[Gothmog]

Frankly the Russian Army was never very impressive. They pretty much just had enough men left after being horribly slaughtered to counter-attack.

-This is true for early war Army...I wouldn´t like to be in the way of Red Army in late 1943 onwards, would you???

Which was made possible by the increase in transportation provided by the Allies. Otherwise the Soviets would be parked in Moscow waiting for the war to end.

-Not completely wrong, but an obvious exaggeration. While transportation helped the Soviets to advance, withouth Lend Lease they could have simply adjusted their production towards more transportation and less tanks. As they produced 5 times more tanks than the Germans in WWII it wouldn´t have made too much difference for the final result, althought it could have slowed somewhat their advance.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

-Not completely wrong, but an obvious exaggeration. While transportation helped the Soviets to advance, withouth Lend Lease they could have simply adjusted their production towards more transportation and less tanks. As they produced 5 times more tanks than the Germans in WWII it wouldn´t have made too much difference for the final result, althought it could have slowed somewhat their advance.

I will say this once more...and it has been said before but BobSally refuses to even respond to it...through 1943...99.7% of trucks used by the Red Army were of Soviet production. Period...Moscow was won with no Lend-Lease. Stalingrad was won with no Lend-Lease. Kursk was won with no Lend-Lease. But of course...without the LendLease whcih came from 1944...the Soviets could never have defeated Nazi Germany in 1941/42 and 43.

And yes...that is what he means. If you go to the discussion we were having about Lend-lease...he was talking about how the ENTIRE Soviet navy was the creation of the US.

Ignorance is not an excuse...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I have to say one of the best generals of all time was GEORGI ZHUKOV!! How did everyone seem to forget him. Once Stalin let the reins loose os Zhukov he drove the nazis back to Berlin and then some!

And no stalin wasnt a good military commander lol.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Regarding Montgomery:

His success in North Africa was purely because he was reading German enigma codes.

He had no flair or flamboyance, and the only successes he had was when the enemy was greatly outnumbered. His attempt to capture the key bridges over the River Rhine was disastrous and resulted in unnecessary loss of life.

He was arrogant and obsessed with his own glory. He got just about everyone he worked with offside, and was partly responsible for a dangerous rift between UK and UK forces.

As for the greatest general, I immediately think of general Giap, who defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu, and then went on to help defeat the Americans.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

through 1943...99.7%

And when they started to push back through German occupied territory?

What then? Would you say the advance was made possible by Soviet know how and equipment? Not the DEFENSE, the ADVANCE?

English is my second language, and I admit I may not make my points clearly, but I thought I got that one across.

And I repeat, Soviet shipwork wasn't particularly impressive in the second world war. They got their start copying better designs of others. They only started to innovate later.

And you can try to change history, but the facts are that goods came before 1944 and that the Soviets came VERY close to losing. You can look back at history and say with certainity that they would have won anyway.

The basic fact is that we can't know.

I simply don't feel the generally poor soviet strategy could have dealt with ANY loss.

You can continue to glorify them. They were no better than the old line infantry in most respects. Stupid plodding advances that work out of sheer numbers.

But keep going with your basic stuttering response of the same five words.

What are they? Something like "Ignorance" "stupid" "redneck" "14" and "neocon".

Get a dictionary.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

And when they started to push back through German occupied territory?

What then? Would you say the advance was made possible by Soviet know how and equipment? Not the defence, the ADVANCE?

As was pointed out...by that point...they outnumbered the Germans 10 to 1 in tanks and planes...by that point it was over. If they needed more trucks...they could produce more by decreasing production of tanks...which wouldn't have made a difference anyway becsue they still outnumbered the German industry 10 to 1. And even after 1943...it was still around 10-15%.

And I repeat, Soviet shipwork wasn't particularly impressive in the second world war. They got their start copying better designs of others. They only started to innovate later.

First of all...what do you know about Soviet ships in WW2?? I'd be surprised if you could name one ship class the Soviets had in WW2. And second...yes they did copy and buy designs from other countries...but where does AMERICA come into play in this?? NOT A SINGLE design or piece of technology was bought from America. If anything...they used mostly Italian designs and technology...And you somehow came up with the statement "Soviet navy was American made"...Where did America come into it??

And you can try to change history, but the facts are that goods came before 1944 and that the Soviets came VERY close to losing.

Soviets were close to losing...and yes goods did come before 1944. When did I say otherwise?? But before 1944...VERY LITTLE came...and even that little the Soviets were taking out of service already by 1942 becasue they were more of a danger to their own crews than the Germans.

I simply don't feel the generally poor soviet strategy could have dealt with ANY loss.

Seriouslly...when did you become such an expert on Soviet strategy. yesterday you were telling me those three British subs send to the USSR were US made...and today you are a WW2 expert. Strange that...

Stupid plodding advances that work out of sheer numbers.

I wouldn't say they were the stupid ones here...

But keep going with your basic stuttering response of the same five words.

What are they? Something like "Ignorance" "stupid" "redneck" "14" and "neocon".

Get a dictionary.

Its 13 thank you very much...

[Piano Red]

As for the greatest general, I immediately think of general Giap, who defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu, and then went on to help defeat the Americans.

Do you really think the Tet Offensive was a military victory?

First of all...what do you know about Soviet ships in WW2?? I'd be surprised if you could name one ship class the Soviets had in WW2. And second...yes they did copy and buy designs from other countries...but where does AMERICA come into play in this?? NOT A SINGLE design or piece of technology was bought from America. If anything...they used mostly Italian designs and technology...And you somehow came up with the statement "Soviet navy was American made"...Where did America come into it??

Why do you always forget to remember that it was the U.S. that supplied Russia with the bulk of equipment and supplies it needed to win the war? Name one other country in the world at that time that had the logistical capability to transport and supply the Soviets with things they needed i mass to wage the war. The U.S. sent the Soviets tanks, artillery pieces, bombs, fuel, jeeps, aircraft, food, etc.

To even try to deny this is foolhardy and an example of classic ignorance TS. The Soviet Union's infrastructure had been painfully decimated in the early days of the war and it was only by 1943 during Stalingrad that the Soviets were able to get their factories back up to speed.

seriouslly...when did you become such an expert on Soviet strategy. yesterday you were telling me those three British subs send to the USSR were US made...and today you are a WW2 expert. Strange that...

He's right you know, it's well documented that the Soviet's held as much regard for their soldiers as a person with a stuffy nose has for a tissue, expendable in the highest regard. Do even know about some of the things the NKVD did during the war? Or the execution of hgh ranking officers that Stalin ordered shortly before the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa?

I wouldn't say they were the stupid ones here...

You don't call mass human wave attacks against mechanized infantry and machine guns emplacements stupid? With the exception of Zhukov's most Soviet tactics used during WWII weren't that different from those used in WWI.

[Person]

Frankly the Russian Army was never very impressive.

Sure, we only beat everyone that ever invaded our country over a 700 year period.

I guess that can't possibly measure up to winning a revolution with the help of the French, beating up Mexico with a conveniently mobilized army after the Civil War, and waiting until the Europeans are exhausted and joining both world wars a year before they ended.

Why do you always forget to remember that it was the U.S. that supplied Russia with the bulk of equipment and supplies it needed to win the war? Name one other country in the world at that time that had the logistical capability to transport and supply the Soviets with things they needed i mass to wage the war. The U.S. sent the Soviets tanks, artillery pieces, bombs, fuel, jeeps, aircraft, food, etc.

"the bulk of equipment and supplies it needed to win the war"?
Please, even the History Channel (a huge piece of propaganda when it comes to the 20th century and wars the US was involved in) admits that the USSR manufactured tens of thousands of T-34's - we didn't need your Shermans.
Some things came, but they came late in the war. In 1941-42, the attack on Moscow was stopped, and in 1943-44 the other two major German fronts (Leningrad and Stalingrad) were crumbling. That 'essential american equipment' might have gotten to the USSR, but we were already well on our way to Berlin when that happened.

The Soviet army and people won WWII, not American equipment or any other force.

[Gothmog]

Do you really think the Tet Offensive was a military victory?

-It was a military defeat but a POLITICAL victory. The ability to integrate politics and military strategy is an integral part of military doctrine since Sun Tzu....and yes, the NVA won the war, what weren´t all those American doing hang on helicopters in 1975???

Why do you always forget to remember that it was the U.S. that supplied Russia with the bulk of equipment and supplies it needed to win the war?

-Not the bulky, but around 10-15% of tanks and planes, and impressive amounts of strategic materials, like aluminium and high octane fuel, plus transport. Of course this helped to win the war, or at least to win the war faster. Much higher was the contribution of USSR to allied efforts, as 70% of German losses happened in the Eastern Front. The western allies would never be able to disembark in Freanch if the bulky of German Army were there. And more, the bombing campaign against German would have been a failure if so many German resources weren´t being spent in the Eastern Front.

Name one other country in the world at that time that had the logistical capability to transport and supply the Soviets with things they needed i mass to wage the war. The U.S. sent the Soviets tanks, artillery pieces, bombs, fuel, jeeps, aircraft, food, etc.

-No one is denying this, the question is to what extent the war would have been won withouth Lend Leasing. IMO, the war would have probably been won anyway, but more more time would have been needed. Another reasonable POV is that the result would have been a stalemate. No one consider seriously that Germany would have been able to WIN withouth Lend lease. And TS is right in the sense that at least a significant share of equipment was substandard. More than 50% of P-39´s produced were exported to USSR (a plane that was a clear failure in the Pacific and was rejected by the UK THREE DAYS AFTER ENTERING ACTIVE DUTY)

To even try to deny this is foolhardy and an example of classic ignorance TS. The Soviet Union's infrastructure had been painfully decimated in the early days of the war and it was only by 1943 during Stalingrad that the Soviets were able to get their factories back up to speed.

-Yes, but central planning allowed the USSR to keep higher productions levels than the Germans since the very day the war started until 1945.

He's right you know, it's well documented that the Soviet's held as much regard for their soldiers as a person with a stuffy nose has for a tissue, expendable in the highest regard.

-It was probably this "low regard for human life" that saved the country. Enlighted, democratic, deeply humanist "Western democracies" which are so morally superior didn´t last 30 days under the full power of the German military machine (of course, UK and USA never suffered a NAZI invasion, but I wonder how the USA public opinion would react to 1 million military losses....). Just look what the French did.

You don't call mass human wave attacks against mechanized infantry and machine guns emplacements stupid? With the exception of Zhukov's most Soviet tactics used during WWII weren't that different from those used in WWI.

-Yes, the Soviet military doctrine was obsolete in early 1940´s, as the USA one was (or do you think seriously the USA would have achieved good results vs. Germans in 1941?), but it improved a lot as war went on.

[Gothmog]

Here is economic data on relative role of Lend Lease. Lend Lease value is estimated to have accounted for 5% of USSR expenses in USSR in WWII

http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_ ... ar_II.html
The United States spent the most money on the war, an estimated $341 billion, including $50 billion of Lend-Lease supplies which were distributed as follows: Britain $31 billion; USSR $11 billion; China $5 billion; and all others $3 billion. The expenditure of other belligerents (in US dollars) was as follows: Germany $272 billion; USSR $192 billion; Britain $120 billion; Italy $94 billion; and Japan $56 billion. Except for the United States and some of the less militarily active Allies, the money spent does not come close to the war's true costs. The former Soviet government calculated that the USSR lost 30 per cent of its national wealth, while Nazi exactions and looting in the Soviet Union and other occupied countries are incalculable. The full cost to Japan has been estimated at US$562 billion.

[Tex]

...More than 50% of P-39´s produced were exported to USSR (a plane that was a clear failure in the Pacific and was rejected by the UK THREE DAYS AFTER ENTERING ACTIVE DUTY)

I agree, for the most part, with your general statements, but I wanted to comment on the P-39.

The P-39 was really a developmental aircraft, that, although it stood no chance in a "dogfight" with the very good Axis fighters, was an excellent aircraft in its own right. Chuck Yeager, who flew nearly every high performance aircraft ever built in his time, stated that the P-39 was his favorite, although he certainly would not have preferred it for aerial combat.

The P-39 was a failure in the Pacific, mainly because Japan's Zero, flown by well trained pilots, could easily outperform it, and because the battles in the Pacific war did not really lend themselves to tank warfare."

However, the P-39, if protected from fighters, was an excellent aircraft for ground attack in the "set-piece" battles that took place in Eastern Europe.

With one 37mm cannon, four .50-caliber machine guns (two in nose, two under wing), 500 lbs of bombs, it was an ideal "tank killer." The P-39 was the first instance where the aircraft was actually built around a gun, much like the A-10 Thunderbolt (usually referred to as the Warthog) used by the US today as a ground attack aircraft.

As far as Britain rejecting it, they also rejected the P-51 Mustang in its original configuration, but found that when fitted with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, it was one of the most versatile combat aircraft of its time.

[Gothmog]

...More than 50% of P-39´s produced were exported to USSR (a plane that was a clear failure in the Pacific and was rejected by the UK THREE DAYS AFTER ENTERING ACTIVE DUTY)

I agree, for the most part, with your general statements, but I wanted to comment on the P-39.

The P-39 was really a developmental aircraft, that, although it stood no chance in a "dogfight" with the very good Axis fighters, was an excellent aircraft in its own right. Chuck Yeager, who flew nearly every high performance aircraft ever built in his time, stated that the P-39 was his favorite, although he certainly would not have preferred it for aerial combat.

The P-39 was a failure in the Pacific, mainly because Japan's Zero, flown by well trained pilots, could easily outperform it, and because the battles in the Pacific war did not really lend themselves to tank warfare."

However, the P-39, if protected from fighters, was an excellent aircraft for ground attack in the "set-piece" battles that took place in Eastern Europe.

With one 37mm cannon, four .50-caliber machine guns (two in nose, two under wing), 500 lbs of bombs, it was an ideal "tank killer." The P-39 was the first instance where the aircraft was actually built around a gun, much like the A-10 Thunderbolt (usually referred to as the Warthog) used by the US today as a ground attack aircraft.

As far as Britain rejecting it, they also rejected the P-51 Mustang in its original configuration, but found that when fitted with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, it was one of the most versatile combat aircraft of its time.

-Yes, the P-39 worked well as fighter bomber, but...it was not intended to be exported to USSR as a ground attack plane. It was exported because it was obsolete, and the USA had no need for them. The USSR already had excellent antitank aircraft, like the Il-2. And some of the export versions of the P-39 were equiped with 20mm gun, nor the 37mm one.
The USA didn´t export their best aircraft to USSR, except the P-47.

[Gothmog]

Here is data from Lend Lease to USSR. As you can see, the USA (and UK) provided the USSR with 20% of their fighters and 5% of bombers, however, most fighters were obsolete or rejected by the USAF (like the P-63). Only 1st line fighter in significant numbers were the Spitifire (but again it depends on the versions that were supplied). On the other hand, only 4% of tanks were of western origin.




http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/lendlse.htm

October 1941 to June 1942

aircraft 1285

tanks 2249

machine-guns 81287

explosives 59455620 pounds

trucks 36825

field telephones 56445

telephone wire 600000 km


1942 and 1943

aircraft 3052

tanks 4084

vehicles 520000


Fighter Aircraft

P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)

P-40 2397

P-47 195

P-63 2397 (21 lost in transfer)

Hurricane 2952

Spitfire 1331

Total: 14982 (own production: 74740)
Bomber and Attack Aircraft

A-20 2908

B-25 862

B-24 1

Hampden 23

Al bemarle 14

Mosquito 1


Total: 3809 (own production: 65008)

According to Ukranian source: Andrew Gregorovich
The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminium, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.

[Tex]

...As you can see, the USA (and UK) provided the USSR with 20% of their fighters and 5% of bombers, however, most fighters were obsolete or rejected by the USAF (like the P-63). Only 1st line fighter in significant numbers were the Spitifire (but again it depends on the versions that were supplied). On the other hand, only 4% of tanks were of western origin...

The role of the P-39 was downplayed for decades by Soviet historians, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, many accounts have come from some of the top Soviet pilots that indicate its value was much greater than originally believed. The Q-model was even considered by many of the pilots who flew them to be the equal of the German ME109 and FW-190, at low altitude (below 10,000 feet), where the lack of a turbo-supercharger on the P-39 was not a factor. (Link) For this reason they were extremely valuable in protecting the Il-2, which, without air cover support rarely survived German fighter attacks for extended periods.

While it is true that the P-39 was considered obsolete as a fighter by the Americans, who had already switched to production of newer models for future combat, the P-39 was well-suited at the time for the more immediate requirements of the Soviet Union.

It is legitimate to say that the Soviet Union suffered the most in WWII, and that the great battles they won against the best of the German forces were essential to defeating Germany, but statistics alone cannot prove that they would have prevailed in the early years of the war without immediate assistance, at a crucial time, from the Lend-Lease program.

Also, the fact that the Luftwaffe was heavily engaged in defending Germany’s war industry from round-the-clock bombing by Britain and the US, became a major factor in limiting their ground support capabilities against the Soviet Union.

There are many misconceptions on both sides of the argument about who contributed the most, and naturally, each side believes their contribution was great, but I tend to believe that without a major effort by all the Allies, Nazi Germany might well have survived for many more years. No one can be sure what combination of factors would have coalesced to become the single deciding factor in their defeat...or survival.

[Stygian]

The USSR certainly played a vital role in defeating Germany; although one would have to wonder if they played a leading role, or were just an effective brick wall for the Germans to bash thier heads against.

If you look at the resources the Germans used up, the man power, the planning - one can imagine them being far harder to beat if operation barbarossa never went into effect (and assuming the USSR didnt betray Germany - unlikely).

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Here is data from Lend Lease to USSR. As you can see, the USA (and UK) provided the USSR with 20% of their fighters and 5% of bombers, however, most fighters were obsolete or rejected by the USAF (like the P-63). Only 1st line fighter in significant numbers were the Spitifire (but again it depends on the versions that were supplied). On the other hand, only 4% of tanks were of western origin.

Wow wow wow...now don't go jumping to such ridiculous conclusions. First fo all it didn't represent anywhere near 20% of the Soviet fighter force...it represented compared to wartime production but not also including pre-war production. And second...most of these aircraft were withdrawn from service after only a few months of service becasue they were totally useless. The Hurricanes for example were found to be very poorly armed and very poor performance and were quickly withdrawn from service. Most of the aircraft send were used for training purposes or were relgated to reserve units. VERY FEW saw service in any actual combat unit. And large numbers were never even assigned any units but are still sitting in their boxes somewhere in Russia becasue they jus didn't need to open them.

And secondly...the VAST majority came after 1943..when there was no need for such sub-standrad equipment anymore. Soviets found them hard to put into any sort of frontline service because their engines ran on different fuel and there was always the problem of spares.

As for tanks...those don't even come into play. They were extremely sub-standard equipment. Except for the M4 Sherman which started coming by the end of the war...all the other tanks the Soviets considered as useless. The Sherman they though as being worth something...but then again this startedcoming only by the end and was still sub-standard compared to their T-34.

The role of the P-39 was downplayed for decades by Soviet historians, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, many accounts have come from some of the top Soviet pilots that indicate its value was much greater than originally believed. The Q-model was even considered by many of the pilots who flew them to be the equal of the German ME109 and FW-190, at low altitude (below 10,000 feet), where the lack of a turbo-supercharger on the P-39 was not a factor. (Link) For this reason they were extremely valuable in protecting the Il-2, which, without air cover support rarely survived German fighter attacks for extended periods.

You seem to think this plane played a major role simply because there were a few aces on it and it served a few missions. It didn't...There were duzens and duzens of aces on each type of aircraft the Soviets had starting from the crappiest. There were FAR better figther aircraft providing escorts to Il-2s...such as Yak-9Ts which were also armed with a 37mm cannon in the nose. Simply put P-39s were a rarity...most coming by 1943.

but statistics alone cannot prove that they would have prevailed in the early years of the war without immediate assistance, at a crucial time, from the Lend-Lease program.

In the early years of the war...Lend-Lease was almost non-existant. So your argument makes no sense...and is what I have been trying to say. Most of the aid came in 44-45...

The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.

Absolutely not true. Out of 664,400 trucks by May 1 1945... 218,100 were of western origin, or approximatly 19%... 60,600 were of captured Axis origin, or 4%...and the rest...58.1% were of Soviet origin. And this was such at the end of the war becasue that is when Lend-Lease started coming in any quantities. Until 1943 the percentage of trucks in the Red Army was 99.7% Soviet made.

[Gothmog]

The role of the P-39 was downplayed for decades by Soviet historians, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, many accounts have come from some of the top Soviet pilots that indicate its value was much greater than originally believed. The Q-model was even considered by many of the pilots who flew them to be the equal of the German ME109 and FW-190, at low altitude (below 10,000 feet), where the lack of a turbo-supercharger on the P-39 was not a factor.

-Well, you are right in the sense that a plane obsolete in certain circumstances can be valuable in others. Still remains the fact that the best USA fighters were nor sent to the USA. No P-38, P-51 or Corsairs and only a few P-47´s. On the other hand, P-39´s were mainly used as fighters and not FB´s, as I thought. For this role, I would say that Yak-9, Yak-3, La-5 and La-7 were better fighters, and P-47´s and Corsairs were prbably even better (of course, the Corsair was a naval fighter, but it usually operated from land bases). I have my doubts if the P-39 could compete with the Fw-190 at low altitude, since the baest performance of Fw-190 was at low altitudes and this plane was 50km/h faster and more maneuverable than the P-39.

It is legitimate to say that the Soviet Union suffered the most in WWII, and that the great battles they won against the best of the German forces were essential to defeating Germany, but statistics alone cannot prove that they would have prevailed in the early years of the war without immediate assistance, at a crucial time, from the Lend-Lease program.

-Agree, what I´m trying to do is to quantify the impact of Lend Lease. We will never now what would have happened withouth Lend Lease. I´ve already wrote in this forum that the most probable outcome still would be a (slower) Soviet victory, but I wouldn´t discard the possibility of a stalemate.

Also, the fact that the Luftwaffe was heavily engaged in defending Germany’s war industry from round-the-clock bombing by Britain and the US, became a major factor in limiting their ground support capabilities against the Soviet Union.

-Right, but the war in Eastern Front also prevented the Germans from developing an almost inpenetrable air defense. Don´t remember that losses of heavy bombers in 1943 were horrible (and night bombing remained a very dangerous task until 1945). Wonder if the resources used in East Front were put to produce more Fw-190´s and Ju-88´s...

There are many misconceptions on both sides of the argument about who contributed the most, and naturally, each side believes their contribution was great, but I tend to believe that without a major effort by all the Allies, Nazi Germany might well have survived for many more years.

-Not only agree but also believe that a stalemate would be the most probable result if either USSR or USA remained neutral.

No one can be sure what combination of factors would have coalesced to become the single deciding factor in their defeat...or survival.

-Agree again

[Gothmog]

Wow wow wow...now don't go jumping to such ridiculous conclusions. First fo all it didn't represent anywhere near 20% of the Soviet fighter force...it represented compared to wartime production but not also including pre-war production. And second...most of these aircraft were withdrawn from service after only a few months of service becasue they were totally useless. The Hurricanes for example were found to be very poorly armed and very poor performance and were quickly withdrawn from service. Most of the aircraft send were used for training purposes or were relgated to reserve units. VERY FEW saw service in any actual combat unit. And large numbers were never even assigned any units but are still sitting in their boxes somewhere in Russia becasue they jus didn't need to open them.
Absolutely not true. Out of 664,400 trucks by May 1 1945... 218,100 were of western origin, or approximatly 19%... 60,600 were of captured Axis origin, or 4%...and the rest...58.1% were of Soviet origin. And this was such at the end of the war becasue that is when Lend-Lease started coming in any quantities. Until 1943 the percentage of trucks in the Red Army was 99.7% Soviet made.

-Hi, TS, could you document your point with some links? I´m not specialist in history of the Red Army, so I would like to see what sources you have. It seems we have here a major disgreement on transport statistics.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

-Hi, TS, could you document your point with some links? I´m not specialist in history of the Red Army, so I would like to see what sources you have. It seems we have here a major disgreement on transport statistics.

The numbers on trucks come from V.F. Vorsin, "Journal of Slavic Military
Studies", Sept. 1994.

I don't know where you got your 427,000 figure from...but its not right. That number is even greater than the total number of every transport vehicle sent to the USSR...

Just a correction...by May 1 1945...the precetnages stood at 58.1% Soviet, 32.8% western and 9.1% captured Axis. I gave the wrong percentages the first time...but the numbers were the same, 385,700 Soviet, 218,100 western and 60,600 captured.

They did make up a large number by the very end of the war...but as I said thats becasue thats when the majority of trucks started coming to the USSR...44 and 45.

[MB.]

Need I bother to mention that Zhukov is the only General in the history of military warfare who never lost a battle...

(and DON'T go giving me that Operation Mars crap either!)

However, he is the not the greatest- there are two men more worthy of that title: Marshal Vatutin and Field Marshal von Manstein (the two greatest commanders who faced each other in the greatest battle of all time at Kursk). Trully stuff of legends. Nothing else even comes close.