Matrix Games Forums

I found out that more than 3,000 men and over 100 ships were lost at sea in the convoy system to the Russia. Were the convoys necessary is my question?

Some circles would say yes. If nothing else, the Lend-Lease convoys gave Russia thousands of US-built trucks, which were better built and more reliable than what the Russians could make. All these trucks not only allowed the Russians to focus more on tanks, but it also alleviated some of their logistical problems. Keep in mind that Operation Bagration (and similar offensives) generally petered out because of the Red Army reaching the limits of their supply lines.

A lot of people say that the Soviets won the war, that the debacle in the West was rather unnecessary because the Germans were always going to eventually lose to the Soviet Steamroller. If we delve into and grant the historical implausibility that the Western Allies never intervened in Europe, that may well be true, but it would also have taken much longer to reach Berlin if Lend-Lease had never happened.

Interesting reading if you have time

http://www.war-experience.org/history/k ... rticle.pdf

http://www.rquirk.com/cdnradar/cor/chapter5.pdf

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Product ... -Lease.htm

The Red Army used extensive quantities of Lend-Lease tanks and other armoured vehicles from the USA, Great Britain and Canada. A total of 22,800 armoured vehicles were supplied to the Red Army during the war, of which 1,981 were lost at sea on the dangerous Arctic convoys. In total, Lend Lease armoured vehicles amounted to about 20 per cent of the total number of armoured vehicles manufactured by Russia in WW2. These shipments were the equivalent of 16 per cent of Soviet tank production, 12 per cent of self-propelled gun production, and all of Soviet armoured troop transporter production, because the Soviet Union did not produce armoured troop carriers during the war.

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

Interesting reading if you have time

http://www.war-experience.org/history/k ... rticle.pdf

http://www.rquirk.com/cdnradar/cor/chapter5.pdf

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Product ... -Lease.htm

The Red Army used extensive quantities of Lend-Lease tanks and other armoured vehicles from the USA, Great Britain and Canada. A total of 22,800 armoured vehicles were supplied to the Red Army during the war, of which 1,981 were lost at sea on the dangerous Arctic convoys. In total, Lend Lease armoured vehicles amounted to about 20 per cent of the total number of armoured vehicles manufactured by Russia in WW2. These shipments were the equivalent of 16 per cent of Soviet tank production, 12 per cent of self-propelled gun production, and all of Soviet armoured troop transporter production, because the Soviet Union did not produce armoured troop carriers during the war.

Yes, but virtually all of that came by way of Iran with the balance (especially a/c) coming via Vladavostok and the "Air Bridge" via Nome.

The Murmansk convoys may have been necessary as political gestures but they were relatively ineffective as providers of any of this war material.

ORIGINAL: pompack



Yes, but virtually all of that came by way of Iran with the balance (especially a/c) coming via Vladavostok and the "Air Bridge" via Nome.

The Murmansk convoys may have been necessary as political gestures but they were relatively ineffective as providers of any of this war material.

Hmmm? My sources have that differently but no worries pompack. [;)]

edit:

to clarify with apologies, The lend lease in 41 and 42 thru the northern ports played a key role. By the end of 42 the soviets had re-tooled and had straightened out the supply lines and rail system . As the German armies withdrew from the passes of the Caucasus and receded westward round the Black Sea, the task of supplying Russia through the Persian Corridor increased in intensity.

Good reads if your interested.....

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... r01.htm#b1

http://www.o5m6.de/northern.html


------------------
Through the Murmansk Run, the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots. American boots made a difference on the Eastern Front, especially during the harsh winters.

http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html



This supply route was absolutely vital to the Russians if they were
to hold out against the Nazi offensive. Without the Allied ships
that made the voyage with products from the American war arsenal,
the Russians may well not have beaten back the German invasion.

The only other deep water route to Russia terminated in the Persian
Gulf ports, but the rail lines and roads that ran from the Gulf to
the interior of Russia would, because of their length and their
limited capacity, have been unable to carry the vast amount of
munitions and food needed by the Russians. All other supply routes
were under German control. Ships had to make the Murmansk run to
keep Russia in the war.

http://www.armed-guard.com/ag79.html

ORIGINAL: pipewrench




Hmmm? My sources have that differently but no worries pompack. [;)]

edit:

to clarify with apologies, The lend lease in 41 and 42 thru the northern ports played a key role. By the end of 42 the soviets had re-tooled and had straightened out the supply lines and rail system . As the German armies withdrew from the passes of the Caucasus and receded westward round the Black Sea, the task of supplying Russia through the Persian Corridor increased in intensity.

Ah yes, the trouble with figures.[:)] As usual I cannot find the right tables, but from memory my data is just a tad misleading [:D]. Going from memory, over 75% of the total tonnage was delivered TO the Persian Gulf and Far East ports. The misleading part of my data is 1) the vast majority of this was in late 43 through 45 and 2) it was as onloaded at the dock and not what finally made it to Russia. The Persian data included an unstated amount was on the dock or in storage in Iran when Lend-Lease was terminated that was never delivered and did not account for what was apparently an enourmous amount of pilferage and wastage on the trip from the docks to Russia proper.

P.S. my "Green Books" got lost in a move some decades ago and never replaced; thanks to your link I am downloading replacements now [&o]

P.P.S and in your reference, I found the chart that I was mis-remembering [:D] see attachment

The bulk of the material was 43-44, not 44-45 as I originally stated.

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Some circles would say yes. If nothing else, the Lend-Lease convoys gave Russia thousands of US-built trucks, which were better built and more reliable than what the Russians could make. All these trucks not only allowed the Russians to focus more on tanks, but it also alleviated some of their logistical problems. Keep in mind that Operation Bagration (and similar offensives) generally petered out because of the Red Army reaching the limits of their supply lines.

A lot of people say that the Soviets won the war, that the debacle in the West was rather unnecessary because the Germans were always going to eventually lose to the Soviet Steamroller. If we delve into and grant the historical implausibility that the Western Allies never intervened in Europe, that may well be true, but it would also have taken much longer to reach Berlin if Lend-Lease had never happened.

Well USA and UK gave Soviet 400 000 vehicles (mostly trucks, jeeps and tractors) total 25 000 air planes and 10 000 tanks and 10 000 artillery. This allowed them to attack a lot more that would have been possible otherwise.

It also allowed Soviet mobilize millions of more men that would not be possible to keep supplied otherwise simply from logistical problems.

post#5 "the Russians may well not have beaten back the German invasion."
Glantz says (somewhere) that without lend-lease it would have taken the Soviets about one year longer to destroy the Nazi empire.

To "save" the Soviets, the help really arrived too late, when the Wehrmacht was already stopped. But especially trucks really helped and probably saved millions of red army soldier's lives by shortening the war.

Also interesting what the soviet tankers thought about the british and american tanks:
http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17- ... -loza.html

ORIGINAL: rotfront

Also interesting what the soviet tankers thought about the british and american tanks:
http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17- ... -loza.html

that is a great read rotfront and thx for the chart ref pompack.

"Fellows, anything could happen in war. Such an occurrence took place west of Yukhnov. Our brigade had reached that location and stopped in a forest. A battle was being fought three kilometers in front of us. The Germans had captured a bridgehead across some stream and had begun to expand it. Our corps command ordered the company of Matildas from our neighboring brigade to counterattack the Germans. The Germans had no tanks; the Matildas managed to liquidate the bridgehead, and the Germans retreated across the stream. Now our Matildas were returning from the fight. A bit earlier, fearing a breakthrough by the Germans, our command had moved up and deployed an antitank artillery battalion. They deployed 300 meters in front of us and were digging in. Our artillerymen did not know that our tanks were here, or that they were foreign vehicles. Therefore, having never seen Matildas, they opened fire on them and destroyed three or four tanks. The remaining tanks quickly turned and sought cover. The battalion commander, an artilleryman, ran over to one of the destroyed tanks, looked inside, and there saw our own soldiers. One of them had a chest full of medals. The artilleryman was beside himself"

The horrors of war are not to be forgotten. These first hand accounts remind me of the stories I heard from my great uncle who served in the RC merchant marine and participated in the Murmansk run in 42. It was a bloody nightmare and an adventure all wrapped into one. At 19 going thru it he did not know any better but it did shape his outlook on life afterwards.

The Murmansk convoys may have been necessary as political gestures but they were relatively ineffective as providers of any of this war material.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say this in a bar in Halifax.

The most important lend lease commodity was not tanks, jeeps, trucks...it was massive bales of high quality eletrical cable wire which was used to establish communications.

Marquo