The Most Important Battle Of WW2

[PanzerJaeger]

...and why?

Poll coming shortly..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This ones a no brainer.

The only reasonable answer other than Stalingrad is Pearl Harbor. One of the few instances where a loss was benificial to the winning side in the end.

[PanzerJaeger]

As a follow up, I made the poll choices based on the importance of the military operations - not any size or number scale.

For example, Pearl Harbor was a couple of hours and wasnt that big of a battle, yet its implications were huge, whereas the Fall of France was a huge battle, or more accurately many large battles, but its implications could be considered to be about the same or even less than those of Pearl Harbor.

I hope that makes sense. I used the term "battle" loosely and I possibly should have said "military operation".



Also I chose Kursk because I believe the German military was not as bad off after Stalingrad as is portrayed by some and the russian military wasnt as powerful. If Kursk was successful, the outcome of the war in russia - which was really the outcome of the entire European theater, was in doubt.

I didnt choose any Pacific battles because I am of the opinion that once the Japanese attacked the US it was a forgone conclusion that they would lose. The Pacific battles were just the act of losing for the Japanese. Even if they had kicked the Americans off Okinawa for example, it would have just been a matter of time before they came back.

[caesar44]

Stalingrad . after the battle , it was a matter of time for taking Berlin

[PanzerJaeger]

The Germans in fact won a significant battle right after Stalingrad.

Ive yet to read anything convincing that shows the German army was down for the count after Stalingrad.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=PanzerJager]The Germans in fact won a significant battle right after Stalingrad.

So ? still...

On February 18 (1943) the minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, held his famous Sportpalast speech in Berlin, encouraging the Germans to accept a total war which would claim all resources and efforts from the entire population.

[Azi Tohak]

I pick Midway. Had the Japanese gotten lucky and taken out the American carriers and we had not lost any, I think it would have taken a while for us to get them back.

Europe on the other hand...lots of battles to choose from. Tough for me to pick just one. Moscow when the Germans ran out of gas. Their first defeat. After that the Russians were just gearing up to win with numbers. It worked...but what a price.

Stalingrad when the Germans lost so many infantry.

Kursk when the Panzers were smashed. No more flexible defence (ala Manstein's counter stroke after Operation Uranus and its follow on [can't remember the name]).

Azi

[CBR]

Stalingrad

Not so much for the losses as Kursk was worse for the German armor but Stalingrad was the turning point for the Russian fighting spirit. Stalingrad was what gave the Russians hope of victory to keep on fighting and bear the losses to gain the ultimate victory. In a bigger perspective Kursk just accelerated the German defeat.


CBR

[ah_dut]

Kursk, in terms of pure armour lost for the Germans. They really were down for the count afterwards

[sharrukin]

My opinion is that there are really only four that if they had gone differently, or in fact could have gone differently, would have been a major alteration to the outcome of the war.

None of the pacific battles qualify as the Japanese were doomed even if they had taken out all the carriers at Pearl Harbour. They would have added 6 months to a year to the pacific war at best. A defeat at D-day would have been a terrible setback but wouldn't have altered the outcome.

The Battle for France ; if the germans had been held back the French would have had time to bring their industrial strength to bear and match the german war machine. This would have required alterations in the way they fought, but war tends to clarify the mind as to what matters and what doesn't. Not real sure they could have pulled it off.

Moscow; if the germans had taken Moscow, the 1942 campaign would have been very different, and the Ural sanctuaries would have been threatened holding most of the remaining russian industry.

Kursk; a german victory would have delayed the war but I do not see it giving the Germans victory on the eastern front, given how quickly the russians could replace losses.

Stalingrad; no difference if the battle had been won or lost for the same reasons as Kursk. If this battle had never been fought and the germans had isolated and bypassed the city there might have been a larger effect.

I think Moscow as I doubt the French high command would have learned any faster than the British did, and this wouldn't have been in time to save them.

[swirly_the_toilet_fish]

I would have to choose Stalingard for the simple loss of resources to the German Army. They wasted two years beseiging a city that had little to no strategic value (it was basically Hitler attempting to take "Stalin's City"). If they had just bypassed the city or concentrated forces in the Balkans to capture oil fields, they could have sustained armour power by keeping their panzers feuled.

[discovery1]

Pearl Harbor, since it got American in the war officially(I'm pretty sure that if the Japanese hadn't attacked then the Germans wouldn't have dowed the US) Then again, the Kriegsmarine did want to take the gloves off in the Atlantic.....


Well, a close second would be Stalingrad. Kiss the mighty Sixth army goodby.

[swirly_the_toilet_fish]

Hitler didn't want the Japanese to attack the Americans until after he eliminated Britain. This would have effectively left the US and remnants of Canada isolated in North America. The Japanese couldn't simply wait and decided to be preemptive. By the way, the US was almost completely involved in the war since they were supplying the British with ships, arms, food, etc. in the Lend-Lease program initiated by FDR (he was sympathetic to the British cause). ~D

[Aenlic]

I'll say the Battle of Britain; or more precisely the Blitz. Hitler put aside the strategic attacks on Britain's air power and associated infrastructure which was close to eliminating Britain's air abilities altogether. These targets were picked to weaken British air for the coming invasion of Operation Sealion. Instead, incensed by the British bombing of London, he ordered target priorities shifted from military targets, such as air fields and aircraft supply and manufacture, to civilian targets.

While the London Blitz (although many other cities all the way to Galsgow and Belfast were also targetted) was devastating, it also allowed the RAF to recover. Churchill wrote as much in his later memoirs. With the RAF now resupplied and the air fields mostly unharmed since the beginning of the terror bombings, they were able rebuild their air superiority and to begin tearing up Germany's bomber forces. By the end of the Blitz, the Luftwaffe's bomber assets were nearly depleted. This led to Hitler postponing Operation Sealion indefinitely and moving those air assets east to begin Operation Barbarossa.

Had Hitler not changed the plans and begun bombing civilian targets, the Luftwaffe would have succeeded in gaining air superiority over Britain, Operation Sealion would have proceeded and likely succeeded. This would have probably kept the U.S. out of the war in Europe, and maybe even have prevented the perceived need of the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. With Britain under control, Germany could then shift full attention eastward, without having it's infrastructure bombed. Operation Barbarossa would likely have then ended differently as well; and we would be living in a much different and much darker world.

[Geoffrey S]

I'd be tempted to say the Battle of Britain too. The German forcees didn't defeat the British forces and never managed to conquer England. If they had done so it wouldn't have been possible for the Americans to use England as a starting point for an invasion into the mainland, and essentially the war in Western Europe would have been over. As it was historically Hitler was left to fight a two-front war with obvious results.

[edyzmedieval]

Kursk and El Alamein

They marked the starting of the end for Germany.

[Meneldil]

France. The war would have ended in 1940 or 1941 if the Allies (French and British)had some kind a decent generals. Thus, no Pearl Harbor, no Stalingrad, no El Alamein, no Kursk, etc.

[The_Doctor]

Battle of Britain.

-It delayed operation Barbarossa by a few weeks (6, I think), this is a few weeks closer to the Russian winter. If the Germans had launched the attack on time they could have conquered a lot more Russian territory and many every have defeated Russia, thus winning the European war.

-It gave Britain and the USA an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" with which to bomb Germany.

-It cost Germany resources.

-It proved that Germany could be defeated.

-It allowed Britain to become a base for operation Overlord.

[Franconicus]

Poland. This was the biggest mistake and miscalculation. After that, how could Germany had been able to win?

[PanzerJaeger]

Poland. This was the biggest mistake and miscalculation. After that, how could Germany had been able to win?

I dont understand? Fall Weiß was a textbook success. ~:confused:

[Franconicus]

Yes, maybe even a military masterpiece. However, the decition to start the war was a big mistake. Hitler's calculation that France and GB wouldn't go to war was wrong. So what I am trying to say is that even though this campaign was won the war was lost. There is no szenario how Germany could have won the war. Norway, France were other big victories and did improve the position of Germany. But Hitler was not able to end the war. And there was no realistic plan to end the war after that.
What do you do if your enemy won't accept a peace and you cannot force him? A good General/politician doesn't start a war if he has not at least knows how to end it.
At Stalingrad the war was already lost, Hitler may not have realized it. Even if Hitler had won the battle of Moscow, would that have changed things? I do not think so. And if he hadn't attacked the USSR at all. Well, sooner or later Stalin would have. And if he had won the battle of England? German fighters did not have had a realistic chance to win this battle. Even if their commanders hadn't made such terrible mistakes. But let's assume they won and Germany invaded the island successfully. So what? Would that had stopped the war? I doubt this.
No, Poland was the mistake!

[PanzerJaeger]

I understand your position a lot better Franc, although I think the war could have been won even years after Poland fell.

[CBR]

Stalingrad? How the devil did that get the most votes? Hitler would not have tried his hand against Russia if he had not failed to win the Battle of Britain.

I guess there are several important battles in this poll. If Germany couldn't have won in Poland the war would have been very short and same thing could be said of France. So they are in a sense the most important "battles"

Battle of Britain...well even if Germany could push RAF out of southern England it would not have given them air superiority for an invasion which BTW was an invasion that several high rank Germans didn't even believe in themselves! But if we assume a German invasion and victory over Britain then it was definitely one of the most important battles.

And I don't see why Hitler wouldn't have attacked Russia if he had defeated Britain? He considered Stalin to be his biggest opponent.

A failed D-Day would not have saved Germany as they were getting slaughtered on the Eastern front. Luftwaffe was more or less gone as an effective fighting force as the fuel reserves were rapidly dropping, because of the destruction of the synthetic fuel industry in spring/early summer '44. And pilot quality was very bad as well as being totally outnumbered.

But was D-Day important so Stalin didn't get it all? Hell yes.

The submarine you are referring to are the type XXI which were a very good submarine indeed but they started being deployed in spring '45 and even if they actually could harass the allies enough it would still not have helped on the eastern front.

Same thing can be said of the Battle of the Bulge as a German victory would not have changed much. But was that battle important? Again yes as it exhausted the German armor in the West and made the later Allied offensives easier.

El Alamein was a battle that had to be fought but Rommel was so outnumbered in men and material that he could never have won it and even if we assume he did it wouldn't have mattered much because of his long supply lines and lack of trucks. But at the same time we have Operation Torch. In general the fighting in North Africa was not that important IMO

Moscow could indeed be seen a very important battle as it might have broken Russia's will to fight. A D-Day against the full might of German military would have been near impossible.

Midway wouldn't have mattered much as even a total defeat for USA would have postponed the result by 6-12 months. Japan had been stretched to its limits so couldn't exploit an eventual victory and would still be completely outgunned later.

Pearl Harbor was important as it got USA into the war but it was still Hitler that declared war and I guess he didn't have to. But there is no doubt that USA entering the war was very important.

The Jugoslav/Greece campaign was important as it postponed Barbarossa by 4-6 weeks and that might have been enough to get a German victory in '41

But in general I would say the important battles are before '43 as it was just a question of time after that.


CBR

[dgfred]

Very accurate post CBR ~;) , I think you are right on the mark ~:cheers: .

[Kagemusha]

I voted for Moscow,because it was the first time that German Blitzgrieg was actually halted and pushed back.I think it was great moral victory for Russians.I would also like to point out a little battle at the Northern front that is little known,but if it would have turned other way around it might had a huge effect on whole Russian campaign.The battle of Kiestinki.Kiestinki is located south from Murmansk at Russian Viena.Murmansk was the only Soviet harbor where allies could ship supplies to Soviet Union from the West all year around.From Murmansk there was only one railroad connection South to central Russia and it went through Kiestinki.German and Finnish forces started an attack towards Kiestinki in 30.10.1941.Their goal was to cut of this major lifeline to Russia.Finnish forces punched trough Soviet lines and moved rapidly trough forests at the town of Louhi and were so close of Murmansk Railroad that the forward troops even saw it.The problem was that the German SS troops that attacked by the roads couldnt get anywhere because of the determined Soviet defence.By that Russians could buy so much time that they could move fresh troops from Siberia via Murmansk railroad and halted the assault.It has been decades of debate here in Finland that why didnt Finnish troops cut of the Railroad because at first there wasnt really much resistance against them because they were far behind the Russian lines.Later it was revealed that the Commander of the Whole Finnish army,Marshall Mannerheim had given a secret order,that it wouldnt be in best intrests of Finland that the Murmansk railroad would be cut of.Pretty sneaky isnt it. ~D I think it was essential for Soviet Unions survival at winter 1941 that they did get American weapons and supplies.I wonder how it would have turned out if the majority of those supplies wouldnt have arrived. :bow:

[Spartakus]

France. The war would have ended in 1940 or 1941 if the Allies (French and British)had some kind a decent generals. Thus, no Pearl Harbor, no Stalingrad, no El Alamein, no Kursk, etc.

Indeed, a major defeat against France at this early stage would probably have cooled off the Germans quite a bit, killing their impetus and weakening the German people's faith in Der Fuhrer.

Also, conquering France was an achievement of some historical weight, carrying with it great prestige.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Pearl Harbor. It launched the US into the war and secured the downfall of both the Japanese and German empires, without direct US involvement the Germans probably could have managed against Russia and the Japanese would have remained unchallenged. Also the fact that 3 or so big US carriers were away from the port and survived unscathed forced the US to recognize carriers as the main currency of naval power and allowed the victory at Midway.

[Marcellus]

Battle of Britain.

-It delayed operation Barbarossa by a few weeks (6, I think), this is a few weeks closer to the Russian winter. If the Germans had launched the attack on time they could have conquered a lot more Russian territory and many every have defeated Russia, thus winning the European war.

-It gave Britain and the USA an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" with which to bomb Germany.

-It cost Germany resources.

-It proved that Germany could be defeated.

-It allowed Britain to become a base for operation Overlord.

I agree. ~:cheers:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Battle of Britain. If the "Tommies" had beat the "Huns" (using names coined from the opposite side, "Tommies"=Brits and "Huns"=Germans), then England would have fallen, and there goes you're D-Day landing, Germany can pull troops into Russia, Nazis win, and hopefully Hitler dies soon after anyway.

[Flavius Clemens]

The siezure of a german sub by US forces that was carrying material for a nuclear bomb to japan: Had the sub gone through, there is little doubt that a Nuclear attack could have, and would have, been made on the United States.



Never heard of this event GC - what are the details? Was the material specifications or raw materials?

Overall I'd have to say Battle of Britain - Ending the war in Western Europe means military resources can be concentrated on Russia, and access to supplies e.g. oil is easier. (OK, I'm British and biased!)

[Uesugi Kenshin]

IIRC It was a lot of Uranium, I am not sure if it was refined though. It was probably U 238 to be refined into U235 which is weapons grade.

I don't think the Japanese could have attacked the US at the time though, it was extremely late in the war and iirc the Germans had already surrendered. It would have more likely been used against any soldiers that attacked the Japanese home islands.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Ah, I see. The crew didn't know that they were carrying it did they, least not the enlisted men?

It would still be a pretty slim chance that they would pull off the attack.

[discovery1]

It wasn't enough material to actually create a nuke. Instead, it was enough to create a Nuclear Waste Bomb; the explosion would be convesional, but the after-effects would render an area uninhabitable for decades. There was also materials for a working Kamikaze Jet to carry it, IIRC.

The plan was to sneak over to the US Coast in one of their Submarine/Aircraft Carriers. There's alot of speculation on where the would have attacked; at this point it would have been best to cause some pain in the Civilian population (the plan for the japs at this point was to make the US suffer so much in the war that they simply called it off, and let Japan surrender conditionally).

Didn't the Japanese develope some ballons that would be relased, drift across the pacific, and release their bombs based on a timer? I think at least a few were launched, although the winds were wrong and they unloaded their payloads in uninhabited areas.

[Gregoshi]

I think you are right about the balloon bombs discovery1, though I seem to recall there was one incident where the bombs may have caused injury or death. My memory on it is fuzzy.

[The Stranger]

i voted, stalingrad, but i also thinkThe battle of britain was very important. if germany had succeeded, america would never have fought in europe. i also so think that if russia wasnt communist, America would never have came too. this is not against the soldiers (who did a great job, they're my heroes) but against the goverment.

[Franconicus]

Was there ever a chance Germany could win this battle? ~:confused:

[The Stranger]

well when they started. if they didnt ivaded russia the russia they might have won. but i dont know that for sure

[IliaDN]

well when they started. if they didnt ivaded russia the russia they might have won. but i dont know that for sure
If you use capitol letters it would be nice.
IMHO invading USSR was somekind of a preventive attack, as some historians say.

[clayton ballentine]

The Allies forced there way through Italy and captured Rome in the early June. Italy surrendered, but German troops stubbornly kept fighting. On the eastern front, the siege of Leningrad ended as the soviets drove the Nazis back. Soviet troops finally entered Germany itself in October. In the pacific, United states forces continued to island hop, moving closer to Japan with every island taken. The U.S. Navy led the way to winning back the Pacific. The Battle of the Philippine Sea in June was the greatest carrier engagement of the war.

Source: World War II battles and leaders

[master of the puppets]

I think you are right about the balloon bombs discovery1, though I seem to recall there was one incident where the bombs may have caused injury or death. My memory on it is fuzzy.

your correct Gregoshi, the japanese decided to launch something like 10 balloons loaded with bombs and poisons destined to reach the U.S.
it was only a test but it failed, one landed in alaska and was discovered 4 years after the war ended with no ill effects. the only damage they did was that one landed in mexico and killed 3 people with poison. the rest went MIA and are probably at the bottom of the pacific.

stalin was'nt scared shitless of germany, he trusted them, dispite warnings from his advisors.

[RabidGibbon]

Voted Stalingrad, russian comeback, germans 6th army destroyed blah blah (ie: all the reasons discussed above). I don't think the Germans could have won at Kursk the way things played out, but there was (iirc) a plan to attack a few months earlier (ie: before the russians had built a miles deep system of fortifications) than they actually did which could have worked out better.

I think at the time of the actual attack Guderian (or was it Manstien, I always get those two confused) wanted to hold his panzers in reserve for a counterattack. (Similar to one he pulled off earlier in the year at Kharkov?)

Would have been nice I think to see Imphal & Kohima (Both as one slot, they were similtaneous sieges) up there. I think they were just as important as some of the pacific battles.

[Marquis of Roland]

He most certainly didn't. The greatest fear he had was being attacked by germany. Even after Barbarossa, he was afraid to act until he got intelligence confirming that the Japanese wouldn't attack his eastern front.

I agree.

Stalin was a pretty paranoid dude. Hitler was a pretty crazy dude. Stalin knew that. Paranoid dudes usually don't trust anyone, much less a crazy dude with a powerful army that just wiped out a significant modern country (France).

Still, I think Stalin WANTED to trust Hitler. Maybe he lied to himself to a certain degree.....

Japan....

I read somewhere that the total carriers produced during the war for Japan was something like 7, and the Americans made 100+. So I guess the real question is, HAD the Japanese destroyed the ENTIRE Pacific Fleet at Pearl, how long would it have taken them to land an expeditionary army in California?
Some general back then said at the time of Pearl Harbor, had the Japanese invaded the west coast, that the US wouldn't have been able to stop them till they reached as far as Chicago. But if the Japanese invaded California maybe six months later, there would have been at least some sort of resistance.

Japanese fighting through the American Southwest and Plains? I drove cross country during college several times. That is over 1500 miles across of perfect tank country. Considering how shitty Japanese tanks were, no way they would have made it to even Vegas unless of course they had complete air superiority.....which they may or may not have :dizzy2:

I voted for Stalingrad by the way. Too many "What if such and such won this battle...." talk, I think the way everything panned out in the end, Stalingrad was probably the most SIGNIFICANT turning point. Its not everyday that a hundreds-thousands strong war machine gets wiped off the face of the earth. Add in the prestige value also.

The Western Allies probably wouldn't have won without the Russians, I mean, that was where the two biggest armies from each side duked it out in a massive slugfest. The Western Front paled in comparison. They should teach more about the Eastern Front in school, actually.

Hey Panzer, who do you think would have won if it was JUST Germany vs. US?

[Kraxis]

My vote: Stalingrad

There are several battles that would have ended in a German victory had it been won, the battle of the Atlantic and BoB for instance. But Stalingrad was a victory of another sort.

It proved to the Russians that they could match the Germans in warefforts. The Germans were not invincible (the winter campaign had been as much a disaster for the Russians as it had been a German one). Suddenly the Germans lost a battle of important size and position (the flank of the German efforts in the south). Russian soldiers were envigourated by this, they believed that their slowly increasing training was finally paying off.

It was an awakening of the public, one that could easily have been shaken had they suffered another Kiev, or big encirclement. That didn't happen and as such the bonus of Stalingrad played on until the war ended.

Don't make the mistake in believing that Stalingrad made the war a turningpoint in that Germany had now lost for certain. Stalingrad evened the odds, and Kursk settled the matter. But a Kursk hadn't happened without a Stalingrad.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I recall that Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto said that "You cannot invade the United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

I believe it would have been impossible for the Japanese to invade the mainland US. It would have been thousands of miles from their supply centers, and right at the doorstep of American industry, military, etc.

Crazed Rabbit

[Grey_Fox]

Japanese fighting through the American Southwest and Plains? I drove cross country during college several times. That is over 1500 miles across of perfect tank country. Considering how shitty Japanese tanks were, no way they would have made it to even Vegas unless of course they had complete air superiority.....which they may or may not have :dizzy2:

American army was small and poorly trained in December 1941. The Chicago estimate is not unreasonable.

[CBR]

Japan was in no position to invade USA. They didnt have many troops to spare for such an adventure nor did they have capacity to keep such a long supply line. Even the Midway invasion was meant to be temporary as they couldnt keep the island supplied.


CBR

[Kraxis]

The Japanese had no real intentions of fighting in America, certainly not invading. They wanted a superb position at the negotiation table. How does one do that? Well you strip your enemy of all arms to reach you with, in this case the US Pacific Fleet. Then you gobble up his prized and exposed positions, the Philippines, Guam ect ect. When he understands that a war then will be far too costly and not even a certain victory, you offer him 'generous' terms, which he will jump at after a long sting of stingy (if not too costly in life) defeats.

Was this faulty? Well, we don't know. It sounds very much the real case doesn't it? So why didn't it work? Because the Japanese didn't bag the flattops at Pearl. And of course they didn't achieve their long string of victories. Even the relatively minor setback at Port Moresby was enough to cause a major hickup in the war effort.
So had the flattops been wiped out at Pearl and the Japanese had been able to run rampant across the Pacific there is a chance that the Isolationists would have said: "See what happens when we meddle in other people's business. Let's just look to our own affairs."
Remember that the 'US is best' thought was not yet formed, and the Isolationists were strong. A generous term to the war might have been very interesting.

But we can't know... Can we now.

[sharrukin]

American army was small and poorly trained in December 1941. The Chicago estimate is not unreasonable.

"On 7 December 1941 the Army consisted of 1,685,403 men (including 275,889 in the Air Corps) in 29 infantry, five armor, and two cavalry divisions. While this 435 percent increase was a magnificent achievement, shortages of equipment and trained personnel were still serious.

Over the following three and a half years the Army expanded a further 492 percent, to 8,291,336 men in 89 divisions: sixty-six infantry, five airborne, sixteen armored, one cavalry, and one mountain infantry."

This doesn't include the well armed American population who might have objected to the Japanese presence.

[Krusader]

I pick Midway. Had the Japanese gotten lucky and taken out the American carriers and we had not lost any, I think it would have taken a while for us to get them back.

Europe on the other hand...lots of battles to choose from. Tough for me to pick just one. Moscow when the Germans ran out of gas. [B)Their first defeat.[/B] After that the Russians were just gearing up to win with numbers. It worked...but what a price.

Stalingrad when the Germans lost so many infantry.

Kursk when the Panzers were smashed. No more flexible defence (ala Manstein's counter stroke after Operation Uranus and its follow on [can't remember the name]).

Azi

First defeat was in Narvik, when Norwegian, British and Polish troops forced the Germans on the defensive and forced them to a hill near the Swedish border. Although this was not a total defeat.

I would say Midway, as that seriously hampered the offensive capabilities of the Japanese Navy, which allowed USA to go on the offensive there and at the same time spend more resources on the European theatre of war. Although Stalingrad and El Alamein come in as second and third. Both battles provided a big morale boost for the Soviet & British troops.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey Panzer, who do you think would have won if it was JUST Germany vs. US?

With the eastern front non-existent, either with the USSR defeated or simply not invaded and neutral, the other allies would have never made it on the continent, let alone just America.

The luftwaffe would be significantly stronger, but more importantly America would not be able to land on the continent like on D-day. Even without air superiority and with the strategic bombing campaigns, Germany would have plenty of reserves to fight off an amphibious invasion.

Thats my opinion anyway.

[Tribesman]

but more importantly America would not be able to land on the continent like on D-day.
Which leads nicely into an overlooked but absolutely vital battle of WWII , the battle of the Atlantic , if the Axis had won that Battle (campaign)there would be no supplies to Russia into Murmansk/Archangel, no supplies to Britain at all and no US army coming to Europe or N.Africa

[Azi Tohak]

but more importantly America would not be able to land on the continent like on D-day.
Which leads nicely into an overlooked but absolutely vital battle of WWII , the battle of the Atlantic , if the Axis had won that Battle (campaign)there would be no supplies to Russia into Murmansk/Archangel, no supplies to Britain at all and no US army coming to Europe or N.Africa

Which is true... but how close did Germany actually come to winning that fight? I know for a while, it was very tough, but could Germany have won it?

Azi

[CBR]

Well the Germans could have started on their advanced uboats sooner. They started seriously thinking about that in late '42 and it took 2 1/2 years before the type XXI was ready for action. But the new uboat was based on testbeds and research that might not have been accelerated so easily. So the question is how much sooner could they have made a XXI like uboat... maybe 1-2 years.

Advanced torpedoes didnt turn out to be able to change that much for the Germans, so the advanced uboat was really the only thing that could have changed the situation. Type XXI was fast underwater and deadly but still required a snorkel and AFAIK the allied radar technology could detect such snorkels. It would still have meant slow movement for the uboats and it would have limited their effect so IMO I doubt it would really have turned the Atlantic war but might have postponed the result for a year and forced the allies to keep focusing on their shipbuilding and ASW.

But if Germany had focused a lot more on making uboats they might have been able to defeat UK in summer of '42


CBR

[Kraxis]

The Battle of the Atlantic would not have developed so fast as to strangle Russia from the other Allies. That is simply too soon. After 41 the supplies sent were simply 'nice' to get, but no longer vital for the Russian forces.

But the Germans could perhaps have gotten the XXI out in 43 if they had concentrated on it's research rather than on heavy tanks (and letting the industry pour out updated Panzer 4 instead). That would have made a very serious impact on the critical battles of spring 43, and possibly the Germans could have won. Several hundred XXIs would be a serious bump on the road to Britain.

Of course Germany could also have concentrated more on the subs as soon as the war began, but I fail to see where the incentive for that would come from, they were already winning. We are lucky in that we have hindsight to help us.

[The Stranger]

hmmm, i think the most fatal mistake of Germany was invading russia. it cracked them up.

[Tribesman]

After 41 the supplies sent were simply 'nice' to get, but no longer vital for the Russian forces.
Kraxis , essential is the word , not "nice" , without the huge quantities of metals , chemicals , machinery and transport infrastructure that was sent to the USSR there would have been no real viable Russian arms industry and no way to transport what they could have produced , not to mention the many millions of tons of foodstuffs which sustained the population .

[Kraxis]

They were vital early on, very vital. But by the time the German subs would have gotten strong enough to close the lanes (remember we are talking a German victory in the Atlantic) the supplies was turning out to be very well liked and a major help to get the Russians to concentrate on building war materiel. Without it they would have suffered more, but it is not likely that they would have lost because of it. By that time their own industry was up and running, and losing snother couple of million civilians? They could care less, after all all the men were out fighting so it was only the weak and old left. The industries would of course get the priority of food so no impact there.

The result would be heavier losses in life, but the war would play out much like it did.

[Mount Suribachi]

One shouldn't forget that the US sent most of their supplies to Russia over the pacific - with the ships under the russian flag. They sailed within easy reach of Japan, but the Japanese didn't attack them (despite repeated requests from Germany) because they were scared of provoking Russia into declaring war on them.

The numbers for the amount of material supplied to Russia by America from 43-45 is staggering. Quite literally hundreds of thousands of trucks and locomotives and multitudes of other things. So Russia could concentrate their factories on building the tanks and guns and planes they needed.

[Mount Suribachi]

Which is true... but how close did Germany actually come to winning that fight? I know for a while, it was very tough, but could Germany have won it?

Azi

Not once the Americans came into the war. The funny thing about the battle of the Atlantic is that it was so one-sided for so long in favour of the Germans, but in one month a succession of things on the allied side won it decisevly for them. Long range patrol planes, escort carriers, better sonar, better radar, cracking German codes, better tactics, huge numbers of victory ships being produced every month...Its the same story as in so many areas of the war, early German dominance being reversed as their opponents learn from their mistakes, develop better weapons, and do so with an ever-increasing advantage in numbers.

[Don Corleone]

I picked the Coral Sea. This was a desparate gamble for the American Navy. Had it failed, the United States would have had to restructure the Navy, pulling much needed resources out of the Atlantic theater. Had they done that, U-boat attacks would have continued to grow in effectiveness, virtually removing the American supply lines from the Allies in Europe. No 2nd front in North Africa means no victory at Stalingrad. Also, if we had lost this battle, the Japanese advance to Australia would not have been checked, and it's very likely that the Japanese would have overtaken much of Australia within 18 months.

I know it's not as exciting to read about as Midway, Stalingrad or others, but in terms of what was riding on it, it was the single most important battle of the war.

[Tribesman]

They were vital early on, very vital.

OK
They could care less, after all all the men were out fighting so it was only the weak and old left. The industries would of course get the priority of food so no impact there.
yes the industry manned by the weak and the old who needed to be fed , after the USSR had lost its "breadbasket" to foriegn occupation . So how do you feed the workers when your wheat fields are in enemy hands ?http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html
Oh yes , you get 34 million dollars worth from your friend .

SuribachiNot once the Americans came into the war.
It predated that , 4 stackers , Greenland , Iceland , lend lease(back to 4 stackers) , W. Atlantic escorts(neutral of course)......Though as G. Cube mentioned , it was a war of technology , and big thanks go out to the Poles who supplied an Enigma machine to the British (via the French) long before the episode with the submarine (that was turned into a film ~D ) .
Intelligence can be the key to any victory , when the battlefield is thousands of miles wide then accurate intelligence is the decisive factor .

[Kraxis]

As I said, the priority of food would go to the industry, it would run on. And the breadbasket of the west was that, a basket of surplus by the time of the war, gone was the famine of the early 30s (things were learned from that). As well as a major population center. It counts both ways.
Remember that entire new cities were constructed in the east, best known is perhaps Tankograd (guess what they made there), with outlying villages and communal farms to feed them. Those that would suffer were the rural population not tied into this sceme of things. But as I said, the leadership couldn't care less about them if the prize was victory, and it would be.

[Tribesman]

best known is perhaps Tankograd (guess what they made there),
Bugger all without the raw materials .

[Kraxis]

Now you make it sound as if Russia had no resources ready. Of course it did. The Urals and Caucasus were crampacked with mines of all sorts. Damn even the deep Siberia was producing stuff. Remember Stalin's little stunt in the early 30s? You know the one where his export of grain killed off millions of peasants? Well that upped the industry to the point it had at the outbreak of war, that was retained and increased. Now Stalin wasn't one to like to go to the big bad imperialistic capitalists. Damn no, he wanted to produces as much at home as possible. Well that came in handy later on.

It wasn't as if they were sitting on their hands going "What are we going to do now, the Germans have taken our food." They had options... Bad options, but options.

[sharrukin]

best known is perhaps Tankograd (guess what they made there),
Bugger all without the raw materials .

I don't know how to break this to you but Russia has raw materials. You make it sound like we are talking about the Arabian desert without the oil.

The Lend-Lease aid was very helpful to the Russians, but it didn't win the war. We sent it because they were fighting and it was a way for us to use our resources against Germany even when we were not in direct combat with the Germans.

Russia has immense oil, mineral, food, and industrial power and we helped them at a time of crisis with Lend-Lease.

BTW, they were shipped 5 million tons of food. Thats a lot of food but only a small portion of what a nation the size of Russia needed. Maybe 90 days of food. Very helpful yes.

[Kraxis]

The great part of the food sent was the simple fact that it was already packed and ready. THAT made it a good help, the Russians then could send it whereever they needed it. If I'm not mistaken the Russian soldiers loved the American canned beef. But if they can come to love it they can't have been eating it too much (you get tired of the same food over and over).

Lets say that a human needs 1kg of food each day, it sounds like a lot, but really it isn't that far off if you worked hard labour such as at a farm or in heavy industry back then. Now lets assume there were 100 million Russians (there were more but bear with me). So we end up at a daily rate of 100 million kg of food, that is 100,000 tons of food each day. That adds up to 50 days worth of food they got through lend and lease.
Added alltogether I think my figures are fair. There were more 'free' Russians but then there was all those who didn't eat 1 kg each day.

So as I said, it was a very nice and obviously beloved help, but not a critical one beyond the desperate days of 41.

[Tribesman]

I don't know how to break this to you but Russia has raw materials.
Yes , but in some categories of raw materials over 50% of what the Russian industries used during the war was supplied by America , more than a third of all the artillery rounds used by Russia was supplied by America , over 75% of their motor transport was supplied by America .

[Kraxis]

Are you saying that the US made specific constructionlines for Russian shells? 76.2mm, 100mm, 122mm and 152mm shells, all different from all US sizes. I find it hard to believe that the US had whole factories whose sole purpose was to make Soviet weapons.
If that was the case, then it begs the question, why didn't they go all the way and have a few factories build T-34s instead of sending Shermans. It would make more sense.

[Kagemusha]

In 1941.Russian army wouldnt have survived without western ammo,tanks,airplanes and food.There was lots of US weaponry in Soviet army because lend and liese program.Russia had all the raw materials it ever needed,but it diddnt have manufacterd materials,because its armys equipment was almost destroyed.If you read my post in this thread before.The Germans wouldnt had to have won the battle of atlantic because their land forces were few kilometres away from the Murmansk Arghangel railroad,the only railroad that served the only over year harbour in Ice Sea over the Year.

[Tribesman]

If that was the case, then it begs the question, why didn't they go all the way and have a few factories build T-34s instead of sending Shermans. It would make more sense.
Why ? Retooling an entire tank production plant would be too expensive and time consuming , Retooling a few machines in an ammunition production facility with excess capacity is a far smaller oreration , though they did send slightly more 76.2mm armed Shermans than 75mm armed ones(2095/2007) . Plus sending finished tanks is a waste of valuable cargo space due to the large empty space inside the construct , it was far more efficient to send the raw materials for building 40,000 T34s instead .

Kageshuma , wasn't there some Aliied political pressure put on one of the axis powers co-belligerents specifically concerning offensives against that rail line ?

[Kagemusha]

You are right Finish forces could have cutted that railroad line if they would have wanted to cut it.Same thing goes with attack on Leningrad.Finish didnt fire a shell in Leningrad.In winter 1941 only supply line to Leningrad was by iceway on Lake Ladoga under Finnish "noses",but Our military did nothing to haras it.The supreme commander of Finnish military Marshall Mannerheim,who btw served in Russian military in WWI as Cavalry General.Understood that it wouldnt be sane to occupy Lenigrad,because it had 5 million people living it.The same amount as in whole Finland.Finish strategy in WWII was all about survival.Finland didnt want in general German victory,but it didnt want also a Soviet occupieng us.It was all about balancing. :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

Finland didnt want in general German victory,but it didnt want also a Soviet occupieng us.It was all about balancing.

Finland was a horrible ally, stabbed the Germans in the back when they were down. :no:

[Kagemusha]

Finland was a horrible ally, stabbed the Germans in the back when they were down. :no:

Yes.you are right Panzer.Even threw German forces out of Lapland.We are bastards and proud of it. ~;)But you must like what Finnish volunteers did in Viking Division?

[sharrukin]

I don't know how to break this to you but Russia has raw materials.
Yes , but in some categories of raw materials over 50% of what the Russian industries used during the war was supplied by America , more than a third of all the artillery rounds used by Russia was supplied by America , over 75% of their motor transport was supplied by America .

Thats nonsense and Kraxis has pointed out why.

Lend-Lease supplied 317,900 tons of explosive materials which was essential to helping in the production of Soviet artillery. Most of the shells you are talking about were supplied for western equipment such as the 20mm shells for the P-39 Aircobra fighter. 1.2 million rounds were supplied for this.

[Kraxis]

The 76mm armed Sherman was not compatible with the Russian 76.2mm shell. Those tanks were sent because the Russians considered the 75mm woefully underpowered, which by the way was absolutely correct.
I would like some proof that there was production of Russian shelltypes in the US. For instance an image of crates saying "Contains 122mm shells" ect ect. Anything beyond a list that says certain chemicals were sent (which by the way lacks cordite, the main explosive of artillery).
I find it hard to believe that whole factories would be dedicated to the Russian wareffort, since everything else I have seen has been either compatible equipment (equipment used bythe US itself) or general equipment (Jeeps, locomotives, food, rolled metal plates and so on). The US worker would be furious that he would be working for the SU while his own boy was fighting and dying in Europe or the Pacific. He would not like that his work would not be able to help his boy directly, but rather help communists, whom he certainly didn't trust.

[Franconicus]

http://www.battlefield.ru/lendlease/index.html
:book: This is a Russian source. Maybe you'll find it helpful.

[Mount Suribachi]

Finland was a horrible ally, stabbed the Germans in the back when they were down. :no:


Well then, let me heartily applaud Finland for their actions :bow:

PJ, when are you going quit this ridiculous WW2 germany hero worship and realise that Germany losing was a good thing?

The Germans lost. They deserved to lose.

[Kraxis]

http://www.battlefield.ru/lendlease/index.html
:book: This is a Russian source. Maybe you'll find it helpful.
Interesting. No mention of prepared ammunition, but about 29,000 tons of explosives were sent in the first year. Hardly soemthing that would sideline the Russian industry. Vital when there was nothing to be had, but this is a low amount.
In all that site confirms my position. But it must be said that it is not very detailed. But it is surprisingly positive towards the help sent, not something I would expect from a Russian.

[Redleg]

As I see it there were four battles that were important during WW2.


Battle of Britian. This to me is the first of the important battles of WW2. Britian at this time was the only remaining power opposing Hilter's Germany. If Britian would of surrendered or negotated a peace with Hilter the course of the war for the allied side would of been different. For instance without England being in the fight would Germany felt it necessary to declare war on the United States? Would the United States have fought in Europe at all without England being in the War?

Stalingrad - The stupidity of Hilter being involved in controling the Army began to show its ugly head and the German Army was never able to get him out of running the battles ever again. This battle in essence broke the right arm of the German war effort. One that they could of recovered from in time if Hilter would of realized he had no ability in managing such a large scale battle - but since he was an egomanic and a despot to boot - which was good for the world - he continued to mettle in military affairs. This followed shortly later by the battle of Kursk - doomed Germany to defeat on the Eastern Front. Aided a little by the allied invasions in Italy and later on France.

Pearl Harbor - without Japan attacking Pearl Harbor it would of been difficult for FDR to get the United States into the war against Germany. Isolationist were still a major factor in American politics at the time.

Guadacanal - Midway. These two battles happened close to each other and are important for the same reason. Guadacanal showed the Americans that they could defeat the more experienced Japanese Army on the ground - where Midway crippled the Japanese Navy and placed them on the defensive.

However as the most important Battle of the war I voted for the Battle of Britian because it was the first of the series of battles and without Britian's victory there - the possiblity of a different conclusion for the Battle of Stalingrad is very likely. Considering the loss of German aircraft in that battle. Aircraft that could of possibly closed off the re-inforcement avenues of Russian soldiers into the city. etc.

[Redleg]

Didn't the Japanese develope some ballons that would be relased, drift across the pacific, and release their bombs based on a timer? I think at least a few were launched, although the winds were wrong and they unloaded their payloads in uninhabited areas.

Correct - the ballon bombs were a bust for the Japanese. Those that did get to the West Coast exploded in un-important and often un-inhabitied areas.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice analysis Redleg. :thumbsup:

By Mount Suribachi

PJ, when are you going quit this ridiculous WW2 germany hero worship and realise that Germany losing was a good thing?

How does that relate to this thread? Personal attacks belong in the backroom.

[Kraxis]

BoB wasn't exactly a British victory more like, not a German victory. But the results stay the same.

If the Germans had just realized that they only needed local air superiority then it would likely have been very different.

[Tribesman]

Anything beyond a list that says certain chemicals were sent (which by the way lacks cordite, the main explosive of artillery).
Lacks Cordite ? the list of chemicals has very large amounts of the 3 ingredients of a 2 stage propellant like Cordite , it also has very large amounts for other 2 stage , single stage and triple stage propellants

I would like some proof that there was production of Russian shelltypes in the US.
OK I will see if I can find the appropriate site again and post a link , I will also try to find the one that details small arms ammunition maunufacture facilities in the US specifically producing Russian calibre bullets .

Most of the shells you are talking about were supplied for western equipment such as the 20mm shells for the P-39 Aircobra fighter. 1.2 million rounds were supplied for this.
Sharrukin ,that would be the M54 37mm shells for the P-39 .

[yesdachi]

There are many factors in the eventual downfall of the Germans in WWII but I am surprised that no one has mentioned the capture of an Enigma cipher machine.

I voted for Perl Harbor, it really brought the American citizens support into the war effort and not just the armed forces.

My 2 cents…
I think that WWII was the last time that Americans used the volume of troops to win a war. We thru so many cheep Sherman tanks at the Germans I am surprised they lasted as long as they did. The Germans definitely had a better military, veteran troops, superior equipment, ships/u-boats, etc. but they just had too many enemies. Basically the world minus Japan, who really didn’t help them much if at all.

[Redleg]

Just a little nitpick here: Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour. If they hadn't, we would have only gone to war against Japan.

Then you misunderstood the statement. Without Japan attacking Pearl Harbor the United States would not have entered the war. Germany would not have declared war on the United States - nor the United States declaring war on Germany.

[Tribesman]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the capture of an Enigma cipher machine.
Yesdachi , its back there in post #71
it was a war of technology , and big thanks go out to the Poles who supplied an Enigma machine to the British (via the French) long before the episode with the submarine (that was turned into a film ) .

[yesdachi]

Yesdachi , its back there in post #71
sorry, i must have missed it. Didn’t get much discussion but still pretty important, knowledge is power. ~:)

[Redleg]

Not to nitpick again, but you made the statement sound like that was the necesarry excuse to go to war with Germany.

It was the necessary event to go to war with Germany. The United States while supporting England and Russia was not willing to go to war with Germany. Only with the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was the necessary public opinion swayed to bring the United States into the war. Futhermore Germany helped it along by declaring war on the United States before we declare war on Germany.

Not once did I use the word excuse - now did I?

Without Pearl Harbor - FDR did not have the politicial power to bring the United States into the conflict on the side of England.

Just as a matter of proof - try explaining the two years of the European conflict that we set out of - while one of our WW1 allies were over-ran by Germany and our other Ally had to place themselves almost bankrupt to get us to supply them with equipment.

Historical Fact - without Pearl Harbor the United States would of set out the European Conflict. Why - because it had come down to at that time two powers that we detested at the time - Facism and Communism. Back up material

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/usa.htm


The American public did not share his (FDR's) sense of urgency. The European War seemed far away. The American public blamed the Europeans for their war. China, while forgotten during the invasion of Poland, the Fall of France, and the Battle of Britain, seemed to most Americans to be the war America should fight, if America had to fight at all

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm


But as the war in Europe continued, America's leaders were attempting to get America involved, even though the American people didn't want to become part of it Roosevelt, the presidential candidate, was promising the American people that the Roosevelt administration would remain neutral should he be re-elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_2


Hitler made the declaration in the hopes that Japan would support him by attacking the Soviet Union. Japan did not oblige him, and this diplomatic move proved a catastrophic blunder which gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the pretext needed for the United States joining the fight in Europe with full commitment and with no meaningful opposition from Congress. Some historians mark this moment as another major turning point of the war with Hitler provoking a grand alliance of powerful nations who could wage powerful attacks on both East and West simultaneously.

[Redleg]

Well, uh, yeah. I know all that. I'm just saying that if Germany hadn't declared war, we would've stopped at Japan.

Which is exactly what my statment meant - which you tried to nitpick. The attack of Pearl Harbor caused the United States to enter the war. Everything that happened after that - the Germany declaring War - the United States entering the war in Europe was all based upon that action.

[The Stranger]

the goverment did wanted war, didnt they?

[Redleg]

From what I have read - FDR wanted to take the United States to war sometime late 1939 to Mid 1940's. The build of the United States Military after the invasion of Poland is a good timeline to review to come to one's own conclusion on the matter

[Grey_Fox]

I think that WWII was the last time that Americans used the volume of troops to win a war.

Vietnam.

[sharrukin]

Most of the shells you are talking about were supplied for western equipment such as the 20mm shells for the P-39 Aircobra fighter. 1.2 million rounds were supplied for this.
Sharrukin ,that would be the M54 37mm shells for the P-39 .

My mistake. 37mm cannon shells, not 20mm cannon shells. The point is that we are not talking about artillery rounds, are we? The Americans shipped 5,595 40mm AA guns and 8,308,365 rounds for them. The British shipped 4.6 millions shells as well also largely for light AA cannons as well as for tank guns. Almost none of it was for artillery.

In addition only 450,000 tons of food was shipped between November 1941 and November 1942. Clearly this was in no way capable of feeding Russia. Most of the food was shipped after this period and was helpful.

No one is saying that the American Lend-Lease wasn't of any assistance to the Russians. However it is too much of a leap to go from that, to saying;


Yes , but in some categories of raw materials over 50% of what the Russian industries used during the war was supplied by America , more than a third of all the artillery rounds used by Russia was supplied by America , over 75% of their motor transport was supplied by America.

What categories of raw materials?
When you say artillery rounds do you actually mean rifle bullets? Light cannon shells? Or actual artillery rounds?


Kraxis , essential is the word , not "nice" , without the huge quantities of metals , chemicals , machinery and transport infrastructure that was sent to the USSR there would have been no real viable Russian arms industry and no way to transport what they could have produced , not to mention the many millions of tons of foodstuffs which sustained the population .

The Soviet truck park was around 300,000 to 400,000 throughout the war (272 000 in june, 1941). The vast majority of western trucks did not arrive until mid 1943 to 1945 where they constitute a more significant percentage of the Soviet truck park. Western figures suggest 32.8% in 1945 and increasingly lower for earlier years. For example in 1941 the US supplied 8,300 motor vehicles of which only 1,506 arrived in the USSR for use and 867 arrived from the British.

The lowest figures for soviet truck production are around 281,000 trucks produced and others suggest higher than this (650,000). Around 115,000 trucks were captured from the Germans and put into service by the Red Army. This would give around 700,000 trucks to the Soviets at a minimum without Lend-Lease. Add 312,000 Lend-Lease trucks and you have around a third of trucks being western. A substantial and very valuable contribution from the west, and very useful for the rapid Soviet advances that developed in 1944-45. Western vehicles were superior to Soviet vehicles in many ways as well. IMO we might have been wiser to NOT deliver this assistance but that is another subject.

Domestic truck park (in thousands) -
1941; 272.6 (as of june, 1941)
1942 ; 317.1
1943; 378.8
1944; 387.0
1945; 395.2
1945; 385.7 (as of may, 1945)

Trucks
There were 312,600 in TOTAL received; the number shipped minus losses and diverted to other lend-lease receivers.
1941; 400
1942; 32,500
1943; 95,100
1944; 139,600
1945; 45,000
total; 312,600 (of 383,600 shipped)

72,100 came via the Northern ports
181,000 came via the Iran
59,500 came via the Far Eastern ports

This does not include deliveries after May 12,1945 based on post-Lend-Lease Milepost Agreement to build up Siberian stockpiles for Soviet attack on Japan.

This is according to V.F.Vorsin, 'Motor Vehicle Deliveries Through Lend-Lease'

There were "24,500 foreign trucks and jeeps in Red Army in fall of 1942" according to M.H.Suprun, 'Lend-Lease and the Northern Convoys'. this accords well with American shipping information as well. US Department of State, "Report on War Aid". There were in addition 3,001 Canadian trucks by late 1942 (Canadian Mutual Aid Board).

This is the number in service, not the number delivered, lost in transit, destroyed by enemy action, not yet assembled, etc.

The Russians thought some of the most valuable aid was waterproof telephone wire (Russian wire was poor), 100 octane aviation fuel, good cross country trucks, and decent radios. The 20 000 machine tools were probably the most valuable items sent but this is tiny compared to pre-war industrialization. Soviet sources indicate that 300,000 high-quality foreign machine tools were imported between 1929 and 1940. These machine tools were supplemented by complete industrial plants: for example, the Soviet Union received three tractor plants (which also doubled as tank producers), two giant machine-building plants (Kramatorsk and Uralmash), three major automobile plants, numerous oil refining units, aircraft plants, and tube mills.



it was far more efficient to send the raw materials for building 40,000 T34s instead .

This is again complete nonsense. Russian steel production was enormous compared to what we sent.

1.2 million tons of steel in the form of slabs, sheets, tubing and bars via lend-lease
Soviet production in the worst year was 8 million tons in 1942 alone, 8.4 million tons of steel in 1943, 13 million tons in 1944. Pig iron was 12 million tons in 1944 and 10 million tons of rolled steel in 1944.

two million tons of oil via lend-lease
1941 28.5 million, 1942 15.2 million, 1943 15.8 million, 1944 17 million, 1945 19.4 million

134,000 tons aluminum via lend-lease
667,000 - metric tons produced. Shortfalls in aluminum were made up by utilizing aircraft such as the IL-4, LaGG-3, LA-5, LA-7. This is only part of the story however. Germany for example produced more aluminum and fewer aircraft than the Russians. The Germans used new aluminium alloys to make up for a shortage of copper.
121,150 "combat" aircraft were produced by the Russians with another 15,000 lend-lease aircraft sent by the west.
The Russians produced 25,436 aircraft and received around 2,500 via lend-lease in 1942 year. The preponderance of Lend-Lease aircraft shipments occurred after the crisis year of 1942.

Non-ferrous metal shipments totaled just 384,000 tons, just 5.4% of Soviet production.

88-million artillery rounds stockpiled in 1941with pre-war 18-million rounds being produced yearly. A reserve capacity of 100 million artillery shells existed, but the relocation of industrial plants reduced this to only 30 million produced in the second half of 1941. Expenditures were in the order of 80 millions rounds fired, or lost by being overrun. This would have reduced stocks to around 50 million by the end of 1941 (1941 production totalling 42 million including first half of 1941). In 1942 production (73.5 million) was again back up to levels able to match expenditure rates. This is compared to 22 million shells mostly light cannon ammunition. Not even close to 75%. Not even close for even one years production.

Without a context of what the Russians produced in terms of wartime production and existing stocks, you get a very strange picture from simply looking at the total of lend-lease material sent. The Soviet air force had 17,000 combat aircraft in 1945. The 15,000 combat aircraft sent by lend-lease for example are enough to equip 88% of the entire Soviet air force. They produced 120,000+ aircraft however. Such statements are meaningless out of context!

[Kraxis]

Wow... I think I'm going to sit quitely on the sideline as I can't possibly add anything to what sharrukin just posted.

I'm still interested in the US produced Russian artillery shells. I don't think I made my interest clear enough previously. I only opposed that thought as a sidediscussion, not as the holy grail of the main discussion (could Germany have strangled the SU out of the war with a victory in the Atlantic, or even if the Allied Lend-Lease was made the SU warmachine run).

[Franconicus]

This is a great discussion ~:cheers:
Just two questions:
Battle of Britain: I know that the Germans made some bad mistakes. But was there a chanve for them to win. As far as I see
the British fighters were not outnumbered
the airplanes were equal
the Germans were more experienced and had better tactics
the Brits had the RADAR and the Germans never realized how dangerous they were
the Brits had a higher fighter production
the German had not enough range
the Brits fought over their home
British fighters could always decide to sit back and wait. Germans just could not destroy the RAF if they placed their oplanes north of London.

Pearl Harbor: If Germany would not have declared war on the US wouldn't the US have done it?
I mean the US did everything to provoke Germany: sending tons of weapons to Britain and the USSR, giving ships to fight the German subs, escorting convoys, even attacking German ships, occupying Island .... Can you imagine that after Pearl the US only fought Japan, while GB was fighting Japan and Germany. Hard to believe!

[sharrukin]

Pearl Harbor: If Germany would not have declared war on the US wouldn't the US have done it?
I mean the US did everything to provoke Germany: sending tons of weapons to Britain and the USSR, giving ships to fight the German subs, escorting convoys, even attacking German ships, occupying Island .... Can you imagine that after Pearl the US only fought Japan, while GB was fighting Japan and Germany. Hard to believe!

The American people and Congress were reluctant to go to war, but Pearl Harbor brought them into a war against Japan. IMO, they would have joined a war against Germany eventually but it may have been after a year or so. That would have significant long term effects. The main US effort would have been Japan and most things in europe would be delayed by 8 months to over a year. If D-day had happened in mid 1945 the world would be a very different place.

[The Stranger]

off-topic
the amount of bombs trown in vietnam, wasnt that as much as everybody threw in WW2 combined ~:eek: :dizzy2:

[Franconicus]

As much as I heard it was much more. I have a link: http://www.napalm-am-morgen.de/02_Der_Vietnamkrieg.html Do not know if it is reliable. It says that the US threw 7.5 million tons of bombs. This is 4 times of what was thrown over Europe in WW2.

[Kraxis]

GAH!
I wonder why the country isn't a lake... That is a whole lot of explosives. I mean, think about how much that would fill. That has the explosive force of a major nuclear device, actually much more since it is measured in open TNT (not TNT in a closed container).

[yesdachi]

GAH!
I wonder why the country isn't a lake... That is a whole lot of explosives. I mean, think about how much that would fill. That has the explosive force of a major nuclear device, actually much more since it is measured in open TNT (not TNT in a closed container).

@ Gray Fox
Excellent example of how the US didn’t use a volume of troops in Vietnam. The US gov wanted desperately to make a bigger difference there but the public would have freaked out even more if they used troops like they did in WWII.

@ anyone
The tech advances of the media, TV/radio changed Americans view of war and the gov had to change the American military to be acceptable to the people. I think that’s why they used soooo many bombs in Vietnam and why they use cruse missiles and the like now.

Its interesting to think how things may have been different in WWII if the family from “Leave it to Beaver” (didn’t air until the 50’s but you get the point) were able to watch the WWII events on CNN at the dinner table. ~:eek:

[Gregoshi]

Let's stick to WW2 please.

[Gemenii XIII]

Has to be STALINGRAD. I mean all these other battles pail in comparison to what happened at stalingrad. After the Germans lost that battle it was over. Nothing could stop the Soviets. That is why the soviets marched trough berlin and not the British/American/Canadian (not to discredit their war effort). In europe the most important battle was, hands down, Stalingrad. In the far east probably Midway.

[Grey_Fox]

Kursk was far more detrimental to the Germans than Stalingrad.