DC Tom Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Definitely our stuff early on but once they ramped up their industrial power, they were producing aircraft of all types in great numbers and their T-34 tank production really helped turn the tide against German Panzers on the ground. The Battle of Kursk really underscores the huge superiority the Soviets had in terms of equipment and manpower. Actually, the Soviets were probably more dependent on American material later in the war. For starters, roughly 15% of ALL foodstuffs consumed came from American sources (little known fact: in a country heavily dependent on pigs, 70% of the pig herd was lost in 1941 in the Ukraine). Maybe half of all shoe leather was from the US.. Russia was self-sufficient in bauxite and oil production...but turning raw materials into aluminum and diesel required alloys and chemicals via lend lease (e.g. Russia only imported maybe 3% of petrochemicals it used, but those 3% were the difference between kerosene and diesel production). 80% of all the trucks used by the USSR were American, as were most of the staff cars (i.e. jeeps), most of the telegraph line, virtually all of the radios, a huge chunk of the rolling stock. And while "only" 10-15% of planes used by the VVS were of non-Russian manufacture (e.g. the P-39 and P-63, made in Buffalo - Buffalo was one of the largest manufacturing centers for the VVS, by the way), virtually all of them used American flight gauges and controls. Bottom line: the USSR accomplished a phenomenal expansion of industry from 1942-1944, but overall their economy lacked the breadth necessary to fight a modern war on the scale they did without significant help in many critical areas. Metaphorically, while the Russians may have built a steam roller of a military force, they still had to depend on us for the spark plugs. And point of note: many of the tank brigades at Kursk were armed with lend-lease tanks (Shermans, Valentines, Matildas, even Lees - "the grave for seven brothers," the Russians hated those tanks). Even later...while the tank armies were usually armed with Russian armor, the corps/brigades/regiments assigned to the all-arms armies tended to have a lot more lend-lease equipment. Absolutely. It's an oversimplification for sure but it always stuck with me because going by how WWII is portrayed in pop-culture in the 50s and beyond you'd think the Soviets didn't even fight in WWII when in reality they paid perhaps the highest price of all nations in terms of blood. I read a lot of primary source journals about Stalingrad that were just chilling in terms of the mentality. Talk about tough SOBs. Read http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-War-Soviet-Russia-Vintage/dp/0375724710/ One of the better recent histories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Read http://www.amazon.co.../dp/0375724710/ One of the better recent histories. Cheers! I'll read it while traveling this month. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 LOL An amazing people? The USSR was THE most wicked, corrupt and murderous regime in the history of mankind. Yes, WORSE than the Third Reich. You speak of the Ukranians. Take a read of Stalin's history in the Ukraine. How many countless millions of people were murdered, persecuted, enslaved. Ask the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria about the USSR. Would the war have been won without them? Probably not. But don't idolize something that is inherently evil. Idolizing evil? That's what you got out of that post? Like I need a lesson in the atrocities of Stalin? Spare me. I can make a distinction between the people and its leaders. I'm not speaking of Stalin and his oppressive regime when I speak of the amazing fortitude of the people on the front lines who endured untold hardships in facing the German Wehrmact. The Russian people won in spite of the son of a B word who controlled their government. I don't idolize that. I respect it. Actually, the Soviets were probably more dependent on American material later in the war. For starters, roughly 15% of ALL foodstuffs consumed came from American sources (little known fact: in a country heavily dependent on pigs, 70% of the pig herd was lost in 1941 in the Ukraine). Maybe half of all shoe leather was from the US.. Russia was self-sufficient in bauxite and oil production...but turning raw materials into aluminum and diesel required alloys and chemicals via lend lease (e.g. Russia only imported maybe 3% of petrochemicals it used, but those 3% were the difference between kerosene and diesel production). 80% of all the trucks used by the USSR were American, as were most of the staff cars (i.e. jeeps), most of the telegraph line, virtually all of the radios, a huge chunk of the rolling stock. And while "only" 10-15% of planes used by the VVS were of non-Russian manufacture (e.g. the P-39 and P-63, made in Buffalo - Buffalo was one of the largest manufacturing centers for the VVS, by the way), virtually all of them used American flight gauges and controls. Bottom line: the USSR accomplished a phenomenal expansion of industry from 1942-1944, but overall their economy lacked the breadth necessary to fight a modern war on the scale they did without significant help in many critical areas. Metaphorically, while the Russians may have built a steam roller of a military force, they still had to depend on us for the spark plugs. And point of note: many of the tank brigades at Kursk were armed with lend-lease tanks (Shermans, Valentines, Matildas, even Lees - "the grave for seven brothers," the Russians hated those tanks). Even later...while the tank armies were usually armed with Russian armor, the corps/brigades/regiments assigned to the all-arms armies tended to have a lot more lend-lease equipment. Thanks, Tom. I always appreciate your valuable insights into military history. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that the US didn't have a significant impact on the Russian war effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Please don't feed Tom's ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Now, now, Tom has feelings too. That trip to the woodshed that he took with a certain moderator has left that ego pretty bruised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Now, now, Tom has feelings too. That trip to the woodshed that he took with a certain moderator has left that ego pretty bruised. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes Simon eats Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes Simon eats Tom. I think he was referring to the beating Simon took. I don't give enough of a **** about you people to have my ego bruised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I think he was referring to the beating Simon took. I don't give enough of a **** about you people to have my ego bruised. Word on the street is that Simon pwnd Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Word on the street is that Simon pwnd Tom. I don't believe that, I've seen pawn stars and anyone bringing in Tom would be escorted out rudely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Anyone watching the series as it airs? Interested to know if some of you guys feel he was fair to Ike... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts