one of Germany's issues was that their tanks and other vehicles ran on gas and not deisel. When they overtook a Depot it was a 50/50 chance whether it would be gas or deisel and thus slowed them down.
16 Million Ton of supplies to Soviet Army helped them win the Eastern Front.
- Thread starter TheGLOV
- Start date
If 50 percent of depots were gas and 50 percent diesel, then wouldn’t they have the same issue if they were all diesel? That being the case, I can’t see that having half of your vehicles gas and half diesel would be a viable option.
I do too know who the V.P. of the United States is!!
It's just that PSUKnocker doesn't know that it is him!!!
Agree, but the numbers of ships, planes, tanks etc produced were staggering. Over 300K planes, 50K Shermans, over 5000 capital ships.
Let's not forget the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Then China.
The killing of the Polish officers shocked even the Germans--hard to believe, but it did. It was, of course, used as propaganda by the Nazis.
Many of Soviet soldiers that did get home out of captivity did not survive Stalin. Then again, many of the German soldiers in Soviet captivity after the war didn't get home either (estimates are about a third). For many that did, it took 10 years.
As you note, this was a war of annihilation on both sides.
I’ve watched a lot of history on the Eastern Front in the past six months. I’m more convinced than ever that the US could not have defeated the Soviets in WWII.
The Soviets occupied 70% of Germany’s military might at any given time. Think about what that implies for the US and British push through Western Europe.
By war end, the Soviets were a grisly war machine. They had the manufacturing, logistics, combat expertise and confidence to go where they wanted in Europe.
By sending trucks, locomotives, boots, aluminum, planes, tanks, food, blankets etc, we saved US lives and shortened the war.
Trucks were the most important item, I believe we sent 400,000 trucks. I think we sent something like 12 million pairs of boots. High octane fuel was a winner as well. German engines were superior but their inability to produce high octane fuel evened the game. Stalin even said that they could not have held on in 41 and 42 without the American goods. That was a big step for him to admit.
To an extent, yes. But Russia’s vastness was the biggest factor. Germany needed the speed of mechanized warfare.
Not only was going from Poland to Moscow or the Caucasus 5x as far as from Berlin to Paris, the roads and rail infrastructure was sh!t in Russia.
Once Barbarossa ground to a halt outside of Moscow that first winter, it was over for Germany. They didn’t have the oil or other logistics to sustain the battle of attrition the Eastern Front had become.
Things were tenuous permanently and relying on Hungarian and Italian divisions with even worse supply issues to protect their rear and flank ultimately undid them.
A great battle tactician but a terrible geopolitical strategist.
I just learned that Patton’s son was also a high ranking Army general in his own right.
This is correct, probably what was meant here was "repeatable fabrication within the needed tolerance." (also known as reliability or precision) Too tight a tolerance and you have problems.
Also, (as mentioned by many others in this thread using different reasonings) the Germans had problems getting parts, fuel, and other supplies to their over-extended Eastern Front where their troops were starving and freezing. This is well documented as a major factor in their defeat.
Without American intervention Germany would have decimated Russia, it wouldn’t even have been close. The U.S. gave Britain a staggering 5 billion (1945 dollars) in armament, fuel and food from 1940-1945. For you car racing buffs, during the battle for Britain the U.S. provided British Spitfires and Hurricanes with 105 octane fuel generating north of 60 additional HP, the Germans used 95 octane in their Messerschmitt’s and Focke-Wulf a major disadvantage from a performance perspective. Unbiased WWII historians who delved into the weeds as it relates to WWII would tell you that without any U.S. intervention both Britain and Russia would have surrendered due to a lack of resources and starvation. For the United States the bigger risk was a Germany armed with nuclear weapons. Without America, Britain and Russia pounding Germany’s industry they would have attained several nuclear bombs by 1948, or maybe sooner and with long range bombers and sophisticated rockets this might have been catastrophic.$11 million dollars worth of aid.
Enough food to feed all Soviet soldiers for 1-full year.
Trucks galore which helped them tremendously amongst other things.
That supply route logistically through Iran, engineered by the Allies, was a thing of beauty!
Battle of Kursk be damned.
Let the discussion begin!
Last edited:
Oh hell, Napoleon knew that!
Not sure if Napoleon knew ... but he sure LEARNED the hard way.
Apparently Adolph didn't learn from Napoleon.
Or the Romanian divisions that collapsed at Stalingrad. By then the Romanian government had already determined that they had picked the wrong team and were trying to figure out how to avoid the eventual wrath of Stalin.
Yes, we can’t give the Romanians a free pass in that disaster. One of the cooler Eastern Front dynamics was the Courland Pocket with old Army Group North on the retreat through the Baltic States. Lots of Estonians and Lithuanians fighting each other as their countries came in and out of the control of Russia and Germany.
Our industrial capacity was still expanding at the wars end. it is worth noting no one was dropping bombs on us. The Soviet Union actually moved it’s military industry when the war started to areas east of the Volga. In Stalingrad they were still producing tanks with Germans firing on the factory. They drove the T-34 s out of the factory and started firing. The Russian resolve was pretty impressive
This alone is amazing. How loyal to the country do you expect people who were arrested and imprisoned to be? Would you trust the quality of materials they produced, other than license plates?
In many ways much of eastern Europe is and always has been very tribal. The Bosnian fiasco was the much same. The Caucasus are the same.
As was Patton’s son-in-law, John Waters. 4 star, IIRC.
Can’t disagree with your comments. The Germans and Soviets went at each other for almost 4 full years. No quarter asked or given.
The Germans were fighting on 2 fronts and the Soviets did not. They didn’t act against Japan until after the German surrender.
The US, on the other hand, was fighting on 2 fronts each of which were thousands of miles away. We never had that many front line combat troops, about 2 million in each theatre, I think. The US made a decision that war production was the priority so we kept a lot of guys home instead of getting them in uniform.
Militarily, I don't think the USSR could have beaten the US immediately after WW2. The soviets would have lost all of their lend lease materials. The US had a massive area in Europe with which to land men and materials. The US would have dropped down to one front, which would have allowed them to bring a lot more forces to bear. The US had long range bombers and fighters that would have put Soviet manufacturing and logistics within reach, all while similar US capabilities remained safely out of reach. That's without taking into account the US A bomb capabilities, which were absolutely a realistic option at the time. Also, there are a few intangibles which I think the US would enjoy. The people being oppressed by Stalin would probably side with the US. When the Germans first invaded the Ukraine they had initial support from the population. The Germans squandered it by being ruthless, but US forces aren't typically like that and probably would have enjoyed support, or at the very least indifference.
Similar threads
