Hey, I'm looking for some source on how the lend lease affected the eastern front during WW2.
Like, maybe numbers of tanks sent by the USA as compared to the number of tanks that was had by the Soviets and stuff like that. Basically, I want to get a jist of whether or not land-lease won the war like some Americans today claim.
>numbers of tanks sent by the USA
0
What about the Shermans in the Caucasus battles?
Come on now, shitty tanks still count as tanks.
OK, so, are there any numbers available?
This is a good place to get started, and the internal citations will lead you further down.
www2.warwick.ac.uk
i'm not trying to be an asshole but you can literally google this in like three minutes
complete with somewhat detailed overviews of what, when, where was shipped
just google 'lend lease overview' or 'shipments' or 'by year' or 'vehicles' or whatever suits your fancy
stop meming, about four thousand m4s were sent, and other tanks (incl. american models) by britain too
Not OP, but while it's easy to get listings of what was shipped, like I found pic related after a short search on google ages ago, finding it with a comparative effect to what the Soviets were making on their own is far harder; hell, tracking down Soviet military production in an abstract isn't all that easy.
Sure, I can dig up lists that say that in 1942, the British and Americans sent over 5,510 tanks. Without knowing what models, makes, conditions, logistical support, and above all, what the Soviets were making on their own, that information is of limited use.
whatreallyhappened.com
Can't verify the authenticity of the source, but it seems pretty detailed.
Well, a fuckton of what I found looked like some type of propaganda.
Also, as this guy mentions , I wanted to know the relevance about the outcome of the war, this means especially the battle of Moscow.
I mean, if 4 thousand sherman-like tanks were sent throughout the war that's really not worth anything since Shermans were weaker even than T34 of which the soviets made some 20'000 yearly. But if 400 tanks were stationed around Moscow at the right time while the Soviets only had 800 T34 operational that might be a decisive factor for the war.
If this is true this means the Soviets had to stop the German attack at Moscow without virtually no help whatsoever. The battle of Moscow is won in January of 1942.
This means the Land lease had practically no effect on the outcome.
> I wanted to know the relevance about the outcome of the war, this means especially the battle of Moscow.
You would have to make the case, (and it's far from clear) that the Battle of Moscow was decisive for the Eastern Front as a whole if you want to make that argument.
>since Shermans were weaker
Extremely dubious statement.
>T34 of which the soviets made some 20'000 yearly.
Another dubious statement, owing to the fact that the Soviets didn't make distinctions between operational losses and total write-offs and considered operationally lost and then repaired tanks "rebuilt".
> But if 400 tanks were stationed around Moscow at the right time while the Soviets only had 800 T34 operational that might be a decisive factor for the war.
It also might not be, given that a battle in heavy woods (most of Typhoon) in fair weather turning to terrible weather is far more dominated by infantry and artillery than it is by armor.
Again, why are you equating the victory on the Eastern Front with the Battle of Moscow? Even if you assert (and who knows if this is actually true or not) that the Germans blew their only chance of total victory at Moscow, just because that is no longer on the table doesn't mean that the war is over; there are an enormous number of gradients between
>Germans crush the Soviets and wipe out the Bolshevik leadership and parade through the USSR as total victors
and
>Soviets crush the Germans and wipe out the Nazi leadership and parade through Germany as total victors.
It's almost inconceivable to see Soviet counteroffensives in 1943, especially on the scale that they happened, without Lend-Lease. What does that do to the war, even if the Germans have run out of steam themselves?
Oh, one other thing I should note: That picture I cited in the previous post only mentions U.S. aid to the USSR, which started (officially, anyway) when the U.S. entered the war on December 7th, 1941.
The British had their own separate LL program, which while smaller in scope began earlier, and thus had more of an impact on the very early phase of the Eastern Front. It's also much harder to dig up information on it, I'm afraid.
Well firstly, virtually all military analysts agree that the battle of Moscow proved the Germans don't have what it takes.
Secondly, the later outcome of the war was virtually unaffected since the lend lease was so small in comparison to what the Soviets were actually making. I mean 80'000 T34 v 5'000 Shermans. And Shermans were worse than T34.
So yes, it had no effect on the outcome, however, even when it's clear who will win the fights carry on. The Germans knew they couldn't stop the Russians but they carried on.
And the Americans know they didn't save the world in WW2 but they carry on.
Don't forget the biggest part of Lend Lease were non-military supplies.
Food (canned food, SPAM)
Trucks
Jeeps
Trains
The last three being vitally important for the Soviet supply chains .
Having all their supply transport taken care of their industries could concentrate on churning out T-34s, etc.
The (American) Willys jeep was much beloved and treasured in the Soviet Union.
Working models were lovingly cared for and used all through the Cold War.
You are completely missing the point.
You're reducing all of Lend-Lease to tank shipments, which is idiotic. About half of all lend-lease by value was munitions. Some of it contained products which the Soviets could not easily replace or synthesize on their own, which is difficult to compare on just a dollar amount. A lot of it would allow for the freeing up of Soviet manpower that would otherwise be necessarily spent on production to draft more soldiers.
You're repeating the Soviet production figures as if they were all new tanks built from scratch, which is nonsense.
You're asserting that the Shermans were worse than the T-34 on the basis of nothing. (as an aside, read this amazon.com
But most importantly, you're asserting, again on the basis of nothing, that if the Germans don't win, the Soviets roll into Berlin. Which is absolutely fucking retarded; especially since the primary cause for the failure of Typhoon and the consequent failure to seize Moscow was logistical failure, not tactical or operational failure (except insofar as logistical failure feeds into operational failure) which will necessarily reduce as the lines get pushed further westwards.
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
No, the single biggest part of Lend-Lease, by both weight and dollar value, was ammunition, which is definitely a military supply.
>Trains
not this meme again
the other things were very important but not trains
yes they received... 1500? 1000? 2000? i forgot something thereabouts whatever engines
and only built like 100 themselves during the war
but they also had like 40k engines (not cars, but locomotives) prewar
Remember, British supplies were being delivered at that time.
British tanks were a non-negligible portion of the armored force around Moscow in late 41. Just search for "british tanks battle of moscow" something and you will find a bunch of articles.
But we are relatively small total numbers of vehicles here (I want to say like low hundreds, but I forgot) in a grand operation and a massive campaign aimed towards a nations capital, not a singular decisive, war changing contribution at that very moment.