The Most Important Battle Of WW2

**Redleg** · 08-10-2005, 19:03

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** · 08-11-2005, 01:27

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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

Vietnam.

**sharrukin** · 08-11-2005, 02:33

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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;

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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** · 08-11-2005, 03:37

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** · 08-11-2005, 09:31

This is a great discussion

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** · 08-11-2005, 10:27

Originally Posted by Franconicus

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** · 08-11-2005, 12:58

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

**Franconicus** · 08-11-2005, 13:12

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** · 08-11-2005, 20:56

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** · 08-11-2005, 22:25

Originally Posted by 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).

@ 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.

**Gregoshi** · 08-13-2005, 03:29

Let's stick to WW2 please.

**Gemenii XIII** · 08-14-2005, 21:42

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.