohio-fig1-900.jpg (900x550, 141K)

Taken apart, moving through the streets of Ohio to be rebuilt.

Russia got a lot of this sort of assistance through Lend-Lease.

Attached: fg0616-ohio-fig6-900.jpg (900x550, 130K)

oh it looks like they have taken great care of it...

...

Looks dirty, but I'm sure it works otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to pay the massive expense to bring it back to the US. Ever worked in a facility where forging is done? It's dirty as fuck. That machine smashes red-hot metal parts into shape with hundreds of tons of force. There's sparks, smoke, etc, flying around everywhere.

Irrelevant since it arrived after USSR basically won the war. Soviet officionals claimed that it helped to make mutts feel better but in reality USSR would win without it easily. More aid was given to UK than to USSR.
Also mutts love to claim that it was 1/3 trucks 1/3 tanks etc. when in reality it was more like 1/10th

Attached: mzWt5GPX56s.jpg (1896x2160, 338K)

americans wish they gave all that they worked for instead.

Attached: ED9833CD-E35F-4D96-8827-B5A2B3B1E470.jpg (866x472, 120K)

Excellent post comrade, you will find one (1) hit of krokodil in your apartment tonight!

>92 lbs of toilet paper for 11 bucks
They really thought of everything, didn't they

If by winning the war you mean not capitulating. The Red Army going to ride west in Studebaker or they weren't going anywhere.

>Soviet officionals claimed that it helped to make mutts feel better but in reality USSR would win without it easily.

Of course they claimed that. It would be embarrassing to be a rival to someone you're indebted to.

Also, Shermans were worth 2-3 t34s simply because they didn't break down or blow up as much. The M4s had a rep for catching fire but the T34s would go straight from starting to burn to exploding.

>1 billion tons of steel bars
wtf america

Attached: C04F6FAC-8EFC-4673-B8D7-462641EB67A4.gif (400x224, 3.66M)

>Also, Shermans were worth 2-3 t34s simply because they didn't break down or blow up as much. The M4s had a rep for catching fire but the T34s would go straight from starting to burn to exploding.

>For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
-Dmitriy Fedorovich

side story, he also claimed the M4 drove like a car on roads while the T-34 vibrated uncomfortably
and that the russians kept stealing the seat cushions from damaged shermans to make boots, so they had to guard them

Attached: Lend Lease.png (1898x646, 44K)

America basically won the war, but not so much because of its military, but because of its massive industrial capacity, which fed not only it's own massive military buildup during the war, but also fed the industries of Britain and Russia (and others) too. Raw materials. Guns. Engines. Liberty ships. Fuckloads of heavy machinery like You think Russia built all those tanks using domestic machinery? Lol.

Well I have heard complete opposite. Russians disliked matilda, lee and spitfire. They loved aircobra though.

I thought they had some issues with leased planes
Friendly fire incidents were common due to how similar they looked like axis planes

> In general, the Matilda was an unbelievably worthless tank! I will tell you about one of the Matilda’s deficiencies that caused us a great deal of trouble. Some fool in the General Staff planned an operation and sent our corps to the area of Yelnya, Smolensk, and Roslavl. The terrain there was forested swamp. The Matilda had skirts along the sides. The tank was developed primarily for operations in the desert. These skirts worked well in the desert-the sand passed through the rectangular slots in them. But in the forested swamps of Russia the mud packed into the space between the tracks and these side skirts.

also from our dear friend Dmitry, hero of the Soviet union

on the topic of airacobras, they loved them so much they got over 4700 of them from lend lease
they even nicknamed them "Kobrastochka"

>The Sherman had its weaknesses, the greatest of which was its high center of gravity. The tank frequently tipped over on its side, like a Matryoshka doll (a wooden stacking doll). But I am alive today thanks to this deficiency. We were fighting in Hungary in December 1944. I was leading the battalion and on a turn my driver-mechanic clipped a curb. My tank went over on its side. We were thrown around, of course, but we survived the experience. Meanwhile the other four of my tanks went ahead and drove into an ambush. They were all destroyed.
The story of this guy are great

Well we had all this steel laying around...

Fought by the Russians, paid for by the Americans, won by the British?

he once claimed that the tanks came with a free .45 SMG, and that someone shot another guy with it during an argument and the coat stopped the .45 cold

unless the guy had a dictionary in his coat, this is one part of the story that doesnt make a lot of sense
maybe he was remembering the scene wrong in his head

They didn't mean much for '41 and '42. While there was a huge jump in numbers in those two years, the '41 was quite minimal, with only 2-3% of land lease arriving in '41. In '42 there was a big jump, but not even majority of the land lease arrived, with 14% arriving by the end of '42, by then Germans are already looking at a losing front.
We start at '43 and '44 when the big numbers happen, around 60% of the lease happened, Germans practically already lost
The people who go
>MUH LAND LEESE
seem to forget the Germans were in worse condition than the Soviets, and they were a bigger and worse time bomb than the Soviets, and took more material aid than the Soviets. 1/3 of oil used in barbrossa is Soviet oil

Attached: German_Soldiers_Wearing_Telogreikas_Date_Unknown.jpg (1600x1006, 314K)

Old ball powders didn't work well in the cold.

Could result in a squib load that barely spat the round out of the barrel.

I wonder how many of today's Russian steel ammo that's selling on the American civilian market are made with American machinery

Eh...not so much, I'd think. The 7.62x39mm that the AK uses didn't exist during lend lease and it's easier to make new bullet molds than retool old ones.

Now, if we're talking 7.62x54mmR then there's probably some but not most.

>Germans practically already lost
Soviets were fucked without the means to actually force the Germans out of Ukraine and Belarus.

I've heard the story. The justification I heard was that the powder in the. 45 didn't react well to extreme cold and underperformed.

Britain failed in their stated objective of guaranteeing Polish independence.

Britian lost WWII

They would not have survived without it.

This
Allies said they would open a western front in 43 and curtail lend lease and Molotov was like Nahh we need gibs so our economy doesn’t collapse

incredibly crucial. logistics wins wars

I'm saving this for future vatnik threads

The first counter offensive started in December 5th of 1941 which were considered a Soviet victory

also the Soviet Zerg Rush meme is true as well

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p28_Michaels.html

where were you when you realized all of the faggots crying WEHRABOO were secretly just bleeding from the anus so hard they ignored the truth?

>In 1938 some 1,513,400 men were serving in the Red Army. This was about one percent of the Soviet population, which is generally considered the normal, economically sustainable, maximum ratio of men under arms to total population. As part of their two-year mobilization program, Stalin-Shaposhnikov more than doubled the number of men under arms -- to more than five million.

>During this period -- August 1939 to June 1941 -- Stalin raised 125 new infantry divisions, 30 new motorized divisions, and 61 tank and 79 air divisions -- a total of 295 divisions organized in 16 armies. The Stalin-Shaposhnikov plan also called for mobilizing an additional six million men in the summer of 1941, to be distributed into still more infantry, tank, motorized and air divisions.

>Between July 1939 and June 1941, Stalin increased the number of Soviet tank divisions from zero to 61, with dozens more in preparation. By June 1941, the "neutral" Soviet Union had assembled more tank divisions than all the other countries of the world put together -- a mighty force that could be effectively employed only in offensive operations.

>Stalin with his most trusted military adviser, Boris Shaposhnikov. Together they worked out a two-year mobilization plan that was to culminate in an attack against Germany and the subjugation of Europe.

>In June 1941 Hitler threw ten mechanized corps into battle, of which each, on average, had more than 340 light and medium tanks. By contrast, Stalin had 29 mechanized corps, each with 1,031 light, medium and heavy tanks. While it is true that not every Soviet corps was at full strength, a single Soviet mechanized corps was militarily stronger than two German corps put together.

Attached: 645bbc1b8f8d860e9b9c3b36bcebb4a7.png (420x420, 380K)

they did all come with thompsons and russia has a huge stash of never used tommyguns somewhere. they didnt issue them cause no ammo except what it came with.

why does everything in Russia look like it just came out of the lower levels of a Hive City in WH40K?

>On the ground, irrelevant
Are you kidding? There would have been no ground by April 1942 if it wasn't for lend-lease trucks, ammo, arms, oil, and not to mention food. Without lend-lease trucks, keeps, trains, etc, the Soviet army would not have been capable of bringing half its materiel to the front, and likely would have massively impeded the movement of the far eastern army.
It's odd that this doesn't often come up in WW2 what-if scenarios on how Germany might have won. If America had contributed even 25% less industrial aid than it did, every front of the war would have changed quite a bit. The Germans could have made it to the Urals, and it's fascinating to think what the war would be like there.

That's not proof of zerg rush at all you dumb shit, with that kind of logic that means the USA used Zerg Rush against the Japanese.

Always wondered, but if the Soviets exploited the fuck out of Kazakhstan, couldn't they have easily matched the levels of oil production they needed? Or was consumption really that high? They clearly had the fuel advantage over the Germans.

>1/3 of all trucks
After 1943 and after the USSR had produced and lost and captured far more than that
>1/2 of aviation fuel
Aviation fuel produced (after 1943), this ignores the several millions of tons of fuel reserves and fuel produced before the war and before 1943.
>1/2 of all ordinance
Bullshit
>large amounts of food
a few million tons compared to 320 million tons of WHEAT produced alone prior to WW-2 and ignoring the enormous amounts produced during the war despite the loss of Ukraine and Belorus.
>sent an entire factory
While the soviet picked up and transported HUNDREDS of factories and built dozens of new ones in the Ural

And finally NONE of this aid came until AFTER the battle of Stalingrad. The only aid arriving before that was from Britain and was literally a few hundred tons of imports compared to MILLIONS of tons produced by the USSR and nearly half a billion tons in reserve.

The war was almost decidedly won when the German failed to take Moscow, they simply lacked the resources to keep up the war. After Stalingrad their defeat was inevitable and this was entirely Soviet effort - Western bombing raids did not begin to affect the German warmachine until 1944 and its effect was considered less than optimal with losses of bombers being far higher than acceptable, essentially making bombing runs pyrrihic

Read this, I guarantee that it addresses literally every single point someone could possibly make about Lend lease in this thread: nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=921020

funny how they survived perfectly well without it up into 1943 and won Stalingrad without it too.

>The Red Army going to ride west in Studebaker or they weren't going anywhere
American Lend-Lease didn't start coming in until after 1943 and after Stalingrad and the multiple German losses before it. Moreover Lend-Lease trucks only began to become a larger portion of Soviet truck parks because
A) Soviet production tailored itself to lower truck production due to imports after 1943
B) Soviet domestic trucks, due to lowered production and front-line losses lowered in park size
Thus we get the 1/3 truck meme
Moreover often len-lease trucks were sent in dismantled parts requiring assembly in the USSR, meaning that regardless it required soviet labor to put much of it together.

The Lend-lease was certainly an achievement of the allies but it didn't come close to being crucial in winning the war. At best it helped make the war end a little faster.

I don't know, but diesel Shermans make my dick hard.

Attached: Sherman_m4a2e8_cfb_borden_2.jpg (1099x707, 293K)

Boris over here with the hardcore cope.

Attached: T-34-85_and_m4_sherman_tanks_color_photo.jpg (959x664, 109K)

Yeah too bad you didn't read Zhukovs own memoirs in original Russian and translated that. I have and while he was tahnkful for the aid he states that it was not key to the Soviet victory. Moreover this is confirmed by Soviet calcualtions of lend-lease aid compared to production and reserves, and it was determined that Lend-lease was 4% of the soviet war effort

Except they literally pulled off dozens of offenses PRIOR to 1943, and in Late 1943 Germany had suffered tremendou losses they couldn't recover from while the USSR had stabilized itself from the blitzkrieg and was ramping itself up without any foreign aid. The Lend Lease was just an extra boost rather than a key part.

>Soviet production tailored itself to lower truck production due to imports after 1943
Because they shifted resources to armored vehicle production, which they could only do because they got lend lease.

>it didn't come close to being crucial in winning the war.
Of course not, but it was essential for the offensives that saw the liberation of Belarus and Ukraine. Just because the Germans were in bad shape doesn't mean it would be easy to move against them with significantly fewer trucks, armored vehicles, and a significantly reduced sortie rate for aircraft due to low aviation fuel supplies.

>cope
No argument detected

Also Soviet Airacobras make my dick hard.

Mid-engined like an Italian supercar.

Why can't vatniks ever say "thank you"? It's always "HURR DURR MOTHER RUSHA COULD HAVE DONE IT ALONE!!!!".

Attached: P-39_Airacobra_2006-06-15.jpg (2354x1285, 417K)

Commie cope.

4%
That is not a small number.

>that paint job

If that isn't electrostatic paint, then the PFC who did that needs a fucking bonus.

>Soviets exploited the fuck out of Kazakhstan, couldn't they have easily matched the levels of oil production they needed? Or was consumption really that high? They clearly had the fuel advantage over the Germans.
They had almost all the fuel they needed from reserves alone, the whole fuel meme is war-time production, which was lowered because the oi-fields across the USSR were in the middle of being modernized when the war struck and thus most had lower production levels than culd otherwise be given. Despite this production was still crazy high, however filtration into high-octane fuel was lowered when US deliveries began because there was no longer any urgency and they could re-route it all to low-quality fuel for trucks and tanks.

>no ground by April 1942

Why mist every interesting thread about russian tech and war history devolve into massive butthurt of murilans, vatniks and everyone else fighting each other?

Attached: 1544758164602.jpg (739x695, 111K)

Honestly I can't wait till Putin erects their own Chinese-style firewall and bans Jow Forums in Russia.

Nothing compared to scale of operations they pulled off later.

I mean, it makes sense. American fuel dominance in warfare wasn't only in production, but their absolutely monstrously large refining capacity.

People like to brag about the US navy's 'floating oil field' worth of tankers in the Pacific, but the fact was that avgas was spoiling before it could even be used (and even then, it was used).

>bans Jow Forums in Russia

Russian (and Belorussian) chans are fucking weird bizzarro-world places compared to Jow Forums. We are smalltime.

>Why can't vatniks ever say "thank you"
1) They did, the lend-lease debt was paid off and the Soviets always did thank the Americans
2) Being thankful for lend-lease does not mean admitting a literal historical lie.
3) Funny how y'all scream "vatniks" when someone points out how Lend-Lease is a drop in the bucket of Soviet war-effort in the over-all picture but ignore how the West and USA spent the entire Cold War and post-Cold war telling literal historical myths about the Red-Army just to make itself feel good for only landing D-Day in 1944 and liberating a fraction of Europe.
quora.com/Why-is-Russia-so-ungrateful-to-the-British-and-the-West-considering-we-helped-them-fight-off-Nazi-Germany-with-Lend-Lease-supplies-with-the-Arctic-convoys-Which-I-might-add-we-could-ill-afford-to-spare/answer/Aleksandr-Donskoy

That is a small percentage however.

Because Cold War propaganda makes the USA fear Russians under the same "soviet untermensch" meme that Germany used to motivate its troops to commit atrocities on against the USSR, except WW-3 never broke out. Meanwhile the Russians are sick of this shit and so after the USSR and its censorship of nationalism ended, they began doing the same shit as the USA except the other way around.

The Battle of Stalingrad was a retreat and the counter-offensive that involved several million men and which was rivaled only by the battle of Kursk ad Operation Bagration, neither of which were significantly aided by Lend Lease. (Also Operation August Storm but that was after VE-day)

I think every chan outside 4chacha are bizzarro

>They had almost all the fuel they needed from reserves alone
Most of the Soviet aviation fuel was of very low grade and improved through TEL additives and mixing with lend lease sources. The reason they had the occasional +1000 daily sortie rate for the VVS later in the war was the availability of better fuels.

2chan is honestly better than Jow Forums. Seriously their boards have massive fucking discussions and it has crazy big image limits. The only problem is the ban on US IPs.

>was the availability of better fuels.
Sure, but that isn't crucial to winning the war, they could still have done it, with worse fuel, just as they had for the better part of 2+ years.

Now this is vatnikposting on a nauseating level.

>That is a small percentage however
True

You forgot 60% of all their railway mileage added between the start of LL and the end of the war

>neither of which were significantly aided by Lend Lease.

Neither came close to the distances covered either. That and Kursk did see quite a boost from Allied supplies at that point.

It them without most of their newest aircraft and seriously restrict their mobility on a strategic scale. They wouldn't lose the war, but it would be an absolute nightmare.

This thread is just going to be pointless jerking off of trucks and fuel or whining about vatniks. Just read link related and it covers the entire picture of Lend Lease.

archive.fo/Btcsf

Attached: Soviet vs German operations.jpg (500x707, 77K)

>Pointless jerking off

Trucks and fuel are the lifeblood of armies, they would've been up shit creek with 70-80 octane avgas and being short several thousand trucks.

Every single Katyusha rocket launcher that ever went into battle did so on the back of a Ford or a Studebaker. Every single one. Without Lend-Lease Katya just sits in the mud.

dilate

The biggest contribution Britain did in the war was their Intelligence/Decryption and being a gigantic aircraft carrier for the invasion of Europe. If they never contributed a single actual soldier to the war not much would probably have changed honestly.

>citing an opinionated piece written by socialists
What a great unbiased citation you have there

Crucial to allowing the USSR to not just stay in the war, but maintain the initiative after 1943 and push all the way to Berlin. They would’ve been far more inclined to sue for peace with Germany (which they were negotiating as late as 1943, but efforts were consistently derailed by Hitler’s demand of keeping the Soviet territory they had already seized) if the Western Allies had refused to provide any kind of assistance and forced them to fight on alone.

Attached: 5D2AD3AE-CC0D-4E93-B5B7-1EF32E8606A4.jpg (3840x2160, 1.54M)

I'm calling it pointless jerking off because all these "Muh 1/3 trucks" are all production figures not over-all war-effort figures. It's not like the USSR started with 0 vehicles or no fuel at the start of the war and could only start production when the war began, they knew the war was coming and had been building reserves since the mid 1930s. Hell the only reason the Germans got anywhere was because their rapidly dropping levels of supplies forced them to invade the USSR far earlier than planned so as to gain more resources for their war economy, thus catching the USSR in the middle of a re-armament of the entire military, and with a lower number of troops on the border than the German attacking force.

>Every single Katyusha rocket launcher that ever went into battle did so on the back of a Ford or a Studebaker.
That is an outright lie. The katyusha was designed and built right before the war and was in production months before the Lend-Lease act was even signed, and it was only in 1943 after Stalingrad that lend-lease began actually coming to the USSR in any meaningful quantities.

Stop spreading lies namefag.

>opinionated piece written by socialists
Critisizing the source is not an argument. Did you actually read any of it? It cites primary and secondary historical sources such as
Zaloga, Tooze, Soviet and German official documents, US military manuals and more.

>they were negotiating as late as 1943
Source? I don't remember Operation Crossword being Soviet.

Lend-lease came in right as Russia was moving it's factories. For a while, the only new weapons and ammo the Red Army got was American imports. Hell, even after Russia had it's industries re-established it would have taken years if not for the raw material infusions and loaned machinery from the US.

And no, Russia did in fact receive lend-lease aid in 1943. The program started in 1941 after all.

Zhukov was a general and most of the LL contributions were economical and logistical. Seeing how close the Russians came to loosing Stalingrad and Moscow I'd say that a 4% loss would have doomed them.