Another Lend-Lease. Foreword

324
How many copies were broken around this term, and even more around the essence. Yes, Lend-Lease in World War II was a very controversial event in our stories. To this day, disputes do not subside, I am sure that it will be hot in the comments.

Usually two opinions are promoted.



First: we would have won all without handouts from the allies.

Second: if it were not for the help of the allies, we would have come to an end.

It is clear who and why promotes each of the versions. Ura-patriots and liberals - this is our headache for a long time, because the truth lies, as it were, in the middle.



It is not easy to talk about Lend-Lease, if only because it is necessary to understand: this is indeed a difficult stage in history. From its very beginning to the end. And it is very difficult to evaluate it simply with the statistics figures, moreover, it is silly.

Why? Everything is simple to disgrace. Behind the numbers is a little more than it seems. Take for example Tanks. They were delivered a certain amount. And from this we repel mainly. Just not taking into account the fact that the tanks were equipped with everything else with spare engines, gearboxes, rollers, torsion bars, springs, machine guns, headsets, ammunition, that is, everything without which the tank is not a tank. Not a combat unit.

Not serious because of the breakdown of a pair of rollers, for example, from a mine, to throw out a tank? They were not thrown away. Repaired, replacing all that is necessary. And, if 12 of thousands of tanks were delivered to us, it is worth imagining how many spare parts and equipment went to them.

The same, incidentally, was with the aircraft. In the memoirs of the pilots enough memories (Pokryshkin, Golodnikov, Sinai) on the subject of how many were cared for by Allison. But then they changed. And the correspondence was between the USSR and the United States about the supply of aircraft engines is very lively, because there was a very burning question. Nobody needs airplanes chained to the ground due to the lack of engines. And these tanks are not needed.

Here one more claim of the “patriots” is immediately recalled. Say, it's all too late. When we ourselves have won the Germans.

Well, everything is simple too. 12 August 1941 of the year. This is the release date of the first convoy (“Dervish”) from the ports of Great Britain to the northern ports of the Soviet Union. So - nothing is too late.

Few? Well, after the British Dunkirk themselves on the suction of the States sat. And the Americans had not only to produce everything they needed, but also to deliver across the ocean. And the ocean, that the Atlantic (with German submarines), that the Quiet (with the Japanese) - a serious obstacle.

Another Lend-Lease. Foreword


And nevertheless, the loads went, and went, and reached. Not without flaws. Read the two-volume "Correspondence of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill 1941-1945." Joseph Vissarionovich at the end of 1942, was very poor in restraining his emotions. And in its own way was right on 100%, especially in relation to the British allies.

That is why, when they stopped counting losses and began to count debts, Stalin abruptly broke off the Americans with his phrase that "everything was paid for with our blood." Until 1972, when negotiations resumed again.

Speaking of money, it’s worth starting from the beginning.

In the first year of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union was not at all part of the American Lend-Lease program. We were only included in it on 11 June 1942 of the year when the Basic Agreement on this military supply program was signed.

The question immediately follows: what about the caravans that came earlier? Before the conclusion of the contract?

And everything is not simple, but very simple. For money.

From June to November 1941, the USSR placed orders in the USA and the UK and paid for them in fact. You could say cash. Requires an explanation? Of course.

It is known that the currency in the USSR has always been not very. And then suddenly, before the conclusion of a land-lease agreement, the Soviet comrades are beginning not only to buy everything they need, but in terms of transportation by sea convoys! According to the formula "pay and carry." Strange ...



Guilty of this is Roosevelt. Yes, it was the American president who turned out to be a true ally of the USSR. Roosevelt, as president, could not then provide a loan for the purchase of arms without the approval of Congress. The discussion just before the 1942 year and dragged on.

But Franklin Delano Roosevelt would not have been one of the smartest people in the New World, if he had not thought up a workaround. So, in fact, if you really want, then you can. Roosevelt bypassed all prohibitions.

The US government has concluded two trade deals with the USSR: for the purchase of strategic materials for 100 million dollars and gold for 40 million dollars. Total for 140 million dollars.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgentau and our representative Vyacheslav Molotov set the price of 35 dollars for an ounce of gold and 15 of August 1941, the American treasury paid the Soviet side an advance of 10 million dollars for its future deliveries.

As a result, by the end of October 1941, the USSR received from the United States as an advance on the above transactions 90 million dollars.

Thus, Roosevelt made the USSR solvent in dollar terms and convinced the American society, the Senate and Congress, that Stalin independently financed his arms procurement program from the United States. Without breaking a single letter of American law.

American weapon went to our ports. And on the way back, the ships took the load of the very strategic materials (for example, manganese ores), which were mentioned in the agreement.

It was noted more than once that the Soviet side observed this agreement with all scrupulousness. This can be one of the explanations of sending from Murmansk on the ill-fated cruiser Edinburgh 5,5 tons of gold worth about 6,2 million dollars - this cargo could be part of those 30 – 40 tons of Russian gold paid by Americans back in 1941 year.



True, the gold "Edinburgh" could be intended and the British, who also did not miss his. By the agreement of 16 in August, 1941 of the United Kingdom provided the Soviet Union with a loan of 10 million pounds. Later, the loan amount was increased to 60 million pounds.

According to the 16 agreement of August 1941, the Soviet government paid 40% in gold or dollar value and the remaining 60% through a loan from the UK government.

This is only an argument in the direction of those who are still confident that the Lend-Lease was paid in gold.

To repay supplies under Lend-Lease, the USA received from the USSR 300 thousand tons of chromium and 32 thousand tons of manganese ore, and in addition, platinum, gold, furs and other goods totaling $ 2,2 million.

21.08.1945 United States of America stopped lend-lease supplies to the USSR. Roosevelt, unfortunately, deceased, was replaced by Truman. A new era, the era of the Cold War. And the allies, who had recently fought with one enemy, themselves became enemies. If the supply debts were simply written off to most other countries, then negotiations with the Soviet Union on these issues were conducted in 1947-1948, 1951-1952, 1960, 1972.

The total amount of land supplies to the USSR is estimated at 11,3 billion dollars.

At the same time, according to the Lend-Lease Act, only goods and equipment that survived after the end of hostilities are payable. Such Americans estimated billions of dollars at 2,6 and, to put it mildly, were not understood and sent to think.

Thinking after a year, the former allies halved this amount.

Thus, the US billed on 1,3 billion dollars paid during 30 years with the accrual of 2,3% per annum.

Stalin did not intend to take away the resources of our war-ravaged country in order to give them to a potential enemy in the Third World War. Therefore, the United States was again sent, no longer thinking, with a clear resolution of the Soviet leader: "The USSR paid off the lend-lease in blood in full."

Lend-lease debt negotiations were resumed only after Stalin’s death, and only 18.10.1972 signed an agreement on the payment by the Soviet Union of 722 million dollars before 01.07.2001. And even 48 million dollars were paid, but after the Americans entered the discriminatory Jackson-Vanik amendment, the USSR stopped payments.

In 1990, at the new negotiations between the presidents of the USSR and the USA, the final maturity of the debt was agreed upon - 2030. However, a year later the USSR broke up, and the debt was “re-registered” to Russia. In 2006, Lend-Lease debt was fully repaid.

Such a financial background story.

Was it all profitable?

Definitely: yes. We received equipment and components that were very necessary for us, and with some positions the products of factories lost in the occupied territory were completely closed.

The Americans received a huge impetus to the development of their industry, which brought them to first place in the world.



Now that all bills have been paid, we can calmly talk about Lend-Lease and analyze as much as you like. What we, in fact, are going to do.

In subsequent articles of this cycle will be thoughtful and careful consideration, and an assessment of everything that we received under the program of lend-lease. This became possible thanks to our joint and fruitful work with the museums of military equipment in Padikovo and Verkhnyaya Pyshma.

We will not compare the figures for the number of deliveries and our release, although the numbers will be given its place.

We will not try to answer the question if we would have won without lend-lease supplies.

We will not count dollars and rubles.

Our main task will be the story of what equipment came to us in the framework of Lend-Lease and (most interesting in our opinion) we will compare it with our counterparts. Something was already in the framework of the series “Yours among strangers”, but there were ships and airplanes, and here there will be a place for tanks, self-propelled guns, cars, trucks, armored personnel carriers, guns and small arms.



Having started the preliminary work, we were amazed at the amount of information that hit our heads. Indeed, perhaps, for some of our efforts, Lend-Lease will appear in a different light. We count on this very much.
324 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +24
    15 November 2018 06: 12
    Our main task will be to talk about what kind of equipment came to us in the framework of Lend-Lease and (most interesting in our opinion) compare it with our counterparts.

    A typical mistake is to evaluate the importance of Lend-Lease according to the parameters of the equipment supplied. This is all secondary. All weighing pro et contra forget that you can fill the front with equipment and ammunition, but if the soldier has nothing to eat, then he simply can’t fight, you can’t attack the birch bark and boiled skin. Since 1942, the Allies completely covered the needs of the USSR in food supply for the army. Without their help, food for a multi-million army was sorely lacking.
    Who "doubts" I will quote figures from Voznesensky's book "The military economy of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War."
    Sown area from 1940 to 1942 decreased from 110 571 thousand ha. up to 67 289 thousand ha
    19,5 million men of grain growers, machine operators and technicians went to the front from agriculture. Almost all equipment, 85% of cars, 60% of horses, almost all tractors were seized.
    Well, the last. After the end of food supplies in late 1945, a terrible famine erupted in 1946-1947, which indicates the importance of food supplies according to Lend-Lease and in general. Without him, victory was impossible.
    1. +4
      15 November 2018 06: 25
      Here is an interesting document ... what

      LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE USA
      D. ACHESON, AMBASSADOR OF THE USSR TO THE USA A.S. PANYUSHKIN
      ON THE QUESTION OF SETTLEMENT OF CALCULATIONS ON LEND-LIZ

      https://allin777.livejournal.com/76942.html
    2. +43
      15 November 2018 06: 29
      Quote: Puncher
      Without him, victory was impossible.

      In my opinion, Lend-Lease saved a lot, a lot of lives, maybe millions. And they would have won, only the war would have lasted longer, and much more blood was shed.
      1. -9
        15 November 2018 06: 41
        Quote: Evdokim
        And they would have won, only the war would have lasted longer, and much more blood was shed.

        Without food? Try to live a month on a meal, just live, do not fight, do not work, and move no further than your apartment. A month later, walk to Berlin, albeit without encountering any armed resistance. How far will the winner go?
        1. +4
          15 November 2018 06: 48
          Quote: Puncher
          Without food?

          And how much food came from Lend-Lease?
          1. 0
            15 November 2018 07: 25
            Quote: Evdokim
            And how much food came from Lend-Lease?

            I would not know, I did not write. What is the meaning of your question?
          2. +16
            15 November 2018 11: 27
            Quote: Evdokim
            And how much food came from Lend-Lease?

            Little...

            Look how much England received, 70% of all Lend-Lease.
            1. -14
              15 November 2018 11: 42
              After the war comrade. Stalin changed his mind to be friends with the United States and asked Comrade Voznesensky, if I am not mistaken, to draw such a beautiful plate. Where inside 7% of "industrial goods", for example, are explosives, aluminum, anti-knock additives, etc.
              This, suddenly, brings us back to the question of how to deal with the "technocrats" in the beautiful Russia of the future.
              1. +28
                15 November 2018 11: 52
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                After the war comrade Stalin changed his mind to be friends with the United States

                In your Western world, this is probably so, but history knows that Western countries changed their minds to befriend Stalin, after Churchill's Fulton speech in March 1946, I am already silent about the preparation of the "Unthinkable" operation against the USSR against the USSR in the summer of 1945.
                1. -23
                  15 November 2018 12: 28
                  Quote: figvam
                  In your western world this is probably the case

                  Ugums.
                  Quote: figvam
                  this is Western countries changed their minds to be friends with Stalin

                  From Western countries, Roosevelt and Attlee wanted to be friends with Stalin, if I am not mistaken. In the first case, this led to the drain of information on AB (and much more), in the second - to the supply of engines for MiGs.
                  Quote: figvam
                  after Churchill's Fulton speech in March 1946

                  After Comrade Stalin sent the Polish government to his beloved Gulag, whom he caught (and sent the most violent - directly to the ditch) (spring of the 45th), asked to go out to speak Turkey for the Straits (fall of the 45th) and forgiven his debts LL (this is after Fulton), it even dawned on the Americans that something was going wrong.
                  Quote: figvam
                  I am already silent about the preparation by the "allies" of the "Unthinkable" operation against the USSR in the summer of 1945.

                  There was no "preparation". Taking into account the problems on the Polish question (let me remind you that the whole mahach began with it), Churchill's request to the headquarters was "Is it possible to expel the Russians from Eastern Europe?" "It is impossible" - the headquarters answered. "What if they themselves want to expel us?" Churchill asked then. "Evacuate" - the headquarters replied. This correspondence is quite in the spirit of Churchill's activities during WWII, what will happen if what will happen if that. Churchill, unlike the VFGN and Stalin, did not undertake to direct the troops directly, so after the conclusion of the headquarters, the issue of a surprise attack was closed. No consultations with the United States on this issue are known.

                  In order to really do something, the Americans had to harness themselves. They swayed only after 3 years.

                  If it itches so, I can slightly alter how preparation for the Unthinkable really should have looked.
                  1. SOF
                    +11
                    15 November 2018 19: 48
                    Quote: Cherry Nine

                    There was no "preparation".

                    ..... of course, of course ..... it was so, there was no preparation .... only now, all of a sudden, Zhukov is organizing a total redeployment of the entire Soviet occupation group of troops, and, deep after May 9th ....
                    ..... why would it suddenly ....? .... to fight with the disadvantages is stupid .... then why? .....
                    1. -9
                      15 November 2018 20: 08
                      Quote: SOF
                      .... of course, of course ..... it was so, there was no preparation .... only now, all of a sudden, Zhukov is organizing a total redeployment

                      It turns out that Zhukov was preparing for war?

                      What was Aiki doing at this time? What he had do to be able to hit?
                      1. SOF
                        +9
                        15 November 2018 21: 12
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What did Aiki do at this time

                        ... did nothing, or rather, pretended to be doing nothing, for the simple reason that, before Zhukov’s maneuver, he knew in detail the location of all the forces of the Soviet group and had under his ass not only a large group of ground forces, but also an armada of bombing aircraft capable of erasing a city like Dresden in the ashes in a day .....
                        .... and in this regard, the question: who was preparing for war? .... given the fact that Zhukov did not go on the offensive, although he had everything necessary for this, he knew that the "allies" had a nuclear club and confined himself to only changing the disposition of his troops, known to the "allies" ...
                        ZY .... understand .... I, now, do not try to appeal by the facts ... just - I appeal to your logic ....
                      2. -2
                        16 November 2018 02: 12
                        Quote: SOF
                        I'm not trying to appeal facts now

                        I see.
                        Quote: SOF
                        just - I appeal to your logic ....

                        Logics? What does Truman need to sign up for a war with the USSR?
                        1. Good reason. Let us leave it in parentheses.
                        2. Reason. When discussing alternatives to the Unthinkable, this is one of the main issues. What to say to voters?
                        The Americans also understood something about incidents like Gliwitz, but in the summer of 45, this could hardly have done. In order to quickly expand public opinion in the United States, something very serious was required. For example, find a spy under the bed. The late FDR himself was best suited, but many would not have understood such a turn. Normal options are E. Roosevelt or, for example, K Hull.


                        They said different things about the grandmother, but with Mr. Hall, everything is clear. It's high time to expense. Behind St. Louis.

                        Are you aware of any large-scale events to prepare public opinion?

                        3. Purely military dispositions.
                        a) the advantages of the Allies: an advantage in strategic aviation; advantage at sea, including the Baltic; fully motorized army; supply advantage; advantage in mobilization resources; time advantage; atomic bomb.
                        b) the advantages of the Red Army: a large and very competent, as is believed, a group of ground forces, primarily tank; numerical superiority, including artillery; Numerous and, as it is believed, competent front-line aviation.

                        You were instructed to destroy the Soviet group in Europe in the amount of 7 fronts.

                        Your tasks:
                        a) Prevent the successful Blitzkrieg of the Red Army. In a long war, resources will decide everything, but a red army blitzkrieg is possible - a puncher always has a chance. To do this, you need to create a serious line of defense and concentrate reserves on defensive lines. Given your supply from the sea, the main task is to cover the area of ​​Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp. Therefore, you have to gain a foothold on the Baltic line - the Elba-Rhine canal system - the Rhine-Alps river. The presence of mountains or water barriers, your excellent artillery and your aircraft will allow you to minimize the threat of a breakthrough of the Red Army to the ports.

                        Do you know about the strengthening of these, or any other lines? Mining bridges, etc.? The withdrawal of troops from Germany beyond the Rhine and the arrival of reserves?

                        b) ensure superior supply, interrupt enemy communications. The main strength of your strategic aviation is still liberators and fortresses. They won’t reach the USSR industry, but it’s possible to bomb the communication centers. Not many of them remained in Eastern Europe. Considering that the main communications of the USSR are located to the east than it was previously with the Reich, bombing them from the UK is inconvenient. At the same time, the appearance of enemy tanks on the runway of strategic aviation bases should be ruled out. In this regard, it is advisable to deploy strategic aviation on the island, but closer. There is such an island - Zealand.

                        Do you know about equipping strategic bases in Denmark? Do you know about the demands of the Allies for the USSR to immediately get rid of Danish Fr. Bornholm, which could be an excellent base for escort fighters?

                        c) you have to face a relatively large number of front-line aviation. At the same time, your planes are designed for great heights. Of the low-altitude, you mainly Spita, and even those are not so low-altitude. What can you do in this regard? Try to get low-altitude aircraft and pilots who can fight with the Yak-3 and IL-2. You, by chance, have such aircraft and such pilots, and in large numbers. Well, almost you. At the ILC and the fleet. In the pacific ocean.

                        Are you aware of the advent of American coastal aviation in Europe? Are you aware of the urgent saturation of the ground forces of the MZA?

                        d) Fortresses are, of course, good. But, on the other hand, the atomic bomb itself will not reach Moscow.

                        Are you aware of the appearance of bases for the B-29 in Europe? Are you aware of attempts to establish radio navigation in Eastern Europe? Do you know about the appearance in Europe of Mustangs and Thunders of the latest, most distant series?

                        d + c) taking resources from the Pacific Ocean you naturally reduce your opportunities there. Despite the fact that even a B-29 in half a day does not fly from Tinian to London - this must be done in advance.

                        Are you aware of the suspension of plans for war with Japan and the transfer of the same B-29 to Europe?
                      3. 0
                        16 November 2018 07: 22
                        Bravo! great arguments!
                      4. SOF
                        +2
                        16 November 2018 08: 21
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Do you know ..... Do you know ...... Do you know ...... Do you know .....

                        .... have written so much - enough for historical work ..... reveal a secret - your thoughts or spied .....?
                        .... but did you know that the "Fortresses", since 1944, have used airfields in Poltava as a jump base, to carry out shuttle raids .... far from Poltava to Moscow? .......
                        .... and where did you get the idea that the enemy would have climbed into the windshield with a drill? .... are they boobies? - no....
                        .... it was enough to raise a cloud of bombers .... in the afternoon - American, at night - British ..... to bomb for predetermined goals .... and for now, the Russians, clearly not expecting this, will be eager to understand what it is was ..... dumped across the English Channel .... experience was with Dunkirk, they had .....
                        .... and at the same time .... from Poltava .... fortunately, the gullible Russians did not hustle the "allies" scurrying back and forth for illegal investments, throw to Moscow what was intended for Hiroshima and Nagasaki ..... and that's it ..... there is no center of the Union .... only who can make decisions ....? ... that's right - Zhukov ... where Zhukov is in Germany ... yes, he has enough troops, even after the raid, but he can trample all of Europe, ... and then ...? ... and then he will reach the strait, and from the other side they will show him a cookie, because you cannot force the English Channel on rafts and pontoons ........... and Moscow is in ruins ... and in the Far East, B-29s, ironing Japan no, no, and flew to Soviet territory for "forced" .... and landing craft, at that theater, they had plenty ........... ...
                        ......something like that.... your highlie, how is it there, like it - against mine .........
                        ... and as it was in reality - it is unlikely that we will ever know .... if they have kept the circumstances of the death of Hess and Himler secret for many years, then such plans may already have been burned .......... .........
                      5. -3
                        16 November 2018 09: 43
                        Quote: SOF
                        your thoughts or spied

                        There are several threads on the unthinkable in Runet, in which the moderators managed to fend off the holy fools.
                        Quote: SOF
                        did you know that the Fortresses, from 1944,

                        Of course. But this option has nothing to do with the unthinkable. In August of the 45th near Poltava, Fortresses have nothing to do, especially Superfortresses. Fortress under AB needs to be greatly redone. There is no point in arranging adventures in the Skorzeny style when there is a plane capable of getting Moscow out of Europe.
                        When the decision is transferred to the 44th and even to the 13th of April of the 45th, the constructive German opposition and the true patriots of Germany come to the fore. The list of people wishing to enroll in this company was very long, especially in April of the 45th.
                        Quote: SOF
                        crawled into the windshield?

                        Just this is a variant of the first unthinkable. Maneuvering war with the Red Army, in which it is the strongest. The plan is insane, which Churchill was informed of.
                        Quote: SOF
                        it was enough to raise a cloud of bombers .... in the afternoon - American, at night - British ..... to bomb for pre-known targets

                        Strategist bombing is ineffective. Night ones are impossible. The Liberator will not reach Moscow, unlike the B-29.
                        Quote: SOF
                        Zhukov - in Germany ..... yes, he has enough troops, even after the raid, but he can trample all of Europe

                        Only if Aiki badly fucks.
                        Quote: SOF
                        your hailie, how is it there, lykli - against mine

                        I do not propose discussing highlie likes. I ask that did allies. And nothing Engels and Kautsky corresponded about.
                        Quote: SOF
                        such plans may have already been burned

                        Dropshot was not burned further, but this was burned. God sent some tantrums, not Allies. In any case, it’s not about the plan, but about real actions. what did Zhukov to prepare for war - we know. what did Allies?
                      6. SOF
                        +2
                        16 November 2018 10: 17
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What Zhukov did to prepare for the war - we know. What did the Allies

                        ........ I am surprised at you ... chees a word ....
                        ..... Zhukov’s movements, without having ANY documents on hand, you clearly interpret as preparation for war .... and the lack of enemy movements - for the lack of plans, as such .....
                        ..... I suggest looking differently: Zhukov’s movements as a reaction to real plans that warned the enemy’s movements ......................
                        .... what's the catch ....... is that one subjective opinion owes to be more objective than another, no less subjective? ...... well, maybe ...... only I do not agree with that ..... and you cannot cover with more weighty arguments than "highley like" ......
                      7. -2
                        16 November 2018 13: 24
                        Quote: SOF
                        Zhukov’s movements, without any documents on hand, you clearly interpret as preparation for war

                        You do not understand something. Zhukov - the commander of a group of troops (like that). Preparing for war with anyone is his direct responsibility. He considered it necessary to put under arms - set. Kimmel and Shert from Pearl Harbor did not find it necessary to do anything at the time - there was also no information, peacetime again, day off - fell under the tribunal. So there are no questions for Zhukov.
                        But Zhukov did it. And what did Aiki? What I could do - I selectively described. The stories "they could have always attacked anyway" - into the garden. The Red Army is not the Kwantung army. Yes, even for the Kwantung couple of months, they pulled up their strength.
                      8. SOF
                        +1
                        16 November 2018 16: 03
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What did Aiki do?

                        .... I didn’t do anything .... I said ... at the beginning ...... I think that I drank coffee in the morning, read the newspaper ...... and gave instructions on the placement, on the land of Schleswig-Holstein, in a subdivision, 20 German divisions not actually disbanded ....................
                        .... if planning, involving chiefs of staff - is not action....... then I give up ....... let it be .....
                      9. -1
                        16 November 2018 17: 29
                        Quote: SOF
                        I believe that I drank, in the morning coffee, read the newspaper ...... and gave instructions about

                        ... the dissolution of the Supreme Headquarters of the combined forces. During June, the VS transferred its affairs to national headquarters. On July 14, VS was liquidated. From that moment until the creation of NATO structures, the British and Americans did not have a single headquarters.
                        Quote: SOF
                        20 German divisions not actually disbanded

                        Division numbers? And what is it, by the way, that Aiki has unkind in the English zone of occupation?
                        Quote: SOF
                        if planning, involving chiefs of staff - is not an action

                        Of course not. Planning is planning, action is action (all of a sudden). The liquidation of Aiki’s headquarters is action, the redeployment of Zhukov’s forces is action.

                        By the way, about the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky. Aiki advocated keeping the headquarters as long as possible. What is Churchill didto help him?
                      10. SOF
                        0
                        16 November 2018 18: 05
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        (suddenly).

                        ... suddenly belay ...... to listen to you, it turns out that Zhukov, out of his own stupidity or Stalin's bloodthirstiness, intended to drown the "allies" in the ocean, since he took his own counteractions, and in your opinion - actions, in the absence of any action from the probable enemy ..... miracles of etymology ...
                        ..... and the "allies" did not take any planning actions, since these are not actions, in general ...., and so .... something verbal and ephemeral .....
                        ....taking off my hat.... hi
                      11. 0
                        16 November 2018 20: 00
                        Quote: SOF
                        listen to you so that Zhukov

                        Zhukov was obliged to ensure the defense capability of the units entrusted to him. He was completely right. Once already afraid to provoke, 4 years just. It seemed, did not seem - then it will be seen.
                        Quote: SOF
                        and the "allies" did not take any planning action,

                        You can take as many planning actions as you like. Headquarters receive money for this. But there are no actions to prepare for the database.
                      12. -1
                        18 November 2018 11: 03
                        you carry the game!
                      13. 0
                        18 November 2018 11: 06
                        Great arguments, thanks for joining the discussion.
                      14. +1
                        16 November 2018 18: 10
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Kimmel and Shert from Pearl Harbor did not find it necessary to do anything at the time - there was also no information, peacetime again, day off - fell under the tribunal.

                        They fell under the tribunal only because society needed a scapegoat.
                        In fact, Short and Kimmel regularly bombarded Washington with demands to increase the combat readiness of the forces entrusted to them.
                        And regularly received an answer: increased combat readiness is prohibited - negotiations are underway with Japan, and it can be perceived by the Japanese as a provocation. In general, there is no reason to increase combat readiness.
                        With great difficulty, this couple was able to knock out Washington’s permission to transfer the army and navy to the lowest level of combat readiness, according to which the army could only take measures to prevent sabotage.

                        Moreover, the independent transfer of the entrusted forces to increased combat readiness in peacetime is a direct path to the military tribunal. Unauthorized actions of the military are not welcomed in any state.
                      15. -1
                        16 November 2018 19: 42
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        They fell under the tribunal only because society needed a scapegoat ...

                        ... and MacArthur failed to merge.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        regularly bombarded Washington

                        Yes Yes. Putting a mess in the headquarters, skipping the message about the Ward submarine attack, turning off the radars at 8 in the morning and other achievements - these are all unidentified asses from Washington.
                        G.G. Kimmel and Short should be planted, if only for rotten excuses, IMHO.

                        Although that only these two were screwed in vain - here you are right.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Unauthorized actions of the military are not welcomed in any state.

                        The American army is famous for its discipline and prudence of officers, of course. Halsey, for example, was a big dock in international politics.
                      16. 0
                        19 November 2018 12: 23
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        ... and MacArthur failed to merge.

                        MacArthur was even more dangerous to merge than Short and Kimmel. In the Philippine investigation, very unpleasant facts could emerge - such as the very schooner sent to provoke the Japanese. Or unpleasant questions: why was there only one division in the advanced Philippines, besides a third of the local ones, and reinforcements went on a teaspoon at an o'clock - and in the rear Hawaii at the same time there were already two divisions? And why wasn’t the US Asian fleet reinforcements planned at all?
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Putting a mess in the headquarters, skipping the message about the Ward submarine attack, turning off the radars at 8 in the morning and other achievements - these are all unidentified asses from Washington.

                        Heh heh heh ... but the Army Commission of Inquiry of 1944 directly and unequivocally laid the blame for Washington’s lack of readiness on air defense of Oahu: the only reason for the incomplete operation of the air attack warning system was the type of alert level, otherwise it would be alert.
                        The only reason that the aircraft warning service was not on a full operating basis on the morning of December 7th was due to the type of alert put into effect but otherwise it should have been in full effect.

                        And who set the permitted level of combat readiness for Oahu?
                      17. +1
                        19 November 2018 15: 19
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        MacArthur was even more dangerous to merge than Short and Kimmel. In the Philippine investigation, very unpleasant facts could emerge - such as the very schooner sent to provoke the Japanese. Or unpleasant questions: why was there only one division in the advanced Philippines, besides a third of the local ones, and reinforcements went on a teaspoon at an o'clock - and in the rear Hawaii at the same time there were already two divisions? And why wasn’t the US Asian fleet reinforcements planned at all?

                        Yes, these are very interesting questions. Given the remaining events (loss of fortresses, in particular), it looks like the Philippines first wanted to merge, then they changed their minds, but they did not write a new plan. Here the role of Marshall and Stark is of interest to the public.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Hehehehe ... but the Army Commission of Inquiry of 1944 directly and unequivocally blamed Oahu for its unavailability of air defense

                        Could not Short Short have breakfast in shifts? Short with Kimmel could not fall in love so that the message about the detection of submarines and radars came quickly and into the same room? Kimmel could not introduce Soviet rules - if we don’t know where the enemy’s aircraft carrier is, then he’s coming straight at us? Kimmel did not know about the activities of Harry E. Yarnel (who would you listen to at one time)? Indeed, who could be to blame for this?

                        I don’t remember who I read it from. Fleet commander must take the initiative, must to take responsibility. If you could boast of vaunted democracy on the basis of the PX, it’s possible to put it into your head, including Nimitz, and you might have thought of trying torpedoes before the 43rd year.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        But with IL-2 - yes, here with the experience of fighting tight.

                        Well, for example.
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_B7A_Ryusei
                      18. 0
                        19 November 2018 18: 51
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Given the remaining events (loss of fortresses, in particular), it looks like the Philippines first wanted to merge, then they changed their minds, but they did not write a new plan.

                        So if you take the naval WPO, it directly says that the Philippines are merging - the army retreats to Bataan and sits there on the defensive, waiting for the return of the fleet, simultaneously blocking the entrance to Manila Bay. Yeah ... without supplies, without reinforcements - sitting in warehouses. And the fleet ... the fleet at this time focuses.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Could not Short Short have breakfast in shifts?

                        Poor Short could not enter the round-the-clock duty at the Central Air Defense Department. Although he crippled the noble when he shifted the radar work schedule without touching the work schedule of the air defense command center.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        If you could boast of vaunted democracy on the basis of the PX, it’s possible to put it into your head, including Nimitz, and you might have thought of trying torpedoes before the 43rd year.

                        What does Nimitz have to do with it? In that story, it was he who, after receiving reliable data from Lockwood, was trying to hammer into the heads of the wise specialists from BuOrd that their torpedoes were complete slag.
                        If Nimitz hadn’t sided with Lockwood on his first appeal to Washington, damn it, Lockwood would have been able to prove to BuOrd for the second time that after torpedo refinement, they continue to be slag.
                      19. +1
                        19 November 2018 19: 40
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Poor Short could not enter the round-the-clock duty at the Central Air Defense Department

                        And shtob him for it, sorry?
                        Again. About the fact that AUS sneak already shown yarnell. Twice, EMNIP. Knowing this, knowing that the storm was approaching (wrote to Washington about combat readiness?), He organized air defense like this.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        What does Nimitz have to do with it?

                        What struck me in this story is the relationship of the naval. If there were no trials, how could they be not spend when the complaints went? As a non-living economy.
                        Oh yes, $ 20 thousand. Wow, what an importance.
                      20. 0
                        19 November 2018 19: 55
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What struck me in this story is the relationship of the naval. If there were no tests a single time, then how could they not be carried out when the complaints went? As a non-living economy.
                        Oh yes, $ 20 thousand. Wow, what an importance.

                        The naval Yankees were clearly bitten by one of our admirals from under the Spitz. Because history and argumentation painfully resemble the "shell scandal" of the RJAV times.
                        Proven constructionthey said. Why waste moneythey said. sad

                        It is interesting, in American documents, for an hour, if there is no wording:
                        On the economic side, the experiments are no longer of great importance, since the shells required for the ships were made or ordered almost to the full set.
                        wink
                      21. +1
                        19 November 2018 23: 21
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Why waste money, they said

                        As far as I know this story (in the presentation of midnike) they did not discuss money. They wrote complaints and thought that was all they could do.

                        Sometimes it seems that Lockwood was generally the only conscientious person in the Pacific Fleet.
                      22. 0
                        20 November 2018 18: 31
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Why waste money, they said

                        As far as I know this story (in the presentation of midnike) they did not discuss money. They wrote complaints and thought that was all they could do.

                        Sometimes it seems that Lockwood was generally the only conscientious person in the Pacific Fleet.
                        With torpedoes, in general, the story was divided into 4 parallel stories (as far as I remember from the recollections):
                        1. problems with the newest proximity fuse - it worked, then it didn't "which confused things even more" (but it was difficult to abandon it - "it also increases the target area and how we will shoot at shallow-draft ships / PLO"),
                        2. problems with a contact fuse, which did not fire at angles of impact close to the straight line (which was considered "desirable") and with an increase in the angle of impact began to fire,
                        3. problems with the depth of torpedo travel (the torpedo went below the set depth) - there are no hits, although the captain saw a trace of a correctly directed torpedo,
                        4. and some other dull mention of the conflict with the manufacturer of torpedoes: attempts to control the quality of the military ran into opposition from trade unions and politicians (at the level of the congressman and, as far as I remember, the governor from the relevant state).
                      23. +1
                        20 November 2018 19: 19
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        With torpedoes, in general, the story was divided into 4 parallel stories (as far as I remember from the recollections)

                        There were actually three stories there:
                        1. Military acceptance has not been established, just as a phenomenon. Torpedoes were received because the Newport Torpedo Station (EMNIP) - the manufacturer - said that everything was OK. When they wrote that it wasn’t OK, they replied that they were just exploiters.
                        2. All claims to the torpedoes fell on the people who invented them so beautiful. The topic was monopolized.
                        3. The lack of strategic intelligence in the United States. If it were, it would be possible to tackle the issue after the similar problems of the British and Germans. They write that Lockwood, appointed in the spring of the 43rd, was the first person who had guessed to talk with the English naval attaché on this topic.
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        it also increases the target area and with what we will shoot at small-sitting ships / PLO

                        Everything is fundamentally wrong. The non-contact fuse was designed for ships with deep missile defense, primarily LC. he must explode under a less secure bottom. However, enthusiasts of this business have made it to be included. always. Later it turned out that he did not work south of the 40th, EMNIP, degrees N due to the different voltage of the Earth’s magnetic field. In Newport, where he was made, he worked the norms.
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        problems with a contact fuse that did not work at contact angles

                        The moving part in this fuse must be move at right angles to the direction of the torpedo movement. those. if the blow was strong enough (at angles close to 90) - it stuck.
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        problems with torpedo depth

                        Yes. The sensor on the dashboard set the depth based on water pressure. It was set in such a way that when water flowed around it created a low pressure area above it, as a result of which it seemed to him that the depth was lower than real.
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        and some other dull mention of the conflict with the manufacturer of torpedoes: attempts to control quality by the military

                        I have not heard of any attempts to control quality by the military. Torpedo Station in Newport - State Office.
                      24. 0
                        21 November 2018 08: 35
                        He wrote from memory, sources - Roscoe, Potter, Lockwood, Morison. I’ll try to find and put out quotes if the volume of Roscoe’s hands does not break. wassat
                      25. +1
                        23 November 2018 21: 13
                        "In the first lines of my letter ..." I hasten to express my gratitude to "Cherry Nine" for the occasion to read good books again. hi wink
                        Potter is drier, Lockwood went nicer, Morison is also a little dry. Tomik (cube-like) Roscoe in his hands caused a surge of concern for others and interest in my health. wassat
                        Let's start:
                        Quote: Cherry Nine

                        Quote: Wildcat
                        and some other dull mention of the conflict with the manufacturer of torpedoes: attempts to control quality by the military ran into opposition from trade unions and politicians (at the level of the congressman and, as far as I remember, the governor from the relevant state).
                        I have not heard of any attempts to control quality by the military. Torpedo Station in Newport - State Office.

                        “The poor design and disgusting characteristics of our torpedoes were partly due to their obsolescence (the reserves of the First World War were wasted), partly the desire for economy (it was scary to lose a combat torpedo), partly interwar stagnation in the Navy's Armament Department, and partly politicking at the torpedo factory in Newport. of the Rhode Island headquarters considered civilian workers as their mainstay and supported the local unions in the struggle against the factory management. As one of the naval officers viciously remarked: “If I kick out an incompetent and willful worker, the very next day the Secretary of the Navy will be summoned by senators and congressmen from Rhode Island. which will require its restoration. " Morison S.E.Fleet of Two Oceans
                        hi
                      26. +1
                        23 November 2018 21: 28
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        With torpedoes, in general, the story was divided into 4 parallel stories (as far as I remember from the recollections)

                        ...
                        They write that Lockwood, appointed in the spring of the 43rd, was the first person who had guessed to talk with the English naval attaché on this topic.
                        ...
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        problems with torpedo depth

                        Yes. The sensor on the dashboard set the depth based on water pressure. It was set in such a way that when water flowed around it created a low pressure area above it, as a result of which it seemed to him that the depth was lower than real.

                        Yes. hi A small clarification is Lockwood since May 1942.
                        The story with depth is in different ways, but I like Lockwood ("Swamp them all!"): (Because it starts with a skirt lol ) "... the admiral greeted me with the following words:
                        - Listen, Lockwood, have you heard that the US Navy has requisitioned 30000 skirts {5} from us under the reverse Lend-Lease?
                        During that period of the war I already ceased to be amazed at anything and, without suspecting a dirty trick, I easily fell for the bait.
                        “No, I have not heard,” I answered. - What for?
                        “And so that you Americans are not caught again without pants,” the admiral kindly explained.
                        Remembering the death of the British ships of the Prince of Wales and Ripals, the fall of Hong Kong and realizing that Singapore was waiting for the same fate, I could parry a joke, but I perfectly understood that in fact the admiral's words meant: “Yes, we misfortune comrades with you. ”
                        ...
                        During the war, our submariners sank a large number of Japanese ships and vessels with a total tonnage of almost 6000000 tons. But before achieving such success, we had to solve a very serious problem - the problem of torpedoes.
                        From the very beginning of the war, the torpedo firing of our submarines yielded discouraging results. Apparently, the torpedoes buried too deep in the water, that is, did not keep the given depth of travel. Returning from a military campaign, submarine commanders reported that they had seen with their own eyes how the track of fired torpedoes passed under the stern or slightly behind the stern of the attacked ships. If we take into account the time during which air bubbles from the torpedo float to the surface, and the distance that the target can advance during this period, it becomes clear that the torpedoes passed under the attacked vessel. Submarines of type “S” were armed with torpedoes with a contact fuse, which was triggered when a torpedo hit a ship. The torpedoes of ocean-going submarines used a magnetic fuse, which is triggered by the action of a magnetic field, which is formed by the steel hull of the target ship. Thus, burrowing deeper than the specified depth of course, torpedoes of type “S” did not hit the target, and torpedoes of ocean-going submarines passed under the ship’s bottom outside an intense magnetic field.
                        Apparently, some departments, including the artillery, believed that these stories of submarine commanders were simply an attempt to justify their mistakes. However, facts continued to accumulate, [48] while submariners continued to despair, seeing how precisely directed torpedoes did not hit the target. Then we decided on our own initiative to conduct tests. On the advice of Captain Rank 2 Fife, we bought 150 meters from one fisherman in Albany, put this network at the exit of King George Sound and shot several torpedoes at it from a distance of five cable, which was a normal distance for a torpedo attack. Inspection of the network by divers confirmed the correct conclusions of the submarine commanders. The measurements showed that the torpedoes used on ocean-type submarines (at that time in Western Australia we no longer had S-type submarines) go on average 3,3 meters deeper than the specified travel depth. For a magnetic fuse, this discrepancy was too large, and we immediately made the necessary adjustments to the installation of the hydrostat.
                        The artillery command questioned our test method and the accuracy of the data. However, some time later it reported that at the torpedo range, approximately the same results were obtained as ours. There the error was three meters.
                        We were very pleased to believe that we got rid of the torpedo defects. In the hearts of the depressed submarine commanders, hope faded. But, alas, our tribulations did not end there. Torpedoes began to withstand depth more accurately, but there were more cases when torpedoes either exploded prematurely, or, hitting the side of the ship, did not explode at all. Sometimes the explosion occurred immediately, as soon as the torpedo came into combat position after exiting the torpedo tube, in other cases it was so close to the target that the explosion was mistaken for an exact hit.
                        Unfortunately, we could not quickly get rid of the troubles that befell us. For a whole year, the personnel of our coastal mine and torpedo workshops and floating submarine bases, despite all their efforts, could not achieve reliable operation from the capricious magnetic fuse. The artillery department sent to us experienced specialists, trying to help eliminate the defects of the fuse, [49] but this did not lead to anything. The whole structure was useless. The ministry probably knew that the British and Germans abandoned this unreliable detonator at the beginning of the war, but, nevertheless, for many months our specialists were running around with it like a written sack. Sometimes, however, the detonator worked well, thereby raising the mood of the submariners. But that confused matters even more. "
                      27. +1
                        23 November 2018 23: 26
                        [quote = Cherry Nine] [quote = Wildcat]
                        [quote = Wildcat] it also increases the target area and with what we will shoot at small-sitting ships / PLO [/ quote]
                        Everything is fundamentally wrong. The non-contact fuse was designed for ships with deep missile defense, primarily LC. he must explode under a less secure bottom. However, enthusiasts of this business have made it to be included. always. Later it turned out that he did not work south of the 40th, EMNIP, degrees N due to the different voltage of the Earth’s magnetic field. In Newport, where he was made, he worked the norms.
                        [/ Quote]
                        About proximity fuses. Roscoe, "American submarines in World War II": "Adherents of magnetic fuses believed that this device, as it were, increases the size of the target, and most importantly, it generates an explosion of greater destructive force than with a direct hit. In the literature and instructions on this issue, it has been repeatedly indicated that the destructive force of an explosion, occurring a few feet below the keel of a ship, is “three times greater than that of an explosion in a direct hit.” This is certainly true when it comes to large ships with heavy side armor and a mine protection system (compartments and bulkheads), absorbing the force of impact with a direct hit.In 2, the General Directorate of Shipbuilding published a report on the results of research conducted in order to establish the causes of the sinking of a number of ships torpedoed by the Germans.The report noted that most of the ships sink not so much as a result of loss of buoyancy, how much due to loss of stability. ”Further in the report it was said that hitting the side of the Rails are a more common cause of loss of stability than under keel breaks. Such conclusions, of course, contradicted the previous views.
                        However, it cannot be denied that the use of a magnetic fuse as it were “increases” the size of the target, increasing the accuracy of torpedo fire. Only the reliability of the device was doubtful. The fuse, whose work is based on the action of a magnetic field, was news in the naval business. The contact fuse, the history of which dates back to the pole mines of the times of the US Civil War, was a tried and tested mechanism. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the war, the M-14 torpedo with the M-6 magnetic fuse was the main weapon of the submarine fleet.
                        Thus, during the first six months of 1943, submariners lost confidence in the reliability of the M-6 fuse. The imperfection of the explosive mechanism was repeatedly discovered, which caused lively correspondence between the submarine formations and the main artillery directorate. Since the device and characteristics of a previously secret mechanism have become known to too many, many proposals have been received for its improvement. Minor design changes were made, each instance of the detonating mechanism was subjected to rigorous testing before entering submarines. They did everything possible, but did not create a perfect, new type of induction fuse. And the torpedoes continued to explode, either shortly after “cocking”, or at a safe distance for the target.
                        //////
                        On April 27, 1943, the main artillery directorate established that a premature explosion could be expected if the torpedo was at a depth of 3,7 m or less. On May 3, the Main Artillery Directorate informed Admiral King, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Navy, that the effectiveness of the M-6 fuse would increase by 10-30% if the "cocking" distance was increased from 400 to 650 m. On May 7, the control recommended that these fuses be used only in areas north of 30 ° north latitude, while torpedoes advised to set the target draft depth. It was recognized that south of 30 ° south latitude fuse M-6 is unsuitable for use.
                        On May 27, Admiral King told the management that the recommended change in the “cocking” distance of the torpedo was unacceptable.
                        On June 24, Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Nimitz ordered the removal of magnetic fuses from all torpedoes. The next day, the main artillery department asked Nimitz about the reasons for making this decision. The commander replied that this was due to the possibility of the enemy using countermeasures, the inefficiency of the fuse under certain conditions, and the impracticability of choosing certain conditions under which it is possible to fire. But on July 11, Admiral Christie, who then commanded submarines in the southwestern Pacific Ocean, instructed that magnetic fuses be kept in service in units subordinate to him. He was not subordinate to Nimitz, and therefore the order of June 24 did not apply to him.
                        The directive of the main artillery directorate of August 31, 1943 regarding the M-6 fuse emphasizes the advantages of its magnetic action:
                        a) misses that may occur when torpedoes go slightly below the set depth or in case of errors in the calculation of the installation to the depth as a result of incorrect determination of the draft of the ship are excluded;
                        b) sometimes more destructive explosions are obtained under the bottom of large ships, divided into compartments for the purpose of localization, than by means of an explosion with a direct hit; the breadth of the magnetic field, the magnetic azimuth of the target, the conditions of demagnetization, the width and draft of the target, the depth of the torpedo - all this should be taken into account.
                        The commander of the submarine forces in the southwestern part of the Pacific Ocean continued to send his boats armed with torpedoes with M-6 fuses to the sea, based on the following considerations:
                        1) M-6 fuses provide the best hit of torpedoes in the target;
                        2) are the only means of protection against anti-submarine ships;
                        3) to abandon the M-6 fuses meant losing them forever. Submarine crews of the 7th Fleet (southwestern theater) continued to be in trouble due to premature torpedo bombings.
                        On July 13, one of the torpedoes fired by the Gruper boat exploded near the side and showered the boat with fragments. In August 1943, two Silversides torpedoes exploded prematurely, allowing the enemy ship to escape from pursuit. In the continuation of the same campaign there were two more cases of premature explosion of torpedoes. Having returned from a regular campaign on October 11, the commander of the Gruper submarine recommended removing the M-6 fuses from service.
                        But magnetic fuses were withdrawn from service only in March 1944, after they had tried all means of improving them.
                        When the order to remove the magnetic fuses from service was received in June 1943, many thought that all troubles with torpedoes were over. At that time, there was no reason to doubt the reliability of the contact fuse. "
                        We have no disagreement on contact fuses, and that’s good!
                        hi
                        Phew, unsubscribed, you can start the end of the week! drinks
                      28. +1
                        24 November 2018 00: 32
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        I hasten to express my gratitude to "Cherry Nine" for the occasion to read good books again

                        You're welcome.
                        For my part, I hasten to pay respect. There is very little left on the site of people who do not spit saliva on any issue, but are ready to shy away an opponent with a volume of classics. A kilogram for three. hi
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        If I expel an incompetent and high-handed worker, the very next day the Minister of the Navy will be called on by the Senators and Congressmen from Rhode Island, who will demand his restoration

                        To whom it is, but the passage quoted to me speaks of the complete fucking of American warriors. All of them have Washington, and the air defense collapsed, and broke the torpedoes. Few, after all, Comrade Roosevelt shot pests, oh, few.
                        Given the nature of the problems that Lockwood cited, to write them off to the union - this must be greatly lost.
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        Lockwood since May 1942.

                        In Australia. Nimitz in the 43rd.
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        However, it cannot be denied that the use of a magnetic fuse as it were “increases” the size of the target, increasing the accuracy of torpedo firing

                        Here you can recall Lockwood (he has more faith than New England dreamers) and say that a three-meter deep torpedo was enough to reliably protect the ship. So it didn’t increase too much.
                        But on the other hand, since the wunderwafel did not work at all, it is impossible to attribute these specific failures to bad "target increase". Maybe he increased, one devil.

                        Nonetheless. Lockwood, of course, dwells on the practical side of things. The root of the problem is the lack of a proper system for accepting new weapons and their sufficient tests to generate failure statistics - as far as I know, it was not recognized by the relevant figures (incidentally, King’s position touches. The Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, corresponded with our money, corresponded about the fuse platoon distance!). For many more years it could lead with new weapons, but might not lead.
                      29. +1
                        19 November 2018 20: 44
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        he organized air defense like this.

                        PS. About writing to Washington to raise combat readiness. A call to the air defense center, "Oh, we seem to have a group target here, very large." The answer is "Don't worry about it."

                        Surely Short is not to blame?
                      30. 0
                        17 November 2018 00: 45
                        Quote: SOF
                        .... and at the same time .... from Poltava .... fortunately, the gullible Russians did not hustle the "allies" scurrying back and forth for illegal investments, to throw on Moscow what was intended for Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...

                        Operation "Frantic" - shuttle raids from the airfield near Poltava - were terminated in September 1944 after a raid by German aircraft and the destruction of most of the "Fortresses" in the parking lot.
                      31. 0
                        17 November 2018 00: 30
                        And where did the aviation of the KMP and the fleet experience from battles with the Yak-3 and IL-2?
                      32. +1
                        17 November 2018 11: 51
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        And where did the aviation of the KMP and the fleet experience in battles with the Yak-3 and Il-2

                        With groups of airplanes flying at low altitude under cover of small, very maneuverable, but very fragile cannon fighters?
                      33. 0
                        17 November 2018 14: 14
                        By the way, the Ilov armored hull is a penetrating warhead for kamikaze. Especially the IL-10 would be nice in terms of speed.
                      34. -2
                        17 November 2018 14: 51
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        By the way, the armored hull Ilov is a penetrating warhead for kamikaze

                        You will not achieve any "penetrating warhead" with 4-8 mm of armor. To the mass and strength of the engine crashing into the deck, 8 mm of armor will not give an increase.
                        Yes and no, high-explosive action is enough.
                        On the other hand, if you try on IL-10 to communications in the Baltic, not to mention the North Sea, then it’s very in vain. The partners have a huge experience of war at sea, but it is better not to recall the actions of Soviet aviation against ships.
                        What about the fighters. If the Yak-9, the main fighter of the Air Force, was more or less Zero in terms of performance characteristics (without its range and armament), then the Yak-3 at low altitudes already almost corresponded to Corsair (again, without its weapons, range, survivability, strike capabilities, but with more horizontal maneuverability). On the other hand, in August 45th, the first squadron, VF-19, completed retraining on the F8F and departed for the (Pacific) front.
                        In February 45, whistles were added to the roar of P&W and Wright pans on mainland US bases. USAAF began mastering the P-80A Shooting Star. Unlike the Germans, the Allies had no need to whip up a fever. They calmly dealt with the new technology, trying to reduce its monstrous, at first, accident rate.

                        On plywood - there is nothing to catch.
                      35. 0
                        19 November 2018 13: 23
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        By the way, the Ilov armored hull is a penetrating warhead for kamikaze. Especially the IL-10 would be nice in terms of speed.

                        Take Perov / Rastrenin and watch the last chapter - IL-2 vs. Air defense
                        Combat experience and field tests showed that, on average, 2-1 hits of 2 mm caliber shells were enough to destroy an IL-37 attack aircraft.
                        At the same time, one hit of a 37-mm projectile in the wing console, in any part of the engine, in the front and rear gas tanks, in the cockpit of the pilot and gunner, as well as in the fuselage of the aircraft, disabled the latter. To bring the attack aircraft out of action by hitting the center section of the wing, it was necessary to ensure 2-3 hits of 37 mm shells. The shells of 37 mm caliber hit the keel, aileron, stabilizer, elevators and elevators turned them to shreds, causing the plane to crash.

                        And then we remember the number of 40mm barrels on the Allied ships. Even if the German BDB were a tough enemy for Ilov, what would happen when they met with some “Fletcher” or, even worse, “Gearing”? Despite the fact that USN has a wealth of experience in fighting kamikaze.
                      36. 0
                        19 November 2018 15: 26
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And then we recall the number of 40 mm trunks on the ships of the Allies

                        Well, yes, probably because of the impressive success of the Bofors, the Americans rushed to urgently develop paired 75 mm assault rifles for new ships.
                        In addition, the effectiveness of a ship's air defense is determined not by the number of barrels (Yamato, for example), but by the presence and number of PUAZO, according to which a group of guns fires at one target. Massaging the aircraft involved in the attack quickly leads to system saturation.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Despite the fact that USN has the richest experience in combating kamikaze.

                        The Japanese switched to kamikaze tactics after the defeat of their aircraft, therefore they did not have a key success factor - a powerful fighter aircraft that could reliably engage in battle or even defeat the air cover of an aircraft carrier’s connection, and the possibility of massing was limited: the entire Japanese aircraft industry did not reach the release rate alone Ilov.
                        Imagine a massive coordinated attack by torpedo bombers, top-gunmen and kamikaze attack aircraft, covered by several IAPs.
                      37. +1
                        19 November 2018 15: 54
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        the air defense efficiency of the ship is determined ... by the presence and quantity of POISO

                        American - certainly the best at that time. Terrestrial, by the way, too.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M19_Multiple_Gun_Motor_Carriage
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        and the possibilities of massaging were limited:

                        )))
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        Imagine a massive coordinated attack by torpedo bombers, top-gunmen and kamikaze attack aircraft, covered by several IAPs.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Marianas_Turkey_Shoot
                        Although, most likely, Turkey_Shoot will not work. They will melt themselves. Flying over the sea is not a mother-in-law for pancakes.
                      38. 0
                        19 November 2018 17: 12
                        Well, yes, in Korea they didn’t really succeed in hunting turkeys.
                        The Mariana hunt is a consequence of the fact that the level of Japanese pilots fell below the plinth.
                      39. 0
                        19 November 2018 17: 29
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        Well, yes, in Korea they didn’t really succeed in hunting turkeys.

                        While in Korea there were Yak-9 / La-9 against the Corsairs - it turned out quite well. And the MiG-15 will never appear in such an alternative.
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        the level of Japanese pilots fell below the plinth.

                        Sea pilots, recall. How about preparing Soviet pilots for a naval war? What was the overall level of the mass Soviet pilot of the 45th year? In hours, if possible.
                      40. 0
                        19 November 2018 17: 37
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        While in Korea there were Yak-9 / La-9 against the Corsairs - it turned out quite well.

                        In them, the gaskets between the seat and the handle were Korean
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What was the overall level of the mass Soviet pilot of the 45th year? In hours, if possible.

                        I won’t say in hours, but at least there was experience of battles with the Luftwaffe. Which the US naval pilots did not have.
                      41. +1
                        19 November 2018 17: 40
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        I won’t say in hours, but at least there was experience of battles with the Luftwaffe. Which the US naval pilots did not have.

                        Litter. But weren’t the US naval pilots fighting against Japan from 1941 to 1945? And who said that Japanese pilots were worse than German?
                      42. 0
                        19 November 2018 17: 47
                        Quote: svp67
                        Litter. But weren’t the US naval pilots fighting against Japan from 1941 to 1945? And who said that Japanese pilots were worse than German?

                        Here, more likely, the Americans in battles with the Japanese copied German tactics - boom. And our pilots were already very well able to withstand such tactics.
                      43. 0
                        19 November 2018 23: 38
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        experience of battles with the Luftwaffe was. Which the US naval pilots did not have.

                        Here we embark on the path of the endless flame "What has the Red Army aviation been doing all this time?"

                        I have enough facts. People who discuss the superiority of the Uber Alles front-line aviation of the Red Army usually do not mean dozens of regiments (with our money) armed with an improved La-7 (this one looks more like the Corsair). And in the summer of the 45th - receiving from the industry such Yak-9 (Grumman F8F Bearcat) that only spit after.
                      44. 0
                        19 November 2018 19: 08
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        Well, yes, probably because of the impressive success of the Bofors, the Americans rushed to urgently develop paired 75 mm assault rifles for new ships.

                        The Americans began to develop 76-mm automatic machines in order to be able to guaranteed annihilate in the air twin-engine kamikazes the size of an IL-4.
                        For single-engine engines, "bofors" was also enough.
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        In addition, the effectiveness of a ship's air defense is determined not by the number of barrels (Yamato, for example), but by the presence and number of PUAZO, according to which a group of guns fires at one target.

                        The Yankees had no problems with MPUAZO. Each twin or quad Bofors had its own director - Mark 51 with an optical and open sight.
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        Imagine a massive coordinated attack by torpedo bombers, top-gunmen and kamikaze attack aircraft, covered by several IAPs.

                        In the performance of British aviation - I can imagine. Strike wing in all its glory.
                        In the performance of our Air Force ... for some reason, either "boar hunt" or the blockade of Crimea arr. 1944. For the same sinking of "Niobe" the elite "Ransky" pbap took two attempts and several days of preparation.
                      45. +1
                        19 November 2018 23: 59
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        For single-engine engines, "bofors" was also enough.

                        Here, it seems to me, the logic is different. Kamikaze, NYA, came in from a sharp dive, but the diving plane could not be stopped anymore - gravity was heartless lady. Therefore, it must be stopped to the dive entry point. Bofors with his range, EMNIP, 4 km, will not be enough.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Performed by our Air Force ... for some reason it always comes out

                        Actually, coordinated massive attack - damn complicated thing. Even the Japanese didn’t always succeed in it, and the Americans always crap like that.
                      46. +1
                        19 November 2018 12: 48
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        And where did the aviation of the KMP and the fleet experience from battles with the Yak-3 and IL-2?

                        Indeed, where did the air force of the KMP and the fleet have experience in combating light maneuverable fighters? wink
                        But with IL-2 - yes, here with the experience of fighting tight.
                      47. 0
                        19 November 2018 17: 41
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Indeed, where did the air force of the KMP and the fleet have experience in combating light maneuverable fighters?

                        Sorry, but who fought with the Japanese on a high-pressure fuel pump?
                      48. +1
                        19 November 2018 18: 41
                        Quote: svp67
                        Sorry, but who fought with the Japanese on a high-pressure fuel pump?

                        Sorry, forgot to put the tag *sarcasm. smile

                        For it was just naval aviation and KMP aviation from the very beginning of the war on the theater of operations and up to its end that they solved one problem - how to fight on existing vehicles with light maneuverable fighters. And armed even better than the Yak-3.
                  2. +1
                    16 November 2018 06: 28
                    But the Poles were such friends of the USSR that they had to endure this bastard. Put there 600 thousand, and then reckon with the opinion of some meritors from London. Which at 39m did not even fight for their country. And just dumped.
                    That's right, and they did that they kicked out the then Poles.
                2. 0
                  15 November 2018 17: 24
                  First you read the Truth from 11 on June 1944 and compare its numbers with those of production in the USSR. The result will surprise you.
            2. +4
              15 November 2018 17: 30
              Quote: figvam
              Little...

              More than 4 million tons of products, mostly sublimated. Stew, milk powder, egg powder, butter, margarine, etc. You cannot compare one thousand tons of wheat and one thousand tons of canned stew.
              1. SOF
                +5
                15 November 2018 21: 48
                Quote: Puncher
                More than 4 million tons of products, mostly sublimated.

                ...... and thanks to them for this .... and even the inscriptions on the tanks intended for us, that from the states, from Britain, from the frames of the photo-chronicles, sometimes a tear is kicked out .....
                THANKS .... but, it would not hurt to take into account the selfish interests of not those who packed the stew, not those who wrote inscriptions on the tanks for the heroes of Stalingrad .... and not even those who, risking their lives, by northern convoys, are good delivered to us, and those who .... ruled their economy after the Great Recession (who earned the most money from the war and now boasts about it?) and those who, by Lend-Lease, tried to delay their destruction .... from which they separated, before the strategic miscalculation of the enemy and his turn to the East, just not the largest strait.
            3. +4
              16 November 2018 08: 46
              The table provided by you in the column cars is completely false. During the war, the USSR produced 205000 cars, and according to various sources, Lenlise received from 312000 (USSR data) to 439000 (US data) cars. So what are 19 or 30%? On the contrary, our production in 1944-45 accounted for 19-30% of the supply of automobiles from the USA. In aviation, artillery, and small arms, the numbers look like the truth.
      2. +7
        15 November 2018 12: 06
        Quote: Evdokim
        In my opinion, Lend-Lease saved a lot, a lot of lives, maybe millions. And they would have won, only the war would have lasted longer, and much more blood was shed.

        =========
        good Evdokim! Once upon a time (either in 74, or 754 years), two of our families gathered on Victory Day - ours and our aunt with her husband (uncle) and her son ... It somehow came to the "Lend-Lease" ... Yours humble servant (then a high school student), with youthful uncompromising declared like: "How many lend-leases were there (tanks, planes)? Percentage of what we ourselves produced !!! Uncle (in the War he was the commander of artillery reconnaissance or tank regiment, or tank brigade - I don't remember now) - I just snorted !: Yes, in percentage terms, not so much, but they did it when they were NEEDED OF EVERYTHING - on РЅР ° С ‡ Р ° Р »СЊРЅРѕРј этР° РїРµuntil we saturate the army with our equipment !! "The young talent (that is, I) was not appeased:" So, we would not have won without this? "
        Do you know what he answered?
        - Yes, of course they would win !!! But only the PRICE of Victory - would be MORE HIGH! Who knows how much longer the war would last and how many more lives would have been claimed ?! His answer so struck me then - because it did not fit in with the "official version that was taught at school (and the uncle was not a dissident, but a disabled person.) party worker!) that was imprinted in memory forever!!!
        PS And now - look at WHAT you wrote! Literally "word by word"!!!! good drinks
        1. 0
          15 November 2018 12: 16
          Many thanks to your Uncle. hi
          1. +5
            15 November 2018 12: 44
            Quote: Evdokim
            Many thanks to your Uncle. hi

            =======
            Both Him and Father (who in that War was a pilot of naval aviation, and also told something about "Lend-Lease" interesting porn - he had a chance to fly on Bostons ...) and EVERYONE who Fought and won !! !
            Well, as for the fact that Dad and Uncle told about "Lend-Lease" equipment, this will be later, when the authors talk about aviation and tanks ...
      3. +1
        16 November 2018 20: 35
        In my opinion, Lend-Lease saved a lot, a lot of lives, maybe millions.


        Not a topic, but do not forget, and ARA (American Relief Administration) which in 1921-1923 fed 10,5 millions of people a year, in the USSR. And they saved someone ....
    3. +13
      15 November 2018 06: 48
      Quote: Puncher
      After the end of the food supply at the end of the 1945 of the year, the terrible famine of the 1946-1947 of the year broke out, which indicates the importance of food supplies according to Lend-Lease and in general. Without him, victory was impossible.

      And without tanks, planes, cars and other military equipment is possible? Without industrial equipment, without spare parts, yes, hell, without motor oil (look how much and what kind of oil was in the USSR) is possible?
      You cannot stick out one side of the supply and forget about the other. But it is impossible to embrace the immense. Therefore, it is necessary to consider issues in sections.
      1. -1
        15 November 2018 07: 29
        Quote: domokl
        And without tanks, planes, cars and other military equipment is possible?

        Of course it is possible. The lack of technology makes the brain move gyrus how to fight more economically.
        Quote: domokl
        Without industrial equipment, without spare parts, yes, hell, without motor oil (look how much and what kind of oil was in the USSR) is possible?

        I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter, everything is important, down to buttons, not to mention gunpowder, aluminum, cobalt and woolen fabric. But without food it is impossible to fight in principle, under any circumstances. I’ll say it’s impossible to live without her anymore ...
    4. 0
      15 November 2018 15: 58
      19,5 million men of grain growers, machine operators and technicians went to the front from agriculture. Almost all equipment, 85% of cars, 60% of horses, almost all tractors were seized.

      And how many has returned?
      I am not a connoisseur of archival documents, but take the film "CHAIRMAN" (1964) -
      Men instead of returning to the collective farm, they formed a carpentry artel and "sabbat" on their own pocket! And wives with children plowed the fields ...
    5. +4
      15 November 2018 16: 05
      Quote: Puncher
      Since 1942, the Allies completely covered the needs of the USSR in the food supply of the army.

      You write as if our army was fed exclusively by the products of the allies.
    6. +2
      15 November 2018 18: 16
      Quote: Puncher
      Since 1942, the Allies completely covered the needs of the USSR in the food supply of the army.

      Correctly. And do not forget that the Allies strongly supported us with the supply of ballistic gunpowder. There was a moment when we really had an almost unarmed army, or rather there was a weapon, and there was almost nothing to shoot from it, for example, three shells were given out for one gun WEEK. But thanks to timely deliveries, the situation began to improve.
      And, if 12 thousand tanks were delivered to us, it is worth imagining how many spare and spare parts went to them.
      Here it is interesting. In the book "Tankman on a Foreign Car", front-line soldier Loza recalls that the stock of spare parts, components and assemblies, especially engines, radio stations, for Sherman tanks was created by removing
      1. 0
        15 November 2018 18: 40
        Quote: svp67
        There was a moment when we really had an almost unarmed army, or rather there was a weapon, and there was almost nothing to shoot from it, for example, three shells were given out for one gun WEEK.

        Give any link to this data?
        1. 0
          16 November 2018 03: 27
          Quote: albert
          Give any link to this data?

          This is from the memories of one of the veterans. But I can't find them now. I remember it strongly. The veteran was the commander of a 122-mm howitzers division and during the Rzhev operation they were put on such a "hunger ration". As a result, the infantry went into battle without artillery preparation and escort.
          There is a mention of Zhukov’s urgent telegram to Headquarters, with a report that 1-2 shells are available per barrel.
          In principle, the poor situation with shells in 1941 and especially in 1942, is confirmed here:
          "In the Soviet army, on average, 76,2-3,6 shells were fired per day on a barrel of a gun from 3,8 mm and above in the active army (without RGK). The figure is quite stable both in years and in calibers: in 1944 the average daily shot at all calibers - 3,6 per barrel, 122 mm howitzer - 3,0, 76,2 mm barrels (regimental, divisional, tank) - 3,7. Average daily shot on the mortar barrel opposite grows from year to year : from 2,0 in 1942 to 4,1 in 1944. "
          This is the average daily consumption of ammunition, but you understand that this also includes the figures for the consumption of ammunition in 1944 and 1945, when the USSR could afford to spend many hours of artillery preparation.
          By the way, the Germans have a figure for the entire war ABOVE, on average three times ...
          "then the average daily shot on a barrel of 75 mm and above in 1944 will be about 8,5. At the same time, the main workhorse of divisional artillery (105-mm howitzers - almost a third of the total tonnage of shells) shot an average of 14,5 shells per day on the barrel, and the second main caliber (150-mm divisional howitzers - 20% of the total tonnage) is about 10,7. Mortars were used much less intensively - 81-mm mortars were fired a day at 4,4 rounds per barrel, and 120-mm only 2,3 , 75. Regimental artillery guns gave a consumption closer to the average (7-mm infantry gun 150 rounds per barrel, 8,3-mm infantry gun - XNUMX). "

          https://kanaev55.livejournal.com/451017.html
    7. -3
      16 November 2018 00: 59
      Famine in the years 46-47 erupted in the efforts of our government. There was enough food in the country, but its reserves were held, it was believed that the peasants would somehow feed themselves. At 1.01.46 they had 10,1 million tons of grain in reserve, and at 1.01.49 - 18,8 million tons. CSB data!
      And increased grain exports six times! Moreover, these were free deliveries to Eastern Europe and even to France.
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 22: 41
        Quote: Sahalinets

        And increased grain exports six times! Moreover, these were free deliveries to Eastern Europe and even to France.

        hi My great-grandmother died in this post-war famine. Secretly from my daughter, my grandmother, I separated from my serving starving young grandchildren, but she was completely weakened and could no longer survive ...
        It was all the more wild for me to read in one of the "thick" Soviet magazines (even before the notorious Gorbachev "glasnost"), in the published memoirs of some famous French "comrade", about Stalin's gratuitous deliveries of Soviet grain to France (at that time, after the war, when my family was simply swollen with hunger and to somehow survive they ate "girchak-dude" and a swan)! That the capricious Frenchmen categorically demanded from Monsieur Joseph Stalin to continue to send them only wheat, since they do not eat rye bread, and the already sent carriages with rye were demanded to be taken back and replaced with wheat, which was done by the Soviet side and an apology was brought to the French , alas! request
    8. 0
      17 November 2018 02: 21
      It’s you, sir, in the American history textbooks they read that they fed us all the war ... but how did you finish feeding and the haplap came ???! RAVE! Food supplies certainly diversified the diet in parts and divisions ... but the total mass of these supplies amounted to a very small fraction of the country's needs! Therefore, do not drag the post-war hunger here - the cessation of these supplies in no way could cause it, due to its insignificance!
    9. 0
      1 December 2018 19: 30
      Quote: Puncher
      A typical mistake is to evaluate the importance of Lend-Lease according to the parameters of the equipment supplied.

      I note that this is your own mistake. Without the victory of the USSR, the United States would not have become a world hegemon, and they paid damn little for their hegemony.
      Quote: Puncher
      After the end of the food supply at the end of the 1945 of the year, the terrible famine of the 1946-1947 of the year broke out, which indicates the importance of food supplies according to Lend-Lease and in general. Without him, victory was impossible.

      Given that the United States - the main organizer of World War II - cynically praise them for their help in the war which they unleashed against the USSR.
  2. +4
    15 November 2018 06: 31
    I’ve never once been a liberal, but I believe that without the supply of industrial equipment, strategic materials (aluminum, for example), and so on and so forth, we could lose the war.
    1. +7
      15 November 2018 06: 57
      And not you alone think so. It is not in vain that both America and Britain made an alliance with their toughest ideological opponents — the Soviet Union, the very fact of which was a threat to the rest of the capitalist world. Because the victory of Germany was much more dangerous, because it meant a complete robbery, submission, and even physical cleansing of the elites of the United States and Great Britain. Therefore, having clenched their teeth, they went to an alliance with the USSR, for threats must be stopped in parts. Moreover, the USSR was no longer the primary adversary, and from the war, according to historical experience, none of the active participants in the slaughter should have come out very strong. Well, the experience of the First World War, according to the results of which the States made a frantic economic breakthrough and created the basis for their subsequent power. So everything is true, the fate of the USSR without the active assistance of the allies would be sooo doubtful. This was understood by both Roosevelt and Churchill, who had gone to unnatural cooperation, and Comrade Stalin himself - after all, it was not for nothing that he lost his temper when deliveries were disrupted or slowed down. The same PQ-17 and the subsequent freezing of convoys - they almost put the entire plan for the Stalingrad victory on the verge of collapse ..
      1. +5
        15 November 2018 13: 55
        Quote: Sallbimer
        The same PQ-17 and the subsequent freezing of convoys - they almost put the entire plan for the Stalingrad victory on the verge of collapse ..

        =========
        Your comment is very interesting and reasonable. In addition to the above statement! This example is extremely unsuccessful, if not MORE !!!
        What is the reason? Yes, in the extremely LOW railway throughput in the Northwest. As a result, a BIG part of the "Lend-Lease" equipment and weapons that came through Murmansk and Arkhangelsk) "settled" just THERE! (Kola Peninsula, Karelian, Leningradsky, Kalininsky fronts), where a relative calm reigned just at this time ...
        By the time Churchill made the decision to stop sending convoys to Murmansk, Stalingrad was ALREADY surrounded, destroyed to the ground by barbaric bombing (which, by the way, did not allow the Germans to use armored vehicles there!) And an infantry war "for extermination" began ...
        Why was Stalin furious at Churchill's decision? Because the disruption in the supply of equipment and strategic materials contributed to the "protraction of the war" !!! And he understood it PERFECTLY !!!
        And the "Lend-Lease" in the South-West direction had a significant impact on the course of the DB only after the opening of the "Iranian Corridor" !!!
        Somewhere - SO!
      2. +2
        15 November 2018 14: 33
        Quote: Sallbimer
        The same PQ-17 and the subsequent freezing of convoys - they almost put the entire plan for the Stalingrad victory on the verge of collapse ..

        Proofs will be?
        1. 0
          15 November 2018 16: 00
          In 1942, the first naval lord Dudley Pound wrote to the US Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral King that "convoys become a stone on the neck of the Allies", as they are a constant source of losses of cruisers and destroyers. Britain has repeatedly tried to convince the United States and the USSR that escorting convoys through the Arctic is too risky.
          1. +2
            15 November 2018 17: 25
            Quote: hohol95
            that escorting convoys through the Arctic is too risky.

            The main LL flows by volume were Iran and the Far East. in the 45th - World Cup.
            So the Englishman poses the question correctly. How timely is another matter.
            1. 0
              15 November 2018 18: 36
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The main LL flows by volume were Iran and the Far East.

              More precisely, the southern and northern routes were approximately equal in tonnage of shipped goods. And in total, they slightly blocked the main route - the Far East.
              1. The Far East (via Vladivostok) - 8 tons (244%);
              2. The Persian Gulf (through Iran) - 4 160 000 tons (23,8%);
              3. Northern Russia (via Murmansk) - 3 tons (964%);
              4. The Soviet North - 681 tons (000%);
              5. The Soviet Arctic - 452 tons (000%).
      3. 0
        1 December 2018 19: 44
        Quote: Sallbimer
        The same PQ-17 and the subsequent freezing of convoys - they almost put the entire plan for the Stalingrad victory on the verge of collapse ..

        The convoys have no side to the Stalingrad victory. Lend-lease deliveries began too late to somehow affect the outcome of the Battle of Stalingrad.
    2. +2
      15 November 2018 07: 01
      It will be interesting to read the work of the authors, very interesting. However, ANYONE now, without waiting. can read the SOVIET GOVERNMENT MESSAGE ON LAND-LIZ SUPPLIES, published in the organ of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) to the newspaper Pravda of June 11 1944.
    3. +3
      15 November 2018 13: 07
      Quote: Andrey Sukharev
      I’ve never once been a liberal, but I believe that without the supply of industrial equipment, strategic materials (aluminum, for example), and so on and so forth, we could lose the war.

      ===========
      Well, about "lose" - it is unlikely..... But the PRICE of Victory would be MUCH MORE HIGH !!!
  3. +2
    15 November 2018 06: 58
    In the first year of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union was not at all part of the American Lend-Lease program. We were only included in it on 11 June 1942 of the year when the Basic Agreement on this military supply program was signed.

    The question immediately follows: what about the caravans that came earlier? Before the conclusion of the contract?

    And everything is not simple, but very simple. For money.

    From June to November 1941, the USSR placed orders in the USA and the UK and paid for them in fact. You could say cash. Requires an explanation? Of course.
    In this respect, memoirs of people's commissars and deputies are interesting, I will quote from Shakhurin: “Yet on September 29, 1941, we had to put on shirts and ties instead of military uniforms and go to the opening of an important forum of the allied powers.
    The delegation of our country was headed by the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov. The head of the American delegation was Averell Harriman - the confidant of President Roosevelt, a major businessman and diplomat, the future US ambassador to the USSR, who was in charge of Lend-Lease deliveries at that time. The British delegation was led by the representative of the Prime Minister W. Churchill, the Minister of Military Supply, one of the "newspaper kings" of Great Britain - Lord William Beaverbrook, an influential person in England.
    Both Harriman and Beaverbrook were among those Western politicians who understood the importance of an alliance with us in the fight against Nazi aggression .. Most importantly, it seems to me that the embargo on the supply of strategic materials and technologies imposed by the USA was lifted at this EMNIP conference. to the USSR in December 1939. This allowed first to allow and begin trade between the USA and the USSR. And then move on to the Lend-Lease Agreement. The rest of the success to you is the authors. The topic is complex and interesting.
  4. +2
    15 November 2018 07: 25
    . First: we would have won all without handouts from the allies.
    Second: if it were not for the help of the allies, we would have come to an end.

    But where is the third version?
    Help was, but predatory and to the extent that Germany and the USSR completely exterminated each other
    1. +10
      15 November 2018 07: 53
      That's absolutely right noted good and yet, the technology itself does not fight, and food does not take a rifle in its hands, so it’s sacrilegious to belittle the bloody price of our people. And Lend-Lease is just a business agreement, on which the existence of the whole West depended.
    2. +7
      15 November 2018 08: 36
      Quote: igorbrsv
      Help was, but predatory and to the extent that Germany and the USSR completely exterminated each other

      There is such a version. Strangely enough, her mother’s patriots and mother’s liberals support her.

      It is that the LL Act allowed Roosevelt to provide assistance to other countries if necessary for the defense of the United States (An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States).

      In the summer of the 43rd near Kursk (either earlier along Stalingrad, or earlier near Moscow, it depends on the degree of mother’s patriotism) the ridge of the fascist reptile was broken. Consequently, the issue of protecting the United States in relation to the war in Europe (finally) has lost its relevance. And no matter how changed the sign.

      Consequently, the actions of Roosevelt and even Truman, who continued to supply LL drugs to the USSR after Kursk, were treason.
      1. +8
        15 November 2018 09: 22
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        In the summer of 43, near Kursk (either earlier along Stalingrad, or earlier near Moscow, it depends on the degree of mother’s patriotism), the ridge of the fascist reptile was broken.

        One great patriot (whose degree of patriotism apparently goes beyond the thermometer scale), said on November 29, 1941 (before the counter-offensive of Soviet troops near Moscow) in a report to comrade Hitlar: "In military and military-economic terms, the war has already been lost." ... That is, there is an opinion that even before Moscow.
        1. 0
          15 November 2018 10: 08
          Quote: Alex_59
          "Militarily and militarily and economically, the war has already been lost." That is, there is an opinion that even before Moscow.

          Patriot meant the failure of the blitz krieg. And the lack of a coherent plan for a total war. There was every reason for this.
          1. +2
            15 November 2018 10: 49
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Patriot meant the failure of the blitz krieg. And the lack of a coherent plan for a total war.
            Well, duck is their problem)))) It was better to prepare, figure out the backup options, if something goes wrong. Actually, the point here is that without the leaven of Russian patriotism, the Germans broke even then. Further there were already poorly managed attempts to somehow extinguish the fire, which here and there, the Germans began to erupt and tickle their heels. And when the Allies splashed A-100 into the bonfire of the Red Army, the ambush arrived.
            1. -1
              15 November 2018 11: 12
              Quote: Alex_59
              It was better to prepare, figure out alternatives if something went wrong.

              VFGN, as the leader of the wartime, had its own advantages and disadvantages. Calculate it better - the USSR is probably the end. He would have calculated very well — there would have been no war at all.
              Quote: Alex_59
              Further there were already poorly managed attempts to somehow extinguish the fire, which here and there, the Germans began to break through and tickle their heels.

              Do you mean that after November 41, the dids went to war as to a rural disco, to plump and fight with the city? "Poorly managed attempts," wow.
              1. +2
                15 November 2018 11: 16
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                "Poorly managed attempts," wow.

                Well, yes, it is "poorly managed". That is, the Germans did not control the course of events strategically, but reacted to the will and initiative imposed on them by the allies. This is after the 42nd year. Is not it?
                This does not exclude the possibility that for ordinary soldiers the war remained difficult and terrible, and at the operational level, the Germans could sometimes prevail. But at a strategic level, everything was already streaming.
                1. -4
                  15 November 2018 11: 27
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  This is after the 42nd year. Is not it?

                  Earlier you made an application for 41.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  but reacted to the will and initiative imposed by the allies

                  There are difficulties. In terms of strategy, November and December of the 41st really were a disaster for the Reich. However, up to and including Kursk, it’s premature to talk about seizing the initiative of the Red Army. That is, the Wehrmacht retained the initiative in the 42nd, but politically everything was already complicated.
                  1. +4
                    15 November 2018 15: 16
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Earlier you made an application for 41.

                    This is not me, this is Todt.
          2. +4
            15 November 2018 11: 40
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Patriot meant the failure of the blitz krieg. And the lack of a coherent plan for a total war.

            And the failure of the blitzkrieg for the Reich just means losing the war. Because, as a coherent plan for a long total war on two fronts, having the first world economy in adversaries is fantastic. Even from an economic point of view, Herr Mine.
            Here is the situation in the economy in six months:
            - The state debt of the Third Reich as of May 1942 is about one hundred and fifty billion marks, that is, at least a third of all money in circulation.
            - The foreign exchange reserves of the Reichsbank are practically at zero.
            - State bills issued for twenty-five billion, and they are not provided with anything.
            - The administrative apparatus has increased sixfold compared to 1934.
            - Shortage of skilled labor - more than a quarter of the needs.

            How was the Reich kept up to this? With difficulties.
            In 1938, public debt reached an astronomical figure of 42 billion marks, i.e., tripled compared with 1932.
            295 million marks in gold and currency received from the Anschluss of Austria were profucans for the year.
            © gunter-spb
            1. -5
              15 November 2018 12: 34
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And the failure of the blitzkrieg for the Reich just means losing the war. Because a coherent plan for a long total war on two fronts, having the first world economy in adversaries is fantastic

              In November of the 41st, the first economy of the world was half an inch in opponents, let’s say so. Entering line AA was not impossible. Another thing is that this would hardly be the end of the war.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              How was the Reich kept up to this? With difficulties.

              So even after that he could hardly hold on. 3,5 of the year.
              1. +7
                15 November 2018 13: 47
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                In November of the 41st, the first economy of the world was half an inch in opponents, let’s say so.

                In November 1941, the world's first economy was doing what an economy should do. It re-armed the British Army and Air Force, and similarly armed the newly created US Army and the wild-growing Army Air Force from scratch. And she built escort ships for Britain, including a dozen aircraft carriers.
                Schacht, taking into account the experience of the WWII, was well aware that considering Great Britain as an adversary one must keep in mind Great Britain and the USA.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Entering line AA was not impossible.

                Yeah ... tank divisions with a couple of tank platoons and infantry in the battalion. And then what - again run to Berezina? smile
                1. 0
                  15 November 2018 14: 05
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  In November 1941, the world's first economy was doing what an economy should do. It re-armed the British Army and Air Force and similarly armed the newly created US Army and the "wild" Army Air Force from scratch.

                  You embellish. The main US resources at that moment were directed to the fleet of two oceans. The peak of production of the same Willow Run is the 44th year.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Schacht, taking into account the experience of the WWII, was well aware that considering Great Britain as an adversary one must keep in mind Great Britain and the USA.

                  As of November 41st, neither Britain, nor even the USA military no threat to the Reich. It was clear that Britain could not be crushed, but it was not clear that the war was lost.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Yeah ... tank divisions with a couple of tank platoons and infantry in the battalion. And then what - again run to Berezina?

                  When in August 42nd the Wehrmacht really went to this line in the Stalingrad region, there was no time for emoticons. And the victory in the summer of 42 was not predetermined.
                  1. +2
                    15 November 2018 18: 23
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    You embellish. The main US resources at that moment were directed to the fleet of two oceans.

                    In November 1941, the main efforts of the US shipbuilding industry were aimed at self-reproduction. smile EMNIP, exactly at this time there was a massive construction of shipyards and training of workers.
                    As for army affairs, in 1941 the US military-industrial complex faced a non-trivial task: to ensure the deployment of six dozen divisions on the basis of the three initial ones in the conditions of the looting of the army arsenals by Roosevelt. The task was further complicated by the fact that the FDR interpreted the concept of "surplus" from the Lend-Lease Law in an extremely broad way: for example, by giving it 50% of the output of new military products.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    On November 41st, neither Britain, nor even the United States posed a military threat to the Reich. It was clear that Britain could not be crushed, but it was not clear that the war was lost.

                    As of November 1941, the Wehrmacht was stuck in Russia. The end of the war is not visible. What was planned by the rear continues to be a theater of operations. And this puts an end to all plans for further action. Without the end of the war in the East, the planned demobilization of the army and the reversal of efforts towards building a fleet are simply impossible. This means that in the war with the Allies, the Reich can only defend or fight on secondary TVDs.
                    1. -1
                      15 November 2018 19: 44
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      As for army affairs, the US military-industrial complex had a non-trivial task in 1941: to ensure the deployment of six dozen divisions

                      This is very far from the war of Germany with the first economy of the world, after all. 60 divisions (a bit, at that time) overseas the Wehrmacht is not threatened. Maybe in time they will get closer, but before that, another 2 years.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      What was planned by the rear continues to be a theater of operations. And this puts an end to all plans for further action.

                      Therefore, I write that in November, and especially December of the 41st, it was already clear that there was no way to win the war. But is it possible not to lose - the question remained on the agenda.
              2. +1
                15 November 2018 15: 53
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                So even after that he could hardly hold on. 3,5 of the year.

                And when he flew past the third floor, people heard him say: "as if everything is going fine ..."))))))))
        2. +4
          15 November 2018 14: 33
          Already in November 1941, Albert Speer and Guderian told the possessed that even the capture of Moscow does not guarantee victory over the USSR, due to the inability of the Wehrmacht and comrades to break the resistance of the Red Army in general.
    3. +7
      15 November 2018 08: 48
      Third version:
      - Without the military assistance of the USA and the World Bank of the USSR, the war would not have won.
      - Without the USA and the World Bank, a war would probably not have begun at all.
      And the "Lend-Lease" for the Nazis is forgotten.
      1. -2
        15 November 2018 10: 14
        Quote: 135lm
        - Without the USA and the World Bank, a war would probably not have begun at all.

        If the WB and North America drowned in the sea (our favorite volcano Yellowstone or something), then this would greatly change the whole alignment, here you are right.
        Quote: 135lm
        - Without the military assistance of the USA and the World Bank of the USSR, the war would not have won.

        There is too much to do. What the Allies do instead LL?
        Quote: 135lm
        And the "Lend-Lease" for the Nazis is forgotten.

        He was absent. Hiam - American Suvorov, there are many of them.
        1. +2
          15 November 2018 10: 52
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          He was absent. Hiam - American Suvorov, there are many of them.

          It is they who usually remember Ford's European division, which came under German control in Holland. Only this does not help the Fascists, for this Dutch Ford made sheer crumbs on the scale of the 3 Reich. Renault and Citroen have more stamped cars than this Ford. And Henry Ford was clearly not asked how to dispose of this enterprise. )))
          1. +2
            15 November 2018 11: 16
            There is nothing there
            1. Deliveries to Germany until the 39th year.
            2. Assets of American companies confiscated by the Reich.
            3. Trade with neutrals, especially the Spaniards and the Portuguese.

            All this is served under the Lend-Lease sauce, although the LL law is a transfer of weapons and materials at the expense of the American budget within a very specific law.
        2. 0
          15 November 2018 10: 53
          But the trade of US companies with Germany did not stop. These are Ford, and shells, and accessories for fau, and oil, and computers
          1. +7
            15 November 2018 11: 14
            Quote: igorbrsv
            But the trade of US companies with Germany did not stop. These are Ford, and shells, and accessories for fau, and oil, and computers

            Firstly, this must be proved, supported by links to documents.
            Secondly, there should be something in these documents that clearly demonstrates the intentionality and materiality of such trade. That is, deliveries must be on a grand scale and with the approval of the US leadership. But small-scale smuggling is not comparable in volume to len-lease ... well, most likely it was. Surely the Germans, through shell agents in neutral countries, also bought something in the USA, why not. This happens. During the Cold War, the USSR was calmly stocked up with scarce materials and equipment in the West, and nothing rolled.
      2. 0
        1 December 2018 19: 15
        Quote: 135lm
        - Without the military assistance of the USA and the World Bank of the USSR, the war would not have won.

        5% of the military production of the USSR - a drop in the bucket this land lease
        Quote: 135lm
        - Without the USA and the World Bank, a war would probably not have begun at all.

        Not "possible", but it is, the Second World War is a completely American project, without the United States it would not have taken place in principle.
  5. +7
    15 November 2018 07: 54
    In my opinion, the main argument is that if Lend Lease was not needed, then it simply would not exist! Comrade Stalin would have picked up the phone, listened for a couple of minutes and answered "Nat! We do not need handouts from the West! ..." But he agreed and corrected the needs himself ...
    1. -10
      15 November 2018 09: 23
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      But he agreed and himself corrected the needs ...

      About how you turned ... Stalin begged for help, humiliated himself in front of those whom he called his enemies and vanged their death.
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 13: 10
        Quote: Puncher
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        But he agreed and himself corrected the needs ...

        About how you turned ... Stalin begged for help, humiliated himself in front of those whom he called his enemies and vanged their death.

        He did not beg. He demanded.
    2. 0
      1 December 2018 19: 16
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      In my opinion, the main argument is that if Lend Lease was not needed, then it simply would not exist! Comrade Stalin would have picked up the phone, listened for a couple of minutes and answered "Nat! We do not need handouts from the West! ..." But he agreed and corrected the needs himself ...

      This is all nonsense - your fabrications about Stalin and his words - your fantasies are not an argument and prove nothing.
  6. +3
    15 November 2018 08: 22
    Without the land lease, the USSR would have won anyway, but it would have been much more difficult the first 2 years especially. Only by the fall of 1942. evacuated plants started at full capacity. In general, it is interesting to read the look from the other side - from the American one. Why didn’t their help immediately go, why was it not of high quality at first.
    They had enormous difficulties due to the fact that almost all arms companies were private, and they did not want to invest in the development of new equipment and types of weapons without guarantees that all this would not go to waste. Roughly the same was the case with the production of any other product, including food. With the start of Lend-Lease, they started saving in everything. There is a very good book, The Mysteries of the Lend Lease, by Stettinius Edward, who was in charge of supplying the Lend Lease and was written in 1944. He writes everything very honestly. I highly recommend reading. [media = https: //www.e-reading.club/book.php? book = 142938]
    1. +2
      15 November 2018 08: 50
      Quote: Alexander Trebuntsev

      Without the land lease, the USSR would have won anyway, but the first 2 of the year would have been much more difficult especially. Only by the fall of 1942. evacuated plants started at full capacity.

      The first two years of supply were very small. That is the essence of the fact that the first two years we survived ourselves. But this is not the fault of the Allies, it is not possible to instantly set up mass sending of large volumes to such a distance.
      1. +2
        15 November 2018 10: 19
        Quote: Alex_59
        The first two years of supply were very small. That is the essence of the fact that the first two years we survived ourselves.

        Already in the fall of the 41st, the very fact of approval by the FDR of non-financial amounts for LL allowed the USSR to carry out total militarization. Everything for the front, everything for the victory. Otherwise or trucks or T-70 tanks and self-propelled guns based on them, for example.
        1. 0
          1 December 2018 19: 20
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Otherwise, either trucks or T-70 tanks and self-propelled guns based on them, for example.

          This cannot be true, because ALL Lend-Lease deliveries - 5% of the military production of the USSR - are too small to be of decisive importance.
          1. 0
            1 December 2018 19: 37
            Quote: Setrac
            % of the military production of the USSR-too little to be decisive.

            And if I find from 50 to 100% - will it be crucial? By the way

            Quote: Setrac
            Torah World War - a completely American project

            At the 39th year, perhaps the CIA was more helpless than the State Department - it was not there at all. Until the summer of 42. This is one of the main reasons for the shame of the United States in the sense of "constructive dialogue" with the "democratic opposition" from French Africa to Japan, and further after the war. Comrade Stalin, we must give him his due, has always had a constructive (and well-armed) opposition and a new people's government for any country in advance, in the Balkans it was shown very clearly.
            1. 0
              1 December 2018 19: 40
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              And if I find from 50 to 100% - will it be crucial?

              That will be a lie.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              At the 39th year, the CIA was perhaps more helpless than the State Department - it was not there at all.

              So what? What difference does the State Department or the CIA have? It does not matter.
              1. 0
                1 December 2018 19: 44
                Quote: Setrac
                That will be a lie.

                Seriously? I don’t find anything at all, so that imports exceed Soviet production?
                Quote: Setrac
                So what? What difference does the State Department or the CIA have? It does not matter

                Really. ZOG and reptilians are not required.
                1. 0
                  1 December 2018 20: 43
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Seriously? I don’t find anything at all, so that imports exceed Soviet production?

                  Quote: Setrac
                  ALL Lend-Lease Supplies - 5% of USSR Military Production

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Really. ZOG and reptilians are not required.

                  You have a strange logic.
                  Lend-lease - five percent of the military production of the USSR, maybe some other country put more on the Lend-Lease in the USSR - look for - a flag in your hands and a drum on your neck.
                  1. 0
                    1 December 2018 21: 16
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Lend-lease - five percent of the military production of the USSR

                    Materials Production USSR Lend-Lease Ratio, %
                    Explosives, thousand tons 558 295,6 53%
                    Copper, thousand tons 534 404 76%
                    Aluminum, thousand tons 283 301 106%
                    Tin, thousand tons 13 29 223%
                    Cobalt, tons 340 470 138%
                    Aviation gasoline, thousand tons 4700 2586 55%
                    Car tires, thousand pieces 5953 3659 62%

                    In parentheses, I note that in the "Soviet" production of gasoline, one should take into account the bourgeois anti-knock additives, the debonding of high octane with low octane, which was passed off as Soviet production, as well as American refineries supplied in a complete set.

                    Also in parentheses I note that the problems of the USSR with both gasoline and gunpowder-explosives-shells were widely known before the attacks and the loss of industry.

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    ZOG and reptilians are not required

                    The text and the picture related to the ability of Americans to weave global conspiracies, without creating appropriate structures for this, if you suddenly did not understand.
                    1. 0
                      1 December 2018 22: 14
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Production of the USSR Lend-Lease Ratio, %

                      mortars - 0%
                      battleships - 0%
                      aircraft carriers - 0%
                      atomic bombs - 0%
                      so the Americans didn’t help us at all!
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      The text and the picture related to the ability of Americans to weave global conspiracies, without creating appropriate structures for this, if you suddenly did not understand.

                      Your holy faith in the US government is your personal chip. And how did Britain manage without the State Department and the CIA for two hundred years?
                      1. 0
                        1 December 2018 22: 42
                        Quote: Setrac
                        battleships - 0%
                        aircraft carriers - 0%
                        atomic bombs - 0%

                        Zero is not divisible by zero. It is a pity that you have not yet been told this.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        And how did Britain manage without the State Department and the CIA for two hundred years?

                        Limes with intelligence services were relatively good. Not perfect, but not bad. Relatively official status they received in the XV century.
                      2. -1
                        1 December 2018 23: 06
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Zero is not divisible by zero. It is a pity that you have not yet been told this.

                        Well, apparently, God personally told you all the secrets of the Universe and told all the mathematical delights. And how then to understand the phrase "battleship Soviet Union" was built 70%? 70% off zero?
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Limes with intelligence services were relatively good.

                        Yeah, tell me what advanced Englishmen are. And intelligence services were the first to come up with, and Nazism invented gas chambers and concentration camps - it’s just gold and not people.
                      3. 0
                        1 December 2018 23: 47
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Well, apparently God personally told you all the secrets of the universe and told all the mathematical delights

                        No, I have no direct connection with Him. I do not accept heavy substances.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        70% off zero?

                        You are absolutely right. Battleships are only counted in whole numbers. 0,9LK = 0LK.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        And the intelligence services were the first to come up with

                        No, absolutely not. The first, as a rule, all came up with the Greeks.
                        Even hang out in w ...
                        Quote: Setrac
                        and Nazism invented both gas chambers and concentration camps - right gold and not people

                        Yes, very inventive.
                        You have forgotten socialism.
                        And vodka, but that's not for sure.
                      4. 0
                        1 December 2018 23: 54
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You have forgotten socialism.

                        I thought socialism was invented by the Deutsch what
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        No, I have no direct connection with Him. I do not accept heavy substances.

                        And you try ....
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You are absolutely right. Battleships are only counted in whole numbers. 0,9LK = 0LK.

                        But did you calculate the percentage of zero production of aviation aluminum? Regarding some other parameters of Lend-Lease deliveries, nothing prevented you from dividing by zero? How so?
                        Or maybe they didn’t produce it precisely because there were deliveries under Lend-Lease, but would you have to develop your own production? As it was then done - immediately on a massive scale - and the effect would be higher than from dubious Lend-Lease deliveries.
                      5. 0
                        2 December 2018 00: 06
                        Quote: Setrac
                        I thought socialism was invented by the Deutsch

                        Greeks, of course. Much later, limes dug up these ideas and taught Engels, and he, Marx, how to harm Russia. And Germany, by the way, too.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        And you try ....

                        That suggest?
                        Quote: Setrac
                        But did you calculate the percentage of zero production of aviation aluminum?

                        Aluminum production in the USSR is given above. Let me remind you that in the USSR, aluminum was used not only in aviation, but also in tank building.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        How then it was done - immediately on a massive scale

                        In the 42nd year you were going to launch the Bratsk aluminum plant, I understand correctly?
                      6. +1
                        2 December 2018 00: 15
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Aluminum production in the USSR is given above.

                        However, it was not aviation. Yes, it's not just about aluminum. Some industries were reprofiled precisely because of Lend-Lease, for example, during the war, the USSR did not produce locomotives - they also divided not zero and did not frown.
                        Therefore, all these your figures - 100% of production in the USSR, 200% - broken eggs and pennies are not worth it.
                        There is ALL Lend-Lease (it was) and it was ALL in the amount of 5% of the military production of the USSR, and all your attempts to pull the asus onto the globe are nothing more than attempts to pass off wishful thinking.
                        It remains to understand in whose interests you are trying to belittle the role of the USSR and increase the role of the United States in the victory over the Third Reich. Who pays you for campaigning - MI5 or the CIA?
                      7. 0
                        2 December 2018 00: 44
                        Quote: Setrac
                        However, there was no aviation

                        There were a lot of things there.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        ALL Lend-Lease deliveries - 5% of the military production of the USSR - are too few to be of decisive importance.

                        Quote: Setrac
                        Yes, it's not just about aluminum.

                        Yeah. Also explosives, high-octane gasolines and additives, sowing grain. This is what you can remember on the go.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Some industries were reprofiled precisely because of Lend-Lease

                        Not "because of" but "thanks", more precisely.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Therefore, all these your figures - 100% of production in the USSR, 200% - broken eggs and pennies are not worth it.

                        Quote: Setrac
                        nothing more than an attempt to wishful thinking.

                        Seriously? That is, if these numbers are removed, will there be norms? Will you fight the remaining 95%?
                        Quote: Setrac
                        belittle the role of the USSR and increase the role of the United States in the victory over the Third Reich.

                        You have an alternative story in this. The United States fought against Britain first of all (with the colonial system as a whole), and the USSR with its imperialist environment (including the United States).
                        The irrepressible WFGN only helped to solve the accumulated problems quickly and radically. Someone took advantage of this opportunity better, someone worse.
                        The leadership of both the USSR and the USA basically solved their pre-war tasks. In both cases, it brought a lot of new grief and new blood.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Who pays you for campaigning - MI5 or the CIA?

                        Both. In kind.
                      8. 0
                        2 December 2018 01: 00
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Seriously? That is, if these numbers are removed, will there be norms? Will you fight the remaining 95%?

                        They fought for two years, won the battle for Moscow and the Battle of Stalingrad without these five percent.
                      9. 0
                        2 December 2018 01: 11
                        Quote: Setrac
                        They fought for two years, won the battle for Moscow and the Battle of Stalingrad without these five percent.

                        In Stalinigrad, it’s already с these five percent. Commented earlier.
                        But to cancel the offensive operations of the 44th year - the idea is normal, I like it.
  7. +2
    15 November 2018 08: 33
    Missouri Democratic Member and Senator Harry Truman
    "If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as much as possible ..."
    1. -2
      15 November 2018 09: 24
      Please give a link to this speech, where and when did he say it.
      1. +1
        15 November 2018 09: 36
        Quote: Puncher
        Please give a link to this speech, where and when did he say it.
        Will the screen of articles suit you? Catch. http://prntscr.com/like18 And ​​this is the link where I made the screen https://egorka-datskij.livejournal.com/907.html
        Original - New York Times from June 24 to 1941
      2. -1
        15 November 2018 10: 27
        1. Truman really said that.
        If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible

        and further
        although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.
        .
        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
        2. This opinion was shared by most of the political establishment, and not only in the United States. But not Roosevelt and his entourage.
        3. Taking post-war relations with the USSR as deterministic, it should be recognized that Roosevelt’s policy towards the USSR led to disastrous consequences both in Europe (the eastern bloc), and in Asia (China, Korea, Southeast Asia), and even for the existence of the USA itself ( Caribbean crisis). From this point of view, Roosevelt is a traitor.
        1. +3
          15 November 2018 12: 10
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          From this point of view, Roosevelt is a traitor.

          In no case. Roosevelt is a visionary politician. It was thanks to the confrontation with the USSR that the United States gained world political and economic leadership. What was needed was a world scarecrow, driving all the developed countries into the zone of influence of the United States: if you don’t want the Communists to log in Siberia, please join NATO and tie the economy to the dollar. There were simply no other candidates besides the USSR.
          1. -2
            15 November 2018 13: 29
            Quote: brn521
            It was thanks to the confrontation with the USSR that the United States gained world political and economic leadership.

            That is, in the 45th year, the United States without the USSR did not dance leadership. Well, OK.
            1. +2
              15 November 2018 17: 19
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              That is, in the 45th year, the United States without the USSR did not dance leadership. Well, OK.

              It was dancing. About 20 years. After which the European countries would stand on their feet and again begin to fight for their piece of the world pie.
        2. -1
          15 November 2018 12: 47
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          This opinion was shared by most of the political establishment, and not only in the United States.

          Helping Germany means automatically harming Britain, its forced and primary ally, with the clear prospect for the United States to remain alone in the Atlantic against Nazi Europe. Our happiness is that Roosevelt did not become like European "hamsters" from politics, ready to feed Hitler with their allies, if only there was no war. And taking into account the fact that it would have to help within the framework of Lend-Lease, i.e. free of charge, then such help will turn out to be utter stupidity.
          1. +1
            15 November 2018 13: 10
            Quote: brn521
            And given the fact that I would have to help under the Lend-Lease

            You have read the quote inattentively. Traman said that in the interests of the United States the maximum weakening, both Germany and the USSR. In the framework of LL, not in the framework of LL - a technical issue. At the time this phrase was pronounced, LL did not apply to the USSR either.
            1. 0
              15 November 2018 18: 33
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You have read the quote inattentively. Traman said that in the interests of the United States the maximum weakening, both Germany and the USSR.

              Yes, here's a quote: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible"
              It is said that if Russia wins, Germany needs to be helped and vice versa. Well, yes, so that they weaken each other as much as possible. At the same time, the moment falls as to how any help to Germany is possible before it surrenders to WWII and abandons its claims in Europe and Africa.
              1. +1
                15 November 2018 19: 46
                Quote: brn521
                Yes here is a quote

                A few posts above are given in full.
                1. +1
                  16 November 2018 10: 48
                  Well here's the second piece. "although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."
                  those. "Although I do not want to see Hitler as a winner under any circumstances. None of them give a penny to their obligations."
                  It is still unclear about the option with the help of Germany. Where are German interests planned for Europe and Africa? Moreover, the understanding is indicated that it makes no sense to expect not only any cost recovery, but even the simplest thanks. Even if the Germans promise to use the delivered weapons only on the eastern front, in reality this will not at all prevent them from using it against the British and the United States themselves.
                  Therefore, I still did not understand what is the point of your appeal to the completeness of the quotation.
  8. 0
    15 November 2018 08: 41
    The authors make a number of inaccuracies.
    Indeed, all LL papers were signed by Livanov and Hall in June 42nd (in the format of an intergovernmental agreement).

    However, the FDR was distinguished by creative approaches to pieces of paper.

    "Message from the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR to the President of the United States
    November 4 1941 city
    Mr. President, Although I have not yet received the text of your message, the Ambassador of the United States of America, Mr. Steingardt, transmitted me through Mr. Wyszynski on November 2, p. d. a memo stating the contents of your message in my name.
    In this regard, let me first of all express full agreement with your assessment of the work of the Three Powers Conference in Moscow, which should be attributed to the greatest extent to the merits of Mr. Harriman, as well as Mr. Beaverbrook, who did everything possible to successfully complete the work of the Conference in the shortest time.
    The Soviet Government expresses its deep appreciation for your statement that the decisions of the Conference will be implemented as much as possible. Your decision, Mr. President, to provide the Soviet Union with an interest-free loan of $ 1 billion to pay for the supply of arms and raw materials to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government accepts with sincere gratitude as the extremely serious support of the Soviet Union in its enormous and difficult struggle with our common enemy, with bloody Hitlerism.
    On the instructions of the Government of the USSR, I express my full agreement with the terms and conditions of granting the Soviet Union this loan, which you have set forth, payments on which should begin 5 years after the end of the war and will be made within 10 years after the expiration of this five-year period. The USSR government is ready to do everything necessary to supply the United States of America with those goods and raw materials that are at its disposal and which the United States may need ... "
    (Source: Soviet-American relations during the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945: Documents and materials. In 2 volumes. Volume 1. 1941-1943 - M .: Politizdat, 1984. p. 135).


    "Message from the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR to the President of the United States
    18 February 1942 city
    ...
    Your decision, Mr. President, to place the second billion dollars at the disposal of the Government of the USSR, in accordance with the law on the transfer of weapons on a loan or lease, on the same conditions under which the first billion was provided, is accepted by the Soviet Government with sincere gratitude. In connection with the question you raised, I must inform you that at this moment, in order not to postpone decisions, the Soviet Government is not raising the question of changing the conditions for granting the Soviet Union the indicated second billion dollars and of correspondingly taking into account the extreme stress of the USSR's resources in the war against our common enemy. At the same time, I fully agree with you and express the hope that later we will jointly determine the appropriate moment when it will be mutually desirable to revise the financial agreements currently being concluded in order to take particular account of the circumstances noted above ... "
    (Source: Soviet-American relations during the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945: Documents and materials. In 2 volumes. Volume 1. 1941-1943 - M .: Politizdat, 1984. p. 154)
  9. +10
    15 November 2018 08: 45
    For myself, I personally long ago answered the questions posed in the article, and the conclusion was formulated as follows. Without Lend-Lease, the USSR would have definitely won, but the price of victory would have been higher, because Lend-lease-supplied equipment saved the lives of our soldiers and accelerated the arrival of victory.
    Here, one more claim of the "patriots" is immediately recalled. Say, it's all too late.
    This is not a claim, it is a fact. Not because the allies are harmful, or something else. It’s just that the delivery mechanism of this scale is very inert. While he unwound the Germans did not wait. And the first two years of the war, the volume of Lend-Lease deliveries objectively had little effect on the situation on the fronts. These two most difficult years we survived ourselves. In 1943, the value of Lend-Lease increased, but the Red Army gained experience, and the German was seriously exhausted. Nevertheless, German is German, he was a strong adversary until the very end of the war, and Lend-Lease equipment came in very handy in 44 and 45. By the way, the Lend-Lease mechanism was slowly spinning, and also slowed down slowly - the last deliveries within the framework of Lend-Lease in the USSR arrived after September 1945, that is, even Japan had already surrendered, and deliveries were still in progress.

    The network has a detailed report on the volumes of supplies to the USSR under Lend-Lease from the USA (there were also supplies from the UK, but they are relatively small). Everything is written there with American business precision, down to grams, for all positions. Not only such interesting objects for us as "plane" or "tank", but also boring parts, spare parts, appliances, raw materials, oil, food and other rear trifles. Scheduled by months, meticulously. Provides a comprehensive answer to all questions. Some products such as sights, optics, radio stations, ship motors, all kinds of rubber-technical products were very valuable acquisitions for the USSR. We would have won without this, only at the cost of unnecessary losses.
    1. -6
      15 November 2018 09: 39
      Quote: Alex_59
      Would have won without it, only at the cost of unnecessary losses

      They say it is true that the service rendered is worthless. From the height of the past years, it is so easy to say "oh well, we would have won anyway" or even worse "we paid in blood!" and therefore should not.
      And go and prove that it is not so. Even knowing the state of the economy in which the USSR was located, losses in agriculture, industry, and resources still hit themselves in the chest "we can do it ourselves!" I repeat again, COULD NOT! Without food, without fuel, without transport, without aluminum, armored steel, modern industrial equipment, and a lot of things that the USSR got free-of-charge, period. There are no miracles.
      Many do not even wonder, why the hell should the Americans help the USSR? Why would the war between Germany and the USSR for Americans be more important than the war between Ecuador and Peru, which began on 05.07.1941?
      1. 0
        15 November 2018 09: 53
        Quote: Puncher
        Why would the war between Germany and the USSR for Americans be more important than the war between Ecuador and Peru, which began on 05.07.1941?

        And why would Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya be more important for the Americans, rather than the problems of their own country. Have you ever thought about it?
      2. +6
        15 November 2018 10: 27
        Quote: Puncher
        From the height of the years passed, it is so easy to say "oh well, we would have won anyway" or even worse "we paid in blood!" and therefore should not.
        Let's not ascribe other people's words to me. I did not claim that the assistance provided by the Allies should not be paid for or accepted with due gratitude and respect.
        Quote: Puncher
        I repeat once again, WE CANNOT!
        You can repeat as much as you like, it is your right. But this will not affect my opinion in any way.
        Quote: Puncher
        Many do not even wonder, why the hell should the Americans help the USSR?
        They shouldn't, but they helped for some reason. They must be asked. It is impossible to force Americans to do anything, as practice shows. Unless they themselves want to. Once done, it was considered profitable or correct.
        The fact that the USSR would have won without Lend-Lease is said in the first two years of the war. In these two years, the share of deliveries was too small to drastically affect something. But it was precisely in these two years that the USSR managed to withstand, repel two difficult offensives, and evacuate industry. I have not the slightest doubt that we would have won on our own, only there would have been more deaths. Without foreign optics, it would be harder for our grandfathers to aim, the armor of our tanks would be more likely to penetrate by enemy shells, aircraft made with minimal use of aluminum would be harder to spin and more likely to be knocked down by the Germans, troops would move harder without American steam locomotives, and so on. Losses would be, and serious. But the Germans would have turned sour anyway. This was already clear in the same 42. Things were going even worse with them, they were generally not ready to fight on the scale that the USSR was preparing for before the war.
      3. 0
        15 November 2018 10: 35
        . they do not wonder, why the hell should the Americans help the USSR? Why would a war between Germany and the USSR be more important for Americans

        For Americans, this war was not a stranger. In addition, after the victory over the USSR, Germany could dictate its terms to any country in the world.
        Germany lost. The USSR is destroyed. Germany took the place of USA
      4. 0
        1 December 2018 19: 54
        Quote: Puncher
        I repeat once again, WE CANNOT! No food, no fuel, no transport, no aluminum

        5% of the military production of the USSR is not drawn to "decisive" assistance.
        Quote: Puncher
        Why would the war between Germany and the USSR for Americans be more important than the war between Ecuador and Peru, which began on 05.07.1941?

        Probably because the United States sought to become a world hegemon? And the war between Ecuador and Peru did not affect this in any way, in contrast to the war of the USSR against the Third Reich.
    2. +2
      15 November 2018 10: 03
      Fiercely plus! Especially this:
      Not only such interesting objects for us as "plane" or "tank", but also boring parts, spare parts, appliances, raw materials, oil, food and other rear trifles. Scheduled by months, meticulously. Provides a comprehensive answer to all questions. Some products such as sights, optics, radio stations, ship motors, all kinds of rubber-technical products were very valuable acquisition for the USSR.
      1. +1
        15 November 2018 17: 37
        15 million pairs of shoes! The whole army was shod in American boots!
    3. +1
      15 November 2018 12: 37
      The author of the article correctly said that everything should be considered in a heap. Here it would seem a trifle, the sowing material of grain delivered to the USSR, and there is a ridiculous figure of 9 thousand tons throughout the country, but this is not enough to ensure the sowing of 42 g. Good now to discuss how we would have won without LL, just the losses would have been greater. on a full stomach, on a soft sofa warm. I don’t think that now we can evaluate what an extra can of stew is when you sit in the trench knee-deep in water.
      1. 0
        15 November 2018 15: 22
        Quote: Korax71
        on a full stomach, on a soft sofa warm. I don’t think that now we can evaluate what an extra can of stew is when you sit in the trench knee-deep in water.

        Decisions on the necessity (or non-necessity) of LL were made by people just on a full stomach, on soft sofas in the silence of diplomatic cabinets - and in this regard we are not very different from them. Accordingly, nothing prevents us from understanding the importance of LL. But the severity of the war for an ordinary person who is in the trench is a completely different topic, and of course we will never understand it from the soft sofas - we can only be eternally grateful, remember and respect.
        1. +1
          16 November 2018 06: 51
          Quote: Alex_59
          Quote: Korax71
          on a full stomach, on a soft sofa warm. I don’t think that now we can evaluate what an extra can of stew is when you sit in the trench knee-deep in water.

          Decisions on the necessity (or non-necessity) of LL were made by people just on a full stomach, on soft sofas in the silence of diplomatic cabinets - and in this regard we are not very different from them. Accordingly, nothing prevents us from understanding the importance of LL. But the severity of the war for an ordinary person who is in the trench is a completely different topic, and of course we will never understand it from the soft sofas - we can only be eternally grateful, remember and respect.

          And here I disagree with you ... They may have been well-fed, they were warm and on the couch, but reports from the front came to them every day, and they were gloomy ... Which means understanding and fear that tomorrow a delicious lunch and a warm sofa can take away (or even deprive of life altogether) ... And since in such a situation, the LL agreement was adopted on the set conditions, and did not wait for "free" supplies (without payment in gold and other values ​​upon delivery ), so the value of the supplies was enormous .. It is now possible to shout that the existing "Matilda" and "Valentina" near Moscow did not play a role, they say there were few of them .... Or even "mustache" ...
          1. +1
            16 November 2018 07: 43
            Quote: parma
            It is now possible to shout that the existing "Matilda" and "Valentina" near Moscow did not play a role, they say there were few of them ...

            It seems that I’m just not screaming, but trying to take a balanced and thoughtful position on this issue. In my opinion, again and again - the value of LL was great and he played a significant role, this is a fact. For which the Allies are very grateful. But it is also a fact that the supply flywheel was untwisted only at the end of the 42 year so as to have a noticeable effect on the situation at the front. This is also a fact. I don’t see anything hysterically loud here. Well, there was something to be done.
      2. 0
        1 December 2018 19: 59
        Quote: Korax71
        just losses would be greater. on a full stomach, on a soft sofa in the warmth

        How sweet, let's all thank the United States in chorus for their help in the war that they unleashed. Your cynicism is simply amazing.
    4. 0
      16 November 2018 13: 48
      Quote: Alex_59
      Without Lend-Lease, the USSR would have definitely won, but the price of victory would have been higher

      I strongly doubt it. Take, for example, production. There are literally 2-3 machines missing and everything from the rest of the equipment is useless. The absence of alloying additives turns the armor into a roofing sheet. What to replace missing antibiotics with? Plantain? And what about the rear norm, cut down to the state "so that only the legs can drag"? Let's try to take away from it a few more hundred thousand tons of meat and fats and that's it, dystrophies instead of regular replenishment. And the transport? We had a complete ass before the war with him. The same can be said for communication.
      But no charity. Normal business. Lend-lease was much cheaper than US direct participation in the war. We really worked and paid everything in full.
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 16: 06
        Quote: brn521
        I doubt it very much. Take at least production. Literally 2-3 machines are missing and that’s all, the rest of the equipment is of no use.

        A classic example is the T-34-85. According to the results of evacuation to the entire tank industry of the USSR, there were 2 machines for processing shoulder straps of towers with a diameter of more than 1500 mm. On one hangs a heavy tank program. The second is in Sormovo. How to produce T-34-85 at other plants?
        By the way, on the issue of the dependence of the tank industry on imports:
        ... among those ordered by the Stalingrad Tank Plant as necessary for the production of T-34 machines, there were:
        - screw-cutting “Heydsireich and Garbeck” 13 pcs., “Beringer” 11 pcs., “Dr. Brown” 1 pc .;
        - turning and rotary "Niles" 35 pcs .;
        - turning and multi-cutting “Guishold” 11 pcs .;
        - revolving "Heinemann" 18 pcs .;
        - Dental "Maag" 2 pcs.;
        - gearshakers “Reinecker” 6 pcs., “Lorenz” 3 pcs., “Pfauter” 1 pc.;
        - universal grinding "Schmalz" - 1 pc .;
        - intra-grinding "Wotan" 1 pc .;
        - slot grinding “F. Werner "3 pcs.;
        - grinding “Glisson” 1 pc.
        © Ulanov / Shein
  10. +1
    15 November 2018 09: 30
    As I understand it, there will be a whole series of articles about Lend-Lease. Maybe the authors at the same time shed light on the issue of supplies to Germany from American (and Co.) corporations during WWII. Otherwise, everyone shyly sidesteps this question. At least the title of the article "Another Lend-Lease" is very helpful even to reveal this topic.
    1. 0
      15 November 2018 10: 27
      I'd love to
  11. +4
    15 November 2018 09: 37
    Cheers patriots and liberals - this is our headache for a long time. - brilliantly!
  12. BAI
    +5
    15 November 2018 09: 58
    I have already said, I repeat again:
    1. To say that without Lend-Lease would have lost the war is impossible.
    2. It is impossible to assert that the Lend-Lease did not make a significant contribution to the victory.
    During the war, any help (for money or free of charge (such, as I understand, was not)) is the lives of soldiers saved and the reduction of the time of the war. And for this no money is not a pity. It’s better to pay for the victory with money than with the lives of soldiers.
  13. 0
    15 November 2018 10: 01
    Thanks to the authors for an interesting topic!
    Our main task will be the story of what equipment came to us in the framework of Lend-Lease and (most interesting in our opinion) we will compare it with our counterparts. Something was already in the framework of the series “Yours among strangers”, but there were ships and airplanes, and here there will be a place for tanks, self-propelled guns, cars, trucks, armored personnel carriers, guns and small arms.

    It would be extremely important to consider the Lend-Lease supplies of industrial equipment and materials (fuel, oils, explosives, plexiglass, aluminum alloys in sheets, etc.). Without this, there will be no clarity in the possibilities of own production of military equipment.
  14. 0
    15 November 2018 10: 11
    It will be strange to evaluate LL only by tanks, without touching other supplies.
    LL was very necessary, he saved tens of millions of lives of Soviet citizens!
    But if so, if the packs will be in tanks, then the topic of the Shermans cannot be circumvented. I am specifically about M4A2 (76) W. The same Sherman, with the very instrument (M1A2).
    I hope the author of the article to delve into the story to write as much detail as possible!
    1. +6
      15 November 2018 10: 59
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      I hope the author of the article to delve into the story to write as much detail as possible!

      1. Judging by the introduction, the authors again went to a museum and will paint its exhibits with photos. Last time (at the Pyzhma museum, EMNIP), the story was given quite briefly and, to put it mildly, not deeply.
      2. Talking about Sherman in comparison with the T-34 does not make much sense. Different Sherman, different T-34, different evaluation criteria. Sherman - very good andvery bad tank at the same time.
      1. 0
        15 November 2018 16: 41
        2. Talking about Sherman in comparison with T-34 does not make much sense. Different Shermans, different T-34, different evaluation criteria. Sherman - very good and very bad tank at the same time.

        So I wrote the same - M4A2 (76) W. It only makes sense to compare it with T-34-85 (C-53). However, with D-5T you can also compare.
        For armor - in T-34 is 45-mm in a circle (rolled homogeneous armor). In the forehead, the slope was 60 degrees.
        Sherman is both better and worse. Better in his forehead - 63.5-mm at an angle of 46 degrees. In both cases - rolled homogeneous armor!
        About Sherman wrote in Loza (Tankist on a foreign car).
        1. +3
          15 November 2018 19: 21
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          About Sherman wrote in Loza (Tankist on a foreign car).

          This is no good here.
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          Sherman is both better and worse.

          It's not a matter of armor.
          Early Sherman - an outstanding example of the work of American industry, which was able for the year - YEAR! - Convert the armored shed into the best tank at that time (see T-34/76 and the early fours). The armored barn itself - Lee - also appeared in the project only six months earlier. Sherman was not inferior to the T-34 and the four in armament and armor, sharply superior real 34-year-old T-42 quality and mobility, four - the number, and in terms of reliability in general was the best tank of the war.
          Late Sherman - you specified - the shame of America. Not because he was so bad. Still no worse than fours and T-34, not to mention the Japanese, Italians, the British (before Comet). But he became a monument to the incompetence of the command of the Army, a monument to chaos, irresponsibility, bluster and hurray-patriotism.
          Early sherman was completely ill-conceived tank - industry blinded him from what was. A well-thought tank - T20 - appeared six months later. They did not put it into production.
          Kursk showed the need to strengthen weapons - the problem was ignored. Pak40 made Sherman (like T-34) a bulletproof booking tank - spit. The USSR, using the example of T-34 / 85, did everything it could squeeze out of this platform. He had not so much - neither a normal gun, nor a reserve by weight, nor a possibility of improving the layout - but everything that was possible was done in the USSR. Even more than was possible, if we recall the T-34 / 100.
          Americans had it all. The shoulder strap of the tower - 1750 mm - did not limit the modernization of the cannon (shoulder strap EC-2 1800, the Yugoslavs tried to shove Sherman D-25T). There were beautiful pantheraki - 17fnt (Firefly) and 90 mm (Jackson), in 44-m - lightweight 17fnt, which allowed you to try to shove the stabilizer (a large 17fnt forced it to throw out, otherwise it would not fit). Suspension - the best at that time - kept her forehead from the EC-2 on the Jumbo. Engines - every whim.

          They did not want do as it should. They just didn’t want to. With his own hands, Aiki led the tank units to a situation that the Navy encountered in 42 in the example of Zero - when American equipment qualitatively inferior to enemy technology. As a result, the units that exploited Chaffee wrote that Chaffee actually surpasses Sherman in security - he is smaller, more mobile, more difficult to get into. And if he gets in, Pak40 is Sherman, that is Chuffy - the same. Aiki, for his part, began to roll up scandals, demanding only tanks with 90mm guns from the industry. And what about the old ones?
          If Aiki (as well as Patton, McNair, a lot of them) are more celestial, if they learned the lessons of Kursk - the situation in France would have developed abruptly otherwise.
          1. +1
            15 November 2018 20: 34
            Late Sherman - you specified - the shame of America. Not because he was so bad. Still no worse than fours and T-34, not to mention the Japanese, Italians, the British (before Comet). But he became a monument to the incompetence of the command of the Army, a monument to chaos, irresponsibility, bluster and hurray-patriotism.
            Early Sherman was a completely ill-conceived tank - the industry blinded him from what it was. Sophisticated tank - T20 - appeared six months later. He did not put in production.

            Yes, the T-20 should ideally replace the Shermans, but alas, did not work out. And the platform itself was better, no one argues. There and M3 90-mm shoved than Shermans were deprived (not counting the M36 based on Sherman).
            Namely, the early Sherman, with the M3 75-mm, was good, except for the booking. The first Shermans had cast armor, and the latter had welded ones.


            Kursk showed the need to strengthen weapons - the problem was ignored. Pak40 made Sherman (like T-34) a bulletproof booking tank - spit. The USSR, using the example of T-34 / 85, did everything it could squeeze out of this platform. He had not so much - neither a normal gun, nor a reserve by weight, nor a possibility of improving the layout - but everything that was possible was done in the USSR. Even more than was possible, if we recall the T-34 / 100.
            Americans had it all. The shoulder strap of the tower - 1750 mm - did not limit the modernization of the cannon (shoulder strap EC-2 1800, the Yugoslavs tried to shove Sherman D-25T). There were beautiful pantheraki - 17fnt (Firefly) and 90 mm (Jackson), in 44-m - lightweight 17fnt, which allowed you to try to shove the stabilizer (a large 17fnt forced it to throw out, otherwise it would not fit). Suspension - the best at that time - kept her forehead from the EC-2 on the Jumbo. Engines - every whim.

            I agree. But on the other hand, the M26 Pershing appeared, which had the 3-mm onboard the M90. This tool lacked, if not all, then very much.
            By the way, in essence, Pershing and grew out of the T-20 (platform). But I think you already know that.

            They did not want to do as they should. Just did not want. With his own hands, Aiki brought tank units into a situation that the Navy encountered in 42 with the example of Zero, when the American equipment was qualitatively inferior to the enemy’s equipment. As a result, the units that exploited Chuffey wrote that Chaffee, in fact, surpasses Sherman in security - it is smaller, more mobile, more difficult to hit. And if it gets, Pak40 that Sherman, that Chuffee - the same. Aiki, for his part, began to roll up scandals, demanding from the industry only tanks with 90mm guns. And the old where to go?
            If Aiki (as well as Patton, McNair, many of them) were more prominent, if they had learned Kursk lessons, the situation in France would have been drastically different.

            I agree!
            But the Americans have enough and M3 75-mm. Type tanks and did not have to destroy the tanks, and 75-mm guns were enough to fight Pz-3 and Pz-4, as well as with the enemy infantry. On the gun, the M1 was re-equipped with the Shermans, not so much willingly, but still being rearmed.
            I don’t remember whether Patton or Bradley made a fuss over the guns that the 75-mm М3 was not enough.

            But all of the above does not make the late Sherman a bad tank. Yes, it was possible to squeeze more. For example, take the M4A3E2 assault Sherman and give 90-mm М3. laughing
            1. +2
              15 November 2018 21: 00
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              alas, it did not work out

              Alas? This "alas" has a surname, name and patronymic. And not one, unfortunately.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              There and M3 90 mm shoved, than the Shermans were deprived

              He has the same tower shoulder strap.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              not counting M36 based on Sherman

              That is, the tower with 90mm was on the case with a forehead from IS getting up.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              was good except for booking

              Just booking before the advent of Pak 40 and long KwK was quite on the level.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              The first Shermans had cast armor, and the later ones had welded armor.

              Cast shells were produced all the time, it depended on the capabilities of the foundry at a particular factory. Initially, Sherman thought it was cast, it was more consistent with the concept of a large-scale tank. For Europe, the 44-th Sherman armor that is cast, that rolled - without a difference. For the Japanese, too, but in a good way.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              appeared M26 Pershing, who had on board the M3 90 mm.

              He has not appeared in May of the 44th Pershing. Did not require in May of the 44th Pershing.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              Pershing and grew out of the T-20 (platform). But I think you already know that.

              Naturally. By the way, with Pershing, the Americans repeated their encore mistake. As a result - it never happened! - ended up in Korea with outdated cars.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              I don’t remember whether Patton or Bradley made a fuss over the guns that the 75-mm М3 was not enough.

              McNair, Land Force Chief of Staff, EMNIP. But he is not alone.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              The Shermans re-equipped the M1 gun not only willingly, but still re-equipped.

              They were reequipped en masse, but only this gun was scarce in the 44th. It was not the best gun available for this tank. The Americans knew this. They are refused to put 17 pounds on it, although the British advanced this idea as best they could, including by example.
              For comparison, a sheepanythe waters put on their Sentiel almost the first seventeen-pound, which they brought to Australia.
              Quote: Jack O'Neill
              For example, take the Sherman assault M4A3E2 and give a 90 mm M3.

              This was not. And Jumbo appeared late, at the end of 44. In parts of some of the machines 76mm guns were overturned, but this is a scrub. The Jumbo base had only a 75mm gun, an analogue of the F-34. Even put the Americans 105 mm howitzer - it would be more confusing. To the howitzer cumules had.
              Therefore, I use such expressions in relation to the late Shermans.
              1. 0
                15 November 2018 21: 26
                He has the same shoulder strap

                That is, the tower with 90mm was on the case with a forehead from IS getting up.

                Yes, the tower from the M36 with the 90-mm gun got up, and Sherman himself could well have put such a gun. But limited to M1.

                Just booking before the advent of Pak 40 and long KwK was quite on the level.

                Cast shells were produced all the time, it depended on the capabilities of the foundry at a particular factory. Initially, Sherman thought it was cast, it was more consistent with the concept of a large-scale tank. For Europe, the 44-th Sherman armor that is cast, that rolled - without a difference. For the Japanese, too, but in a good way.

                At one time, the M4А1 with the molded case and the M3 gun was quite well with armor and weapons. Its competitors are Pz-3.
                But later, when there were more threats, the welded body was better there.
                Of course, PaK-40 was no matter what the body of the Sherman.

                The Pershing 44 did not appear in May. In May, the Pershing 44 was not demanded.

                Yes, a little later. What I mean is that Pershing was the answer to requests for a medium tank with a weapon that could punch Panthers and Tigers. At the end of the war, they got such a tank.
                Late, but received.

                Naturally. By the way, with Pershing the Americans repeated their mistake for an encore. As a result, this has never happened before! - turned out to be in Korea with outdated machines

                Yes. But they usually encountered T-34-85.

                McNair, Land Force Chief of Staff, EMNIP. But he is not alone.

                Thank! We will keep in mind.

                They were rearmed en masse, but there was only a little of this weapon in 44. It was not the best available weapon for this tank. Americans knew it. They refused to put 17fnt on it, although the British promoted this idea as best they could, including by example.
                For comparison, the meat producers put on their Sentiel almost the first seventeen-pound, which was brought to Australia.

                The British FireFly showed themselves well. But as I wrote, for some and M3 75-mm was enough, what about talking about M1 or more serious tools.
                I do not deny that much more powerful guns could be delivered to the Sherman base.
                Here the whole problem is that the tip just did not give the go-ahead.
                I'm not in the subject, who, what, how and why did not begin to put more powerful tools. I just write what I know that Sherman's top gun is the M1.

                This was not. And Jumbo appeared late, at the end of 44. In parts of some of the machines 76mm guns were overturned, but this is a scrub. The Jumbo base had only a 75mm gun, an analogue of the F-34. Even put the Americans 105 mm howitzer - it would be more confusing. To the howitzer cumules had.
                Therefore, I use such expressions in relation to the late Shermans.

                No, it was not, but it could well be.
                1. +1
                  15 November 2018 23: 43
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  Yes, the M36 turret with a 90 mm gun was getting up, and even such a gun could have been put into Sherman itself

                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  I do not deny that much more powerful guns could be delivered to the Sherman base.
                  Here the whole problem is that the tip just did not give the go-ahead.

                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  No, it was not, but it could well be.

                  That's why I gurgle like a boiling kettle, that the Americans on the Shermans had the right armor and the right gun.
                  But on different Shermanach.
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  At one time, the M4А1 with the molded case and the M3 gun was quite well with armor and weapons. Its competitors are Pz-3.

                  Yes and no. If in Europe, taking into account the bridges, they tried to push a tank of 20 tons, then the Americans initially spat on this restriction. If they had time - perhaps they would try to make their T-50 (they did it, it’s M7). And so Sherman became a three - the main tank - but at the same time technically was an analogue of the four.
                  By the way, with the T-34 the same topic. USSR made the four and three, T-50. It was the last tank that was supposed to become the main one. But they did not manage to put it in series, as a result of which the over-wheeled, as it seemed in the 39th year, T-34 became the main machine.
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  But later, when there were more threats, the welded body was better there.

                  Again. The factories that did not force large castings made the welded body. There would be a task to increase the armor - would increase much more definitely.
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  Of course, PaK-40 was no matter what the body of the Sherman.

                  If the tank does not correspond to the most massive enemy Ptoradiya - this is a tank bulletproof booking. In Asia, Sherman had anti-shell armor, but not in Europe.
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  Pershing was a response to requests for a medium tank with a gun that could penetrate the Panthers and Tigers

                  The tiger rode the range back in the 41st, Panther in the 42nd. It is hard to believe that the volume of the Panthers could be classified. In the spring of the 45th, Abrams could already be rolled out.
                  It's not about the fact that industry could not produce a normal tank for the 44th year. And that the military refused to accept it. Worse, for some reason Sherman was more or less adequate to the 44th year among the British, but not the Americans.
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  they usually encountered T-34-85.

                  Due to the problems of Pershing with the chassis and suspension, the main tank of Korea was, unfortunately, Sherman. Not really modernized.
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  We will keep in mind.

                  It is possible that Paton fit into this topic. I can not remember.
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  for some M3 and 75 mm was enough

                  Do the Germans know that it is dishonest to shoot at this tank, because it is "for some tasks"?
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  Sherman’s top gun is the M1.

                  Sherman's top gun is 105mm on M51. Not L7, of course, but not C-53. Actually, that can be done with Sherman, if you really need to fight.
                  1. 0
                    16 November 2018 18: 29
                    That's why I gurgle like a boiling kettle, that the Americans on the Shermans had the right armor and the right gun.
                    But on different Shermans.

                    In the late and armor was, and a weapon, and the engine (s).

                    If the tank does not correspond to the most massive enemy Ptoradiya - this is a tank bulletproof booking. In Asia, Sherman had anti-shell armor, but not in Europe.

                    This tool sewed a lot of people.

                    Due to the problems of Pershing with the chassis and suspension, the main tank of Korea was, unfortunately, Sherman. Not really modernized.

                    There were also problems with the engine.
                    Yes, the Shermans also fought there, and they fought quite effectively against the T-34-85.

                    Do the Germans know that it is dishonest to shoot at this tank, because it is "for some tasks"?

                    In Amer, PT, the tasks should have been handled by such machines as - M10, M36, M18.
                    The tanks they had the role of supporting infantry.
                    On the other hand, they still gave the gun M1.

                    Sherman's top gun is 105mm on M51. Not L7, of course, but not C-53. Actually, that can be done with Sherman, if you really need to fight.

                    That the French, and I'm talking about the Americans. After the war with Sherman, as soon as they did not pervert, that the French, that the Jews.
                    1. 0
                      16 November 2018 19: 49
                      Quote: Jack O'Neill
                      In the late and armor was, and a weapon, and the engine (s).

                      Not. The armor was on Jumbo, and the gun was on Jackson and Firefly.
                      Quote: Jack O'Neill
                      This tool sewed a lot of people.

                      Every second enemy tank. The quote quoted was in Sherman’s relationship with Pak40.
                      Quote: Jack O'Neill
                      moreover, they fought against the T-34-85 quite effectively.

                      Not really because of the problems you mentioned. And yes, EC-1 versus T-34 / 85 can be effective.
                      Quote: Jack O'Neill
                      In Amer, PT, the tasks should have been handled by such machines as - M10, M36, M18.
                      The tanks they had the role of supporting infantry.
                      On the other hand, they still gave the gun M1.

                      Do not listen to the British.
                      Do not listen to the French.
                      Do not listen to Russian.
                      To look at the Germans.
                      The tiger was quite able to support the infantry, I assure you.
                      Quote: Jack O'Neill
                      That’s the French, and I'm talking about the Americans

                      Bearing in mind the foreign upgrades of this platform, one can get an understanding of how far the Americans have worked.
                      1. 0
                        16 November 2018 21: 12
                        Not. The armor was on Jumbo, and the gun was on Jackson and Firefly.

                        Right!
                        But kk medium tank (and not assault or heavy), he quite had armor. М1, of course - never M3 (90-mm), but the tool is also quite fit.

                        Every second enemy tank. The above quote was related to Sherman with Pak40

                        So Sherman should not have kept PaK-40. If I should, I would.
                        Out. The EC-3, which was supposed to hold a lot, ended up with a completely different tank, in relation to the T-34 or M4.

                        Not really because of the problems you mentioned. And yes, EC-1 versus T-34 / 85 can be effective.

                        Are you talking about Pershing?

                        Do not listen to the British.
                        Do not listen to the French.
                        Do not listen to Russian.
                        To look at the Germans.
                        The tiger was quite able to support the infantry, I assure you.

                        I agree! But it was decided in the top in the States.

                        Bearing in mind the foreign upgrades of this platform, one can get an understanding of how far the Americans have worked.

                        As for me, Sherman was a passing tank for the Americans, so they didn’t try too hard. But what they did was enough. At least in their opinion. Otherwise, Sherman would have received the M3 90-mm.
                      2. 0
                        16 November 2018 21: 38
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        he himself had armor

                        He did NOT have armor against the main tank and anti-tank guns of the enemy.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        but the gun is also quite fit.

                        He did not hit square tanks, including the 1 Tiger. And did not hit the curves.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        So Sherman should not have kept PaK-40

                        And why should not? The gun of the 40 of the year, the tank of the 42 of the year.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        The IS-3, which was supposed to hold a lot, ended up with a completely different tank, in relation to the T-34

                        Suspension and layout of the T-34 did not allow to make a forehead sufficient from Pak40. And Sherman allowed.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Are you talking about Pershing?

                        Yes.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        for Americans was a passing tank, so they did not try hard

                        They tried very hard to do quickly, a lot, and, if possible, good. And when it was already needed more well than quickly - they could not reconstruct.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Otherwise, Sherman would have received a 3 mm M90.

                        He received and more. But not the Americans.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        I agree! But it was decided in the top in the States.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        But he became a monument to the incompetence of the command of the Army, a monument to the mess, irresponsibility, bragging and cheers-patriotism.
                      3. 0
                        16 November 2018 22: 13
                        He did NOT have armor against the main tank and anti-tank guns of the enemy.

                        In addition to anti-tank guns, there were tanks. And if the anti-tank gun like PaK-40 penetrates the medium tank, then there is nothing criminal about it.

                        He did not hit square tanks, including the 1 Tiger. And did not hit the curves.

                        Tiger-1 with M1 was completely amazed.
                        Moreover - the 1-mm M75 (M3 shelll) was also struck aboard the Tiger 72.


                        And why should not? The gun of the 40 of the year, the tank of the 42 of the year.

                        This is a medium tank! A T-20 would also not hold a PaK-40. And if Pershing did, it would only be because the Germans had a shortage of tungsten for BPSs.

                        Suspension and layout of the T-34 did not allow to make a forehead sufficient from Pak40. And Sherman allowed.

                        Right!
                        But if the Americans did not squeeze all the juice out of the platform, does that make it (the platform) bad? Not.

                        Yes.

                        Yes, there were problems.

                        We tried very hard to do quickly, a lot, and if possible well. And when it took already more well than quickly - could not be reconstructed

                        It was believed that such a Sherman would be enough.

                        He received and more. But not the Americans.

                        But we are about Americans.)
                      4. 0
                        17 November 2018 12: 24
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        And if a PT gun like a PaK-40 penetrates an average tank, then there is nothing criminal about it.

                        You stubbornly refuse to understand a rather simple idea.
                        There are no complaints against the USSR that they did not convert the 43rd T-34 to the T-44. They did not have such technological capabilities.
                        There are claims to the United States that they did not give Sherman normal armor and a gun at that time. Because they had the opportunity to build up armor, there were such weapons, there were neighbors who did this.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        He didn’t hit square tanks

                        Typo. The 76-mm anti-aircraft gun hit the square tanks with a sub-caliber.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        The T-20 would also not hold the PaK-40

                        Therefore, the T20 technical task was spelled incorrectly. However, in the end, the M26 got enough armor.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        it was only because the Germans had a shortage of tungsten for BPS's.

                        Speaking of sufficient and insufficient protection of the tank, we must take into account specific circumstances. No one argues that Sherman’s armor was sufficient in Manchuria, for example. I’ll tell you more if the main equipment that Sherman saw were ZiS-3, then it would continue to feel good until the T-34/85 arrived. Yes, and T-34/85 life did not seem to be honey.
                        However, he got on the theater, where the main threat was Pak 40, Kwk 40, Kwk 42. On this theater his reservation was insufficient. That is bulletproof. That is, Sherman, suddenly, became a light tank, not a medium one. And the average - the Americans do not.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        But if the Americans did not squeeze all the juice out of the platform, does that make it (the platform) bad? Not.

                        1. It makes Americans "well dumb," all of a sudden.
                        2. Sherman does not do a bad platform. A cranked crankshaft and an engine that did not digest gasoline. On the other hand, Sherman was assembled from commercial components, this is a gigantic plus for reliability, maintainability, development, etc. At least in the American army.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        It was believed that such a Sherman would be enough.

                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        But we are about Americans.)

                        "Well stupid-s-s-s-e!"
                      5. 0
                        19 November 2018 02: 04
                        There are claims to the United States that they did not give Sherman normal armor and a gun at that time. Because they had the opportunity to build up armor, there were such weapons, there were neighbors who did this

                        He had normal armor. like a gun. And the French modded after the war.
                        And the fact that it was possible to make a Sherman a la Tiger in miniature does not make Sherman a bad medium tank.

                        Therefore, the technical task for T20 was not written correctly. However, the M26 eventually got enough armor

                        Eventually...
                        However, there are no complaints against Pershig.

                        However, he got on the theater, where the main threat was Pak 40, Kwk 40, Kwk 42. At this theater, his reservation was insufficient. That is bulletproof. That is, Sherman, suddenly, became a light tank, not a medium one. And the average - the Americans do not.

                        Did the Americans have to sculpt Jumbo with the M3 90 mm?
                        It would be so simple, it would be sculpted.

                        1. It makes Americans "well dumb," all of a sudden.
                        2. Sherman does not do a bad platform. A cranked crankshaft and an engine that did not digest gasoline. On the other hand, Sherman was assembled from commercial components, this is a gigantic plus for reliability, maintainability, development, etc. At least in the American army.

                        Are you talking about carburetor?

                        PS, sorry for the long answer. Work, I get tired, time is short.
                      6. +1
                        19 November 2018 02: 55
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        He had normal armor. like a gun.

                        Not. Moreover, it came to the Americans closer to November of the 44, that is, 1,5 a year later than necessary (the formation of the 39 regiment, 200 Panther). Before the British much earlier. Before the Australians - even earlier (since they had a Frenchman in charge of Sentiel, EMNIP).
                        April 42 - WFGN show prototypes of the Panther and Tiger.
                        40-th - the British order a tank with 100mm forehead. It has been manufactured since the 41 year ... GM at its Voxhall factory.
                        Again 40. Information comes from the Finns on Soviet heavy tanks.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        And the French modded after the war.

                        The first Israeli modification, M50, was essentially a Sherman with a panther gun. The British tried to offer the Panther gun to partners in 42, but they rested against the last. Until the 59 year, to be precise. M68 / L7.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        And the fact that it was possible to make a Sherman a la Tiger in miniature does not make Sherman a bad medium tank.

                        Looking for what purposes.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        However, there are no complaints against Pershig.

                        There are a lot of complaints about Pershing, but even so.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Did the Americans have to sculpt Jumbo with the M3 90 mm?

                        Hooray. Finally you caught the thought.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        It would be so simple, it would be sculpted.

                        There was a tower, there was a building, but when they realized that they screwed up (and when they bombed McNair), it was easier to do Pershing than to mess with Sherman. Although at the end of 44, it was still possible to do at least something, but no. In particular, as I already mentioned, Jumbo remade from 75 mm to 76 mm gun already in parts.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Are you talking about carburetor?

                        I'm talking about the Wright star, which was the first engine. The multibank was eating automobile fuel, it seems (they were mainly used by the British), but Ford GAA also demanded the 80, which at that time was considered aviation. The star first generally requested the 92, by the 43, it was redone to the 80.

                        Which is funny. Since the star had a high crankshaft, the following engines were made taking into account the already existing layout. Ford V8, it seems that the crankshaft should be below, but no. Managed to do almost at the same height.
                      7. 0
                        19 November 2018 16: 08
                        Not. Moreover, it came to the Americans closer to November of the 44, that is, 1,5 a year later than necessary (the formation of the 39 regiment, 200 Panther). Before the British much earlier. Before the Australians - even earlier (since they had a Frenchman in charge of Sentiel, EMNIP).
                        April 42 - WFGN show prototypes of the Panther and Tiger.
                        40-th - the British order a tank with 100mm forehead. It has been manufactured since the 41 year ... GM at its Voxhall factory.
                        Again 40. Information comes from the Finns on Soviet heavy tanks.

                        But British or Australian Jumbo was not born.
                        We also had Panthers, but the Germans had 34 ki.

                        The first Israeli modification, M50, was essentially a Sherman with a panther gun. The British tried to offer the Panther gun to partners in 42, but they rested against the last. Until the 59 year, to be precise. M68 / L7.

                        Under M68 and tanks they had others. Then Sherman was no longer needed at all.

                        Looking for what purposes.

                        For the role of a medium tank.

                        Hooray. Finally you caught the thought.

                        There was a tower, there was a building, but when they realized that they screwed up (and when they bombed McNair), it was easier to do Pershing than to mess with Sherman. Although at the end of 44, it was still possible to do at least something, but no. In particular, as I already mentioned, Jumbo remade from 75 mm to 76 mm gun already in parts.

                        There was much to be done. The only question is the means and time spent, and the strength for this.
                        The Americans decided that it would do.

                        I'm talking about the Wright star, which was the first engine. The multibank was eating automobile fuel, it seems (they were mainly used by the British), but Ford GAA also demanded the 80, which at that time was considered aviation. The star first generally requested the 92, by the 43, it was redone to the 80.

                        Which is funny. Since the star had a high crankshaft, the following engines were made taking into account the already existing layout. Ford V8, it seems that the crankshaft should be below, but no. Managed to do almost at the same height.

                        I can’t say anything here, as it’s not in the subject.
                      8. +1
                        19 November 2018 16: 24
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        But British or Australian Jumbo was not born.

                        Shermans were brought in to Australia for free. The Britons had at least problems with guns in 44.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Under M68 and tanks they had others. Then Sherman was no longer needed at all.

                        After 13 years, the Americans took the English cannon. The point of the cue was this.
                        Now, let me remind you, it’s German.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        For the role of a medium tank.

                        A medium tank that does not penetrate the main enemy and is penetrated by all the main anti-tank missiles - not medium, but cruising, if we take the English classification. By the way, Patton was planning to break into and drive in the rear, armor and a gun are uncritical.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        The Americans decided that it would do.

                        Ugums This is an unforced error.
                      9. 0
                        19 November 2018 19: 30
                        Shermans were brought in to Australia for free. The Britons had at least problems with guns in 44.

                        And the Americans with M1 had no problems. That the Tigers I, that the Panthers were completely amazed with this gun.

                        After 13 years, the Americans took the English cannon. The point of the cue was this.
                        Now, let me remind you, it’s German.

                        The M68 is common with the L7 only ammunition and eccentric ejector design.
                        - Richard P. Hunnicutt Patton - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.1
                        Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.2.
                        - Hunnicutt, RP (1984). Patton: A History of the American MBT. Presidio. p. 154.

                        M68 - aka T254, had an ejector of a symmetrical shape.
                        And now yes, Rheinmetall, a German is standing.

                        A medium tank that does not penetrate the main enemy and is penetrated by all the main anti-tank missiles - not medium, but cruising, if we take the English classification.

                        Many medium tanks made their way. The same Pz-3 / 4, that 75-mm M3, that M1, that Ф-34.

                        Ugums This is an unforced error.

                        Rather, clogging to please Pershing.
                      10. +1
                        20 November 2018 00: 21
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Panthers were quite amazed with this gun.

                        On board, not always a mask
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Many medium tanks made their way. The same Pz-3/4
                        .
                        Production in 1944 PzKpfw V 3749, PzKpfw IV 3126. Three are not made. That is, it is PzKpfw V - the main tank of the enemy.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        then the 75 mm M3, that M1, that the F-34.

                        What makes you think that the M / N trio with 70 mm muzzle, four 44 of the year with 80 muzzle, and even more so some Hetzer (inferred 120), breaks through 75mm, and especially F-34 with its wartime projectile ?
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        M68 in common with L7

                        Suddenly. Take an interest.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Rather, clogging to please Pershing.

                        No. They did not refuse modifications of Sherman in favor of the speedy development of Pershing. Nothing prevented them (unlike the USSR) from doing Pershing in tank arsenals, leaving the Shermans with non-core enterprises. They are did not want no new options. Neither Pershing nor the Super Sherman.
                      11. 0
                        20 November 2018 23: 44
                        Production in 1944 PzKpfw V 3749, PzKpfw IV 3126. Troika is not made. That is precisely PzKpfw V - the main tank of the enemy
                        .
                        In the realities of war - yes. But Pershing had to fight in the minds of the Panthers.

                        What makes you think that the M / N trio with 70 mm muzzle, four 44 of the year with 80 muzzle, and even more so some Hetzer (inferred 120), breaks through 75mm, and especially F-34 with its wartime projectile ?

                        M72 to 400 meters took, and above 500 meters took the tower. but not the body.

                        Suddenly. Take an interest.

                        I myself thought that M68 is L7. not so simple it turned out.

                        Not. They did not refuse Sherman modifications in favor of the speedy development of Pershing. Nothing prevented them (unlike the USSR) from doing Pershing on tank arsenals, leaving Shermans to non-core enterprises. They did not want any new options. Neither Pershing nor Super Sherman

                        Yes and no.
                        Sherman, as the main tank of the US Army, they still modernized. And with Pershing there were problems, mainly with the engine, transmission, which is why he did not go en masse during the war.
                        And as I wrote above - for the Americans it was enough on the Sherman and M1, and more serious guns were put on self-propelled guns.
                      12. 0
                        21 November 2018 09: 19
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        But in the minds of the Panthers, Pershing was to fight.

                        No. There were no Pershing in the 44th. In the minds of Panthers, they generally had to somehow drown in the swamps on the eastern front. It is not fair that the Germans caught up with them in France. The Americans did not expect such meanness.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        M72 took up to 400 meters

                        At right angles. And 400 meters are few.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        they still modernized.

                        Yes. Changed a lot on the little things, but not enough in essence.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Pershing had problems, mainly with the engine, transmission, which is why he didn’t go massively during the war.

                        He did not go en masse, because he was not mass-produced until the beginning of 45, suddenly.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        for the Americans was enough on the Sherman and M1

                        A flurry of criticism fell on American tanks. The report of the armored unit of the 12th Army Group later reported: "The experience of the first clashes in the area of ​​hedges showed that the guns of our tanks could not do anything with the frontal armor of the German" Panthers "and" Tigers ", we realized that the situation was it will be even worse. " Most of the German panzer divisions in Normandy faced off against the British army, but that could have changed if the Americans had gone out into the open. On June 12, 1944, a special commission was formed from the officers of the First American Army to determine the type of American weaponry suitable for the destruction of the "Panthers" and "Tigers". Captured copies of these tanks were placed in the field and fired at them using guns and shells of various types. In the frontal projection, the "Panther" could not be hit with anything, only in the side or in the stern, depending on the distance. When the result was brought to the attention of Eisenhower, he bitterly remarked: "Do you mean that our 76-millimeter paper cannot knock out the Panther? I thought it would be a miracle cannon ... And why am I the last to know about it?" The military told me that 76-millimeter paper will deal with any “German.” Now I find that you can't knock out a shit with this gun. "

                        http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/M26/
                      13. 0
                        21 November 2018 17: 24
                        Not. There were no Persings in 44. In the minds of the Panthers in general should somehow have drowned in the swamps on the eastern front.

                        There was a platform T20, from which the Pershing was molded in 45.

                        It is not fair that the Germans overtook them in France. Americans did not expect such a meanness.

                        In war there is no dishonesty or meanness. There is a tactic in the war - to beat the enemy’s vulnerabilities, while not allowing the same with you.

                        At right angles. And 400 meters are few.

                        66-mm normal to 457, i.e. just in the 350-400 area should take meters.
                        http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M3-gun-Data.pdf

                        Yes. Changed a lot on the little things, but not enough in essence.

                        Gun, new (e) engine (s), turret, suspension (VVSS).

                        He did not go en masse, because he was not mass-produced until the beginning of 45, suddenly.

                        Yes I know. This does not negate the problems with him, who clearly tried to decide what was eating up the time before the conveyor.

                        A flurry of criticism fell on American tanks. The report of the armored unit of the 12th Army Group later reported: "The experience of the first clashes in the area of ​​hedges showed that the guns of our tanks could not do anything with the frontal armor of the German" Panthers "and" Tigers ", we realized that the situation was it will be even worse. " Most of the German panzer divisions in Normandy faced off against the British army, but that could have changed if the Americans had gone out into the open. On June 12, 1944, a special commission was formed from the officers of the First American Army to determine the type of American weaponry suitable for the destruction of the "Panthers" and "Tigers". Captured copies of these tanks were placed in the field and fired at them using guns and shells of various types. In the frontal projection, the "Panther" could not be hit with anything, only in the side or in the stern, depending on the distance. When the result was brought to the attention of Eisenhower, he bitterly remarked: "Do you mean that our 76-millimeter paper cannot knock out the Panther? I thought it would be a miracle cannon ... And why am I the last to know about it?" The military told me that 76-millimeter paper will deal with any “German.” Now I find that you can't knock out a shit with this gun. "


                        In the forehead of the case, naturally did not take. And yes, the M1 was not a panacea, as was the M3 90-mm.
                        And when I wrote about the fact that for the army there was enough M1, I meant the tip.
                        The rearmament of the Shermans on the M3 90-mm did not just happen, but for some reason, be it economic or technical. Although, that the first, that the second, for the American industry in those years - the little things.
                        But the fact remains that the M3 90-mm was not set.
                      14. 0
                        21 November 2018 18: 00
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        There was a platform T20, from which the Pershing was molded in 45.

                        The link describes in sufficient detail the most diverse opinions and terms that appeared on this issue.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        There is no dishonesty or meanness in war.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Sorry, forgot to put the tag * sarcasm

                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        66-mm normal to 457, i.e. just in the 350-400 area should take meters.

                        According to your link - at an angle 30. It remains only to drive up to the four on 400 meters. Or to the Tiger, but from the side.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Gun, new (s) engine (s), tower, suspension (VVSS)

                        Yes Yes.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        This does not cancel the problems with him, which obviously tried to solve what was eating up time before the conveyor.

                        If we start at the end of 43, it’s known not to solve it in time.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        The re-equipment of the Sherman on the 3 mm M90 did not happen for a reason, but for some reason, whether economic or technical

                        Because that will do.
                      15. 0
                        21 November 2018 18: 11
                        According to your link - at an angle 30. It remains only to drive up to the four on 400 meters. Or to the Tiger, but from the side.

                        To Tigers - yes, only board / feed. With Pz-4 and forehead.

                        Yes Yes.

                        Is not it?

                        If we start at the end of 43, it’s known not to solve it in time.

                        They have not decided. But obviously they tried.

                        Because that will do.

                        In general, yes, that was what they thought.
                        But then again, as I wrote: it does not make Sherman a bad tank.
                      16. 0
                        21 November 2018 18: 23
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Is not it?

                        It's like that. Only this did not make Sherman competitive.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        They have not decided. But obviously they tried.

                        Have you read the text on the link?
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        But then again, as I wrote: it does not make Sherman a bad tank.

                        It seems we are going in a circle.
                        Sherman was a great tank. But not in the West European theater 44-th year. For this theater Americans received a tank only in the spring of 45. Unlike limes (tanks with a piercing gun) and tips (122mm and 152mm tanks and SPGs).
                      17. 0
                        21 November 2018 18: 58
                        It's like that. Only this did not make Sherman competitive.

                        It depends on what you compare it to. With Pz-3 / 4 or Pz-5. Panther is clearly better than Sherman, and Sherman is better than fours and triples.

                        Have you read the text on the link?

                        Are you talking about it?
                        Devers continued to insist on the rationale for the T26E1 and Army Service Forces finally demanded that the War Department itself try to settle the problem. On December 16, 1943, the War Department issued a directive that authorized the production of 250 T26E1 tanks by April 1945. The Army Command continued to oppose the directive, this time putting forward technical arguments. They argued that torsion bar suspension was never used on tanks even twice as light as the T26E1, that the power plant was insufficient, and that the hydraulic transmission was used only on light vehicles like the M18 tank destroyer. The facts that such heavy tanks as the German Tiger and the Soviet KV and IS used torsion bar suspension, and that the hydraulic transmission was more sophisticated than the unreliable T23 electric transmission, were completely ignored. To his credit, McNair abandoned further opposition to the program when his arguments were rejected by higher command.


                        It seems we are going in a circle.
                        Sherman was a great tank. But not in the West European theater 44-th year. For this theater Americans received a tank only in the spring of 45. Unlike limes (tanks with a piercing gun) and tips (122mm and 152mm tanks and SPGs).

                        We have been walking in a circle for a long time.) In fact, we write the same thing, but only in different languages.
                        If we talk about the Panther 44, it was a terrible opponent for Sherman, but Sherman could hit Panther with a cannon mask.
                      18. 0
                        22 November 2018 00: 44
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        It depends on what you compare it to. With Pz-3 / 4 or Pz-5. Panther is clearly better than Sherman, and Sherman is better than fours and triples.

                        Machines summer 44 year, which is more dangerous than Shermane 76 mm in the PT role:
                        1. All with 6fnt. Suddenly, before the appearance of Jackson in the military, the most armor-piercing American device was the 57mm Gun Motor Carriage T48 on a half-truck. Just in time for the landing APDS appeared. Accordingly, all the old British tanks, over which it was customary to make fun, punched better than Sherman. Churchill, in addition, is better armored.
                        2. All with 17fnt. Firefly, Comet (only prototype, production since September), Acher, Achilles. Armor is the same or better (except for Acera), armor penetration is much higher.
                        3. All with 7.5 cm KwK 40. KwK 40 had more armor penetration, even with a caliber shell, while the tank destroyers (Jagdpatser, Hetzer) were significantly better armored.
                        4. Panther gun There is nothing to catch. Including the chances of Jagdpantser with a pantor gun are much higher.
                        5. 8.8 cm KwK 36. Significantly superior in penetration and in carrier armor.
                        6. 8.8 cm KwK 43. Especially.
                        7. 12.8 cm Pak 80. No comments.
                        8. Su-Xnumx. Not yet, the release will begin in September.
                        9. All with A-19. ISU-122 armor is similar, EC-2 is better.
                        10. ISU-152.
                        Good tank, speak? Against the fours, speak? And with everything else who will fight?
                      19. 0
                        22 November 2018 17: 56
                        Machines summer 44 year, which is more dangerous than Shermane 76 mm in the PT role:
                        1. All with 6fnt. Suddenly, before the appearance of Jackson in the military, the most armor-piercing American device was the 57mm Gun Motor Carriage T48 on a half-truck. Just in time for the landing APDS appeared. Accordingly, all the old British tanks, over which it was customary to make fun, punched better than Sherman. Churchill, in addition, is better armored.
                        2. All with 17fnt. Firefly, Comet (only prototype, production since September), Acher, Achilles. Armor is the same or better (except for Acera), armor penetration is much higher.
                        3. All with 7.5 cm KwK 40. KwK 40 had more armor penetration, even with a caliber shell, while the tank destroyers (Jagdpatser, Hetzer) were significantly better armored.
                        4. Panther gun There is nothing to catch. Including the chances of Jagdpantser with a pantor gun are much higher.
                        5. 8.8 cm KwK 36. Significantly superior in penetration and in carrier armor.
                        6. 8.8 cm KwK 43. Especially.
                        7. 12.8 cm Pak 80. No comments.
                        8. Su-Xnumx. Not yet, the release will begin in September.
                        9. All with A-19. ISU-122 armor is similar, EC-2 is better.
                        10. ISU-152.

                        Yes, no one argues.

                        Good tank, speak? Against the fours, speak? And with everything else who will fight?

                        Aviation.
                        Sherman was made in contrast to the Pz-3, and coped with a bang and with Pz-4 (M1).
                        With the Panthers and Tigers, ideally Pershing should have fought.
                        Also, the Americans were developing heavy tanks. But by the end of the war they did not have time, after which the projects were closed (T-29, T30, T-34.). .
                      20. +1
                        22 November 2018 18: 48
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        Aviation.

                        No.
                        Firstly, aviation directly against tanks was of little use. For more details, see S. Linnik, for example.
                        Secondly, you don’t run into every sneeze from England.
                        Quote: Jack O'Neill
                        With the Panthers and Tigers, ideally Pershing should have fought.

                        Americans did not have Pershing until February 45. Frankly, it is already inconvenient to remind you of this.
                        The T-29 was a completely new machine, which began to be developed in the spring of the 44. For what purpose they began to do it - is unknown. Until the middle of 45, it could not appear in principle.
                        A more realistic attempt would be to complete the M6, but the partners again merged this option. By the way, for М6 limes, they also offered 17fnt back in 42.
                      21. 0
                        24 November 2018 14: 54
                        Americans did not have Pershing until February 45. Frankly, it is already inconvenient to remind you of this.
                        The T-29 was a completely new machine, which began to be developed in the spring of the 44. For what purpose they began to do it - is unknown. Until the middle of 45, it could not appear in principle.
                        A more realistic attempt would be to complete the M6, but the partners again merged this option. By the way, for М6 limes, they also offered 17fnt back in 42.

                        It was not, that is why the Shermans fought with them.
                        The T-29 was made just like the answer to the German heavy tanks, like the T-30, T-34.
              2. 0
                15 November 2018 23: 08
                The Americans had such a complex that an American can only fight with American weapons manufactured in America. And the British modernized about 100 units for the U.S. Army, putting on 17 pennies, but pride, or stupidity, or everything at once hi
                1. 0
                  15 November 2018 23: 51
                  Quote: Korax71
                  The Americans had such a complex that an American can only fight with American weapons

                  Bofors, airlikon.
                  Quote: Korax71
                  made in america

                  1. If you really need it, Americans can find a way out of the situation. The same L7, by the way.
                  2. There was a racially accurate 90mm anti-aircraft gun.
                  Before the war, Grabin, EMNIP, was busy stuffing the largest possible gun he could find in the HF.
                  1. 0
                    16 November 2018 11: 06
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Bofors, airlikon.

                    Moreover, after the adoption of the Bofors, the Yankees abandoned the production of two racially faithful 100% American guns at once - an army 37-mm assault rifle and a naval 28-mm "Chicago piano" (which had been developed and perfected for 10 years).
                    By the way, from the racially incorrect American guns, you can still recall the 155-mm cannon M1918 155mm GPF (nee Canon de 155 Grande Puissance Filloux), which for many years installed in the "inch" USA the "one-inch" corps caliber, and later - divisional artillery ...
                    1. 0
                      16 November 2018 11: 48
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      155mm gun M1918 155mm GPF

                      Yeah, but I remembered WWII samples.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Moreover, after the adoption of the Bofors, the Yankees abandoned the production of two racially faithful 100% American guns at once - an army 37-mm assault rifle and a naval 28-mm "Chicago piano" (which had been developed and perfected for 10 years).

                      After the war, it turned out that while the Americans brought to mind Bofors and Oerlikon, the Japanese simply made Browning machine guns in cannon calibers. It turned out to be quite a working option.
  15. 0
    15 November 2018 11: 12
    About the numbers I will not.
    But politically, YSA needed to save face. Therefore, "we gave everything in blood" could not be accepted.
    As a result, although they reduced it to% in, it was as if the debt were closed completely. Nafig% are not needed, but the face is saved.

    And this is not only manifested here.

    And the "huge push" - the share of the USSR was only 15% in the lend-lease. They could have done without. And even worse ...
  16. +1
    15 November 2018 11: 40
    The truth is somewhere near...
  17. 0
    15 November 2018 12: 42
    Good topic, Rum! Keep it up!
  18. +3
    15 November 2018 12: 57
    Future US President Senator Harry Truman, on June 24, 1941, in an interview with the New York Times, promised: “If we see that Germany is winning, we should help Russia. And if Russia prevails, we must help Germany, and let them, therefore, kill each other as much as possible. ”
    The topic is interesting and truly multifaceted. It would be great if the authors in one of the parts would make a comparative analysis of deliveries from the USA to the USSR and to Germany. I think a lot would be understood.
    As for real help, for some reason they forget about Mongolia. But this is the first country that began deliveries to the USSR during the Second World War - the first train arrived in November 1941. And if the United States supplied us with 665 thousand tons of canned meat, then Mongolia during the same years delivered almost 500 thousand tons of MEAT to the USSR! 800 thousand half-mongering Mongols, just as much then the population of this country was, gave us a little less meat than one of the richest and largest countries in the world. Every 5th horse was Mongolian, every 10th overcoat was from Mongolian wool. Mongolia supplied us with horses in the USSR over 500 heads. Of these, more than 000 private gifts. Short fur coats, boots, overcoats, meat, sausage, sweets, jams, fabrics, soap, bread ... It is a pity that so little is remembered today.
  19. 0
    15 November 2018 13: 03
    And now we recall the words of Roosevelt “Let Germany and the USSR exhaust each other, at the end of the“ war England will become the master of the situation in Europe. ”STALIN was right:“ The USSR paid off the Lend-Lease debts in full with blood. ”
    1. +2
      15 November 2018 13: 14
      "Let Germany and the USSR exhaust each other, at the end of the war England will become the master of the situation in Europe" - the words of the Minister of Aviation Industry of Great Britain D. Moore-Brabazon. "
      1. 0
        15 November 2018 16: 51
        Sorry, blasphemed.
    2. 0
      15 November 2018 14: 24
      Do not mess up the information space with a dumb copy-paste of Internet stupidities !!! Roosevelt, unlike you, was the smartest person and never said such nonsense.
      This maxim belongs to John Theodore Cuthbert Moore-Brabazon, 1st Baron of Brabazon from Tara - Minister of Transport and Aviation Industry in the governments of Winston Churchill.
      He blurted it out in the midst of the Battle of Stalingrad and was immediately dismissed to head the Brabazon committee.
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 11: 37
        I did not insult you, watch what you write. If I were engaged in a stupid copy-paste of Internet stupidities, I would probably see who the author was. I have the honor
        1. 0
          16 November 2018 11: 39
          I apologize for the comment form, sometimes I am too categorical.
  20. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      15 November 2018 13: 36
      - I want to tell you what, from the Soviet point of view, the president and the United States did for victory. The main thing in this war is cars. The United States has proven that they can produce from 8 to 10 thousand aircraft per month. England produces every month 3 thousand aircraft, mainly heavy bombers. Consequently, the United States is a country of machines. These Lend-Lease Cars help us win the war
      ».
      1. -1
        15 November 2018 13: 40
        Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
        These Lend-Lease machines help us win the war.

        I did not understand the selected fragment. The translation in the post above is closer to the English text. Or do you have the original text of the IVS in Russian?
        1. +1
          15 November 2018 14: 03
          I cited the translation of Berezhkov, who was the translator of Stalin at this meeting.

          - I want to say that, according to the Soviet side, President Roosevelt and the United States [285] of America did for victory. The main thing in this war is cars.
          The United States has proven that they can produce from 8 to 10 thousand aircraft per month. England produces monthly 3 thousand aircraft, mainly heavy bombers. Consequently, the United States is a country of machines. These Lend-Lease Cars help us win the war. For this I want to raise my toast ...
          Roosevelt immediately replied: “I appreciate the power of the Red Army.” Soviet troops use not only American and English, but also excellent Soviet military equipment.
          While we are here celebrating the birthday of the British Prime Minister, the Red Army continues to crowd out Nazi hordes. For the success of Soviet weapons!

          Berezhkov Valentin Mikhailovich, "Pages of diplomatic history"
          You are right about the English text. It's just that the IVS spoke Russian, and Berezhkov's version seems more likely to me. The phrase "help us win the war" is logical for that date. I have never met the phrase “we would have lost this war” from Stalin.
          I do not pretend to the truth in any way - this is just my opinion. hi
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +1
              15 November 2018 16: 54
              Today, there are 4 versions of these events. Even the Americans have 2 versions. In one - translator Pavlov, in the other - Berezhkov. 2 versions of one transcript, 2 official versions to which you refer. Published in 1961. Which command do you believe?
              I repeat, I expressed my opinion. As for the translation. Stalin said a toast in Russian. Berezhkov translated into English. What the Americans understood and wrote there after almost 20 years, I’m not very interested, especially in the light of how they can rewrite history.
              Do you understand
              1. +1
                15 November 2018 17: 22
                Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
                Do you understand

                Do do you understand? hi
                1. 0
                  15 November 2018 17: 29
                  Bravo! Exactly! hi
                  1. -1
                    15 November 2018 17: 44
                    You don’t know English - it says - WE WOULD LOSE THIS WAR - we could lose this war.
                    1. -1
                      18 November 2018 19: 32
                      Quote: kalibr
                      You don’t know English - it says - WE WOULD LOSE THIS WAR - we could lose this war.

                      You just do not know English - it means "we would have lost the war". Learn.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. BAI
      0
      15 November 2018 16: 06
      The argument about the toast is useless.
      Details reviewed here: https: //fishki.net/2459292-tost-za-lend-liz.html
      If a brief conclusion, then:
      From the foregoing, we can conclude that the words of Stalin in the translation of the book by Elliot Roosevelt in 1947 were changed. The reason for this may be a gross error of translators, but, most likely, the meaning is distorted for political reasons. Therefore, it is not surprising that we will not find anything else in Berezhkov’s book, despite the 20-year difference in publications.

      Source: https://fishki.net/2459292-tost-za-lend-liz.html © Fishki.net

      But in Yalta the words were uttered:
      The head of the Soviet state was satisfied with this:

      “This will be another great United States event. Lend-Lease, a new invention of the Americans, played a big role in this war. Previously, the Allies were offended to receive subsidies, but now they are not offended to receive weapons under Lend-Lease. If not for Lend-Lease, then the victory would have been very difficult».

      Source: https://fishki.net/2459292-tost-za-lend-liz.html © Fishki.net

      Nobody disputes this phrase.
      1. 0
        15 November 2018 23: 25
        there the English text is given above, and he refutes this phrase.
        In the English version is not difficult, but impossible.
  21. +1
    15 November 2018 13: 43
    Anyone who claims that they would have won without Lend-Lease.
    I'd like to believe in it, but when victory or death on the scales, and a small weight, thrown on one of the bowls, may be enough.
    What is the trouble with the supplies of the Allies to the First World War - they were late, and the people who had been shedding blood for more than two years without shells and ammunition, were simply tired and lost faith in victory. The result is the treacherous February revolution, anarchy, the seizure of power by extremists, and an obscene separate world.
    So, our counterattack near Moscow will choke because of the lack of Lend-Lease fighters, tanks, trucks, gasoline, explosives, food, how the Leningrad deblockade choked — it is not known how events would unfold in 1942. Order No. 227 of July 28.07.1942, XNUMX not from scratch was published.
    Stalin is a great politician who managed in the terrible summer of 1941 to accept and greatly increase the assistance offered. Personal ambitions and ideological dogmas meant little to him compared to the fate of Russia.
  22. 0
    15 November 2018 14: 47
    By the way, the same thing happened with airplanes. In the memoirs of pilots there are enough memories (Pokryshkin, Golodnikov, Sinai) on the topic of how many engines were taken care of by Allison. But then they were changed. And the correspondence between the USSR and the USA regarding the supply of aircraft engines was very lively, since there was a very burning issue.

    It would be better to give "Merlin" for installation on the Yak and Pe. Yes, and Ilam 2000-strong "Griffin" would not hurt.
    1. +2
      15 November 2018 15: 10
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      It would be better to give "Merlin" for installation on the Yak and Pe. Yes, and Ilam 2000-strong "Griffin" would not hurt.

      Do you understand that a new engine is a new plane? How was Mustang with Merlin instead of Alison the new plane?
      1. 0
        15 November 2018 15: 20
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Do you understand that a new engine is a new plane?

        Not at all.
        How many different engines were on the Pe-8? And the Tu-2 began with AM-37, and finished with the M-82. And replacing one V-shaped with another is easier than with a star.
        And then, and so in fact had to make new aircraft during the war. The lightweight Yak-3 or Yak-9U, which had constant problems with the engine, because the M-107 was never brought to an acceptable resource.
  23. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      15 November 2018 15: 31
      Quote: Yar K.
      It was an exact translation of Stalin's words.

      ITT spoke Russian, I suppose.
  24. +1
    15 November 2018 16: 19
    [quote] [quote] Two opinions are usually promoted.


    First: we would have won all without handouts from the allies.

    Second: if it were not for the help of the allies, we would have come to an end. [/ Quote [/ quote]
    Somehow everything is peremptory.
    There is a third opinion: Lend-Lease is one of the components of our Great Victory and, very important.
    On this discussion can be stopped. The information in the article is known to everyone, nothing new, except in comments, someone will post something interesting.
  25. +1
    15 November 2018 18: 51
    "Hooray patriots and liberals - this is our headache for a long time"
    It's not just for a long time, it's forever. But it is said very softly. Of these, the most dangerous varieties are duro-patriots (see central TV channels) and libero-shiza (listen to "Echo of Moscow")
    1. +1
      15 November 2018 19: 36
      Why insult people?
      1. -1
        15 November 2018 23: 17
        This is the meaning of life in Russia. smile
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      15 November 2018 23: 16
      "Hooray patriots and liberals - this is our headache for a long time"
      It's not just for a long time, it's forever. But it is said very softly. Of these, the most dangerous varieties are duro-patriots (see central TV channels) and libero-shiza (listen to "Echo of Moscow")

  26. +2
    15 November 2018 19: 34
    "... We will not try to answer the question whether we would have won without lend-lease supplies ..."
    This is what you are doing .. Do not be fooled ... You do everything intentionally. Moreover, the answer you have long been engaged.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. -2
    15 November 2018 21: 47
    To the question of the indispensability of LendLisa.
    If the United States didn’t deliver anything to anyone, including Hitler, the war would end much faster.
    1. 0
      15 November 2018 22: 19
      Quote: hhhhhhh
      the war would end much faster.

      Pure truth.
      In a world with strictly neutral United States, limes already in the 40s dissolve their issues with the All-Russian Federal High-Tech Fund, and the USSR did not end in the 41st, so in the 42nd
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 11: 56
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        In a world with strictly neutral United States, limes already in the 40s dissolve their issues with the All-Russian Federal High-Tech Fund, and the USSR did not end in the 41st, so in the 42nd

        It is unlikely. Britain without American help is becoming a more promising goal than the USSR. It is her presence that strangles German industry and does not allow it to unfold properly. If the British fleet is sunk or locked, then resources to Germany will be trampled by an unstoppable flow. And at this time, the British will simply begin to die of hunger - in real life they grabbed Lend-Lease several times more than the USSR (and this, by the way, is a much more interesting and fresh topic for the article than the next washing of Lend-Lease bones in favor of the USSR). Whereas the USSR, after our butts with Finland, began to be underestimated somewhat, plus we seized the international embargo and were forced to trade with the Germans. But in the 42nd attack is not worth the wait - we just did not have enough for about a year to equip new fortified areas and debug production and tactics of using new equipment. But at the same time, we cannot quickly and quietly mobilize the army - i.e. we sit, wait, try to reduce the backlog, trade with Germany, supplying grain, ore, oil and metal in exchange for equipment. Well, then in Germany at the end of the 43rd-beginning of the 44th years, among other nishtyaks, an atomic bomb appears, because the best practices and materials captured from the French have not gone away. And that’s it. The Yankees write yy and go, the Americans hastily study the German language, which has become administrative. And the USSR is turning into a giant collective farm in half with a career in supplying the Nazis with resources. The Germans themselves admitted that the Soviet system of exploitation of workers is the most advanced, especially if the Sunday communist sermons are replaced with a bottle of schnapps on cards.
    2. -1
      16 November 2018 11: 08
      Quote: hhhhhhh
      To the question of the indispensability of LendLisa.
      If the United States didn’t deliver anything to anyone, including Hitler, the war would end much faster.

      Ahem ... You would be more careful with such arguments - otherwise you can immediately remember the trade of the USSR and the Reich in the period 1939-1941.
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 11: 42
        Until 1945, the USSR did not supply calculating machines for managing concentration camps and forfeits.
        1. +1
          16 November 2018 11: 55
          Quote: hhhhhhh
          Until 1945, the USSR did not supply calculating machines for controlling concentration

          1. The USSR did not have these machines. What could, then delivered.
          2. We are talking about the supply of equipment for the census of 1929-1933. Where the Germans later adapted them is another matter.
          1. +2
            16 November 2018 12: 19
            You're right whom the United States bomb worthy of US bombs. Help with money, technology, etc. Hitler to fight the Bolsheviks is the right thing.
            When NATO bombs will pour on you - rejoice.
        2. 0
          16 November 2018 18: 51
          Quote: hhhhhhh
          Until 1945, the USSR did not supply calculating machines for managing concentration camps and forfeits.

          But he supplied oil, and it will be more necessary for the "war of engines".
          In short, everyone was head over heels in support of the Reich.
          1. 0
            16 November 2018 21: 40
            Quote: Narak-zempo
            In short, everyone was head over heels in support of the Reich.

            Stalin brought Hitler to suicide, the rest is trifles. Reasons for the Second World War in the First World War. Nikolay 2 is guilty
            1. 0
              17 November 2018 00: 04
              All the main future participants also had a hand in fueling the First, with the amendment, that then no one imagined the scale of the massacre, but before the Second they had a good idea.
    3. 0
      1 December 2018 20: 25
      Quote: hhhhhhh
      To the question of the indispensability of LendLisa.
      If the United States didn’t deliver anything to anyone, including Hitler, the war would end much faster.

      She would (war) never start.
  29. +1
    15 November 2018 23: 21
    I would like to draw attention to several nuances.
    1. The magnitude of the lend-lease is difficult to assess by reading the long lists of what is set.
    but in the gold equivalent, for example, it is more visible about 11 tons of gold (compare with the 000 tons that the British went to Edinburgh and which later raised and divided).
    this is almost half of the world's gold reserves at the beginning of the war.
    in the form of weapons: An average tank or fighter cost about 50 thousand dollars, that is, 220 000 thousand tanks, so that the scale is clear.
    But even more important, the land lease closed holes in Soviet industry — it ensured that the country could not produce or could with great difficulty to the detriment of other products.
    and, for example, the brake belts supplied for L-lease lease for the T-34 took up a bit in the total cost of the tank, but without them you won’t let the tank go. Or ballistic gunpowder for rockets - and much more.
    2. They didn’t deliver according to Lend-Lease what the Americans themselves wanted, but the Soviet side chose from the lists within the limits of the financing provided.
    3. Programs similar to Lend-Lease were for the USSR not only among Americans, but also among Canada and other countries.
    4. Reverse Lend-Lease is not significant - only about 2 million dollars.
    5. In addition to lend-lease, there was regular commercial trade, for example, furs were sold in this way, and more. Its part is confused with Lend-Lease.
    6. Payment after the war lay not only what was left, but what the USSR itself wanted to keep.
    7. About Truman's words - what did they want? Just yesterday, the USSR and Germany in the world were perceived as close allies, and Molotov demanded that Britain and France cease aggressive against Germany.
    Truman reacted quite naturally at that time.
    1. +1
      16 November 2018 00: 46
      Quote: Avior
      7. About Truman's words - what did they want? Just yesterday, the USSR and Germany in the world were perceived as close allies, and Molotov demanded that Britain and France cease aggressive against Germany.
      Truman reacted quite naturally at that time.

      In modern times, everyone goes very offended. However, it is surprising that Comrade Stalin’s regime had a bad reputation, at least naively.
      In June of the 41st, Astrid Lindren, a housewife from neutral Sweden, wrote:
      Only the grandmother is calm and says that "everything will be over soon." I think, on the contrary, that everything is just beginning. It is strange that now you have to be for Germany. It will be difficult to be on the side of Germany and against Russia and on the side of England against Germany. One big mess.

      Roosevelt did not keep up very much about relations with the USSR. This is partly why, in the end, the aces of the Democratic Party put Truman on the FDR (which the FDR could not stand).
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 00: 54
        Germany's reputation has changed dramatically during the war.
        And the words of Truman are quite natural, because the USSR and Germany could have reconciled, proceeding from their pre-war relations. Moreover, Comrade Stalin, according to Sudoplatov, was trying to do just that.
        1. 0
          16 November 2018 00: 58
          Quote: Avior
          Germany's reputation has changed dramatically during the war.

          Rather, in relation to the USSR reset aggro.
          Quote: Avior
          Truman's words are quite logical

          There are no questions to Truman at all, if you do not pretend to be a saint. No one is obliged to love the USSR.
          1. +1
            16 November 2018 10: 01
            I agree that Roosevelt should have been erected a monument in the USSR, his attitude towards the USSR clearly and strongly goes beyond the interests of the United States, and much has been done to the same States after the war.
            If it weren’t for his authority and the laws that he had been forced to push, the USSR would have come out of the war bloodless, and the Allies would have freed Europe across Poland — they could have organized all this, the Germans would have been glad.
            But Roosevelt and Churchill's personal rejection of Nazism played a bad joke with the States and England, especially with England, which, voluntarily unlike the others, entered the war against Nazism, which specifically stipulated, by the way, suffered huge losses and at the same time, unlike the States and The USSR, received nothing, in full accordance with the Atlantic Charter.
            After the war, Churchill was correctly expelled from power; from the point of view of the British, he placed personal ambitions above the interests of England and put forward these decisions. And when he came to his senses, it was too late.
            1. +1
              16 November 2018 10: 46
              Quote: Avior
              strongly goes beyond the interests of the United States and harm to the same States caused a lot after the war.

              This is a very complex topic. Obviously, Roosevelt’s plan to include the USSR in the post-war system (Breton-Woods, the Atlantic Charter) failed. Was this predetermined - who will say?
              Quote: Avior
              and Europe in Poland would be liberated by the Allies, all of which they could very well have organized, the Germans would have been glad.

              You overestimate Roosevelt. He knew how to hang noodles on the ears of voters and wipe the Constitution. He did the rest badly. By the way, it reminds one of the current great politician.
              As applied to the current situation, Roosevelt had:
              1. Failure in the strategy for Europe. Morgenthau's crazy plan, crazy demand for a complete and unconditional. The Allies demonstrated their incredible abilities to solve problems with colorants in Italy
              2. The complete lack of strategic intelligence. You can’t look at Donovan’s actions in the 40s without tears.
              3. Some kind of police in the army. Very good, but the police. Conscripts are good, but sergeants, and especially officers, must be profi, and they are also conscripts. To prepare the headquarters, it was necessary to scratch the year of commercials in the 35th, when the Wehrmacht appeared.

              As a result, the liberation of Europe from the Wehrmacht by the forces of some Americans is quite difficult to imagine.

              Quote: Avior
              After the war, Churchill was correctly expelled from power; from the point of view of the British, he placed personal ambitions above the interests of England and put forward these decisions. And when he came to his senses, it was too late.

              Attlee made Britain great again.
              1. 0
                16 November 2018 14: 56
                Truman, of course, triggered with the help of Germany amid the fact that the British fought with the Germans, but by regulating the level of aid and delivery channels, the Americans could well slow down the front in the Dnieper and transfer it into a protracted war, while translating British aid.
                The war would have been a little bigger, but the USSR would have weakened it, just like the Germans, and at this moment the landing and liberation of Europe should be organized.
                Again, the USSR made too many promises, tying themselves together with them and not leaving the freedom of political maneuver. The USSR would have fought the Germans anyway, without promises from the Allies, with minimal US assistance.
                But the bargain huckster lol Roosevelt saw the market in the USSR as it was in the 30s before the war.
                And Comrade Stalin had other views on the United States laughing
                1. +1
                  16 November 2018 16: 49
                  Quote: Avior
                  amid the fact that the British fought with the Germans

                  Neither June of the 41st USA is neutral. And the position of Roosevelt in England is far from everyone likes.
                  Quote: Avior
                  The war would have been a little bigger, but the USSR would have weakened it, just like the Germans, and at this moment the landing and liberation of Europe should be organized.

                  Churchill clearly thought about this: you need to go from Italy to the Balkans and limit the successes of the Red Army in this direction. As for the West, it will not go anywhere. Comrade Stalin will approach Berlin - the Germans themselves will surrender through Austria, one on one Elba and will come out plus or minus.
                  Quote: Avior
                  Roosevelt saw the market in the USSR as it was in the 30s before the war.

                  Roosevelt believed that debt on LL would help him build the USSR into the system of international relations, on which he made a serious bet. As far as one can judge, he saw the UN as a much more capable body than it turned out.
                  Quote: Avior
                  And Comrade Stalin had other views on the United States

                  Comrade Stalin said something about payment in blood (that is, without LL, less blood would have been shed, apparently). Much better the same idea was formed by another leader of Caucasian origin: "We are dengi berem, but we are not for sale!" Roosevelt, although he had seen enough of everything in New York during the Prohibition era, for some reason imagined that everything would turn out differently for Stalin.
                  1. 0
                    16 November 2018 18: 12
                    Neither June of the 41st USA is neutral.

                    only formally. The British help.
                    need to go from Italy to the Balkans

                    it is closer to the end of the war, then there was not much choice.
                    As an Englishman Churchill should have wished that the USSR would not have reached Poland, not just Berlin;
                    Roosevelt believed that LL debt would help him build the USSR into the system

                    Roosevelt, although he had seen enough of everyone in New York during the Prohibition, for some reason imagined that everything would turn out differently to Stalin.

                    Huckster, what to take lol
                    1. 0
                      16 November 2018 19: 54
                      Quote: Avior
                      only formally. The British help.

                      Nonetheless. There is an opportunity to turn back.
                      Quote: Avior
                      it is closer to the end of the war, then there was not much choice.

                      This is the 43rd year, EMNIP.
                      Quote: Avior
                      he should have wished that the USSR would not have reached Poland, not just Berlin;

                      The only chance to realize this was formed on July 20, the 44th. But the Allies did nothing to use it. Plus, not fortanulo, of course.
                      Quote: Avior
                      Huckster, what to take

                      Who, and this one knew how to play without rules.
                      1. 0
                        16 November 2018 20: 03
                        if help were linked to the situation on the front and after Stalingrad redirected it to England, all these questions would have disappeared. Germany and the USSR would bleed themselves in a positional war, and the Allies would liberate Europe without much tension from a military point of view. But Roosevelt did not go for it.
                      2. 0
                        16 November 2018 20: 10
                        Quote: Avior
                        Germany and the USSR Bled would themselves in a positional war and the Allies freed would Europe

                        Good idea, but not working. In the 43rd, the United States could not afford to just sit in Africa and wait for Comrade Stalin to find an opportunity to make friends with Mr. Hitler again. Guys, whatever you say, inventive, that one that is different.
                        Yes, and Roosevelt's Cunning Plan (KhPR) was different - to take Joseph’s friend in his pocket. Strange naivety in relations with the Bolshevik, but nonetheless.
              2. 0
                18 November 2018 22: 49
                "... Roosevelt's plan to include the USSR in the post-war system (Breton Woods, Atlantic Charter) failed." - 50/50% true / false.
                1. 0
                  18 November 2018 22: 52
                  Quote: DmitryM
                  50/50% true / false.

                  Lies in part of the Bretton Woods or part of the Atlantic Charter?
          2. 0
            16 November 2018 12: 31
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            There are no questions to Truman at all, if you do not pretend to be a saint. No one is obliged to love the USSR.

            The question just remains, and very serious. Where Truman is going to put Britain, when they begin to help Germany. For Germany, the strategic adversary is Great Britain, not the USSR. And Truman himself noted that treaties and obligations for Germany mean nothing, i.e. long-term beneficial cooperation with Nazi Europe is not expected.
            1. 0
              16 November 2018 12: 48
              Quote: brn521
              For Germany, the strategic adversary of Great Britain

              As for the USA.
              Quote: brn521
              those. long-term beneficial cooperation with Nazi Europe is not expected.

              So we were not talking about long-term cooperation. Hitler as a winner is unacceptable.

              And generally speaking. Too much noise due to statements by a foreign member of parliament. Are you going to discuss the statements of Zhirinovsky, or even McCain, for 80 years, if God gives a century?
              1. 0
                16 November 2018 14: 53
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                As for the USA.

                Quite different things. The United States and Great Britain got along well before the war and successfully negotiated. Nazi Germany should have been destroyed, while Great Britain simply had to be replaced.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                So we were not talking about long-term cooperation.

                Those. USA from Nazi Germany "no benefit but harm." It is more logical to bet on the UK. But do not forget about the USSR, no matter how much the British would like the opposite.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Are you going to discuss the statements of Zhirinovsky, or even McCain, for 80 years, if God gives a century?

                Truman voiced a widespread opinion, supported by a considerable part of political circles. Both the USSR and the USA were very lucky that Roosevelt turned out to be more far-sighted in this matter.
                I highly appreciate the role of Lend-Lease in the history of the Second World War, but at the same time I consider it a mutually beneficial deal, as a result of which we owe nothing to anyone.
                1. 0
                  16 November 2018 16: 23
                  Quote: brn521
                  The United States and Great Britain got along well before the war and successfully negotiated. Nazi Germany should be destroyed

                  Why do you think so? What were such irreconcilable disagreements between the USA and Germany?
                  But with England - were. By housing colonial issue.
                  Quote: brn521
                  It is more logical to bet on the UK

                  Who do you want to teach interests to twist? The late Roosevelt?
                  Quote: brn521
                  Both the USSR and the USA were very lucky that Roosevelt turned out to be more far-sighted in this matter.

                  USSR yes, the USA is not particularly.
                  Quote: brn521
                  I highly appreciate the role of Lend-Lease in the history of the Second World War, but at the same time I consider it a mutually beneficial deal, as a result of which we owe nothing to anyone.

                  Do you mean "shouldn't"? LL is supplies for the safety of the united states. Assessing their correctness is an intra-American issue. What they wanted from the USSR, and what they received, too.
    2. 0
      1 December 2018 20: 27
      Quote: Avior
      The scale of lend-lease is difficult to assess

      It is easy to evaluate - 5 (five - do not stray) percent of the military production of the USSR - a drop in the bucket.
      Quote: Avior
      but in gold equivalent

      The gold equivalent is not gold, but its equivalent.
  30. 0
    15 November 2018 23: 48
    Well, h-ski an interesting cycle is planned :))) We will read
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. 0
    16 November 2018 00: 08
    Friends,

    This topic, for me personally, has not been studied, so I look forward to your articles. Information came across, but it is very scarce. From me - definitely +100500 for the topic raised. If you need help to clear the large amount of information indicated by you - I’m ready to help, write in a personal.
  33. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      16 November 2018 14: 09
      The Russian (generalized) history was rewritten not by Russians.
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. 0
    16 November 2018 01: 47
    This is an announcement, comrades. We are waiting, sir. In principle, if it turns out according to what is stated, a finished dissertation.
  37. -1
    16 November 2018 03: 45
    we would have won all without handouts from the allies.

    - Actually, without handouts from allies was already.

    World War I lasted more than 4 years. RI fought without handouts from the Allies, entering the war of one of the most powerful world empires, and ended up losing as many as it physically allowed to kill the weapons that were then, having been defeated, ruined economically and ceased to exist.
    The USSR was not a particularly powerful empire, the means of war allowed it to be killed by millions a month, the leadership was preparing to flee beyond the Urals with a schukher.
    1. 0
      16 November 2018 15: 54
      RI fought without handouts from the Allies, THIS IS NOT SO! Russia bought rifles, shells, aircraft engines, autoplatforms for armored vehicles and the armored vehicles themselves, cartridges and much more. Without all this property, RI would not have been able to effectively fight, providing a 2nd front against Germany and Austria-Hungary.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  38. +2
    16 November 2018 04: 43
    The agreement on the first real deliveries of military equipment with the Americans was signed on December 7 of 1941 of the year. And this is only an agreement, and the equipment itself went only in the 1942 year. For many months, our people fought in the German fascists without any help.
    1. 0
      16 November 2018 11: 24
      Quote: 1536
      The agreement on the first real deliveries of military equipment with the Americans was signed on December 7, 1941. And this is only an agreement, and the technology itself went only in 1942.

      Do not forget about pre-delivery deliveries.

      A British-made Soviet tank "Valentine II" in ambush during the Battle of Moscow. "Krasnaya Zvezda" No. 275 dated November 22, 1941
      1. +1
        16 November 2018 12: 11
        I talked about American supplies.
        But if we talk about British tanks in Soviet Russia, then according to the admissions committees of the Red Army GBTU for the whole of 1941, 216 MK.III Valentine tanks were delivered from Great Britain and Canada (see electronic resource: https://topwar.ru /26279-tanki-lend-liza-obemy-i-modifikacii.html).
        However, the following should be noted: “Soviet tankers liked the simple design of the British Mk III Valentine tank of 1940 model, but they were skeptical about its weapons, which did not meet the requirements of the Eastern Front at all. 76,2-mm guns were installed on some tanks in Soviet factories. Narrow tracks did not fit. for winter conditions, first clogged with snow, which then froze and prevented the tank from moving. " (see electronic resource: http://oruzhie.info/tanki/234-mk-iii-valentine)
        Therefore, you are absolutely right, such tanks were well suited for an ambush, and probably helped protect Moscow during the most difficult autumn months of 1941. But no one argues with this (I think that even hares, squirrels and magpies helped protect Moscow at that time).
        1. 0
          16 November 2018 16: 47
          Quote: 1536
          However, it should be noted the following: "Soviet tankers liked the simple design of the British Mk III Valentine tank of 1940 model, but they were skeptical about its weapons, which did not meet the requirements of the Eastern Front at all. Some tanks at Soviet factories were fitted with 76,2- mm guns. The narrow tracks were not suitable for winter conditions, at first they were clogged with snow, which then froze and prevented the tank from moving. "

          And what to do? An alternative was the domestic T-60 with an even less powerful gun. And epic cross in the snow.
          Snow from 25 to 50 cm on the battlefield. Tanks KV and T-34 pass without difficulty, T-60 with a depth of snow more than 25 cm. Burrow and land.

          Practice has shown that it is best to use the T-60 and T-40 in the winter to guard and defend headquarters, to pursue the enemy along roads and in settlements. T-60 and T-40 in offensive combat because of the large snow cover can not participate off-road.

          Light tanks T-60, T-40, T-30 in a snow cover of 30-40 cm. Cannot move in the snow. A narrow caterpillar cuts snow to the ground, sits on the pressed snow at the bottom and skids. Examples: 13.1.42 when attacking the Ilyinsky 145 Tbr, T-60 tanks were used in the amount of 17 pieces. All tanks, as soon as they turned off the road for deployment, were stuck at the edge of the forest.
          © Ulanov
          Against the background of these "overgrown bugs", the light "Valentine" with its 60-mm frontal armor looked like a kind of micro-KV. smile
          And when he was given 57 mm with Canadian fragmentation shells, he generally became almost an exemplary LT for his native GABTU.
          The indicated tank models compare favorably with the domestic ones in terms of ease of operation, significantly increased overhaul life, ease of maintenance and current repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole range of tasks put forward by armored forces ...
          © Marshal BTV Fedorenko
  39. 0
    16 November 2018 06: 34
    Disputes on the topic "did Lend-Lease help us to overcome the war and how much," in my opinion, is meaningless.

    It certainly helped. And thanks to them for that. Without him and the people would have died more and would have entered Berlin later.

    I am interested in another question. Would they help us if not for the crisis? After all, until recently they wanted to strangle the young Soviet Republic by starvation - they did not sell the machines and plants we needed for anything but grain.

    Well done, well done, but it turns out to be involuntary ...
    1. 0
      16 November 2018 15: 12
      still would. The "young Soviet republic" first of all declared that it aims at military coups and the overthrow of the existing government around the world, including in the United States
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 15: 13
        Quote: Avior
        stated that it aims at military coups around the world, including in the United States

        Where can I read about it? Please do not need links to journalism.
        1. 0
          16 November 2018 18: 41
          We are on the mountain to blow up the fire of all the bourgeois!
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мировая_революция#Мировая_революция_и_Октябрьская_революция_1917_года_в_России
          1. 0
            16 November 2018 18: 57
            Quote: Avior
            We are on the mountain to blow up the fire of all the bourgeois!
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мировая_революция#Мировая_революция_и_Октябрьская_революция_1917_года_в_России

            Do not try to pull the owl on the globe.
            You said:
            Quote: Avior
            stated that it aims at military coups and the overthrow of existing power around the world, including in the United States

            A military coup, as well as the overthrow of existing power, has nothing to do with revolution. Because neither one nor the other is a change of the ruling class from the bourgeois to the proletarian.
            You don’t have to go far for an example - Ukraine. The overthrow of the existing government has occurred, but this is not a revolution - it remained the ruling class as it was the bourgeois class.

            Of course, in the euphoria of success and victory, the Bolsheviks expressed the hope that, following the example of Russia, revolutions will roll around the world. But it did not happen - world imperialism strangled. By the end of the 1920s, i.e. 10 years later, the Bolshevik party as a whole abandoned the theory of world revolution.
  40. +2
    16 November 2018 09: 20
    I hope the authors will tell you about exactly how much and in what period it was delivered to the USSR. It is one thing to deliver 100 tanks in May of the 45, and another thing in May of the 42 of the ... what we had with the production exactly at that time period and how much it helped us. And also on the topic of what in general we had a complete train ... - communication, first of all)
    1. 0
      16 November 2018 10: 05
      it's not as simple as you think.
      Until 1943, German industry worked in peacetime, there are many subtleties in Hitler's domestic policy, and had great resources to increase military production, which the Germans tried to do after Goebbels's famous speech about "total war".
      Another thing is that land lease, the war in the Atlantic and the bombing of Germany greatly depreciated these opportunities.
  41. +2
    16 November 2018 10: 18
    I look forward to continuing, it is interesting, without politics and money, to see what analogues the Allies had BT
  42. +1
    16 November 2018 11: 32
    I look forward to continuing. Subject Pts. interesting.
  43. -1
    16 November 2018 12: 37
    every kilogram of explosives is the death of the enemy, every kilogram of gasoline / kerosene is the life of your equipment and the death of the enemy, every kilogram of food is life and struggle, each unit of technology is a step to victory, and so on ...
    Without help, you are alone. Psychologically and financially. Having help (even the smallest one) you psychologically feel more confident.
    What is boron cheese in general? Tons of LL saved millions of our lives, saved the situation, saved many operations .. so we lost too much in that war ... Add tens of millions more? Yes, we would have overstrained and the victory itself would have been Pyrrhic!
    Allies bow deeply and thanks for the help. Many would not have written here, since their ancestors would have died in that war, not having had time to continue the clan, because during the war years there was not enough fuel somewhere and the tank stopped, somewhere there was not enough food and the children died. Somewhere something very important was missing that brought Victory closer ...
    And so that we could say and write here, we would have won without LL enough to think that there was nobody to do it ...
    This is the hardest war in the history of our country. It is hard to imagine. We couldn’t do anything — if we had lost so many people due to the fact that they would have to write — we didn’t need help.
    ANY HELP IN WAR IS NEEDED!
    It is blasphemous to reject help — replacing the blood and life of our citizens! Which then made you. Mentally, you kill yourself for the sake of hats ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      16 November 2018 18: 12
      The price tag has it all ... no matter how blasphemous it sounds, but human life certainly has a price. Including in the war.
      Tons of LL saved millions of our lives, saved the situation, saved many operations ..

      At the initial stage of the war I agree ... but here is the final question.
      ANY HELP IN WAR IS NEEDED!

      It is difficult to argue with this during the war ... especially when the enemy is really strong and treacherous ... but descendants can evaluate a little differently when help is not free.
      Add tens of millions more? Yes, we would have overstrained and the victory itself would have been Pyrrhic!

      Why dozens are better to put for drama the entire population of the USSR.
      Allies bow deeply and thanks for the help.

      Well, the corresponding payments.
    3. 0
      22 November 2018 12: 38
      Quote: Antares
      What is boron cheese in general? Tons of LL saved millions of our lives, saved the situation, saved many operations .. so we lost too much in that war ... Add tens of millions more? Yes, we would have overstrained and the victory itself would have been Pyrrhic!
      Allies bow deeply and thanks for the help. Many would not have written here, since their ancestors would have died in that war, not having had time to continue the clan, because during the war years there was not enough fuel somewhere and the tank stopped, somewhere there was not enough food and the children died. Somewhere something very important was missing that brought Victory closer ...
      And so that we could say and write here, we would have won without LL enough to think that there was nobody to do it ...


      And didn’t you think that the USA and Britain secured a convenient nature of the war with a lease-lease? For some reason, talking about the consequences of the lack of Lend-Lease, his defenders do not take into account the fact that the USSR could have ended the war in 1944, limiting itself to the defeat of the Wehrmacht on its territory. Since there was no second front in Europe until 1944, in the absence of Lend-Lease the USSR was completely freed from any obligations to the Allies.
      Now count how many people died liberating all sorts of Poland, the Czech Republic and other future "Eastern European democracies." But having expelled the Wehrmacht from its territory, the USSR could well have simply stopped the offensive to the west, leaving Europe under the Reich. We would have gone over to strategic defense and waited for the opening of a "second front" which in this case would never have taken place at all. After a while, we would have dealt with Japan on the mainland.
      Do you understand? Lend-Lease provided some obligations of the USSR to the Allies. No Lend-Lease - no obligation.
      1. 0
        22 November 2018 14: 57
        Quote: abc_alex
        The USSR could have ended the war in 1944

        Yeah. On the border of the 39th year.
        Quote: abc_alex
        then in the absence of Lend-Lease the USSR was completely freed from any obligations to the Allies.

        You will not believe it, but starting in June of the 41st year, the USSR fought for itself (simplifying somewhat). And not for obligations to the allies.
        Quote: abc_alex
        But after expelling the Wehrmacht from its territory, the USSR could very well have stopped the advance to the west, leaving Europe under the Reich.

        Churchill would be very grateful. And he is not alone.
        Quote: abc_alex
        and waited for the opening of the "second front" which in this case would never have taken place

        The second front in Europe was opened on July 9, the 43rd year. Normandy - June 6th, 44th. The beginning of the Battle of Kursk and Bagration, respectively.
        1. 0
          22 November 2018 23: 06
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Yeah. On the border of the 39th year.


          And this border is not bad, but Germany did not really mind the 1941 borders. Belarus and Ukraine, as well as most of the Baltic states, were released in 2 months of the summer of 1944. They simply would not have gone further to Poland.

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          You will not believe it, but starting in June of the 41st year, the USSR fought for itself (simplifying somewhat). And not for obligations to the allies.


          So I would finish fighting for myself, freeing my territory from the Germans. In July 1944.

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Churchill would be very grateful. And he is not alone.

          This allegation is not true.

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The second front in Europe was opened on July 9, the 43rd year. Normandy - June 6th, 44th. The beginning of the Battle of Kursk and Bagration, respectively.


          The operation in Sicily, even the allies did not consider the opening of a second front. Local operation. Not of strategic importance.
          With Bagration, you actually hit the sky with your finger. The operation itself was planned as an act of support for the Overlord. In 1943, in Tehran, Stalin announced to the allies that at the time of the landing in Europe, the USSR would conduct a strategic offensive operation. If it weren't for Lend-Lease, I wouldn't have given such a promise. And then the allies would have a very real prospect of getting in France not 20 divisions manned by 60-70% and armed with what was not taken to the eastern front, but full-fledged 100-120 Wehrmacht divisions. Under such conditions, Churchill would never have given the go-ahead for the landing. He would have continued to "prick with pins" in the Balkans and fight in Burma and Africa. Such a war suited him completely. And the start dates of operations mean nothing. In Europe, wars have always started at the beginning of summer.
          1. +1
            23 November 2018 09: 21
            Quote: abc_alex
            but Germany did not really mind the 1941 borders.

            At the beginning of the 44th, seriously?
            Quote: abc_alex
            In July 1944.

            The border of the 41st year is the fall of the 44th, August 29, Moldova, September 26 Estonia. On September 11, Allied forces in Southern and Northern France joined forces at Dijon.
            Quote: abc_alex
            unsubstantiated allegation.

            As far as I know, talk that the successes of the Red Army would be good to limit has been conducted since at least the 43rd year. Roosevelt, fortunately for Comrade Stalin, did not support them.
            Quote: abc_alex
            The operation itself was planned as an act of support for Overlord.

            Bagration started after Overlord, EMNIP.
            Quote: abc_alex
            the allies would have a very real prospect of receiving in France not 20 divisions staffed by 60-70% and armed with the fact that they did not take to the eastern front, but full 100-120 Wehrmacht divisions

            You have some kind of too alternate story.

            First of all. Above, I laid out Stalin's letters to Roosevelt, from which it follows that in February 42, Comrade Stalin had already exchanged the second Lendleut billion. Yes, deliveries took place in 42, 43, but orders were made in the fall of 41 - in the winter of 42, following the results of the Moscow conference on 29.09.41/01.10.41/42 - 2/40/34. "Having abandoned LL" you must find machine-tool hours and man-hours in the industry of the USSR in 34 for the production of all this good. To make it clear, $ 42 billion is approximately 12 thousand T-XNUMXs (more precisely - Shermans). The entire production of the T-XNUMX in the XNUMXnd year - XNUMX thousand vehicles.

            This I took for the fact that everything ordered in the USA, the USSR could produce itself. Which, to put it mildly, is wrong.

            In this way. It is difficult to say with certainty that without LL in the summer of the 44th, the USSR would have resolved the issue of seizing a bridgehead on the right bank of the Volga. However, the situation on the fronts would certainly have been different, and not in favor of the USSR.

            Secondly. We leave everything until it is 44, take LL, and then we throw the Allies.

            To transfer Army Group Center to France, you need to put up with Giler no later than March 44th. This will not free all the forces (Herr Hitler will not turn his back, not the first day after her husband), but it can strengthen France.
            This is the border along the Dnieper. Cancellation of the Belarusian operation. Theoretically, it is possible to dissolve the Belarusian balcony for something, but it is not clear that this can be offered to Herr Hitler. He seems to have been quite anti-Soviet. If you strangle Herr Hitler, then Goering put up with the marshals obviously will not run to the USSR.

            Thirdly. The Allies on Normandy did not converge. The abandonment of Normandy means Churchill's Balkan plan. The war will drag on somewhat (almost certainly AB on Berlin), but it is almost impossible to expose the Allies from Europe after the fall of Italy.

            Fourth. You do not seem to understand. Victory in the Second World War is the only thing that distinguishes comrade Stalin from a number of other red-bellied Asian cannibals. You turn this victory into a draw, or even defeat, with a return almost to Brest-Litovsk - as if the old communists had not asked comrade Stalin to move to the mausoleum as quickly as possible. And Comrade Stalin, as far as one can judge, saw this prospect clearly.
            1. 0
              23 November 2018 14: 33
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The border of the 41st year is the fall of the 44th, August 29, Moldova, September 26 Estonia. On September 11, Allied forces in Southern and Northern France joined forces at Dijon.

              July 1944 - Lithuania. The Baltic States are cut off from Germany. What's the difference when the Wehrmacht was finished off in Estonia? This is not about the cessation of hostilities in general, but about the absence of a strategic Soviet offensive in the western direction. The USSR is not going to liberate Poland and the Czech Republic, but goes over to strategic defense and solves local problems in the Baltic States and Moldova, deals with Finland. British style "fighting in Burma". It makes no difference who and with whom connected at Dijon. Without the strategic offensive of the USSR, the Overlord would not exist. Churchill would have blocked him in both 1942 and 1943.


              Quote: Cherry Nine
              As far as I know, talk that the successes of the Red Army would be good to limit has been conducted since at least the 43rd year. Roosevelt, fortunately for Comrade Stalin, did not support them.


              Conversations? Between whom and by whom? Where? :) Judging by Churchill's memoirs in 1943, no one ever thought of holding back the success of the USSR. On the contrary, everyone held their breath waiting for what would happen on the Russian front. In the 1MB experience, the British knew very well that as soon as the Germans freed themselves in the east, they would immediately take over them. And to Africa and the Middle East, fishing boats and trawlers for the shameful evacuation of the British military, as to Dunkirk, will not reach.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Bagration started after Overlord, EMNIP.


              An overlord would not have existed without a guarantee of a strategic offensive by the USSR. If the Allied command had the prospect of receiving in France not 20, but 120 Wehrmacht divisions, the hostilities would again be transferred to Burma.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              First of all. Above, I laid out Stalin's letters to Roosevelt, from which it follows that in February 42, Comrade Stalin had already exchanged the second Lendleut billion. Yes, deliveries took place in 42, 43, but orders were made in the fall of 41 - in the winter of 42, following the results of the Moscow conference on 29.09.41/01.10.41/42 - 2/40/34. "Having abandoned LL" you must find machine-tool hours and man-hours in the industry of the USSR in 34 for the production of all this good. To make it clear, $ 42 billion is approximately 12 thousand T-XNUMXs (more precisely - Shermans). The entire production of the T-XNUMX in the XNUMXnd year - XNUMX thousand vehicles.


              It is easy to find data on the actual production of military equipment in the USSR and its deliveries under Lend-Lease in 1942-1943, which clearly demonstrate that, at least until the end of 1943, the USSR carried out all the defensive operations precisely by finding its "machine-tool hours and man-hours for the production of all this stuff. ". But for the offensive in Europe, just deliveries under Lend-Lease went in such quantities as to have a noticeable impact.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              This I took for the fact that everything ordered in the USA, the USSR could produce itself. Which, to put it mildly, is wrong.

              Of course, not everything. Although they ordered what they could. For example rails.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              In this way. It is difficult to say with certainty that without LL in the summer of the 44th, the USSR would have resolved the issue of seizing a bridgehead on the right bank of the Volga. However, the situation on the fronts would certainly have been different, and not in favor of the USSR.


              ??? Once again, look at the statistics of real deliveries by Lend-Lease with a breakdown by years. It is quite obvious there that the USSR pulled out the Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad and the Kursk Bulge due to internal reserves and production. Therefore, with a high degree of probability it can be assumed that the strategic situation in the summer of 1944 will be approximately the same. The USSR will not have resources for a strategic offensive to the west. That is yes. You will need to sit out again in the winter of defense in order to accumulate them.

              Quote: Cherry Nine

              Secondly. We leave everything until it is 44, take LL, and then we throw the Allies.

              But this is just not real. Counting on a Lend-Lease, the USSR turned entire industries.

              Quote: Cherry Nine

              To transfer Army Group Center to France, you need to put up with Giler no later than March 44th. This will not free all the forces (Herr Hitler will not turn his back, not the first day after her husband), but it can strengthen France.
              This is the border along the Dnieper. Cancellation of the Belarusian operation. Theoretically, it is possible to dissolve the Belarusian balcony for something, but it is not clear that this can be offered to Herr Hitler. He seems to have been quite anti-Soviet. If you strangle Herr Hitler, then Goering put up with the marshals obviously will not run to the USSR.

              You have thrown yourself into a historical frenzy. Are you one of the "liberals with black and white thinking"? :) Who is talking about "making peace with Hitler"? What kind of peace can we talk about after 1943? This is about changing the nature of the war on the western (for the USSR) front in the summer of 1944. Instead of breaking through to Europe, strategic defense and restoration of the territorial integrity of the USSR within the borders of 1941 or so.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Thirdly. The Allies on Normandy did not converge. The abandonment of Normandy means Churchill's Balkan plan. The war will drag on somewhat (almost certainly AB on Berlin), but it is almost impossible to expose the Allies from Europe after the fall of Italy.


              Precisely the "Balkan plan" and the "war in Burma". But the likelihood of an operation in Italy is very small, for exactly the same reason - Britain would never agree to start a war in Europe as long as the Germans had the opportunity to maneuver their forces. She ate it during WW1. And Italy is not the Volga steppes.

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Fourth. You do not seem to understand. Victory in the Second World War is the only thing that distinguishes comrade Stalin from a number of other red-bellied Asian cannibals. You turn this victory into a draw, or even defeat, with a return almost to Brest-Litovsk - as if the old communists had not asked comrade Stalin to move to the mausoleum as quickly as possible. And Comrade Stalin, as far as one can judge, saw this prospect clearly.


              Before this paragraph, everything went within the framework of a normal historical discussion. And the phrase about "red-bellied Asian cannibals" reduced everything to a liberal shit. What for? Whatever the rulers of the USSR were, but in terms of the level of organizational skills they turned out to be head and shoulders above the fat-assed imperial idiots, led by a hairy crowned down, who lost the war to Germany, being in many times more favorable conditions than the USSR. :) if you like numbers, then compare the production in the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia in the second and third years of the war. And see for yourself that no matter how you spit poison at the Bolsheviks, compared to the Imperials of 1914-1917, they are frankly brilliant. And the Bolsheviks did not lose their war with Japan, but won, and even at a record pace. But the same country, the same people, and the resources of Siberia have not even been explored yet :)

              And I repeat again: no one talks about any draw. The military alliance with Britain and the United States is generally not in doubt. Within the framework of this alliance, a separate treaty with Germany is generally not possible and has never been considered. Moreover, over the three years of the war, the destruction of Nazi Germany was brought to the level of the main ideological task. It is only a question of changing the nature of hostilities in 1944-1945. No return to Brest-Litovsk or whatever you have fantasized for "red-bellied Asian cannibals". The point is that instead of rushing to Berlin for a whole year, the USSR will continue its usual tactics with the accumulation of resources in the autumn-winter period and one strategic operation in the summer.
              In this case, the war will drag out or stop completely at a completely different frontier. In the end, even the surrender of Germany is possible after a successful assassination attempt on Hitler. But the landing in Europe of the allied forces, and even more so such a fast attack will not be accurate.
              1. +1
                23 November 2018 16: 10
                Quote: abc_alex
                July 1944 - Lithuania. Baltic states cut off from Germany

                Have you tried to ask a real story? The Courland boiler was formed on 10.10.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                Quote: abc_alex
                Without a strategic offensive of the USSR, Overlord would not have been

                Again. The landing in Normandy occurred before Bagration. And it was planned - substantially before Bagration. Immediately after the Crimea and the Dnieper-Carpathian operation. Do you cancel them too?
                Quote: abc_alex
                Therefore, with a high degree of probability it can be assumed that the strategic situation in the summer of 1944 will be approximately the same.

                Quote: abc_alex
                Counting on a Lend-Lease, the USSR turned entire industries.

                Ugums. And he threw these resources on defense. In your alternative, the USSR continues to produce trucks instead of the Su-76, for example. Where does he get the gunpowder and BB is generally incomprehensible. T-34/85 produces only Sormovo, EMNIP.
                Quote: abc_alex
                there will be no resources for a strategic offensive to the west

                Ugums. Therefore, Ukraine, apparently, is canceled.
                Quote: abc_alex
                ??? Once again, look at the statistics of real deliveries

                To deliver something, you need to produce something. In order to produce something, you need a) not to produce something else, b) not to call the worker to the front. And the peasant, by the way, also did not call. What was delivered in the 43rd was produced in the 42nd.
                Quote: abc_alex
                We are talking about changing the nature of the war on the western (for the USSR) front in the summer of 1944. Instead of breaking through to Europe, strategic defense

                That is, the war goes into the trench, the Wehrmacht is connected, and in the West everything remains about the same. Not only that, since the Eastern Front is much east, especially in terms of roads, maneuver by German forces is difficult.
                Quote: abc_alex
                But the probability of surgery in Italy is very small,

                The operation in Italy began in September 43, immediately after Kursk. 10 Stalinist blows were not even close. In June 44th Rome was taken. In August - "Dragoon".
                Quote: abc_alex
                compared with the imperials of 1914-1917 - they are frankly brilliant

                Alas, this is not difficult.
                Quote: abc_alex
                A military alliance with Britain and the United States is generally not in doubt. Within the framework of this union, a separate agreement with Germany is not possible at all

                How then will you help the Reich in France without a new Brest-Litovsk? September 4, Antwerp taken, the Allies received the port. On August 29, the Belarusian operation was completed.
                Quote: abc_alex
                instead of rushing to Berlin throughout the whole year, the USSR will continue its usual tactics with accumulating resources in the autumn-winter period and one strategic operation in the summer.

                That is, while maintaining the 44th year until the fall as RI, you postpone the Vistula-Oder and Bucharest-Arad operations to the summer of 45. Meeting with the Allies on the Oder - Carpathian - Danube estuary - World Cup line. The USSR after WWII in the position of China, "also won." 20+ million dead, half of the country in ruins, remained with their own. Fine, I like it.
                Quote: abc_alex
                But the landing in Europe of the allied forces

                If you want to alternate - alternatively as it should. All actions, excluding the landing in Italy, must fit before September 8, the 43rd year.
                Quote: abc_alex
                and even more so such a quick attack

                Is the Allies burning? This is the Germans live another six months under the bombs.
                1. 0
                  24 November 2018 00: 45
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Again. The landing in Normandy occurred before Bagration. And it was planned - substantially before Bagration. Immediately after the Crimea and the Dnieper-Carpathian operation. Do you cancel them too?


                  The Allies began planning a landing in Europe in early 1943. But even at the Tehran conference in late 1943, Churchill had a "dissenting opinion," you probably know that. Moreover, he directly indicated the necessary conditions for starting the operation:

                  “If,” he said evasively, “there will be conditions; which were indicated at the Moscow Conference, I am firmly convinced that we will be obliged to transfer all our possible forces against the Germans when the implementation of Operation Overlord begins ...

                  The conditions cited by Churchill determined in which case the landing through the English Channel could be successful: no more than 12 German mobile divisions should be in France by the time of the invasion, the Germans should not be able to transfer to France to replenish their troops over 60 divisions.
                  ... Churchill made it clear that, under certain circumstances, Operation Overlord might be in doubt.
                  ...
                  “I'm not afraid of the landing itself,” Churchill declared, “but I'm afraid of what will happen in thirty to forty days.”

                  To this, Stalin replied that, as soon as the landing was carried out in Northern France, the Red Army, in turn, would go on the offensive. If it were known that the landing would take place in May or June, then the Russians could have prepared not one, but several attacks on the enemy. In the meantime, the situation is such that the Germans are transferring their troops to the Eastern Front, and they will continue to transfer them until they face a serious threat in the West.


                  In my opinion everything is clear here. If there is no Soviet offensive that fetters the German divisions in Russia and the Balkans, there will be no Overlord at all. And the fact of planning does not mean anything. In the end, you yourself named two alternative scenarios - Italy or the Balkans.

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Ugums. And he threw these resources on defense. In your alternative, the USSR continues to produce trucks instead of the Su-76, for example. Where does he get the gunpowder and BB is generally incomprehensible. T-34/85 produces only Sormovo, EMNIP.
                  ...
                  To deliver something, you need to produce something. In order to produce something, you need a) not to produce something else, b) not to call the worker to the front. And the peasant, by the way, also did not call. What was delivered in the 43rd was produced in the 42nd.


                  Do you convince me of the importance of Lend-Lease? No, I represent its value. I’m not talking about its meaning, but about reasons Lend-Lease distribution in the USSR. And I think that the goal of this step was to turn the course of the war on the part of the USSR to the right direction of the United States.

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  That is, the war goes into the trench, the Wehrmacht is connected, and in the West everything remains about the same. Moreover, since The eastern front is much east, especially in terms of roads, maneuver by German forces is difficult.


                  ???? Why all of a sudden? :) During the 1MB, the troops between the theater of operations carried out the maneuvers in Germany quite calmly, but then it suddenly becomes difficult? And what, the trench warfare will suddenly require 250 Wehrmacht divisions, will it occupy all of them?

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The operation in Italy began in September 43, immediately after Kursk. 10 Stalinist blows were not even close. In June 44th Rome was taken. In August - "Dragoon".


                  AND? All these operations took place in conditions of extremely scarce reserves of the Wehrmacht. And the impossibility of maneuvering forces between the theater of operations.

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Alas, this is not difficult.


                  Well, the French, as you know, did not succeed.

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  How then will you help the Reich in France without a new Brest-Litovsk? September 4, Antwerp taken, the Allies received the port. On August 29, the Belarusian operation was completed.

                  You are constantly returning to a separate agreement. Stop, no one talks about the betrayal of the allies. It’s about that without Lend-Lease for objective reasons the nature of hostilities will change. Continuous pressure during the years 1944-1945 will not work. I think this will be enough for the Germans to maneuver forces between the theater of operations. The USSR will be able to conduct one summer offensive operation per year and return to the accumulation of resources.


                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  That is, while maintaining the 44th year until the fall as RI, you postpone the Vistula-Oder and Bucharest-Arad operations to the summer of 45. Meeting with the Allies on the Oder - Carpathian - Danube estuary - World Cup line. The USSR after WWII in the position of China, "also won." 20+ million dead, half of the country in ruins, remained with their own. Fine, I like it.


                  I don’t even dare to predict what the offensive operations of the USSR without Lend-Lease will look like, since the amount of resources for offensive operations was required more and more, and there is nowhere to take them especially. You should not think that everything will be exactly the same, only with a shift of one year.

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  If you want to alternate - alternatively as it should. All actions, excluding the landing in Italy, must fit before September 8, the 43rd year.

                  And why do you consider the landing in Italy a constant?

                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Is the Allies burning? This is the Germans live another six months under the bombs.

                  Exactly! In the USA-Britain pair, only the USA had an interest in active operations in Europe. Britain was quite happy with the protracted war between the USSR and Germany. The main thing is that the Wehrmacht was busy. The United States also had something to do - the war with Japan. In real history, the landing in France was pedaled by the USSR, supported by the United States. The position was consolidated. Would she be so without Lend-Lease? And if she didn’t exist, Churchill would most likely greatly limit the activity of the Allies in Europe.
                  And Overlord would continue to be developed. At least until 1945 or 1946.
                  1. +1
                    24 November 2018 03: 44
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    Churchill had a "dissenting opinion", you probably know that

                    Still would. Churchill’s particular opinion is well known.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    Moreover, he directly indicated the necessary conditions for the start of the operation:

                    Fortunately for Comrade Stalin, Mr. Churchill was not the man who could determine the conditions. The real conditions of Overlord, as is easily seen, differed from the wishes of Mr. Churchill.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    If there is no Soviet offensive that fetters the German divisions in Russia and the Balkans, there will be no Overlord at all.

                    On the first date of the landing - May 44th, especially for the winter, when there was an accumulation of forces, there was no large-scale offensive (in the sense, the scale of Bagration). Moreover, when planning Bagration there was absolutely no understanding that the result would become so large-scale.
                    By the way, you hurried with the Balkans. This is already the fall of the 44th, the Allies formed a front from sea to sea.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    two alternative scenarios - Italy or the Balkans.

                    And where did you get the idea of ​​going further through Vienna to Berlin than via Paris?
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    Do you convince me of the importance of Lend-Lease?

                    I convince you that your attempts to calculate grants near Moscow do not make sense. LL began to influence the mobilization of industry of the USSR in October 41. The first billion was completely shipped back in the 42nd year, the second - in the spring of the 43rd.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    reasons for the spread of Lend-Lease in the USSR. And I think that the goal of this step was to turn the course of the war on the part of the USSR to the right direction of the United States.

                    The purpose of LL was explicitly stated - assistance to the defense of the United States. The FDR would like to break into a white horse, and not at all fight one on two fronts, when all potential allies had a break.
                    For this romantic manner, he was ready to pay with folk money; the matter was not new for him.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    operations took place in conditions of extremely scarce reserves of the Wehrmacht. And the impossibility of maneuvering forces between the theater of operations.

                    The maneuver of forces in southern France was hindered primarily by Overlord. And in Italy, what, say, has interfered since September 43rd?
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    the French, as you know, did not succeed.

                    Not everything is so simple. Count the losses.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    the Germans could maneuver forces between the theater of operations. The USSR will be able to conduct one summer offensive operation per year and return to the accumulation of resources.

                    Yeah. And who is more important to end the war quickly, the USSR or the USA?
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    The USSR without Lend-Lease, since the volume of resources for offensive operations required more and more, and there is nowhere to take them especially. You should not think that everything will be exactly the same, only with a shift of one year.

                    Not at all the same. The situation for the USSR after the war is likely to be not quite comfortable. At least for his government. Americans, for example, will lose 2 times more people in Europe (say, 500 thousand), but they will learn to fight much better, and stand much closer. Rearm, by the way.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    why do you consider landing in Italy a constant?

                    Because in the spring of the 43rd, when she was preparing, the Red Army was preparing for the Course, there was no talk of attacks.
                    By the way, if in Italy the allies worked perfectly (and not absolutely helplessly), then in the autumn of the 43rd there was an opportunity to go to the Ljubljana corridor. With such a development of events, the Overlord you do not like is canceled almost certainly.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    Britain was quite happy with the protracted war between the USSR and Germany. The main thing is that the Wehrmacht was busy.

                    Britain would like the configuration of the post-war world to be the most comfortable. For them, the year of the war was not an unnecessary fee, although, on the other hand, in the 44th, after the landing, it was the British who repeatedly beat Aiki to cavalry attacks.
                    In Roosevelt, unfortunately, the vision of the post-war world was very different from English. And it was quite possible, including the greatly strengthened USSR.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    The United States also had something to do - the war with Japan.

                    Europ fest.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    Would she be so without Lend-Lease? And if she didn’t exist, Churchill would most likely greatly limit the activity of the Allies in Europe.

                    I can’t imagine how you need to alter Stalin, who, in the 41st, when they are already talking about the surrender of Moscow, refuses LL. Roosevelt will also have to be strongly altered. For the United States to be sure that they can cope with the Wehrmacht (or even the Wehrmacht and the Red Army together) one by one, a lot needs to be done right from November 32nd (not even from March 33rd). A completely different Roosevelt at least. And without fellow with laptop difficult to manage - you need to guess everything right.
  44. 0
    16 November 2018 14: 00
    Listen author!
    Here is a picture of you.

    Now imagine about the same field, only much larger, but forced by the coffins of our soldiers and officers, that they died only in the war with Japan! Which died, including, instead of the Americans.
    Not ashamed to write this? I suspect that it is not a shame, otherwise they did not write it.
    At the same time, I do not deny the role of land-lease in Victory.
    1. -1
      16 November 2018 14: 59
      The Americans did not demand that the Soviet people die in battles with the Japanese in large numbers, especially since the emperor had already declared surrender after Hiroshima, and this did not have much military significance.
      But Stalin was in a hurry to take as active part in the battles with Japan, expanding influence in the Far East and in a hurry to stake out the Kuril Islands.
      1. +2
        16 November 2018 15: 02
        Quote: Avior
        The Americans did not demand that Soviet people die in battles with the Japanese in large numbers, especially since the emperor had already declared surrender after Hiroshima

        Have you thought of it yourself or who suggested it? And answer to whom and who was going to capitulate?
        1. -2
          16 November 2018 15: 10
          Japanese before the Allies on the basis of the Potsdam Declaration. In his first statement on surrender, the emperor referred to atomic bomb explosions as its cause.
          But the USSR was not very happy with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, since at the same time many islands departed to the Japanese. So Stalin was in a hurry to take part in the war in order to score maximum points in front of the Americans.
          And our soldiers paid for politics with the lives of sad
          1. 0
            16 November 2018 15: 23
            Quote: Avior
            But the USSR was not very happy with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, as many islands withdrew to the Japanese

            Are you sure? And prove it.
            The Potsdam Declaration says:
            "The terms of the Cairo Declaration will be fulfilled and Japanese sovereignty will be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and those smaller islands, which we will indicate."
            Quote: Avior
            So Stalin was in a hurry to take part in the war in order to score maximum points in front of the Americans.

            And here I do not agree. NOT BEFORE, but W. Stalin sought to take as many chances as possible from the AMERICANS. Chances of their further pressure on our Far East. And the Kuril Islands in their plans were very important. So you are wrong.
            1. -2
              16 November 2018 18: 04
              You yourself answered your question.
              They will indicate, but not arbitrarily, but on the terms of the Cairo Declaration, which provided that Japan would lose those lands that it had seized by force.
              And just the Kuril Islands did not fall under this definition; they came to Japan as a result of a completely peaceful exchange of territories with Russia. The four islands, because of which the whole fuss, formally also did not fall under the terms of the Cairo Declaration - they were Japanese from the very first border treaty with Russia. The Americans, of course, didn’t care about the problems of the Japanese, but on the other hand they could have gotten into trouble - they brought almost the whole severity of the war with the Japanese, and the USSR entered the war at a time when the Japanese had already agreed to capitulate.
              Therefore, the USSR needed to score points in front of the States, and the Japanese could officially capitulate at any time, and all of Stalin’s plans would be violated. Therefore, urgently intense battles with the Japanese were needed, at least at the cost of the lives of our soldiers, and apart from the Kwantung army there was nothing at hand, although these battles did not solve anything from a military point of view - Japan would still capitulate. The idea paid off - the Kuril Islands was included in the peace treaty, but Stalin wanted more and did not sign the treaty.
              And this story has been going on since then. Something like this.
              1. +1
                16 November 2018 18: 08
                Quote: Avior
                They will indicate, but not arbitrarily, but on the terms of the Cairo Declaration, which provided that Japan would lose those lands that it had seized by force.
                Excuse me, but have you READ this declaration? At the expense of capture by force, I don’t remember where it is written there. And the Kuril ridge has long been Russian territory
                1. 0
                  16 November 2018 18: 29
                  was reading.
                  The goal of the aforementioned allied powers is to deprive Japan of all the islands in the Pacific Ocean that it has occupied or occupied since the beginning of the First World War of 1914, and that all territories that Japan has torn away from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and The Pescador Islands were returned to the Republic of China.

                  Japan must also be expelled from all other territories captured by it due to violence and greed.

                  The Kuril Islands were part of the Republic of Ingushetia, but they transferred them to Japan voluntarily in exchange for other territories, so there is no violence.
                  Now, this may not be important, since there was the San Francisco Treaty (or maybe it will come up again, who knows, the USSR did not sign this treaty, unlike Japan), but then it was important.
                  1. 0
                    22 November 2018 12: 23
                    Quote: Avior
                    The Kuril Islands were part of the Republic of Ingushetia, but they transferred them to Japan voluntarily in exchange for other territories, so there is no violence.
                    Now, this may not be important, since there was the San Francisco Treaty (or maybe it will come up again, who knows, the USSR did not sign this treaty, unlike Japan), but then it was important.


                    What is an alternative story? The islands of the Kuril ridge became the object of military expansion of Japan from the beginning of the 70s of the 18th century. Until that moment, they were under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ingushetia. In 1855, in the Shimodo Treaty, Russia accepted the fact of military occupation of the islands. The exchange of territories took place in 1875. According to it, Russia transferred the Kuril Islands to Japan in exchange for full jurisdiction over Sakhalin. But following the results of the Russian-Japanese war, Japan captured southern Sakhalin. What violated the conditions for the transfer of the Kuril Islands. So there is not much voluntary in matters of the Kuril Islands.
                    And as for the "San Francisco Treaty", you turned everything upside down. The fact is that the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin became the stumbling block. The agreement did not specify the belonging of these territories to the USSR. Japan only renounced its jurisdiction over them, but did not recognize their legal status as territories of the USSR. The territories "hung in the air". The USSR demanded the legal transfer of territories, logically believing that otherwise Japan would inevitably make claims to them in the future.
                    1. -2
                      22 November 2018 12: 27
                      they wrote a lot, the meaning has not changed.
                      Kuril Islands handed over voluntarily in exchange for another territory, Japan refused from the islands and Sakhalin
                      1. +1
                        22 November 2018 13: 29
                        Just the meaning has changed.
                        The Kuril Islands are captured by Japan by military means. Territory exchange terms violated. The abandonment of the islands by Japan is framed in such a way that does not confirm their transfer to the USSR.
                      2. -2
                        22 November 2018 13: 50
                        We declare through these things that, as a result of a mutual agreement between Us and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, Our Plenipotentiaries have concluded and signed in St. Petersburg
                        25 April
                        7 May
                        1875, a treatise on the concession to us by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all part of the island of Sakhalin belonging to him in exchange for the whole group of Kuril Islands ceded to us by Japan, which reads from word to word:

                        His Majesty the All-Russian Emperor and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, wishing to put an end to the many inconveniences arising from the joint ownership of the island of Sakhalin and to strengthen the good agreement existing between Them, decided to conclude a treaty on mutual concession on the part of His Majesty the Emperor of the All-Russian Group of the Kuril Islands, and parties of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan His rights to the island of Sakhalin

                        If you do not understand some place, do not be shy, write, I will explain to you.
                        otherwise you somehow seem to fall out of reality ... the Japanese captured the Kuriles from you by military means ....
                        And as for the fact that the Japanese abandoned the islands, and did not transfer them to the USSR, so the entire 2 chapter of the treaty is written in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, there it is about refusal, this is not only the USSR that concerns.
                        What are you arguing about?
                      3. +1
                        22 November 2018 18: 17
                        The main thing that I did not understand is why are you arguing with historical facts?
                        The Kuril Islands, not captured from me, from the Russian Empire. In the 70s of the 18th century, the southern Kuril Islands (Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the group of Habomai islands), which were previously in the jurisdiction of Russia, were captured by Japan. Military activity of Japan took place on Sakhalin. On January 26 (February 7), 1855, in the city of Shimoda (Japan), a diplomatic and trade agreement was signed between Japan and Russia - the Shimoda Treaty, which entered into force on November 25 (December 7), 1856. According to this island agreement, captured Japan was transferred to her possession. Sakhalin was recognized as an undivided demilitarized zone.
                        In 1875, an exchange was concluded in St. Petersburg, on which you became fixated.
                        But already in 1905, Japan violated the terms of the Petersburg Treaty and annexed southern Sakhalin. Than made "voluntary exchange" legally null and void. What she said through the mouth of the head of her delegation: "War cancels any agreements."

                        I do not argue, I notice to you that it is not true to speak of the voluntary transfer of the Kuril Islands on the basis of one moment of at least a 200-year history of the dispute.
            2. 0
              18 November 2018 22: 42
              "The conditions of the Cairo Declaration will be fulfilled ..." - are you talking about 1943? (before Tehran)
              1. -2
                22 November 2018 12: 28
                it does not matter, stipulated in the Potsdam Declaration in 1945
          2. 0
            16 November 2018 17: 49
            You should familiarize yourself with the documents and then say what exactly was paid for by the lives of our Soviet citizens. And I did not make a mistake by writing indicating capital letters.
      2. 0
        16 November 2018 15: 43
        You are a well-read person, but just not read that.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. 0
        16 November 2018 17: 37
        Precisely, without these machines, soldiers and officers would die less and win would be easier.

        But this is a question? Not everything is so simple ... at the initial stage, weapons really did solve a lot, but since the middle of the (approximately) war, the question is, and with those investments, could the domestic military-industrial complex provide the army with everything necessary?
    3. 0
      16 November 2018 18: 04
      But it doesn’t come to mind that initially a military victory involves military losses ... but that’s not even the point.
      Not ashamed to write this? I suspect that it is not a shame, otherwise they did not write it.

      Why should the author be ashamed? For the acquisition or return of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands? For the loss of actual Port Arthur? For the Japanese not resisting the emperor (or following the order of the headquarters of the Japanese army) resisted the Soviet troops?
  45. 0
    16 November 2018 17: 33
    The article is definitely a plus. If I could, I would put two pluses. In general, the authors set an interesting task ... and really not unambiguous ... Personally, at one time I was interested in the Lend-Lease issue, but because of my busyness I could not pay due attention to which I still regret. It is interesting to analyze not just the weapons received, but its use by the USSR in carrying out certain operations ... And here the question is that it is more difficult to assess the actions of armies that have weapons from Lend-Lease in their composition or to evaluate the actions of a unit with weapons from Lend-Lease honestly to the unambiguous I did not receive an answer ... Everything develops quite situationally ... At different stages there are different trends ... Well, the question of the possibility of replacing the lend-lease production with a domestic one ... that is, no one removes the analysis of investments for the same amount in the domestic industry ... And yes, I understand that history does not know the subjective mood ... but curiosity says: "What would happen ...? If ...?" and a sound analysis must be carried out.
  46. 0
    17 November 2018 03: 11
    Grandfather saw this lendlis in 1943 and the reviews were not very
  47. 0
    18 November 2018 22: 28
    "... We were included in it only on June 11, 1942, when the Basic Agreement on this program of military supplies was signed." - to be precise, the USSR signed the Atlantic Charter (Britain-USA) or, as it is usually called in the memoirs of the Soviet period, "joined the anti-Hitler coalition."

    The so-called "cold war" / "anti-communism in the United States" was a consequence of this treaty, because the treaty provided for the opening of the USSR markets and the regime of free trade routes for the allies.

    You also need to keep in mind that the contract was concluded for twenty years. Back in 1955 (immediately after the end of the state of war with Germany in January 1945), the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs applied for entry into NATO three times, referring to the current military-political treaty with the United States and Britain.

    P.S. Lend-lease deliveries through Arkhangelsk began on January 01, 1943, as evidenced by preserved documents in the customs museum.

    P.P.S. The whole history of Lend-Lease for the USSR, first of all, about the cancellation of American debts from Britain during the First World War.
  48. 0
    18 November 2018 22: 38
    "The USSR paid off the lend-lease debts in full in blood" - a serious conversation about paying in blood for help can only begin after all the terms of the "deal" are published (September 30 - October 02, 1941).

    There are suspicions that the war in Europe ended exactly on the day when the terms of the deal were met. Perhaps, for this reason, for more than seventy years, the total losses of the USSR during the years of that war are still the subject of bargaining and speculation.
  49. 0
    19 November 2018 05: 39
    Well, about the value of Lend-Lease, you can add:
    1. the testicle is expensive for Christ's Day, the USSR may have produced a whole lot of weapons, but in the first months of the war, when the situation was awful, Lendliz supplies were a drowning straw;
    2. there was a conscious technique that only supplemented the Soviet one (tanks, planes), and there was a hole in the Soviet military-industrial complex (cars, radio stations), so the latter were very, very important for the spacecraft.
    1. -1
      1 December 2018 20: 37
      Quote: M. Michelson
      expensive testicle for Christ's Day, the USSR may have produced a whole mass of weapons, but in the first months of the war

      What "first months of the war" are we talking about? Mass deliveries under Lend-Lease began in late 1942 and early 1943. The battle for Moscow has already died down, Stalingrad is in full swing. The two most important battles of World War II - and Lend-Lease did not affect them in any way.
  50. 0
    20 November 2018 14: 55
    Wow, thanks guys. Impatiently. Zhelezyaki is our everything.)
  51. 0
    20 November 2018 21: 10
    Quote: “Here I immediately remember another claim of the “patriots”. They say that everything came too late. When we ourselves had already defeated the Germans.” <--- Harry Truman: "On the assistance of the USSR in the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War

    If we see that Germany is winning the war, we should help Russia, if there is Russia, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I do not want to see Hitler as the winner under any circumstances. Neither of them keeps their promised word. [10]"
    Those. by the end of 1942, Stalin proved that he “keeps his word” to the United States.

    To understand the situation in 1942, it is advisable to keep before your eyes the figures for the mass demobilization of Germans and Finns in order to revive the defense industry...
    But at the front, someone stayed in the trenches for them! And it was with these “replacers” that the Red Army fought for two years in a row, 1943-1944. Or two full years out of four.