Could the Russians have resisted against Germany in WW2 without US lend lease?
>>30432496
Probably, yes.
>>30432496
>>30432510
Tank K/D ratios and production rates say no, total combat age population says yes.
After the failure to take Moscow, total conquest of the USSR was impossible, but German victory was not. Soviets could've been forced to give up the Ukraine and what they had taken from Finland in the Winter War.
>>30432496
Probably not. Lend Lease, provided a quite significant portion of combat vehicles, to say nothing of the non-combat areas. The US provided the USSR with half a million wheeled vehicles. If it hadn't, the Soviets would have had to cut back on producing tanks in order to produce trucks. Further, the US provided the Soviet Union with a large number of industrial supplies, without which the Soviets couldn't have run their factories anyways. Without Lend Lease, over a quarter of Soviet combat vehicles both land and air would have never have been produced. You can think of what the results would be.
>>30432496
They won Battle for Moscow without land-lease.
>tfw we could have completely obliterated the USSR and green lit "Operation Unthinkable" had we not lend leased them
What have we done
>>30432496
they almost did it so...
>>30432546
With production rates: yes.
With tank superiority: yes.
The German victory was impossible and they lost before winter.
>>30432496
probably not
>>30432767
A third of the tanks defending Moscow were British-made. Russia re dived significant material aid even before the USA weighed in.
>>30432569
''Probably not. Lend Lease, provided a quite significant portion of combat vehicles, to say nothing of the non-combat areas.''
> quite significant portion
All lend lease only signified 4% of all soviet production for front needs.
>>30432850
>>what is logistics
>>30432496
> Could the Russians have resisted against Germany in WW2 without US lend lease?
No, American (and BritCom) Lend-Lease was the only thing keeping the Soviets in the fight, otherwise they’d have signed a cease fire with the Germans.
“During the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, the Red Army deployed 1,675 T-26 tanks in what was essentially an uncontested road march into eastern Poland. Of these, 302 tanks, or roughly one-fifth of the force, broke down for mechanical reasons; in contrast there were only 15 combat casualties.”
>>30432955
“From 22 to 26 June 1941, we carried out movements much beyond normal forced marches… The equipment arrived on the battlefield after having covered distances of 500 km. As a result of this, 40 to 50% of the tanks were broken down for technical reasons… and abandoned on the routs of march of the division.”
— Gen.Lt. D.I.Ryabyshev - 8th Mechanized Corps —
“”…the Soviet element of the Anglo-Russian invasion of Iran in August-September 1941… After an advance of about 700 kilometers in less than a week, about 35 percent of the tanks had broken down and required depot or factory rebuilding. In some units, for example the 24th Tank Regiment, half the tanks were nonoperational after four days of road marches.”
>>30432850
Take a look again. Lend Lease provided like a sixth of Soviet Tanks, and at least a quarter of their fighters.
>>30432955
is it just me or is that a fuckload of equipment
>>30433064
No. 90% of lend lease was given to soviets between january of 1943 and 1945, when all was done by soviets.
>>30432842
>A third of the tanks defending Moscow were British-made.
We're talking about US land-lease, aren't we? 1\3 British tanks near Moscow is bullshit anyway.
>>30432934
All done by soviets.
>>30432955
Stop drinking.
>>30433221
In American trains and American trucks and American half-tracks.
Nikita Kruschev (sp) tells a story in his memoirs of going to a military review in Berlin in the 1950s and seeing a lot of East German troops passing by in trucks that looked really familiar. He asked an aide about them and was told that they were American lend-lease trucks; "We had so many of them we gave them away to the Germans." Nikita asked if, since the Russians were making trucks now, couldn't they give some new ones to the Germans.
![099[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/gox5oGr.png "099[1].png")
>>30433407
>Nikita Kruschev
Along with Suvorov.
>>30433166
Sure thing, boyo. That's why Stalin was always begging for more Lend Lease.
Look up the numbers of equipment yourself.
>>30433281
False.
>>30433757
Even false. Check your facts son.
Over 25% of Russian aircraft were Lend Lease. Half a million wheeled vehicles were Lend Lease. 20% of Russian AFVs were Lend Lease. You tell me if that is insignificant.
>>30432496
Only for a little bit until Germany steam rolled them. Russians and slavboos have a strong hate for westerners so they will never admit this.
>>30432820
The tooling for the T34 and the ASh-82 radial engine were taken east, out of the reach of the Germans, on American rolling stock, because most of the USSR's locomotives had been hauling grain west, into Germany, at commencement of hostilities. Most of the base explosive used in arms production during the siege of Stalingrad was of American origin.
If it wasn't for lend lease, there were very good odds that the USSR would have been pushed past the Volga. The odds become near certainty if the ethnic cleansing committed against the western Slavs is also prevented, because that would turn a manpower sink into a manpower source.
>>30432496
Yes, but it would suck terribly for them. Without the UK "or" the US though, they're boned cause @Russian Navy
>>30435678
what the fuck
>>30432496
Yes, much in the same way an infant could resist Muhammad Ali.
>>30432850
That 4% resulted in the mobility of troops at a crucial point in the war.
>>30438331
Considering how shit Axis logistics were, I wouldn't exactly put it that way.
The Germans vastly underestimated the sheer numbers the Soviets had on their side, along with thinking that Barbarossa was somehow going to be a quick campaign (and many more)
But then again, the Soviets had no regard for the lives of their own troops and had absolutely garbage tactics and training, especially early on. A few exceptional soldiers and airmen poked through the common herd, but they did little to change things.
>>30432842
>A third of the tanks defending Moscow were British-made
Now let's see those sources.
>>30438331
During Barbarossa, Germany advanced at a snail's pace while taking heavy casualties. Is that how you envision an infant's fight with Muhammad Ali to go? Are we talking about Ali after he died?
>>30438697
All I could find was this source
http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
Note that the number was arrived at by extrapolation.
That's not to say they didn't help, or were unimportant. The Soviets purposely downplayed all the Allied aid programs after the war.
>>30432496
Russia was never going to be able to sustain any real major offensive outside of their own territory without lend lease.
The Russians could have pushed for a white peace or even lost territory to stop the bleeding, but they were never going to march into Berlin without lend lease. Their tank production never kept up with their losses, and if they were ask to build their own trucks, trains, ammo, fuel for their planes, planes etc. They were going to simply run out manufactured goods to sustain war before Germany.
>>30438712
>"Germany advanced at a snail's pace while taking heavy casualties"
Germany made more than it's fair share of fuck ups, but the early phases of Barbarossa was not one of them.
During the first 3 weeks, the Wehrmacht advanced upwards of 400 kilometers. Considering how poorly mechanized the Wehrmacht was, that's pretty impressive. This rate of advance in Europe would only be surpassed by the Americans during Operation Cobra and the Soviets during Operation Bagration.
Then the forward elements out-ran their supply lines and halted to resupply. Afterwards, the Germans moved at similar speed in Ukraine.
They certainly took more losses than they were expecting, but that's more due to extremely optimistic casualty projections. A proper reserves system would have let the Wehrmacht stay in the field much better.
>>30432496
Yes at the cost of having to watch the allies enter Berlin first and having horses instead of trucks and less tanks and airplanes and so on.
>>30435931
Lend Lease started in the summer of 41, if american trains are the reason the tooling for the two most major pieces of equipment survived the early assaults, then yeah, Russia wouldn't have marched into Berlin without LL.
>>30438408
False.
>>30438983
Lend Lease probably wasn't soon enough to significantly alter the course of Stalingrad, but Stalingrad wasn't the first or last meatgrinder the Russians would have to power through. They were still bleeding millions of men and thousands of vehicles up until they planted their flag on the Reichstag. Losses that would have been very difficult to replace on purely domestic industry.
