Operation Barbarossa

[Lieste]

But how much supply was consumed to move that 93% that arrived...

I can send two strawberries by first class flights to Dayton but it will cost a hell of a lot more than buying a punnet in your local Store, or growing your own. Not to mention you'd have to drive the 3 hour round trip to collect them.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: nate25

Parusski, is it possible that Ambrose was on a BPB binge when he wrote about only 1%
of LendLease aid reaching Russia?

I only ask because he was a well-known addict of the substance, and the figures I have of LL aid reaching Russia is 93% arrived, 7% lost.

What do you think? Possible?

Oh it is highly possible that he was. Orm and warspite1 have an ever greater understanding of Ambrose, both having read all 3,706 books he wrote. It is instructive to view the Peanut Brittle thread here on Matrix General Discussion forum to see many, many quotes from Ambrose.

Of course I have read all but a few of his books and let me leave you with one quote, from the 1977 HOW I GOT TO KNOW EVERYTHING! - "It is becoming widely known that I have attained a level of knowing stuff that other people will never reach. As of this writing I have read over 12,000 books. Of course, eating Peanut Brittle three times a day has made my brain really big. It is common knowledge in the medical field that eating 6lbs of PB every day will make a person really smart. But this information has been kept from the general public."

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

NEVER FEAR, VASSAL IS HERE!!! [:D]
www.vasalengine.org

How do we have time to play with you...given all the time we waste here. Plus I am now absorbed with CoH.

[nate25]

Not 3 hrs., but an hour or more definitely. [:)]

Let's back up a bit. Not sure what you're driving at, Lieste. Forgive my not understanding here.

Also, just to be clear, "Ambrose" is a fictional author we joke about here in the General Forums. He's been referenced in several threads, and not to be taken seriously, as I think some of Parusski's allusions to his "writings" have been. Just a fun joke to be added to by all. I do not seriously think Parusski believes less than 1% of LendLease ever reached Russia. [:)]

So Lieste, please explain to the layman (me) what you mean.

[parusski]

Parusski believes less than 1% of LendLease ever reached Russia.

NO, I know that no one in the know knows what I know.

So, there.

[SLAAKMAN]

Parusski believes less than 1% of LendLease ever reached Russia.

(He is correct. I filched the other 99% & I am the <1% that controls the worlds condom supply). [:'(]

How do we have time to play with you...given all the time we waste here. Plus I am now absorbed with CoH

To resolve this trancendental enigma I suggest that you consume 1 milligram of Bella Donna Elixir while meditating in the Lotus Position as you torque.

[Lieste]

Ah, well I obviously missed the 'history'. If 1000 trucks were shipped to Russia, and 70 were lost, it doesn't mean that the 'delivery' is 93% - because the tonnage of ships needed to move the trucks, the fuel expended moving the trucks and ships, and then returning the ships for the next journey, the tonnage of ships lost and needing replacement must all be added to the 'expenditure' that moved the 930 trucks.

With all this considered a 'delivery rate' of 93% is obviously ludicrous, and 1% might be plausible.. is all.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Ah, well I obviously missed the 'history'. If 1000 trucks were shipped to Russia, and 70 were lost, it doesn't mean that the 'delivery' is 93% - because the tonnage of ships needed to move the trucks, the fuel expended moving the trucks and ships, and then returning the ships for the next journey, the tonnage of ships lost and needing replacement must all be added to the 'expenditure' that moved the 930 trucks.

With all this considered a 'delivery rate' of 93% is obviously ludicrous, and 1% might be plausible.. is all.

And it is as equally plausible that SLAAK(ER) ever speaks logically for long. Or that he controls any condoms.

Also, moving 1000 trucks means the consumption of 1,250,500 tonnes of Peanut Brittle. The actual delivery of 930 trucks is at variance with how much we know the green skinned one filched.

[nate25]

Well put. Completely clear now. Logistically and financially that makes perfect sense.

Still I think even if it's 1% actually delivered, the overall metric is decieving, yes? It implies that the materials were almost unnecessary and trivial.

Sort of like unemployment in the United States is "only" 8.2% (or whatever it is this day).

[parusski]

Sort of like unemployment in the United States is "only" 8.2%

Yeah, but add back the millions who have dropped outta the job market and we are looking at something close to 10.5%(Wall Street Journal)!!

Anywho, I am glad I cleared up the confusion over the delivery of 1,000 trucks to Russia.

Let's not forget SLAAK(ER)'s contribution. hehe

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Ah, well I obviously missed the 'history'. If 1000 trucks were shipped to Russia, and 70 were lost, it doesn't mean that the 'delivery' is 93% - because the tonnage of ships needed to move the trucks, the fuel expended moving the trucks and ships, and then returning the ships for the next journey, the tonnage of ships lost and needing replacement must all be added to the 'expenditure' that moved the 930 trucks.

With all this considered a 'delivery rate' of 93% is obviously ludicrous, and 1% might be plausible.. is all.

Warspite1

Lieste not true.

Why do you need to take into account ships lost/oil spent in transport when calculating the amount of supplies received vs the amount sent? We are talking purely supplies sent to the USSR. It's no concern of the the Soviets who (un)gratefully receive their 930 trucks what it has cost for them to get there. Quite what the loss of ships/men on the journey has to do with it I don't know...

Are you getting confused with, for example, the problems of the Afrika Korps? Italians transport say 300 tons of oil to Tripoli for use by the Axis armies. The fact that x% of that oil is consumed in getting from Tripoli to the frontline by road IS important, although even then, if you are looking at the % received (in Africa) vs the % spent, it is immaterial whether any ships or oil were lost on route...

[nate25]

ORIGINAL: parusski

Sort of like unemployment in the United States is "only" 8.2%

Yeah, but add back the millions who have dropped outta the job market and we are looking at something close to 10.5%(Wall Street Journal)!!

Yes, this what I meant by "only".

Anywho, I am glad I cleared up the confusion over the delivery of 1,000 trucks to Russia.

Let's not forget SLAAK(ER)'s contribution. hehe

[nate25]

Lieste, are you referring to the overall cap installed by Congress ($1,300,000,000) for LendLease?

[Lieste]

Course it's true. If materials that could deliver 100,000 trucks to the parking lot of the vehicle factory are consumed getting 930 to the end-user (probably close if you include all the fuel/transport/escorts/their fuel and losses etc) then the useful supply ratio is about 1%.

To the recipient 930 are received, out of 1000 expected, but the sender needs a far higher effort to get those vehicles delivered. One lost ship is hundreds/thousands of 'trucks', and a ship carrying trucks can't be used for anything else till it is back after the round trip, and needs fuel/crew/escort etc..

What were the merchant loss rates on the North Cape convoys? Escorts? We lost at least one Carrier up there. How many ships were lost to U-Boats.
Not saying there was any alternative, or that it was a bad choice... just that 1 truck costs a damn sight more than in peace time, or the cost of building that 1 truck.

(Mind you the trucks were useful, the 'tanks' we sent, plus assorted small-arms ~ less so though the quality did improve towards the end of the war - things that were useful also included AA guns, radios, radar and similar 'tech').

[nate25]

. . . And 2,000 locomotives, 11,000 rail cars, literally hundreds of thousands of trucks, and jeeps, well over a million tonnes of foodstuffs . . . plus all you mentioned . . .

Just as one small point of perspective, the Sovs built a grand total of 92 locomotives during the war.

Other things were more pressing, of course. But take away what Britain and the US sent, and thing are a LOT more dire.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Course it's true. If materials that could deliver 100,000 trucks to the parking lot of the vehicle factory are consumed getting 930 to the end-user (probably close if you include all the fuel/transport/escorts/their fuel and losses etc) then the useful supply ratio is about 1%.

To the recipient 930 are received, out of 1000 expected, but the sender needs a far higher effort to get those vehicles delivered. One lost ship is hundreds/thousands of 'trucks', and a ship carrying trucks can't be used for anything else till it is back after the round trip, and needs fuel/crew/escort etc..

What were the merchant loss rates on the North Cape convoys? Escorts? We lost at least one Carrier up there. How many ships were lost to U-Boats.
Not saying there was any alternative, or that it was a bad choice... just that 1 truck costs a damn sight more than in peace time, or the cost of building that 1 truck.

(Mind you the trucks were useful, the 'tanks' we sent, plus assorted small-arms ~ less so though the quality did improve towards the end of the war - things that were useful also included AA guns, radios, radar and similar 'tech').

Warspite1

Looks like we shall agree to disagree. I cannot understand the point, or even if it made sense to me, how you would even attempt to calculate a loss/delivered rate, factoring in not only ships/men lost en route, but now you are suggesting escorts AND transports - even if not lost as they are being used for supply to USSR purposes and not for something else [X(]

BTW what carrier did "we" lose?? I assume you mean American, but I can't think of one, and the British certainly didn't (unless my memory is fading in my frail dotage)....

[nate25]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Course it's true. If materials that could deliver 100,000 trucks to the parking lot of the vehicle factory are consumed getting 930 to the end-user (probably close if you include all the fuel/transport/escorts/their fuel and losses etc) then the useful supply ratio is about 1%.

To the recipient 930 are received, out of 1000 expected, but the sender needs a far higher effort to get those vehicles delivered. One lost ship is hundreds/thousands of 'trucks', and a ship carrying trucks can't be used for anything else till it is back after the round trip, and needs fuel/crew/escort etc..

What were the merchant loss rates on the North Cape convoys? Escorts? We lost at least one Carrier up there. How many ships were lost to U-Boats.
Not saying there was any alternative, or that it was a bad choice... just that 1 truck costs a damn sight more than in peace time, or the cost of building that 1 truck.

(Mind you the trucks were useful, the 'tanks' we sent, plus assorted small-arms ~ less so though the quality did improve towards the end of the war - things that were useful also included AA guns, radios, radar and similar 'tech').

Warspite1

Looks like we shall agree to disagree. I cannot understand the point, or even if it made sense to me, how you would even attempt to calculate a loss/delivered rate, factoring in not only ships/men lost en route, but now you are suggesting escorts AND transports - even if not lost as they are being used for supply to USSR purposes and not for something else [X(]

BTW what carrier did "we" lose?? I assume you mean American, but I can't think of one, and the British certainly didn't (unless my memory is fading in my frail dotage)....

That's why I wondered if he had a formula to take it out of the $1.3 B allotted. [&:]

[Lieste]

I was (mistakenly) thinking of Glorious, which was Norway (right area, wrong purpose and year).

However we did have two carrier casualties from the Russian Convoys - Dasher (lost during working up in UK immediately after repairs) & Nabob (damaged and laid up - scrapped).

Also other losses in NA convoy escort.

It might not be easily quantifiable, but the opportunity cost of any operation is an important - no ...vital consideration.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: nate25

Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year. [:)]

An airplane made of wood? I never knew such a thing existed. [X(]

[nate25]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

ORIGINAL: nate25

Ah, the S.A.I. 207. All wood construction, fast, well armed . . . if only Italy would've had one more year. [:)]

An airplane made of wood? I never knew such a thing existed. [X(]

There was quite a lot of it during the World Wars. Initially most aircraft were wood and fabric, later it became a matter of saving strategic materials. [:)]

The Mosquito, for example, was mostly wood. Good aircraft, too.