Page 1 of 1
Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:31 pm
by sven6345789
Hi, there is a thread further down showing the whole map (beautiful sight , btw).
Murmansk and Baku are not part of it
Do you get a fixed amount of supply/Lendlease?
Are there special rules planned?
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:25 pm
by Helpless
Baku is on map. Murmansk is not. So far the lend lease is static.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:31 pm
by PyleDriver
Just in case your wondering, what Pavel means by static is you recieve it as the Soviet player, however you have no control over it...
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:54 pm
by sven6345789
thanks for the answer!
in the unlikely event of the finnish cutting the rail line to Murmansk, will Lend-Lease stop?
regarding the Finnish. Are they limited in their movement? After all, the finnish were mostly interested in recapturing their territory.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:12 pm
by Helpless
in the unlikely event of the finnish cutting the rail line to Murmansk, will Lend-Lease stop?
no
Are they limited in their movement?
yes
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:14 pm
by paullus99
If, for whatever reason, the allies hadn't been able to ship to Murmansk - they would have just upped the amount of LL coming in through the Pacific & Middle East.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:41 pm
by HMSWarspite
I am fairly sure that more came that way than through Murmansk/Archangel at least...
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:47 am
by Balou
Lend Lease shipments from June 20, 1941 thru September 20, 1945:
North Russia & Soviet Far East (Wladiwostok) 8,696.000 tons
Persian Gulf 4,160.000 tons
Soviet Arctis (Murmansk etc) 3,964.000 tons
Black Sea 681.000 tons
Got those figures from some Lend Lease web page (can't remember which one), but there was a beautiful map with all these figures. This one I kept.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:34 am
by Helpless
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:56 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Balou
Lend Lease shipments from June 20, 1941 thru September 20, 1945:
North Russia & Soviet Far East (Wladiwostok) 8,696.000 tons
Persian Gulf 4,160.000 tons
Soviet Arctis (Murmansk etc) 3,964.000 tons
Black Sea 681.000 tons
Got those figures from some Lend Lease web page (can't remember which one), but there was a beautiful map with all these figures. This one I kept.
Warspite1
Source: Sacrifice for Stalin
Author states that by the end of the war approx 25% came via the Arctic, 25% via Middle East and 50% via Vladivostok.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:48 pm
by ComradeP
Those convoys in the Pacific were sailing right next to Japan, makes you wonder how they got through.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:27 pm
by Balou
The North Pacific route .... consisted of two parts. The sea route extended from U.S. West Coast ports, such as Seattle, through Alaskan ports to Vladivostok.
Ships on the western part of this route were under Soviet flag and were treated as neutral vessels by Japan, which was anxious not to disturb its non-aggression pact with Russia.
From: The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia © 2007, 2009 by Kent G. Budge.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/e/Lend-Lease.htm
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:08 pm
by ComradeP
I thought that would be the most likely explanation, I assumed the Soviets didn't have enough ships in the Pacific to ensure regular deliveries, but non-Soviet ships operating as "Soviet" ships by waving the Soviet flag around also makes sense.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:27 pm
by Balou
Could have given some headache to the Japanese had they known what was on those ships.
RE: Murmansk and Baku
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:13 pm
by paullus99
They probably did - but didn't want to take the chance of annoying the Russians (especially after it was clear the Germans weren't going to just roll over them).