The Soviets would have lost without American aid

See: >Therefore, in fact, aviation gasoline provided by Lend-Lease was included in Soviet production of aviation gasoline and, hence, made up, together with light fraction gasoline, 51.5 per cent of Soviet production from 1941 to 1945. If we subtract Soviet production of aviation gasoline for the first half of 1941 from the total, having estimated it as one half the yearly production, then the share of Lend Lease deliveries rises to 57.8 per cent.

>Even more noticeable was the role Lend-Lease deliveries had in preserving required numerical levels in the Soviet locomotive and railroad wagon park. The output of mainline locomotives in the USSR changed as follows, in 1940: 914, in 1941: 706, in 1942: 9, in 1943: 43, in 1944: 32, and in 1945: 8. Five main-line diesel locomotives were produced in 1940, and only 1 in 1941, after which production ceased until 1945. Nine mainline electric locomotives were produced in 1940, and 1 in 1941, after which their production also ceased. During the war years, 1,900 locomotives and 66 diesel-electric locomotives were supplied to the USSR through Lend-Lease. Thus, Lend-Lease deliveries exceeded total Soviet production of locomotives from 1941-1945 by 2.4 times and electric locomotives by 11 times.

>Moreover, Lend-Lease provided the USSR with 35,800 radio stations, 5,899 radio receivers, and 348 radars, which satisfied the basic requirements of the Red Army.

it's poorly worded
the soviets wouldn't won as it has in 1945 without Murrican aid
it's going to be a rigorous stalemate between them

>close to nil lend lease in 1941
>1942 receives less then every other year until 1945
>battle of stalingrad is at the end of 1942, major turning point that nearly confirms soviet victory(at least in hindsight)
you are correct, as quoted in large quantities of rail transport, motorised transport and radio equipment are delivered
however, the majority of them come after the decisive battle
not saying that the lend lease is negligible the large quantity of goods suggests quite the opposite, but it is very doubtful that it was the deciding factor of the eastern front
the focus on railway equipment in the post above is even less relevant to the final outcome of the war, as none were sent until post kursk

Are you implying that logistics are not as important as guns?

Stalin disagreed with you, lad.

Not just all of their locomotives, but most of the rolling stock running behind those locomotives as well.

Not to mention, much of the Sov shoes came from the US. Absent the US, the Sovs would have been afoot and barefoot, basically.

"As will be shown below, information about the share of Lend-Lease in Soviet military production is most probably understated owing to the overstatement of the production volume of individual types of weapons and armaments in the USSR."

" The underestimation of the role of Western contributions to Soviet military efforts was designed, first and foremost, to affirm the myth about the 'economic victory of Socialism' in the Great Patriotic War and about the superiority of the Soviet military economy over the military economies of the capitalist countries, not only Germany, but also Great Britain and the United States. Only after 1985 could differing assessments of allied help begin to be found in Soviet publications. "

" Thus, in postwar meetings with the writer K. M. Simonov, Marshal of the Soviet Union G. K. Zhukov declared:
Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American 'Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries.

>the English helped us minimally
>We would have been in a serious condition without American

" Moreover, Zhukov underscored that 'we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany.'3 K. Simonov's truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
It is now said that the Allies never helped us ... However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war ... We had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance.4 "

fatty internet defense force coming out hard itt

>" one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war "

> " the armor supplied by Lend-Lease constitutes around 46.7 per cent of Soviet average monthly production in 1942. That makes American armor a significant factor in covering the possible shortage, especially considering that during the first half of 1942, production was lower than in the second half of the year. "

>the armor supplied by Lend-Lease constitutes around 46.7 per cent of Soviet average monthly production in 1942.

This would be before the Battle of Stalingrad and well before the Battle of Kursk, for all the tankieboo fantasists out there.