Kursk WW2: Why Russia is still fighting world's biggest tank battle

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The bananas from Guatemala and the guano from Peru also saved US's a**es then. Fair enough [:D]

So you are saying the supplies that Stalin demanded the Allies send were useless and he did that just for kicks? This is a common line seen in Soviet circles. While it is true the Germans were defeated mostly in the Soviet space it is equally true it could not have been accomplished without the aid of the Soviet allies.

And it isn't just trucks. The raw and refined materials sent to the Soviets were critical to winning. If the Allies did not send aluminum to the Soviets where would it have come from? Soviet mines. Soviet smelters. Soviet mills. And who would run these mines and smelters and mills? The people freed up from those labors were on the front lines fighting the Germans or were in factories building tanks, artillery and aircraft. And that same Allies aluminum was used to build those Soviet aircraft. While you can pretend it made no difference and continue with lies and propaganda the facts still remain. Not to mention the Allies aviation fuel sent to fuel those aircraft allowed them greater range, less maintenance and less fuel usage because it was of a superior grade.

Food, leather goods, chemicals, wood, metals, atomic materials, oils, resins, fuels, lubricants, machines, tools, parts the list goes on and on for pages. If all of this were not sent to the Soviets then the Soviets would have had to use people who were doing other things to make it or not have it at all. So do the typical Soviet thing and deny. But even a fool can see the difference the Allies made in the East Front. https://archive.org/stream/1942LendLeas ... 9_djvu.txt

This is just a very small partial list:

ITEM Quantity Cost in Dollars


Thorium salts and compounds 25,352 $ 32,570 Brass & bronze blanks 32,760,542 lbs. $ 6,270,740.
Uranium nitrate 500 lbs. --- Brass & bronze plates & sheets 536,632,390 lbs. 99,376,514.
Uranium nitrate (U02) 220 lbs. --- Brass & bronze pipes & tubes l6,642,267 lbs. 5,126,324.
Uranium oxide 500 lbs. --- Copper alloys 660 lbs. 396.
Uranium, urano-uranic oxide (U308) 200 lbs. --- Insulated copper wire, n.e.s. 399,556,720 lbs. 97,637,534.
Copper maaufactures, n.e.s. --- 278,336.
METALS & METAL MANUFACTURES Copper rods 2,875,916 lbs. 553,042.
Aluminum & alloys, ingots, slabs, etc. 366,73S,204 lbs. 53,884,473. Copper wire, bare 28,235,738 lbs. 5,261,483.
Aluminum rods & bars 13,744,709 lbs. 3,285,014. Copper wire, rubber-covered 16,521,612 lbs. 3,965,050.
Aluminum plates, sheets, strips 124,052,618 lbs. 45,408,111. Copper wire, weather-proof 4,848,312 lbs. 1,261,789.
Aluminum foil 409,556 lbs. 205,231. Copper munitions, excl. rotat. bands 1,598,723 lbs. 2,102,024.
Aluminum kitchen, hospital utensils 310 lbs. 1,428. Copper refined ingots, bars, etc. 75,663,895 lbs. 9,041,122.
Aluminum powders & paste 219,736 lbs. 91,915. Copper pipes & tubes 38,913,403 lbs. 22,728,592.
Aluminum contr. valves 980 lbs. 10,122. Copper plates & sheets 26,432,417 lbs. 5,642,774.
Aluminum manufactures, n.e.s. --- 308,542. Nickel-chrome electric resistance wire 1,603,104 lbs. 2,121,121.
Brass &c bronze ingots 10,214,064 lbs. 1,283,755. Nickel ore, conc. & matts l55,604 lbs. 116,571.
Brass & bronze bars, rods, etc. 66,329,462 lbs. 12,502,080. Nickel alloys & scrap 1,944,796 lbs. 812,3ll.
Brass & bronze pipe fittings 14,097 lbs. 30,931. Nickel ingots, bars, rods, etc. 15,669,441 lbs. 6,560,7l9.
Brass & bronze valves, 4-in. & over 204,288 lbs. 189,623. Nickel manufactures, n.e.s. --- 2,216,294.
Brass goods, plumbers 8,598 lbs. 5,828. Tin & tin mfrs, tin foil 82,583 lbs. 44,353.
Brass or bronze wire l6,139,702 lbs. 3,734,169. Tin ingots, pigs, bars, etc. 30,620 lbs. 16,079.
Brass wood scrcws l,2l8 gross 453. Tin manufactures, n.e.s. --- 2.
Brass or bronze hardware --- 13,465. Lead foil and tin foil 26,880 lbs. 15,546.
Brass & bronze die stocks, etc. 8,739 lbs. 9,180. Lead, pigs & bars 801,234 lbs. l,913,769.
Brass & bronze munitions 21,824,376 lbs. 4,253,987. Lead sheets & pipes ?4,555 lbs, 6,720.
Brass & bronze window strips 65,924 lbs. 28,567. Lead, solder 378 Ibs. 76.
Brass & bronze, forgings 218 lbs. 249. Lead, cable 1,681,081 lbs. 314,308.
Brass & bronze circles 933,110 lbs. 194,447. Lead, plate or battery plate 1,122 lbs. 475.
Brass & bronze manufactures, n.e.s. --- 233,843. Lead, shot l8l,506 lbs. 17,646.

Lead, castings, circles, etc. 124,645 lbs. $ 40,569.
Lead manufactures, n.e.s. --- 105,421. Automotive wrenches & parts --- 25,736.
Carbonyl iron powder 27,050 lbs. 42,436. Wrenches & parts, excl. automotive --- 163,179.
Ferrochrome 7,820,3l3 lbs. 1,285,175. Drills, etc., metal cutting, power-driven 7,822,2l6 8,863,820.
Ferromolybdenum 5,357,500 lbs. 3,210,590. Drills, etc., excl. power-driven --- 9,062,215.
Ferrovanadium 1,074,190 lbs. 2,034,830. Hand-operated taps, etc., metal-working
Ferrophosphorus l9,229 lbs. 710. machines 593,278 1,091,423.
Ferrosilicon 16,187,318 lbs. 941,985. Hand-operated taps, etc., excL metal-
working machines --- 4,224,303.
Ferrotungsten 3,027,188 lbs. 4,715,335. Hand-operattd dies, etc., metal-work-
Ferro alloys, n.e.s. 88,900 lbs. 137,695.
Babbitt metal 604,569 lbs. 265,179. ing machines 35,538 32,346.
Quicksilver or mercury 10,590 lbs. 28,736. Hand-operated dies, etc., excl. metal-
Tungsten metal, etc. & alloy 279,449 lbs. 4,268,890. working machines --- 258,766.
Cerite or cerium ore 2,651 lbs. 8,978. Hand-operated metalcutting tools, n.e.s. --- 786,914.
Zirconium ore & concentrate 220 lbs. 2,420. Pliers, pincers, nippers, etc. 3,463 doz. 33,700.
Cesium metals & alloys 30,299 lbs. 78,61l. Drill pries, bit braces, etc. --- 217,288.
Chromium metal alloy scrap 23,924 lbs. 6,992. Planes, chisels & other cutting tools --- 121,833.
Manganese metal & alloys 359,006 lbs. ?9,259. Gauges for precision measure 38,348 1,562,938.
Molybdenum ore & concentrates 20,145,302 lbs. 10,841,501. Mechanic' hand tools, n.e.s. --- 5,272,573.
Magnesium metal primary form 17,798,206 lbs. 3,640,716. Tools with industrial diamonds 15 11l.
Molybdenum metal alloys, acrap 913,480 lbs. 466,602. Tool grinders, emery wheel dressers 15,650 lbs. 85,106.
Tantalum metal & alloys 6,513 lbs. 136,665. Hand tools & parts, n.e.a, --- 4,211,507.
Zirconium metal and alloy 193,450 lbs. 94,654. Padlock' of iron, steel, brass & bronze 146 521.
Magnesium powder 66 lbs. 75. Door locke of iron, steel, brass
Magnesium metal, n.e.s. 983,467 lbs. 208,475. bronze 5 doz. 55.
Molybdenum wire 396,527 lbs. 1,030,833. Wire bale ties 2,196,796 lbs. 103,900.
Ferromanganese 6,600 lbs. 1,272. Welding rods & wire, excl. electric 8,088,498 lbs. 1,487,802.
Vanadium ore & concentrate 5,395 lbs. 33,835. Wire on spools or coils, not cards 2,710,624 lbs. 270,830.
Metals & metal manufactures, n.e.s. --- 2,727,754. Wire, twisted 1,585

warspite1

How about 4.5 billion tons of foodstuffs that helped areas of the Soviet Union to avoid famine in the winter of 1942.

A total 17.5bn tons of goods (not incl. food) was sent by the Allies incl. 430,000 trucks. It is easy to say the Germans could advance without them so why not the Soviets? but that ignores the slowness of the advance and the reliance on horses. Where were the Soviets going to get that man horses in 1942 onwards?..... Does anyone seriously think the Soviets were getting to Berlin before the Allies without this assistance?

So those that limit Allied involvement in the Soviet victory are as misguided as those who downplay the Soviet sacrifice. It's all political nonsense. It's just a shame it's so difficult to get a balanced view.

End of the day, according to no lesser source than Kruschev, Stalin himself admitted that the Soviets could not have won the war without Allied aid.

Take the Soviets out of the equation however, and the Western Allies are going to have a hard time defeating the Wehrmacht.

As much as some may not want to admit it (for whatever political or other purpose), the US, the Commonwealth and the Soviets needed each other.

[TulliusDetritus]

I never said autarky works. What I said is Anglo-saxon operations had nothing to do with the failure of German grand plan during Kursk. The diversion was irrelevant. They were stopped. Period.

I'm afraid the VAST German advances without trucks are an objective fact [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

What I said is Anglo-saxon operations had nothing to do with the failure of German grand plan during Kursk. The diversion was irrelevant. They were stopped. Period.

I'm afraid the VAST German advances without trucks are an objective fact [:D]

warspite1

Well I for one agree wholeheartedly. To suggest that that without the invasion of Sicily (and the withdrawal of German forces in the east) the Germans would have broken through during Citadel is, from what I've read, fanciful.

Equally there is no denial on what the Germans achieved (and their ultimate failure) with 600,000 horses (plus replacements). What there is doubt on is whether at that stage of the war (1943) the Soviets could find - let alone feed - a similar number of healthy horses to do their heavily lifting. BUT even if that were possible - then the Soviets weren't getting to Berlin by April 1945 using horse power.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I never said autarky works. What I said is Anglo-saxon operations had nothing to do with the failure of German grand plan during Kursk. The diversion was irrelevant. They were stopped. Period.

I'm afraid the VAST German advances without trucks are an objective fact [:D]

The Germans did have trucks; just not enough to motorize every division. You can see their motor pool in WitE. That's an 'objective' fact.

Lend Lease made it possible to stop the Germans at Kursk. The men + material they had at Kursk were a direct result of Lend Lease.

[TulliusDetritus]

During Barbarossa (they made it to Moscow, Leningrad and Rostov aka impressive advance) the mass of the Wehrmacht aka the infantry marched, just like their WW1 forefathers and legions of horses were the only known "truck". It's the only fact I know [8D]

The "lack" of horses in the USSR is funny. The land of the horse (Eurasian steppes) with dozens of cavalry divisions [:D]

In fact, one of the biggest WW2 myths is the one that thinks the Wehrmacht was motorised. Not even close.

In other words, to emulate the Wehrmacht the Red Army only needed trucks for their [five] tank armies. And horses for the infantry. I'm not saying it would work like a charm. I'm saying the Germans got quite far with that.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

During Barbarossa (they made it to Moscow, Leningrad and Rostov aka impressive advance) the mass of the Wehrmacht aka the infantry marched, just like their WW1 forefathers and legions of horses were the only known "truck". It's the only fact I know [8D]

The "lack" of horses in the USSR is funny. The land of the horse (Eurasian steppes) with dozens of cavalry divisions [:D]

In fact, one of the biggest WW2 myths is the one that thinks the Wehrmacht was motorised. Not even close.

In other words, to emulate the Wehrmacht the Red Army only needed trucks for their [five] tank armies. And horses for the infantry. I'm not saying it would work like a charm. I'm saying the Germans got quite far with that.

warspite1

Yes they made those advances against an unprepared enemy who had a leader that decimated the officer corps, had them defending territory too far forward (and nicely prone to surrounding in Poland) and a leader that refused to believe the Germans were attacking initially. No wonder the Germans advanced so quickly in the summer months.....

The story was then different in the autumn, winter and spring. The advances of Blau were because the Soviets retreated. The Soviets coming back at the Germans was a different proposition and the need to supply the much more mechanised Soviet armies was greater still.

Not sure why the lack of horses is funny. I have no data on this but if you believe supplying adequate horses with the required feed was possible then fine. I doubt it but I can't say definitively but that's a lot of manpower to allow those horses to function and I can say that even with those horses (if they existed) the Soviets would not be advancing anywhere close to the speed they did thanks to lend-lease.

Why are you bringing up the myth of German motorisation?? Everyone on this forum should know the truth about that....why is that a thing you are raising here?

[Zorch]

German infantry did have some trucks - you can see this in WitE. It was judicious use of this organic transport, plus horses, that facilitated the hard marching footsloggers 'impressive advances' in 1941. This organic transport got stripped from the infantry later in the war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

German infantry did have some trucks - you can see this in WitE. It was judicious use of this organic transport, plus horses, that facilitated the hard marching footsloggers 'impressive advances' in 1941. This organic transport got stripped from the infantry later in the war.

warspite1

That's strange... I thought the German Army was entirely mechanised [:D]

[RangerJoe]

The British Army was motorized at the beginning of World War II because of the excessive fodder shiped to France in World War I and the amount of shipping used. It was cheaper and more efficient to motorize the British Army.

The Heer infantry marched to catch up to the mechanized and motorized forces that were the spearhead of the German advance. Those were the formations that used the horses, the spearhead did not. The infantry caught up in time to defend itself against the Soviet fall/winter offensives.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In fact, one of the biggest WW2 myths is the one that thinks the Wehrmacht was motorised. Not even close.

And much of the equipment the Germans used in 1941 was war loot. Especially the trucks. What a quartermasters nightmare.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Zorch
Lend Lease made it possible to stop the Germans at Kursk. The men + material they had at Kursk were a direct result of Lend Lease.

And the likes of Guatemala and Peru made D-Day possible too eh [:D]

Now do count the convoys that brought the inputs the US industry or agriculture needed to elaborate the finished products: manufactures, clothes, food etc.

You wanna play? We'll play!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Zorch
Lend Lease made it possible to stop the Germans at Kursk. The men + material they had at Kursk were a direct result of Lend Lease.

And the likes of Guatemala and Peru made D-Day possible too eh [:D]

Now do count the convoys that brought the inputs the US industry or agriculture needed to elaborate the finished products: manufactures, clothes, food etc.

You wanna play? We'll play!

warspite1

Why are you bringing in Guatemala and Peru? Do you not see the difference between the USSR (and the CW) and the USA here? I mean really?

What the US imported from other countries on normal commercial terms as part of its import/export requirements is different to lend/lease and the provision of food and war material to Allies to keep them from losing to Nazi Germany.

Are you suggesting that Guatemala and Peru provided lend-lease type terms to allow the US to be able to afford to pay for the imports from those countries? No, of course not, so I don't know why you keep referencing them.

[TulliusDetritus]

"Commercial" [:D]

Churchill was certainly foaming at the mouth when the US ordered them to send a destroyer filled with *gold* to South Africa [:D]

An hilarious part of his memoirs...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

"Commercial" [:D]

Churchill was certainly foaming at the mouth when the US ordered them to send a destroyer filled with *gold* to South Africa [:D]

An hilarious part of his memoirs...

warspite1

So rather than answer the point raised you ignore it and bring up some other totally irrelevant 'point' about.... well I've no idea if its relevant because its just cryptic gibberish.

Perhaps before moving onto South African bound gold laden destroyers, you could take the trouble to answer the point about why you brought up Guatemala and Peru in the context of lend-lease?

[RangerJoe]

Not just the war loot but the German High command did not even settle for one type of truck to be made by the German industry unlike the US where many companies made the 2 and a 1/2 ton truck to the same specifications.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not just the war loot but the German High command did not even settle for one type of truck to be made by the German industry unlike the US where many companies made the 2 and a 1/2 ton truck to the same specifications.

warspite1

This was a problem with German industry generally. So much production was wasted on experimental prototypes and different production types instead of churning out volume.

[TulliusDetritus]

It's the well known third reich utter chaos.

Meanwhile, the US and the USSR had understood a standard product was easier to produce en masse: Liberty ships, T-34s...

[TulliusDetritus]

You make me laugh with your coldwaresque ridiculous western propaganda.

For all I care, Soviet "the help was only the 4% of the total, almost irrelevant" or Western "we saved their a**es" are a crock of sh*t. I have no time for this and other sophistries.

I cited an example that should make you think. The truck theory does NOT describe what happened in '41. And the theories that cannot describe the real world tend to be weak... But carry on with your cold war narratives [:D]

[RangerJoe]

I guess that the Western Allies should have left the Soviets on their own. Secure the Med and then concentrate on Japan. Think of how the Germans would have liked that.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

You make me laugh with your coldwaresque ridiculous western propaganda.

For all I care, Soviet "the help was only the 4% of the total, almost irrelevant" or Western "we saved their a**es" are a crock of sh*t. I have no time for this and other sophistries.

I cited an example that should make you think. The truck theory does NOT describe what happened in '41. And the theories that cannot describe the real world tend to be weak... But carry on with your cold war narratives [:D]

warspite1

Your latest response is to yourself but you refer to 'your' and so as we've been exchanging posts and no one else has directly been answering your posts this morning (Ranger Joe's post 95 was not in anyway referring to the Soviets), your post is clearly in response to my last response to you. Very annoying debating style (and I know exactly why you've done it) but par for the course I'm afraid.

Firstly you state "You make me laugh with your coldwaresque ridiculous western propaganda".

As usual, if you are going to comment critically upon someone's posts please have the good grace, the common courtesy, to actually read what they've said. Two comments made by me as recently as post 81 - in addition to what I've said in the past in support of the sacrifice of the Soviet people:

So those that limit Allied involvement in the Soviet victory are as misguided as those who downplay the Soviet sacrifice. It's all political nonsense. It's just a shame it's so difficult to get a balanced view.

As much as some may not want to admit it (for whatever political or other purpose), the US, the Commonwealth and the Soviets needed each other.

Two posts later I said

Well I for one agree wholeheartedly. To suggest that that without the invasion of Sicily (and the withdrawal of German forces in the east) the Germans would have broken through during Citadel is, from what I've read, fanciful.

So you think what I've written there is simply spouting Cold War bias???? [8|][8|]

You brought in Guatemala and Peru - and the vacuousness of that comment was called out. You knew that to be the case so simply didn't respond - but posted some nonsense about gold-laden destroyers to try and hide your embarrassment and deflect from your mistake.

That you simply refuse to believe the Western Allied help was crucial simply confirms your status as a poster child for those incapable of wanting to understand what happened in WWII. Stalin himself said they couldn't have won without Allied aid - but of course you will simply say Kruschev made that up. Well the testimony of Kruschev is a lot more believable than your distorted version of events.

So I'm still waiting, no more deflecting.... Explain the Guatemala/Peru/USA situation and how it is the same as USSR/USA.