|
pthighs posted:At the risk of starting another derail: I know that the heavy lifting to defeat Germany was done by the Soviet Union, but I'm curious about how much the finanical and materiel help from the Western allies made that possible. Would it have been impossible for the USSR to defeat Germany without it? Would it just have taken longer? Was D-Day required from a military standpoint or did the Western allies just not want the USSR to steamroll Europe? Really, lend-lease had very little impact on the Eastern front. I think after the failure of Barbarossa in 1941, even had the Germans been wildly successful in 1942, their was practically no prospect of a German victory--regardless of aid from the United States. No D-day was not required. Operation Bagration was planned to go off regardless of the outcome of the invasion in the West, and kicked off while the Western Allies were still confined to the beachhead. Essentially during Bagration, the Red Army destroyed Army Group Center and crippled the Wehrmacht as a fighting force. At its conclusion the Soviets were in Poland and had liberated nearly all of pre-war Soviet territory. By August the Red Army was in Bucharest. After Bagration in was a mere question of time. In fact, in many ways Stalin was an idiot for pushing so hard for a second front. Had D-day happened any later, Stalin could have Sovietized a whole lot more of Europe.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Maybe he figured that biting off any more of Europe than the half he got was over-extending. Lend Lease did a LOT to help speed up the Soviet forces logistics. Pushing further into Europe would quite possibly have over-stretched Soviet logistics. As for the game - god drat. First torpedo hit on a Carrier. Dem dutch boats doin work!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
GH, if you're sending Claudes against P-40s, you're going to take losses. That plane is obsolete regardless of what height it's set at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:Maybe he figured that biting off any more of Europe than the half he got was over-extending. Lend Lease did a LOT to help speed up the Soviet forces logistics. Pushing further into Europe would quite possibly have over-stretched Soviet logistics. I think people are over valuing lend-lease to the Soviets. Soviet industry actually out produced the United States in a number of key areas--like armored vehicles. And let's face facts, most Soviet armor was superior to American armor during that period--there was a good reason Soviet troops referred to American tanks as "coffins for the brothers." And the Soviets certainly weren't getting the better late war American armor anyhow. That's not to say lend-lease did not help the Soviets, especially logistically, but saying the Americans "armed the Soviets" is just false. To the original question, after 1941 (a doubtful argument could be made for 1942) a Soviet victory was inevitable with or without lend-lease and with or without D-Day. So the answer really should be that, yes every ally helped bring an end to the nazis. For example had the British made peace in 1940 and Hitler been allowed to prepare for, and concentrate solely on the Soviets, things might have been much different; However, the Soviets won the war, not just bore the brunt of the fighting. quote:As for the game - god drat. First torpedo hit on a Carrier. Dem dutch boats doin work! I really suck at this game because I've literally never scored a torpedo hot on a fleet carrier. Escorts don't count. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I think people are over valuing lend-lease to the Soviets. Soviet industry actually out produced the United States in a number of key areas--like armored vehicles. And let's face facts, most Soviet armor was superior to American armor during that period--there was a good reason Soviet troops referred to American tanks as "coffins for the brothers." And the Soviets certainly weren't getting the better late war American armor anyhow. the question is: did the soviets outproduce the USA on Armoured vehicles because the soviets were better at it. or because they didn't need to build steam locos and trucks so much. And bear in mind that along with building a bunch of tanks, the USA was also building strategic bombers. And a navy. And the same kind of stuff the USSR was. And some for Lend Lease. But I suspect we're arguing the same point practically, just from different angles. To be fair, nor could either side at Midway. Even though the Yorktown eventually did die to a torpedo strike, all through the day neither side's subs or torpedo bombers were able to score a hit. it was dive bombers that blew up the Kido Butai
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Land-lease's importance was probably biggest early on, when the Soviet army was woefully obsolete and the industry was being evacuated rather than working.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I think people are over valuing lend-lease to the Soviets. Soviet industry actually out produced the United States in a number of key areas--like armored vehicles. And let's face facts, most Soviet armor was superior to American armor during that period--there was a good reason Soviet troops referred to American tanks as "coffins for the brothers." And the Soviets certainly weren't getting the better late war American armor anyhow. The Soviet Union would have won with or without Lend-Lease or D-Day, but there is zero question that such a victory would have taken far more time and would have cost a tremendous amount of blood. Operation Bagration, for example, would have been impossible without Lend-Lease. Without American trucks, for example (Of which over four hundred thousand were sent over), it would have been impossible for the RKKA's logistics to keep up the rapid pace of advance necessary for the success of the encirclements. And it was by receiving this aid that the Soviets were able to focus their production so heavily on armored vehicles, many of which were shipped from the Urals to the front lines by American locomotives. The combat arms sent to the USSR were less important, but they still had a tremendous impact. The Red Army received 12,500 American AFVs, including over a thousand halftracks, 3,000 scout cars, and four thousand Shermans. The Shermans in particular were far from inferior-the build quality was far better than domestically produced T-34s, and the tanks were generally well-liked by their crews. You're also wrong on the mark that we weren't sending our best stuff-the Soviets actually got top of the line M4A2(76W) HVSS tanks before equivalent Shermans arrived on the Western Front, and the only reason they didn't get Pershings was because A) the war ended and B) The Soviets didn't like them. You're also forgetting that without D-Day, Bagration would have been much less of a success. After the invasion, the Germans were forced to send a number of reserve divisions westwards to try and contain the beachhead, and every man who was sent west on June 7th wasn't available to be sent east on June 23rd. There's a reason why Stalin had been screaming for an invasion for two years-it increased the pressure on the Germans tremendously and forced them to divide their increasingly strained resources between two equally disastrous situations. World War II was not won by any individual nation. It was a combined effort that took hundreds of millions of men, dozens of countries, and untold billions to bring to a conclusion. Some contributed more than others, and in many different ways. While it's likely that the Soviet Union would have ultimately been able to prevail, it's disingenuous to say that the effects of Lend-Lease are over-valued, because that sure as hell isn't the way the Soviets saw it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:the question is: did the soviets outproduce the USA on Armoured vehicles because the soviets were better at it. or because they didn't need to build steam locos and trucks so much. They outproduced in AFVs because they did an extremely good job of adopting American manufacturing techniques. And because the Americans were probably operating below maximum capacity anyway. Were they playing a video game and the US decided they needed to have a superior Tanks Produced Per Year figure, there's no doubt they would have won that race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:14
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Just about the only thing the US didn't give the Soviets was the Enriched Uranium they asked for, I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Why does this keep happening in this thread? Shut up or tell stories about your grandfather.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:To put things in perspective, the Yorktown had to be hit on several occasions before the Japanese finally managed to sink it at the Battle of Midway. In contrast, each of the four Kido Butai carriers in that battle ultimately sank as a result being hit with one (not necessarily identical) wave of bombers. (I'm counting hits here, not attacks, considering that carriers could and did dodge hostile fire with judicious maneuvering.) That's why I chose my lucky ship to be the Mogami - it was one of the few IJN ships that successfully pulled off damage control (after colliding with one of its sister ships and then being bombed). Funny enough, it eventually sank after ramming another Japanese cruiser as an example of the IJN's tragicomedy. To be fair, there is another aspect to this. While IJN damage control was overall infamously terrible, the Midway result also came about due to more than a few lucky factors. The dive bombers managed to arrive and attack the Kido Butai just as the carriers were reloading their aircraft, which is by far their most vulnerable point of carrier operations since all the ammunition and fuel actually has to be out on deck, which was something US carriers generally managed to luck out in avoiding. Also, the US had already noticed one fire hazard that could be mitigated in flight deck operations involving the fuel that the IJN didn't realize until after Midway. Soryu and Hiryu had also been compromises to begin with since they were built under treaty limitations, and the IJN had favored stuffing as many planes as they possibly could on them over more safety measures. The three fleet carriers Japan built that weren't conversions(Kaga, Akagi, ...Shinano), compromises(Soryu, Hiryu), or built under emergency limitations(Unryu-class, which were effectively just modified Hiryus) actually were well-designed and could take damage. While one of them was crewed by morons(Taiho[) both the Shokaku-class performed quite well, with Shokaku] herself heavily damaged twice and managing to survive. Both her and Zuikaku's sinkings were a result of hard hits that likely would have sunk any carrier in the war. You could of course also bring up the fact that the plane that actually found the US carriers was delayed in launching by 30 minutes due to a malfunction in Tone's catapult, but given relying on cruisers to be the eyes of a carrier battlegroup in the first place was rather silly, you could probably just chalk that up to doctrinal faults rather than a lucky break.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
The real question is, whose grandfather delivered Lend-Lease trucks to the USSR?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:To be fair, nor could either side at Midway. Even though the Yorktown eventually did die to a torpedo strike, all through the day neither side's subs or torpedo bombers were able to score a hit. it was dive bombers that blew up the Kido Butai And Yorktown barely sunk in the first place, mostly on account of the rescue crews getting skittish. Really, the only reason she was lost was incompetence and the good 'ole fog of war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
The real question is whether the US could drop enough trucks in the Pacific to walk from LA to Tokyo Bay, or enough Liberty ships to foxtrot from Frisco to Fukushima.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
I think the real question on everyone's minds right now should be: "Where is the CA Furutaka? Is it seizing its glorious taco destiny?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Mmm, tacos de 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
I admit I claimed it for a lucky ship because it's a terrible boat in all the on-line boat-shooting games and yet I can't help but love it in them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The combat arms sent to the USSR were less important, but they still had a tremendous impact. The Red Army received 12,500 American AFVs, including over a thousand halftracks, 3,000 scout cars, and four thousand Shermans. The Shermans in particular were far from inferior-the build quality was far better than domestically produced T-34s, and the tanks were generally well-liked by their crews. You're also wrong on the mark that we weren't sending our best stuff-the Soviets actually got top of the line M4A2(76W) HVSS tanks before equivalent Shermans arrived on the Western Front, and the only reason they didn't get Pershings was because A) the war ended and B) The Soviets didn't like them. They also supplied a number of combat aircraft. One of which, the P-39 Airacobra, was one of the most most effective air-to-air fighters used by Soviet airmen during the war, and admired by many fighter aces. Also that nickname for the Sherman that someone mentioned "coffin for four brothers" is really overstated and is more likely than not a case of soldiers' gallows humor rather than a stinging condemnation of the Sherman which was actually, for the most part, highly appreciated by Soviet tank crews, when they had them. In fact Soviet tank crews liked that the Sherman had less of a tendency to catch fire compared to the T-34, of which that was a flaw that followed from the design that demanded a low profile and small size, which meant that a good hit had a decent chance to ignite the ammunition or the fuel tanks (or I think that was it, that was a weakness of later Soviet tank designs as well, though one viewed as a necessary sacrifice which the small profile of the tank made up for). People poo poo on the Sherman and they really shouldn't. It was one of the most successful and versatile tank designs of the war. Definitely not as innovative as the T-34, but the Sherman was tough, very mechanically sound and very reliable. If put out of commission in combat or other factors it could easily be brought back to service again, particularly by the excellent American crews and mechanics. The gun may have been underwhelming when it came to engaging German armor past the Panzer IV, but the Sherman chassis was also put to great use for a great many other purposes than simply being a medium tank. To reiterate, people shouldn't poo poo on the Sherman. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
It's funny, but didn't the US pilots in the Pacific despise the P-39? What made it work out so well on the Eastern front?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Also that nickname for the Sherman that someone mentioned "coffin for four brothers" is really overstated and is more likely than not a case of soldiers' gallows humor rather than a stinging condemnation of the Sherman which was actually The M3 Lee was nicknamed "coffin for six brothers" by Soviet tankers. The Sherman didn't really have a bad rep at all. e: That said, nicknaming any particular type of tank a "coffin" was common gallows humor in the Red Army. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:It's funny, but didn't the US pilots in the Pacific despise the P-39? What made it work out so well on the Eastern front? It was actually rejected by the RAF because of its poor performance at high altitudes and fairy low speed. US pilots in the Pacific probably had the same problems, though they had to fly it in those condtiions. This was reportedly less of a problem on the Eastern Front due to engagements there seemingly being at much lower altitudes and at lower speeds, where the P-39 made a good showing for itself due to having really tough armor and decent armament which allowed it to do pretty well against early and mid-war versions of the Me 109 and shoot down low flying Stuka bombers left and right. e: The Soviets also got a considerably improved model compared to the one that had been flown early on in the Pacfic and rejected by the RAF. TheDemon posted:The M3 Lee was nicknamed "coffin for six brothers" by Soviet tankers. The Sherman didn't really have a bad rep at all. Oh, got that wrong then. Assumed the guy posting above, who was making GBS threads on Lend-Lease, was talking about the Sherman (among other US tanks) when he said "coffins for the brothers", and I simply remembered it all wrong. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Incidentally, Paraguay just reactivated their Stuarts and Shermans. Paraguay keeping M3 Stuart, M4 Sherman tanks in service
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
If you really want to talk about longevity, it's amazing how, even today, some of this poo poo is still being used. For example, there is documented evidence of the T-34 still being used in combat even today. Hell, even the StG. 44 is still out there fighting wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:If you really want to talk about longevity, it's amazing how, even today, some of this poo poo is still being used. For example, there is documented evidence of the T-34 still being used in combat even today. Hell, even the StG. 44 is still out there fighting wars. You don't really have to go to obscure examples of stuff still being in use, the Browning .50 cal is still in widespread use even today and that one's from before WW2. I can't imagine those T-34s being anything but a trainign tank, or reserve units or its countries that are simply too poor to get anything new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
How about the B-52, introduced in 1952 and expected to remain in service in the US military until the 2040s. That's absolutely crazy. Edit: or the Lee-Enfield rifle, introduced 1907, still in use somewhere apparently according to Wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Drone posted:
"What the wild men of the world will do when the last Lee Enfield wears out I do not know". I've seen WW1 issue (with stamped makers marks) lee enfields in use on cattle raids in Africa - they're still absolutely everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Personally, I'd argue a rifle with it's 20~ moveable parts is a lot less impressive then a vehicle. Russian stuff is weirdly built to last, despite breaking down so much in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
The Bofors 40mm series of guns are still in use on Spectre gunships (the AC-130 planes with the cannons in the side), largely unchanged from the original 1934 design. Some designs are just good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:The dive bombers managed to arrive and attack the Kido Butai just as the carriers were reloading their aircraft, which is by far their most vulnerable point of carrier operations since all the ammunition and fuel actually has to be out on deck, which was something US carriers generally managed to luck out in avoiding. I just wanted to make a small callback to Shattered Sword real quick: the American dive bombers "got through" because the IJN carriers ran out of CAP. The IJN carriers ran out of CAP because the multiple American attacks throughout the day kept coming in dribs and drabs, which meant that Nagumo had to keep choosing between launching more CAP, recovering the CAP that was Winchester, and launching a naval strike with his own bombers. And he kept choosing the first two options. Which meant that contrary to popular belief, the bombers weren't on-deck at all - the flight deck was busy working with the Zeros for precisely the same reasons that allowed Dick Best to score his hits in the first place! And I don't mean to say that the big picture is wrong: the Americans did catch a lucky break, and the Americans did catch the carriers in the middle of flight operations, and the confluence of factors that lead up to the moment of the fatal hits on the Kaga and Akagi were due to the clusterfuck that was Yamamoto's "will they won't they" strategy combined with multiple points of doctrinal failure, but the bombers were below decks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:It's funny, but didn't the US pilots in the Pacific despise the P-39? What made it work out so well on the Eastern front? The P-39 didn't perform well at high altitude, and inexperienced pilots didn't help much either. I've never heard of the P-39 being "one of the best air-to-air aircraft used by the Soviets" though, nor have I heard about how it did well against early-war Bf-109's. Another important thing that hurt the P-39 was low range. The A6M, comparatively, had over 3 times the range of the P-39. The Eastern Front was huge, but didn't require such endurance and combat was mostly at lower altitudes so it performed well there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I just wanted to make a small callback to Shattered Sword real quick: the American dive bombers "got through" because the IJN carriers ran out of CAP. The IJN carriers ran out of CAP because the multiple American attacks throughout the day kept coming in dribs and drabs, which meant that Nagumo had to keep choosing between launching more CAP, recovering the CAP that was Winchester, and launching a naval strike with his own bombers. And he kept choosing the first two options. Which meant that contrary to popular belief, the bombers weren't on-deck at all - the flight deck was busy working with the Zeros for precisely the same reasons that allowed Dick Best to score his hits in the first place! Of course, being below decks weren't much of a plus considering the flight decks weren't armored and the... flaws in the carriers design when it came to fire-fighting capability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The P-39 didn't perform well at high altitude, and inexperienced pilots didn't help much either. I've never heard of the P-39 being "one of the best air-to-air aircraft used by the Soviets" though, nor have I heard about how it did well against early-war Bf-109's. The P-39 was also very serviceable at ground attack, the Soviets found, which was a role the Western allies had little need of at the time. The P-38 was an inverted example: a mediocre plane in both European fronts, but well suited to the Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The P-39 was also very serviceable at ground attack, the Soviets found, which was a role the Western allies had little need of at the time. Not true, actually! Allegedly that misconception comes from a mistranslation of an old memoir; in reality Soviet P-39s couldn't really do ground attack even if they wanted to, on account of the US not providing any AT rounds for the 37mm. The P-39 was, on the whole, a pretty good low-altitude dogfighter. It had a decent armament of 2 .50 cals and a 37mm canon (All mounted in the nose), good maneuverability, and a reliable and powerful engine in the Allison V-1710. The top-scoring Soviet ace of the war flew P-39s, and by the end of the war the type actually had the most claimed kills of any US built aircraft. In a twist of fate, Bell Aircraft actually consulted with Soviet pilots for the follow-up P-63 Kingcobra, which was exclusively delivered for combat use to the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Is the lucky ship claiming still ongoing? I'd like to claim CL Tama if I can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Boksi posted:Is the lucky ship claiming still ongoing? I'd like to claim CL Tama if I can. Its always on-going, and done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
I would like to claim a KV, but I don't know which ones are in theatre. I think the HMS Hollyhock should be around for most of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
goatface posted:I would like to claim a KV, but I don't know which ones are in theatre. I think the HMS Hollyhock should be around for most of it. List of KV's available starting 7 Dec 41 Jasmine Thyme Cyclamen Genista Freesia Auricula Nigella Aster Hollyhock Fritillary Edmunston Quesnel Wetaskiwin Dawson List of KV's appearing later St.Thomas Copper Cliff Hespeller Leaside Humberstone Sudbury Shediac Woodstock Moncton Vancouver Timmins New Westminster Dundas Commandant Duboc Renoncule Lobelia Aconit I'll put you down for the Hollyhock, but I can change that if you decide on something else
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
That will be fine, ta.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
   Clunk! Mwah ha ha!   Dammit, I just missed a period.   Our troops arrive at Bataan and throw themselves into a shock attack – losses are horrendous.  There is a minor counter attack which shows what the losses have done to our forces.   I must relive the commander of the Bataan attack from his post, that was a wasteful loss of men, which will slow our assault while we wait for our men to rest and resupply.  The Ryujo's pumps are containing the flooding, so she is trying to limp home now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Limping two thousand miles across the Pacific in winter. rip edit- probably closer to two thousand miles goatface fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:34
|
|