How much lend lease equipment is the Allies getting?

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

Soviet Auto industry relied on the US, they also got planes, armored vehicles, artillery and small from the allies This isn't counting supplies like food, fuel, railroads etc.

It would be cool if we had an elite soviet armored division that used Sherman tanks and bazookas.

[acur1231]

Originally posted by Teen Male Sleuth:

Soviet Auto industry relied on the US, they also got planes, armored vehicles, artillery and small from the allies This isn't counting supplies like food, fuel, railroads etc.

It would be cool if we had an elite soviet armored division that used Sherman tanks and bazookas.

Given that lend lease of weapons was tiny compared to what the Soviets made, probably just a smattering here and there. Maybe a Sherman equipped division, and lots of US halftracks and trucks. But otherwise, mostly Soviet stuff.

[CheeseMerchant]

we are propably going to see a few soviets guard squads with bazooka,s. but those will still be a rather rare sight because of the limited amount of bazooka,s exported to the soviets. Sherman 75,s will also be available but only a few of them here and there but will be far less effective in SD2 then in SD1 because the eastern front had a larger quantity of German heavy tanks plus the fact that combat ranges will be bigger and the more open nature of the terrain offsets the close range advantage the m4 had over German armor in SD1. which i am quite happy about because the Panzer 4 will actually be worth something

[Chief Berto]

The biggest lend lease assets on the Eastern Front were transportation and supplies. American built trucks gave the soviets an overwhelming and compounding advantage over the Germans in mobility and logistics. In game there will only be limited decks with large amounts of lend lease weapons.

[vakapad777]

The lend lease was a good third of soviet equipment, and the majority in some cases, like trucks.

[runequester]

Well, should be easy enough right?

Look at the Soviet OOB, look at which units received lend-lease vehicles.
If those units are in the game, then they should have the correct equipment.
I'm not sure if any of them were in Bagration but I'm sure someone can pipe in and correct, before we go dig up our books.

M4 specifically was a bit over 4000 from memory. Not insignificant but not huge either.

Since the Soviets tried not to mix/match equipment, it's a case of "either this unit is Sherman or it's T34".

[Maschinengewehr]

Originally posted by vakapad777:

The lend lease was a good third of soviet equipment, and the majority in some cases, like trucks.

Factually incorrect. Most of the Soviet lend-lease was for raw resources and as Chief Berto says, transportation i.e trucks.

[Chief Berto]

I don't think it can be understated how important that lend-lease was tho. The trucks for example gave the Russians such an advantage in mobility and logistics over the Germans. Those of 2 of the most important things for any military campaign.

Even so, when both Overlord and Bagration closed the stall in both Allied Fronts was because they reached the maximum of their supply lines giving the Germans one last chance to regroup.

[CheeseMerchant]

Without lend-lease the Soviets would have had alot of difficulties mounting offensives against the Germans because rougly 40-50% of their supply truck capacity would have been missing. also the allies suplied alot of special airplane fuel and alot of it to keep the red airforce flying in the early years. i think it is safe to say that the outcome on the eastern front would have been very different wihout allied land-lease being a factor.

[runequester]

Glantz concluded that the Soviets would still win, but the war could have dragged on another year at least.
Without Lend-Lease, each offensive would bog down faster, due to the difficulties of resupply and in bringing up supplies and reinforcements.
In turn, that'd mean the Germans would be better able to defend in the West, delaying victory there.
And in turn, that means many more murdered in the German extermination campaigns.

It should be added that some historians do consider Lend-Lease vital to Soviet victory, so it's by no means a settled question but no serious historian considers it trivial.

[Magnus_Incognito]

Lend lease was about 5% of soviet production 41-45. So we can see a couple shermans on division and maybe some trucks.

[CheeseMerchant]

Originally posted by runequester:

Glantz concluded that the Soviets would still win, but the war could have dragged on another year at least.
Without Lend-Lease, each offensive would bog down faster, due to the difficulties of resupply and in bringing up supplies and reinforcements.
In turn, that'd mean the Germans would be better able to defend in the West, delaying victory there.
And in turn, that means many more murdered in the German extermination campaigns.

It should be added that some historians do consider Lend-Lease vital to Soviet victory, so it's by no means a settled question but no serious historian considers it trivial.

Take the Soviet defense of the caucasus for example. many forces their were equiped with lend-leased tanks and planes which were vital for stopping the German assault on the biggest oil fields the Soviets had. without those equipment and supply capacity provided by the lend-leased trucks the situation would have been very different and the Germans would have had a real chance of reaching the oil fields at Baku. cutting off the Soviet army from roughly 80-90% of it,s oil. even if the Germans would still have been defeated at Stalingrad they still would have a very strong position to defend the caucasus had they reached Baku before Operation Uranus. Baku was the Economical heart of the Soviet war industry. if Baku falls the red army would have fallen.

ofcourse this is still a what if scenario so i am not claiming that it would have happened exactly like this.

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Führer of Wehraboo's:

Originally posted by runequester:

Glantz concluded that the Soviets would still win, but the war could have dragged on another year at least.
Without Lend-Lease, each offensive would bog down faster, due to the difficulties of resupply and in bringing up supplies and reinforcements.
In turn, that'd mean the Germans would be better able to defend in the West, delaying victory there.
And in turn, that means many more murdered in the German extermination campaigns.

It should be added that some historians do consider Lend-Lease vital to Soviet victory, so it's by no means a settled question but no serious historian considers it trivial.

Take the Soviet defense of the caucasus for example. many forces their were equiped with lend-leased tanks and planes which were vital for stopping the German assault on the biggest oil fields the Soviets had. without those equipment and supply capacity provided by the lend-leased trucks the situation would have been very different and the Germans would have had a real chance of reaching the oil fields at Baku. cutting off the Soviet army from roughly 80-90% of it,s oil. even if the Germans would still have been defeated at Stalingrad they still would have a very strong position to defend the caucasus had they reached Baku before Operation Uranus. Baku was the Economical heart of the Soviet war industry. if Baku falls the red army would have fallen.

ofcourse this is still a what if scenario so i am not claiming that it would have happened exactly like this.

Teen Male Sleuth: The red army got most of its fuel from lend lease anyways. The US produced about 5 times the amount of oil as the rest of the world combined. 9 times as much as the Soviet Union.
https://ww2-weapons.com/author/ra41skilloduda

[CheeseMerchant]

Originally posted by Incest Hentai Connoisseur:

Originally posted by Führer of Wehraboo's:

Take the Soviet defense of the caucasus for example. many forces their were equiped with lend-leased tanks and planes which were vital for stopping the German assault on the biggest oil fields the Soviets had. without those equipment and supply capacity provided by the lend-leased trucks the situation would have been very different and the Germans would have had a real chance of reaching the oil fields at Baku. cutting off the Soviet army from roughly 80-90% of it,s oil. even if the Germans would still have been defeated at Stalingrad they still would have a very strong position to defend the caucasus had they reached Baku before Operation Uranus. Baku was the Economical heart of the Soviet war industry. if Baku falls the red army would have fallen.

ofcourse this is still a what if scenario so i am not claiming that it would have happened exactly like this.

Teen Male Sleuth: 1:30PM The red army got most of its fuel from lend lease anyways. The US produced about 5 times the amount of oil as the rest of the world combined. 9 times as much as the Soviet Union.
https://ww2-weapons.com/author/ra41skilloduda

i don,t think the Red army got most of it,s fuel from lend-lease. it would have been a big chunk that for sure but the Soviet union was the second largest oil producer in the world.

i keep saying it. American industrial and economical might is what turned the tables in WW2. Not american military action. America kept the UK and the USSR in the game with land-lease. without it both country,s would have collapsed by the sheer pressure the wehrmacht was putting on them


this article is particularly interesting.

https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

It shows the massive scale of land lease supplied to the Soviet union in total during the entire war The allies supplied more tanks to the Soviet union then the Germans had produced panzer 4,s in the entirety of the war, together with over 15k of artillery. and 17 THOUSAND of airplanes. i think it is safe to say by judging from those numbers that if the Soviet union would have not received land lease and Hitler managed to get peace with England before Barbarossa the Soviet union would have collapsed by 1942-1943. maybe they could have stopped the Germans at moscow still because Lend-lease did not had much influence in that stage of the war. but it would have been impossible for the Soviets to stop any other large scale offensives by the Germans from 1942 onwards by simply not having the material to do so.

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Führer of Wehraboo's:

Originally posted by Incest Hentai Connoisseur:

Teen Male Sleuth: 1:30PM The red army got most of its fuel from lend lease anyways. The US produced about 5 times the amount of oil as the rest of the world combined. 9 times as much as the Soviet Union.
https://ww2-weapons.com/author/ra41skilloduda

i don,t think the Red army got most of it,s fuel from lend-lease. it would have been a big chunk that for sure but the Soviet union was the second largest oil producer in the world.

i keep saying it. American industrial and economical might is what turned the tables in WW2. Not american military action. America kept the UK and the USSR in the game with land-lease. without it both country,s would have collapsed by the sheer pressure the wehrmacht was putting on them


this article is particularly interesting.

https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

It shows the massive scale of land lease supplied to the Soviet union in total during the entire war The allies supplied more tanks to the Soviet union then the Germans had produced panzer 4,s in the entirety of the war, together with over 15k of artillery. and 17 THOUSAND of airplanes. i think it is safe to say by judging from those numbers that if the Soviet union would have not received land lease and Hitler managed to get peace with England before Barbarossa the Soviet union would have collapsed by 1942-1943. maybe they could have stopped the Germans at moscow still because Lend-lease did not had much influence in that stage of the war. but it would have been impossible for the Soviets to stop any other large scale offensives by the Germans from 1942 onwards by simply not having the material to do so.

Teen Male Sleuth: sent the wrong link. https://ww2-weapons.com/military-expenditures-strategic-raw-materials-oil-production/

Teen Male Sleuth: The US produced 183 million tons of oil in 1942, the USSR produced 22 million tons.

Teen Male Sleuth: https://www.reddit.com/r/DerScheisser/comments/72246m/britain_and_france_started_the_war_technically/

Teen Male Sleuth: Also if it wasn't for the US military action the Allies would have lost against Japan. Germany was actually less threatening due to being unable to actually attack the US or Britain.

[CheeseMerchant]

Originally posted by Incest Hentai Connoisseur:

Originally posted by Führer of Wehraboo's:

i don,t think the Red army got most of it,s fuel from lend-lease. it would have been a big chunk that for sure but the Soviet union was the second largest oil producer in the world.

i keep saying it. American industrial and economical might is what turned the tables in WW2. Not american military action. America kept the UK and the USSR in the game with land-lease. without it both country,s would have collapsed by the sheer pressure the wehrmacht was putting on them


this article is particularly interesting.

https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

It shows the massive scale of land lease supplied to the Soviet union in total during the entire war The allies supplied more tanks to the Soviet union then the Germans had produced panzer 4,s in the entirety of the war, together with over 15k of artillery. and 17 THOUSAND of airplanes. i think it is safe to say by judging from those numbers that if the Soviet union would have not received land lease and Hitler managed to get peace with England before Barbarossa the Soviet union would have collapsed by 1942-1943. maybe they could have stopped the Germans at moscow still because Lend-lease did not had much influence in that stage of the war. but it would have been impossible for the Soviets to stop any other large scale offensives by the Germans from 1942 onwards by simply not having the material to do so.

Teen Male Sleuth: sent the wrong link. https://ww2-weapons.com/military-expenditures-strategic-raw-materials-oil-production/

Teen Male Sleuth: The US produced 183 million tons of oil in 1942, the USSR produced 22 million tons.

Teen Male Sleuth: https://www.reddit.com/r/DerScheisser/comments/72246m/britain_and_france_started_the_war_technically/

Teen Male Sleuth: Also if it wasn't for the US military action the Allies would have lost against Japan. Germany was actually less threatening due to being unable to actually attack the US or Britain.

The allied "Germany First" policy proves your claim about Germany being the less threatening wrong there teen. germany was the most powerfull and technically advanced Nation in the Axis. combined with the fact they could directly threaten England and could potentially defeat the Soviet union, Germany,s last capable enemy on the European mainland. made it the priority for the allies to focus on them. But let me rephrase myself better. The reason why the allies could win against the Germany together with the Soviet Union was because of US economical and industrial power. not Because of US military action. the focus of WW2 in europe was always in the east. without overwhelming American Economical and industrial support to the USSR Germany would have won that deciding front. leading to a peace between Germany and the Allies in Germany,s favor.

also

US not providing lendlease=Soviet union being defeated=England forced to surrender.

Or US still getting involced in the war but not providing support for the Soviet-Union=Soviet union getting defeated by Germany=Germany able to completely camp behind atlantic wall with full force=Allies forced to negotiate a ceasefire and ultimatly peace because no good allied outcome could come out of the war, Leading to Germany winning the war effectivly by being in control of 90% of europe and rest being puppet states, the UK and iceland.

american military power would not have mattered without lend lease.