Russian lend and lease numbers

[Fu. Svedberg]

Hey I need some help here

I know some of you know the approx numbers of american lend and lease equipment to soviet contra the number of russian tanks/guns etc.

Could you please supply them if you have (source would be nice too if you have it) I need it for an argument in another forum

 

[RedGuardist]

Here

 

[LogisticEarth]

Wikipedia has some numbers which I've seen repeated in a couple different places elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR

Something like 2/3 of the transport trucks in the USSR were from the USA, and we delivered them nearly 2000 train engines. It was a very signifigant part of thier economy.

 

[LemoN]

those numbers are epic

imagine what wouldve happened if germany got those tanks ect

 

[Bolt]

Lendlease helped greatly at non-combat areas: food, trucks, wagons etc.
However, the percent of non-soviet combat vehicles and weapons was very small.

 

[LogisticEarth]

Lendlease helped greatly at non-combat areas: food, trucks, wagons etc.
However, the percent of non-soviet combat vehicles and weapons was very small.

This is kind of important, and interesting to think about. While Russia put out some insane number of T-34s during the war, it's arguable that they were only able to do so because they didn't need to have factories devoted to building trucks, trains, etc.

I'm having some trouble finding numbers at the moment, but it would be interesting to see the German vs. Soviet production of trucks and such and see how it measures up. This number may be wrong, as I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I think the Soviets only built 10 locomotives domestically during the war, and instead were supplemented by the trains sent through Lend-Lease.

 

[FatPartizan]

Lendlease helped greatly at non-combat areas: food, trucks, wagons etc.
However, the percent of non-soviet combat vehicles and weapons was very small.

No.
Studedecker has changed the Soviet army.
Sherman was similar a T-34 . But Sherman very seldom broke. Guarsd Divisions had Sherman.
The American fighters.
Nonferrous metals.
Electronics.

The devil is hidden in detail.
Only in Belgium Germans have received about 350.000 cars.

 

[Capt.Marion]

If we hadn't, ze mother russia would be no more, and Hitler would have gotten his oil...

 

[Bolt]

No.
Studedecker has changed the Soviet army.
Sherman was similar a T-34 . But Sherman very seldom broke. Guarsd Divisions had Sherman.
The American fighters.
Nonferrous metals.
Electronics.

Что no?
Studebecker is not a combat vehicle - I did say that they gave lot's of trucks - be it Srudebeckers or Willis jeeps.
How many Shermans did Soviets have? I mean, what was the ratio of Sherman to T-34? American fighters - how many? Metals are not combat vehicles, agree?
So, was I wrong, saying, they gave us lot's of help with non-combat vehicles and resources, but the number of combat vehicles themselves was small, compared to Soviet production?

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Hey I need some help here

I know some of you know the approx numbers of american lend and lease equipment to soviet contra the number of russian tanks/guns etc.

Could you please supply them if you have (source would be nice too if you have it) I need it for an argument in another forum

If you can wait till I get home (currently travelling) I can give you the full US figures for what was shipped... not quite all of it arrived, but that is another problem

 

[LogisticEarth]

Что no?
So, was I wrong, saying, they gave us lot's of help with non-combat vehicles and resources, but the number of combat vehicles themselves was small, compared to Soviet production?

Eh, it's kind of misleading. The amount of trucks, metals, and trains the US sent represented huge amounts of raw-resources, manpower, and industrial output. You can have 40,000 tanks but you still have to get ammunition to thier guns, fuel to thier engines, and food to thier crews. If you don't have trucks to back them up, the tanks are worthless.

If Russian had to devote factory hours to build 300,000 trucks and everything else, the would not have been able to build nearly the number of tanks and planes they did. It would have drastically changed the outcome of things.

 

[Tomcat_ha]

Eh, it's kind of misleading. The amount of trucks, metals, and trains the US sent represented huge amounts of raw-resources, manpower, and industrial output. You can have 40,000 tanks but you still have to get ammunition to thier guns, fuel to thier engines, and food to thier crews. If you don't have trucks to back them up, the tanks are worthless.

If Russian had to devote factory hours to build 300,000 trucks and everything else, the would not have been able to build nearly the number of tanks and planes they did. It would have drastically changed the outcome of things.

Doesnt make them combat vehicles still

but correct if this wasnt send the russians would have failed. Without the russians to bleed the germans white the war would have been lost.

 

[Sigurd]

but correct if this wasnt send the russians would have failed. Without the russians to bleed the germans white the war would have been lost.

Maybe the russians would have failed, but Germany would have lost the war anyway. Thanks to the russians and lend lease project, Germany avoided being nuked off the map.......

 

[Tomcat_ha]

Well If russia was out then the uk would have been invaded. Without the UK the americans had no reliable way to get the atom bomb into germany. Also then the US would have to divert resources to the war industry to produce even more. All in all germany would have been kind of unstoppable. Germany also could have won if hitler wasnt such a moron but thank god he was!

 

[FatPartizan]

Studebecker is not a combat vehicle - I did say that they gave lot's of trucks - be it Srudebeckers or Willis jeeps.
How many Shermans did Soviets have? I mean, what was the ratio of Sherman to T-34? American fighters - how many? Metals are not combat vehicles, agree?
So, was I wrong, saying, they gave us lot's of help with non-combat vehicles and resources, but the number of combat vehicles themselves was small, compared to Soviet production?

То же самое но по русски . Устал .

 

[Capt.Marion]

The varieties of Cargo haulers I can offer, but no numbers

Dodge 1/2 - 1 1/2 ton Trucks, 4x4 Cargo and Ambulance (Predominately 3/4 ton WC 51s and 52s, the G502 series)

Studebaker/ Reo 2 1/2 Ton 6x6 G630

Chevrolet 1 1/2 ton trucks, 4x4, G506

GMC CCKW 2 1/2 Ton 6x6, G508 (Most common Deuces used in WWII)

Jeeps (1/4 tonners, produced by Ford and Willys-Overland, the G503 series)

Check out the Light and Medium trucks at Olive-Drab.com


EDIT: All of these vehicles, while not designed for attacking, were used in combat, especially the 2 1/2 tons and the Jeeps. Americans didn't walk. Don't suspect the Russians did after they received this equipment

 

[Bolt]

The only way I can imagine those to be used in combat is tow a gun to the firing position, drop its ammunition and get the hell out of there as fast as possible to the safe place.

 

[Recce]

Russia built about 90 locomotives during WWII, while close to 2,000 were sent as part of the lend lease program. That's going to translate to a fair few tanks.

 

[Rss]

I want to remind you that there was more than just war-time production. Over a 2 million ZiS-5 and GAZ-AA trucks were manufactured.

 

[LogisticEarth]

The only way I can imagine those to be used in combat is tow a gun to the firing position, drop its ammunition and get the hell out of there as fast as possible to the safe place.

Or, you know, they could be made into artillery peices themselves:
url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha#Katyushas_of_World_War_II

Also, ever hear of the concept of motorized infantry? While they didn't fight mounted on the vehicles, the trucks and jeeps were often used to get into combat areas.