So how much equipment did the soviet union lease from the allies during World War 2

So how much equipment did the soviet union lease from the allies during World War 2
Thank you if you answer my question
sorry for the somewhat cringy image I used

Other urls found in this thread:

warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf
scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease
cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll8/id/2421
ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html
mega.nz/#!4oswxJhY!mxZLMTVwyvi5drI12p00oroxZxriFOYsEsPiNXaGQRY
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518049408430160
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518049808430330
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518040802697536
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518046.2016.1168128
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=D9F60D07FA3050AE32B11BBEB8633D25
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=AE0493CB2BC8D58C31B21545087F5EDC
o5m6.de/redarmy/ll_routes.php
kscnet.ru/ivs/bibl/paperno/for_65_engl.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The Soviets produced most of their own artillery and tanks. The most important thing the allies gave them was trucks and raw materials like aluminum which the Soviets had a big shortage of. The war would have taken a couple more years or a nuke on Berlin without lend lease. I think I could dig up a source if your interested.

Thank you for your answer user
I would be very interested in that source if you can find it

Not the other user, but if you're interested on the subject, I would recommend the following.

warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf

And

scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease

If by equipment you mean ground materiel and shit, main focus were stuff like jeeps and trucks that Commies would use in their offensives later on, also sent a nice amount of planes.
If you want the autistically massive size of statistics on lendlease then you can check out this document collected by the Chief of Military history that provides you statistics on what exactly, and in what quantity were supplies sent to the Allies by the U.S
cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll8/id/2421

>ywn nuke Berlin in August '44 and save pregnant Anne Frank

thank you for this information anons

ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html

Good to see my Mark Harrison recommendation has been going strong for a while now. I'd say we should also add the perspective of a Russian historian, Sokolov as well.
For some reason sci-hub is fucking down so I have to upload the PDF on mega.nz
mega.nz/#!4oswxJhY!mxZLMTVwyvi5drI12p00oroxZxriFOYsEsPiNXaGQRY

sci-hub is never down, user
sci-hub.la

Hm, cheers. I tried sci-hub.cc; .bz and .io, none worked.
anyways if you don't wanna download, here's the URL version:
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518049408430160

You need to be careful of statistics on this subject. It is easy to find records of what left the U.S.A., but harder to find what made it to the U.S.S.R. Many cargo ships ended up on the bottom of the Atlantic where they did the Russians no good. Many Lend-Lease ships that diverted to England after sustaining non-critical hits from torpedoes, bombs, mines, etc. had substantial cargo damage from concussion, fire, smoke, water etc. Also, part of England's agreement to facilitate U.S.-U.S.S.R. lend -lease shipments through English ports gave the English the right to 'inspect' & 'requisition' any of these cargoes they wanted.

the question is at what point did the lease agreement begin? FOB New York or COD Archangel?

I'd say what makes lendlease stupidly hard to actually analyse is the raw material consumption. We don't exactly know how many lendlease raw materials they used (or perhaps we do know, so far haven't found much), so reading on the impact becomes very tricky. I could be wrong, though.

>but harder to find what made it to the U.S.S.R.
Dude, noticing what shipping actually made it through is wiki-tier knowledge. The single biggest artery of Lend-Lease, the one to Vladivostok, neither went through British territory nor was it accosted by German efforts. Pic related

How much money did the US make off the USSR?
If you don't mind answering my question that is

And if those goods got there, how long they would stay in storage waiting for a train, how long it would take for them to reach manufacturing centers in the Urals/central Russia from Arkhangelsk, Persia, Vladivostok, etc.
It could have very well taken half a year before those resources were processed into final goods.

It's more that Soviet production figures are crazy and complicated even when they're not being dishonest, which they usually are. It's all well and good to say that British Lend-Lease delivered the Soviets about 5,800 tanks, but what does that mean in the context of a larger war effort? And that's just for frontline equipment, trying to gauge the effectiveness of something like trucks, or machine tools is harder still, because now you not only have to figure out the effects of something like that on the front line combat, but you have to do a bunch of calculations (or guesses) based on what the Soviets would do without Lend-Lease; it's not like they didn't know how to make trucks, for instance, but they knew that if the Americans were providing them they could focus on other things. How many fewer other motor vehicles would they have produced if they wanted to produce more trucks domestically? How do you measure what is essentially alternate history like that, especially when so much of the data you'd use to come up with whatever tentative answers is probably a load of bullshit anyway.

The single most common type of aircraft was the Bell Aira Cobra, a plane rejected by the USAAF and the RAF as unfit for combat. The USAAF 81st. Fighter Squadron, detached to the RAF used them in Africa, where their loss ratio against German piloted ME's ran as high as 7 -to-1. I believe this was the only American unit to use Cobras in combat, and the plane was thoroughly condemned by its pilots.

The plane's cockpit seat required the pilot to sit in a L position, with the legs straight out. Very uncomfortable for a flight of any length, and made it impossible to use to piss tube.

I mean, overall, it was a net loss, the U.S. sent a lot more to the Soviets than the Soviets sent back. If you mean in terms of how much did the Soviets send back to the Americans overall, I'm sure it's in the WW2 LL statistics link, but I don't know offhand and to be honest, I'm too lazy to go through it line by line to look it up.

It was also, ironically, a better plane for the Soviets than it was for the Anglo-Allies. THe Airacobra was shit at high altitudes. THat's bad when you have a fighter force dominated by high altitude planes, as it can't keep up with the rest of your air force and it can't escort your high flying bombers. It also means that if you have a bunch of higher flying spitfieres and lightnings and thunderbolts and whatever, the low flying airacobras get bounced on as they're derping around on their own.

The Soviets, who did not emphasize high altitude flying, had the opposite problem when it came to higher altitude craft that the Brits and Americans sent them. Sending up a few Hurricaines or Spitfires or Thunderbolts on their own just meant that they got chewed up at local 6:1 odds against while the rest of the VVS was helpless to do anything about it.

Note that your chart says "Shipped to..." not 'Arrived at...'. And yes, even those convoys meant for Archangel did not have a scheduled stop in English territory, which is why I included info about damaged ships, that would have had to stop for repairs before entering the North Sea.

No, it says

Route Shippped Arrived Lost.

See that one, kind of in the middle "Arrived"? That is the information you were claiming it did not have? You'll also note that overall, it hit 97%?


>And yes, even those convoys meant for Archangel did not have a scheduled stop in English territory, which is why I included info about damaged ships, that would have had to stop for repairs before entering the North Sea.
Learn. To. Read.

>The single biggest artery of Lend-Lease, the one to Vladivostok, neither went through British territory nor was it accosted by German efforts

Vladivostok is not Archangelsk. They are separated by some 5,700 miles. If they were damaged, they were far closer to American bases than anything the British empire controlled. Your ''point'' is completely irrelevant.

Yeah looking at stuff like trucks is sort of a given, but measuring the impact on shit like machinery and food? Fuck now that's gonna be tricky, here are some excerpts from a book I'm reading on lendlease:
>Perhaps the most important categories are those that are unfortunately the most difficult to evaluate, either chronologically or qualitatively. These are raw materials, machinery, and agricultural products. Soviet agricultural production made a very slow recovery, hitting bottom in 1943, when many other sectors of the economy were already recovering. The soviet government showed no inclination to reduce food imports. The same was true of industrial supplies, although its interest in some items may have been stimulated by postwar interests rather than wartime exigencies
And you're basically left in limbo going "If lendlease did not move food imports, how would this have affected USSR production?" and who fucking knows at this point? Maybe it would've affected the crumbling labour force, make the USSR prioritise military equipment less? Endless speculation begins, but I'd say this is what ultimately makes lendlease an interesting thing to look at.
If you're interested, the book is "Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945" by Hubert P. Van Tuyll

>Book sounds cool, I should get into reading more and why not start with military books and journals?
>Check book price on Amazon: £60
>Check book price on eBay: £110

Yeah, uh, no.
Any place I can go to read it fully digitally? I don't really want to spend a lot of money on a single book.

The safety of the ships depended greatly on the year - from "Soviet Planning in Peace and War, 1938-1945" by Mark Harrison, p. 258:
>in 1942 no less than 27 per cent of the tonnage shipped was lost to enemy action, but
in 1943 only 1 per cent.
There was a not insignificant amount of sinking going on when the Soviet Union needed the supplies the most.

Yeah it's stupidly fucking expensive, idk why. There doesn't seem to be a digital copy and libgen doesn't have it either. I'd say start with 2 publications already posted in the thread, they provide different perspectives and are fairly short
warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/lendlease.pdf
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518049408430160
Here's another excerpt from the book

Sweet, nice, I'll take a look at that.

On the topic of books, since I want to get into reading military journals and books and what-not, are there any reccomendations you could give me? In particular anything with avation, I love planes.

And since I go to Uni now, after I come back after my break I could take a look through my Library's massive book collection, they might have this book and others somewhere.

Having fun isnt hard when you have a library card nigger

First off, Harrison is only talking about the Archangelsk-Murmansk route, which was not the only or even the primary route of Lend-Lease. Secondly, pic related. Thirdly, Lend-Lease shipments were most necessary in 1943, when the Soviets started shifting from the defensive to the offensive. It is also when the shipments got enormously larger.

scribd.com/document/270450475/United-States-Army-in-World-War-II-Statistics-LendLease (page 15), you'll note that the shipments made in the second half of 1943 are larger than all shipments in 1941 and 1942.

>are there any reccomendations you could give me? In particular anything with avation, I love planes.
Well babby-tier would be Osprey publishing. Regards to aviation, I have the role of lendlease aircraft in the Soviet Union:
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518049808430330
The P-40 in Soviet aviation
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518040802697536
Personal favourite, qualities of the USSR military 1941-45 (I'd say pay attention to the comments on the IL-2 pilots)
sci-hub.la/10.1080/13518046.2016.1168128

Aside from USSR there's the U.S flying tigers
The History of Soviet Aircraft from 1918
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=D9F60D07FA3050AE32B11BBEB8633D25

I mainly read on Soviet aviation, so can't say much aside from that. Go with Journal of Slavic Military Studies if you want commie shit mainly.

Ah fuck forgot to add US flying tigers
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=AE0493CB2BC8D58C31B21545087F5EDC
It's an e-pub but you should be able to open it.

>First off, Harrison is only talking about the Archangelsk-Murmansk route, which was not the only or even the primary route of Lend-Lease
There is no mention of that route. Even if he was somehow talking only about Archangelsk-Murmansk, Northern Russia was actually in fact the primary route during 1942, processing 38.7% of supplies.
o5m6.de/redarmy/ll_routes.php
>Secondly, pic related.
I'm not that guy you first responded to.
>Thirdly, Lend-Lease shipments were most necessary in 1943, when the Soviets started shifting from the defensive to the offensive. It is also when the shipments got enormously larger.
We'll have to disagree here then because even if the Soviets received much less in 1942 they needed everything they could get in that year considering it was the lowest point for production across the board, the lack of Western Allied military presence on the continent, and the continuing relative strength of the Wehrmacht.

> Lend-Lease shipments were most necessary in 1943, when the Soviets started shifting from the defensive to the offensive.
Not him but I'd like to add Van Tuyll also makes this statement here: I didn't take a pic but he basically concludes that lendlease primarily (and heavily I'd say) helped the USSR when it came to offensives it began commencing, had it not been for lendlease Tuyll explains how the USSR would have had much less influence over the eastern European nations more likely and perhaps Germany.

This. What passed through via the Northern route was miniscule compared to the others, and those passed unmolested. The freighters carrying cargo to Vladivostok were built by the US, crewed by US merchantmen sailors, loaded with US equipment and passed through Japanese waters unmolested.

The US used the P-39 in the Pacific, as its inline engine was suitable for low altitude work.

Actually, all the ships in the Pacific route were under the Soviet flag and were manned by Soviet sailors since the Japanese were bound by treaty not to attack the Soviets. They did use many American-built ships though.
kscnet.ru/ivs/bibl/paperno/for_65_engl.htm

That's pretty clever not gonna lie

Yes, they were flagged Soviet, but as mentioned, they were US built, US crewed and US loaded.

Not either of you, but I'm pretty sure they always included one soviet sailor to aid in the pretense that they were Soviet ships.

The number of such US crewed vessels operating on this run was 150 as I recall, all sailing under the Japanese nose. Quite remarkable.

US built and loaded, yes, but the crews were Soviet.
>As a matter of fact the Pacific shipping was carried out only by vessels under Soviet flag with Soviet crews.

Yeah, no, the crews of those US built ships were US merchantmen, lad.

Well I gave you a source, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

bump

It's better to bump a thread with a question or something, rather than a simple "bump" desu.

Nice pics related to the topic are good too imo

Didn't the Soviets then try to deny they'd received any lend lease after?