D-Day Commemoration

Go Bama · Jun 10, 2019

You can draw your own conclusions about how the Russians would have done without aid, but there’s no denying aid was massive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

Among other goods, Lend-Lease supplied:[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:8–9[/SUP]

58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel

33% of their motor vehicles

53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)

30% of fighters and bombers

93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)

50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium

43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)

12% of tanks and SPGs

50% of TNT (1942–1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[SUP][54][/SUP]

16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)[SUP][55][/SUP]

Lend-Lease aid of military hardware, components and goods to the Soviet Union constituted to 20% percent of the assistance.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:122[/SUP] Rest were foodstuff, nonferrous metals (e.g. copper, magnesium, nickel, zinc, lead, tin, aluminium), chemical substances, petroleum (high octane aviation gasoline) and factory machinery. The aid of production-line equipment and machinery were crucial and helped to maintain adequate levels of Soviet armament production during the entire war.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:122[/SUP] In addition, the U.S.S.R received wartime innovations including penicillin, radar, rocket, precision-bombing technology, the long-range navigation system Loran, and many other innovations.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:123[/SUP]
Of the 800,000 tons of nonferrous metals shipped,[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:124[/SUP] about 350,000 tons were aluminium.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:135[/SUP] The shipment of aluminium not only represented double the amount of metal that Germany possessed, but also composed the bulk of aluminum that was used in manufacture of Soviet aircraft, that had fallen in critically short supply.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:135[/SUP] Soviet statistics show, that without these shipments of aluminium, aircraft production would have been less than one-half (or about 45,000 less) of the total 137,000 produced aircraft.

Stalin noted in 1944, that two-thirds of Soviet heavy industry had been built with the help of the United States, and the remaining one-third, with the help from other Western nations such as Great Britain and Canada.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:129[/SUP] The massive transfer of equipment and skilled personnel from occupied territories helped further to boost the economic base.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:129[/SUP]Without Lend-Lease aid, Soviet Union's diminished post invasion economic base would not have produced adequate supplies of weaponry, other than focus on machine tool, foodstuff and consumer goods[SUP][clarification needed][/SUP].[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:129[/SUP]
In the last year of war, lend-lease data show that about 5.1 million tons of foodstuff left the United States for the Soviet Union.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:123[/SUP] It is estimated that all the food supplies sent to Russia could feed a 12,000,000 man strong army half pound of concentrated food per day, for the entire duration of the war.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:122–3[/SUP]
The total lend-lease aid during the second World War had been estimated between $42–50 billion.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:128[/SUP] The Soviet Union received shipments in war materials, military equipment and other supplies worth of $12,5 billions, about a quarter of the U.S. lend-lease aid provided to other allied countries.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:123[/SUP] However, post-war negotiations to settle all the debt were never concluded,[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:133[/SUP] and as of date, the debt issues is still on in future American-Russian summits and talks.[SUP][53][/SUP][SUP]:133–4[/SUP]

crimsonaudio · Jun 10, 2019

81usaf92 said:
I think 10 million more troops and experienced generals could make a long drawn out war.

There's zero question it would have lengthened the war, but that doesn't change the sheer manufacturing numbers and air superiority. The Germans get (and deserve) a lot of credit for their manufacture of inventive weapons of war, but the US built better, faster planes in far greater quantities. In 1939, total aircraft production for the US military was less than 3,000 planes, but by the end of the war, the US had produced more than 300,000 planes. By way of comparison, the Germans built fewer than 120,000 planes in all of WWII.

Under William Knudsen's guidance, Ford (planes), Chrysler (tanks), and Jeep had as much to do with the Allies winning as anyone. “The first half of 1941 is crucial - gentlemen, we must out-build Hitler.” And they did, along with everyone else.

81usaf92 · Jun 10, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
There's zero question it would have lengthened the war, but that doesn't change the sheer manufacturing numbers and air superiority. The Germans get (and deserve) a lot of credit for their manufacture of inventive weapons of war, but the US built better, faster planes in far greater quantities. In 1939, total aircraft production for the US military was less than 3,000 planes, but by the end of the war, the US had produced more than 300,000 planes. By way of comparison, the Germans built fewer than 120,000 planes in all of WWII.

Under William Knudsen's guidance, Ford (planes), Chrysler (tanks), and Jeep had as much to do with the Allies winning as anyone. “The first half of 1941 is crucial - gentlemen, we must out-build Hitler.” And they did, along with everyone else.

Yeah but here is the issue, economics and production do play a huge role in war fighting potential capabilities, but the will to continue sometimes trumps everything. Its easy to play Axis and Allies, but reality is a lot different just ask the Americans in later wars. The US just a few years afterwards got clobbered back to the parallel by a far less supplied army with numbers in Korea, then pulled out of Vietnam after they lost the will to fight, and when this current war is over it will look like the same narrative once Afghanistan and Iraq go back to a dictatorship. The German will was broken after it crashed against the neverending numbers of people fighting them in the Russian winter. Many generals after 1943 were trying to come up with late game maneuvers to gain a better peace, not to win the war. .

The Wehrmact was done after Operation Case Blue and Citadel.

But as to the Allies winning the war all by themselves, that is assuming Barbarossa never happens, and those 10 million troops are used in Africa to destroy Montey and capture the Persian Gulf. Had Hitler won in Africa and the Middle East it changes the entire outlook of the war. Point is Barbarossa was a gift from God because it totally shook the German confidence, and broke the will.

Again the weakness of democracies is that it doesnt do well when power is centralized too long

crimsonaudio · Jun 10, 2019

I guess we'll just agree to disagree, then.

Comparing WWII (when we were attacked and had nearly 100% support of the citizens) to Vietnam or Korea - neither of which attacked us, and Korea coming just a few years after WWI ended, is a poor comparison.

There was no sign of US support weakening at the end of WWII, so while this whole discussion is based somewhat on conjecture, I think assuming the will to fight Germany would fade is a reach.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, but I don't think there's any way you can change my mind that the superior air power and superior manufacturing base of the US wasn't going to eventually topple Germany, with or without Soviet help, or that the Soviets had any chance of beating Hitler without massive US aid.

81usaf92 · Jun 10, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
I guess we'll just agree to disagree, then.

.

Im fine with that. Atleast it is something to talk about on a slow day

crimsonaudio said:
Comparing WWII (when we were attacked and had nearly 100% support of the citizens) to Vietnam or Korea - neither of which attacked us, and Korea coming just a few years after WWI ended, is a poor comparison.

Well you could also look at the 9/11 attacks. The first few years in Afghanistan the populace was well behind the war effort, but as of today....

But Korea was more to show that the same soldiers fighting were still beaten by the numbers of Chinese. Granted alot of that was due to MacArthur once again trying to be remembered as one of the greatest generals of his generation instead of trying to be a rational one for once since the conclusion of WWI, but its hard to argue that numbers (NK and China) beat support and manufacturing (USA) in Korea at the end.

crimsonaudio said:
There was no sign of US support weakening at the end of WWII, so while this whole discussion is based somewhat on conjecture, I think assuming the will to fight Germany would fade is a reach.

But again 4 years (2-3 years) isnt a long war. The US has not fought a war on foreign soil for more than 4 years and won outright unless you count the Moro Rebellion. Public opinion really drives our effectiveness. Its probably impossible to know for sure when an where the USA and German will would fade, but just assuming this goes to Truman's reelection (1948) you would probably see both candidates pushing for "ending the war" and/or "Peace".

crimsonaudio said:
but I don't think there's any way you can change my mind that the superior air power and superior manufacturing base of the US wasn't going to eventually topple Germany, with or without Soviet help, or that the Soviets had any chance of beating Hitler without massive US aid.

I never said the Soviets could do it without aid, only that I dont believe its clear cut that the US could do it without the Soviets involvement.

crimsonaudio said:
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

No problem. Thankyou as well

crimsonaudio · Jun 10, 2019

81usaf92 said:
Well you could also look at the 9/11 attacks. The first few years in Afghanistan the populace was well behind the war effort, but as of today....

But Korea was more to show that the same soldiers fighting were still beaten by the numbers of Chinese. Granted alot of that was due to MacArthur once again trying to be remembered as one of the greatest generals of his generation instead of trying to be a rational one for once since the conclusion of WWI, but its hard to argue that numbers (NK and China) beat support and manufacturing (USA) in Korea at the end.

There was nowhere near the public support for Korea - I don't know why you insist upon comparing the two.

Guess what Ford, Chrysler, Remington Rand, Smith Corona, etc were making in 1950-53? Not weapons of war. Roughly half of Americans thought our involvement was a mistake, and the US never geared up to really beat them like we did in WWII. We weren't rationing supplies and pouring effort into the war because many Americans thought we had no reason to be there.

IOW, comparing the two is ridiculous, imo.

Again, I'm gonna bow out of this one, but I had to respond as I think comparing public opinion and support (for both Korea and Afghanistan, the latter largely due to the US government not ramping up to take advantage of the public support) to WWII is simply silly.

81usaf92 · Jun 10, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
There was nowhere near the public support for Korea - I don't know why you insist upon comparing the two.

.

I wasnt. The comparison in the Korean conflict was Numbers vs economic powers, not the public support of the war (which was relatively high until the Chosen).

(public support in long wars) Well you could also look at the 9/11 attacks. The first few years in Afghanistan the populace was well behind the war effort, but as of today....

( Korea) But Korea was more to show that the same soldiers fighting were still beaten by the numbers of Chinese. Granted alot of that was due to MacArthur once again trying to be remembered as one of the greatest generals of his generation instead of trying to be a rational one for once since the conclusion of WWI, but its hard to argue that numbers (NK and China) beat support and manufacturing (USA) in Korea at the end.

crimsonaudio said:
Again, I'm gonna bow out of this one, but I had to respond as I think comparing public opinion and support (for both Korea and Afghanistan, the latter largely due to the US government not ramping up to take advantage of the public support) to WWII is simply silly.

Only because we won WWII.

crimsonaudio · Jun 10, 2019

81usaf92 said:
Only because we won WWII.

No, because the circumstances were not even remotely close.

81usaf92 · Jun 10, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
the circumstances were not even remotely close.

I think 9/11 was way worse than Pearl Harbor , but the war dragging out was the reason we lost the people. I think we’ll never agree or change either others mind at this point like you said. That’s fine. But anyways cheers and RTR

Go Bama · Jun 10, 2019

81usaf92 said:
I think 9/11 was way worse than Pearl Harbor , but the war dragging out was the reason we lost the people. I think we’ll never agree or change either others mind at this point like you said. That’s fine. But anyways cheers and RTR

9/11 was horrible but it did not sink the Pacific fleet. I never feared being occupied or losing a war after 9/11. The WWII generation was all in until we win, whatever it takes. That was never the case after 9/11. Germany had already taken most of Europe and Japan was expanding in Asia. Everyone knew who the bad guys were and they weren’t stopping until somebody defeated them in war.

The Jihadists don’t wear uniforms and they will always be around so public perception is there is no way to eliminate these people so how much do we want to spend in blood and money?

TIDE-HSV · Jun 10, 2019

Go Bama said:
9/11 was horrible but it did not sink the Pacific fleet. I never feared being occupied or losing a war after 9/11. The WWII generation was all in until we win, whatever it takes. That was never the case after 9/11. Germany had already taken most of Europe and Japan was expanding in Asia. Everyone knew who the bad guys were and they weren’t stopping until somebody defeated them in war.

The Jihadists don’t wear uniforms and they will always be around so public perception is there is no way to eliminate these people so how much do we want to spend in blood and money?

This is absolutely on point. There is simply no comparison at all. I lived through both. I remember the years of depression as our boys lost in the Pacific while the Germans took Europe. I remember the blackout curtains and asking my parents if the German planes could reach America. I remember getting down beside the bed every night and praying with my family that my brothers would return home from the war and that the two blue stars in our front window wouldn't be swapped for gold. Everyone had someone fighting and at risk for their lives. It was the way we all lived. Anyone who can compare the two doesn't necessarily have to have the life experience I've had. Just studying the history will do it...

81usaf92 · Jun 10, 2019

Go Bama said:
9/11 was horrible but it did not sink the Pacific fleet. I never feared being occupied or losing a war after 9/11. The WWII generation was all in until we win, whatever it takes. That was never the case after 9/11. Germany had already taken most of Europe and Japan was expanding in Asia. Everyone knew who the bad guys were and they weren’t stopping until somebody defeated them in war.

The Jihadists don’t wear uniforms and they will always be around so public perception is there is no way to eliminate these people so how much do we want to spend in blood and money?

Look I’m not going to drag this out since it’s pointless because everyone has their own opinion that they aren’t moving from in this game of what ifs.

But history typically sides with the trend that democracies don’t do well in wars more than 7 years on foreign soil We have only won 1 in our entire existence as a country and even that one we got the raw end of the peace deal. Centralized powers also typically do better in longer wars than shorter ones while defending their territory against a foreign invader. That is why I don’t feel 100% on the US winning the war without the Russians as many of you, and if your opinion is that the “greatest generation” would sacrifice all freedoms for a long period of time to win the war against that trend then that’s great. We will never know but we can guess.

TIDE-HSV · Jun 12, 2019

81usaf92 said:
Look I’m not going to drag this out since it’s pointless because everyone has their own opinion that they aren’t moving from in this game of what ifs.

But history typically sides with the trend that democracies don’t do well in wars more than 7 years on foreign soil We have only won 1 in our entire existence as a country and even that one we got the raw end of the peace deal. Centralized powers also typically do better in longer wars than shorter ones while defending their territory against a foreign invader. That is why I don’t feel 100% on the US winning the war without the Russians as many of you, and if your opinion is that the “greatest generation” would sacrifice all freedoms for a long period of time to win the war against that trend then that’s great. We will never know but we can guess.

I feel 100% because I think the US and Allies could have won a ten or fifteen year war. The difference is that everyone was frightened at what both the Germans and Japanese had done and the safety of the continental US was far from a given. Also, everyone was all in because almost everyone had someone fighting. Even those who weren't fighting were working in the war effort. This has not been true in any war since...

81usaf92 · Jun 12, 2019

TIDE-HSV said:
I feel 100% because I think the US and Allies could have won a ten or fifteen year war. The difference is that everyone was frightened at what both the Germans and Japanese had done and the safety of the continental US was far from a given. Also, everyone was all in because almost everyone had someone fighting. Even those who weren't fighting were working in the war effort. This has not been true in any war since...

If you are talking about the US, UK, AND the USSR then I 100% agree, but the US and UK alone Im not willing to say 100% especially with multiple elections on both countries. Maybe we do maybe we don't without Barbarossa, but we don't know. I would lean more that we do than we don't, mostly because the Wehrmact were more of a knockout boxer with no stamina with a horrible in ring coach.

Maybe we truly inherited that Roman stubbornness of being able to send army after army after another world power for 20 years and win a war we had no business winning. But also take into account, many in the Union was ready to fold after Lee whipped army after army until Antietam, and then again they were ready to fold after Chancelorsville. That was another total war, and was actual on American soil where everyone had something to fight for as well. If doubt could happen as soon as 2 years of losses in 1862 then it sure as hell could happen in 1942.

Am I saying we couldntwin the war without the Soviets? No
Am I saying we were going to lose the war without the soviets? No

But what I am saying is that acting like the Soviets were just participants in the war without courage is really ignoring the horrors, struggles, impact, and triumph on the Eastern Front. The biggest reason we had an easier time in Europe than the Pacific was because of the Russian efforts on the Eastern Front. 10 million men can change the outlook of a war if they aren't dead or captured in the Russian wasteland.

FTR before anyone goes with this again, no I don't believe the USSR could conquer Germany without the Allies, but I do believe they would send them back whipped. Zhukov was a hell of a general and the Russian winter is still undefeated.

TIDE-HSV · Jun 13, 2019

81usaf92 said:
If you are talking about the US, UK, AND the USSR then I 100% agree, but the US and UK alone Im not willing to say 100% especially with multiple elections on both countries. Maybe we do maybe we don't without Barbarossa, but we don't know. I would lean more that we do than we don't, mostly because the Wehrmact were more of a knockout boxer with no stamina with a horrible in ring coach.

Maybe we truly inherited that Roman stubbornness of being able to send army after army after another world power for 20 years and win a war we had no business winning. But also take into account, many in the Union was ready to fold after Lee whipped army after army until Antietam, and then again they were ready to fold after Chancelorsville. That was another total war, and was actual on American soil where everyone had something to fight for as well. If doubt could happen as soon as 2 years of losses in 1862 then it sure as hell could happen in 1942.

Am I saying we couldnt going to win the war without the Soviets? No
Am I saying we were going to lose the war without the soviets? No

But what I am saying is that acting like the Soviets were just participants in the war without courage is really ignoring the horrors, struggles, impact, and triumph on the Eastern Front. The biggest reason we had an easier time in Europe than the Pacific was because of the Russian efforts on the Eastern Front. 10 million men can change the outlook of a war if they aren't dead or captured in the Russian wasteland.

FTR before anyone goes with this again, no I don't believe the USSR could conquer Germany without the Allies, but I do believe they would send them back whipped. Zhukov was a hell of a general and the Russian winter is still undefeated.

I don't think lessons can be drawn from the Civil War. I just don't think it's analogous. That was brother against brother and it's small wonder that there was mixed emotion and doubt. There were anti-war riots in NYC. My family was caught in the middle. One GGF was fighting in the 1st Alabama, Union, Sherman's body guard. Another was a member of the Union League and a had all his property confiscated by the confederate state of Alabama. The only positive I can think of we got out of it was exemption for my GGM from having to give up the last cornbread cake in the house to a Union forager. Instead, he got punished.

Obviously, neither question can be answered, but I tend to think we would have held on as long as necessary, even without Russia. I also agree that, in the end, Russia wins, just far more carnage than was even suffered historically. They would just keep retreating and burning behind them, and, as you say, waiting for winter to take its toll...

crimsonaudio · Jun 13, 2019

TIDE-HSV said:
Obviously, neither question can be answered, but I tend to think we would have held on as long as necessary, even without Russia.

Yah, even in late '45 a majority of those polled thought we should literally incinerate everyone in Japan via atomic bombs. The anger still burned brightly after losing over 400,000 dead to the war.

I also agree that, in the end, Russia wins, just far more carnage than was even suffered historically. They would just keep retreating and burning behind them, and, as you say, waiting for winter to take its toll...

I suspect the Nazis, unchecked by the UK and US, would have finished development of the atomic bombs they were designing and used them on the Russians without hesitation.

TIDE-HSV · Jun 13, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
Yah, even in late '45 a majority of those polled thought we should literally incinerate everyone in Japan via atomic bombs. The anger still burned brightly after losing over 400,000 dead to the war.

I suspect the Nazis, unchecked by the UK and US, would have finished development of the atomic bombs they were designing and used them on the Russians without hesitation.

IDK. They made a lot of errors, starting with expelling their Jewish physicists and Hitler's distaste for "Jewish physics." In fact, after the Hiroshima bombing, Heisenberg refused to believe it and one other scientist exclaimed that a factory would have to be as big as the entire US to produce that much U-235. I tend to think they were at least five years away...

LINK

Search

D-Day Commemoration

Go Bama

Hall of Fame

crimsonaudio

Administrator

81usaf92

TideFans Legend

crimsonaudio

Administrator

81usaf92

TideFans Legend

crimsonaudio

Administrator

81usaf92

TideFans Legend

crimsonaudio

Administrator

81usaf92

TideFans Legend

Go Bama

Hall of Fame

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator

81usaf92

TideFans Legend

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator

81usaf92

TideFans Legend

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator

crimsonaudio

Administrator

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!