Printable View
Nice analysis Redleg. :thumbsup:
By Mount Suribachi
How does that relate to this thread? Personal attacks belong in the backroom.Quote:
PJ, when are you going quit this ridiculous WW2 germany hero worship and realise that Germany losing was a good thing?
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.
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 .
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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 ) .
sorry, i must have missed it. Didn’t get much discussion but still pretty important, knowledge is power. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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
http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htmQuote:
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_2Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
the goverment did wanted war, didnt they?
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
Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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;
What categories of raw materials?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
When you say artillery rounds do you actually mean rifle bullets? Light cannon shells? Or actual artillery rounds?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
This is again complete nonsense. Russian steel production was enormous compared to what we sent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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!
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).
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
off-topic
the amount of bombs trown in vietnam, wasnt that as much as everybody threw in WW2 combined ~:eek: :dizzy2:
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.
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 FoxQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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:
Let's stick to WW2 please.
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.
Kursk was far more detrimental to the Germans than Stalingrad.