Interesring link about T-34 - NOT the best tank in the war?

[hkrommel]

Like the fact the T34 lacked a radio and had poor gun sights?

Or was cramped. Though the T72 was also cramped.

Or are you talking about the losses.

I mean where the quotes about Stalin complaining about the unreliability just not true?

Wikipedia also lists that Soviets lost 44,000 medium tanks.

You can always go back and see...

 

[Beagá]

Oh look this thread again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

Also, the current F35 not done yet and full of flaws.

Because wrong stuff only happened in Germany people! Only german tanks exploded!

 

[vertinox]

You can always go back and see...

Which is why I posted my original comment. Most of the arguments weren't refutation.

 

[MGL 86]

The Americans provided the majority of Soviet logistical capacity, we gave them more, and better, trucks than they made themselves as well as hundreds of locomotives. We also kept them fed since vast amounts of their farmland was captured by the Germans. We also provided a large number of planes and tanks. Bare minimum impact is that the Soviets wouldn't have been able to advance nearly as fast without our support, they would have lacked the logistical capacity to sustain long drives and if they attempted to (and they probably would have) they would have lost lots more troops than they did historically.

And that's not considering the western front. If the US didn't provide LL to Britain and ASW support in the west atlantic then the Brits wouldn't have gotten as much of their OWN supplies as they ended up getting, not even counting the supplies the US provided. The Brits didn't do daylight bombing, we did, without that the effectiveness of the strat campaign would have been drastically reduced. The Brits didn't have single-engine escort fighters that could make it to Berlin, we did. The Brits didn't have the industrial capacity or manpower to invade France successfully, combined we did. Without the US the Brits might have been able to invade Italy, but wouldn't have been able to do both and very likely would have failed to invade France if they tried.

It's highly unlikely that the Germans could have invaded Britain, but it's entirely plausible that they could have starved them into peace. Had the BoB gone slightly differently the Germans could have pounded Britain with near impunity, and without the US that difference might have come up.

Could the SU have beaten Germany without the US? Maybe, I don't think it's probable but I think it's possible. Less food, less aircraft, less logistical capability, no second (or third!) front. With all that taken into account I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans were actually able to attrit the SU out, the Soviets had vast manpower reserves, but not inexhaustible.

And to appease the Soviet fetishists I'll also point out that without the SU there was no chance of an Allied victory. If the Germans were able to put all those units towards us instead of the Soviets we'd have been utterly unable to penetrate.

As a Soviet fetishist I need to add few points.

1. LL came in 1943 after Soviets gained upper hand in Eastern Front.
2. Second front opened in 1944 when Soviets were advancing.
3. Soviets could have build trucks. They just scaled it down since they knew they are going to get them through LL.
4. LL amount is 5% of Soviet industry.

Call me fetishist or communist but in return I won`t call you names

 

[Denkt]

We are never going to know who build the best tank because there is no best tank and the best I can say is it depend on the situation.

Its like asking if gladuis or Spatha is the better sword.

From my understanding it is the training and condition of the soldier that is always the first factor, this is a big reason why the romans was so successful or why the allies dominated at 1944. This is why a crew could make use of a lighter tank and still punch harder then a heavier tank. It will be kind of the same in HOI4.

 

[D Inqu]

True, once the issue with ammo storage causing fires was sorted the Sherman was the best. The main reason for this was American armour was softer but tougher german and russian armour was harder but more brittle. This meant american armour was easier to penetrate but it didnt shatter sending fragments of metal through the tank when penetrated or nearly penetrated. Not prone to spalling.

True.

The lack of alloying metals Germany suffered from late in the war made it very difficult to make good quality armour. They had problems with cracking on the welds, armour that was brittle on the outside but soft on the inside etc.

It wasn't a late war problem. It was a problem from the beginning. Soviet analysis of captured German vehicles in 1941 dismissed the German armor metallurgy as inferior to what the soviets had. The Germans pushed on high hardness armor from the beginning, which made their light tanks harder to penetrate. For heavier tanks which ticker armor, spalling was causing a lot of problems.

 

[hkrommel]

As a Soviet fetishist I need to add few points.

1. LL came in 1943 after Soviets gained upper hand in Eastern Front.
2. Second front opened in 1944 when Soviets were advancing.
3. Soviets could have build trucks. They just scaled it down since they knew they are going to get them through LL.
4. LL amount is 5% of Soviet industry.

Call me fetishist or communist but in return I won`t call you names

Ok, let's not turn this into another LL thread, but you're also wrong on every count.

1. The first LL delivery to the USSR left in June 1941 and arrived in September. It carried 40 Hurricanes, 550 mechanics, and pilots to train Soviet pilots. For the US, "pre lend-lease" was signed in June 1941, and the first protocol period was in October 1941. The Soviets certainly did not have the upper hand then, and 1941-1942 lend-lease was critical, particularly in the Caucasus front, keeping the supply line to Leningrad alive, defending the skies above Moscow, and getting Soviet industry not only back on its feet, but more productive than it had been previously with new, better machine tools, raw materials, and literal factories that were taken apart and shipped to the USSR. Without those Soviet industry would have likely taken until the end of 1943 to recover fully (instead of the historical late 1942) and even then it would be less formidable with shortages of machine tools, inferior machine tools where they did exist, and a lack of raw materials.

2. No it didn't.

In fact, a large part of the success of Operation Uranus (which really tuned things around for the Soviets) was that AGS had its mobile reserves redeployed in anticipation of Husky, so once the Soviets broke through there was nothing to stop them.

3. If they did, they would have fewer planes, tanks, guns, ammunition, etc. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and in the USSR's case they simply didn't have enough manpower and factories to go around. If LL stops, the Soviets have to produce more planes, tanks, millions of pairs of boots, a huge amount of their communication equipment, field ambulances, trucks, locomotives, machine tools, petroleum products, food, and explosives (lots and lots of explosives) themselves. They would need more factories and more people in the factories than they had historically to do this. Any factory producing things they historically received through LL is one factory fewer producing T-34s. Every additional factory worker they need is one fewer on the frontlines.

4. Based on what metric? Soviet production numbers are incredibly skewed compared to other nations (damaged and repaired tanks are counted as produced, no matter how minor the damage), so that's out. GDP? That's an incredibly sketchy way to measure the overall wealth of a nation in any circumstance, but especially in terms of wartime production, where markets don't work like normal, and even more so in the USSR which was notorious for skewing production numbers and GDP, among other statistics. The only thing GDP is good for is measuring growth. So that doesn't work either.

I should point out that I'm in no way discounting the Soviet contributions to the war, but the belief that LL was useless or was insignificant at any point after the Fall of 1941 is simply false.

 

[scroggin]

1943- Tiger I

I think you are right there.

 

[scroggin]

True.

It wasn't a late war problem. It was a problem from the beginning. Soviet analysis of captured German vehicles in 1941 dismissed the German armor metallurgy as inferior to what the soviets had. The Germans pushed on high hardness armor from the beginning, which made their light tanks harder to penetrate. For heavier tanks which ticker armor, spalling was causing a lot of problems.

The thicker the armour is the more difficult it is to harden without enough alloying metals in it.

What you say about german armour in 1941 is interesting but if it was bad in 41 it was worse in 45. The german metallurgist probabaly did as well as could be done with the materials they had.

 

[Opanashc]

Ok, let's not turn this into another LL thread, but you're also wrong on every count.

Yes, yes, USA and LL stronk and all that. We get it.
Considering that amount of LL that reached SU before Kursk was many times smaller, then the amount after Kursk - some of your points are kind of moot.

 

[hkrommel]

Yes, yes, USA and LL stronk and all that. We get it.
Considering that amount of LL that reached SU before Kursk was many times smaller, then the amount after Kursk - some of your points are kind of moot.

Smaller by what measure? Tons? That's a stupid way to measure things, it ignores the quality of what is being shipped in favor of quantity. Take for example radio and communications equipment. It's not heavy, it doesn't contribute much to the overall tonnage, but it was sorely needed. Trucks are lighter than tanks, but in some cases they're more useful, particularly if you're like the Soviets and don't have many of them. What about machine tools? Certainly not that heavy, but without them how does Soviet industry get back on its feet by early 1943? It doesn't, it probably would have taken another year. Hurricanes? They arrived prior to 1943 but without them the Soviets would not have had air superiority over Moscow in 1941 (Soviet planes were obsolete, and the newer ones still had significant mechanical issues), and the supply route to Leningrad would have been subjected to constant bombing.

War is a game of inches not miles, and it's a matter of having the right resources in the right place at the right time. It's the small things that make a difference.

 

[3ishop]

Does the tanks lost in shipping get counted as their losses as well? another thing that could mess up the loss stats.

 

[Opanashc]

Does the tanks lost in shipping get counted as their losses as well? another thing that could mess up the loss stats.

That number is negligible, compared to number lost on the ground.

Smaller by what measure? Tons? That's a stupid way to measure things, it ignores the quality of what is being shipped in favor of quantity. Take for example radio and communications equipment. It's not heavy, it doesn't contribute much to the overall tonnage, but it was sorely needed. Trucks are lighter than tanks, but in some cases they're more useful, particularly if you're like the Soviets and don't have many of them. What about machine tools? Certainly not that heavy, but without them how does Soviet industry get back on its feet by early 1943? It doesn't, it probably would have taken another year. Hurricanes? They arrived prior to 1943 but without them the Soviets would not have had air superiority over Moscow in 1941 (Soviet planes were obsolete, and the newer ones still had significant mechanical issues), and the supply route to Leningrad would have been subjected to constant bombing.
War is a game of inches not miles, and it's a matter of having the right resources in the right place at the right time. It's the small things that make a difference.

Look at you, trying to save your argument.
Except, you are the only one saying, that LL saved Moscow in 1941. So forgive me, if I take your words with a grain of salt.

 

[fredgiblet]

Don't say it if you don't believe it. Otherwise i agree.
Without LL to soviets, the allies win again, but with slower war and larger casualties.
Without LL at all and zero US involvement, Germany could have actually bitter peaced the SU and white peaced the UK.... Or the SU would have conquered all Europe..

Oh I believe it, I'm just pointing out that I'm not saying "The western allies are the only reason the Soviets won." or something like that, rather I'm saying that the Soviets absolutely didn't go it alone, contrary to what many people like to believe. Without the support of Britain and then the US the Soviets would have been in a much tighter spot, possibly to the point of collapse.

1. LL came in 1943 after Soviets gained upper hand in Eastern Front.
2. Second front opened in 1944 when Soviets were advancing.
3. Soviets could have build trucks. They just scaled it down since they knew they are going to get them through LL.
4. LL amount is 5% of Soviet industry.

1. As was pointed out the British sent their first shipment well before then, in late 1941, British tanks arriving as the Soviets were at their weakest point in the whole war. Trivial I'm sure.

2. The Allies invaded Italy in 1943, while the Italians may have done the bulk of the fighting at first after their surrender the Germans had to take up most of the slack. Then they opened up a THIRD front in '44 at Normandy.

3. What would they have reduced production of to improve production of trucks and locomotives? Production isn't quite a zero-sum equation, but it's pretty close, if they make more trucks they make less tanks or aircraft. Additionally from what I've seen our trucks were actually qualitatively better, having multiple powered axles where the Soviet trucks were older designs that lacked that sort thing.

4. Maybe that's accurate, maybe not, I don't know and you probably don't either as that number probably came from post-war Moscow, widely known for their honesty and transparency. Even if it is accurate LL was not the only contribution and the question of what and when is just as important as how much for LL. Tanks arriving in spring '45 are unimportant to the war effort, tanks arriving in winter '41 are critical.

http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

 

[MGL 86]

Oh I believe it, I'm just pointing out that I'm not saying "The western allies are the only reason the Soviets won." or something like that, rather I'm saying that the Soviets absolutely didn't go it alone, contrary to what many people like to believe. Without the support of Britain and then the US the Soviets would have been in a much tighter spot, possibly to the point of collapse.



1. As was pointed out the British sent their first shipment well before then, in late 1941, British tanks arriving as the Soviets were at their weakest point in the whole war. Trivial I'm sure.

2. The Allies invaded Italy in 1943, while the Italians may have done the bulk of the fighting at first after their surrender the Germans had to take up most of the slack. Then they opened up a THIRD front in '44 at Normandy.

3. What would they have reduced production of to improve production of trucks and locomotives? Production isn't quite a zero-sum equation, but it's pretty close, if they make more trucks they make less tanks or aircraft. Additionally from what I've seen our trucks were actually qualitatively better, having multiple powered axles where the Soviet trucks were older designs that lacked that sort thing.

4. Maybe that's accurate, maybe not, I don't know and you probably don't either as that number probably came from post-war Moscow, widely known for their honesty and transparency. Even if it is accurate LL was not the only contribution and the question of what and when is just as important as how much for LL. Tanks arriving in spring '45 are unimportant to the war effort, tanks arriving in winter '41 are critical.

http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

1. Yep. Trivial.

2. Small front in July 1943 by which time German Operation Citadel was already failed.

3. It is not like people claiming without LL Red army would be immobile. They could have still produce trucks using light tank factories (Soviets could produce light tank in crazy numbers).

4. Even in 1942 Soviet industry without LL was bigger than Germany`s. LL was basically adding more weight to bigger industry.

 

[Opanashc]

4. Even in 1942 Soviet industry without LL was bigger than Germany`s. LL was basically adding more weight to bigger industry.

False. Look at the amount of steel, coal and aluminum produced. Germany (with occupied Europe) had almost 4:1 advantage in steel, more then 4.5:1 in coal, even more then that for aluminum. USSR was producing more land weaponry (tanks, aircraft, artillery), while behind in naval and munition production. Not to mention, Germany produced a lot more consumer goods at the same time.

 

[hkrommel]

That number is negligible, compared to number lost on the ground.

Look at you, trying to save your argument.
Except, you are the only one saying, that LL saved Moscow in 1941. So forgive me, if I take your words with a grain of salt.

Umm, where did I say that? If you want to straw man me at least try a little harder than that. I only referred to air superiority.

1. Yep. Trivial.

Not according to people who actually know what they're talking about.

2. Small front in July 1943 by which time German Operation Citadel was already failed.

Which large numbers of German forces were redeployed in anticipation of by late 1942, allowing the success of operation Uranus. Also, are you admitting your previous claim was wrong?

3. It is not like people claiming without LL Red army would be immobile. They could have still produce trucks using light tank factories (Soviets could produce light tank in crazy numbers).

But then they wouldn't have as many light tanks, which would reduce other capabilities. Not to mention they would need different parts to retool the factories for trucks. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

4. Even in 1942 Soviet industry without LL was bigger than Germany`s. LL was basically adding more weight to bigger industry.

1. Based on what statistics? Remember Soviets counted production far more generously than other nations, even to the point of outright lying in some cases (though that was mostly during peacetime).

2. Soviet industry was in that condition because of LL throughout 1941 and 1942. That was my point.

Let's look at some quotes from Stalin and Zhukov regarding Lend-Lease, shall we? (Source: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/LendL.html)

"At the same time, however, we are badly in need of increased deliveries of modern fighter aircraft-such as Aircobras-and certain other supplies. It should be borne in mind that the Kittyhawk is no match for the modern German fighter."... "It would be very good if the U.S.A. could continue the monthly delivery of at least the following items: 500 fighters, 8,000 to 10,000 trucks, 5,000 tons of aluminium, and 4,000 to 5,000 tons of explosives. Besides which we need, within 12 months, two million tons of grain (wheat) and as much as we can have of fats, concentrated foods and canned meat. We could bring in a considerable part of the food supplies in Soviet ships via Vladivostok if the U.S.A. consented to turn over to the U.S.S.R. 20 to 30 ships at the least to replenish our fleet. I have talked this over with Mr. Willkie, feeling certain that he will convey it to you...."

J.Stalin
October 7, 1942

On the third anniversary of the Soviet-American Agreement on the Principles Applying to Mutual Aid in the Prosecution of the War against Aggression, I beg you and the Government of the United States of America to accept this expression of gratitude on behalf of the Soviet Government and myself for all the aid through lend-lease. The Agreement, under which the United States of America throughout the war in Europe supplied the Soviet Union, by way of lend-lease, with munitions, strategic materials and food, played an important role and to a very considerable degree contributed to the successful conclusion of the war against the common foe-Hitler Germany. I feel entirely confident that the Friendly links between the Soviet Union and the United States of America, strengthened in the course of their joint effort, will continue to develop for the benefit of our peoples and in the interests of durable cooperation between all freedom-loving nations.

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front-line transport"..." and later in the same taped transcript; "… one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war...The Americans actually came to our salvation with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us? We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we wish to think we had all this ourselves in abundance."

-Zhukov (he later was pressured by the Soviet government to downplay LL to fit their narrative.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

Ok, let's not turn this into another LL thread, but you're also wrong on every count.

1. The first LL delivery to the USSR left in June 1941 and arrived in September. It carried 40 Hurricanes, 550 mechanics, and pilots to train Soviet pilots. For the US, "pre lend-lease" was signed in June 1941, and the first protocol period was in October 1941. The Soviets certainly did not have the upper hand then, and 1941-1942 lend-lease was critical, particularly in the Caucasus front, keeping the supply line to Leningrad alive, defending the skies above Moscow, and getting Soviet industry not only back on its feet, but more productive than it had been previously with new, better machine tools, raw materials, and literal factories that were taken apart and shipped to the USSR. Without those Soviet industry would have likely taken until the end of 1943 to recover fully (instead of the historical late 1942) and even then it would be less formidable with shortages of machine tools, inferior machine tools where they did exist, and a lack of raw materials.

2. No it didn't.

In fact, a large part of the success of Operation Uranus (which really tuned things around for the Soviets) was that AGS had its mobile reserves redeployed in anticipation of Husky, so once the Soviets broke through there was nothing to stop them.

3. If they did, they would have fewer planes, tanks, guns, ammunition, etc. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and in the USSR's case they simply didn't have enough manpower and factories to go around. If LL stops, the Soviets have to produce more planes, tanks, millions of pairs of boots, a huge amount of their communication equipment, field ambulances, trucks, locomotives, machine tools, petroleum products, food, and explosives (lots and lots of explosives) themselves. They would need more factories and more people in the factories than they had historically to do this. Any factory producing things they historically received through LL is one factory fewer producing T-34s. Every additional factory worker they need is one fewer on the frontlines.

4. Based on what metric? Soviet production numbers are incredibly skewed compared to other nations (damaged and repaired tanks are counted as produced, no matter how minor the damage), so that's out. GDP? That's an incredibly sketchy way to measure the overall wealth of a nation in any circumstance, but especially in terms of wartime production, where markets don't work like normal, and even more so in the USSR which was notorious for skewing production numbers and GDP, among other statistics. The only thing GDP is good for is measuring growth. So that doesn't work either.

I should point out that I'm in no way discounting the Soviet contributions to the war, but the belief that LL was useless or was insignificant at any point after the Fall of 1941 is simply false.

That shipment wasn't technically lend lease. It was a pre-lend-lease shipment.

Anything to the USSR that was sent before Oct 30 was not officially lend lease. You're correct, the USA did send some stuff before the official lend lease periods began, but it technically was not lend lease. It was actually direct trade, paid for in gold at the time.

I think what the guy you're replying to meant, is that Lend Lease didn't really kick off in significant quantities until 1943. This is a factual statement. It's interesting that around ~62% of all Lend Lease by value was shipped in 1944 and beyond. This is even more interesting when you consider the lag time between shipping and arrival/cataloging and even when stuff starts to be actually put to use. If you consider that, well over 62% of all lend lease arrived in 1944 and beyond.

The simple truth, and most widely supported position on lend lease by the most knowledgeable and respected historians in the field, gentlemen like Glantz, is that Lend Lease did not impact the conflict in a strategic way until 1943, right around the Kursk offensive. Was Lend Lease coming in before? Yes. Was it having an impact? Even one bullet killing one German is an impact. Was it a meaningful impact? Would the Soviets have accomplished what they did without it? The overwhelming consensus from academia on those two questions is no and yes. It was not meaningful until the late Spring of 1943 and the Soviets would have accomplished what they accomplished without it.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

Oh I believe it, I'm just pointing out that I'm not saying "The western allies are the only reason the Soviets won." or something like that, rather I'm saying that the Soviets absolutely didn't go it alone, contrary to what many people like to believe. Without the support of Britain and then the US the Soviets would have been in a much tighter spot, possibly to the point of collapse.



1. As was pointed out the British sent their first shipment well before then, in late 1941, British tanks arriving as the Soviets were at their weakest point in the whole war. Trivial I'm sure.

2. The Allies invaded Italy in 1943, while the Italians may have done the bulk of the fighting at first after their surrender the Germans had to take up most of the slack. Then they opened up a THIRD front in '44 at Normandy.

3. What would they have reduced production of to improve production of trucks and locomotives? Production isn't quite a zero-sum equation, but it's pretty close, if they make more trucks they make less tanks or aircraft. Additionally from what I've seen our trucks were actually qualitatively better, having multiple powered axles where the Soviet trucks were older designs that lacked that sort thing.

4. Maybe that's accurate, maybe not, I don't know and you probably don't either as that number probably came from post-war Moscow, widely known for their honesty and transparency. Even if it is accurate LL was not the only contribution and the question of what and when is just as important as how much for LL. Tanks arriving in spring '45 are unimportant to the war effort, tanks arriving in winter '41 are critical.

http://rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html
http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

Yes, the dozen or so tanks that fought in the battle of Moscow were the deciding factor...

 

[hkrommel]

Yes, the dozen or so tanks that fought in the battle of Moscow were the deciding factor...

Never said they were. There were more tanks than that though.

I think what the guy you're replying to meant, is that Lend Lease didn't really kick off in significant quantities until 1943. This is a factual statement. It's interesting that around ~62% of all Lend Lease by value was shipped in 1944 and beyond. This is even more interesting when you consider the lag time between shipping and arrival/cataloging and even when stuff starts to be actually put to use. If you consider that, well over 62% of all lend lease arrived in 1944 and beyond.

62% of what? Tonnage? Again radios were arguably more important for the Soviets than tanks and they weighed a lot less.

The simple truth, and most widely supported position on lend lease by the most knowledgeable and respected historians in the field, gentlemen like Glantz, is that Lend Lease did not impact the conflict in a strategic way until 1943, right around the Kursk offensive. Was Lend Lease coming in before? Yes. Was it having an impact? Even one bullet killing one German is an impact. Was it a meaningful impact? Would the Soviets have accomplished what they did without it? The overwhelming consensus from academia on those two questions is no and yes. It was not meaningful until the late Spring of 1943 and the Soviets would have accomplished what they accomplished without it.

The jury is still out on that question. The field of study here is really quite small with only a few individuals like Glantz and Hill actually delving into the archives, but too little has been uncovered. Basically there aren't enough data points and Soviet propaganda/historical agenda throughout the Cold War may have sabotaged the truth in that regard. As far as the Soviets accomplishing what they did, there is far from academic consensus on that to be honest, just like some analysis doesn't take various things into account (like measuring by tonnage or dollar value)