Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some one please double check me on this, but it's my understanding that the Soviets built their own tanks, their own planes, their own artillery, their own munitions, and their own small arms during WW2. Soviet Industry pulled back behind the Ural Mountains upon the initial invasion, set up shop, and started churning out the war materials that they needed. The Soviet Union had their own supplies of oil, iron, and coal to feed into their factories.
What the Soviets got from US Lend Lease was raw materials to help make their munitions, food (barely enough, and not any at first), and a whole lot of Jeeps and trucks to give them a logistical edge. At the start, both Nazi Germany relied on rail to ship their supplies to local depots, and then horses and mules pulling wagons to move their supplies to the front lines. The US-supplied transportation vehicles greatly aided the Soviet forces in resupply. after February 1943 the Soviets were a lock to win on their front, but the US aid helped speed along the victory. How much quicker is up for debate.
The Tiger was a response to meeting the British Matilda 2 and the French Char B in 1940. The response to the T-34 was the Panther, hence the sloped armor. Hitler ordered German industry to directly copy the T-34 to get a tank in service ASAP. German industry was too proud to do that.
Listen to the taping of Hitler to Mannerheim by the Finns. He goes on about the Soviets having 35,000 tanks in desperate tones.
The Tiger was a beast ...with 88mm gun...out gunned any tank at that time...
Soviet's countered with T-34 85....and near the end of the war ....the awesome
JS-2 Stalin Tank...featuring a 122mm gun
Also the Tiger II ..."King Tiger"...sloped armour and L/71 88 mm gun
Hitler liked to be presented the latest weaponry on his birthday....
Tiger tank was present to him on April 20, 1942.
I recomend going to Aberdeen, Maryland Army Proving Grounds...
they have almost all the WW 2 tanks ...a cool Hanomag too
The British 17-pdr gun was a better anti-tank gun than the 88mm.
A version of the 17-dpr was used in the British Comet tank, which was similar to a Panther.
Also the British Churchill tank was better armoured than a Tiger, and using APDS shels in the 6-dpr (57mm) could knock out a Tiger. It was never used in the tank v tank role.
Some one please double check me on this, but it's my understanding that the Soviets built their own tanks, their own planes, their own artillery, their own munitions, and their own small arms during WW2. Soviet Industry pulled back behind the Ural Mountains upon the initial invasion, set up shop, and started churning out the war materials that they needed. The Soviet Union had their own supplies of oil, iron, and coal to feed into their factories.
What the Soviets got from US Lend Lease was raw materials to help make their munitions, food (barely enough, and not any at first), and a whole lot of Jeeps and trucks to give them a logistical edge. At the start, both Nazi Germany relied on rail to ship their supplies to local depots, and then horses and mules pulling wagons to move their supplies to the front lines. The US-supplied transportation vehicles greatly aided the Soviet forces in resupply. after February 1943 the Soviets were a lock to win on their front, but the US aid helped speed along the victory. How much quicker is up for debate.
Yes, you got that right. They used the British Valentine tank extensively. It was to be discontinued, however the Soviets asked to keep the production line open just for them, as they valued the tank. The Soviets used a handful of Shermans. They never used them much as they needed men to be trained to service and operate them, and have a supply train for them. So most of the time they were in the rear standing in fields. The Soviets standardised on few arms to get production up with training for users and service easier. The quality of the arms was excellent.
The Soviets used a lot of US truck and boots. The trucks made matters easier for sure, otherwise it would be horse and rail. Also telephone wire was a big product the US supplied.
The British 17-pdr gun was a better anti-tank gun than the 88mm.
A version of the 17-dpr was used in the British Comet tank, which was similar to a Panther.
Also the British Churchill tank was better armoured than a Tiger, and using APDS shels in the 6-dpr (57mm) could knock out a Tiger. It was never used in the tank v tank role.
Didn't they eventually install the 17-pdr in British version of Sherman Tanks...
called it a "Firefly"....similar US version called "Easy Eight".
Some one please double check me on this, but it's my understanding that the Soviets built their own tanks, their own planes, their own artillery, their own munitions, and their own small arms during WW2. Soviet Industry pulled back behind the Ural Mountains upon the initial invasion, set up shop, and started churning out the war materials that they needed. The Soviet Union had their own supplies of oil, iron, and coal to feed into their factories.
What the Soviets got from US Lend Lease was raw materials to help make their munitions, food (barely enough, and not any at first), and a whole lot of Jeeps and trucks to give them a logistical edge. At the start, both Nazi Germany relied on rail to ship their supplies to local depots, and then horses and mules pulling wagons to move their supplies to the front lines. The US-supplied transportation vehicles greatly aided the Soviet forces in resupply. after February 1943 the Soviets were a lock to win on their front, but the US aid helped speed along the victory. How much quicker is up for debate.
And if the Allies hadn’t pushed the Germans out of North Africa? If the Other Allies weren’t tying up the German Air Force and bombing german cities and manufacturing into dust? If they weren’t tying up German forces with the mere possibility of invasion?
What if Japan attacks the Soviet Union instead of America? The Far East troops from Siberia that Stalin moved to Moscow are suddenly trapped east in a 2 front war…
No. All they had were numbers and lots of them. Their technology was crap and still is. Without the modern industrialized West they would have slogged into a long way that maybe no one would have won. Their morale was poor with officers shooting their own men when they balked. It's taking even a modern Russia way too long to overcome a small adversary like the Ukraine. Them taking on Nazi Germany alone is a joke.
Germany wanted to take out England and failed to do it. So it went and attacked the USSR. Germany knew from WW ONE that it could not win a two front war. So it would have lost even without the USA getting into the war. The best weapon against Germany was the idiot they had as a leader. Had he stuck with his Non-Aggression treaty with the USSR and concentrated on taking England out, Germany could have won the European War. It was having to fight on two fronts that doomed Germany. What the USA did was produce so much stuff we over whelmed the Germans, Italians and Japanese with stuff faster than they could destroy it. That shortened the war considerably.
Didn't they eventually install the 17-pdr in British version of Sherman Tanks...
called it a "Firefly"....similar US version called "Easy Eight".
Yes, the British used a Sherman chassis to mount the 17-pdr gun. After US forces took a mauling by German armour in the Bulge they ordered a bunch of them. They were ready as the war ended so not used. The Easy Eight was to British recommendations, but a US 76mm gun. If the British had used the E8 they would have fitted the 17-pdr, not being impressed with the 76mm. The E8 was a massive improvement over the first 1942 Sherman effort, to the point is was pretty well a different tank. It never saw combat in WW2, only used by US forces in the end. One is used in the film Fury. As was the only running Tiger 1 tank. Both in the Tank Museum in Bovington in England, where the film was shot.
The USA was turning out Sherman chassis' at an amzing rate. So many they were throwing them at the British. The British cut down on their own tank production concentrating on ships for the coming Japanese engagements. This was a mistake as it delayed the introduction of the Comet and Centurion tanks. If those tanks were ready by D-Day matters would have been far easier. The British also used the Sherman chassis for the Archer tank destroyer, also with a 17-pdr gun.
The great thing about using a standard tank chassis was that running parts were interchangeable and freely available between all allied armies.
Last edited by Dave Davis; 03-11-2022 at 08:09 AM..
Germany wanted to take out England and failed to do it. So it went and attacked the USSR. Germany knew from WW ONE that it could not win a two front war. So it would have lost even without the USA getting into the war. The best weapon against Germany was the idiot they had as a leader. Had he stuck with his Non-Aggression treaty with the USSR and concentrated on taking England out, Germany could have won the European War. It was having to fight on two fronts that doomed Germany. What the USA did was produce so much stuff we over whelmed the Germans, Italians and Japanese with stuff faster than they could destroy it. That shortened the war considerably.
"Had he stuck with his Non-Aggression treaty with the USSR and concentrated on taking England out,"
You cannot do that without a navy.
Germany's biggest mistake was declaring war in the first place. Once they waged war when was the point they could not win? That was when the British refused to make peace in June 1940. With Britain still in the war the Royal Navy blockade starved Germany, and the Axis, of vital resources, including food, animal & human, and oil. Britain was even buying up rare metals from Turkey to ensure the Germans did not have them.
The Royal Navy controlled and freely sailed the eastern Atlantic and the eastern Mediterranean, controlling both entrances to the Mediterranean. They even had Malta all through WW2, on the doorstep of Axis Italy. Britain's land forces were from Turkey to Libya. Essentially the British surrounded Europe, controlling the sea lanes.
The Royal Navy ensured the conflict with Germany would continue. Germany could not win from June 1940 onwards. Being a largely landlocked country, Germany's forces were heavily based on its army, while Britain's was heavily based on its navy and air force with a small highly mobile army. Geography dictated the forces makeup of each country. Germany could not remove Britain from the war having pretty well no surface fleet to Britain having the largest navy in the world. However, Britain could remove Germany from the war.
Britain's approach was that every operation was to bleed Germany of resources, especially oil. Operations in Norway and Greece forced the Germans to deploy troops to these areas but also its surface fleet, which mainly was destroyed in Norway. The German occupied countries were also under the blockade, which were also a drain of German resources.
The British, because of its armed forces structure of massive navy, large air force and small highly mobile army were unable to engage the Germans on the European land mass, on which Germany had a massive army. Apart from the air, the two countries could not get at each other directly.
Britain's war then was partially an economic war. Every German operation against the British had to be decisive whereas the British could lose to the Germans while still asserting economic pressure in its favour. This was the British way of war being very good at it - the Royal Navy runied the US economy in the war of 1812. Britain used similar tactics against Germany in WW1 to devastating effects. This approach was used against the French on multiple occasions over 200 years. Smaller nations in Europe would follow Pax Britannica due British naval dominance. Britain could dictate any war's outcome by blocking trade and resources to one side or another.
The Germans like most of Europe relied on imported oil, raw materials and food, animal & human. For the Germans these resources can only come from two regions:
1) The USSR;
2) The rest of the world.
By removing the rest of the world from the grasp of the Axis, the British forced the Germans to acquire Soviet oil - Romania did not produce enough. Hitler had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941 because of the resources situation. He needed the resources of the USSR to fight the coming air war with Britain. In May 1940 Roosevelt stated the USA would produce 50,000 planes per year, with British production on top. He knew most of these would be directed towards Germany.
Germany greatly expanded its U-Boat fleet to reciprocate, also launching a partial economic war on Britain. The popular view was that this fleet was to starve Britain into submission. That was partly valid but a high hope given the naval resources of the two nations. It was also to divert and lock up Royal Navy resources in a defensive role of convoy protection and U-Boat hunting, allowing merchant ships to enter Germany and the occupied countries more freely.
Germany had been forced into a situation by the British that they knew they could not escape from. Even if Germany had seized the Caucuses' oil fields intact (the Soviets sabotaged them to the point new deep bore holes would need to be drilled) the British would have focused them for their bombing campaign operating from the Middle East - there were plans to bomb them as Britain held nearby Iraq and occupied Iran. This was to drain Germany of vital oil.
Every British victory in Africa was decisive and every German victory was not, even if Germany won an operation, they were still being bled. Unless Germany could seize the Suez Canal and beyond, the British could just come back year after year and counter attack with new tanks and new men, with resources not being a problem for them.
Germany knew that they could not invade Britain as the royal Navy was just too powerful. The RAF could replace losses far quicker than they could, as they found out in the air Battle of Britain. Germany could not put their large army on British soil.
After June 1940 Germany has an enemy it can’t defeat not entertaining peace, and economically throttling them every day of the war. Germany never had time, the British did. The German invasion of the USSR with an army short of resources due to the Royal Navy blockade and RAF bombing of Germany, may have quickened the war's end for Germany, however it was not the point that Germany was doomed. Germany had already lost the war, it was just a matter of time when Germany collapsed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
