Lend Lease, how accurate is this?

Other goods provided to the Soviets by the US include 956,000 miles of telephone cables, 35,000 radio stations, 40,000 field radios, 380,000 field telephones, enough food to feed the entire Soviet military one meal a day for the duration of a war, some 90% of its high-octane fuel for fighters and bombers, 32,000 motorcycles, 13,000 locomotives, 135,000 submachine guns, 300,000 tons of explosives, 400 radar systems, and 400,000 metal cutting tools for use in heavy industry.

Also, 12,000 tanks, while rarely used in combat, freed Soviet tanks from reserves to fight on the front lines. 18% of Soviet fighter aircraft were supplied by the US, and. Russia's #2 ace of WWII, A.I. Pokryshkin, scored 48 of 59 victories in an American Airacobra, and the #3 ace G.A. Rechkalov scored all 50.

 

If im not mistaken I believe the Lend Lease amounted to a total of 10% of what Soviet Union needed.

 

90% of high octane fuel for fighters caught my attn.

 

The locomotive figures was 1,911 steam and 70 diesel electric locomotives, and 11,155 rail cars.

However none of this was shipped before the second half of 1943, no locomotives were sent before 1944, and only 20% of these amounts (in tonnage) was shipped - i.e. you then have to add sailing time, debarkation time, transit time to the front, etc - before 1 July 1944.
Additionally, a lot of the US locomotives were too heavy for Soviet tracks so could only be of limited use except where the railway was rebuilt.


I think it was just over 7.000 tanks from the U.S. and about 5,000 from Britain and Canada.

Aircraft figures were....


Fighter Aircraft

P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)

P-40 2397

P-47 195

P-63 2397 (21 lost in transfer)

Hurricane 2952

Spitfire 1331

Total: 14982 (Soviet production: 74,740)

Bomber and Attack Aircraft

A-20 2908

B-25 862

Hampden 23

plus a few others

Total: 3809 (Soviet production: 65,000)

Soviet pilots performed miracles with the inferior American fighters, the Hurricanes and Spitfires from Britain were easily the best aircraft.

I've seen figures of 57% of all aviation fuel, the high-grade petroleum was needed especially by Western made aircraft, not Soviet.

The most important item in American lend lease was motorized transport, about 350,000 trucks, and 70,000 jeeps.

By all accounts lend lease amounted to about 4.5% of the entire Soviet military production and around 7.5% of the civilian.

 

Another discussion on this topic.

http://www.ww2forums.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000126

See here for the complete bill of quantities!

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/index.htm

 

Anzac,

You are absolutely correct the most important item of the lend lease was the motorized transport. Even till this day when a Russian war movie comes out you will always see Russian soldiers in U.S. trucks and jeeps.

 

PQ-17 lost 3,350 vehicles, 430 tanks, and 210 aircraft alone.
From what one book tells me in all (going to Russian ports)...7,000 aircraft, 5,000 tanks and over 200,000 tons of other war materials went to the bottom before it arrived. 58 ships, or 7.2% of those who sailed.
More tanks were lost on the Murmansk run than any other battle of the war.
20% casualties for the merchant marine, the most dangerous occupation for an American in WW 2.

The Russians appear to have liked the M3 Scout Car as well. I've many pictures of them using them everywhere!

 

lol that is corredt skunk works!!! I forgot about that one sorry

 

Where do you stand on lend lease chromeboomerang?


The lend lease question comes up a lot as to whether it enabled Russia to survive or not, Some like Keegan, think it was vital in the Soviets being able to continue to successfully operate later in the war and eventually win.

Others, including Alan Clarke and David Glantz, say that lend lease was very helpful in shortening the war, but did not decide it.

Glantz says "Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make a difference between defeat and victory in 1941-1942''

According to Glantz, had Stalin and his commanders been left to their own devices, it "might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht," but "the ultimate result would probably have been the same.

I'm inclined to go along with Glantz.

Even by the time the Wehrmacht's second offensive was defeated at Stalingrad, lend lease hadn't fully kicked in according to Clarke.

He says the help really started bearing fruit in the second part of 1943 following Kursk. At that time it was fairly obvious as to the direction of the war.

 

Couldnt have said it better myself

 

enough food to feed the entire Soviet military one meal a day for the duration of a war,

This would have to be 2nd on the list. What's my position, well good question, I have been curious about it for awhile. Rall mentioned seeing Spits & American tanks near Stalingrad Fall 42. He seems to think they Russians would have fallen without US help.

But, what's been posted above would suggest otherwise. I should like to be more informed before taking a side or forming a black & white opinion.

 

@ANZAC and Sloniksp :

It is very true that the motorized transport (well trucks) was the most important lend leased material, it had a major impact, I've read (but I'll check) that more or less 50% of Soviet transport trucks and cars were lend leased.

Above all, the fact that US trucks were 4x4 was very important given the USSR conditions.

So I agree with you that the lend lease had a much more important impact in this domain, than for planes or tanks.

I had a nice short text on this subject, I'll try to find it back and post it here.

 

That's why I said elsewhere in this forum that the Murmansk run was done only to keep up appearances and have UK contributing to Lend-Lease, as the really big and safe passage was from the US East Coast to Iran and Vladivostok.

Too many deaths that could have been avoided.

 

Yes, Miguel I agree.

 

Here's the text :

"that last point is an important one to remember.
In all classes of military equipment, except motor transport, the Russians produced nearly all of the equipment they used. For example the western Allies supplied the Soviets with 14.000 aircraft during the war, this was about 10% of Russian production. Some 12.000 armored vehicules were supplied, this was about 10 % of Russian production. The western allies also provided some 470.000 motor vehicules, which was about equal to the total German production and considerably more than the Russians themselves produced.
The western Allies also provided considerable amounts of ammunition, raw materials, clothing and food.
But the Russians defeated the Germans using Russian weapons, Russian organization, Russian tactics, Russian leadership and, above all, Russian manpower."

 

& US food.

 

Food was quoted in my text above, along with ammunition, raw materials and clothing.

You don't read too well I guess.

Anyway, in this list, I believe the most important lend lease supplies were the raw materials, especialy the aluminium, Soviets were in dire need for it, and IIRC, almost all the aluminium they used was supplied to them via lend lease.

 

No, I read well, & did catch that part, but here is your last paragraph, & that was what I responded to.

But the Russians defeated the Germans using Russian weapons, Russian organization, Russian tactics, Russian leadership and, above all, Russian manpower."

And US food.

 

A Proffessors view.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

“In the first 1.5 years the Soviet Union was fighting for survival and would have won without lend lease, but further victories and movement to Europe would be questionable,” he reported.

There were 20 million homeless, and 25 million dead, four tenth of agriculture was lost and half of the industrial production was destroyed. “If there were no lend lease the losses could have been much heavier, the war would have lasted longer and the victory was not so complete”, Tuyll concluded.

 

That's one valid point of view, but the problem with what-if is that we know what happened (sometimes dimly, but that is another story), as for the alternatives we will never know, won't we?