U.S. & U.K. Lend Lease efforts and Soviet success in the Great Patriotic War

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Once again, debate rages in the Backroom onthe issue of the importance, or lack thereof, of Lend Lease to the Soviets during World War II.

For the poll, please respond to the following:

Lend Lease made a significant contribution to the success of Soviet war efforts against Nazi Germany during WW2.



As always feel free to argue the point in more detail and, this being the Monastery, don't stint on the links or supporting evidence.


Please excuse the typos in the poll choices; I rushed thinking it was a time-sensitive post like polls in the old days.

[Montmorency]

As I mentioned in the Resources Thread, there is an older discussion somewhere here in the monastery that links to a resource with ridiculously hyper-detailed data on the Lend-Lease program to the Soviets. My opinion is that unless this resource can be tracked down/dug up for poring over, this thread is a non-starter.

That is, I know it's within the past three years of activity, but I skimmed quite a few threads and I couldn't find anything. But I'm certain that I originally found the link in one of the Monastery threads...

[AntiDamascus]

Oh I don't believe it can be a non-starter already. Sadly, I never did much studying on the Soviets, but to me, even a moderate Lend Lease program helped keep the allies upright for a good long time.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As I mentioned in the Resources Thread, there is an older discussion somewhere here in the monastery that links to a resource with ridiculously hyper-detailed data on the Lend-Lease program to the Soviets. My opinion is that unless this resource can be tracked down/dug up for poring over, this thread is a non-starter.

That is, I know it's within the past three years of activity, but I skimmed quite a few threads and I couldn't find anything. But I'm certain that I originally found the link in one of the Monastery threads...

I too recall an earlier effort on this, but could not locate it. My only real innovation here is to add a poll.

[AntiDamascus]

When you have nothing to add, ask others to add their opinion ;)

[Beskar]

I was speaking about this the otherday to Husar...

The UK land-lease agreement played a significant role in the beginning of the war, Soviet infrustrature was in dire straits with factories being shipped to the Urals, overran by the Germans or being burnt down to the ground. The Russians themselves losing lots of men and armour in the process. It was in this critical period that the UK more than delivered on the promised agreement instantly shipping out Sherman tanks to Arkhangelsk where they were met with Russian crews who spent two weeks learning how to operate British tanks and instantly shipped down to the front lines and put into action almost instantly. By the battle of Moscow, 30-40% of the Russian armour were British tanks. It was this stopgap measure at a critical time the UK landlease agreement played a vital role.

However, in terms of the enitre war effort as a whole, the landlease was a drop in the ocean, we are looking at it only accounting for 4%. But the British enthusiasm to help the Russians and the swiftness of how the Russians employed the tanks was significant.

As for the Americans.. well. They put their supplies on the ships, Pearl harbour happened, "Screw the Russians", took the supplies off the ships and redeployed them to the Pacific, leaving the credit to the British for the only significant thumbsup it offered.

Some imports such as tools had a disproportionate impact due to very low tool production. It is these contributions which were a help the Russians.

Landlease taken as a whole was only a minor help to the Russians and the Russians would have still won the war without it, it was no 'saviour'. But it did provide a major help when the Russians needed it the most.

Google Source.

[ReluctantSamurai]

By the battle of Moscow, 30-40% of the Russian armour were British tanks.

One can place this comment in the same context as another famous myth about the Battle of Moscow...that it was the Siberian forces that won the battle. At any rate, I'd be real curious to see the source for that piece of information, because it's not even remotely close to the truth. Look here (OOB's on this site are from official unit histories):

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...ftankstaff.htm

Now if you cross reference the numbers given here, with those from the second link below, you'll see that someone moved a decimal point where it shouldn't be. The only tanks that had any chance of participating in the battle for Moscow were the 20 Matildas delivered to Archangel on 11 Oct by PQ1 convoy (the 200 tanks on PQ3 didn't arrive in Archangel until 22 Nov and by the time they would get off-loaded from the ships and then loaded onto rail cars and shipped south, would not arrive in time to participate). Now considering the Soviet armor available for battle on 28 Oct was 441 tanks, that's 4% not 40% LL tanks.

However, in terms of the enitre war effort as a whole, the landlease was a drop in the ocean, we are looking at it only accounting for 4%.

If you repeat something often enough, regardless whether it is true or not, it becomes accepted as the truth. In this case, Soviet propaganda post-war has succeed in convincing people (including economists) that this statement is truth. It is not.

As for the Americans.. well. They put their supplies on the ships, Pearl harbour happened, "Screw the Russians", took the supplies off the ships and redeployed them to the Pacific, leaving the credit to the British for the only significant thumbsup it offered.

I really hope this is a tongue-in-cheek comment. But just for s!@#$ and giggles, the actual $ amount with a British pounds-to-dollars exchange was: US aid to USSR (1941-1945)---10.67 billion dollars; UK aid to USSR (1941-1945) 1.26 billion.

Landlease taken as a whole was only a minor help to the Russians and the Russians would have still won the war without it, it was no 'saviour'.

Again, repeat something enough times and it becomes the truth whether it is or not. Of course this is where most LL discussions fall down because what is "minor" to one person is "major" to another and so on and so forth.

Rather than launch into any kind of diatribe, I thought I'd post up a few of my favs in the linkie-link department.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...hip/index.html
A rather long and boring list to paw through but....it lists nearly to the last nut and bolt what was shipped and when.

http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html
The Cliff Notes version of the first linky. Be sure to click on each of the various shipping routes for convoy info.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html
Another Cliff Notes version with some additional minor details.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/index.htm
A rather interesting read. It covers the experiences and opinions of VVS pilots who flew LL aircraft. I had one covering Soviet tankers who used LL AFV's, but for the life of me, I can't seem to find it.

Anyways.....enjoy

[Montmorency]

Yeah, the first two are what I had in mind. Very nice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Confirms what I'd heard years ago. The only things war materials we sent that they really preferred/used a lot were trucks and tools. By the end of the war, Lend Lease represented a third of Soviet motorization. As I recall, however, the only AFV we sent them that they stuck with was the Bren carrier -- and anybody who got hold of one of those used them as a general purpose infantry support tool. They were employed by nearly every European combatant -- even if they had to steal one first.

[Beskar]

One can place this comment in the same context as another famous myth about the Battle of Moscow...that it was the Siberian forces that won the battle. At any rate, I'd be real curious to see the source for that piece of information, because it's not even remotely close to the truth. Look here (OOB's on this site are from official unit histories):

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaw...ftankstaff.htm

I basically took an article and used the information from that to get a debate started. The link is at the bottom of the post. Quoting from the Article:
'The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941'

Using the article information '205 of these tanks were heavy or medium types', it says 140 of the same quality were supplied by the British. So on these numbers alone, it is 34.4%

Using your own source link, there were 341 in November of heavy-medium types.

So it looks like your own source is correlating to this article. Whilst the timings may be a little off and there is activity occuring, the whole idea of being 30-40% at stages during the time period is not inconceivable.

If you repeat something often enough, regardless whether it is true or not, it becomes accepted as the truth. In this case, Soviet propaganda post-war has succeed in convincing people (including economists) that this statement is truth. It is not.

From the article:
oft-quoted statement by First Vice-Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Nikolai Voznesensky summed up the standard line that Allied aid represented "only 4 percent" of Soviet production for the entire war. Lacking any detailed information to the contrary, Western authors generally agreed that even if Lend-Lease was important from 1943 on, as quantities of aid dramatically increased, the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

As such, it still was not significant for the most crucial stage, where the aid was needed most and the aid came from the British. Whilst there were later aid from America, at that point, it wasn't crucial.

I really hope this is a tongue-in-cheek comment. But just for s!@#$ and giggles, the actual $ amount with a British pounds-to-dollars exchange was: US aid to USSR (1941-1945)---10.67 billion dollars; UK aid to USSR (1941-1945) 1.26 billion.

Again, this came later, in 1943 onwards where the aid increased easily a hundred fold by the USA than in the earlier stages. The later stages of the war, the land-lease became less crucial to the Soviet success especially compared to 1941-1942. So whilst America ended up contributing more, Britain supplied the most at the beginning before being overtaken later on. So there is a disproportionate impact. So lets say you have absolutely no money to even feed yourself, $100 now would pick you up and help you tide over, compared to $1000 two weeks later where you may have already starved to death.


In short, Russian forces were on a shattered retreat, losing men, armour, left right and centre. Having additional forces whilst small in number but relatively large for the current situation helped keep the Soviets in the fight whilst they regrouped and got production in-check. This was the significant impact of the land-lease. Later on, it was simply additional resources to keeping the 'good fight' going.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I basically took an article and used the information from that to get a debate started.

When I asked for a source, I meant a primary source...that is, official military documents from surveys, unit histories, high command AAR's, etc. That particular article is circulating amongst many i-net articles and it is incorrect. Where did it originate?

So it looks like your own source is correlating to this article.

No, it does not. Do you see any British tanks mentioned in unit histories? Nada one. Only the 136th Independent Tank Brigade (with 20 Matilda II's) made it to the battle. The remaining Allied tanks that arrived at Archangelsk on PQ3 arrived too late to participate. (You do know that until mid-1942, the heaviest crane operating in Archangelsk was 11 ton? Hardly enough to lift a medium tank off of a merchant ship. They had to be driven onto special ramps and lowered onto barges for transfer to shore.)

the aid was far too little and late to make a difference in the decisive battles of 1941–1942.

One thing we can agree upon. The victories at Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad in 1942, were, for the most part, almost totally Soviet achievements.

Got some figures for this statement?...they are difficult to come by...use the second link that I provided above. The figures do not support your statement.

The later stages of the war, the land-lease became less crucial to the Soviet success especially compared to 1941-1942.

You would never have seen the sweeping offensives of late-1943, 1944, and 1945 without LL (the trucks and canned food in particular). While I do not believe the Soviets would have lost without LL, I'm not sure they could have won either

[Beskar]

When I asked for a source, I meant a primary source...that is, official military documents from surveys, unit histories, high command AAR's, etc. That particular article is circulating amongst many i-net articles and it is incorrect. Where did it originate?

June/July 2008 issue of World War II magazine, titled: The Russian Lend-Lease Myth - By Alexander Hill. The actual article is not available, but I tracked down the source to a published 2006 Research Note

Hopefully you might have clearance, so we can take a better look of it.

One thing we can agree upon. The victories at Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad in 1942, were, for the most part, almost totally Soviet achievements.

I think we agree on more on a more personal level. That aside, let me try to find some stuff...

From here - Chart 6 shows a significant increase between the early and later periods of the war, by a very large margin. I believe it is from the same source as your 2nd link.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1. When I asked for a source, I meant a primary source...that is, official military documents from surveys, unit histories, high command AAR's, etc. That particular article is circulating amongst many i-net articles and it is incorrect. Where did it originate?

2. No, it does not. Do you see any British tanks mentioned in unit histories? Nada one. Only the 136th Independent Tank Brigade (with 20 Matilda II's) made it to the battle. The remaining Allied tanks that arrived at Archangelsk on PQ3 arrived too late to participate. (You do know that until mid-1942, the heaviest crane operating in Archangelsk was 11 ton? Hardly enough to lift a medium tank off of a merchant ship. They had to be driven onto special ramps and lowered onto barges for transfer to shore.)

3. One thing we can agree upon. The victories at Moscow in 1941, and Stalingrad in 1942, were, for the most part, almost totally Soviet achievements.

...4. You would never have seen the sweeping offensives of late-1943, 1944, and 1945 without LL (the trucks and canned food in particular). While I do not believe the Soviets would have lost without LL, I'm not sure they could have won either

1. I assume you'd accept a secondary with a properly done bib of primaries?

2. I never knew that. Fascinating. So, the first LL convoy should have included civilian engineers and a couple of heavy capacity cranes....

3. Concur. Almost exclusively Sov and Sov equipage.

4. Concur.