The importance of Lend lease to the Soviet war effort

That´s why I am puzzled why Stalin kept on requiring more of everything...he definitely knew that he had Churchill doing anything he wanted in order to keep the eastern front "alive" so maybe he in this case enjoyed the chance to say whatever he liked to Winston and WC could not say that there would not be things sent...

 

There's two schools of thought on the subject of lend lease.

Some like Keegan, think it was vital in the Soviets being able to either hold on in the initial stages, or being able to continue to successfully operate later in the war and eventually win.

Others, including Alan Clarke and David Glantz, say that lend lease [particularly Motorized transport] was very helpful in shortening the war, but did not decide it.

Glantz says "Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make a difference between defeat and victory in 1941-1942''

According to Glantz, had Stalin and his commanders been left to their own devices, it "might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht," but "the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches."

I'm inclined to go along with Glantz.

Even by the time the Wehrmacht's second offensive was defeated at Stalingrad, lend lease hadn't fully kicked in according to Clarke.

He says the help really started bearing fruit in the second part of 1943 following Kursk. At that time it was fairly obvious as to the direction of the war.

By all accounts lend lease amounted to about 4.5% of the entire Soviet military production and around 7.5% of the civilian.

Plus British and Commonwealth input shouldn't be underestimated.

 

I agree ANZAC!

Lend lease was absolutely important but to an extend. The most vital part was the motorized transport for the infantry which can still be seen in Russian WW2 movies, when soldiers would get into an american truck and officers into a jeep. However it did not change the outcome of the war, it just made it a little easier. Overall it says that Russia got about 9 to 10 percent of what it actually needed. The rest was the soviets.

 

Yak 1 and Lagg 3 were much better than the Hurricane. Polikarpov I16 with M62 then M63 motor can compare to the Hurricane MkI the MkII, performance wise.

The I-16 was more maneuverable, especialy had a much better roll rate, and better weapons for later versions equipped with a 20mm gun.

At eastern front altitude, the I-16 was only slightly slower, at medium or high altitude the Hurricane was much faster however.

The Lagg3 (early series) was better than the early series of P-40 delivered (mostly E versions) in every aspect, especialy speed (even at med altitude) and firepower, and matched by the latter delivered M version (especialy in maneuverability). The only significant weak spot of the Lagg3 over the P40 was the top dive speed (thanks to all-wood conception).

But the P40 M version wasn't available in significant numbers in the VVS before begining of 1943 and at this time was outclassed by the latest Lagg3 version.

Yak 1 was the best, almost as good as the Bf 109, although inferior.

In the other hand, low production standards and durability made many soviet fighters operate under their specifications.

 

In other words, native fighters were better than the imported ones on paper, but in practice were somewhat inferior. Maybe that's why the models you quote were replaced by improved versions as soon as possible.

 

On occasions, yes, but not always.

It took a very worn out Yak1 or Lagg 3 to be at Hurricane level

Like all leading countries of WWII, the USSR constantly and fastly modernized their planes during the whole war (and after for USSR), either with upgraded series and new designs.

I'd say pure performance was not the main issue of the VVS, especialy in the 1st half of the war.

As a matter of fact, they kept using many totaly outdated fighters designs, whether lend leased or native, which is due to production shortages along the fact most fighters were very often used in ground attack role, where performance is not vital as in air superiority / interception.

NB : I posted only with a technical concern, in no way to downsize the importance of lend leased planes : if the VVS have had no need for these planes, they would not have used them

 

I also read that the Yaks and Laggs came from the factory in highly polished and shiny finishs to improve their top speed. As soon as they reached the squadrons though they piled on dull paint to help camoflauge them and this reduced the speed.

As has been said on other threads, it's not the plane it is the pilot that makes the big difference over who lives and dies.

 

@ TA : yes it occured, although it was not the rule, but however this for example was enough of a problem to give Yakovlev a cold sweat when Stalin got concerned with the issue.

It was about the mainstream Yak9 which, in some series, had a problem of fast skin degradation (sorry for inappropriate technical wording in English) overtime.

In Yakovlev memories, he recalls being called by Stalin, when he arrived he saw a piece of Yak wing (IIRC) in a very bad shape on a table, and he thought "this is not gonna be a comfortable meeting"...and Stalin started : "Oh, but do you know that only the most perfidious enemy could do such a thing?! Producing aircraft at the plant that proved unfit for service at the Front! The enemy could not damage us so cruelly! He could invent nothing worse! This is work for Hitler!"

And I also agree on your conclusion, compared performance in the 1941 planeset can in no way explain alone what happened to the VVS during Barbarossa. I even think it was very far from being the main VVS issue at this time.

 

This may have already been mentioned here, if it did it means I owe you an apology!

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