In Our War Against Russia.

[Zavulon]

More than half the medium and heavy tanks defending Moscow were British, not KV1s or T-34s.

Actually, no. According British military mission there were 90 British tanks, participating in the Battle for Moscow. And there were 990 Soviet tanks, at least 220 of them were heavy and medium. It makes less than 30% of all heavy and medium tanks.

In the three months of the battle of Moscow, Russia built a total of 1900 tanks, mostly lights NOT T-34s, and lost 3600. The British were sending massive (for them) aid to Russia that was begged for by Molotov immediately after the German invasion.

Of course, the aid was massive (for Britain). But it wasn't charity, and it wasn't decisive. I mean 90 tanks, compared with 1900 build (or 3600 lost) is not something really "impressive".

The brits were sending everything from machine tools (that hey badly needed for their own defense) to tanks, aircraft, fuel (which they were short of) food, trucks and other supplies that they badly needed themselves. It may have been a small scale compared to American Lend-Lease, but it was a massive effort for the British.

I don't doubt it. I just said that both British and American aid (however useful) wasn't decisive. Russia could defeat Europe with or without British and/or American help.

 

[Zavulon]

You get what you pay for; Chinese or Iranian drones can kill a couple of infantrymen before being destroyed, European ones can destroy warships, shoot down expensive fighters and AWACs aircraft (which Russia can't replace) destroy tanks and damage refineries. Russia has tried the "quantity has a quality of its own strategy before and it didn't work then either.

Is it why America is begging for peace now (on the much worse terms that were suggested back in 2022)? The Reds has both quantity and quality.

 

[Highlight]

Bush was attacking OPEC.

Oil prices went down as the cartel, especially the four countries that most hated the US in 2001, were taken out, Iraq was invaded, Libya was bombed, both lost their leaders, there was a coup against Chavez in 2002 (which ultimately failed) and heavy sanctions against Iran and Venezuela.

The amount of money the US saved is in the trillions.

Bush wasn't attacking OPEC. He was defending it. We defended Kuwait. And nothing was stopping Iraq from going after Saudi Arabia next. You know, the citizens of which were mostly behind the 9-11 attacks. As far as I'm concerned, Iraq could have taken it all. But we had OPEC money and the American military. A match made in HELL!

 

[Highlight]

You are aware that cruise missiles have been around since the 1940s, right? So what you said makes absolutely no sense.

As well as anti-ballistic missiles. Even the kinetic kill ones I listed have been around for decades, so once again stating an obvious.

That was literally just a bunch of blather that either confirmed what I said, or said absolutely nothing.

Oh, and cruise missiles do not "fly under the RADAR", that is not how it works.

You need to look more deeply into how cruise missiles work. In the 1940's they didn't have on board computers that could fly the missiles themselves. Also, these days our aircraft have "look down, shoot down" radar. But as far as ground based radar goes, cruise missiles can indeed fly under the radar. Unless you are on the ocean. Then they can only stay invisible as long as they are under the horizon.

 

[Highlight]

You did not present truth.
You do not know or understand truth.
I do not need your pity, but you do need pity, for your ignorance and blindness.

What you and Neil Strauss fail to grasp is that one person's "facts" are another person's falsehoods (lies).
Neither you nor he are as intelligent as you think you are.

Since you want to make this into a pissing match, apply this KISS concept;
Keep It Simple Stupid
This illustrates the basic issue.

You are a moron. I asked you to tell me what it is I said that you think is a lie and this is the best you can come up with. Try to not reply to me again.

 

[Highlight]

No I did not.
You fail to understand what I said, and likely also fail to understand basic English it would seem.

Missiles are self-propelling devices. (Let's see if you know/understand that term.)
"Kinetic energy devices" are basically objects of mass propelled upon a set trajectory ... bullets, to be blunt, are a typical type of such.

Son, I've been on this planet at least twice as long as you have and appears to have learned at least three times as much as you know. You are going to have to do a lot better if you think you have anything to teach me.

Seems to me, I was replying to Mushroom on that matter. Not you. If I did, you are going to have to tell me in what post I said anything to you on the matter. But seeing as how I have no interest in speaking to you, don't bother.

 

[Highlight]

That's bullcrap and you should know it. We could have forced Kuwait to give us most of its oil for liberating them from Iraq and we didn't. When we controlled Iraq, we could have taken their oil and didn't instead we spent billions rebuilding the country. No other nation on earth pays the losers of wars instead of charging them.

We didn't need to force Kuwait to give us anything. No doubt the country was grateful for us having freed their country from Iraq. That gratitude would no doubt extend into getting oil at a cheaper price. As well as lucrative contracts to American companies to rebuild their oil producing capabilities after the retreating Iraqi army destroyed most of it. As for Iraq, we never really controlled it. We let them set up a new government. Which meant basically handing the country over to Iran.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush wasn't attacking OPEC. He was defending it. We defended Kuwait. And nothing was stopping Iraq from going after Saudi Arabia next. You know, the citizens of which were mostly behind the 9-11 attacks. As far as I'm concerned, Iraq could have taken it all. But we had OPEC money and the American military. A match made in HELL!

A) I'm talking about Dubya here.
B) Chavez was trying to unite OPEC

Venezuela calls for OPEC unity - UPI Archives

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Sunday urged the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to unite and confront what he said was pressure facing the...

www.upi.com

Aug. 13, 2000

"Venezuela calls for OPEC unity"

Essentially if OPEC decided to control oil prices, especially at the time when the US hadn't begun fracking and pumping out loads of oil, then realistically only Russia could do anything about it, and Putin would have liked the higher oil prices.

C) In 1998 Hugo Chavez got elected to the presidency in Venezuela. He was not liked by the Dubya administration

In 2002 there was a coup

2002 Venezuelan coup attempt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US helped the coup happened, pushed it along.

When Hugo Chavez and the people of Venezuela beat the US empire | Morning Star

morningstaronline.co.uk

"The coup was mounted by a combination of industrialists, businessmen, media owners, the principal trade union movement’s leaders, Catholic bishops and conservative military officers, working closely with the US government. "

D) The US did not have OPEC in the slightest. Saudi Arabia does not like the US, but sees the need to keep the US "friendly", however if other OPEC countries said "we're raising oil prices" then Saudi Arabia would say "okay".

 

[Mushroom]

You need to look more deeply into how cruise missiles work. In the 1940's they didn't have on board computers that could fly the missiles themselves. Also, these days our aircraft have "look down, shoot down" radar. But as far as ground based radar goes, cruise missiles can indeed fly under the radar. Unless you are on the ocean. Then they can only stay invisible as long as they are under the horizon.

No, they do not. And I know how RADAR works as well as cruise missiles, thank you very much.

They fly at low altitude, that does not really mean "below RADAR". It is a basic fact, the lower an aircraft is, the harder it is to detect because of the relation to the horizon. High altitude, able to detect from a long ways away. Lower altitude, it has to be closer in order to be detected.

That does not make it invisible, that does not mean they can not be detected. It simply makes for a smaller detection window.

And want to guess what that low altitude does not make a damned bit of difference about?

Aircraft. Especially AEWS aircraft. Those "eyes in the sky" will just as easily detect and vector in fighters on that cruise missile. And "these days our aircraft have "look down shoot down RADAR"? Oh sure, only had that for over half a century now. Originally designed for the attack version of the SR-71 that was never produced, incorporated into the F-4 Phantom in 1973.

Oh, and guess what the main defense is against cruise missiles? Here is a big hint, it is the same defense that was used against them in WWII. Fighters.

Here is the problem, I actually know what I am talking about. And you really do not.

But if you want, I can discuss a bit about things like VSLB. That is actually a key aspect of placing the RADAR system in regards to the terrain. And that specific placement determines things like VSLB and how effective "sneaking in" actually is.

Oh, but if you want a hint how well I know things like this, take a peek at my avatar. Yes, that is me at the White Sands Missile Range. This was actually my career for many years, and even though I am now retired I still keep up on all areas of air and missile defense.

 

[gipper]

No, they do not. And I know how RADAR works as well as cruise missiles, thank you very much.

They fly at low altitude, that does not really mean "below RADAR". It is a basic fact, the lower an aircraft is, the harder it is to detect because of the relation to the horizon. High altitude, able to detect from a long ways away. Lower altitude, it has to be closer in order to be detected.

That does not make it invisible, that does not mean they can not be detected. It simply makes for a smaller detection window.

And want to guess what that low altitude does not make a damned bit of difference about?

Aircraft. Especially AEWS aircraft. Those "eyes in the sky" will just as easily detect and vector in fighters on that cruise missile. And "these days our aircraft have "look down shoot down RADAR"? Oh sure, only had that for over half a century now. Originally designed for the attack version of the SR-71 that was never produced, incorporated into the F-4 Phantom in 1973.

Oh, and guess what the main defense is against cruise missiles? Here is a big hint, it is the same defense that was used against them in WWII. Fighters.

Here is the problem, I actually know what I am talking about. And you really do not.

But if you want, I can discuss a bit about things like VSLB. That is actually a key aspect of placing the RADAR system in regards to the terrain. And that specific placement determines things like VSLB and how effective "sneaking in" actually is.

Oh, but if you want a hint how well I know things like this, take a peek at my avatar. Yes, that is me at the White Sands Missile Range. This was actually my career for many years, and even though I am now retired I still keep up on all areas of air and missile defense.

A state of war is the single most effective tool in silencing dissent in any country.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You need to look more deeply into how cruise missiles work. In the 1940's they didn't have on board computers that could fly the missiles themselves. Also, these days our aircraft have "look down, shoot down" radar. But as far as ground based radar goes, cruise missiles can indeed fly under the radar. Unless you are on the ocean. Then they can only stay invisible as long as they are under the horizon.

The V-1s had mechanical computers that flew them on a predetermined course and cut their engine at a pre-determined time. Not all computers are electrical.

 

[Mushroom]

The V-1s had mechanical computers that flew them on a predetermined course and cut their engine at a pre-determined time. Not all computers are electrical.

Most are likely not even aware that even the modern Tomahawk is still pretty much the same.

They fly a course laid in before launch, and once launched they follow it exactly. And do so by their most primitive system, their Inertial Navigation. That simply determines how far it has flown a course before changing to the next course programmed in (or to do what is needed to deliver the payload).

Yes, after that they have a camera that verifies the location against the images already programmed in. But that is a back-up, and used simply as verification and not how they actually determine they have reached their waypoint or destination.

And the GPS actually comes in after that, a second check to verify that it has arrived at the waypoint or destination.

And the reason is obvious when one thinks about it. The inertial navigation is 100% internal, and can not be spoofed or fooled in any way. The video system is verification, but if the target is under heavy smoke or cloud cover obviously that will not work, so it is only verification. The same with GPS. They can be spoofed or even taken out of service. So is simply another validation and not mission critical at all.

I always kinda chuckle whenever people throw in "buzz words" like GPS, and not really understand how that really works in the military. In a great many systems even today, the primary system for determining location is still inertial navigation (or good old compass and Mark I eyeball). GPS is just used to verify that, not the main system used.

 

[PeterPilot]

So you support and enable Islamic Jihad.
Bow to Mecca raghead and hope Allah embraces you.

No Allah, No Peace.
Know Allah, Know Peace.

I oppose Zionist terror and military aggression.

I favor constitutional governance here in the US, but understand we have not had it since Dubya & The Neocons staged the events of 11 September.

 

[Stryder50]

As I said, your help was useful, but definitely not decisive. Actually, we have broken Germany's spine at the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, i.e. before start of really significant American supplies. You just shortened their agony and captured half of Europe in process when it became clear who is winning.

Sorry to differ Komrade, but the "back (spine) breaking" was over a year later with battle of Kursk.

Regards, Moscow, two items in Russia's favor but not it's doing. First was diversion of the two Panzer Armies of Army Group Center to the South to assist Army Group South pick-up their advance. This burned about a month of time, detour, and had those Panzer Armies back focused on Moscow about the time that General Autumn dumped rains on the dirt roads of Russia turning them to mud quagmires. Then by the time the Panzer Armies were closing in on Moscow, General Winter hit with freezing temps. Germany hadn't expected Barbarossa to drag on into Winter and hence hadn't stockpiled and issued Winter clothing to it's troops. Two major errors on Germany's part with next to nothing of influence from Stavka.

Stavka - Wikipedia​

Regards Stalingrad, again more German blundering and fumbling than Russian military might and valor. First error was the German high command (Hitler) insistence to capture Stalingrad resulting in heavy and drawn out time consuming fighting within the city. Better strategy on Germany's part would have been to surround and invest the city, lay siege, and starve them out. This would have meant crossing over to the East side of the Volga to block path of supply and reinforcements into Stalingrad.
Second error was deploying the allied armies; Italian, Hungarian, Rumanian aside each other and on the flanks. These armies like the training and equipment and motivation to effectively cover such large portions of the front on their own. Interspersed between German Army commands might of presented a strong line which the Soviets might not have broken through in there flank attacks around Stalingrad.

Battle of Stalingrad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As it was, despite the set backs for Germany in the reality scenario, they were hardly broken and were able to still pose serious prospect of a victory of sorts in 1943. Maybe not a conquer of Russia, but a possible suing for ceasefire and terms.

As for the value of Lend-Lease, Stalin's constant whining about it not enough, need more would suggest He didn't see it as a minor factor. Most of the initial shipments after June 1941 were from the UK, but much was what the USA had sent to them first.

Soviet gear wasn't very impressive at the start, 1941 thru 1942. Much arms had been lost in the initial invasion and envelopments during Summer of 1941 and the(your) country was still scrambling to put together divisions and hold a line. Also still learning some basics of operational and tactical methods. Your motor transport was apathetic lot of antiquated weak, non off-road capable trucks of 1920s design. Russia had small numbers of modern tanks like T-34s and KVs, most of their tanks being inferior in quality to the Axis. And the Russian air force was also weak compared to what the Germans had during 1941-1942.

It wasn't until about 1943 when the UK and USA campaigns in Western Europe and the growing size of the bomber offensive that the combination of German/Axis withdraw of forces from Russia to the deal with the West, combined with noticable growth in Soviet production, Lend-lease stocks and new military units made possible meaningful progress in pushing back the German's and Axis.

Had the Western Allies, UK and USA not been applying growing pressure to Germany's West Front AND laying increasing waste to the Homeland cities and industries, etc.; i.e. had Russia been left to it's own to fight Germany, there's a high probability that Russia would have collapsed and likely sought peace that would let it hold on to about half the nation it was at the start.

I'll post some of the details on Lend-Lease value in next post.

 

[Stryder50]

Some facts, figures, statistics, and notable comments on Lend-Lease and Western Allies aid to the USSR.
"...
Thus, the Allies were almost totally reliant on American industrial production for unarmored vehicles, including ones purpose-built for military use.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>37<span>]</span></a>

For example, the USSR was very dependent on rail transport, and starting during the latter half of the 1920s<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>38<span>]</span></a> but accelerating during the 1930s, hundreds of foreign industrial giants such as Ford were commissioned to construct modern dual-purpose factories in the USSR, 16 alone within a week of May 31, 1929.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>39<span>]</span></a> However, with the outbreak of war these plants switched from civilian to military production, and locomotive production dropped dramatically. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>40<span>]</span></a> with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>41<span>]</span></a> In total, 92.7% of the wartime procurement of railroad equipment by the USSR came from Lend-Lease,<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>42<span>]</span></a> Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a>

Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production over the course of the war.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production.

A critical aspect of Lend-Lease was the supply of food. The invasion had cost the USSR a huge amount of its agricultural base; during the initial Axis offensive of 1941–42,[<em><a href="Wikipedia:Citing sources - Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia:Citing sources"><span title="Statement needs to be more specific about the content to which it refers. (February 2025)">specify</span></a></em>] the total sown area of the USSR fell by 41.9% and the number of collective and state farms by 40%. The Soviets lost a substantial number of draft and farm animals as they were not able to relocate all the animals in an area before it was captured and of those areas in which the Axis forces would occupy, the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats. Tens of thousands of agricultural machines, such as tractors and threshers, were destroyed or captured. Agriculture also suffered a loss of labour; between 1941 and 1945, 19.5 million working-age men had to leave their farms to work in the military and industry. Agricultural issues were also compounded when the Soviets were on the offensive, as areas liberated from the Axis had been devastated and contained millions of people who needed to be fed. Lend-Lease thus provided a massive quantity of foodstuffs and agricultural products.[<em><a href="Wikipedia:Please clarify - Wikipedia" title="Wikipedialease clarify"><span title="The text near this tag may need clarification or removal of jargon. (February 2025)">clarification needed</span></a></em>]<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a>

According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a>

Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war,
addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>7<span>]</span></a>

In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov was secretly recorded by the KGB saying:

Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>45<span>]</span></a>

David Glantz, an American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, offers a somewhat different view, but still emphasized the significance of Lend-Lease:
....

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

Lend-Lease cont'd;
...
In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials (equivalent to $148 billion in 2023):<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>55<span>]</span></a> over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>56<span>]</span></a> of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>57<span>]</span></a> 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 Havocs and 2,397 were Bell P-63 Kingcobras)<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>58<span>]</span></a> and 1.75 million tons of food.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>59<span>]</span></a>
...
In the first weeks and months of the German–Soviet war, the USSR lost a huge number of military aircraft. Some of them were lost at airfields in the first days of the fighting, some were abandoned for various reasons, and some were lost in air battles. The losses of Soviet aviation in 1941 is one of the most controversial topics for military historians and publicists. The situation was aggravated by the loss of many aircraft factories that produced aircraft and components for them, which remained in the territory occupied by the Germans. Some of the factories were hastily evacuated to the east of the country, but it took time to resume production and reach its maximum capacity. In December 1941, all aircraft factories of the Soviet Union produced only 600 aircraft of all types. This was the reason that the supply of aircraft, primarily fighters and bombers, became the main topic in the negotiations between the top leadership of the USSR, Great Britain and the United States. The vast majority of the total number of aircraft received by the USSR under the Lend-Lease program was made up of British Spitfire and Hurricane fighters, American P-39 Airacobra, P-40 fighters, known in Russia under the names "Tomahawk" and "Kittyhawk", P-63 Kingcobra, American bombers A-20 Havoc, B-25 Mitchell. A significant amount of C-47 Skytrain transport aircraft and PBY Catalina flying boats were also delivered.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>62<span>]</span></a> For the needs of the Soviet Navy, 2,141 aircraft were delivered to the USSR.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>63<span>]</span></a> Not all of the delivered aircraft could be fully called modern models. But even those that could be called obsolete (the English Hurricane and the American Tomahawk) were more advanced and superior in most characteristics than the I-153 and I-16 aircraft that made up the basis of Soviet fighter aviation in the most difficult first months of the war. The superiority in high-altitude characteristics of American and British aircraft, powerful armament and the provision of communications ensured their use in the air defens
e.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>62<span>]</span></a>

From October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945, the United States delivered to the Soviet Union 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the aviation fuel including nearly 90 percent of high-octane fuel used,<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) provided amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about $11.3 billion.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>64<span>]</span></a><a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>65<span>]</span></a>
....
Significant numbers of British Churchill, Matilda and Valentine tanks were shipped to the USSR.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>72<span>]</span></a>

Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:

• 7,411 aircraft (>3,000 Hurricanes and >4,000 other aircraft)
• 27 naval vessels
• 5,218 tanks (including 1,380 Valentines from Canada)
• >5,000 anti-tank guns
• 4,020 ambulances and trucks
• 323 machinery trucks (mobile vehicle workshops equipped with generators and all the welding and power tools required to perform heavy servicing)
• 1,212 Universal Carriers and Loyd Carriers (with another 1,348 from Canada)
• 1,721 motorcycles
• £1.15bn ($1.55bn) worth of aircraft engines
• 1,474 radar sets
• 4,338 radio sets
• 600 naval radar and sonar sets
• Hundreds of naval guns
• 15 million pairs of boots

In total 4 million tonnes of war material including food and medical supplies were delivered.
...

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

 

[Stryder50]

Only some of the types supplied to the Soviets.
Not shown are B-25, C-47, PBY, and others.

Lend-Lease to the USSR - War History

Soviet historiography is mocked in the West, where it is seen purely as a propaganda exercise. By way of example, take Lend-Lease. Soviet texts dow...

warhistory.org

 

[Zavulon]

Some facts, figures, statistics, and notable comments on Lend-Lease and Western Allies aid to the USSR.
"...
Thus, the Allies were almost totally reliant on American industrial production for unarmored vehicles, including ones purpose-built for military use.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>37<span>]</span></a>

For example, the USSR was very dependent on rail transport, and starting during the latter half of the 1920s<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>38<span>]</span></a> but accelerating during the 1930s, hundreds of foreign industrial giants such as Ford were commissioned to construct modern dual-purpose factories in the USSR, 16 alone within a week of May 31, 1929.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>39<span>]</span></a> However, with the outbreak of war these plants switched from civilian to military production, and locomotive production dropped dramatically. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>40<span>]</span></a> with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>41<span>]</span></a> In total, 92.7% of the wartime procurement of railroad equipment by the USSR came from Lend-Lease,<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>42<span>]</span></a> Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a>

Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production over the course of the war.<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a> Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production.

A critical aspect of Lend-Lease was the supply of food. The invasion had cost the USSR a huge amount of its agricultural base; during the initial Axis offensive of 1941–42,[<em><a href="Wikipedia:Citing sources - Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia:Citing sources"><span title="Statement needs to be more specific about the content to which it refers. (February 2025)">specify</span></a></em>] the total sown area of the USSR fell by 41.9% and the number of collective and state farms by 40%. The Soviets lost a substantial number of draft and farm animals as they were not able to relocate all the animals in an area before it was captured and of those areas in which the Axis forces would occupy, the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats. Tens of thousands of agricultural machines, such as tractors and threshers, were destroyed or captured. Agriculture also suffered a loss of labour; between 1941 and 1945, 19.5 million working-age men had to leave their farms to work in the military and industry. Agricultural issues were also compounded when the Soviets were on the offensive, as areas liberated from the Axis had been devastated and contained millions of people who needed to be fed. Lend-Lease thus provided a massive quantity of foodstuffs and agricultural products.[<em><a href="Wikipedia:Please clarify - Wikipedia" title="Wikipedialease clarify"><span title="The text near this tag may need clarification or removal of jargon. (February 2025)">clarification needed</span></a></em>]<a href="Lend-Lease - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a>

According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:




Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war,
addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:




In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov was secretly recorded by the KGB saying:




David Glantz, an American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, offers a somewhat different view, but still emphasized the significance of Lend-Lease:
....

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sokolov's opinion, is, of course, interesting, but he is in absolute minority. Majority of serious historians tell that American help was very useful, but not crucial. Soviet Union wasn't in the situation somehow close to "penny short and a dollar late". Russia has significant reserves.

 

[Stryder50]

Sokolov's opinion, is, of course, interesting, but he is in absolute minority. Majority of serious historians tell that American help was very useful, but not crucial. Soviet Union wasn't in the situation somehow close to "penny short and a dollar late". Russia has significant reserves.

Try presenting documentation and proof on your claim. My experience is that most serious historians agree with me that without UK and USA participation, USSR would have lost and been history. Especially since Japan would have secured it's Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and have resources to attack and take Eastern Russia/Asia.

Historical reality shows those resources take time to "mine and manufacture".
Meanwhile, that doesn't get around the fact that USA Lend-lease (give away) of food kept Russia from starving while trying to repulse German invasion and reclaim your food producing regions.

BTW, you hubris has been obvious for long time now, komrade.