Allied Lend-Lease to Russia, thoughts please?

[McCoy]

Originally Posted by dsfraser

In fairness, Lend-Lease is much more than Shermans, and in truth the military equipment sent was inconsequential to the Soviet war effort. Yes, a lot of tanks and trucks and airplanes were sent, and this fact is basic curriculum in US schools, but the really significant items did not have wheels. This is not in the basic curriculum, and the opportunity to elaborate on this, IMHO, justifies bending the rules.

Regards
Scott Fraser
greyhaired newbie here

The thread started it's life in the Arsenal/Land Warfare section n' have since that been moved here so you may disregard Pauls post as that was posted before the move.

[TRDG]

Scott, "Russian" to me is a generic (covers everything) term I use a lot, and I have not had any problems with the term, even on the ACG Russian forum, and you know how that can go I beleave!!! You should know me better than that by now I think.... LOL

Lets put it this way, take out all the vehicles, but keep the rest, then see where it leads, Then do the same thing in reverse, The supplies without the trucks is where I think the "rub" is, as that specific vehicle was pretty critical in getting the supplies (and troops) where they were supposed to be.

Cheers, any thoughts sir??

Tom

[dsfraser]

Originally Posted by TRDG

Scott, "Russian" to me is a generic (covers everything) term I use a lot, and I have not had any problems with the term, even on the ACG Russian forum, and you know how that can go I beleave!!! You should know me better than that by now I think.... LOL

Lets put it this way, take out all the vehicles, but keep the rest, then see where it leads, Then do the same thing in reverse, The supplies without the trucks is where I think the "rub" is, as that specific vehicle was pretty critical in getting the supplies (and troops) where they were supposed to be.

Cheers, any thoughts sir??

Tom

There's no argument that the trucks were very useful, and definitely served to free up production capacity for other vehicles. Remember, the bulk of these arrived in 1943-44, and by that time Soviet industry was back on track, and that capacity was there. Had the trucks not arrived as they did, they would have simply continued to build GAZ and ZiS trucks, and fewer tanks, tractors and aircraft.

More interesting, to my mind, is the "next generation" Soviet trucks, like the ZiS-150 series. These were very much a combination of Soviet and US automotive technology — GAZ engines with a drive train taken from the CCKW/US-6 and a cab that looks for all the world like an IHC K-7. These were still in production twenty years later, and could certainly still be seen in the 1980s, when I was there. Tough trucks ...

Cheers
Scott Fraser

[TRDG]

1943 was Kursk, a turning point I think, then in 1944, there was Bagration, your thoughts Scott if the trucks were not there to support these 2 Operations, or only Russian trucks may be my poojnt here. Any clue on how much tank and othe vehicles might have been cut down if they had to build their own trucks as well, instead of the U.S. ones?

Cheers, thanks for the reply so quickly on the last one sir!!

Tom

[dsfraser]

Originally Posted by TRDG

1943 was Kursk, a turning point I think, then in 1944, there was Bagration, your thoughts Scott if the trucks were not there to support these 2 Operations, or only Russian trucks may be my poojnt here. Any clue on how much tank and othe vehicles might have been cut down if they had to build their own trucks as well, instead of the U.S. ones?

Cheers, thanks for the reply so quickly on the last one sir!!

Tom

I can't really answer that without some very specific information not to hand. To the end of 1943, roughly 130,000 trucks were received. I have information on the cost of materials and manpower required to build one T-34, but nothing similar for the production costs of a GAZ or ZiS. There is not a 1:1 correlations — tanks were very much more expensive to produce than a truck, and it is that cost that must be compared to calculate roughly how many tanks would be sacrificed to build an equivalent number of trucks.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...ents/index.htm

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by dsfraser

Rah, Rah, Rah!!

Absolutely right, to a point. "America" certainly includes Canada and Mexico, as well as the USA. But it also includes Argentina and Guatemala, and all points between. They are SOUTH America. WE are NORTH America. We are ALL Americans, and the fact that US media and US writers proclaim "American" to be purely related to the USA is offensive to the rest of two continents.

This is a pet peeve of mine. I never refer to "American". I refer to the "USA" because it is more accurate, and the use of the term "American" to describe the activities of the USA is pure arrogance, even though it has become popular usage.

Cheers
Scott Fraser
Canada

Wow, and my pet peeve is that the US is allowing a genocide to go on in Darfur because of intelligence considerations. The Sudanese government knows a lot about al-Qaeda because it hosted them for years. Compared to that you can call me just about any name and I'll answer to it.


It's a slippery slope that you're on. After all, a substantial portion of the population of Poland in 1939 was Ukrainian. Some were Czechs. Jews were (and are still by many) considered a nationality unto themselves. Should we refer to the Polish army as "The Army of Poland" and its citizens as "Citizens of Poland"?


The USSR was comprised of most of the old Russian Empire. They were virtually all subjects of the Czars and were referred to as "Russians" irrespective of their "nationality". I have both of my grandfathers' naturalization papers and both list nationality as Russian. Neither was Russian but both were born in the old Russian empire.

You're guilty of it yourself. Here's a quote:

Originally Posted by dsfraser

As to the outcome? After Moscow, the Germans were toast.

Aren't we forgetting that Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian forces fought alongside "the Germans"? What about the foreign legions of the Waffen-SS? What about Austrians? Are they German? As we all know, Austria was forcibly absorbed by the Third Reich. Many did not agree with it, yet they were drafted, fought, and died... as Austrians.


Most Spanish speaking North Americans refer to US citizens as norteamericanos. Those Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, etc, all are "North Americans" and the strict defiintion of the word means "North Americans" but go to Google language and the definition is simply "American". They don't use it to describe themselves, nor do they use it to describe Canadians (what is a Canadian by the way? - I might get different answers in the Maritime provinces, Quebec, and BC, but rarely will a Canadian refer to himself as "American" even though strictly it's true).


As long as people can make themselves understood and are not being derogatory, let's try not to be too strict.

FWIW, I generally refer to Soviet forces as just that, and the Soviet Union as that as well, and have in this very thread. But sorry, I'm an American.

[TRDG]

It's ok Jim, I do know him fairly well, and I do understand his point of view here, but that just is'nt me. I can come across like that sometimes, but once you read my posts in general, you can see my basic intent here as to how I use basic terms.

Cheers, thanks for the thoughts though!!!

Tom

[Holly6]

Gotta suck up to the Boss on this one.

In the entire Western Hemisphere, there seems to be only one nation that includes the term "America" in it's official and commonly used name. Hence politically-historically the use of Americans for citizens of the USA has been universally accepted. If the discussion is geographical the terms normally used would be North/South America or The Americas.

I doubt if anyone used to reading academic material would become confused with these designations.

Normally the Russian/Soviet label seems to be used primarily to avoid redundancy and allow the writing to flow. If the primary topic is anything but demographics, the terms have become acceptable and understandable.

[TRDG]

Well put, not to sure my posts "flow" though..... LOL

Cheers, no big deal on this main topic, people just need to check my past posts and look for my "intent" here, as well as my use of names amd such.

Tom

[cyberia]

Originally Posted by dsfraser

Rah, Rah, Rah!!

Absolutely right, to a point. "America" certainly includes Canada and Mexico, as well as the USA. But it also includes Argentina and Guatemala, and all points between. They are SOUTH America. WE are NORTH America. We are ALL Americans, and the fact that US media and US writers proclaim "American" to be purely related to the USA is offensive to the rest of two continents.

This is a pet peeve of mine. I never refer to "American". I refer to the "USA" because it is more accurate, and the use of the term "American" to describe the activities of the USA is pure arrogance, even though it has become popular usage.

Cheers
Scott Fraser
Canada

Then should not your siggie read...

"Cheers
Scott Fraser
America"?