Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Lend-Lease Aid

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Mar 2005, 02:32
Nil wrote:
Quote:
You asked for evidence that the US was involved in the war before its official declaration. I supplied it. Now you say that it doesn't matter, the US didn't do anything? The US was actively hunting German naval assets in the Atlantic and protecting foreign territory from the Germans. The US took losses in both civilian AND military vessels. All of this was before they officially entered WW2.


The US did help out the allies before they entered the war. Sorry I changed the subject. I said that the US, USSR, England, France, ect. were able to prevent a lot that happened before WW2. When the olylimpics was held in Germany it should have given the rest of the world a sign. When Germany broke the Treaty of Versialle the allies should have acted. When Austria was annexed and the Sudetenland the allies did nothing!

Disco Führer wrote:
Quote:
What about Soviets? Trained over 250 officers, some that become high ranking nazis, Guderian. NOTICE : This was before ww2.


I said the US and their aliies (including the USSR).

Quote:
Made the pact with Germany that split eastern-europe between them, suplied Germans with resources and allowed Germans free hands in west.


The peace treaty was necessary for Stalin to prepare the USSR for the war.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 777
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Jun 2004, 00:45
Komsomol
Post 03 Mar 2005, 15:38
Mr. Bill Wrote:

Quote:
So here's why Lend Lease was bullshit.

Lend Lease to the Soviet Union began in Septmeber 1941 and 17 convoy shipments had been made by that spring (with losses, and none were run during the '41 '42 winter when the Soviets really needed the goods) when the Germans began intercepting the shipments and sinking them. The 17th convoy was hit so badly that Lend Lease was cancled. It began again in September with small scale non-convoyed runs but was scrapped again in March 43 and not resumed until November '43.

Now this is why it's important. The VAST majority of Lend Lease arrived after November '43 and contiuned ariving until after the war was over, on until 1946. This is critical of course, as by November '43 the Soviets had already delt a crippiling blow to the Germans, and done so WITHOUT ANY LEND LEASE equipment even being delivered. Thus, no goods actaully arrived when the Russians needed them, and even when they did, in numbers too small to be important. Thus, Lend Lease was unimportant bullshit. Hence, ANYONE who tries to tell me that the Soviets actaully needed the Lend Lease equipment to win is an asshole, since the Soviets still beat the Germans without Lend Lease.
Image

ALL POWER BELONGS TO ME! And the Party of course!
Zajedno za Tita i našu budućnost!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 03 Mar 2005, 15:49
Lord_Tito wrote:
Quote:
Hence, ANYONE who tries to tell me that the Soviets actaully needed the Lend Lease equipment to win is an asshole, since the Soviets still beat the Germans without Lend Lease.


I agree, mostly. Th Lend-Lease did help the Soviets win the war. But they still would have won regaurdless whether they recieved aide or not.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Nil
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2005, 19:15
Pioneer
Post 04 Mar 2005, 02:43
Red Rebel wrote:
The US did help out the allies before they entered the war. Sorry I changed the subject. I said that the US, USSR, England, France, ect. were able to prevent a lot that happened before WW2. When the olylimpics was held in Germany it should have given the rest of the world a sign. When Germany broke the Treaty of Versialle the allies should have acted. When Austria was annexed and the Sudetenland the allies did nothing!


Yes, and the result sadly is WW2. We should all be happy that the Allies finally said, 'Enough is enough' and fought the Axis powers. The lack of allied movement before Poland was from a number of reasons:

In Europe, the nations still remembered the body counts of WW1 and were leery of another war of this type.

In the United States, most still followed the policy of Isolationism, and considered the partitioning of Europe to be a European affair, and not an American one.
Last edited by Nil on 08 Mar 2005, 08:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 07 Mar 2005, 07:47
Lord_Tito wrote:
Mr. Bill Wrote:

Quote:
So here's why Lend Lease was bullshit.

Lend Lease to the Soviet Union began in Septmeber 1941 and 17 convoy shipments had been made by that spring (with losses, and none were run during the '41 '42 winter when the Soviets really needed the goods) when the Germans began intercepting the shipments and sinking them. The 17th convoy was hit so badly that Lend Lease was cancled. It began again in September with small scale non-convoyed runs but was scrapped again in March 43 and not resumed until November '43.

Now this is why it's important. The VAST majority of Lend Lease arrived after November '43 and contiuned ariving until after the war was over, on until 1946. This is critical of course, as by November '43 the Soviets had already delt a crippiling blow to the Germans, and done so WITHOUT ANY LEND LEASE equipment even being delivered. Thus, no goods actaully arrived when the Russians needed them, and even when they did, in numbers too small to be important. Thus, Lend Lease was unimportant bullshit. Hence, ANYONE who tries to tell me that the Soviets actaully needed the Lend Lease equipment to win is an asshole, since the Soviets still beat the Germans without Lend Lease.


Are you sure that these numbers make no difference?

October 1941 to June 1942
Aircraft 1285
Tanks 2249
Machine-guns 81287
Explosives, pounds 59455620
Trucks 36825
Field telephones 56445
Telephone wire, km 600000

Tanks were quite obsolete but that is impressive number of trucks.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 Mar 2005, 18:16
Quote:
Tanks were quite obsolete but that is impressive number of trucks.


The trucks did help the USSR, and they became weapons (Stalins Organ). Still any military aide to the USSR was obsolete.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Mar 2005, 20:10
Quote:
Tanks were quite obsolete


Quote:
Still any military aide to the USSR was obsolete.


So Sherman was obselete tank?

.....
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2940
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jul 2004, 16:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Mar 2005, 21:08
It was definitely inferior to the T-34.
Image


The future belongs to those of us still willing to get our hands dirty!
-Kaptn K
Soviet cogitations: 1236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2005, 05:12
Unperson
Post 07 Mar 2005, 22:30
Quote:
So Sherman was obselete tank?


defiantly, positively the worst tank failure in history....

there was aroung 40,000 of such tanks built correct?

not as many T-34/85 11,000 were produced, a 1/4 of shermans number....

however, countries still use T-34's today! And Shermans (other than the one up at my cottage and sparse around the country) are non-exsistent in terms of military service....

Sherman:
Armament: 1 75mm gun, .3 inch gun, .5 inch BROWNING machine gun.
Armour: 15mm-100mm

Engine: V-8 water cooled petrol (burn baby burn!) developing 455hp at 1,600 RPM.
Performance: 26mph road speed.

T-34/85:
Armament: 85mm M1944 Z1S S53 L/51 gun; two 7.62 DT machine-guns.
Armour: 18mm-150mm
Engine: a V-2-34 12-cylinder water-cooled diesel developing 500hp @ 1,800 RPM.
Performance: 31mph road speed
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Mar 2005, 23:29
.............



Quote:
Armament: 1 75mm gun


Sorry, but there was more then one Sherman model. Early Sherman 75W was not a good tank, and Americans agreed with that. The tank couldnt penetrate Tigers frontal armor even from point blank range. On the top of all, the armor wasnt that good.

However, Allies fixed these problem. Later Sherman 75W model were armed with more powerful 75mm gun and stronger armor.

And 75W wasnt the only Sherman model.

Sherman 76W was a good tank, and T-34/85s armor was nowhere near the quality of model 76W. Soviet 45mm @ 60 is inferior to American 64mm @ 47. Have you ever heard of sloped armor? Ect: 45mm@60 becomes 160mm of shell resistance. 64mm@47 becomes 121mm of shell resistance. Even though T-34/85 also had sloped armor, the difference is, however, that Soviet steel was of deplorable quality. The only armor in T-34/85 that was stronger then in Sherman 76W was frontal turret armor.

Then there was Sherman Firefly model, armed with powerful 17 pdr AT-gun that had very good armor penetration power. Firefly could even penetrate Tigers frontal armor. Yes, the armor penetration power of Firefly was better then T-34/85s. The armor was also quite strong.

There were also other Sherman models, like Jumbo, Sherman V ect ect:

So much for your absolete tank....

User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 Mar 2005, 15:40
Jow would a Sherman stand against a Tiger (not that the T-34 had a much greater chance)? It wouldn't. It would be destroyed. At least the T-34 had the speed and manuverability.

Question, how would a Sherman stand against a Panzer?
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Mar 2005, 16:02
Quote:
Jow would a Sherman stand against a Tiger (not that the T-34 had a much greater chance)? It wouldn't. It would be destroyed. At least the T-34 had the speed and manuverability.

Question, how would a Sherman stand against a Panzer?


........


Sherman 75W could knock out Tiger.

The best way would be to ambush the Tiger, and hit it on the side or rear armor. It would be possible to knock Tiger in frontal engagement, but this is rather unlikely for one Sherman 75W. Usually five Sherman 75Ws attacked one Tiger tank in frontal engagent.

Image


This Tiger tank was ambushed by American Sherman in Italy. From point blank range, Sherman opened fire and penetrated the side armor and also ignited the fuel tank. Second hit that hit on the tracks immobilized the tank and the crew bailed out.

Sherman 76W would be a difrent thing. Its armor was stronger then 75Ws and so was its firepower. Depending of situation , it wouldnt take five of them to defeat one Tiger in frontal engament, though the best way would still be to ambush the Tiger.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 Mar 2005, 16:09
Beowulf wrote:
Quote:
The best way would be to ambush the Tiger, and hit it on the side or rear armor. It would be possible to knock Tiger in frontal engagement, but this is rather unlikely for one Sherman 75W. Usually five Sherman 75Ws attacked one Tiger tank in frontal engagent.


Thanks, the only way I have heard was to hit the Tigers tracks and immobilize it, than move in for the kill. This is why I think the T-34 is better because its speed could get behind a Tiger and hit it were it is vulnerable.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Mar 2005, 16:44
Your tactic flaws.

Any Tiger crew would see the T-34 coming toward them fast. You dont want to try and drive the tank to Tigers side or rear when the 88mm gun is aiming at your tank. That gun would shoot the tank to burning wreck.


Tiger could destroy T-34/76 and 85 from range where its maingun was ineffective agaisnt Tigers frontal armor.

Actually, T-34/76s maingun was ineffective agaisnt Tigers amore from nearly any range.

T-34/76 couldnt penetrate Tigers frontal armor even from point blank range. The only way to knock out Tiger would be to fire on rear or side armor, but T-34/76 had problems in penetrating 80mm armor which was the strongnes of Tigers side and rear armor.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 08 Mar 2005, 18:58
ComradeDTAII wrote:
however, countries still use T-34's today! And Shermans (other than the one up at my cottage and sparse around the country) are non-exsistent in terms of military service....

It tells only that countries that use communistic weapons, are extremely poor. T-34 has no combat value nowadays, it is effective only against civilians. Even one modern tank could take out whole army of these obsolete T-34.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Mar 2005, 19:03
That is true.

T-34/85 is absolete.

Its a WWII era tank, for Gods sakes.
Soviet cogitations: 1236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2005, 05:12
Unperson
Post 08 Mar 2005, 20:25
Alright, Germans used many designs from the T-34, that Soviet piece of crap, in the Panther tank, they even considered copying the T-34 completely, but have you ever seen the Germans rip off or even take designs from a "Sherman".

Comrades, I'm not saying that T-34/85 is as good as a modern armour, I'm saying for the time it was one of the best tanks of WWII.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2005, 00:13
When Hitler designed the Tiger he wanted nothing borrowed from Russian tanks (ie the sloped armour from the T-34). Hitlers pride made Germany lose the war and gave their super tank a serious flaw even if the German economy was not destroyed.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Mar 2005, 17:07
Quote:
When Hitler designed the Tiger he wanted nothing borrowed from Russian tanks (ie the sloped armour from the T-34). Hitlers pride made Germany lose the war and gave their super tank a serious flaw even if the German economy was not destroyed.




Is that so?

You might be intrested in knowing that when German first encountered T-34/76 Tiger had reached prototype stage.

At the time it was impossible to add sloped armor on the tank.

Quote:
Alright, Germans used many designs from the T-34, that Soviet piece of crap, in the Panther tank, they even considered copying the T-34 completely


Panther is not a copy or a rip off of T-34/76, if that is what you belive.

Panther, copy of T-34/76 is just ludicrus. The two vehicles are mechanicaly and in terms of looks as different as posible and there is very little if any resemblence between the two vehicles.


Quote:
that Soviet piece of crap


No one said that T-34/76 was a piece of crap.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2005, 18:22
Beowulf wrote:
Quote:
You might be intrested in knowing that when German first encountered T-34/76 Tiger had reached prototype stage.

At the time it was impossible to add sloped armor on the tank.


Quote:
The T-34 was developed during the 1936-37 period, the prototype was completed in early 1939, and in September 1940 T-34 was put into series production mounting a 76mm gun.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-34.htm

Quote:
In the first three years of the Second World War the main tanks used by the German Army were the Panzer (versions I, II, III and IV). However, the the successful resistance of the Red Army in the Soviet Union in 1942 showed that new tanks were needed.

In 1942 the German Army began using the Tiger Tank.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm

Clearly the T-34 was develpoed before the Tiger. And Hitler could change any design at any time.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.