Author Topic: Rate has doubled? (Read 5565 times)

Toad · « **Reply #120 on:** January 27, 2006, 06:33:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Yeah they pretty much did win the war all by themselves. Your supplies were a drop in the ocean and much of it did sit unused in warehouses. At least until they were sent to the smelters.

[/b]

There you go! THAT's the old EURO SPIRIT!!!

Quote

You digress.

Check and see who brought it up first, Mr. Digressionaire.

Harry · « **Reply #121 on:** January 27, 2006, 06:37:56 PM »

Ah, you fold. Thanks.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #122 on:** January 27, 2006, 06:50:26 PM »

Quote

Yeah they pretty much did win the war all by themselves. Your supplies were a drop in the ocean and much of it did sit unused in warehouses. At least until they were sent to the smelters.

While most of this post shows conflicting views, this is a flagrant lie.

Russia WOULD HAVE LOST had we not been feeding them supplies. And lots of supplies at that.

Harry · « **Reply #123 on:** January 27, 2006, 06:56:57 PM »

I beg to differ. The war would have lasted longer, but I don’t think Germany stood a chance after the defeat at Moscow in 1941. Remember this is only months after Germany attacked Russia. Few if any US supplies had reached Russia at that time.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #124 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:18:16 PM »

Harry, I beg you to pull your head out of your ass.

We had been feeding all allied nations since 1939. It didn't start in 1941.

Russia barely held on. They were a hair's width away from losing the war at stalingrad. Logic (it's a powerful thing) would lead you to assume that had Russia not recieved any supplies, they would have lost.

Harry · « **Reply #125 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:25:52 PM »

Perhaps you should be more concerned about how far up your own head is. Germany attacked Russia on the 22nd of June 1941. Up till that time Russia and Germany had a non-aggression pact. If this is the limit of your knowledge, why do you even bother to post?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #126 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:34:52 PM »

You still haven't countered what I said. You just dodged the topic and insulted me.

I'll be waiting for you to respond to what I wrote.

Harry · « **Reply #127 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:39:07 PM »

Germany never stood a chance at winning Stalingrad. It was a trap designed to draw the 6th army into the city, surround them and starve them into submission. It worked perfectly. The entire 6th army was enveloped and destroyed by far superior Russian forces. It was never a close call, only a time consuming and bloody affair.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #128 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:53:22 PM »

No. Not even close. The german army pushed the russian army so far back that the remnants of the Russian army had their back up against the volga (river, name could be off).

The ONLY WAY russia held on was by literally throwing men and soldiers at the german army. Throughout the months that Germany and Russia fought in stalingrad, russia continuously threw men into the battle with very rudimentary training. There were times and places where the russian lines were no further then 200 yards way from the river banks.

Only after months of fighting, did the russians flank the germans with an entirely seperate army. Had that been the plan, the russians would have done it way earlier and at the cost of many less men.

Had stalingrad been taken, Russia would be all but beat. Only a christmas miracle could save them then.

Harry · « **Reply #129 on:** January 27, 2006, 08:01:58 PM »

I’m not even going to bother lecturing you. Just read up on Operation Uranus.

Good night sir.

Toad · « **Reply #130 on:** January 27, 2006, 08:04:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Ah, you fold. Thanks.

Hardly.

However, it is difficult to discuss this with anyone not cognizant of the size of the US supply effort to Russia.

Quote

The list below is the amount of war material shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program. It is the total amount of matériel from the beginning to September 30, 1945.

Aircraft..................... ........14,795
Tanks........................ .........7,056
Jeeps........................ ........51,503
Trucks....................... .......375,883
Motorcycles.................. ........35,170
Tractors..................... .........8,071
Guns......................... .........8,218
Machine guns........................1 31,633
Explosives................... .......345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives.................. .........1,981
Cargo ships........................ ......90
Submarine hunters...................... .105
Torpedo boats........................ ...197
Ship engines...................... ....7,784
Food supplies..................... 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................8 02,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals.................... .......842,000 tons
Cotton....................... ...106,893,000 tons
Leather...................... ........49,860 tons
Tires........................ .....3,786,000
Army boots.......................1 5,417,000 pairs

Quote

Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance.

Harry · « **Reply #131 on:** January 27, 2006, 08:25:44 PM »

How much of those supplies had reached the Russians by the battle of Moscow, not 6 months after Russia became an “ally”? How much of those supplies had reached Russia by the time of Stalingrad one year into the GPW? Insignificant amounts.

Toad, I’m not going to dig up numbers to match your list, but just for illustration while you gave them 14,795 planes during the war they themselves built 136,314. Tanks? 7,056 / 99,488. A drop in the ocean.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #132 on:** January 27, 2006, 08:55:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Toad, I’m not going to dig up numbers to match your list, but just for illustration while you gave them 14,795 planes during the war they themselves built 136,314. Tanks? 7,056 / 99,488. A drop in the ocean.

So given Toads numbers, 11% of the planes and 7% of the tanks...

If the ocean were the Pacific the drop would have been the size of what... the Australian continent?

Toad · « **Reply #133 on:** January 27, 2006, 08:58:45 PM »

Giving them 10% of their aircraft total build is a drop in the bucket?

Say...how did they build those tanks and planes?

Quote

Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000

Count those decimal places. You think that much machinery might have helped BUILD their tanks and planes? Maybe?

And an army marches on it's stomach and feet:

Quote

Food supplies..................... 4,478,000 tons
Army boots.......................1 5,417,000 pairs

A few random notes:

The lend lease shipments accounted for some 15% of the total Russian tank force in 1941-1942.

Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers and 16% of all fighters and 29% of all naval aircraft.

Lend-leasde supplied 317,000 tons of explosive materials including 22 million shells that was equal to just over half of the total Soviet production of approximately 600,000 tons. Additionally the Lend-lease supplied 103,000 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of TNT. In addition to explosives and ammunition, 991 million miscellaneous shell cartridges were also provided to speed up the manufacturing of ammunition.

10% of all Soviet war material.... "a drop in the ocean".

Thrawn · « **Reply #134 on:** January 27, 2006, 10:00:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
We had been feeding all allied nations since 1939. It didn't start in 1941.

Oh, I wouldn't say all of them.