The importance of Lend lease to the Soviet war effort

The problem with anectdotal evidence like this is that too much depends on the tactical and operational handling of the aircraft along with the current situation. It proves nothing. For example, Finnish Brewster Buffalo fighters achieved numerous kills against Soviet Hurricane II and even Spitfire V fighters. This hardly makes the Buffalo a superior aircraft to the Spitfire V!

I assumed the comparison to be between aircraft of the relatively similar time-period, such as the La-5FN versus Bf-109 G-2 to G-6 or thereabouts. The La-5 is clearly superior to these aircraft in pretty much every respect, performance-wise. The Fw-190 is a closer match, but clearly not superior in any way. Left out the Ta-152 as it is hardly from the same time-frame as the La-5, nor am I up to speed on it.

These comparisons look pretty solid to me.

Not as good as the Allied fuel, obviously.

Actually quite similar indeed! Much like the LaGG-3 the Hurricane was fast becoming obsolete by the time period we are discussing, which is mid-1941 and 1942. Neither functioned very well in the fighter role except as a tool to blunt the enemy somewhat. Already by the end of 1940 and early 1941 the Hurricane was clearly outmatched by the Bf-109Fs, as it was too heavy, slow, poor climb, poor acceleration, etc. Notice how these characteristics closly match the LaGG-3. The Hurricanes defending Malta, during the same period as the LaGG-3 was mainly in action, experienced much the same results - they were relentlessly swatted from the sky without inflicting any significant losses to the opposing Bf-109s whatsoever.

[ 28. May 2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Heartland ]

 

The Significance of America's Participation in WWII

05/12/2003

From PRAVDA (!!)

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html

Soviet propaganda tried to diminish the importance of the American help. Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.

It is worth mentioning here that the debt of the Soviet Union - $722 million - for the lend-lease contract has not been completely paid to the States yet.

 

I think the allies should have used the LL as a diplomatic card. When stalin really started to do whatever he wanted to, Roosevelt and Churchill could have said, "now look here joe, we have opened a second front as you wanted, and now we are supplying you with huge amounts of war material. You had better start behaving, or we will cut of the supplies."

Instead, they timidly accepted whatever stalin said.

 

Again the same prejudiced, un-supported and pro-conspiracy martyr rant…

What about Uncle Joe telling Roosevelt and Churchill:

"Now, listen to me, you two. To this moment, I've beared 4/5 of the enemy's might and defeated them. Millions of my citizens have perished and the most important part of my country has been destroyed in the process. I am not going to stop until I see all those Nazi bastards die and pay for what they have done. Once I've finished, if you want, I can help you with those yellow sons of bitches, which too piss me off.

Ah!, by the way, I'm also going to settle things definately and forever with those damned Poles, and impose Soviet influence on all the lands I kick the jerries from, because I can, because I want to, and because I've earned it. If you don't like it, at this very moment I surrender and leave 160 divisions go crush your 5 miserable beach heads at Normandy. Thank you very much."

Of course Roosevelt could have responded: "OK. But in a year I'll drop 5 A-bombs on you, communist moron."

But this last sentence was unlikely to happen…

 

For instance Churchill knew back in 1939-40 that without Russia`s help he/they could never beat Germany really. No matter how much a communist hater he used to be he realized facts, I think. Stalin seems to have never really trusted Churchill for that reason.

So I think the worst scenario would be that Stalin and Hitler would make another peace pact even if quite unstable, because then Hitler could turn more troops towards west.And that Churchill could never let happen. And the most important thing at the time was to beat Hitler no matter what the means.

And later on we found out how many communist agents there were in the US and British secret service and other top places so I wonder what would have happened if Stalin had ordered these spies to act according to orders if there was a war...??

 

..and America was just a pebble industrially right?

 

The US was probably the biggest "factory" of all the world for arms, planes, ships etc at the time. But that was after Pearl Harbor only.

Before that the majority of the US people probably thought that the European war is our business and they should not get mixed in it
( Check the Lindbergh activities at the time )
That is why Roosevelt did not want to rush into the war because it might have been politically a suicide ( before Pearl Harbor that is ).

http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/1/Lindbergh87-98.html

 

This thread sure is going off on several tangents at the same time!

I'm back, and in the meantime I see Friedrich has taken the chance to jump into my boots

Before straying into aircraft comparison, which certainly deserves a thread on itself, the general opinion was that LL was certainly important but not vital. I agree. The war would be winnable, but it would take a lot more effort without the extra boots, radios, trucks, avgas, locomotives, spam (of the right kind), planes (good, bad or indifferent). In the end, I think it was quite a good help.

 

Argh!

He comes back when I'm starting to enjoy my avatar!

 

Read something about the Russian navy not helping the lend-lease convoys.Can't remember where or if fact.

Za. You turn your back for 5 minutes around here and....
No one wants my avatar..it's full of holes, like my posts.

 

Great, FramerT, just the kind of references we love here. "I have this general idea about a rumour I heard I can't remember from whom..."

Yes, I'm back but under a different name! Actually I had managed to register under the influence of a spelling misinterpretation of cursive Cyrillic, as a Polish colleague of ours once pointed out to me. This is my correct name, Za Rodinu, not Za Rodina. Otto was kind enough to correct this.
see here!
and here!

(Za rodinu, za Stalina! For the Motherland, for Stalin!)

 

I think framert may be referring to the infamous Murmansk convoys.

Certainly a lot of ill-feeling existed among the Merchant Seamen who suffered appalling privations and losses on what was considered to be the worst convoy route of WWII ; only on arrival to be treated almost as criminals by the Russians.

 

Especially considering the point of these Murmansk convoys was mainly political, to show Stalin how engaged the Brits really were.

Both the Vladivostok (for the Yanks) and the Persian route were much safer.

C.S.Forester's "The Ship" (1943) is a book I only managed to read once.

 

Two points ...

Za Rodinu suggests "... the point of these Murmansk convoys was mainly political, to show Stalin how engaged the Brits really were." All strategic decisions in war are political. The crews on the Murmansk runs did not care why (for whom) they suffered and died; torpedos, shells, and bombs were and still are apolitical. But I'm sure whatever supplies eventually made it to the front lines were very much needed and appreciated.

The story (correction: One of many stories) of the Persian route is found online, some 550 pages. The link and general information from the title page are:
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/persian/index.htm
United States Army in World  War II : The Middle East Theater : The Persian Corridor and Aid to Russia. by T. H. Vail Motter
Center Of Military History, United States Army, Washington DC; first printed 1952 as CMH Pub 8-1

 

Maybe so, but I suppose there would be some grumbling if it were to be known that there were alternative routes, that the bulk of shipping was going through Vladivostok under the Red Star to provide a neutral flag to the Japanese, and through Persia. The Murmansk route with hindsight was to me an unecessary sacrifice.

And as for the supplies being needed, no doubt, being appreciated that's a different kettle of fish.

And thanks for your link, here's another one in exchange!

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html

This www.sweetliberty.org site is rather much a waste of electrons, enter at your peril.

 

The Merchant Navy did indeed care : they preferred bringing supplies to their homeland or to hard-pressed British garrisons such as Malta. They were commercial sailors, not military automatons.

 

Fair counterpoint ... it's all in my adverbs. As I read over what I just wrote, I see it's long-winded and somewhat rambling, but the gist of it is in the next two paragraphs.

Yes, those merchant mariners - and the military with them - cared very much THAT and HOW they suffered and died. They hated the situation in which they were caught, and they hated THAT they hated it.

That said, the WHY of their suffering and dying was, in most cases, a concern beyond their 'ken', their immediate care or awareness. From Master on down, they were only saying, "Summit conferences be damned, just let me get out of this hell alive."

This same thought applies to the infantryman in the foxholes or redoubt, the submariner waiting for the next depth charge, or the bomber crewman in a blanket of ack-ack. It was true for every warrior - land, sea, or air - in harm's way and with little control of the situation. It applies for Murmansk, Malta, Midway, or Mosul.

There was generally an appreciation of a NEED to be caught in a combat zone as they were - whether you were Ally or Axis. But we're talking about a quite different aspect here: the intangibles 'Duty, Honor, Country'. However, this goes beyond the limited scope of Lend-Lease and Murmansk, and deserves to spawn another thread.

My quote from my reading today, touching on the WHY point above:
"I had missed the boat in the war we had been told would end all wars. A soldier's place was where the fighting went on. I hadn't fully learned the lesson of the military - that the proper place for a soldier is where he is ordered by his superiors."
(Dwight Eisenhower, "At Ease: Stories I Tell My Friends", 1967)

 

A very interesting document site:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/

particularly:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/index.htm

(edited for typos!)

 

David Wragg Sacrifice for Stalin

Interesting book on the lend lease although 90% concentrates on the convoys themselves.

Anyway, it does seem rather awkward the the convoys were blamed by the Soviets 1.too little too late 2. poor material for warfare was received.

And why is that awkward. According to the book:

1. The USSR did not prepare any air force cover for the convoy during any part of the trip

2. Only two destroyers were sent for the closing in on the harbour part

3. the vehicles for lifting the vehicles (in Murmansk), tanks etc were totally useless for the job. The allied brought ships with suitable lift systems to Russia.And even so the ships waited for unnecessary long times to get their cargo out of the ships.

4. there were no dry docks or hospitals for the convoy to use.

So the Soviets (Stalin?!) did nothing to protect the convoys, nothing to speed up the material being delivered to the front, nothing to fix the ships and men to get back to to job. Interesting....

 

If Stalin felt something was priority, the person in charge would do its utmost to get the desired result or his life could be forfeit. If Stalin wouldn't care then it would be the usual Soviet muddle. Life and work in the factories relocated to the Urals was very grim, so why should the Western sailors be pampered?