If the USSR is responsible for the defeat of Germany, why did

Because America was the most important part of WW2 despite the le ebin mems

>>31608785
Fucking yanks wouldn't have accomplished shit without the boys from Britain

File: WWII aircraft losses by front.jpg (83KB, 1023x727px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1023x727px

Seems like a good place to leave pic related.

One thing those heavily influenced by the "USSR WON WWII SOLO" meme tend to forget is just how much of German air, sea and logistics power was tied up, interdicted or destroyed before production in the factory by the Allies. The African, Mediterranean, Italian, and Western Front heavily drained available resources for German force multiplication on the ground in the USSR. Without them, Germany has a far, far better chance at adequate logistical support and air cover on the Ostfront.

>>31608689

Well clearly they allocated their efforts poorly, since they prioritized the wrong enemy

Either that or the Anglo/Americans WERE the actual biggest threat, did the most damage, and while weakened the USSR just zerg-rushed Germany once they had been ass-blasted

>that is if course, provided your claim that the USSR is responsible for the defeat of Germany is true, and not just that they rushed Berlin and then claimed it

>>31608855
>Either that or the Anglo/Americans WERE the actual biggest threat, did the most damage, and while weakened the USSR just zerg-rushed Germany once they had been ass-blasted
It's not either-or. It's AND. Overwhelming pressure from Soviet ground forces to the east, western rolling up of foreign resource pipelines and air/sea power in the west, culminating in a final push across Europe. With only one or the other, the war takes much longer and the outcome is much more in doubt.

>>31608879

I know, there were lots of factors. I just figured it was a bait thread and I wanted to poke a stick.

I've been here too long

What a great crusade by the allies
for the benefit of communism & leftism

File: gdp_1930.png (432KB, 1289x993px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1289x993px

>>31608879
I doubt a Germany/USSR war would be a stalemate. The two countries had about the same sized economies but germany was better at war as was seen by the K/D ratio of equipment compared to the soviets

File: 1474747185650.jpg (94KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x720px

>>31608987
>dat delicious stormfag asshurt

>>31608785
>le ebin memes
The memes are that America singlehandedly won the war, ask any uneducated individual what they think and that's what they will tell you.

The Soviets and the UK are the main reasons Germany lost, the US is what stopped Japan.

>>31608689
>>31608851

Germany's airforce was far less important in the Eastern front mostly because artillery was actually a viable thing. Add to that, a majority of the Soviet Airforce was obliterated in the early part of the war. And the mid to late Soviet airforce was mostly focused on ground support, which is a lot less pressing compared to the raids on the German homeland by the Western Allies.

>Without them, Germany has a far, far better chance at adequate logistical support
Absolutely untrue, Germany's abhorrent logistical system was already cracking before Barbarossa was launched. They literally lost over a third of their supply truck capacity by the beginning of August (41).

>>31609056
>The two countries had about the same sized economies but germany was better at war as was seen by the K/D ratio of equipment compared to the soviets
The logistics capacity of German would be the telling factor, as that was the primary hindrance during the actual war. I do not believe that, given German war production focus, they would have been able to effectively prosecute the war beyond the Urals, no matter what. At that point it's only a matter of time as to when the Soviets come boiling back over the mountains and how weakened German force levels are with pacifying the populations of lands already overrun.

Even if it's one on one with no lend-lease assistance, I don't think Gemany every completely subdues the USSR. Not sure of the reverse, either. I think the eventual line of stagnation would end up somewhere close to the pre-Barbarossa map.

>>31609056
An important thing to note is that the Soviets labeled any incapacitated vehicle as a "causality". Even if the tank needed a simple fix to enter the fight again, it was considered a loss.
This is part of the reason, for example, why Kursk had such seemingly terrible results. That added to the fact that a lot of light and early-war tanks were used (Such as the T-70 and BT tanks).

>>31609079
>The Soviets and the UK are the main reasons Germany lost, the US is what stopped Japan.
How is this not just as ridiculous a meme? Are you really this ignorant of history?

>Germany's airforce was far less important in the Eastern front mostly because artillery was actually a viable thing. Add to that, a majority of the Soviet Airforce was obliterated in the early part of the war. And the mid to late Soviet airforce was mostly focused on ground support, which is a lot less pressing compared to the raids on the German homeland by the Western Allies.
Explain to me exactly how it's a non issue if the Luftwaffe is released from having to protect western and central war production and can actually more than deploy the necessary numbers to ensure air superiority over the Eastern battlespace. Just because it was not that way does not mean it would not be that way without the pressures from Allied air power to the west.

With proper air support, not to mention a free hand for air and rail logistics development, the German fighting unit on the front becomes far more effective overall.

>>31609135
>An important thing to note is that the Soviets labeled any incapacitated vehicle as a "causality".
Conversely the Soviets also had a far lower capability for field maintenance and refurbishment, meaning that a much higher percentage of their vehicles requiring relatively simple repairs to recover from light damage or mechanical casualty were either not returned to the fight or repaired far more slowly than similar allied vehicles.

>>31609079
>The Soviets and the UK are the main reasons Germany lost, the US is what stopped Japan.
This is completely fucking potato. The UK never manages the impact it did, which was very significant, without US convoys, convoy escorts, ASW air assets, CVEs both in the USN and given to the RN, air power and ground combat power in Africa, Sicily, Italy and finally Western Europe. The mid-late war presence of long-range fighter escorts for bomber formations alone justifies the assertion that US contributions mattered. Trying to downplay the significance of US involvement in Africa and Europe is every bit as ridiculous as selling the contributions of the UK or USSR short.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-09 at 04.14.05.png (232KB, 874x770px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 874x770px

>>31609188
The loss of air superiority in the east was a disaster for the Germans. This was because most of the Air force was allocated against US/UK bombers.

>>31609256
Thanks for the confirming source. I was looking around for something succinct to post to this very effect.

>>31609231
I've read somewhere that the UK provided 1/3rd of the war effort in the Western Front.
Which makes sense since it's economy was 1/3rd that of the US at the time >>31609056

>>31609188
>With proper air support, not to mention a free hand for air and rail logistics development, the German fighting unit on the front becomes far more effective overall

You're putting too much emphasis on the logistics industry when we already know that even the motorized logistics sections were terribly inefficient anyway. Dumping more money into poorly designed trucks in unforgiving conditions would've done nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Further, you forgot that the Germans already had dominant air superiority in the Soviet Union until mid '43 anyway. The Soviets would've had a harder time going into Germany in the later half of the war, sure, but to imply they would roll over the Soviets during the early half? Complete ignorance.

>>31609308
Sounds about right, although I would guess their overall combat power contribution to the total war effort 1942-43 to be a good bit more than that. Their contributions to direct naval combat certainly were in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, ditto air power.

I am unfamiliar with how the "loaned" US built CVEs and merchant hulls were paid for or if they were during the war, but if we count British operated CVEs plus DE/DDs and land-based ASW aviation for the convoy runs in addition to the force multiplication possible with the contributions of Bletchley Park then that overall percentage may be even higher.

It's a very hard number to pin down, with many value judgments. I would be more or less comfortable with anything from 33-50% of overall warfighting and logistical capability in Europe/Africa from 1941-1945, and I'm a Burger.

>>31609366
>Further, you forgot that the Germans already had dominant air superiority in the Soviet Union until mid '43 anyway. The Soviets would've had a harder time going into Germany in the later half of the war, sure, but to imply they would roll over the Soviets during the early half? Complete ignorance.
The point is to consider what happens if Germany has no need to build fighters and deploy fighters for the protection of western and central production. What happens if their factory, food and fuel production is unmolested in the west and central areas. What happens if foreign sea lanes are clear of allied interception. What happens if the Soviets DON'T receive the massive AVGAS shipments from the US, or aluminum, or the other aircraft materials, or whole aircraft, or logistics vehicles both rail and truck or ammunition in complete or component form, etc.

No one said the Germans would roll over them. You will note I said here >>31609105
>I do not believe that, given German war production focus, they would have been able to effectively prosecute the war beyond the Urals, no matter what.
and
>Even if it's one on one with no lend-lease assistance, I don't think Gemany every completely subdues the USSR. Not sure of the reverse, either. I think the eventual line of stagnation would end up somewhere close to the pre-Barbarossa map.

Not to mention this >>31608879
>With only one or the other, the war takes much longer and the outcome is much more in doubt.

I was clearly noting that it would be a much more uphill fight for the Soviets when the fight they had was already very difficult, but also noting that the Germans definitely didn't have a clear pass to win either.

The only definite statement one can make on this particular What If? is that the war would have lasted much longer.

>>31608689

Well for starters you can't use U-boats on the ground, you fucking retard.

>>31609366
>You're putting too much emphasis on the logistics industry when we already know that even the motorized logistics sections were terribly inefficient anyway. Dumping more money into poorly designed trucks in unforgiving conditions would've done nothing in the grand scheme of things.
How is this not also a Soviet weakness in the absence of lend-lease and licensed US designs?

>>31609477
>What happens if the Soviets DON'T receive the massive AVGAS shipments from the US, or aluminum, or the other aircraft materials, or whole aircraft, or logistics vehicles both rail and truck or ammunition in complete or component form, etc.
For the interested:
http://www.tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1080/13518049408430160

File: Lend Lease and Zhukov.jpg (268KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1600x900px

>>31609522
Pic related. Great source, reading now. Thanks.

>>31609522
>>31609642
>Imported aviation gasoline and light fraction gasoline were used in the Soviet Union almost exclusively for mixing with Soviet aviation fuel to increase its octane level, since Soviet aircraft were adapted to use gasoline with rather lower octane levels than those in the West. Suffice is to say that more than 97 per cent of imported gasoline had an octane level of 99 or higher, whereas, as we have already seen, even the gasoline B-78 was in huge shortage in the USSR.

>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. It turns out that deliveries of Lend-Lease gasoline made from August 1941 through September 1945 exceeded Soviet production proper by 1.4 times.

Jesus Christ. I didn't realize that. I knew it was high, but I never figured over 30%.

File: image.jpg (394KB, 1807x1384px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1807x1384px

>>31608689
Because they fucked up the soviet air power early in the world and because the Russian navy was a joke until the Cold War

>>31609522
>>31609642
Thanks for that awesome source. I though I was familiar with most of the major source material on this matter, but their analysis using specific product output was amazing. Some highlights:

Automobiles:
>During the war years, 409,500 motor vehicles were supplied from the US to the USSR, which exceeded Soviet production for the war years by 1.5 times. By the end of the war on 1 May 1945, 32.8 per cent of the machines making up the Red Army's vehicle park had been supplied by LendLease (58.1 per cent were domestically produced, and 9.1 per cent were 'trophy' vehicles). With regard to its greater payload capacity and better quality, the role of American 'Studebekkery' [Studebakers] motor vehicles was still greater and, in particular, were used as artillery tractors.

>The prewar Soviet motor vehicles parks, both those located in the Red Army and those withdrawn from the economy in the beginning of war, were essentially worn out. Before the war Red Army requirements for auto-transport were 744,000 motor vehicles and 92,000 tractors, and 272,600 motor vehicles and 42,000 tractors were available. It was planned to withdraw 240,000 motor vehicles from the economy, including 210,000 GAZ-AA and ZIS-5 trucks. However, because of the severe wear and tear of the motor vehicle park (that is, in light motor vehicles related to the first and second categories, 45 per cent did not require immediate repair, and, in cargo and specialized categories, 68 per cent did not require immediate repair), in fact, during the first months of the war, only 206,000 motor vehicles were withdrawn from the economy, while, already on 22 August 1941, irrevocable motor vehicle losses had reached 271,400.17 It is clear that without Western deliveries, the Red Army could not have developed that degree of mobility which it possessed at least from summer 1943, although right up to the end of war, shortages in motor vehicle gasoline hindered the employment of motor transport.

CONT

>>31610401

Railway rails
>If we exclude from this calculation narrow gauge rails, which were not supplied by Lend-Lease, then the American deliveries make up 83.3 per cent of the total volume of Soviet production. If we exclude from the calculations production during the second half of 1945, accepting it as being equal to at least half of yearly production (actually, considerably more than half the annual production of rails occurred in the second half of 1945 because of the curtailment of purely military production), then Lend-Lease in rails made up 92.7 per cent of the overall volume of Soviet rail production. Thus, almost half of the railroad rails used by Soviet railroads during the war were received from the USA. The sharp decrease in Soviet rail industry output permitted additional efforts and resources to be devoted to the output of weaponry (in 1945 the output of rails constituted 13 per cent of the 1940 level, and in 1944, only 5.4 per cent).

Locomotives
>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.20 During the war years, 1,900 locomotives and 66 diesel-electric locomotives were supplied to the USSR through Lend-Lease.21 Thus, Lend-Lease deliveries exceeded total Soviet production of locomotives from 1941-1945 by 2.4 times and electric locomotives by 11 times.

CONT

>>31610411

Rail Wagons/Cars
>Production of rail cargo wagons [cars] in the USSR during the period 1942 through 1945 constituted a total of 1,087 wagons compared with 33,096 in 1941.22 In all, 11,075 wagons, ten times greater than Soviet production from 1942 to 1945, were supplied through Lend-Lease.23 It iswell known that during World War I, a transport crisis in 1916-17, which, in many ways, provoked the 1917 February Revolution, was caused by insufficient production of railroad rails, locomotives, and wagons, since the industrial efforts and rolled metal resources were reoriented to the production of weapons. During the Great Patriotic War, only Lend Lease supplies prevent the paralysis of rail transport in the Soviet Union.

Powder/Explosives
>Allied supplies of powder and explosive materials also played an important role. We assess the production of explosive materials in the USSR during the period from mid-1941 to mid-1945 as approximately 600,000 tons.24 No less than 325,800 short tons (295,600 metric tons) of explosive materials were supplied by the US.25 In addition, 22,300 tons of powder were supplied by Great Britain and Canada.26 Thus, Western deliveries of explosive materials reached 53 per cent of the total volume of Soviet production.

CONT

>>31608689
They're not responsible. Germany exhausted their troops on one front and Russia 'pushed' through basically nothing but empty land.

Then claimed credit. Russaboos are the worst "people" on earth.

>>31610419

Aluminum
>Thus, we evaluate the summary production of aluminium for the period 1941 through 1945 at 339,000 tons, and from mid-1941 to mid-1945 at 263,000 tons. During the war years, 189,200 short tons of primary (ore) and 71,900 short tons of secondary (processed) aluminium were supplied by the US to the USSR.37 Accepting that 1 ton of processed aluminium is equal to 1.3 tons of aluminium ore and transforming all indices into metric tons, it turns out that Lend-Lease from the US to the USSR amounted to 256,400 tons of processed aluminium. In addition, the USSR received 35,400 tons of aluminium from Great Britain and 36,300 tons of aluminium from Canada.38 Therefore, the summary Western deliveries of aluminium to the USSR in 1941-45 amounted to 328,100 tons. This exceeded our assessment of Soviet aluminium production from mid-1941 through mid-1945 by 1.25 times. The Soviet aviation industry, the chief consumer of aluminium, operated primarily because of Western deliveries..We should also mention that aluminium was used in the production of motors for the famous Soviet T-34 tanks.

Aircraft Production
> Most likely, the point here is that Soviet production of aircraft during the war years was overstated twofold owing to consciously overstated bookkeeping during the war years themselves. Information about the sharp fall in work expenditures on the output of units of primary types of aircraft and tanks in the USSR in 1941-43 indirectly confirms this idea.43 There is a basis for supposing that a similar phenomenon also had a place in the case of Soviet tank construction.

CONT

>>31610430

Lend-Lease proportion of supplied combat aircraft and tanks:
>With regard to the inflation of data about Soviet production, the share of Western supplies of combat aircraft constituted not 15 per cent, as has been traditionally thought, but around 30 per cent, and in tanks and self-propelled guns the share increases from the traditional 12 per cent to 24 per cent of the overall level of production in the USSR during the war years.


AAA
>With regard to artillery, the US supplied 7,944 pieces of only antiaircraft artillery.57 Soviet historians usually correlate this number with the overall production of guns and mortars in the USSR - 482,200 guns and 351,800 mortars, which makes the American share of supplies less than 2 per cent of the overall volume of Soviet gun production, and less than 1 per cent of the summary production of guns and mortars. Meanwhile, here one must compare [these figures] with only the Soviet production of anti-aircraft guns, and most critically short type of artillery in the Red Army. Here the share of American deliveries turns out to significantly higher (unfortunately, for the time being, an exact count is not possible because of the absence of data about the production of anti-aircraft guns in the USSR).

CONT

>>31610445

Tires
>Lend-Lease supplied the Soviet Union with 3,606,000 tire covers,58 at the same time that the Soviet industry of 1941-45 delivered 8,368,000 tire covers (which included only 2,884,000 of the large tire covers named 'Gigant' [giant]) while in 1945 vehicle tire cover production constituted 1,370,000 in comparison with 3,389,000 in 1941.59 American deliveries amounted to 43.1 per cent of Soviet production, and, if one considers that the US delivered mainly large tire covers, then these supplies grow still greater. Great Britain supplied 103,500 tons of natural rubber.

Food
>The USSR also received from the US 672,400 short tons, or 610,000 metric tons of sugar,61 while from 1941-45 the USSR produced 1,460,000 tons of granulated sugar, including only 231,000 tons in 1942-43.62 LendLease shipments made up around 41.8 per cent of overall Soviet sugar production. Shipments from the US of 732,595 short or 664.9 metric tons of canned meat played a large role in feeding the Red Army and civilian population.63 From 1941-45, 3,072 million theoretical meals of all canned goods and 3,715,000 tons of meat (with by-products, but without counting production on civilian plots).64 If one accepts that 5,000 theoretical meals of canned goods is approximately equivalent to 1 ton of canned goods, then canned meat provided by Lend-Lease alone accounted for around 108 per cent to the total canned goods production in the USSR (far from all of this is regarded as canned meat). The supply of canned meat by Lend-Lease as related to Soviet meat production made up 17.9 per cent. In fact, this share was higher still if you exclude by products and bear in mind that preserved meat is considerably greater in weight than an equivalent quantity of raw meat.

CONT

>>31610458


Complex Machining Tools
>In all, during the war years, the USA supplied the USSR with 38,100 metal cutting lathes, and Great Britain sent the USSR 6,500 machine tools and 104 metal presses.66 During the period 1941-45,115,400 metal cutting lathes were produced in the Soviet Union, that is, 2.6 times more than were provided by Lend Lease. In actuality, however, if you take the value of the index, then the role of Western machine tools turns out decisive - they were far more complex and valuable than the Soviet. During 1941-45 alone, industrial machines and equipment valued at 607 million dollars were supplied by the US to the USSR through LendLease.67 At the present time, it is not possible to appraise the corresponding Soviet production in dollars, but one can presume that it must have been less than the value of Lend-Lease supplies, taking into consideration the higher quality and complexity of Western machine tools and other equipment. Some portion of the equipment, in particular, factories for the production of rolled aluminium, arrived during the concluding stage of the war and played their role not only in military efforts, but also in the restoration of the Soviet economy.68 Without the delivery of Western equipment, Soviet industry not only could not have increased the output of weaponry and combat equipment, but itself could not have put right the output of weapons and equipment, for which the special types of rolled steel and ferro-alloys provided by the US were used.

CONT

>>31610472

Conclusion
>As a whole, one can reach the conclusion that, without the Western supplies, the Soviet Union not only could not have won the Great Patriotic War, but even could not have resisted German aggression, since it was not able to produce sufficient quantities of weapons and combat equipment and provide them with fuel and ammunition. The Soviet leadership well understood this dependence in the beginning of war.

>Moreover, on the eve of war, the Soviet leadership overestimated the combat readiness of its Armed Forces, and, in particular, its tank park. According to its condition on 1 June 1941, 80.9 per cent of the Red Army's 23,106 tanks were considered combat ready (10,540 tanks were counted as combat ready in the Western border military districts). Only after the main mass of tanks had been lost in the border battles was it admitted, in hindsight, that of the older tanks, which made up 80 per cent of the tank park, 20 per cent required capital repair and 44 per cent required routine repair.

CONT

>>31610484

Non Lend-Lease Help:
>The Western allies provided the USSR with wartime assistance not only through Lend-Lease. The struggle against the US and Great Britain compelled Germany to construct almost 1,000 submarines, while diverting short metals, equipment, and a qualified work force to that task. During 1941-44 alone, the German shipbuilding industry produced submarines with a total displacement of 810,000 tons.

> The Western allies also diverted against themselves sizeable Wehrmacht ground forces (in the later war
years - up to 40 per cent).77 The strategic bombing of Germany by the combined Anglo-American air forces slowed the growth of its military industry and, in the final war years, practically halted the production of aviation fuel in Germany, thus finally paralyzing the Luftwaffe. From March through September 1944, the monthly output of aviation fuel in Germany, based almost exclusively on synthetic fuel factories (the main objective of Allied bombers during that period), decreased from 181,000 tons to 10,000 tons, and, after some growth in November (up to 49,000 tons), in March 1945 it completely ceased.

CONT

>>31610484
someone better screencap that, i'm too lazy

>>31610497
>The main force of German aviation, especially fighters, operated against the British and US Air Forces, and, just in the struggle with the Western allies, the Luftwaffe suffered the principal part of their losses. The Soviet estimate of German aviation losses on the Soviet-German front: 62,000 machines out of the 101,000 aircraft making up the irrevocable combat losses of German aviation throughout the entire war,79 is far from reality, since it is arrived at by means of simple multiplication of the quantity of German aircraft in separate theaters of war for the time combat operations developed in a given theater, without consideration of the comparative intensity of combat actions (in aircraft sorties) in various theaters. Moreover, as a whole, the intensity of air combat in the West was higher than in the East, and the best German pilots fought there. Thus, in July and August 1943, when significant Luftwaffe forces were concentrated on the Eastern Front during the Battles of Kursk, Orel, and Khar'kov, out of 3,213 irrevocable combat aircraft losses, only 1,030, or 32.3 per cent, occurred on the Eastern Front.80 It is likely that during the war, the Luftwaffe suffered approximately the same proportion of all of its irrevocable losses on the Eastern Front

>Since the USSR could not have waged war against Germany without the cooperation of Britain and the USA, the assertion by Soviet propaganda about the economic victory of Socialism during the Great Patriotic War and about the USSR's capability of independently defeating Germany, remains nothing more than a myth.

CONT

>>31610504
Wait till you see this:

>>31610507

>Hitler and his advisers miscalculated not so much in their determination of the USSR's military-economic strength, as in the capacity of the Soviet economic and political systems to preserve the ability to function in conditions of severe military defeats, as well as in the capacity of the Soviet economy to use Western supplies effectively and rapidly enough, and the US and Great Britain's capacity for carrying out the necessary quantities of deliveries in timely fashion.

The most "HOLY SHIT IS HE SAYING WHAT I THINK HE'S SAYING" bit:
>Today, a new problem confronts military historians - to evaluate how Western Lend-Lease supplies of industrial equipment, as well as supplies from Germany within the context of reparations, promoted the formation of the Soviet military-industrial complex, which was capable of conducting an equal arms race with the West right up to the most recent period, and to determine the degree of its dependence on Western imports during the postwar period.

>>31610514
Oh, and inb4 "MUH WESTERN PROPAGANDA":

>The Journal of Slavic Military Studies
>The role of lend‐lease in Soviet military efforts, 1941–1945
>Boris V. Sokolov
>Professor at the Academy of Slavic Culture
>Chief scientific fellow of the Russian Academy of Science's Institute of World Literature
>Published online: 18 Dec 2007.

>>31609522
>>31609642
>>31609721
>>31610401
>>31610411
>>31610419
>>31610430
>>31610445
>>31610458
>>31610472
>>31610484
>>31610497
>>31610507
>>31610514
>>31610553
Fucking wow. Well, this kills the Slav memes. I mean, we all knew they used creative book keeping, but holy shit.

>>31608689
because you dont need those things to fight mass infantry charges. well aircraft maybe but those were still more needed in the west. fighting infantry is cheaper than fighting on sea and in the air wich played a huge role in the west and a small one in the east.

>>31610634
>because you dont need those things to fight mass infantry charges
wot

are we saying factory production of fuel, armor, vehicles, assorted parts like ball bearings, ammunition and other critical materiel is completely disconnected from ground-based combat power? because if so, you're retarded.

daily reminder that all that sea and air power served to directly cut Germany off from much needed off shore resources and directly strike production centers.

>>31608689

This is incorrect. The Nazis actually spent a majority of the war effort killing 6 million jews.

6 million over 6 years (365 days a year) = 2740 people per day.

Do you know how much fuel and resources is needed to genocide people at that rate? But it was all worth it for Hitler in the end because he succeeded in killing most of the jews in the world and they are nearly extinct today.

We must never forget.

>>31609308
>I've read somewhere that the UK provided 1/3rd of the war effort in the Western Front. Which makes sense since it's economy was 1/3rd that of the US
Then proportionately they should have only provided 1/4.

>>31610705
>yfw the Germans killed around three times as many Russians during the same time period

Besides, killing Jews is easy. You just have to get them in one place and throw a penny at the bottom of a lake.

File: giphy.gif (83KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 200x200px

>>31609056
I smell a wheraboo

Well I'll be damned. All the RIDF in other threads in addition to the usually retarded Slavboos, but not one of them want a piece of this thread. Go figure.

>>31610411
>Locomotives
>>31610419
>Rail Wagons/Cars

>During the Great Patriotic War, only Lend Lease supplies prevent the paralysis of rail transport in the Soviet Union.

That isn't exactly true. Majority of US delivered railway rolling stock was delivered very late in the war or after war. It prevented implosion of Soviet railways after the war and facilitated their economic recovery.

>>31610920

The point is he spent too much money killing the 6 million jews, money he could have used to kill more Russians and win the war.

>>31610705

They started extermination of Jews only after Wannsee conference in 1942. They were lot more efficient than 2740 people per day.

>>31611446
>The point is he spent too much money killing the 6 million jews, money he could have used to kill more Russians and win the war.

He couldn't afford to keep 'em alive. Nazis didn't have enough food to keep kikes alive.

>>31611207
>That isn't exactly true. Majority of US delivered railway rolling stock was delivered very late in the war or after war. It prevented implosion of Soviet railways after the war and facilitated their economic recovery.
You should actually read the source. And provide one of your own.

Here is some statistics you of that kind:
Year/Turnover (mlrds tons*kms)/Cargoes transported (mlns tons)/Average number of cars loaded per day (thousands)
1940/415.0/592.6/97.9
1941/386.5/527.9/85.0
1942/217.8/277.2/42.6
1943/238.8/296.6/45.5
1944/281.3/356.3/55.4
1945/314.0/395.2/61.8
One should dig dipper to get the number of locomotives and railway car in use, at least the production figures for 1940 were 928 locomotives, 30 880 freight and 1052 passenger railway cars. In the next year the cars production figures remained on the same level, but locomotives production fell rapidly down to 715. In the following years there were no locomotives and car production to speak about. For example, in 1943 the industry produced 43 locomotives and 13(!) railway cars.

The reason for this production cutoff has much more to do with LL rail materials incoming than the industry relocation eastward. This allowed the Soviets to devote production to other areas. Meanwhile, their rolling transport numbers as seen above took a huge hit after Barbarosa, so it's not like this wasn't a high priority production need. They were getting them from somewhere, but they weren't building them themselves. What should this tell you?

Someone screencap this holy shit this is gold.

>>31611025
They wont touch this thread because its such a hot potato of actual russian/soviet sources.

Notice the word potato, a New World crop which is a staple of the russian diet. The irony is real.

>>31612086
>The reason for this production cutoff has much more to do with LL rail materials incoming than the industry relocation eastward. This allowed the Soviets to devote production to other areas. Meanwhile, their rolling transport numbers as seen above took a huge hit after Barbarosa, so it's not like this wasn't a high priority production need. They were getting them from somewhere, but they weren't building them themselves. What should this tell you?

1) You quote a fucking post from ahf, without even reading the whole thread.

2) Soviets had priority on producing rolling stock in five year plan that began in 1938.

3) First lend-lease locomotives were delivered in 1943, but huge majority in 1944 and 1945.

4) The numbers you actually provided about fucking LL delivered steam locomotives seems to be only up to May 1945 on this post>>31610411. A hint, it doesn't even cover WWII era production of Ye-class, ALCo and Baldwin produced between 2050 and 2100 of those for Soviets, 47 were never delivered. On top of that there is Sh-class locomotives, about 200 of those were ordered by commies, because deliveries Ye-class were behind schedule.

5) Diesel locomotives were standard gauge units that weren't really delivered to Soviets, but to Iran to be operated by Soviets.

6) And existing rolling stock ceases to exist? Another free here, when war started Soviets had about 28k locomotives, 600k freight cars. 2k locomotives and 10k freight cars isn't lot compared to that, even when we take fuckloads of rolling stock Soviets lost due to war.

7) Choo-Choo motherfucker!

>>31612919
>1) You quote a fucking post from ahf
As it happens, that particular data exists several other places.

>2) Soviets had priority on producing rolling stock in five year plan that began in 1938.
Yet they did not during the war. And they lost close to 50% of all locomotives by 1943. Again, see the numbers here >>31612086 on actual goods shipped by rail to see the direct logistical result of Barbarosa.

>3) First lend-lease locomotives were delivered in 1943, but huge majority in 1944 and 1945.
This is the second time you have asserted this, and the second time you have done so completely without source. I think it's time you remedy that.

>4) The numbers you actually provided about fucking LL delivered steam locomotives seems to be only up to May 1945 on this post>>31610411 (You).
Read. The. Original. Source. Please. As I've already stated.

Those were synopsis/conclusions from each section, not the entire section. Get off your lazy ass and actually read it.

>5) Diesel locomotives were standard gauge units that weren't really delivered to Soviets, but to Iran to be operated by Soviets.
Are you so ignorant of this subject that you are unaware of one of the primary arteries for LL goods into the USSR through Iran? Of course this raised USSR demand for rail cars, locomotives and rails.

>6) And existing rolling stock ceases to exist?
According to Soviet and German sources, none of which agree completely at any point, the USSR lost from 49 to 57% of all locomotives during the war. What is clear is that by the most optimistic assertions, the USSR had fewer than 17,800 locomotives total in service by June 1943. Similar loss rates on rolling stock. And that includes electric engines good only for limited station utility and open cast mines.

>>31608689
And this is why anyone who thinks the Commies outproduced Germany based on tank numbers is an imbecile. Tanks were a small percentage of total expenditures for Germany.

>>31608799
>>31608785
lol american and britian were corrupt as fuck even then. Britian was getting is ass handed to it, LOL "wouldn't have accomplished shit" meh, probably not initally since you guys didn't do anything to Hitler until the US declared war shortly after declaring it on Japan.

File: europe_corruption.jpg (3MB, 4960x3254px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4960x3254px

>>31614197
cry more

>>31609231
The war in the Atlantic was already turned before the US enters the war. As was the fight in North Africa. In Italy the UK provided more than half the forces.

On D Day it made up 50% of ground forces, about 60% or air and most of the navy.

All major intelligence break through's and the arming and organisation of resistance movements throughout Europe was mostly done by the UK.

It also manned much of the convoys to russia, inflicted some if the biggest land based defeats upon Japan in Burma and for many years was the only country attacking germany itself.

Why do some Americans get all their history from bad films?

>>31614291
>The war in the Atlantic was already turned before the US enters the war.
The Uboats were the most successful they were in the entire war at sinking allied shipping in 1942. Granted, they still didn't manage more than 5% of shipping, but they, as a threat, weren't diminished until the ASW air gap was filled with long range patrol craft, CVEs and plane-mounted radar.

>As was the fight in North Africa.
You surely cannot be this ignorant. Why are you even commenting on this topic?

>In Italy the UK provided more than half the forces.
This is a flat untruth, especially when air power is accounted for.

>On D Day it made up 50% of ground forces, about 60% or air and most of the navy.
Anon. Jesus. The British accounted for 61,715 troops on D-Day. The US put 73,000 ashore. While an overwhelming number of combat ships were RN at D-Day, 3 of the seven battleships were USN, as were 3 of the 5 heavy cruisers. Most of the landing ships and transports were US built and crewed. Almost all of the gliders and Dakotas dropping Airborne troops were US built.

>All major intelligence break through's and the arming and organisation of resistance movements throughout Europe was mostly done by the UK.
We're just flat pretending the OSS didn't exist? Ok.

>It also manned much of the convoys to russia
Sailing CVEs and merchant hulls built in America, sailing alongside a far greater number of USN and merchant marine sailors.

>inflicted some if the biggest land based defeats upon Japan in Burma
Anon. C'mon.

>for many years was the only country attacking germany itself.
For less than a year and a half, and with significant materiel support from Canada and the US.

>Why do some Americans get all their history from bad films?
Why are you so spectacularly ignorant, reductionist or flat out wrong in so much of your basic understanding of easily verifiable fact? Why are you so supremely lazy?

>>31608799
Britain spent the whole war getting the shit bombed out of them.

>>31614291
This smells like a Vatnik false flag. As a bong I certify that there cannot by anyone in my entire country who is this retarded.