Britain's completely underrated role in WWII

I'll remind you of your answer.



And the first thing you use is lend lease, so not alone atall. In the crucial year of 42 Russia lost 15k of tanks and produced 17k medium and heavy tanks. Without the help of others would it have made it to 43?

Moving by horse would have been slow and you would have been cut off from all combat supplies and encircled like in 41. How would you feed these horses? How would you have got POL to your tanks?

And I know that the Germans were also mostly moved by horses but they also had a very maneuverable tank arm supported by aircraft with much better communications. If Russia is fighting on its own then the Germans have no need to keep large fighter wings or division in the west.
You quoted my previous post and my conclusion - probably yes. No unconditionally 'yes' but only 'probably'.
 
You quoted my previous post and my conclusion - probably yes. No unconditionally 'yes' but only 'probably'.
You are living in a dream. Soviet Russia had absolutly no chance of beating the Nazies.

Name some things that the Soviet could have done on their own.

The best they could have hoped for was to move behind the Urals. Listening to the tank talks about the T34 it is plain to see that losses were nearly out stripping production.

1553114637606.png


Now all tanks need spares from time to time but carrying a spare transmission because you know the one you have will not last is going a bit far. I also noticed that you failed to put up the bit in your link about why they needed US trucks, not just because they were reliable but because they could drive off road unlike the Russian outdated copies.
 
How the Soviet union would be able to defeat Germany? Was it possible without lean-lease supplied tanks, aircrafts?
It would be much more difficult task but not something unthinkable.
Previously I wrote that lend lease supplies were extremely important for the Soviet union, super important, nearly vitaly important but not critically important.
Lend-Lease tanks and aircrafts

16% of tanks was a big number but not critically big to void the Red army its offensive potential completely.

The numbers of US/UK supplied aircrafts were big but not critically big.
At the same time

Without such huge number of high quality motor vehicles Soviet offensive operations would not be so swift and victorious. The Red army would have rely mainly on horses.
However, I believe that even with horses only the Soviet union would be able to defeat Germany.
Also mundane things like 11 million pairs of boots, waterproof field telephone wire, Finish machine tools, blankets, 6--Jackets, Russian Leather, Long"110,556ea, 14 million pairs of shoes, 87,678 gallons of Alcohol, 166,499,912 square yards of Airplane cloth
 
Also mundane things like 11 million pairs of boots, waterproof field telephone wire, Finish machine tools, blankets, 6--Jackets, Russian Leather, Long"110,556ea, 14 million pairs of shoes, 87,678 gallons of Alcohol, 166,499,912 square yards of Airplane cloth
That's just numbers supplied. Think about the negative numbers we applied to the Germans. IIRC the Germans at he close of the war had a ground strength of about 4million. The Vollkssturm doubled that, with Levy 1 and 2. But part of the problem was actually arming them.
Something about being round the clock bombing had battered German weapons output. Equally, you throw in all the manpower from France and the other countries that would have been available to fight (not just Germans either other nationalities, as the Soviets were rather unpopular fro some reason). Equally with out the western allies the Germans would no longer be in a strategic stranglehold with no access to resources.

If we're using the analogy of the Russians delivering the killing blow, then the Western allies made the sword, then held the Germans in place long enough for Russia to take aim and wind up.
 
(...) Without such huge number of high quality motor vehicles Soviet offensive operations would not be so swift and victorious. The Red army would have rely mainly on horses.
However, I believe that even with horses only the Soviet union would be able to defeat Germany.
It's a good question as to what the effect of a lack of trucks would have had on the Soviet offensive. On the eastern front both sides relied heavily on railways for logistical support due to the great distances involved. The German offensive was severely hobbled due to being tied closely to the railways, and so advances always faced the problem of outrunning their supply lines as the railways could not be rebuilt fast enough to keep up with the advance.

So far as I am aware, the effect of logistics on operations in WWII is an area that is seriously under-researched. It is interesting to speculate though that when the Soviets began to advance against the Germans the greater number of motor vehicles available to them may have meant that they didn't tend to outrun their logistic support as readily and so were able to pursue the Germans more effectively, giving them less time to recover, resulting in faster advances.

On another thread I posted a link to a comparison of Soviet miltary railway operations to German military railway operations, where it is noted that the Soviets were much better at long distance railway logistics than the Germans were. This capability had been developed during the days of the Russian Empire and had been instrumental in the consolidation of Imperial rule eastwards across Asia.

So the question arises then of how the Soviets would have had to adapt their logistical operations if they had fewer motor vehicles. If we speculate that advances would have been shorter, then the war may have gone on longer.

It is also possible that the Soviet advance might then have eventually ground to a halt due to logistical bottlenecks, just like the German one did. If so, we might speculate that the Soviets might have been forced to stop somewhere in Poland, resulting in a stalemate close to where Barbarossa had started.

So perhaps the German Nazi government would have survived and in control of western and central Europe? Of course history would not stand still but to speculate further we would have to make more assumptions about what may have happened after that.
 
It's a good question as to what the effect of a lack of trucks would have had on the Soviet offensive. On the eastern front both sides relied heavily on railways for logistical support due to the great distances involved. The German offensive was severely hobbled due to being tied closely to the railways, and so advances always faced the problem of outrunning their supply lines as the railways could not be rebuilt fast enough to keep up with the advance.

So far as I am aware, the effect of logistics on operations in WWII is an area that is seriously under-researched. It is interesting to speculate though that when the Soviets began to advance against the Germans the greater number of motor vehicles available to them may have meant that they didn't tend to outrun their logistic support as readily and so were able to pursue the Germans more effectively, giving them less time to recover, resulting in faster advances.

On another thread I posted a link to a comparison of Soviet miltary railway operations to German military railway operations, where it is noted that the Soviets were much better at long distance railway logistics than the Germans were. This capability had been developed during the days of the Russian Empire and had been instrumental in the consolidation of Imperial rule eastwards across Asia.

So the question arises then of how the Soviets would have had to adapt their logistical operations if they had fewer motor vehicles. If we speculate that advances would have been shorter, then the war may have gone on longer.

It is also possible that the Soviet advance might then have eventually ground to a halt due to logistical bottlenecks, just like the German one did. If so, we might speculate that the Soviets might have been forced to stop somewhere in Poland, resulting in a stalemate close to where Barbarossa had started.

So perhaps the German Nazi government would have survived and in control of western and central Europe? Of course history would not stand still but to speculate further we would have to make more assumptions about what may have happened after that.
From the link KGB gave it is noted that Russia have limited metal roads and the trucks built in Russia would have had difficulty moving off road in poor conditions. So moving combat supplies out form the rail heads in bad weather would have been difficult.
 
You quoted my previous post and my conclusion - probably yes. No unconditionally 'yes' but only 'probably'.
Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Volume 1: Commissar, 1918–1945 Edited by Sergei Khrushchev
Some bloke called Khrushchev who had an inside track on Stalin apparently had the following to say:
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
 
funny thing considering that UK got the most money of Marshal plan.
And rather than using it to invest in the cutting edge technologies we'd developed during the war, the 1945-50 Labour government used it to create the NHS - something that could have been achieved within less than a decade using the tax receipts from the promotion of manufacturing's use of said technology & at the same tim put us squarely at the front regarding electronics, metal alloys & communications.
 
From the link KGB gave it is noted that Russia have limited metal roads and the trucks built in Russia would have had difficulty moving off road in poor conditions. So moving combat supplies out form the rail heads in bad weather would have been difficult.
The railways had to be rebuilt during the advance as the rails were torn up and bridges and water and coal depots destroyed by the retreating enemy. In addition, the Soviets and the Germans used incompatible rail gauges.

Armies could advance faster than railways could be rebuilt or converted. The critical role that trucks played was to use the roads to bridge the distance from the end of the rebuilt railway to the armies at the front. The greater the number of trucks available, the greater the distance that armies could operate from their rail support. The further the armies could operate from their rail support, the further an offensive could advance before outrunning their logistical support and grinding to a halt. The further the offensive could advance in one go, the less time the enemy had to recover and prepare a defence.

So the most critical role that trucks played was the ability to operate on roads over medium distances to support the advance without having to wait for the railway reconstruction to catch up.

In western Europe and North Africa, the large scale logistical emphasis was on recapturing ports and putting them into operation again. Look at the strategy revolving around the recapture of Antwerp and the role that German garrisons holding out in bypassed ports played for example. Also look at how much of the see-saw back and forth across Libya came down to logistical limits and the limited number of ports. Sea transport was used to bring the mass of supplies as close to the front as possible and then trucks were used to bridge the distance from the ports to the front. As the front moved further from the orignal ports the trucks became less able to cope and logistical problems started increasing.

With fewer trucks the Soviet advance west would have to have been more of a start-stop affair. That doesn't mean however that it would have been impossible, since after all the Germans managed it in the other direction and the Soviets weren't as hobbled by lack of oil.

What it might have meant though is the Germans may have had more time to put an defence together once their supply lines shortened when they were closer to Germany and it was the Soviets operating over long supply lines. Hence my speculation about whether the Soviet advance would have stalled out somewhere in Poland, close to where Barbarossa had started. In that case it is a very interesting question as to what would have happened next.
 
Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Volume 1: Commissar, 1918–1945 Edited by Sergei Khrushchev
Some bloke called Khrushchev who had an inside track on Stalin apparently had the following to say:
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
Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev edited by Sergei Khrushchev published in 2004. The whole converstaion could be just a fruit of imagination of the 'editor'.
It is not trustworthly source. The son of former Soviet leader Sergei Khushchev emigrated to the USA in 1991 and in 1999 received US citizenship.
No one independent source confirms that such a conversation ever took place. And note, that 'edited' memoirs appeared almost 60 years after the end of the war.
 
How many fronts were you fighting on?
You do realise don't you, that these divisions that were 'held back' in the east to be used as a counter attacking force - such as the one against the germans at Stalingrad, were not a strategic reserve at all. They were stationed in the east because of the threat that the japanese posed to the USSR in Manchuria.
Well let's look at number of troops, militry hardware that Hitler had to send to other fronts. Do you think that in comparison with the eastern front the numbers are huge or critically big? Just look at numbers and make the conclusion.
 
Funny, when it came to the russian war effort, the soft vehicles were critical to the Offensive mobility of your deep battle, but the food donated was even more critical to maintain your armies.
Yes, the Soviet unions badly needed food. By the way the main external source of meat (and also wool, winter clothes) was Mongolia.
Without external food supplies the situation would be critical but mainly for civilians - especially for the old and disabled. The army would receive enough food anyway as in happened during the siege of Leningrad, where hundreds thousands civilians died from hunger while fighters on the front line had food. Absence of any external food supplies would result in additional millions deaths of civilians.
In this context lend lease supplies were pricless as they saved millions of lives.

If the Soviet union would fight with Germany alone then the war would be 2 or 3 years longer. At summer time the Red army would be in strategic defence with winter offensive operations because at winter the German army was much weaker. Later or sooner Germany would consume its not bottomless resources.
 
Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev edited by Sergei Khrushchev published in 2004. The whole converstaion could be just a fruit of imagination of the 'editor'.
It is not trustworthly source. The son of former Soviet leader Sergei Khushchev emigrated to the USA in 1991 and in 1999 received US citizenship.
No one independent source confirms that such a conversation ever took place. And note, that 'edited' memoirs appeared almost 60 years after the end of the war.
so why one and not the other as plausible? Just asking
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top