Allied Lend-Lease to Russia, thoughts please?

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by Brett

That's news to me. I was always under the
impression that Shermans were hopelessly outclassed vs. the latest German
tanks by '42 or '43. IIRC what I have read, lend lease tanks
were used for training or in secondary fronts (such as in
the far east vs. Japan), but not usually against Germany

The Sherman 76 mm was equal to the Panzer IV Ausf F2, G, & H which was by far the most common German tank. The few Tigers were better but in very short supply.

Originally Posted by Brett

I would disagree. Once the Soviet people learned that Hitler
was just as bad or worse than Stalin, there was no way they
could have lost. Lend Lease might have speeded up that
victory, but German policy was just too brutal for a German
victory.

Resolve doesn't make up for starvation.

Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk

Without it the Soviets would have lost the war,..

Originally Posted by Brett

I know its common to refer to the former USSR as
Russia, but it is vexing. Lots of Ukranians, Armenians,
Uzbeks, Estonians, etc. died stopping on the Eastern Front,
it wasn't just Russians.

It would be somewhat like a history of the Western Front
saying " ... the Texans stormed ashore on Omaha beach ...
then the Texans won the Battle of the Bulge ... "

Now why would you make such a comment when I specifically said "The Soviets" just to avoid nit pickers.

If the point is political correctness, don't forget to include the "Free French" when you talk about Allies fighting in North Africa or you will make the same mistake again. Those Frenchies get upset when they are not specifically mentioned.

Likewise, don't call the USA troops "Americans" because Canadians are Americans just like the Mexicans. Would you include the Mexicans in D-Day with the Americans? Furthermore, everyone who lives in South America are technically "American's". Even Texans are Americans!

Americans is like Russians, get it? Yes, it's technically wrong, but it is common usage.

Let's just pretend we all know who we are talking about. For all practical purposes, during WWII the Soviets and Russians were the same regardless of who/what/where you have before or after WWII.

[TRDG]

Thanks for the reply Brett, I did'nt know there were that many 76mm Shermans shipped there until a couple months ago.

From what I understand, the T-34 and other tank types were rather a tight fit, and lacked crew comfort compared of the L.L. Shermans.
They also seemed to have had two way radios, compared to the one way reciever radios of the USSR tanks (except the command tank in Tankovy units) that were typical of early and mid war Russian armour.
The Shermans also may have had some better terrain type driving/handling features in mountainous areas, as well as a good, well made tank in general. I read most of this from another site, some of which was from Russian documents translated from a friend of mine there.

On the thoughts from P.D., have you considered the food and truck supplies that were sent as well? A huge army like that would need a lot of food, and trucks to sustain itself over the short and long term timeline, even more than the "fighting" vehicles, I suspect.

When I use the term "Russian" in my posts, that means any fighting forces, regardless of where they were born, raised or fought, on the Eastern front, against the Germans, that's just the way I write it is all.

As you may have noticed, I do have a lot more to learn about WW II in general, but that's why it's so fun and interesting to me, and others.

Cheers, to more posts on L.L.

Best regards

Tom

[cyberia]

OK gentlemen, let's cease fire.

First off, this section is weapons specific, and that is where the discussion here must stay.

However, I feel that many of the points brought up in this thread are great topics for discussion, and really should be brought out. I for one have already learned a few things I did not know. And after all, that is what this site is all about.

So, Tom. This is your thread but my call. If you wish for it to continue as a broad based thread, I will move it to the European section where all these facets can continued to be discussed, civilly, and to everyone's enjoyment.

Or, it can stay on the subject of lend-lease Shermans in Soviet use and remain here.

Your response, please.

[TRDG]

[IMG][/IMG]


Finally, I got it to work, sorry it took so long everyone!!

cyberia

It looks like the interest so far here is specific, and general, so to be on the safe side, I would move it.
Sorry this was'nt quite the right place, I will start another one on only L.L. Shermans, if it does'nt get "covered enough" on the other forum where this will be.

Sorry for the hassle here, I'll get the hang of it soon sir, promise.


Cheers, to a new home.

Tom

[cyberia]

No problem, Tom. And no need to apologize. You tried something and it did work well, just needs to be moved a bit that's all.

I will tend to it tomorrow, as I am short on time tonight.

And by the way, great pic!!!

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by cyberia

OK gentlemen, let's cease fire.

Yes, please let's...

BTW I have also read that Soviet crews did not like the Shermans because of their narrow width (2.74m vs 3.00 m of a T-34), a design "feature" necessitated by their having to be shipped overseas in large quantities.

[TRDG]

Thanks for all the replies guys!! I'll look up some more info and post again after work tonight I hope.

Cheers

Tom

[TRDG]

Almost time for work again, but for now, it seems that Commander of the Red Army Sherman Tank book memories, by Lozo, has some interesting info in it. I hav'nt read it, but he states that the Sherman was VERY reliable, and could go where other tanks got stuck. Also a translation from the Commander of the 1st Guard mech Corps in Mountain storm, in 1945, but somewhat different in perspective.

Cheers, more later.

Tom

[TRDG]

From an official report by the 1st Guards Mech Corps Commander, courtasy of Alex, thee man on his RKKA site. The forum is on that "other" place, but I think his (total different) site is pretty cool, and way more helpfull than the Russian Battlefield site, just my opinion though.....

....been fast tanks M4-A2 had good indices during marches along roads and plain landscape. There were isolated instances of breakage, at the same time those tanks showed the next serious disadvantages.

That Alex found this from the TsAMO archive

Cheers, more tonight after work!!

Tom

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by TRDG

From an official report by the 1st Guards Mech Corps Commander, courtasy of Alex, thee man on his RKKA site. The forum is on that "other" place, but I think his (total different) site is pretty cool, and way more helpfull than the Russian Battlefield site, just my opinion though.....

....been fast tanks M4-A2 had good indices during marches along roads and plain landscape. There were isolated instances of breakage, at the same time those tanks showed the next serious disadvantages.

That Alex found this from the TsAMO archive

Cheers, more tonight after work!!

Tom

My recollection of the Soviet's opinion on the Sherman was that it was like a luxury model compared to their own tanks. However, what they didn't like was a lack of spare parts and ammo. There was always a trail of wrecked T-34s to get spare parts from, but Lend Lease tanks were of many varieties and logistics of keeping the tanks and there specific supplies coordinated was problematic. If a tank breaks and there are no spare parts, it is abandoned. It may be a while before it reaches the battlefield again even if repaired.

Note that a large variety of spare parts also made the Germans crazy. There was little interchangeability between the diverse collection of German vehicles. This was a strategic oversight that is still sometimes missed with modern armies.